1960-06-23

Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. LaRue) who regrets that he will be unavoidably absent from the house, I suggest that I be made the sponsor of Bill No. S-24, an act respecting the Wabush Lake Railway Company Limited and Arnaud Railway Company. Accordingly I would request, with the leave of the house, that my name be substituted for the name of the hon. member in the records of the house as sponsor of the said bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable to giving unanimous consent to the request of the hon. member for Davenport that his name be substituted as sponsor of this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



REFERENCE OF WHEAT BOARD AND GRAIN COMMISSION REPORTS TO STANDING COMMITTEE

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved:: That the annual report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year ended July 31, 1959, which was tabled on February 10, 1960, and the report of the board of grain commissioners for 1959, which was tabled on May 2, 1960, and the supplementary report of the Canadian wheat board on the 1958-59 pool accounts for wheat, oats and barley, tabled today, be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice, in view of the fact that he received a delegation from the Chinese community yesterday, whether he has any comment to make on that part of their brief which charged that some members of their community had been picked up by the R.C.M.P. and held incommunicado; that they had then been questioned by special agents
from the Hong Kong police, and that they were being asked to submit to the indignity of completing questionnaire forms.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that allegation in the brief yesterday when the delegation was before the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and myself. I pointed out to the members of the delegation that one or two complaints with regard to this sort of alleged treatment had been received, had been carefully investigated and had been proved to be entirely without foundation, particularly with regard to intimidation and being held incommunicado.
May I point out that so far as the R.C.M. Police are concerned the investigation and the questioning are being carried out by a group of most reliable, highly trained and experienced members of the force. It is true, as has been known, that we are making use of the services of some members of the Hong Kong police force who have been sworn in as special members of the R.C.M. Police. They have also been carefully instructed in Canadian police methods and in the law regarding the carrying out of investigations and the questioning of individuals.
I have suggested that if in fact there should be any improper conduct it be brought to my attention for investigation; but I stress again that such allegations of this nature as have been brought to my attention have been proved to be without foundation.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the press report this morning that Canada, along with Australia and New Zealand, will challenge the legality of certain import controls that the European common market have announced will be levied against agricultural products, and that this challenge will be made at the meeting of the general agreement on tariffs and trade in Geneva this fall. Would the minister say whether Canada is preparing such a protest, and would he enlighten the house as to why this is necessary since we have been given the assurance from time to

Inquiries of the Ministry time that the European common market was not being used to reduce or exclude imports from outside?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the problem of what may happen within the common market concerning its agricultural policy has been under study now for several years. I spoke on this subject at the GATT conference in 1957, and ever since then at the ministerial level and through official channels we have expressed our point of view concerning the agricultural policies which might be developed by the Six.
At the present time the representatives of Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Argentina are participating in a round of informal consultations with the common market countries regarding the agricultural policies of the European economic community. The Canadian delegation is headed by Mr. J. H. Warren, assistant deputy minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Representatives of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Finance are included in the delegation. That delegation will, in the course of consultation with representatives of the common market, once again express the point of view of Canada and urge that restrictions be not placed against our trade in agricultural products.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister not agree that this is now a matter of greater urgency in view of the fact that the tariff arrangements of the common market are to come into effect at the end of this year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It has been treated as a matter of great urgency all along, but whether those tariff arrangements will come into effect at the end of this year is a matter of question. It was proposed that they should come into effect on July 1 of this year but there was a postponement until January 1, 1961. Consultations will be continued in the interval.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gaie):: Can the minister give the house an assurance that representations of the strongest kind will be made with regard to any suggestions that there should be a discriminatory tariff on salt fish?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That will be taken into consideration, and every possible step will be taken to protect the marketing of Canadian products overseas.
[Mr. Argue.)


Mr. Erharf Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the answer the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave a little earlier may I ask whether he can report what headway, if any, is being made at meetings of the O.E.E.C. so that the disastrous consequences that might flow to the Canadian economy because of the actions of the inner six or outer seven may be averted? Have any meetings been held lately?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, a series of meetings have been held since January. Tentatively a date has been set later in July for a meeting of ministers to discuss the various problems. I deplore the use of the words "disastrous consequences" by the hon. member. I think we do not need to be that fearful. There is proper concern with regard to the development of these trading blocks, but I suggest that a more moderate phraseology would be acceptable.


Erhart Regier: Is the Canadian government making any move to associate Canada with either one or a number of these trading blocs?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, when the
Minister of Finance and I were at the conference in Paris in January that matter was taken into consideration. The meeting which may be called in July will have that as one of the subjects for discussion.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue, and ask him whether he is aware that representatives of 1,200 television performers walked out of contract negotiations after they had termed the offer of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a ridiculous one. Has the minister any comment to make on this information which appears in this morning's Gazette, which I presume the minister has seen?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I have seen the statement and I heard the news dispatch with respect to it this morning. I presume the hon. gentleman may have heard the C.B.C. news, too, in which the corporation denied that this was an unreasonable proposition and said it was prepared to discuss further arrangements at any time.

I have not been able to contact the president himself during the last two or three days because he has been busy at a meeting of directors in Ottawa. Thus I have had no formal or, indeed, any discussions with him, but I propose to get in touch with him tomorrow after the meeting of directors is over.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister not think it would be a good idea to have top management sitting in on these discussions, as has been requested and as was done last year, I believe, during the course of similar negotiations?


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not dissent from the general principle, which seems to me a fair proposal. However, the C.B.C. has acquired a lot of experience in these matters in the last year or so and I hope the corporation knows how to deal with the situation. But I will discuss that matter with the president tomorrow.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister say what steps are being taken to avert tragedies similar to that which recently occurred on lake Williams, Nova Scotia, when a boy was drowned because a pilot, taking off from the lake, failed to notice the sailboat in which he was a passenger?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I shall be very glad to look into that matter.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am now in a position to give an answer to the question asked me this morning by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception. Under the air regulations certain regulatory procedures aimed at guarding against mishaps of this nature are prescribed. We have not yet received from our district officials the formal report with respect to the tragedy referred to by the hon. member.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND    INQUIRY AS TO VISIT BY MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance whether the report is correct that he is contemplating a visit to Newfoundland
Inquiries of the Ministry on public business, and whether he can inform the house the nature of the public business he proposes to deal with there?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I have accepted a very kind invitation from the board of trade of the city of St. John's to address them at a meeting in that fair city next Wednesday evening. I hope, if the business of the house permits, to lengthen my stay in the province by perhaps another day or two.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would consider being very, very careful about the choice and use of his statistics on that occasion?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister, Mr. Speaker, tries according to his lights to be very careful about his choice not only of statistics but of other things; and I can give to the hon. member the assurance that I know he so much wants, that in anything I do or say in Newfoundland I will not be placing any reliance on the Martin bureau of statistics.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. On his way to Newfoundland will the hon. gentleman be stopping in the city of Quebec?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this is intended to be a direct flight, but I can assure the hon. member that under any circumstances it is always a pleasure to visit Quebec.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister bring the house up to date on the employment situation in the province of Quebec?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will be watching with interest from now on what is done in that respect in that province.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the minister if the several cabinet ministers from Quebec have applied for unemployment insurance?

Inquiries of the Ministry



ELLIOT LAKE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the committee considering federal assistance to the uranium communities in Canada will be in a position to report?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope very soon, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister any comment to make on a report which appeared on the financial page of today's Globe and Mail to the effect that Canada's economy is falling short of earlier expectations?


Mr. Speaker:: That question sounds like an invitation for a half hour dissertation.


Lionel Chevrier: Your Honour certainly knows the habits of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister could answer yes or no I could perhaps permit the question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if I answered "yes" I should go on for at least half an hour to complete the answer.
(Translation):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) put a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) concerning a bill-board erected at the entrance of the cadet camp at Farnham. That question was based on a letter published in he Devoir of June 20, 1960, under the assumed name of "Passant" (passer-by). The correspondent complained that the inscription on the bill-board erected outside the Farnham camp reading:
(Text):
Department of National Defence Canadian Army Camp Farnham.
(Translation):
-was in English only.

The hon. member asked if the department intended to erect a similar bill board carrying a message in French. Mr. Speaker, the answer is simply no, for the good reason that there is already a similar sign in French on the camp grounds. I am forced to the conclusion that the writer of the letter must have gone by a little too fast since the bill board bearing the French message faces toward Montreal, while the one carrying the English message faces toward Farnham.
(Text):



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): May I ask the Minister of Public Works whether a decision has been taken by the government to construct a dock in the Blind River area in order to facilitate the industrial development of that district.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, that and many other suggestions and recommendations are being considered by the Department of Public Works.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, arising out of requests by the premier of Ontario and the premier of Manitoba for more generous federal-provincial financial arrangements and the reported request of the Ontario association of municipalities for the federal government to establish a bank loan service. My question is, at the next federal-provincial conference is it the intention of the federal government to submit to that conference a series of proposals, or will the conference be more along the lines of general discussion?
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, the determination as to the course to be taken by the conference will of course be made between now and the opening of the conference.



BIRTHDAY CONGRATULATIONS TO HON. MEMBERS FOR ESSEX EAST AND BONAVISTA-TWILLINGATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, may I speak on

another matter. It is unusual that two hon. members should have a birthday on the same day, as have the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill).
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I on behalf of the official opposition thank the Prime Minister for his kindly reference to these two bright young members of our party.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I associate the good wishes of the C.C.F. with those offered by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to these very distinguished members, who sometimes act as the delinquent twins of the Liberal party.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
242. Departmental administration, $1,641,729.
The Chairman:: Department of National Health and Welfare, item No. 242. This item will be found on page 50 of the blue book and the details on page 331.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to speak for only a few minutes, having had the pleasure of acting as chairman of the committee to which the minister made some detailed reference. May I therefore, at the outset, join with many hon. members of the house who have congratulated the minister on the manner in which he has conducted the affairs of his department during the past year; and in particular may I thank him on behalf of the committee for the great co-operation which he and his departmental officials extended to us during several weeks of intensified hearings.
First of all I should like to say that I recognize that I have no authority to make these comments as chairman of the committee and that these remarks are not intended in any way to serve as a rebuttal to the statement of the minister. However, having had the responsibility of compiling the report I thought I would make one or two references to the statement, perhaps by way of explanation or clarification of the references contained in the report of the estimates committee. In so doing, while the minister has already indicated the great degree of unanimity in the views of the committee and his departmental officials, I hope I can illustrate that we are even closer together in our views than his statement might have indicated at first glance.
Supply-Health and Welfare
In his opening remarks the minister made reference to our conclusions with respect to the hospital bed shortage in Canada. If I may quote from his statement as found at page 5246 of Hansard, he said in part:
I can assure the committee that the department is also concerned with this matter. At the same time we have serious doubts as to whether the suggested immediate review on a nation-wide basis of the availability of beds in relation to demand would be the most effective approach.
He then went on to point out the responsibility in the first instance of the provinces in dealing with this matter, with which, of course, the committee agrees. The explanation that I would make to him and to his department officials is just this. Throughout the entire report we were very conscious of the thin line separating the responsibility of the federal government and that of the provinces. We realized that in many of our recommendations we were indeed treading on dangerous ground having regard to the impropriety of making recommendations affecting the responsibility of the provinces. But having said that, we should also state that we felt that even though the responsibility in the first instance lies with the provincial authority, this fact does not relieve the federal government from some responsibility as well. If I may, I should just like to make reference to the recommendation itself with regard to the hospital bed shortage in Canada:
.. . the committee recommends that the relationship between the three levels of government be examined-first, to determine the seriousness of the hospital bed shortage in Canada by instituting an immediate review of availability in relation to demand;
Second, by discussing the results of this survey with provincial and municipal authorities so that any future critical bed shortage may be averted;
Third, in co-operation with the provinces, by attacking the problem of chronic bed care, with a view to providing increased accommodations for the more critically ill patients.
In all three references we acknowledge the responsibility of the provinces. We also accept the view of the minister that every effort should be made by the provinces to determine what is their problem with respect to the hospital bed shortage. However, it seems important to us, if only to standardize the review in order to determine what is the seriousness of the problem, that this could best be initiated by the federal authority. This does not, Mr. Chairman, in any way offend the rights of the provinces. It merely assists them, and of course the federal government, in coming to some conclusion on the question of how we can resolve this serious problem.
I would point out that there is not a city in Canada that is not concerned with the problem. That being the case, we concluded that the federal government as such could do

Supply-Health and Welfare a service to the provincial and municipal authorities by assisting in a review to ascertain how great the problem actually is.
The next point to which the minister took some exception dealt with the question of closed hospitals. In fact he said that his most serious exception to our recommendation was what he described as a basic disagreement with the implication of the committee's comment relating to this problem. I do not intend to argue the point at all, but merely point out that in the final paragraph of his statement dealing with this problem he said this, as reported at page 5247 of Hansard:
While I cannot therefore agree with such an action-
The action of the committee, or the recommendation of the committee.
-I would emphasize that the department does have a definite interest in this matter, and we have expressed this interest through what we consider to be the proper channels-
From this I think it is right to conclude that the committee had brought to the attention of the minister the problem of which he has been well aware, and that we disagree only on the method by which this problem should be approached, not on the existence of the problem.
There are a number of other items on which the committee and the department, through the minister, have expressed general agreement. The item with respect to civil defence and the emergency measures organization perhaps is one obvious example. The minister rightly points out that some of the recommendations of the committee are outside the jurisdiction or the authority of his department, and that he has referred those recommendations to the departments that are concerned with them.
He then went on to point out the progress that has been made on health studies with respect to his own department. We of the committee, of course, were happy to learn of this progress and I congratulate him on it, but perhaps the one point I would make is this. He discussed the amount of literature or pamphlets which are currently being printed or are under review. I would ask permission to draw to his attention the one reference we made in this respect, and which reads as follows:
(d) Information in either pamphlet form or through visual aids should be reassessed so that in the event of a national emergency, instructions will be expressed in concise and simple terms, thus avoiding confusion by too many complicated orders.
In other words the committee, or at least this member of the committee, expressed the view that the essential thing is to have the

population realize, in the event of an emergency, what action they must take immediately. We must avoid any risk or any danger of overcomplicating the problem by overwhelming our people with too much information or too many pamphlets.
The next reference which the minister made deals with the comment in our report concerning the difficult problem of publications within his department. He pointed out that these publications have provided a very useful service, and in that the committee concurs. He went on to state that provincial authorities have, in the first instance, requested these publications, and of course, this is true. I would point out however that when the cost is so small to the province it is perhaps understandable that these publications would be requested in great volume. We also acknowledge, sir, that in many instances these publications have been extremely useful, and it would undoubtedly cause some distress if they were all eliminated.
What we do ask, though, is whether the department should' not review an item which represents something in the vicinity of $400,000 to the government and which involves a staff of 33 people, to ascertain whether, in relation to the cost, the department and the country are receiving fair value for this expenditure. I feel this is a sound argument. The minister agreed, as the report points out, that this comes under the heading of information. Here again I am happy to note that the minister intends to keep this matter constantly under review.
In his reference to the efficiency evaluation of the department the minister rightly took credit for the fact that the committee were not able to find any breakdown in operational efficiency of the department. He then went on to make reference, as the committee did in its report, to the number of surveys and reviews which have been made by the methods division of the civil service commission. Our whole approach in making our recommendations assumed that further reviews would be made by this organization. We have looked at the type of surveys that have been made by the methods division in the past, and in each instance, taking a particular segment of the department, there is no evidence to suggest that this is in any way related from one department or one division of the department to another.
We suggest, therefore, and I think rightly so, a survey of a nature which would make an over-all estimation of such problems as overlapping of responsibility. Such a survey would no doubt be useful. We need not remind the committee, Mr. Chairman, that the department under review is one of the largest in terms of the expenditure of money,

spending something over a billion dollars. This need not be construed as meaning that the department is necessarily not inefficient, but quite the reverse. It means that if it is to maintain its present status these reviews from time to time could maintain its operational efficiency and therefore would be extremely useful to the minister. Here again I am happy, Mr. Chairman, that the minister concurs when he suggests that he has some sympathy for this recommendation as well.
I finally come, sir, to the one reference I would make outside of the minister's report in which he lumped together a number of recommendations and categorized them as part of government policy. Of course the committee recognizes them as such. There is one in particular however, the blind pension, payable to our handicapped in Canada to which I should like to refer.
We argue, sir, that not just from a humanitarian point of view but also from a basis of a practical policy our recommendation to eliminate the means test makes good sense and has validity. If this action were taken, this group of people who suffer such an unusual handicap would be encouraged to rehabilitate themselves to a greater degree and thus conceivably make of themselves even more useful citizens. We hope, therefore, that the government, the minister and his colleagues, will give special consideration to this recommendation.
I do not propose to go on, sir. I wanted to make reference only to those items, as I said, by way of explanation and not by way of disagreement. Perhaps it is significant to note, Mr. Chairman, that this department was under review by the committee during some 18 meetings, and on examination of its activities has produced what we hope will prove to be constructive suggestions rather than anything in the nature of serious criticism of the functions or operations of this department. As a private member of that committee I would be one of the first to congratulate the minister and his officials.
On this note, sir, I shall resume my seat and thank the minister again for his reference to the committee's work. We sincerely trust that in the not too distant future he and his officials will again come before the estimates committee.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, rarely do I speak at such length that my remarks have to be continued in the next edition of Hansard. However, I am interested in this question, and I do wish to complete bringing to the attention of the committee the recommendations contained in the policy statement of the Canadian welfare council. Last evening when I was required to take my seat
Supply-Health and Welfare because my 30 minutes had expired, coincidental with the arrival of six o'clock, I had dealt with all the recommendations up to No. 16. I now wish to continue the recommendations. I quote:
17.	The dominion government should create in the Department of National Health and Welfare consultative and technical services in welfare, analogous to those now available in health. These services should include such technical advice as may be required in, for example, statistical reporting, and the professional consultation that may be useful in such matters as the care of the aged, problems of social welfare administration and staff training.
18.	The dominion government should contribute substantially to the cost of professional and in-service training required in the administration of social security programs.
I think that is a very good suggestion indeed.
19.	The dominion government should make funds available for demonstration and research projects, in the causes and prevention of dependency, social and economic rehabilitation, and similar problems.
We see the need for that to an increasing extent in the various communities in Canada.
20.	Machinery should be devised to ensure regular communication among provinces, and between provinces and the dominion government, on all welfare matters of common interest.
I might say at this stage that I am very pleased to note that they always refer to the federal government as the "dominion" government.
21.	The dominion government should establish a broadly representative body of competent persons, the purpose of which would be to keep under constant review all aspects of Canada's social security program and to advise on changes and improvements that may from time to time be desirable.
I think that really does provide for cooperation and an exchange of competent persons across the country in a continuing review of the changing circumstances, the changing needs, and the need for changed programs to meet those needs.
Then the final recommendation, No. 22, reads as follows, and I am very interested in this one:
22.	The dominion government should appoint a royal commission to study all aspects of social security for which it has a direct or indirect responsibility and more particularly to make recommendations with respect to:
a.	Gaps in existing provisions and priorities in dealing with unmet needs.
b.	The appropriate methods of providing social security benefits, whether by social insurance, statutory social welfare payments, public assistance, or by a combination of these methods, in respect of old age, unemployment, sickness, disability, death of the breadwinner and the cost of child rearing.
c.	The development of a more integrated system of social security.
d.	Federal-provincial co-operation in the field of social security.
5292	MOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare
e.	The negotiation of reciprocal agreements with other countries in order to provide social security coverage on an equitable basis for immigrants to Canada and for Canadians residing in other countries.
f.	Other questions having to do with the design, content and administration of Canada's total social security system.
The council suggests that in the selection of members of the royal commission account should be taken of cultural differences, and of the need to include people with practical and theoretical knowledge of social welfare and social security.
I think the final paragraph is well worth reading into the record:
The appointment of a royal commission would ensure that these problems receive the thoughtful consideration they require. It would also provide an opportunity for interested and informed groups to appear and present their views. Only through such careful study and wide consultation can we be certain that the kind of design and structure toward which we move in our social security system will satisfy both the needs and wishes of the Canadian people and take full account of the realities of Canadian life.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am sure all hon. members of this house receive correspondence almost daily which indicates the need for an over-all social security system. I have received a letter just this morning from a lady in my constituency whose husband has been unemployed for six months, who has done his best to obtain employment and who has exhausted his unemployment insurance benefits. The provincial authorities refuse to place him on social assistance, and he is left stranded without any source of income or any money even to travel around and try to locate employment. That type of situation arises because of the lack of an over-all social security system which dovetails the policies of the federal and provincial governments.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I think all of us recognize this need and that it is obvious, but the need requires immediate attention. Without doubt we have the financial capacity to meet the cost of an over-all social security system. We have the administrative staff and the medical personnel. We have the technical and other staff both in the federal and provincial governments as well as in other institutions; competent, talented people capable of administering such a program. We do not go into this in darkness, because we have the experience, although the circumstances are somewhat different, of Great Britain and other western European countries to guide us. We also have the information as to the attempts in this direction in the United States; and best of all in Canada we have the experience of that


pioneering province in social security, Saskatchewan, which has now received a mandate from the people of Saskatchewan to institute a provincial health insurance scheme. No doubt within a few months we will have valuable experience as a result of the institution of that scheme.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that in the immediate future this government should attend to the urgent needs of the people, particularly with regard to old age security, old age assistance and other forms of relief which require attention, by means of amendments to social security legislation. At the same time the government should accept this recommendation of the Canadian welfare council for the appointment of a royal commission which would have the opportunity to do the things mentioned in their policy statement; which would get the views of provincial governments, municipal organizations and other organizations and interested people across Canada, and which would have not vague terms of reference but terms of reference that would authorize the royal commission to make recommendations for an over-all social security plan to meet the needs: of the Canadian people.
(Translation):


Mr. Bissonnelte:: Mr. Chairman, the standing committee on estimates, of which I have the honour to be a member, convened for a few days to look over all sections of the important Department of National Health and Welfare. First of all, I must say that our task was greatly facilitated by the full co-operation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) and all the department's officials. As a matter of fact, the minister, after stating that he was very happy to take part in the discussion of his department's affairs by the members of. our committee, supplied a detailed report; which enabled us to have a good general': idea of the work to be accomplished.
According to the minister, the total estimates of his department for the year 1,9601961 would amount to $1,439,240,729, which; means an increase of more than $38 million, over those of the previous year. One-reason, for that increase can largely be attributed: to payments intended under the unemploy-, ment insurance scheme, in which the province of Quebec has decided to participate in , the future. At this stage, I am very happy to. point out that wise decision on,the part of the legislators in my province..

In future, many unemployed who are unable to work because of their age or physical handicaps will therefore receive assistance of which they had been deprived under the Disabled Persons Act. Indeed, under that legislation, assistance was available to only fully disabled people who had no hope of recovering.
Among the many items provided in the significant budget of $1,439,000,000 submitted for the Department of National Health and Welfare, there are three main ones which almost cover the whole amount. I referred to the sum of $599 million required for the Old Age Security Act, the sum of $508 million required to enforce the Family Allowances Act, and finally the sum of $167 million to pay the federal government's contribution under the provincial Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.
May I be allowed, as a doctor, to make a few comments on that last item.
As mentioned by the minister in his general report on the operations of his department, the implementation of a federal-provincial contributory hospital insurance program is just beginning. However, the budget had to increase more than twofold yearly, since 1958, to such an extent that the estimated budget for 1958, that is, $55 million, will reach $162 million for 1960-61.
With regard to those estimates, the province of Quebec remains the only province not included in that program. That abstention on the part of my province may have seemed unusual to the other nine. In this connection, I have heard here, several remarks, often commented upon in our newspapers, and which were all of a political character.
I myself, during the last session, referred here in the house to some remarks I personally heard from the late Mr. Duplessis on that matter. "Tell your colleagues in Ottawa", he told me, "that I am not opposed, in principle, to hospital insurance, but we have to be wise and honest. Wisdom compels us to see how the other provinces will fare in this field, and to benefit from their experience, favourable or unfavourable; honesty compels us to avoid establishing a hospital insurance plan before we have a sufficient number of beds to meet the needs. Nobody has the right, he added, to open a drugstore if he has not the necessary drugs to put on his shelves".
Consequently, the policy of building hospitals of all sizes and for special requirements has received a new impetus in the province
Supply-Health and Welfare of Quebec, these last few years. While there were 9,000 beds in 1944, there were 27,000 in 1959.
May I be allowed to point out, incidentally, that several large hospital construction projects are still under way this year. 1 would refer in particular to Savard Park hospital located in my constituency, so often referred to here and in the press, as an example of injustice towards Indians and Eskimos. That hospital will be the first of its kind to be placed at the disposal of family doctors who, until now, had the greatest difficulty in getting their patients admitted and treating them there in general hospitals.
Our province will therefore have its hospital insurance plan this year. A commission has been appointed by the Barrette government-and I hope it will continue its job under a new government-to consider a particular plan appropriate to the needs of a province that is different from the others-.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Lesage made a statement on that subject.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: I beg your pardon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The new premier made a statement on that subject.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: Yes, but we shall have to wait and see whether his statements will be translated into action.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You can be sure there will be no delay. Mr. Lesage is a man of action, as yesterday's results show.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: We hope so.


An hon. Member:: Time will tell.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: -a plan, as I was saying, that will answer the needs of a province that is different from the others, especially in the field of hospitalization. In fact, Quebec hospitals are mainly owned by religious orders and this will have to be taken into account.
Besides, as I said earlier, action on this plan having been delayed, the experience of the other provinces will allow to make up for lost time and to avoid many mistakes. So, in due course, we will have our hospital insurance plan, as my hon. friend from Essex East (Mr. Martin) has stated, and as 1 personally hope. This plan has become necessary because of the prohibitive costs of hospital care especially for people of average income. The quality and improvements of care, the ever increasing cost of construction, development, equipment, drugs, food, wages, etc., are
5294	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare responsible for this situation and the whole medical profession has recognized the need for such a plan.
But we must make a distinction. If the medical profession is in favour of hospital insurance, I hope they will always oppose state health insurance. The doctor is, by reason of his professional character-and here I express my own view as a doctor-


Mr. Habel:: Hear, hear.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: By reason of his professional character, the doctor can never become a civil servant.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: Unlike the latter, he must retain his freedom toward his patient, who after all is his employer, while the patient must remain free to choose his own physician. Unlike a civil servant, he has to work devotedly round the clock in his fight against disease and death, which are unpredictable and have no time limit.
I hope none of you will ever suffer a heart attack at two o'clock in the morning, at the very moment when the general practitioner or specialist, having become a civil servant, could refuse to get out of bed and answer your call until nine in the morning. A British doctor whom I met in Geneva told me he had had to wait three weeks for his turn to get a tooth pulled by the civil servant dentist, who inevitably closed his office at 5 p.m. and reopened only at 9 a.m. That just shows the drop in professional standards under state medicine. And what about a doctor's ambition to improve himself, to study and to devote himself, when he knows that his statute as a civil servant will be based less on his efficiency in treating the sick, than on his readiness to fill departmental forms. Doctors have not deserved to be drafted.
There are practically no citizens in the world except doctors who can claim to devote 18 to 20 hours a day of their time to their fellow men, and at a rate of remuneration reduced to 60 per cent in the case of the poor. The charges of greed recently levelled by a provincial premier at the doctors of his province were therefore baseless, and were just intended to justify his state medicine scheme. Under such legislation, doctors will become slaves to the state and the sick.
I therefore solemnly urge my colleagues in the noble medical profession never to lend themselves to the schemes of politicians of any colour or stripe. They will use every device they can think of to get their program through


at the expense of the medical profession, and at the expense of something we deeply cherish, the nobility of our mission, with all the freedom of action it involves.
I am pleased to mention here the position taken by the Canadian medical association, particularly by its Quebec section, at its last meeting a month ago. It passed a resolution in support of hospital insurance, but came out squarely against state health insurance. It will therefore support every form of free, noncompulsory health insurance, to which governments may perhaps contribute in favour of the poor and of the small wage earner, but it will never be persuaded to accept compulsory state insurance. It will not prostitute that noble profession, nor betray its ideals for political ends.
Then too, doctors should remain free, and their devotion should never be drafted, mainly to gratify the ambitions of politicians or socialist extremists.
I therefore urge the government never to agree to share in the costs of a policy of drafting the members of the medical profession into a state-run plan whose standards will certainly be lower.
Mr. Chairman, a third item of the estimate, which it is also very important to point out, is the one dealing with preventive medicine and general health grants. The amount included in the estimates in this regard, for 1960-61, is $63,591,941. This shows the vital role of preventive medicine and of measures to preserve our health and to prolong human life.
A learned physician and physiologist stated recently that man is built to live a hundred years or more. Hardly 30 years ago the average life expectancy was 40 years, but today it is between 68 and 70. We are therefore well on the way towards the objective suggested by our learned physiologists.
Before concluding, I want to add a few words about the very noble and honourable mission that our government entrusted to me in May 1959, when I was appointed as an observer at the 12th annual meeting of the World Health Organization in Geneva. Perhaps I should have reported immediately upon my return, but the session was drawing to a close and I have had no other opportunity until now.
I owe this honour especially to the minister of health and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker) and I take this opportunity to thank them publicly and cordially.

Our delegation was headed by Dr. G. D. W. Cameron, deputy minister of national health, a man of prestige and wide experience. Deputy head of the delegation was Mr. Wer-shop, ambassador and permanent representative at the European bureau of the United Nations.
As acting delegates we had such distinguished men as Dr. C. F. Amyot, deputy minister of health for British Columbia, Dr.
D.	B. Layton and Dr. Percy Moore, both senior officials of the department of national health, and Mr. R. X. Jay, first permanent secretary at the European bureau of the United Nations. I was therefore happy, Mr. Chairman, to be appointed as an observer with such a team, in so important a delegation.
Mr. Chairman, may I summarize now some of my impressions. This organization, a United Nations agency, is in my opinion, one of its most important ones. Because of its objective, the health and welfare of men all over the world, it is indeed the best peace organization, the most beneficent and humane one, without which peace cannot be achieved.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, during all those meetings there were no bitter discussions, none of those intractable obstinacies which, unfortunately, so often mar meetings at United Nations headquarters.
At the opening sitting, after the roll-call and the examination of delegates' credentials, Sir John Charles, chief medical officer of the department of health in Great Britain was elected chairman for the term 1959-60. Delegates from 87 regular member countries and from three associate member countries were in attendance. It was therefore a large gathering. Some representations were made by representatives of the communist bloc against the barring of continental China from a regular membership in the World Health Organization; but there were no attempts at sabotage. I might add that representatives from communist countries missed no opportunity for propaganda whenever the occasion offered.
Mr. Chairman, with regard to the barring of communist China, I daresay, speaking as a physician of course, that I found that discussion rather saddening. Indeed, when you consider the World Health Organization on a strictly medical and humanitarian basis, something comparable to the international Red Cross, it is distasteful to a doctor to think that 600 million human beings in com-79951-0-334
Supply-Health and Welfare munist China are being kept out of that essentially humanitarian organization, prevented from sharing in its great advantages, and of making their own scientific and material contributions to it.
On the other hand, if you look upon the World Health Organization as a United Nations agency, there was obviously no point in discussing the problem, at least until such time as communist China is admitted into the United Nations family.
I said a moment ago, that the WHO is doing highly humanitarian work which is needed throughout the world. I would even go further, Mr. Chairman and say that this indispensable work is being carried on particularly in underdeveloped countries. It is all to Canada's credit and honour, Mr. Chairman, to have been one of the first countries to join the WHO in 1946. Dr. Brock Chisholm, then Canadian deputy minister of health, was its first director general. It is therefore obvious that, since the start, our country has joined with the great powers in financing and promoting the establishment and growth of that peaceful organization. Its procedure is similar to that of a parliament. There is, first of all, a general meeting of all delegates to discuss the program of the session and to form committees on the various matters to be discussed; committees on health problems, on financial and legal administration, on research, on resolutions, the committee on estimates, et cetera.
The general assembly meets when necessary and is supplied with the reports of the various committees, to discuss and pass them.
Mr. Chairman, those committees discussed many of these matters, particularly the main causes of the appalling death rate in underdeveloped countries and ways to reduce it. Among the leading causes of heavy mortality are such infectious diseases as malaria, typhoid fever, smallpox, tuberculosis, leprosy and venereal diseases. However the problem of drinking water transcends all others. Water, almost to the same degree as air, is necessary to life.
My deskmate at the meeting, a delegate physician from Pakistan, stated that the average life expectancy in his country is 28 years and that 50 per cent of deaths were due to the lack of drinkable water. The water problem became the general theme because of the great number of countries which were deeply affected and interested by it.

Supply-Health and Welfare
A delegate from France even suggested that WHO should concentrate solely on the study and solution of this single problem, that of polluted water-which incidentally would have helped solve many other health problems, instead of trying to tackle all problems at once, because, he said, quoting an old French proverb:	"Grasp all, lose
all". In other words, he who tries to solve everything at once solves nothing.
Therefore, before Mr. Khrushchev offers to settle the water problem, there is urgent need for all the favoured nations in the world to take the necessary steps, at least, to supply good drinking water to the hundreds of millions of human beings who are dying of hunger, thirst and infectious diseases in underdeveloped countries. Is it believable that two persons out of three in the world do not have enough to eat, nor enough to drink, except infected water?
Very serious studies have been undertaken about the steps to be taken to control contagious diseases which are so widespread and dangerous among tropical peoples. But money will always remain the sinews of war.
The assembly expressed regret that its budget was inadequate to achieve its dedicated program of controlling malaria. To obtain additional funds it called upon governments, industries and all private organizations that are in a position to contribute towards the control of that plague, malaria, and to press further, if possible, the implementation of a health program throughout the world.
Reference was made also to special funds designed to organize research and to direct it along the efforts being made by the organization to raise health and welfare standards throughout the world. The sum of $500,000 was therefore added to the budget for research purposes.
The assembly also decided to have the necessary plans prepared for the construction of a special headquarters building for the permanent staff, and for carrying on of all the activities of the World Health Organization. The space it has occupied until now at United Nations headquarters has become inadequate. The federal government of Switzerland, and of the canton of Geneva in particular, have offered the land and their assistance in preparing the financial operation, totalling close to $7 million, involved in that construction.
Before closing its session, the World Health Organization approved a budget of $16,918,700

for the implementation of the 1960 program, Canada's contribution being fixed at $483,000.
In conclusion, I may state as an observer that it is altogether impossible to evaluate the work carried out by the World Health Organization. This work is absolutely necessary and essentially humanitarian, as I said earlier, since its purpose is the health and welfare of human beings. It is a work likely to bring peace because its object is to fight thirst, hunger, disease and death. World peace is unattainable in the presence of extreme poverty. So far, peace secured by armaments has always proved a failure. Physical and moral misery has always been the spark that ignites war.
You may be sure that our annual contribution of $500,000 to the World Health Organization fund is an investment much more likely to bring peace than the hundreds of millions of dollars that we spend each year on armaments whose effectiveness in establishing peace is not only often questionable but actually nil.
(Text):


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, before commencing my remarks I wish to express appreciation of the excellent address given by the hon. member for Quebec West. Those who have known him over the last number of years realize that he is one of the men most devoted to the principles of the medical profession of which he is so distinguished a member.
Having paid my respects to the hon. member, I wish now to comment on what he said. Among other things he seemed to be apprehensive about what is happening to prepaid medical care plans. This group has always advocated prepaid medical care for the Canadian people, but I believe I can honestly say that none of us has ever advocated state medicine. If we decide on how we are to pay for medical care, while at the same time leaving to the doctors the pursuance of their profession as they deem wise and advisable, we feel that is far removed from what is commonly understood to be state medicine.
I do not think our group has ever been an advocate of state medicine. All we advocate is that when we are well we pay for the days when we shall be ill, and that we all hold one another's hands so that all of us can receive the finest care that the medical profession has to offer, regardless of the financial ability of the particular individual at that time.

The hon. member may wish to make a distinction between voluntary prepaid medical care plans and prepaid medical plans operated by various levels of government. I believe that is a minor detail. Our main contention is that it is only when it comes to the matter of payment that we ought to co-operate one with another so that no one shall go without necessary medical care. I believe that in the long run it will even be of assistance to those engaged in the medical profession; because I cannot understand how a doctor, having to worry about income, can more ably attend to his work as a doctor, namely the healing of the ill, than if he does not have to worry about who is to pay the bill.
At this time I wish to express my appreciation to the minister for the courtesy and kindness that have been extended to me and, I have noted, also to other members in the opposition within the past year. I believe that all of us in this house, regardless of where we sit, are vitally interested in the work being done by the Department of National Health and Welfare. I believe the health of our people ought to supersede political interests at all times. Never, to my notice at least, has the minister replied to inquiries with a political ax hidden behind his back. He has never done that when we have asked him for information. I think that attitude is commendable.
This house is exceptional in that it contains an unusually large representation from the medical profession. However, the minister has, as had other ministers before him, made it very clear that to be vitally interested in and to have some knowledge of the work of this department and the needs of the department do not necessarily mean that one has to be a medical man. The minister has shown that an accountant can be as greatly interested in this work as can a lawyer coming out of the Windsor area.
I wish to offer a number of recommendations. My initial recommendation has to do with our whole approach to the administration of social security in this country. We have veterans pensions, family allowances, widows' allowances, mothers' allowances, pensions for the disabled, pensions for the aged, pensions for this and pensions for that, pensions for almost every other thing, each with its own administrative arrangements. I feel there is a reason for this. We have obtained what little social security we have in Canada by concessions here and concessions there, always from unwilling governments, and some have been given at election time. However, that may be a political reality or even a need in Canada.
Now that we have this vast array, this vast conglomeration of welfare and pension plans 79951-0-3341
Supply

Health and Welfare in Canada, I think the time is overripe when we should begin to think in terms of consolidation; because, as every hon. member knows, we continually meet individual Canadians who, despite our terrific array of plans designed to help the unfortunate in Canada, are left out, who do not get into any of the many existing plans and schemes. I think if we agree to broaden the base and accept the fundamental concept that no one in Canada shall have to do without the basic needs in health, education, food, clothing and housing, then we should begin a process of consolidation. I see no real, valid reason why there must be a separate plan to pay pensions to the handicapped as apart from pensions to the blind, for instance. After all, even the blind are in receipt of pensions because they are handicapped, yet we have two different administrations with all the costly overhead. And, as I said before, because of this terrifically complicated machinery, for each little new need we set up a whole new administration with its overhead; yet it fails to meet the needs of ever so many individuals as each hon. member, I am sure, has experienced.
At an early date the government might well begin an investigation in to whether it is not possible to combine most if not all of our social security measures into one social security organization. This is in existence in those countries of the world where the people did not get their social security measures by bits and pieces, where they received it all at one time. In those countries we do find this over-all administration. Here in Canada we have not arrived at our social security measures in that way; therefore we have built up organization after organization after organization without having one over-all machine adequate to meet the needs of each and every individual.
I noted what the minister had to say in regard to hospital care for those who are chronically ill. I know he has given this matter a great deal of consideration over the past year, and that some research is under way. However, I noticed the minister's great hesitation in imposing any care for chronic hospital cases upon any provincial government. I can understand why he takes that attitude, because according to the British North America Act fundamental health care is under the jurisdiction of the provinces. However, when the minister and the federal government are under attack for this lack of action in certain respects, and that attack emanates from a provincial government, then I do believe the minister would be completely within his rights if he replied to such attacks without hesitation.

Supply-Health and Welfare
What I have reference to is that at the last meeting of the British Columbia legislature the minister of health of that province explained that the reason the people of British Columbia could not enjoy chronic hospital care was that the federal government refused to make grants for the building of chronic hospitals or to pay any of the cost of the maintenance of chronic hospitals. The health minister of the province of British Columbia knows that his contention at that time was not in accordance with what the situation really is, because for many long years now Ottawa has always been ready to share on a per bed basis the cost of building hospitals designed to care for the chronically ill. I believe that right now the federal government is prepared to contribute to a program in any part of Canada for building hospitals for the chronically ill an amount of $2,000 per bed. In spite of this the minister of health in British Columbia wants to lead the people of that province to believe that Ottawa is responsible for the fact there is not any real chronic hospital care in that province.
The federal government since the introduction of the national health insurance plan has gone a little farther and, as I understand our national health insurance plan, if a province now institutes a hospital insurance plan for those within the province who need hospital care because of chronic ailments, the federal government is prepared to share, to the same extent that it shares in other hospital care matters, in the cost of such care. The federal government, therefore, by legislation is prepared to contribute toward the construction of hospitals to look after the chronically ill, and also for the maintenance of such hospitals. The British Columbia minister, I rather suspect for political purposes or in order to avoid having to face this issue as a result of the demands of British Columbia residents, unjustly attacks the federal government. I believe the federal government should immediately reply to that attack, and reply in such a manner that the residents of that province become aware of that reply.
We in British Columbia are interested in seeing that the chronically ill are given adequate hospital care at the earliest possible moment. As the minister knows quite well, our hospital insurance plan in British Columbia provides only for hospital care so long as the doctor certifies the patient as acute. Immediately the patient passes the acute stage-this applies especially to our elderly people-and the doctor declares the patient to be chronically ill, then you have to leave the hospital or pay roughly $18 a day to the hospital, or you have to go to a nursing home. If you want to enter a nursing
[Mr. Kegier.l
home the rates are $185 a month and up, and the waiting list is as long as your arm. If you have not got that amount of money you have to either impose on some relative, if you have one who is able to look after you, or you have to go to one of the many disreputable nursing homes or so-called rest homes that will accept you in exchange for your old age pension or whatever pension you get from the municipality or provincial government.
The people back home are insisting that our existing hospital insurance plan be expanded to cover those declared chronically ill. I know that the federal government, by legislation, long ago decided that if a move is made anywhere in Canada to look after the chronically ill, there will be national money available to help.
I should like to see our national health insurance plan amended to include the cost of all prescribed drugs. I believe this would, perhaps, do more than anything else to resolve the questionable prices of these commodities. I have every sympathy, Mr. Chairman, for the interests of the men engaged in the practice of medicine. In the light of the income received by a lot of other people in Canada today, I doubt whether the income of our doctors is at a level which will inspire many young men or women to spend all the necessary years in obtaining that particular degree.
However, what really upsets me is the fact that when I receive a bill from the doctor and then when I receive a bill from the druggist I very often notice that the drugs that were prescribed cost much more than the time and work of the doctor who had the responsibility of prescribing the drugs. I believe that is away out of line. The man of medicine certainly ought to receive a higher compensation than the man who mixes chemicals, who is a chemist or a scientist and who only knows how to mix up a prescription in accordance with the orders of the doctor.
I should like to plead that the government, in the light of what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard and others, give serious consideration to the restoration of grants for a physical fitness program in Canada. When these grants were abolished a number of years ago that was done on the ground that few parts of Canada had taken advantage of the physical fitness legislation. I believe at that time only Saskatchewan had done so. Perhaps if the federal government again offered to share the cost of a physical fitness program, now that even such an eminent individual as the Duke of Edinburgh has made reference to the need for such a plan

in Canada, many more parts of Canada would indicate an interest and a willingness to participate.
I should like to say just a few words with regard to the physically handicapped. Mental retardation and physical handicap are often related, possibly more often than not. I note with a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction the hard work that thousands of parents in Canada are undertaking on a voluntary basis to supply education to the mentally retarded. I believe that if the federal government could aid in the cost of vocational education, and I agree that it ought to do so, then the health department ought to give some consideration as to whether in the long run it would not be more economical to help pay for the cost of providing mentally retarded children with an education. I believe that if our educational program for the mentally retarded could be greatly enhanced we might save ourselves a lot of pension money because many of these people, in later years, would not need pensions.
I should like once again to call the attention of the minister to the urgent need for establishing a portable pension plan available to all Canadians, but more specifically immediately designed for the industrial workers of Canada. I have spoken to many audiences and have asked them to indicate by a show of hands how many of them, in their lifetime, have paid into a pension fund and have later, either through some fault of theirs or through no fault of theirs, had to leave their place of employment, thus losing their pension rights. In most cases 90 per cent of those in attendance who had contributed to a plan have, somewhere along the line, lost their pension rights.
I know very well that in most cases when they leave these places of employment they can obtain a refund of their contributions. However, if most people are like me in this regard, a lump sum of money always comes in handy and may be used to buy a new car or a new television set. I do not realize that the money I am spending was really designed for my old age.
I do not think the refunds should be allowed quite so freely. I am glad that the annuities branch of the Department of Labour does not permit a refund. If you pay money into the annuities branch in order to buy yourself an annuity, that money must remain there for that specific purpose. However, because of the vagaries of the Canadian economic picture-partly, I think, because we are a growing nation-we find that less than 10 per cent of the people who today pay into a pension plan will ever receive the benefits
Supply

Health and Welfare of that pension as those benefits were designed to be paid at the time they were making their monthly payments.
I think the government could help the Canadian people to help themselves if they showed some initiative in this regard. I know there is a great deal that organized labour and employers could do. If they all invested their pension funds in the Canadian government annuities branch, our problem would automatically resolve itself. I deplore the lack of initiative on the part of labour unions and on the part of employers, when they sit across the bargaining table, in that they do not explore ways and means whereby the pension arrangements they are making with their workers shall carry the provision that the pension being arranged for will be portable and that the worker will be able to carry his pension rights with him wherever he goes, exactly as today he carries his unemployment insurance book and unemployment rights with him in moving from one employer to another or from one part of Canada to another.
I should also like to plead with the government to reconsider the level of grants it pays in the field of research in health matters. We have the heart foundation collection, the tuberculosis collection, and the diseases of children collection. We have umpteen health organizations all depending on charitable donations for their research work which is most essential. I have every respect for the voluntary efforts of tens of thousands of Canadians, and especially those of Canadian women who undertake this important and often thankless task of going out in the rain from house to house, knocking on doors and asking for donations in these multitudinous appeals. The work is necessary because there is no other way at the present time. The grants from the government are modest indeed. However, when this research turns up some useful knowledge it is added to the general pool of knowledge and everyone in Canada receives the benefit.
There is no one in this chamber who does not know that he may some day receive the benefits of the research going on with regard to heart ailments. I therefore submit that if we all share the benefits of this research work, we all should be made to share the costs as a community. I submit that this research work should not be handicapped by the lack of funds or by the lack of volunteers or by the unwillingness of some people to make voluntary contributions. Even if the government today absorbed all these organizations and the responsibility for them, I know that tomorrow there would be more volunteers for other worthy causes in Canada, and I think that is the way it ought to be.

Supply-Health and Welfare But once the need has been established and once the volunteer work has reached a certain stage of general public acceptance, then I think the government ought to move in and assume this responsibility on behalf of the people as a whole.
When the minister replies I should like him to tell us what exchange of research information is taking place between countries of the western world and countries behind the iron curtain. I believe the minister is well aware of the fact that in many respects in the field of research the medical profession in the Soviet union has made remarkable headway. I often wonder whether we in the western world receive some of the blessings of that research and, vice versa, whether the people behind the iron curtain receive the blessings of the research work that our medical scientists are doing. I know there is some medium of exchange through the auspices of the United Nations. I hope we can obtain a bit of information on that particular score.
I want to express in only one or two minutes my utter dismay at the issuance of this particular little book having to do with civil defence and entitled "Your Basement Fallout Shelter". I should like the civil defence department of the minister to be called the civil disaster plan. I believe it would be much more acceptable to the Canadian people, because we often face severe disaster in our communities. I think the population as a whole would be much more united if, behind any plans for community survival and for survival of the individual, the whole plan were called a civil disaster plan.
I am a little afraid that there may be interests at work who are attempting slowly to convince the people of North America that there is hope for survival in case of a nuclear war. I hope the Canadian people will maintain what I believe is their present position, namely that should we have a nuclear war there is no defence for the Canadian people. I hope there is not a move afoot gradually to convince them and to condition them into thinking that "maybe I and you will survive". I think we ought to realize that in case of nuclear war there is no defence and that we will not survive. I do not expect that I will survive, and I do not think any other Canadian has any logical reason to expect that he can survive the rigours of an all-out nuclear war. I hope this is not part of a process of conditioning the public mind. It is for that reason as well as for practical reasons, in order to get the public to really rally around this effort, that I believe the whole effort ought to be changed in name from civil defence to civil disaster.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: On a question of privilege, I should like to convey to my colleague the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam my sincere thanks for his compliments, and to tell him how greatly I appreciate his agreement on the health insurance question and his recognition of the work of the doctors in the community.


Mr. Jones:: In speaking on the subject which I intend to discuss now for just a moment, may I say that I ordinarily would have raised it later on the estimates, but I am not quite sure that it neatly fits into any one particular category. I refer to the matter of household chemicals. Before asking the minister the question I have in mind, however, and in view of the great amount of attention which has been paid by the members of the C.C.F. group to the Saskatchewan medical care plan, I think I should say just a word about that situation.	-
Much has been said about it except who is to pay for it. On June 13 I asked the Minister of Finance whether the premier of Saskatchewan had as yet approached him for federal assistance to help pay for the Saskatchewan medical care program. That question was received with cries of anguish from the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. Fisher:: Derision, not anguish.


Henry Frank Jones: "Derision", says the hon. member for Port Arthur; but yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia did exactly what I have mentioned. As reported on page 5268 of Hansard he said:
The Canadian government should come forward now with a federal prepaid medical care act by which the federal government would co-operate with any provincial government prepared to embark on such a prepaid medical care program.
That of course is a clear call for federal aid for the Saskatchewan medical care plan.
The point I wish to draw to the attention of the minister, and my principal reason for rising at this time, is the serious situation in my view which has arisen because household chemicals are not properly labelled as to whether they are dangerous or poisonous. Many of them do not have described on the label antidotes which would provide for emergency treatment where children or even adults might take these kitchen chemicals by mistake. It is my opinion that something should be done about this problem.
In the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of June 13 appeared the headline "Coroner warns householders against household poisons", and the article under that headline sets forth the sad case of a two and one half year old boy who died of poisoning as the result of getting to a can of household chemical labelled "RX.15",

containing plant food. Apparently there was not an antidote on the can or any suggested course of emergency action. I am not suggesting, of course, that this child would be able to read the label, but certainly the parents might have been in a position to take action which could have saved the boy's life. In certain cases, I am advised by medical people, when children take substances like this that may be poisonous, if a finger is stuck down the throat or if they are given some mustard emulsion the poison may be regurgitated and the child saved. But in this particular instance the child unfortunately lost his life.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge that some action be taken to deal with this particular problem. I think it is necessary action for the protection of children and people in general in the home. It is not always possible to have a doctor immediately available, and often emergency action is required. Even when a doctor is available the doctor cannot be expected to have at his fingertips the antidote for every type of household chemical. The case I have described is by no means an isolated one but one which has occurred time after time in this country, and surely we should call for action to bring about a remedy to this problem.
I do not know whether this responsibility lies solely upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare or whether the Minister of Justice should be called upon to assist in providing a remedy under one of the acts for which he is responsible. But I would suggest that the Minister of National Health and Welfare might very well take this problem unto himself and discuss it with such members of the cabinet as may be necessary in order to bring about action whereby packages of household chemicals are labelled and indicate whether or not they are poisonous. Also they should have on the label the antidote and the required emergency remedial action in case the substance is taken by human beings.


Mr. While:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the deliberations of this committee for very long, and I think I can finish by a minute or two after one o'clock.
First of all I wish to commend the minister for his able administration of the department, and I want to compliment the hon. member for Quebec West for his very sound contribution to the deliberations of this committee this morning.
The reason I rise at this time is to bring to the attention of the minister and the committee a certain amount of consternation which was aroused among my constituents, as well as, I feel, many other people in the province of Ontario, when it was mooted in
Supply-Health and Welfare the press that the cost of hospital insurance in the province of Ontario would be increased by 10 per cent. Ontario residents are not unaware that prior to the commencement of hospital insurance, hospital rates were increased considerably. I am not prepared to say the percentage, but there was quite a considerable increase percentagewise. The residents of Ontario were sold the hospital insurance plan simply because the cost of hospitalization was getting to the point where many citizens of the province felt that unless they had a hospital insurance plan of some kind they certainly could not afford hospitalization.
So I rise to protect an increase in hospital insurance rates, and I do so also because we were told that this was going to be an economical method for the people to obtain insurance. We hear a good deal today from certain quarters about monopolies; there is a lot of complaint about monopolies on the part of companies. But the worst monoply in my estimation is a state monopoly, something against which you cannot legislate, something against which you cannot argue. It is a bureaucratic monopoly, and that I am certainly against.
If hospital rates could be increased by 10 per cent after one year without any protest from the people paying the rates, what is to hinder them being increased another 10 per cent two or three years hence? This leads to sloppy administration on the part of hospitals, and I do not think we want that.
I want to commend the hon. member for Quebec West for his plea that we evade at all possible cost what is spoken of as state medicine. I believe it is quite possible for the medical profession-and I am certain they are engaged in doing so-to work out a prepaid plan that will be acceptable to all Canadians. Then the medical profession can go on with their very worth-while work and the ill can have the doctor of their choice. Bureaucracy in the treatment of the ill is something which I personally have no wish to see.
Mention was made of annuity plans and the possibility of being able to transfer from one job to another or from one industry to another the pension plan that was commenced at an earlier date. All these pension plans are commendable, but let us look back 20 years and see what has actually happened. We must examine the value of the dollars people contributed to pension plans some years ago, and recognize that it bears no resemblance to the 50-cent pieces they draw out today. That is what inflation does. If we are going to witness a continuation of the galloping inflation that has gone on since 1945 we will witness

Supply-Health and Welfare a corresponding decline in the incentive for people to save and the ultimate destruction of all incentive so to do.
I thank the committee for its indulgence.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to make only a few brief comments this afternoon, because the field has been fairly fully covered. One comment I will make is that we are going to have more and more hospitalization costs in the future as an increasing number of our population will be people over the age of 65. In the light of medical statistics it is interesting to glance around this chamber and realize that 30 out of every 100 people in this or any other group in the country owe their lives to the miracle drugs and serums and vaccines that have been developed in the last 50 years. I have only to list a few of the significant discoveries in this field to illustrate my point.
In the early 1900's, I believe in 1906, diphtheria antitoxin was developed. This was followed by the development of typhoid fever vaccine. It is important to remember that during the time of the Boer war more people lost their lives as a result of this dread disease than lost their lives in active service. It is significant to remember, too, that the war of 1914-18 could not have been fought on the scale it was if typhoid vaccine had not been discovered.
Coming to the twenties we find that on this continent, in the city of Toronto, there was discovered one of the most important findings in the history of medicine, insulin. This is an injection of pancreas that has extended the lives of many people and enabled them to live a full life span. Those of us who are old enough to be able to look back to the time before the discovery of this drug well remember those afflicted with diabetes who had poor, frail bodies and enormous appetites, and who could not pass a pail of water or a pump without pausing for a drink, and will be grateful that this is a disease now under control.
In 1928 significant advances were made by Minot and Murphy, working in a laboratory in Chicago, with respect to the discovery of the anti-pernicious anaemia factor, from liver and stomach. This represented another great victory by science in the field of human welfare.
Then came the discovery of the sulfa drugs and their derivatives in 1935. May I remind


hon. gentlemen that dagenan and sulfa derivative was worked out after more than 600 attempts. Hundreds of scientists have worked diligently in laboratories in their search for the elusive materials that would cure human ills.
The forties witnessed the discovery of penicillin. I well remember the first case in which I used penicillin. A shot was required every two hours and there was much pain involved. Hon. gentlemen will know that further advances have been made with respect to this drug, and it is no longer even necessary to take penicillin through a needle. It may be taken by tablet, and only one dose is required in a 24-hour period.
I have listed a few of the advances made by science over the years. Not long after the discovery of penicillin came the discovery of the new antibiotic drugs, the myocins; achromycin, terramycin, chlormycin, ilo-tycin and other derivatives that have saved countless human lives.
My friend the hon. member for Welland in his excellent speech dealt with his experience as a general practitioner. He recalled to my mind that in the early days when we were called out by a patient with pneumonia we went with the knowledge that one out of every five persons suffering from pneumonia was doomed to certain death. Today it is possible to go to a doctor and be cured of pneumonia within a few days. This in itself is of vast economic assistance to Canadians, not only in work hours saved but in eliminating hospital costs and in the prevention of suffering.
The speed with which many illnesses can now be retarded or cured results in decreased costs for many Canadians. The advances made -by science have also served to increase longevity in the population. As an illustration, may I point out that during the last 50 years the general population of Canada has increased two and a half times but that portion of the population age 65 years and over has increased four times in that same period. I do not have to point out that this will mean that there will be an increasing number of people in hospitals.
At the turn of the century, life expectancy was under 50 years. Today a child coming into the world can look forward to 70 years of life. This, however, is creating a problem in the field of employment and in other fields. For instance, the cost of hospitalization and welfare will continue to rise at a rapid rate as more people reach advanced age.
I suggest that it is not fair to put people age 65 and over suffering from chronic diseases in general hospitals along with persons who are under active, acute treatment.

I do not think you have to stretch your imagination very much to realize that the person who is acutely ill, whose life is hanging in the balance, will probably get the major share of the treatment, and that the older person with the chronic disease will not get the aggressive treatment that he would receive, perhaps, if there were a wing put on to that hospital where all those cases of people over 65 suffering from chronic diseases could be treated in accordance with what their condition demands.
I have only to recall to the committee that in 1920 I do not think there was a pediatric unit across Canada, if my memory serves me correctly. I well remember that when I was a student a few years later a pediatric wing was organized in the Kingston General hospital under Dr. MacGregor; and to tell you that the establishment of that pediatric unit as part of the general program of establishing chairs and professorships in our universities has cut our infant mortality so that today we can boast of life expectancy of 70 years for a child born in this country today is just to remind you of the results of our work in the field of pediatrics over the years.
I should like to suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the same principles and the same practice be followed by our hospitals today in the care of the increasing number of people in the geriatric class; that the same procedure be followed with chairs set up in universities and departments headed up with people concerned with the treatment of those older people. I think we would find that hospital costs would be cut considerably and that the people in the older age brackets would get better and more efficient treatment.
I wish to dwell on this for one more minute. There has been some talk about building separate units. I do not go along with that at all simply for the reason that we have to train medical students. Those medical students will be going out as general practitioners. They need all the knowledge of the treatment of those cases they can possibly get. I would remind you further that in the care of those cases certain drugs and certain types of treatment will be used, and the general practitioner will require to know about them. If they were put in separate units the tendency would be, in my opinion, to make the teaching inadequate.
I should like to dwell for a moment or two on the matter raised by an hon. member who said that only 200 British doctors had migrated to Canada and therefore conditions must be satisfactory in the old country. I have only this to say. When a doctor graduates from a university in another land and then comes to Canada, in most of the 79951-0-335
Supply-Health and Welfare provinces he is required to write another council examination. It is pretty difficult for a fellow who has been in practice a number of years to remember all the scientific theory that he was taught. The remark was made that there were 60,000 doctors in the United Kingdom. If my memory serves me correctly there are only 50,000. I know this is just an error in figures, but I do wish to point out that the figure of 200 is no criterion of the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the doctors in Great Britain. The fact is that it is difficult to pull up your roots, go to another country and write examinations before you can practise.
I just bring this to your attention, Mr. Chairman. In Saskatchewan, where people are inclined to say "Here comes the golden age", according to statistics one third of the doctors practising in that province are from Great Britain. I am wondering why that province has such a high percentage of British doctors when the rest of the country does not have that percentage. Maybe there is an answer to it.
I am also wondering about this. The golden age which they talk about in the province of Saskatchewan is in a little difficulty, or was in a little difficulty, with the hospitalization plan; because Dr. Erb, who I believe is their minister of health, stated that something had to be done to cut down on these spiralling costs. It was suggested to him by the head of the college of physicians and surgeons of that province that perhaps a deterrent would have to be added to control hospitalization.
I am just giving these facts, not to condemn any plan that will give the Canadian people the best of care, because I am sure every hon. member would want to do that. I hope we shall never let politics interfere with the profession or with the training schools in the United States of America and Canada, the countries that have given us the highest standards of medical practice in the world today, that have given us most of the major discoveries in the last 50 years.
When we consider some of the places that are state controlled perhaps we should hark back and take Russia, as leader of the communist world. We can state that there has not been one major discovery in medicine or one major advance in the field of medical science come out of Russia in the last 40 years. I am not saying that we should not have forms that are changed a little from what we have today; that may be necessary in a changing world.
I do wish to refer to New Zealand as an example of socialized medicine. We hear people stating over and over again that 52

Supply-Health and Welfare per cent of the doctors there practise outside the hospitals and 48 per cent practise in the hospitals, all graduates of the same schools. The 52 per cent who practise outside are the have-nots and the fellows on the inside are the haves. Their social legislation brought them to the point where they were almost bankrupt. I talked to many of the doctors, both the ins and the outs, and I wish to tell you that I did not find any of them perfectly satisfied with those plans. I had the same experience in England where I talked to some gentlemen on the inside and some on the outside whose names I will not mention. The fellows on the inside were getting better pay. You would think they would be satisfied but they said, "No, we do not believe in any system that tends to downgrade the fellow who graduates from the same school we did and from that day onward is an outside fellow, as compared with the fellow on the inside". This is the answer to those people who say that this is the system, this is heaven. It is not. I ask the committee to weigh all the facts and not just be swayed by some written arguments to the end so that any change we inaugurate in this country will be right and proper and best for all the people.
I want to spend a minute on rising medical costs. The hon. member for Middlesex West spoke about this. We have been told some of the reasons why our people are living longer. We in the field of medical science are responsible for that. I think every doctor and scientist in Canada will surely take pride in that, but I also want to recall to the attention of the committee that many of those people have given gratuitously of their services on boards or as nurses receiving small pay and working 12-hour days. When I was in hospital in those days the nurses took their 12-hour shifts. I remember the dear old superintendent we had. She supervised everything. She made up her books at night, and if anybody was short or off she covered up. She had an 18-hour day. I remember the personnel, the nurses in training. I recall back to the days when some of them just got enough to buy their stockings and their shoes. If they got more than that they were lucky. We do not want to go back to those days, and I am not suggesting that we should.
I want to pause now to pay a compliment to that great group of nursing sisters and nurses of all faiths who did such a great job in those training hospitals and are still doing it. They have made a wonderful contribution. They gave us the care that has enabled many of us to be in this house today, and the drugs that were developed through a system of


individual enterprise that stimulated freedom of thought and action to its fullest extent.
So in conclusion, I say that the cost of hospitalization has risen simply because two thirds of that cost represents the cost of labour; that is the situation. Does anybody want to cut costs by decreasing the payment to labour? Only one third of the cost is made up in other ways.
Then someone mentioned the high cost of drugs. There is one drug item I might mention which was used in this hospital that I selected at random, the cost of which represents only 4.5 per cent of the total cost of these lifesaving drugs. These drugs can save you anywhere from one week to four weeks of hospitalization in cases of pneumonia and other diseases. I remember the cases of appendicitis that we used to see in which the appendix had ruptured, and now as a result of these drugs such patients may be out in a week. These are the contributions these drugs have made to us.
There are one or two other things upon which I should like to dwell for a moment. The first is disabled persons; I noticed that someone referred to them. I want to say that in my opinion the examination policy respec-ing disabled persons by both provincial and federal governments may be wrong. I am not saying it is, but I am wondering about this policy. I recall a case in which I was interested during the time the hon. member for Essex East was minister. This was a difficult case, and this fellow was positively entitled to a pension. The pension was turned down by Ottawa. I knew the case well, and I knew it was grossly unfair to turn down the application for pension. I am wondering, therefore, whether we should perhaps take a long look at that situation and eliminate the doubling up on these examinations.
The other thing about which I want to speak is the provision of adequate shelters in our hospitals. I am wondering if this is being done. This thought occurred to me when we were talking about shelters the other day. It appears as though we are going to have to make preparations, such as the construction of shelters, for a long time to come. If that is true I am wondering whether we are looking at this problem realistically. Perhaps these shelters should be built in when hospitals are constructed, and perhaps they should even be built into houses constructed under the National Housing Act; because I am sure everyone will admit that it appears the need for them will not be removed in the foreseeable future.
The next thing about which I am wondering is our training of medical personnel. I just



I960

[Stage Direction]
want to leave a few figures with hon. members. As has been mentioned before, we in Canada are not managing only with our own graduates but with the help of graduates from other countries. In the United States today they have in their hospitals over 8,000 interns who are foreign born. I am not giving any statistics for Canada. The Minister of National Health and Welfare might have them, but I have not. I know that we would not be able to run our hospitals the way we are today if it were not for the fact we have in this country a great many graduates from British and other universities. I think we should look at that, too, in order to assure ourselves that this country will provide the proper medical care.
In conclusion may I say that any criticisms I have made have not been in the nature of destructive criticisms. They have been made for the purpose of stimulating interest in this problem in order that the people of Canada may continue to get the best medical care in the world.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, perhaps other members have noticed what I thought was a very significant development in the discussion of these estimates. The minister began by giving what amounted, in the main, to a rebuttal of the report by the House of Commons estimates committee which examined the Department of Health and Welfare. When I say "rebuttal" I mean it in the wide sense rather than in the sense of a direct confutation.
Today we had one of the earlier speakers, the hon. member for Calgary South, who is chairman of that committee, get up and make a rebuttal of the minister's rebuttal. I do not draw attention to this to particularly underline anything in connection with the department, but I think it is a significant parliamentary development. There has been a large grey area in so far as the rights and powers of parliamentary committees are concerned. I was not a member of this committee, but I thought it did as good a job as a committee could do in analysing the estimates of the department. I thought its report was vigorous and direct, and it was certainly understandable in so far as the average member was concerned.
I knew, from talking to some of the civil servants in the department, that the department's reaction to the report was to say the least rather strong. One could expect to get from the minister, therefore, a reflection of the bureaucratic feelings toward the committee's report. It seems to me that a house committee, even if the civil servants and the 79951-0-335J
Supply-Health and Welfare minister concerned react against its recommendation and against the policy considerations it entertains, should stimulate the department. In my opinion there is inertia on the part of the administration at times which must be overcome, and I think much of the stimulation will come from parliamentary committees that will face up to an analysis and perhaps make some overbold suggestions and criticisms. I believe this committee is to be congratulated, and I think the hon. member for Calgary South should be congratulated very strongly for standing up today to rebut the minister's rebuttal.
The comment I wanted to make about the minister of this department would be much the same as the comment made by other members. The few times I have had anything to do with the department he was most agreeable. Unfortunately he has not been able to find a solution to the largest constituency problem I have in connection with health and welfare matters. I refer to the problem of one of my constituents who writes letters on a weekly basis to me, to the minister, to the Prime Minister, to the Leader of the Opposition and to almost everyone in Ottawa in connection with a marvellous invention he has in the field of health. I wish the deputy minister would tell me how we can satisfy this dissident gentleman in my riding who has a magic invention which, when applied to the shoes of all Canadians, would cure so many of the ills to which they are subj ect.
In trying to assess the stature of a minister, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us have tended to look at his predecessors holding that post. We all know that the urbane gentleman, the hon. member for Essex East, was the minister of national health and welfare. The distinction I draw between him and the present minister is that as minister, the hon. member for Essex East was much more ambitious in a political way, in terms of looking for political promotion and going right to the top. I have a feeling that the present Minister of National Health and Welfare has no ambition to be prime minister or anything like that.
You may wonder, Mr. Chairman, what particular distinction I am trying to arrive at. It is this. I think the hon. member for Essex East, as minister, because of his ambition was constantly trying to expand, if you wish, or blow up his role as minister of national health and welfare and make it appear as one of the major posts in government, an extremely important one. I believe he achieved that to quite an extent. The only comment I would make about the present minister, giving him credit for his lack of
530S

Supply-Health and Welfare over-all ambition to reach the summit, is that he should not be so quiet or so passive in his relationships with his more ambitious, thrusting colleagues in the cabinet as to allow the department to shrink in stature.
I was interested in the committee's comments on the amount of printing being done by the Department of National Health and Welfare. I have always found it difficult to become enthusiastic about these publications, but I would be willing to accept the minister's argument that he has gone into the matter thoroughly and feels that the amount of publications is justified.
I hope he will continue to be tougher and tougher with the Queen's printer, because if ever there was an agency in the government charging -too high prices to the departments for the services provided, I think the Queen's printer is an example. I have raised this matter in the house with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who is responsible for that particular branch, and I think it still holds true that the system under which the Queen's printer tends to give a blanket price under which there is no volume discount-that is, no discount to the department-if it happens to come up with a best seller or something that really moves or for which there is a great demand, is a rather unbusinesslike practice, to say the least. I think it would be a great encouragement to departments in connection with their publications if there were some kind of volume discount, and if we had a more flexible policy in so far as printing is concerned.
I do not know how far one could go in doing printing on a direct basis as between government departments, in certain kinds of publications, and private printers. But from this procedure I think you would get a stimulation in terms of design and some greater level of competition as between the standards of the Queen's printer and those of the private printers. This is a minor aspect of the minister's department, but this is a problem that ranges through all the departments in their relations with the Queen's printer. It is not an organization of the government in which I at least, as a member looking at it, take a great deal of pride.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who is well known for his interest in sports and who returned last winter with that lovely tan after his visit down to the Olympics in the Sun Valley area, was off on his kick about a Canadian advisory sports council or a Canadian sports council. I have spoken to this argument of his before, especially when his resolution had a day's debate. I admire the fervour with which he, the hon. member for York Centre, the hon. member for Calgary

South and the hon. member for Hamilton South, who is an ex-footballer, are pushing their efforts in this regard. I pointed out to the Minister of Labour yesterday how amusing was the story in the Toronto paper about the expressed feeling of this small volunteer group that the cabinet was not taking too seriously their suggestions about a sports council because of serious unemployment in Canada. The newspaper went on further to say that it is perhaps arguable that Canada will always have serious unemployment, and that this consideration should not be a deterrent to creating this council.
I was interested in this for the humour of it, and also because it indicated a certain amount of bravery. I think it is a fairly brave member of parliament who will rise in his place and express himself to the effect that even although there is serious unemployment, he thinks the government should go ahead with a project such as this. I suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who is pushing this matter, and also to the minister that we have a genuine cultural lag in Canada in our attitude toward sports. If the minister wants to go into the matter in a sociological way I could give him bibliographies on it, although I do not think it is a topic of extreme importance.
However, we have the attitude that now we have finally reached the stage-and the Canada Council is an example of it-where we are prepared to subsidize through our government agencies musical and artistic endeavours, but we are still some way from the point where we are prepared to subsidize sports or sporting endeavours through the government; and this is the situation despite the fact that the Canadian people in the main are much more interested in sports than they are in the group of seven or in classical music.
When the Canada Council estimates were before the committee the hon. member for York-Scarborough tried to make the argument that there was no reason at all why a barber shop quartet was not as justified in getting support from the Canada Council in order to take part in that particular phase of cultural activity as was the Toronto symphony orchestra or the Ottawa philharmonic orchestra. I would not necessarily agree with the hon. member for York-Scarborough, but I was bothered by the headline reaction to this, indicating what a silly proposal this was. I put it down to the fact that there is, if you want to call it that, an educated elite in Canada who have reached the stage that they feel that fine painting, symphonic music and cultural things of that level are wonderful and fine-and more power to them-and they have an agency now in the Canada Council.

But I should like to point out to them and to the minister and to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard that our problem so far as sports are concerned is that the common denominator of the people are strongly for sports. Not only do they want their nation to be represented by good teams, but they want Canadians to have fine hockey teams at the Olympic games and they want us to express our national spirit by having a winner. Unfortunately the elite have not quite come to that point yet. What we really need is a Vincent Massey in the sports field. I do not know whether the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard or the hon. member for Calgary South are going to be able to rise to that particular challenge, but I hope they will continue the fight.
It is rather disturbing to national pride to know that in so many fields of both team sport and individual sport in track and field we make such a poor showing. I tend to blame our very success in certain professional aspects of sport for our refusal to support on a government basis those elements of our sport that cannot be put on a professional basis. Because we have viable football leagues and hockey leagues, such as the National hockey league and the two professional football leagues, I think we tend to feel that the judging one makes as to whether a sport is worth while is based on whether it can be put on a commercial basis. Every country in the world which has a sporting thrust within its population has discovered that you cannot compete as amateurs on an international basis with any kind of professional organization.
I think the British experience in the sport of football is a fine example of that fact. There is not any question but that England and Scotland have the best professional football leagues in terms of the number of teams, the public response and everything else, but just because of the very selfishness of the professional set-up they are not able to field an international team, and so the disgrace is very great in Britain about their showing there. We have tended to have much the same kind of reaction in the field of hockey. I think the hon. member's argument for a sports council is a good one. However, I think we must have a great deal more educating before we are going to achieve it. As I say, we need a Vincent Massey in the sports field.
The question of a national fitness program as put forward by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent had a great deal of force behind it. The bothersome thing there is the pitiful way in which the last effort in that field collapsed. The National Physical Fitness Act, when it was introduced in 1944,
Supply-Health and Welfare came in with a fanfare of trumpets. This was to be the answer to the disturbing physical situation that had been discovered in the enlistment or recruitment for Canada's armed forces. We were to have an answer. The answer was to be this voluntary council with one permanent director and approximately $225,000 each year to go out to the provincial agencies to support this effort.
It broke down. I think it broke down, first, just because there was not enough money for each team, and second, because of the difficulty of working out something in this regard within our constitutional framework.
I suggest to the minister that if he is going to subscribe to a national physical fitness program that is going to be a real contribution he must look carefully at the failure of the previous effort. As I see the situation and as I read the speeches made when the scheme was introduced, as well as when the whole matter was discarded, the failure was based upon an inability to get all these agencies working for physical fitness. It seems to me that if something is going to be set up it needs to be much more centralized and should have much larger funds at its disposal than the last national physical fitness council had, and I think the provisions of the act should be broader and should give the federal government a larger role than it played before.
In saying this it is in almost diametrical opposition to what the minister said in his rebuttal to the committee report. The main thing which seemed to concern the minister in his rebuttal was that the committee was urging federal encroachment into a field which was primarily a provincial one. So far as the sports aspect is concerned, I suggest that our interests there are not provincial or local but national. I would tend to think that the same situation has been reached with regard to fitness. We have a crisis of a kind in the fitness field, as the hon. member for Lambton-Kent exposed very well. If the federal government is going to play any role at all I cannot see it being a mere liaison organization; it has to have something of real power. Like most people, Canadians respect money as far as power is concerned. There is no use going into such a field unless the government is prepared to spend considerable money in setting up a really strong organization.
The last point I want to make to the minister deals with the situation of the blind people in my constituency, who are quite dissatisfied with the present provisions of the act which the minister's department administers. I am not going into details as to what they want,, because I think the minister is very much aware of that, but I can assure him that from
5308	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare my contact with the blind group in the lake-head area there is a unanimity of view on this matter which one rarely finds, to use a phrase, in pressure groups.
The hon. member for Simcoe East made a speech which I took to be an appeal to us to consider very carefully any moves to be made in the direction of medical schemes, and he generally extolled the worth of the medical profession and also pointed out the difficulty which the medical profession is having in recruiting people and developing its organization. Mr. Chairman, if I were a doctor I would be almost as concerned as I think politicians should be about the general low state of their reputation amongst the general public. As a matter of fact, I think those of us who are politicians are sometimes stunned on going around when we find how little we are appreciated; but recently I have heard more and more of the same kind of thing said about the medical profession. The picture is getting out into the land that they are money grabbers, graspers, people who will not make a call and who want only people who will come to their offices; that they want prompt payment of their bills, and so on. In other words the old charm and aura which hung over the medical profession have disappeared, and I think disappeared remarkably fast.
Because of this I think the public is perhaps much better prepared or much more prepared to want the kind of medical schemes which have been debated out in Saskatchewan and which are in existence in other parts of the world. As most hon. members know I support that type of scheme, and I am well aware that most of the doctors, certainly the ones of my acquaintance, feel at the moment that such a scheme is undesirable. I would suggest to those doctors that the only way they will save themselves from this kind of scheme is by doing something about the general reputation of the profession as a whole in the country.
I cannot put my finger on all the reasons why this should be. It was startling to me as a school teacher in contact with quite a number of students who want to go to university when I discovered how few of them were any longer interested in being doctors or dentists. I tried to find out why they were no longer interested in going into these fields. The standard answer-I do not know whether it is the right one-is not a question of money at all. It has nothing to do with the fact that more and more doctors are becoming employees. It is always the length and the cost of the training rather than any worry or concern about the kind of money they will


be making later. If this is one of the fundamental reasons why the profession is no longer recruiting, then it seems to me that the profession should be prepared to make some very strong recommendations to some agency somewhere which will be effective in righting this situation.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that today the only way you can get young people to go into professions where further education is required beyond high school is to offer a very attractive set-up both in terms of scholarships and of-I was going to say easy courses, but I do not think it is that so much; the kind of course which is comparable in its length and toughness and difficulty with some of the other training carried out in universities.
This to me is the root problem of getting more people into the medical profession. As most hon. members know, the situation is much more serious in the dental profession than in the medical profession. We are getting to have a grave shortage of dentists, and most dentists are still very much more under a private enterprise set-up than are the doctors. I know the hon. member for Simcoe East is an employer of doctors, and as I understood an article I read recently, one third of the doctors in Canada are on salary rather than on an individual private enterprise basis.
This does not hold true as far as dentists are concerned. A very small percentage of dentists are employed; in the main they are self employed and in many ways comparable to lawyers and small business men. Yet it is a group which, as any one who looks at the income tax statistics can determine, is one of the higher income professional groups in Canada. Despite the fact that there is a good chance for individuality and working on their own as well as having a high income, the situation is not able to meet the challenge and in so many parts of Canada we are short of dentists.
The problems of recruitment in this field I think have to be part of the minister's concern, if not his responsibility; and if the professions themselves will not come up with answers, I think he has to try to find some of his own. All the medical schemes and dental schemes in the world, whether of the state or of the prepaid kind, are not going to be much good if we have not got the practitioners to work the schemes.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I hope I have said nothing which would hurt the minister's sensitivities as minister. I reiterate that I think every hon. member of the committee appreciates the friendly manner in which he carries out his duties.


Mr. Carter:: I should like to pay my word of tribute to the minister's department and his devoted staff, and to express my gratitude for the co-operation I have always received with respect to the problems I have brought before him. In particular I am very grateful for the assistance they gave and the interest they took in connection with the radiation problem which occurred in one of the mines in my area.
My purpose in intervening in this debate is twofold. First, I should like to support what the hon. member for Simcoe East had to say about disability pensions. There is no doubt that great progress is being made in achieving greater uniformity with respect to the administration of these pensions, yet there are still a large number of people who are subjected to unnecessary hardship because of the difficulty which arises out of the wording of the act, in particular the words which require a person to be "totally and permanently disabled".
In the light of the great advances which are being made almost every day in medical science these terms are no longer valid. In many cases what appears to be a permanent disability today may be curable tomorrow; what appears to be a total disability may be alleviated or reduced later on by new techniques, knowledge or appliances. Nevertheless, hardship exists as long as a person is disabled and prevented from earning his livelihood as a consequence.
I see no solution to this problem unless we change the wording of the act, or at least agree to place upon it an interpretation different from the one now being used. It seems to me that if a person has been disabled for six months and the best medical advice he can get agrees that he is likely to remain disabled for another six months, that should be regarded as total disability. There is no reason why such cases cannot be reviewed every year, or every two years, or even every three years. We have cases now where people have to remain in this state for years before they can get somebody to certify that they are totally and completely disabled.
The other problem I wish to draw to the attention of the minister is one which has to do with mental health. It seems to me that most of our efforts with respect to mental health have been directed toward the adult, and there is no doubt that great progress is being made not only in the direction of new drugs and new treatments but also with respect to the general attitude of the public toward mental illness.
The part of the problem which I emphasize today has to do with the children. I
Supply-Health and Welfare recognize at once the difficulty of this problem, because it ranges all the way from children who are slightly retarded to those who require custodial care. It seems to me that because this problem does flow over into the realm of education the federal government has tended to leave it to the provinces and to private groups. We know enough today to realize that the problem is too great to be handled properly in this way. It is too big to be handled by private groups, and in many cases it is beyond the resources of provincial governments. Even those provinces which in the past have been able to provide accommodation for these mentally ill children are being hard put to increase this kind of accommodation in accordance with the growing needs. In my own province we have no such accommodation at the present time, and we are finding it almost impossible to keep pace with the increase in the demand for expansion of present facilities, not to speak of being able to branch out in the direction of providing new facilities along the lines I have mentioned.
It seems to me that two things are necessary. First, we should have a complete survey made so as to know exactly how big this problem is. We should then find out not only how many children would fall into this class but how they can be divided into the different classifications. Once this is done I think it should be possible to work out some agreement with the provinces whereby those classifications which fall mainly into the realm of education can be treated on a basis different from those who require custodial care.
That is the field where I believe the federal government could take the initiative, and I would urge the minister to show the way in determining just how big the problem is, and in finding out just how many children require custodial care. I should like him also to take the lead in providing the necessary staff and accommodation for this latter group, because at the present time it is beyond the capacity of most of the provinces of Canada to do so.


Mr. Peters:: I should like to say a few words on this subject, some of them having to do with the Clark report, which was brought in sometime ago. I believe the Canadian people have been promised that pensions would be raised in keeping with their needs, though we as a government have found great difficulty in financing the increase we made in old age pensions on the last occasion we made improvements. We believe this old age pension should be at least $75 a month, and we are also of the opinion that
5310	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare it would obviate a great deal of difficulty if this were implemented under the present scheme.
I believe the government, when they set up the Clark commission, did so with the backing of the people in general who believed that an investigation of the pension schemes in other countries throughout the world, particularly in the United States and Britain, would be advantageous to the Canadian government in ascertaining how best to provide for the elderly citizens of Canada. One of the sad facts of political life is that though we set up commissions to investigate certain matters, and although these commissions come to conclusions with which we agree or disagree, it does not seem to make a great difference because nothing happens once the reports are presented. This is evidence of the fact that the government has given little consideration to the report. Upon receipt of a report the government should state why it cannot implement its recommendations.
I am sure the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet will agree that in 1957 they wanted to increase the old age pension even more. A pension higher than $55 is needed. The old age pension is contributory in a sense. It may be the sole pension which a Canadian receives or it may be supplementary to an industrial pension. In any event the old age pension has some effect on pension plans throughout the country. The old age pension is payable on the basis of citizenship and length of stay in Canada. It should be made portable in an industrial sense. There should be a national pension plan which a worker could take from job to job, province to province, industry to industry. At age 65 he should draw a pension equal in value to at least half of his wages. Such a plan could be easily introduced and would be in keeping with the recommendations of the government's own commission.
We have unemployed over 40 years of age who are not accepted in other lines of work because it is not actuarially sound to accept people of that age under many existing pension plans. I believe I heard someone say that this may make a difference in Quebec and there may well be some people in that province who would be interested today. Everyone, including politicians, should have an opportunity of retiring on a decent standard of living without having to accept jobs on the basis of political patronage.
I recently heard of a new excuse advanced by industry for not employing workers. I spoke to a young lady who is disillusioned about the slowness of her promotion in a large Canadian company. After some persuasion her boss told her that the company


got in trouble for hiring her. The reason was that she was over-weight and therefore a poor risk under the company's pension plan.
We are not asking the government to give our senior citizens something for nothing. They should be able to take their pension from job to job and find employment up to or beyond age 65. The pension would be contributory or compulsory. If it were a national pension plan the government would have to administer it. Such a plan would make money rather than lose it. This must be so or else insurance companies would not be involved in this business. Administrative costs would be slight. The minister could assist his colleagues especially those concerned with national housing and public works. Money would be available as a result of a national pension plan for use in making loans for home construction.
Canada is not poorer than other countries. The United States is not better off and in many respects is much poorer. Canada has national resources, an expanding population and challenging opportunities. If other countries can pay higher pensions and make more money available to the citizens than we can it must be because we are not using our resources to the best advantage. We should examine the recommendations of the Clark report and make more money available to our senior citizens. This will enhance industrial harmony because industrial disturbances are caused by pension plans as presently operating. People grow dissatisfied with their work but cannot change jobs without losing their pension rights. Workers could make more valuable contributions to society if a national portable pension plan was in effect.
The government should institute a superannuation plan to provide a fair and reasonable retirement fund in keeping with the earning power of an employee during his working years. The government could incorporate existing pension plans under a national scheme without disturbance to the plans now in operation.
We should examine the pension plan available to the hon. members of the House of Commons. Through the death of the provincial member of parliament in my riding it was brought to my attention that Ontario has a better plan than ours. I understand that at the last session of the Ontario legislature they amended their pension plan so that upon the death of a member his rights in that pension plan go to his wife as survivor insurance, and that consideration is given to his family.

It would seem that we in Ottawa are living in the horse and buggy days of long ago. It appears to me that our thinking is somewhat along the line of the old timer who said, "Let everybody worry about himself; I will worry about myself; I have been able to save a few bucks, I am looking after myself and to heck with everybody." This may be all right in some respects; it might have been all right in those days when it was possible to save. It seems to me that pensions in particular are one field in which we cannot look after ourselves any longer. Pensions we buy in the form of annuities and superannuation are very expensive and apply to a very limited number of people. The time has come when we should be able to devise much better systems of pensions for ourselves and for the Canadian people than we have at the present time.
We are not suggesting that we can finance this out of the present plan; we are not suggesting that at all. We are not only suggesting that the contributions and the amount paid be increased but also that there be a complete overhaul of the plan and a different method arrived at to supplement the contributions that it would be necessary to make for this type of plan. The government has an obligation to do this now. The old age pensioner should not be put in the position of having to wait for an election before he gets an increase in his old age pension.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, there are several groups of people in Canada who have no voice; they have no union and once in a while it becomes the honour of a private member like myself to stand up and espouse their cause. I speak of student nurses. This group is one of the neglected groups in all Canada. I say they have no effective voice. They do have a student nurses association in their own hospitals, which has no voice whatever. In fact if they stand up and say they should have a little pocket money, in some cases they are expelled.
The only one excuse for not paying these girls, as I understand it, is that the hospital believes that this would put out the lamp. Of course, they are referring to Florence Nightingale. Florence Nightingale was an English gentlewoman with considerable private means. She did light a lamp in nursing and it has not gone out yet. But there are literally hundreds of girls, the finest girls in Canada, serving long hours at what is at times a very disagreeable job, and I believe the highest rate of pay they get up to graduation is $12 a month. This may have been all right in the days when the R.C.M.P. rode across the plains on horseback for 50
Supply-Health and Welfare cents a day. But, as my hon. friend has just said, it is about time we got out of the horse and buggy days.
Those girls are giving a signal service to our people and are not being paid for it. I do not know why they should not be. The hospitals are hard pressed financially and the dominion government has come to the aid of the provinces and the hospitals during the last few years. I think we can do more and I think we shall have to earmark our help in this respect to make sure that it gets to the people whom we want to help, namely the student nurses. I speak with some authority because one of my daughters has just graduated. It is safe to bring this up because she has graduated and therefore we stand to gain nothing in our own family at the present time except that I have two more daughters. They may want to be nurses, but at the present time I can hardly recommend the training period to them on financial grounds.
I would suggest that perhaps a student nurse be given $12 pocket money during the first six months until she finds out whether she really wants to be a nurse. If she can stand the first six months in hospital she wants to be a nurse all right. I think we can afford to give her at least $1 a day to buy her nylons, or take herself to a moving picture so that she would not have to rely on a date with an intern. In the second year I suggest she is of more value and perhaps $45 a month might be a reasonable figure. In her graduating year, when she has already learned to be a nurse-she is just staying in hospital to pay for her first two years board I think $2 a day should be the minimum sum.
You will never get the nurses together; they are not unionized. You will never get them together in one body; they are too busy working. They have nobody speaking for them but I venture to say that everybody within earshot of my remarks has been in hospital and has been looked after by one of those wonderful girls. I think it was probably a shock to some hon. members to know that they did all that work for nothing. At the end of three years they are so fed up working for nothing, whether they admit it or not, that they rush off into marriage, they go south of the line or they quit nursing altogether.
There are no scholarships for nurses and yet they are our best young girls. A smart girl today in high school can qualify to go to university if she wishes without very much expense to herself. But if she wants to be a nurse she has to put in these three years of near slavery. This is a harsh word. I can call it nothing else.

Supply-Health and Welfare
There are a good many families in Canada who can no doubt afford to keep their daughters in nursing school for three years, but there are a great many more who cannot. Therefore I do not hesitate to stand up here today and start the ball rolling. I know that everybody who hears me will agree that this is a worthy cause. I expect the minister himself will be sympathetic to it. If we can rouse public opinion I think we will get a reform which is long overdue. I hope the minister and his department will carry the ball from here.


Mr. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to pay my public respects to the hon. member for Essex East on the occasion of his birthday anniversary today. I might point out that he is one day older than me but, of course, many years older in his experience in this particular department.
I should also like to mention that I could not agree more wholeheartedly with his remarks concerning the ex-deputy minister of welfare, Dr. Davidson. I should like to repeat what I said at a testimonial dinner which was held by the department for Dr. Davidson on the night of May 30, to which the hon. member for Essex East was invited but happened to be out of the country at that time. I then labelled Dr. Davidson Mr. Social Security of Canada. I think this is most appropriate, and I cannot speak too highly of his service to the department and to the country in this capacity in the past number of years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to thank all hon. members who have spoken on these estimates for their very helpful remarks. There are undoubtedly some things I shall mention as I go along. I cannot cover all the items, but I should like to point out that in his remarks the hon. member for Essex East indicated that he wondered why I had not commented on certain remarks by officials and ministers in other spheres of government.
I do not believe that this is my particular obligation at the moment. I feel that all these items, such as portable pensions which many hon. members have mentioned, and with which I have some sympathy; the study of the Clark report which has been under way in my own department and is in the hands of a very competent committee in the department, are receiving study in one bundle, one might say. This includes the presentation of the Canadian welfare council which we have received for the past two or three years and which was particularly spoken to by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Other hon. members mentioned it as

well. Here again, these representations have been given close study and are being given a tied-in close-up look.
I believe the hon. member for Essex East asked what I might think about medical insurance. My remarks to the estimates committee on that subject are contained on page 13 of my brief, I am not sure of the actual page in the committee report. However, I am sure they cover the picture completely. Pages 31 to 41, by the way, of the same brief cover some of the problems and difficult considerations that have been gone into in connection with the Clark report.
The hon. member for Timmins spoke about the Saskatchewan medical plan. It seemed to me that there were other members of his party who mentioned this subject and who seemed to be fighting the Saskatchewan election over again.


William Arnold Peters: It was not necessary.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That was what I thought. I was just a little concerned about one intimation the hon. member for Timmins gave. Perhaps I am wrong, but I gathered that he might possibly do away with all charitable organizations, all voluntary organizations.
The hon. member for Jasper-Edson spoke, and I should like to thank him for his kind words concerning the operation of the hospital plan. There certainly are wrinkles still to be ironed out; we do not deny this. As I pointed out when we were before the estimates committee, there are certain possibilities under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act of which full advantage is not being taken. I was interested in his remarks concerning deterrent charges. I would just repeat one sentence from my opening remarks to this committee. It was to this effect: As to whether or not this type of co-insurance charge under a hospital insurance program has any deterrent effect, the department will be pleased to review the subject with the provinces concerned. This is just one of the aspects of the hospital insurance program which are being reviewed all the time.
The hon. member for Welland returned to his favorite topic. I would point out that actually there is a study being conducted in Ontario of fluoridation. I shall be interested in the report when it is forthcoming.
The hon. member for Lambton-Kent and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard spoke at some length about physical fitness. I certainly will be glad to examine the remarks of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent in greater detail. I know he has given a great deal of study to this important problem, as has the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.

Other hon. members, I believe, also mentioned the possibility of a Canada sports council. Incidentally I might say that I saw the pictures to which the hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent referred at close range, and I think in some 30 years he has only varied in weight by something like one pound. I would not suggest that would apply to me.
The hon. member for Assiniboia suggested giving increases in practically everything, and again I gathered he was refighting the Saskatchewan election. I would suggest that we have lived up to our undertakings in the social welfare field.
There was a return requested by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, which I think is somewhat self-explanatory. The question was:
Has there been an Increase in social security payments between the fiscal years 1956-57 and 1958-59? If so, how much?
Then under No. 2 he asks:
How much of such increase is attributable to
(a)	an increase in the number of recipients, and
(b)	legislation enacted before June 21, 1957, and
(c)	legislation enacted since June 21, 1957?
Under (c) I should like to point out that old age security has increased approximately $91 million as a result of legislation passed since June 21, 1957; old age assistance by $5,900,000; blindness allowances by $775,000; disability allowances by $4,900,000. Also under unemployment assistance the estimate in the return is approximately $250,000 monthly. Then, hospital insurance and general health grants, the amount paid as a result of legislation permitting the provinces to start their schemes on July 1, 1958 meant that there was an expenditure of $54,708,474 in 1958-59. Incidentally the change in the hospital construction grants resulted in an increase of $5 million. This is a small indication of the increases between 1956-57 and 1958-59 as a result of legislation passed following June 21, 1957.
The hon. member for York South had a very interesting suggestion that the department make grants toward housing for elderly people. I think possibly this would be better dealt with by the Department of Public Works because these loans are made through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The hon. member for Kootenay West certainly made quite a philosophical dissertation. I was very interested in some of his remarks concerning some of his personal problems and his ability to give very sound advice.
The hon. member for Calgary South, I think, rebutted the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Arthur who claimed that the hon. member had been making a rebuttal of my rebuttal. In other works, I think the hon.
Supply-Health and Welfare member for Calgary South was really making a rebuttal of the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur rather than of mine. I can only thank the hon. member for Calgary South for making the explanation he made and setting forth the simple fact that the department-myself as minister and the officials of the department-do not differ with the committee fundamentally in their findings but more in the way of approach in that we felt there were certain things which might appear to be interfering with what have always been considered to be provincial rights. We are always here, of course, to give advice and financial assistance in many areas. I should like to repeat what I said in my opening remarks, namely that we will keep a continuous review under way of our informational division.
Many hon. members have mentioned the problem of the blind and the disabled. These are under constant consideration. Last October, I think it was, we had a meeting with provincial ministers of welfare with a view to bringing up to date the regulations concerning these various assistance acts. These changes in regulation have been made through the justice department and have been agreed to by the provinces at this stage.
The hon. member for Quebec West mentioned several problems. I should like to thank him for his remarks concerning the World Health Organization and its extremely important work. He might be interested to know that the membership has now risen to 101 countries.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam speaks, as always, after having given considerable thought to matters. I should like to thank him for his remarks concerning myself and the members of my department. He recommended the consolidation of all of our assistance acts. I recognize the problems in this particular matter and certainly will view his remarks with interest.
I would point out that, as he mentioned, the federal government has definitely offered to share the costs of constructing chronic hospitals on a per bed basis, the same as with any other hospital and also in the hospitalization of the chronically ill. All that would be needed to have the province of British Columbia have us share in this particular, namely in the hospitalization of the chronically ill, would be simply a request to amend the schedule of hospitals which would benefit from the act.
One item on which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam requested information was the exchange of research information with countries behind the iron curtain. Last March we had two representatives from
5314	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare Canada in Russia in order to view the use of live polio vaccine in that country. That is one instance.
The hon. member for Saskatoon was interested in poison control or labelling. I should like to mention something about the poison control program in Canada. This program is established for the emergency treatment of children and others accidentally poisoned with household products including medicines. The food and drug director of my department has collected information about the potentially dangerous constituents of substances such as cleaners, soaps, fuels, paints, waxes and polishes often found in the home. This information and the composition of household medicines has been tabulated on cards. Incidentally, information on the methods for treating poisoning from the products listed was also put on cards. In 1957 sets of these cards were sent to provincial deputy ministers of health who selected the hospitals where poison control centres were established in the provinces. These centres used the information supplied by the department and have facilities and staff present at all times for the treatment of poison cases.
I should like to mention one or two statistics in order to point up what, in my estimation, is the root of this trouble. Having raised three children, at least to varying degrees of maturity, I know the problem involved. Up to April, 1960, 8,826 accidental poisonings have been reported, of which 56 per cent were due to medicines and 44 per cent were due to household chemicals. Almost all of these poisonings were of children under four years of age. I would point out that there are actually more than 170 poison control centres in Canada at the moment. I cannot help feeling that one of the gravest problems is simply ordinary care in keeping dangerous medicines and chemicals out of reach, in view of the fact that almost all of these 8,826 poisonings were of children under four years of age.
The hon. member for Middlesex East was worried about the reported increase of 10 per cent in hospital insurance premiums. I would point out that this is a provincial problem in that they decide how to collect their share of hospital expenses or operational costs. Whether it is done by current revenue -general taxes or sales taxes-or a general hospital tax or by premiums, the matter is up to the province. I must not leave the impression that we are not concerned with the increase in hospital costs. We are concerned, but these costs have been going up over the years.
I think the hon. member for Simcoe East gave a fairly direct answer in this respect.


I think it lies in the simple fact mentioned by the hon. member, namely that in 1920 there were no pediatric wings in Canada. Today's modern pediatric wings in many hospitals-possibly in practically all of them- indicate the great progress we have made. We cannot do this without some increased costs. Statistics indicate that the cost of operating hospitals had actually been increasing at something of the rate of ten per cent a year before hospital insurance came into effect.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo thanked the department for its assistance in the St. Lawrence mine radiation problem and I would like to acknowledge that appreciation. He is also concerned with the disability pension and the mental health problem, and he mentioned the education of mental children. I would like to point out that the William Anderson school for retarded children in Galt is the first new experimental school in this particular category, and I understand that as of this morning it has been indicated that property has been purchased for the extension of this project so that it will include students over 18. This is being done incidentally by private endeavour and the Kinsmen's club of Galt.
The hon. member for Timiskaming mentioned the portable pensions in which I said I have great interest. The matter of the members' pension I think is one for finance, not one which comes within the sphere of my department.
Mr. Chairman, undoubtedly I have not answered all of the questions of hon. members who have spoken, but I do feel that most of them spoke with the thought in mind of assisting the department and offering suggestions. We heartily accept these suggestions and will study them very closely. Again I would like to thank the committee and hon. members for the helpful suggestions which have been made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
Health services, including assistance to the
provinces-
243. Administration, $367,444.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the minister for his good wishes, and in anticipation of his anniversary tomorrow I would like to extend to him, and I think I speak for all hon. members of this committee at the moment, our very best wishes.
The minister has replied to a number of questions in the statement he has just made to which I directed his attention when I spoke briefly yesterday, but he has not answered

all the questions. It may be he is reserving some of them for some particular items as we come to them.
On this particular item of administration of the health services, which includes assistance to the provinces, there are a number of matters I would like to raise at this time. In the first place, the minister might give some indication of when the department will move into new and more permanent quarters. We would be interested in knowing what progress has been made with regard to planning and actual construction of the new administration headquarters in Tunney's Pasture.
The hon. member for Calgary South in his statement, a statement which had more than unusual importance because he spoke not only as a member of this house but as chairman of the committee on estimates, dealt with a number of points and indicated that while the objective of the recommendations made by the committee and the minister were the same, the methods to be pursued in the realization of those objectives were different.
One of the matters that the hon. member for Calgary South mentioned was the question of the shortage of hospital beds at the present time. The administration of the hospital insurance act requires for efficient operation the availability of the maximum number of beds, and while a great deal of preparation was made between 1948, when the national health program was announced and the passage of the hospital insurance act, in assisting the provinces in reducing then-bed shortage, it was never anticipated that those efforts could possibly succeed to the full in meeting the requirements.
I mention that because I want to indicate to the minister that I am not attributing any blame to the Department of National Health and Welfare for this situation. Nor am I blaming anyone, because I have in mind the tremendous strides which have been made in hospital construction over the past decade and a half in this country, the great contributions that have been made by governments on all levels, by voluntary organizations, individuals, nursing groups, the medical profession and so on. We have no reason to be ashamed at the results of this co-operative effort.
However, if I understood the minister correctly he took the position that the matter of a national survey of hospital bed capacity and of hospital bed needs was something that he did not feel could be initiated by the federal government. I agree with him that the direct responsibility is one for the provincial governments; but under the national health program it would seem to me that it
Supply-Health and Welfare would be open to the federal government to provide the necessary financial assistance which would make possible such a survey. Certainly such a survey of the national need at the moment is one that could not be accomplished by any provincial government except by a provincial government within the territories of that government. But what is needed is not only an assessment of provincial needs but an assessment of the situation in the light of the national interest.
It will be remembered that when the national health program was embarked upon in 1948 there was provided for at once the sum of some $600,000 which was to be expended by the federal government in cooperation with the provinces and which was provided for entirely out of the taxpayers' resources on recommendations of federal government policy for the purpose of making health survey grants to assist the provinces in assessing their health needs and finding ways and means in which they could be made. There was likewise provision made for what were then the eight annual grants to assist in the extension and development of provincial health services; and finally the annual grant to assist in hospital construction, the increase of which was provided for by the present government two years ago.
That survey is still available and undoubtedly the minister has examined and studied its contents. I would think that from that survey, which was exhaustive, it ought to be possible to draw certain deductions, not only as to provincial needs but indeed as to local needs of common bed capacity requirements. It is open to the minister, out of the $42 million now being voted, to provide funds which would make possible a survey and assessment of the hospital beds required throughout Canada.
I suggest to the minister that he give this matter further consideration to determine whether or not the provinces could be assisted in this way, and thereby run more efficiently the hospital insurance program which, as he said, is generally speaking, operating very efficiently now in all the provinces of Canada which have adopted the scheme. As the minister has said, there are, of course, some problems to be ironed out. It was to be expected that a scheme of such gigantic proportions would present difficulty from time to time, but looking back in retrospect and looking at the situation as it is today I think we have reason to be satisfied with the very satisfactory way in which, generally speaking, these schemes are operating.
Now I should like to ask the minister a further question, and I do this only because I am anxious to see hospital insurance extended in the one area where it is not now
5316	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare available. I am thinking of the declared position of the premier designate of the province of Quebec with regard to hospital insurance. I hope the minister will lose no opportunity of seeing to it that his officials and, if necessary, he himself take every occasion to present to the new administration, if and when that is effective, the federal government's material in this regard so that in accordance with the wishes of the new government and of the people of that province, which must of course be the governing factor, there may be no delay in implementing for that province a program which we know to be so beneficial to the people in those provinces who are now able to take advantage of a hospital insurance scheme, and so that the province of Quebec can take advantage of a scheme to which its taxpayers, in so far as the federal contribution for existing schemes is concerned, may utilize these benefits.
I simply want to make one more statement with regard to this matter. I outlined our position on the subject of prepaid medical care. All the parties in this house on this side have taken their positions with regard to this important matter; a matter which, I think, will increasingly engage the attention of government and of the public generally. The minister referred to the statement he made on this subject in the estimates committee. As a member of that committee I recall that statement, but it seems to me it was of such importance that it ought to be made in this house where other hon. members who were not members of that committee would have the opportunity of learning the position of the government and, if they felt so disposed, of interrogating the government with regard to it.
For my part I regard the government's policy in this particular as unsatisfactory and as not giving the kind of leadership which I think a matter of such great importance requires. The initiative, I recognize at once, is a matter, as the minister said, for the provinces themselves. Under our constitutional arrangements that is an essential requirement. We cannot develop these schemes in a country like ours, which is based on the principles of federation and confederation, unless we recognize the division of jurisdiction. The federal government cannot do these things alone, and it seems to me it would be difficult for the provinces to do these things alone. But together, I am sure, the two senior levels of government can do something to deal with the problem of medical care in this country on a responsible basis, a basis that will recognize, as several medical doctors who are hon. members of this house have said, the principle of the traditional doctor-patient relationship, the principle of


free choice of doctor and the other principles which I believe at the moment are not in issue here. Those freedoms must be preserved.
(Translation):
I quite agree with the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Bissonnette) that there should be no restriction whatever of a patient's freedom to choose his own doctor, nor any attempt to impede the medical profession in the pursuit of its calling.
(Text):
I believe that this freedom of choice in so far as the declared positions of the parties are concerned is not actually in doubt. But we do have to face this point, and in facing it I want to say that I agree with those doctors who have spoken, that the medical profession, while it may have its point of view in this regard, and one must respect it-and I note with interest what the hon. member for Jasper-Edson had to say on this subject-I want to say that while I feel strongly on this subject, and while I feel that the basic consideration is the public interest and that we must see to it that Canadians are not denied the best medical care because of financial incapacity, I do not want anyone to think that by recommending prepaid medical schemes I was in any way reflecting on the medical profession.
But there have been suggestions here about the doctors, and I can only say that my own experience over 11 years is that Canada has every reason to be proud of the over-all objectives and contributions of the Canadian medical profession. We need only think of the work of the general practitioners and others -the family doctor, the man with the black bag-to realize this debt. I do not think we should allow an occasion like this to pass without-not rising to every incident requiring their defence-recognizing, as we should, the public service, the contribution, which the medical profession and other health workers make in our country.


Murdo William Martin: I can recall last year that when questioned about the hospital insurance plan the minister stated that a considerable number of bugs had developed in the administration of these plans and I wonder if the minister could say what progress has been made to overcoming these difficulties.


Jay Waldo Monteith: To answer the hon. member for Timmins first, I do recall intimating at that time that there were certain bugs, as he suggested, in the scheme but I think good progress is being made in ironing them out. A meeting is held twice a year of the advisory committee on hospital insurance and diagnostic services to consider

everything which has been happening in the intervening six months. The problems which have developed are brought to the attention of that committee and eventually to the attention of myself and the provincial ministers, and we believe great progress has been made in ironing them out. No doubt there is still the odd individual case which comes to mind. I do believe, however, that the provinces themselves are also trying their best to iron out these problems.
The hon. member for Essex East asked at what stage is the administration building. I am happy to say the drawing board stage is almost complete and we hope to get along with construction quite rapidly. I will be pressing the Department of Public Works in that respect.
The hon. gentleman also referred to grants to provinces for technical advice. As I pointed out in my earlier remarks, this is now done and as a part of the technical assistance to the provinces the research division has assisted in health surveys. At the present time the director is acting as a consultant to the government of Manitoba in connection with its survey of hospital facilities and personnel.
I have not as yet today received a wire from the premier designate of Quebec concerning hospital insurance but whenever I hear from him I shall be pleased, of course, to enter into negotiations. With respect to medical insurance I would refer the hon. member for Essex East to the comments I made in my earlier statement which is in the record of the proceedings of the committee. I do not feel it is necessary to repeat those remarks here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health services, including assistance to the
provinces-
532. Laboratory and advisory services-further amount required, $125,479.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, would the minister give us the details of this item.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, this is an amount for the work undertaken by the department on behalf of a resolution by the United Nations concerning the analysis in Canada of fall-out samples from all around the world.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a matter of very considerable importance. It is one, of course, that concerns not only the Department of National Health and Welfare but also the Department of External Affairs and arises out of the initiative taken by Canada at the last assembly of the United Nations. We know from a report made to the house during the course of the present session by
Supply

Health and Welfare the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the hon. gentleman had gone down to the United Nations to see if he could not ascertain why more progress had not been made in the co-operative effort pledged by other member states in the United Nations toward this objective.
Could the minister tell us something about the progress that has been made in Canada itself? New testing stations have been set up to measure more accurately and comprehensively the levels of radioactivity. Could the minister also tell us what progress has been made in getting other countries, pursuant to their commitment at the last assembly, to carry out their share of this effort on a world scale so that we can determine whether or not the levels of radioactivity are continuing? This is a matter which in the future may be of first importance.
We are told by the minister and by other ministers of health that there has been no appreciable increase through nuclear tests in the amount of radioactivity that would add to the sources of human danger and the like but the only way in which we can have a reasonable certainty about this is by making sure that our instruments of assessment are as effective and as accurate as we know how to make them. I would hope that the minister could give us some details along the lines I have asked.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member can rest assured that the equipment to be used in making these tests will be the best available. There is no doubt in the world about that. I wish to say that we consider our radiation division is one of the best in the world in the field of testing.
I agree with the hon. member that this matter is of first importance. The question of communications with foreign countries is actually in the hands of the Department of External Affairs. I understand there are negotiations going on with two countries at the moment but until they are completed I think perhaps I should not name them. This is really a responsibility of the Department of External Affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree that it is, Mr. Chairman, but I am sure the minister will appreciate that our own assessment cannot be effective unless other countries are also cooperating. We cannot hope to create in Canada a wall against the danger of radioactivity unless there is world-wide co-operation. However, I will not press the point any further except to ask the minister if he can tell us how many testing stations there are now in the country. I know that our equipment is as up
5318	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare to date and as good as that of any country. I am also aware that we have taken a lead in this field by our participation in the original 12 state committee at the United Nations and in the work of our own medical scientists in the Department of National Health and Welfare. I believe, however, that the people of Canada would like to know how many new stations there are in the country and what is the total.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, there were originally 15 stations set up to collect monthly samples of milk powder for analysis in our laboratories here in Ottawa. More recently a second network of 24 stations has come into operation for the collection and subsequent testing of air, rainfall and soil.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the department yet decided upon the increase in the permissible levels of strontium-90 pursuant to the initiative taken by the United States in that regard?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the new report will be available within two weeks. Actually the departmental report for January to March, 1960 will be available on Monday. That will give the complete picture. I believe that fairly recently I answered a similar question by the hon. member for Trinity and perhaps also the hon. member for Essex East concerning the permissible level having been decreased from 98 to 79 or some figure in that neighbourhood as a result of the study.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
246. To authorize general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $63,591,941, $42,000,000.
Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct two questions to the minister under this item but before doing so I wish to associate myself with the expressions of commendation the minister has received for the fine way he is administering his department. I also wish to compliment the hon. gentleman on the splendid outline he presented of the operations of his department and on the many answers he has already given to questions asked by hon. members of this committee.
I do not think proper acknowledgement or credit is being given to the minister, to his department or to the federal government with respect to the financial assistance in various


health programs being given to my own province of Saskatchewan and to the other provinces.
In order to direct more attention to the federal health and welfare contributions to Saskatchewan and to the other provinces, I should like some detailed information from the minister under item 246, and other items coming before this committee. Item 246 refers to health grants to the provinces. On page 339 of the blue book details of the item show, for Saskatchewan, "Hospital construction grant, $1,857,967." Then, there is another item listed as "Other health grants, $1,875,046." I hope the minister will outline what is covered under this heading of "Other health grants".
Under the same item, but with a separate vote of federal money, are listed what are known as contributions to provinces under agreements entered into pursuant to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. When the minister answers my first question in regard to health services will he also inform this committee what federal contribution was made to Saskatchewan this fiscal year under the hospital insurance act. Will he also indicate whether this federal contribution goes directly toward helping to pay the cost of Saskatchewan's hospital plan which last year cost a little over $31 million? In this regard I might point out that the hon. member for Assiniboia made no mention of federal financial help to Saskatchewan's proposed hospital and medical plan when he spoke in the committee yesterday. I presume he was speaking officially for his party in Saskatchewan when he said, as reported in Hansard of June 22 at page 5266:
-by an annual payment of some $70 or $75 a whole family would have their hospitalization and medical care covered.
As I said, I presume we can take this as an official party statement as to the annual cost of the direct compulsory payment. The hon. member for Assiniboia went on to say that the remainder of the cost will be raised from general revenues within the province. I should like to emphasize the statement. He said that the remainder of the cost will be raised from general revenues within the province. To go back to my question, will the minister outline what federal payments are being made to the Saskatchewan government under the two parts of item 246? To what extent is the federal government helping to pay the cost of the Saskatchewan hospital plan?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre mentioned the hospital construction grant, estimated for 1960-61

as $1,857,967. The breakdown of the $1,875,046 of other health grants is as follows: General public health, $744,881; tuberculosis control, $151,035; mental health, $464,936; professional training, $94,856; cancer control, $185,656; medical rehabilitation and crippled children grants, $140,406; child and maternal health, $93,276.
If the hon. member will turn back to page 338 of the blue book he will see that the first item is labelled "General public health grant". This is not specifically allocated to provinces, but it is to be used in support of research projects sponsored by one or more provinces, and in this instance some might be going there.
To answer the second question, for the fiscal year 1959-60 the federal government paid $13,152,145.37 to the province of Saskatchewan for Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act purposes.


James Ernest Pascoe: Does the minister have any indication of the payment for this fiscal year?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I cannot give that at the moment.


Mr. Rogers:: Will the minister give the committee the same information on Alberta?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Can we table that, Mr. Chairman? Is that agreeable to the hon. member?


The Deputy Chairman:: I understand the minister wishes to insert something in Hansard'?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I will have to do a little searching to get the figures.


Murdo William Martin: Would it be possible for the minister to give us the information for all the provinces? I am sure it would be interesting.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes; I shall be glad to get this information for all the provinces.


Charles Edward Rea: Do I understand that the minister wishes to table it or put it in Hansard?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am in your hands. How can I get it in Hansard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I make a suggestion to the minister. If he inserts in Hansard the detailed plans pursuant to the question which was properly asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre I am sure that Hansard would be considerably increased in the number of pages, not that the information is not desirable. It is available through another medium. Does the minister not have a composite table showing the totals for each province, and that certainly would not be an unnecessary encumbrance.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is the type of thing I was going to suggest. I suggest we produce a table for all the provinces, but I am in the chairman's hands because I do not have it with me at the moment. I am in your hands, sir, as to how I get it on record.


Charles Edward Rea: Unfortunately, we cannot table anything in committee. The only thing we can do is print it in Hansard. Perhaps the minister might make a request tomorrow to put it in Hansard, or table it when the house sits tomorrow.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes. I think that this can be ready later today and it could possibly be printed in today's Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The question asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was a valuable one because one forgets that considerable sums of money are being provided by the federal government out of moneys made available by the taxpayers and passed over to the various provinces to assist them in carrying out their health services. The response to the question of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre will reveal the extent to which this is being done in this current year in the province of Saskatchewan, and the table to be produced will show the extent to which it has been done in all of the provinces. That has been going on now since 1948 when the national health program was announced in May of that year. It is important to realize that when the health grants were announced it was said by the prime minister of that time that this departure on the part of the federal government was a prerequisite to the establishment of health insurance in Canada. These grants were being made available for the purpose of preparing for the ultimate realization of health insurance in Canada, so that we would have the necessary facilities, hospital beds, the necessary personnel and the like. That is the purpose of this particular grant.
I asked the minister yesterday what was the policy of the government of Canada with regard to the only announced pre-medical care program in Canada, namely that in Saskatchewan. If and when the government of that province embarks upon this scheme of medical care, what is to be the policy of the government of Canada with regard to providing financial assistance? Has a policy been formulated? The minister has not replied to that. Of course, if he says that the policy is to be announced by the government in due course that will be a reply which we are obliged, under our usages, to accept. I repeat it because it is a matter of some importance. The reply will be noted by other

Supply-Health and Welfare provinces as well, and it will be an encouragement or discouragement depending upon what is the reply.
With regard to the answer given by the minister to the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, this much is clear: The province of Saskatchewan has been assisted to some extent in the consideration, not only of its hospital insurance program which frankly it brought into being before there was any action taken by the federal government, and the province will be assisted, perhaps in a way that is not easy to detect, in the consideration by the government of that province of its proposed medical care program. Now, I suggest that is an important fact to remember.
I should like to ask a question of the minister based on the suggestion made by the hon. member for Athabasca, with regard to student nurses' assistance. I think we all appreciate the problem which he has outlined. It is not a problem which has arisen since the present minister has been in office, but it is a problem that has existed for some time. We all appreciate the sacrifice that has to be made by parents in providing for the training of their daughters in this particular field, as well as in the provision of a university education for their children. The minister might possibly give us some more detailed information in reply to the hon. member's observations.
In considering this particular question, I should like to know how many new nurses training schools have been built. There was one at the Western hospital in Toronto; there was one at the Metropolitan hospital in Windsor, and I think there was one in Alberta. Assistance was given to these schemes, which were pilot schemes in order to assist in assisting and rationalizing the nurses training. That represented a considerable measure of assistance, not directly in the way the hon. member for Athabasca had in mind, but assistance of some sort by the federal exchequer. I noted that the day before yesterday in Toronto there was an announcement made by the nurses-I do not know whether it was the nurses of Ontario or the nurses of Canada, but I suspect the latter-to the effect that they proposed to set up a college training establishment of their own. In addition, they have been given by the province of Ontario adequate power over nurse training, somewhat similar to the control that is exercised under provincial statutes over the medical profession and the dental profession. These are all steps which, while they may not meet what the hon. member had in mind, are in that direction and which seek to emphasize the importance of the problem which he has raised.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We do not have any information available at the moment concerning the number of nurses schools, as requested by the hon. member. He did refer to the one at Toronto, and that information will be obtained.
I may say, however, that I have these figures available now and I can give them to the Hansard reporter to be inserted in the record. I refer to the figures concerning the distribution of general health grants as between the provinces and territories, and also the payments for 1959-60 under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. I should like to point out that the latter are advance payments, and that the final payments have not been made.


Charles Edward Rea: Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, does the committee give unanimous consent to put these tables on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables referred to are as follows on pp. 5321 and 5322:]


Murdo William Martin: Before the vote carries, there is just a minor point to which I should like to refer. Both the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and the hon. member for Essex East made reference to the federal grants to the provinces of Saskatchewan. One might think that there were special grants given to the province of Saskatchewan, and I should like the minister to clear up that point if he could. The grants given to the province are no more and no less than those given to all the other provinces.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, it is the same principle.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I notice that the amount estimated for the health branch last year was $46 million and this year it is estimated at $42 million. Before putting my next question, perhaps the minister will jog my memory by telling me how much he would be authorized to request for the fiscal year?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The commitment authority for the fiscal period is $63,591,941. The commitment which is not expected to be spent amounts to $21,591,941, leaving what we estimate to be spent, $42 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At a time when there have been various suggestions made in this house about various health problems that remain to be solved, and of course which will continue to confront us in one form or another in the days to come, it does seem to me that the minister owes the committee



ADVANCE PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act-1959-1960
Date	B.C.	Alta.	Sask.	Man.	Ont.	N.B.	N.S.	P.E.I.	Newfoundland$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$April	.. 1,588,466.00	1,357,530.02	1,027,630.22	971,338.76	5,876,078.72	-	686,907.97	-	375,439.40May	.. 1,497,069.79	1,394,143.01	1,040,886.59	865,760.90	6,668,811.10	-	606,166.54	-	356,306.66June	.. 1,537,872.59	1,330,926.07	1,110,263.05	906,705.28	5,849,878.56	-	780,198.72	-	336,675.08July	.. 1,667,397.18	1,236,748.58	1,066,255.97	960,282.41	5,878,939.40	409,999.04	632,399.88	-	405,333.36August	.. 1,693,452.82	1,162,032.52	1,000,475.02	1,024,531.70	5,766,024.11	461,666 17	663,234.39	-	359,325.84September	.. 1,599,649.04	1,163,838.83	1,076,682.17	929,567.91	5,681,813.85	474,588.92	648,341.33	-	384,135.44October	.. 1,587,574.38	1,138,501.45	1,106,439.01	966,172.03	5,625,628.29	509,724.57	640,091.69	61,410.32	379,637.74November	.. 1,584,417.30	1,170,507.73	1,096,155.39	933,712.03	5,622,847.77	558,708.80	656,282.88	68,667.07	377,997.52December	.. 1,677,246.58	1,450,280.50	1,361,307.07	928,028.13	6,166,475.36	565,040.02	585,780.72	76,709.72	376,038.99January	.. 1,673,732.12	1,207,445.58	1,055,872.91	990,876.24	5,787,166.90	552,934.85	778,011.80	79,211.47	384,274.63 'February	.. 1,674,419.60	1,217,330.05	1,063,916.81	906,044.19	6,473,525.49	534,978.03	736,978.97	79,923.10	389,845.51March	.. 2,095,886.10	1,191,142.84	1,086,261.16	941,446.77	6,495,644.11	507,734.50	748,145.89	81,416.59	436,589.04TOTAL...	.. 19,877,183.50	15,020,427.18	13,152,145.37	11,324,466.35	71,892,833.66	4,575,374.90	8,162,540.78	447,338.27	4,561,599.21


[Stage Direction]
Supply-Health and Wei
[Stage Direction]

to
to

[Stage Direction]
Othek Health Grants
Province
Hospital
construction Professional	Mental
(a)	training	health
General
Tuberculosis	public
control	health
Medical
rehabilitation Child and Cancer and crippled maternal control	children	health	Total
Total
allotments
(M
Nfld....
[Stage Direction]
N.S	
N.B	
Que	
Ont	
Man	
Sask....
Alta....
B.C	
N.W.T- Yukon- ALL..
1,401,919	52,240	243,993	164,678	395,900	97,439235,690	19,596	74,749	29,557	128,579	29,8642,033,443	77,358	374,218	146,292	601,591	149,4341,411,662	65,505	312,763	122,527	504,523	124,8974,971,858	480,284	2,463,183	1,275,068	3,901,120	983,5099,575,956	569,938	2,927,993	904,242	4,635,290	1,169,0961,285,813	93,257	456,645	180,662	731,784	182,3451,857,967	94,856	464,936	151,035	744,881	185,6561,361,175	126,936	631,253	210,975	1,007,580	252,0631,669,604	157,699	790,742	305,112	1,259,493	315,743132,336	4,034	15,389	6,085	26,472	6,14872,127	2,497	9,527	3,767	16,387	3,80626,009,550	1,744,200	8,765,391	3,500,000	13,953,600	3,500,000
74,914
24,747
113,515
95,299
732,727
870,507
137,948
140,406
189,706
236,982
5,095
3,154
2,625,000
71,576	1,100,740	2,502,65920,209	327,301	562,99177,046	1,539,454	3,572,89776,533	1,302,047	2,713,709569,945	10,405,836	15,377,694480,501	11,563,567	21,139,52389,597	1,872,238	3,158,05193,276	1,875,046	3,733,013126,413	2,544,926	3,906,101132,167	3,197,938	4,867,5424,161	67,384	199,7202,576	41,714	113,8411,750,000	35,838,191	61,847,741
cn
n
o
[Stage Direction]
o
[Stage Direction]
s
o
a
(A
(a)	Includes the following revotes: Revote for new projects $8,345,261_; First five year program $296,969.
(b)	Does not include public health research grant unallotted by province-$1,744,200.
March 2, 1960. Soubce: Joint Administrative Unit.
Supply-Health and Welfare

an explanation as to why the $21 million additional is not being made available, pursuant to the declaration of policy originally made in 1948 and confirmed by the present government. We do know that there are many problems requiring attention. The hon. member for Athabasca mentioned the question of nurses' assistance. We hear from time to time of the great need for further research into heart disease, and the like.
The minister and I were present one night in Ottawa when he spoke at a meeting of the Ottawa heart foundation, a branch of the national organization, whose purposes are designed to promote greater research into the greatest killer of all. Some provinces and some communities have through voluntary efforts provided funds for what is required in their communities, but not enough money is available in the country to make the kind of attack on heart disease which medical scientists believe should be undertaken. In view of the fact the minister has the power to ask for another $21 million, I think he ought to explain why he has not asked for this additional sum of money.
I know that the expenditure of these sums of money depends largely on the capacity of the provinces to utilize these funds. They must have the necessary personnel to make a wise and economic use of the moneys provided by the federal government. To the extent that the provinces are not prepared or are not adaptable to accept further assistance, that will be a satisfactory answer, as far as I am concerned. But in so far as certain voluntary organizations are concerned, such as the heart foundation, I believe a more comprehensive answer should be given by the minister.
For instance, are we satisfied that we have enough funds with which to deal with cancer? The Canadian cancer society are providing assistance out of these grants to the extent of $3,500,000, I believe. Is that enough to meet this research problem? If it is enough, is it possible to provide more money in order to bring the best possible cancer treatment within the reach of those in Canada who for one reason or another cannot get it? I merely mention these as samples of the kind of problem which yet requires attention and which could be met if the necessary funds were provided. There are funds available and it would be valuable, I think, for the minister to explain why they are not used.
Jay Waldo Monteith: I can assure the hon. member that the necessary funds are available as set out in the estimates. As he well knows, this difference between $63 million and $42 million is largely a carry-over and chiefly in the hospital construction grants, mainly
Supply-Health and Welfare because, while a commitment may be made this year, there may not be any payment at all until next year. There are three progress payments; one at 25 per cent, one at 50 per cent and then one at 75 per cent; and when the construction is completed the final 25 per cent. Hence there must be a large carryover from year to year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of that $21 million, what portion represents hospital construction commitments?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am told we might be able to work that out. But actually the $42 million, from past experience, is the estimate of what will be required finally this year. The other portion is simply open for determination, and may not be committed because the provinces may not request all their shareable grants.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian and northern health services-
247.	Operation and maintenance including grants to hospitals and other institutions which care for Indians and Eskimos, $21,362,102.
Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the program now for additional hospital construction for Indians and Eskimos in the current fiscal year?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The main program ahead is the building of the Charles Camsell hospital in Edmonton. As the hon. member is probably aware, this past year we completed the hospital at Inuvik. The Charles Camsell hospital is the next big project. There are, of course, smaller items of building going on all the time such as nursing stations, offices and so on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I note that there is an increase-and I am not criticizing it- in this vote of a little less than a million dollars as compared with the amount for last year. How much of this $21 million estimated for this year is going to be devoted to new construction?


Jay Waldo Monteith: New construction is covered by the next vote.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
248.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,786,600.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister give the answer to the question about new construction?


Jay Waldo Monteith: For new construction during the current period, $702,800.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Health and Welfare
249.	Medical advisory, diagnostic, and treatment services, $3,863,807.
Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi):: What does this vote deal with exactly? Does it cover any of the diagnostic services provided for under hospital insurance or are they only dealt with in a statutory way? My memory does not serve me at the moment and I forget precisely what they are for.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This vote covers principal medical officer, medical advisory service, quarantine and leprosy examination, medical and sick mariner service, civil service health and civil aviation medicine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The diagnostic reference I suppose is for the personnel that advise on the diagnostic services grant.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No; on immigration, I am told.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
250.	Administration of the Food and Drugs and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Acts, $1,984,777.
Mr. McCleave:: Carried.


Mr. Howard:: I note that I provoke an automatic reflex in the hon. member for Halifax whenever I rise. I want to assure him that this is a matter which is of great concern to more than just the people in one particular province.
You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that last evening, under the administrative item I had some remarks to make with respect to the advertising approach used by the ethical drug industry in advertising its products to the medical profession. I should like to make one other reference to this matter before I make inquiry of the minister. I should like to point out that the drug manufacturers in many cases, or at least in one case of which I have knowledge, make use of so-called invisible physicians to prove the efficacy of their particular product. I should like to make reference to an article which appeared in the January 3, 1959 edition of Saturday Review, at pages 38, 39 and 40 of that particular edition. This has reference to an advertisement or a brochure produced by the Pfizer Laboratories, which is a division of Charles Pfizer and Company, a drug manufacturer in the United States, and has reference to a drug called sigmamycin. There is here on this particular page a reproduction of part of that particular advertisement. It is headed as follows:
Everyday .. . Everywhere . .. More and more physicians find sigmamycin the antibiotic therapy of choice.
Then it lists the names, addresses and telephone numbers of a number of specialists

who had made use of this particular drug and had endorsed it. The cards of four of them are reproduced here and reference to another four is made in name only. The four whose cards are reproduced are as follows:
Thomas Wright, M.D.
Eye, ear, nose and throat
And an address and phone number are given in Lowell, Massachusetts.
E. N. Stephens, M.D.,
Pediatrics
And a phone number, address and office hours are given. The address is Taylor street, Portland, Oregon.
Joseph Burns, M.D., internal medicine, 245 South 1st street, Miami, Fla.; Paul D. Friend, M.D., dermatology, 1345 Eastbourne avenue, Tucson, Arizona;
As I said before, there are others; a urologist, a general practitioner, a surgeon, just picking them out of the article. The article goes on:
The staff of SR/Research has tried to reach each of the eight individuals named. Telephone calls have been made, telegrams have been sent, and the following letter has been written;
"Dear Dr.-:
If you have published any of your clinical experiences with sigmamycin, I would appreciate your sending me the reference or preferably a reprint, if available.
Then reading further:
The telephone operators have reported all of the phone numbers to be false numbers, Western Union has reported inability to find such persons, and seven of the eight letters had been returned unclaimed by the post office-
Four of those letters are reproduced in photostat form which were returned unclaimed with various postal marks on them to indicate they were returned by the post office because the doctors to whom they were addressed could not be found. In fact they did not exist. Here is one indication only as shown by this particular article where Pfizer and Company, I say, attempt to mislead other doctors by indicating that some members of the medical profession, specialists, general practitioners and surgeons alike, had used and had endorsed it, had found that this particular drug was a good drug for the purpose for which it was to be used.
I also read other references yesterday from a paper by Professor Nickerson, professor of pharmacology and therapeutics at Manitoba university, which paper was co-authored by an associate professor of medicine whose name I have forgotten at this moment. The gist of Professor Nickerson's article was that perhaps we should have some form of control by a public authority such as the food and drug directorate over the type of advertising material that is prepared by these drug

manufacturers and which is sent out to various medical doctors' offices across the country.
It is quite true that the reference I have just made to the Saturday Review concerns the United States and only makes mention of the names of each of the doctors who are supposed to have existed but in fact who did not exist. But it is also a fact Charles Pfizer and Company has a subsidiary which sells various pharmaceuticals in Canada.
I wonder if the minister would indicate what has been the experience of the food and drug directorate so far as checking the advertising material which drug manufacturers produce in the ethical trade compared with the type of checking and editing that is made of such food and drug advertisements directed to the consumer such as in the proprietary medicine field?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, the food and drug directorate do check on the advertising of patent medicines and preparations which are on the shelf or are sent through the mail or even sold on the streets, as well as advertisements concerning goods which may be ordered by mail, and that sort of thing. But we are not in a position due to staff shortage to concern ourselves particularly with the advertisements going to doctors. We feel they are possibly sufficiently knowledgeable to be aware of the situation. We are concerned with it but we just do not have the staff to do this at the time and we feel that our responsibility is to the public rather than to the medical profession.


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I just follow that up. I believe this is probably the reason why there were no checks by public authorities of the correctness or otherwise of brochures and advertising material for the ethical drugs which were directed to doctors, because doctors themselves are sufficiently trained and knowledgeable with regard to the intricacies of the field of medicine and would be able to determine whether any advertisement was incorrect or otherwise. Therefore they could disregard the advertisements which were not correct and only use those drugs which had been clinically tested and proved to be safe.
Of course I am not casting any reflection whatsoever on the medical profession. However, I have spoken with four or five medical men in the city of Ottawa and with one who is a member of this house and they all say that they are virtually swamped with advertising material. I have heard estimates ranging from 300 pieces of literature a year
Supply-Health and Welfare to perhaps a thousand pieces a year which get into a doctor's office advertising particular medicines and things like that.
All the doctors I have spoken to in this city say that most of it is wasted. They are very selective and naturally will pick out that piece of advertising material relating to pharmaceuticals which they would use in the normal course of their practice and they discard that advertising material they would not normally use or which is new material about which they would rather have additional tests made to prove its efficacy. They all say there is far too much of it. It is far too sketchy and it is designed solely to leave the brand name of the product in the mind of the doctor. The initial advertising material makes very sketchy reference to the clinical tests given to a particular drug, and if the doctor is interested he can follow it up by consulting the detail man as he comes around or he can get the information himself.
I read into the record yesterday the results of a casual survey which had been conducted. The article I read did not give any indication as to exactly where this particular survey had been conducted, amongst how many doctors it had been conducted, or who had conducted it; but Professor Nickerson pointed out that the majority of the physicians who were contacted who were utilizing a new and effectively advertised analgesic did not know that it was simply the standard A.P.C., which is listed as acetyl-salicylic acid, in other words a well-known headache cure. Professor Nickerson pointed out that this had been advertised by the ethical drug industry as a new and effective analgesic, yet in fact it was something which had been on the market for many years, plus a little barbiturate.
The article pointed out that certain physicians did not know the composition of pharmaceuticals of certain types and that they ordered by a simple number of like designation. As a result, it continues, two patients died of intoxication because of the use of these preparations. One or two further references are made to similar incidents.
As I say, I have heard reference to the effect that this is an attempt to brainwash doctors. I have no remarks to make which are derogatory in any way of doctors themselves. I have the greatest admiration for the persons in the medical profession whom I have met. They have been people of extremely high calibre, solely concerned with the health and welfare of their patients. But I point out that some of the advertising which is directed toward these doctors is absolutely untrue, false and misleading, and I express the view very strongly that there should be some check against it.
5326	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare
If the ethical drug industry itself intends to persist in this sort of practice about which I read from the Saturday Review a while ago in which they pull out of thin air a list of eight doctors and state that these eight doctors have used a particular pharmaceutical and found it good, whereas in fact the eight doctors do not exist, it is obviously time that this false and misleading type of advertisement should not be allowed to continue. If the ethical drug industry-and, again,
I cannot understand how the word "ethical" got into it-is going to carry on this false and misleading advertising and if it is not prepared to put its own house in order, then some public authority will have to do it in order to ensure that in the final analysis the consumer is protected to the fullest possible extent and also that the doctor himself is protected against having his office invaded by false propaganda which misleadingly states a product to be something which it is not.
I know that the food and drug directorate may be overworked at the moment, but I do think steps should be taken at some time to ensure that the public of Canada are not left at the mercy of these misleading claims such as are made by Charles Pfizer and Company, not for the purpose of producing more effective drugs but for the purpose of racking up tremendous profits. There has to be some protection placed between such firms and the public.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to assure the hon. member that the public is protected in that respect right now.


Charles Benjamin Howard: How?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Because we check advertising.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The department checks all advertising that is mailed by the ethical drug manufacturers?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I indicated earlier that we do not check advertising sent to doctors' offices, but we do check advertising which appears before the public.


Charles Benjamin Howard: We are talking about the ethical drug industry, and this is an industry wihch produces drugs which are only sold on prescription. The great majority of the advertising of this industry is not directed to the consuming public; it is directed to the doctors, and I still say that outlets such as Charles Pfizer and Company about which I read from the Saturday Review-and I take the report to be correct, because I do not know of any libel action instigated by Pfizer against the Saturday Review-should be prevented from carrying on advertising of this type. In fact, we do not check this sort of


advertising by the ethical drug industry, and that is what I took to be the case from the minister's remarks.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On June 13 I directed a question to the minister on the orders of the day as to the possibility of lipstick colouring containing cancer-causing agents. The minister at that time replied in part that as far as the colouring now being put in lipstick was concerned there was no evidence that amounts normally absorbed into the system could create any risk to health.
Since that time I have read in a Washington dispatch that the food and drug administration in the United States was continuing to study this question because it suspected these cancer-causing agents, and on June 16 in Washington, according to a dispatch from that city, a decision to ban the use of 14 coal tar colours in lipsticks was announced by the United States government. Coal tar colours had been mentioned by the officials as a possible cause of certain types of cancer.
I suppose as a result of my question, which I asked on account of correspondence which I had received, there has been a greater interest aroused, and I have received further correspondence. I want to make it clear that I have no personal concern in this matter, because I am far beyond the age to indulge in osculatory exercises; I am doing this because persons have written to me and shown concern, not only about the colouring used in lipstick but also in respect to cosmetics imported from the United States such as hair dyes and nail polish which may or may not contain harmful ingredients which could produce toxic conditions in the human body over a period of time if used constantly.
My question to the minister is this: would he inform the committee what the division is doing to check on these substances which apparently are causing the food and drug division of the United States government some concern in order to make certain that the health of the Canadian people and, in this case, particularly of the ladies in whom I am sure we are all interested or at any rate maybe some of the younger hon. members are, is protected.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We are, of course, continuing to study this matter. Our regulations regarding colouring agents are very tight and very severely administered. As a consequence we are not worried about cosmetics in Canada. However, we are following the developments in the United States very closely.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That was the question I was about to ask. Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

251.	Administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, $247,081.
Paul Joseph James Martin: The annual report of the department with regard to narcotic control and the authority of the minister and the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act reminds us that there has been no marked trend either way in the number of addicts in Canada over the last five years. The last figure given is for 1958-I refer to page 94 of the department's annual report-and the number of drug addicts given for 1958 is 3,412, a slight increase over 1957 and a somewhat larger increase over 1956 but a reduction compared with 1955 and an increase of about 200 over 1954. This figure, however, represents much economic loss and much human suffering. In this country we must try to deal with this problem through the Criminal Code, through the operations of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act and through the health departments of the provinces. I rise at this time mainly to request the minister to comment on the problem as he sees it at the present time.
I note that there were 522 convictions registered under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act during the calendar year and that this represented 494 persons of whom 336 were male and 158 female. We are all aware of the great misfortune that attends those who are addicted to this practice but we in this country and in other countries have not yet succeeded in finding a formula that really meets the problem.
I have before me a report which appeared in the New York Times in the month of March in which the commissioner for drug control in the United States pointed out that in his judgment the heavier mandatory jail sentences for agents has resulted in a decline in narcotic usage and in what is called dope peddling in that country. It will be remembered that pursuant to the recommendations of a committee of the other house four years ago there was an increase provided in the terms of punishment which could be meted out by the courts in respect of those found guilty of a violation of the act. It would be interesting to know whether the minister subscribes to the view of the United States commissioner that as a result of the increase in the severity of jail sentences that are now open to those exercising judicial administration of this act there has been any decline in the usage of drugs or in the activities of peddlers in the manner suggested by the United States commissioner.
On several occasions during the past six months the Minister of Justice has made public declarations about his intentions in regard to this matter. The Minister of National Health and Welfare will recall the question 79951-0-336
Supply-Health and Welfare I put to him this session-I believe in the month of February-when I asked whether he regarded this matter as one that came within the responsibility of the Minister of Justice or as one coming within his own competence. I am not clear in my own mind at the moment what the reply was. I think it was to the effect that the Minister of Justice has some responsibility under the Criminal Code but that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has a responsibility on the health side.
If that was the reply, of course, that is a clear statement of the demarcation of the functions that exist as between the two ministers. It has always been the practice for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to regard this as his matter because in many respects, perhaps in so far as the majority of drug addicts are concerned, the problem has deep health aspects in addition to criminal aspects. Be that as it may I have no quarrel with the two ministers. What I am more concerned about, as we all are including the ministers themselves, is that as satisfactory a solution as we can find be provided for this problem.
The Minister of Justice said in British Columbia and also in Winnipeg, I believe, that he hoped within the foreseeable future to carry on some discussions with the provincial governments for the purpose of dealing more effectively with this matter of narcotic control. The hon. gentleman did not say whether that had to do with further punitive measures. From what the hon. gentleman said in this chamber in answer to my question it was not clear exactly what he had in mind. I asked him whether or not it was the intention of the federal government, for instance, to make available in British Columbia quarters where there could be provided treatment for drug addicts on the assumption that this is basically a health problem. I did not receive a satisfactory reply to this question. It may be that the Minister of Justice was thinking of the experience in the United States, particularly in Lexington, Kentucky, where they combine both the principle and method of treatment with confinement, where there is an admixture of the criminal and the patient, with results that I do not think have yet been properly and finally assessed. I would be interested in knowing from the Minister of National Health and Welfare if that is what the Minister of Justice had in mind. Obviously there must have been consultations between the two ministers in this regard.
Is there any intention of which the minister is aware-and this would be within
5328	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare his ministerial interest and concern even though it might be more strictly applicable to the Minister of Justice-to give consideration to the imposition of punishments heavier than those now provided for under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act and under the Criminal Code? Is there any contemplation such as is frequently suggested that the sentence which ought to be meted out is a sentence which must go away beyond even confinement? It has been suggested that there is no more effective punishment for certain crimes having to do with drug traffic than capital punishment. I am not advocating that and I would think that would not be the most constructive way of dealing with the problem but that is a suggestion that has been made in this house once this session.
I do not know what the government has in mind. Is the government thinking merely of attempting to do what has been done in Lexington, Kentucky, or was the Minister of Justice just out on a fishing expedition? Was this really a serious effort on the hon. gentleman's part and, if it was, would the minister whose estimates we are considering give us the details?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I could hardly be expected to give the details of what might be a serious concern of the Minister of Justice. I might point out that there has been some interesting experimental work on rehabilitation going on in New York. We had observers at the meeting held there some three or four weeks ago and we are in close consultation at all times with the Department of Justice on this matter. We have a responsibility for the supervision of the legitimate distribution of narcotic drugs. Because many addicts do become criminals the Department of Justice has a responsibility for their custody and through the parole service for some aspects of their rehabilitation. The whole matter is continually being studied by my department and the Department of Justice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot accept that reply. If the minister has something in mind with regard to narcotics control that is a matter that ought to be divulged to this committee either by the Minister of Justice or the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister whose estimates we are considering is responsible for the administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. He is the hon. gentleman who recommends to the Department of Justice the personnel employed in prosecutions. He is the one who provides for the compensation paid to prosecutors. The minister surely cannot say, because the Minister of Justice may have some pet scheme


about which he is unaware, that this is a matter concerning which information cannot be supplied to the committee. I would remind him that that has not been the attitude of his predecessors. I am not talking about myself because I would be a very poor example for the minister and I am not suggesting that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Thank you very much.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The other ministers never hesitated to indicate this.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt, no minister has ever tried to tell the house what he was going to do at all. Our responsibility is to report to the house after a decision has been made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the minister's reply is along that line it is a reply he should have made a while ago. He is now saying that government policy will be announced in due course. If that is the minister's reply I can do no other but accept it, except to say that I believe in a matter of this kind, where there is such public interest, and where on other occasions there has been such wide discussion in this house, there is no reason why the government should not tell us of its broad concepts in this matter. That was done on other occasions, and I regret that the minister does not take advantage of this very festive mood to give us a frank statement on this very important problem.


William Arnold Peters: We are not too concerned to any extent with drug addiction in my area. The suggestion has been made that the government itself deal with the distribution of drugs to those people who will declare themselves to be addicts. There would be little cost involved to the people who declare themselves to be addicts. The drugs would be given to them at a nominal cost. This system would, according to some informants, eliminate pushers in the field entirely because there would be no profit. Has the department ever given consideration to this particular proposal?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, extensive consideration has been given to all these problems, of course. My understanding is that the vast majority of those who have any close contact with this problem are not of that line of thinking.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Family allowances and old age security-
252.	Administration, $3,077,462.
Paul Joseph James Martin: This is the item that deals with the administration of the

welfare branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The minister said in his statement in reply before we left the main item-


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is family allowances and old age security administration only, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; that is what I was referring to. This is the welfare branch. Family allowances and old age security have to do with welfare. This is the administration item.
When he was making his reply before we had concluded the main item the minister said that the government had lived up to all its social security commitments. I do not believe that one could allow that statement to pass unchallenged because, of course, the case is otherwise.
I do not want to retrace what I said about the government's proposals with regard to the old age survivors system. I dealt with that yesterday. That and other matters that still have to be dealt with would hardly warrant the statement made by the minister. Has the minister any comment to make on the proposal which I outlined yesterday and which represents the view of the Liberal opposition with regard to increasing the age of students who are now entitled to receive family allowance? When I spoke I asked the minister to give us an indication of his intentions in that regard. If he is in a position to do so I would be very grateful for the answer.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We are always
giving continuous consideration to those problems and, of course, when any decision is made it will be reported to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Old age assistance, blind persons and disabled
persons allowances-
253.	Administration, $113,390.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought when you passed item 252 you were referring to family allowances, Mr. Chairman. Now we have the old age security item.


Charles Edward Rea: I called item 252.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You called family allowances but you did not call old age security.


Charles Edward Rea: I called item 252; I am now calling item 253.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will wait until we come to item 253.


Charles Edward Rea: We are on it now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I asked the minister what was the government going to do about the Clark report and he has not told
79951-0-336J
Supply-Health and Welfare us except to say that he is studying the matter. I pointed out yesterday he has new had a long time to study this matter. As I indicated before, I recognize that the minister is a studious man, but there ought to be limitations on the capacity of a man to study; there ought to be a limitation on the length of time that he is expected to take in studying a report which the Prime Minister said in 1958 should be prepared in four months. That is a long time ago, and nothing has happened except the presentation of those two volumes containing information that was already available. We have asked the minister time and time again what is the government going to do about this report. This report was to be prepared in four months. Because the man to whom the writing of the report had been assigned could not do it within four months he was asked to resign or he voluntarily resigned and his place was taken by Professor Clark, who has taken not four months but over a year in the preparation of a document which we were told had to be prepared in four months. That period of four months coincided with the holding of an election. The election is over and we have heard nothing more about the report except the minister has told us time after time, day after day, that this matter is receiving very close study.
Surely the minister can give the committee, if not his final conclusions, at least the results of his present study because that study, which has been so extensive, cannot have failed to yield some results in the minister's mind. Perhaps the results have not congealed into definite convictions on all fronts, but they certainly have touched some matters about which one could conclude with some reasonableness that the minister has reached a conclusion. Are we to have it? Is it too expensive in the minister's mind? Is it properly supplementary to our existing universal system? If we do have it, what would be the contribution made, if any, by the government of Canada towards its realization? Are we satisfied that, while the returns of the United States system are in some respects larger than our own, the long period required for the making of contributions balances out and possibly puts the whole scheme in a different perspective? What is the situation?
Surely with the encouraging words which I have now used in asking the minister to give a reply in the presentation of his estimates in 1960 we are not to be told once again that the minister is studying this matter. That is not what we were told by my dear friend the Prime Minister who has now come into the chamber. That is not what was told by others, and the minister is the one responsible for the administration of this matter. He

Supply-Health and Welfare cannot hope to convince the Canadian people that the government was serious about this matter unless at least on the presentation of his estimates he gives us some kind of progress report. I would be encouraged beyond dreams if the report which the minister gave was even so small that it would indicate some progress.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am afraid the hon. member is probably just a little frightened that the government is serious about this problem. We really have been studying it, and that will certainly be demonstrated to the hon. member if he will read pages 27 to 31 in the report of the estimates committee which indicates the problems we have encountered thus far during our study.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am familiar with what the minister said in the estimates committee and it was because of that I have taken the position which I have taken this afternoon. I find it difficult to do that today because the minister has been so generous and the Prime Minister has been so generous that one naturally cannot forget about an obligation of that sort. However, one has a duty to perform.


Mr. Grafftey:: Twenty two years of study.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My friend from Brome-Missisquoi has finally come into the house. I might say I am surprised to see him here so early after the cataclysmic event which occurred in another part of the country. However, I am always glad to see the hon. member for whom I have, as he knows, great affection if not always the fullest appreciation. The minister has to realize, I think, that the statement he made in the estimates committee does not meet the point that I have raised.
In any event, all members of this committee were not members of the estimates committee, and on a matter of this sort I think we are entitled to have all members learn what the government's policy is, as stated by the minister in the pages referred to in the estimates committee report.


Jay Waldo Monteith: All members of this committee receive copies of the estimates committee report. It does not seem to me that it is necessary for me to go through all that evidence again in the committee of the whole.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I make one final observation? I can only conclude from what the minister has said that he is going to continue to give serious, conscientious study to this problem on which he has spent so much of his valuable time already.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member can rest assured I will certainly be doing that with the utmost vigour.


James Ernest Pascoe: In view of the fact that I consider the Saskatchewan government gives little credit to the federal government for financial contributions to the programs listed in this vote, would the minister give the committee a breakdown of the federal contributions to the Saskatchewan government for old age assistance, blind persons' allowances, disabled persons' allowances and unemployment assistance?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The sums are, old age assistance, $1,757,281; allowances to blind persons, $195,614; disability allowances, $433,211; unemployment assistance, $1,828,313.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister able to inform the house as to exactly who determines the regulations or conditions governing the means tests as they apply in the case of old age assistance, blind persons' allowances and disabled persons' allowances? Which level of government is responsible for laying down all the details and conditions?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, these are set out in regulation form. They are discussed by the advisory committee. I mentioned earlier that this committee met last autumn. At that time there were some changes suggested in these regulations, which were agreed upon and which have since been agreed to by the provinces and put in form by the justice department.


Erhart Regier: Is the means test equal in each of the provinces? Is the means test for residents of British Columbia exactly the same as it is for a resident of Alberta or Saskatchewan?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The federal provisions are exactly the same.


Erhart Regier: Would the minister admit that each provincial government is able to impose its own conditions in addition to the conditions that apply nationally?


Jay Waldo Monteith: As long as they meet the federal conditions. We would not share in any extra costs; we would only share the moneys that were paid out under federal regulations.


Erhart Regier: I think the minister somewhat misunderstood me. Is the minister admitting that the provincial government is able to add additional handicaps to the regulations before an individual is eligible?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I would not say that.


Erhart Regier: I wonder if the minister might then explain how a province has any right to impose conditions of its own, if it is not by way of limitation or the imposition of extra handicaps?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, there would be nothing in the way of limitations in that respect, but they might decide to pay something extra.


Erhart Regier: Would the minister then care to say that no province is imposing any limitations that prevent anyone from receiving these allowances or these pensions, that no province is able to impose any of these limitations if they do not apply in any other province?


Jay Waldo Monteith: All provinces must abide by the federal regulations, and we will only participate in these cost-sharing plans if the provinces are following the federal regulations.


Erhart Regier: May I be a little more specific? If our regulation was that a man may have $2,000 in the bank and yet be eligible for old age assistance, can the provincial government hold that within that province a man may have only $1,000 in the bank?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Chairman, this is not so. They must abide by our regulations in these cost-sharing plans. If the hon. member has something in mind where some variance seems to have occurred I would be pleased to hear about it and look into it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is it correct to say that the means test regulations are drafted by the federal government and agreed to by the provinces before they are applied in that province? The province accepts the regulations and agrees to them after discussion?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, that is correct.


William Arnold Peters: Is the minister able to explain why there is such a large decrease in the old age assistance payments? The tendency normally is for them to go up.
Mr. Pallet!: Increased prosperity.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have not any real explanation. The monthly expenditure for the current year has shown an increase of approximately $6,000 per month. It seems that we estimated a little high last year, and that is the explanation. There was an overestimate in 1959-60. The actual expenditure was $30,349,000, so we are estimating for $30,900,000 this year.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With respect to the statutory unemployment assistance, it has increased from $20,960,000 to $38,660,000 this year or an increase of $17 million. Does that increase
Supply-Health and Welfare indicate that the government expects a continued high level of unemployment?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, this increase results from the fact that the province of Quebec signed an agreement with the federal government effective July 1, 1959.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
General-
254.	Grants to health and welfare and related organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $243,250.
Mr. McFarlane:: Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in this item. I notice that we are contributing a considerable amount of money to various health and welfare organizations in Canada. I should like to refer specifically tonight to the donation of $35,000 to the Canadian welfare council. I quite realize that they are doing wonderful work but at this time I should like to refer to part of the report of the president of the council for 1958. I wish to read part of the report to substantiate my argument.
Because of the nature of our membership, we act from time to time as spokesman for welfare interests in Canada, and it seems to me that the council has for this reason a particular and effective place in Canadian life. Two recent activities illustrate this function. Last year when we had a large influx of refugees from Europe, the council acted both as a spokesman and a co-ordinator in resolving many of the problems which arose. Then the council's discussions of certain social security issues stimulated our members' interest and drew outstanding participants from a wide field.
There are two sides to this role of spokesman. One is that the community at large or legislative bodies look to the council for advice, counsel and suggestions. The other is that any or all groups and individuals with an interest in social welfare find in the council a forum for the expression of their views, and frequently discussion leads to an influential public statement on social welfare policy.
But of course national planning and action is only one side of our activities. In this report, which gives examples of our work in all its branches, we can look beyond the reports, surveys, conferences and briefs to governments. We can see a homeless child placed in a new home by an agency the council has helped to improve its practices; old people benefiting from a program set up with council advice; an unemployed man regaining his self-respect through financial assistance and services the council has worked to bring about; an ex-convict going straight because of help the council has promoted.
I have only read part of the report of the president of the Canadian welfare council for 1958. Within the last couple of days a case has been brought to my attention

Supply-Health and Welfare which is actually not a welfare case but I wish to bring it up at this time. A young lad with his wife and three very small children got off the train in Ottawa the day before yesterday and we were very fortunate in being able to take care of them for one night. In the meantime we got in touch with various people for advice and assistance without receiving any help at all. We got in touch with practically all the social service agencies in Ottawa, the traveller's aid, the public welfare society, neighbourhood services, city services, social services, the Salvation Army and last of all a member of the Department of National Health and Welfare, in order to try to solve the problem.
As I look at the picture now, no one has been able to do anything for a Canadian citizen who has served in the armed services overseas. This is an emergency that should be met now, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month. It was necessary that something be done today and it was impossible for us to find anybody in the city of Ottawa or the government department who could deal with this case on an emergency basis.
If leadership is being given by the Canadian welfare council to local organizations such as I have mentioned, then something is definitely lacking because the incident I have described should not have taken place under any circumstances. I have looked through this report and I find that immediate assistance can be given to indigent travellers, to refugees and to immigrants coming into the country. It can be given to prisoners who are out on parole and it can also be given to offenders released from our penitentiaries.
But no assistance or help, and I am speaking now of immediate help, can be given to a Canadian citizen who comes to the city of Ottawa or any other Canadian city. He is not able to get any immediate help to look after his wife and his children until certain applications have been made, investigations have been carried out and all the red tape has been gone through. I am simply using this case as an example and I am not reflecting on some of the good work this organization does accomplish. Nevertheless, I think some action should be taken to look after cases which require immediate attention.
After spending two days on this problem there is, as far as I can see, no welfare service that is capable of or able to handle problems on an emergency basis without going through a tremendous amount of formality. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the committee. I hope that some good will come out of my having done so and that the minister will find time to look into the matter through the welfare department.
[Mr. McFarlane.l


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the minister would like to deal with this matter.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I thought that the hon. member might have something to say on this item so I was waiting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was going to deal with something else.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Is it on this item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. However, before mentioning what I have in mind with regard to what has been said by the hon. member who has just spoken about the Canadian welfare council, may I say that while I can understand his frustration, I do not believe that body should be indicated for the failure of existing machinery to deal with the case which he has quite properly brought to our attention. If it is possible for us, as it is and as I think it should be, to provide assistance to the needy not only in our own country but in other countries such as assistance for refugees, it would be difficult to argue that we should not provide assistance to our own people. Under the public assistance act it would be possible to provide assistance in the case mentioned by my hon. friend if the province to which the individual had come had an agreement with the province from which he came providing for a reciprocal arrangement. It is surprising to me that it was not possible for the hon. member to get some indication from the various sources he mentioned as to how help might be provided. Because of the particular experience he had with regard to this case I do not think he would want to imply that the national welfare council is not a body that should not receive the support of parliament. The Canadian national welfare council was strongly supported this afternoon by the hon. member for Kootenay West who at one time, I believe, was one of its national executives and may still be. In any event, he was.
This is a body of public-spirited citizens who do not provide relief administration but who are mainly concerned with promoting an interest in and an understanding of social welfare problems and social security programs. The minister will recall that yesterday I referred to a submission which had been made to the government of Canada in 1958, in 1959 and again this year by the Canadian national welfare council. That body had pointed out that commendable as was the social security program there were existing gaps, there was a pattern yet to be fully formulated and that as a means of accurately defining activities in social security by the two senior levels of government and also for the purpose of making an assessment of the

flexibility of the existing programs, a royal commission should be appointed by the government. This point was also emphasized by the hon. member for Kootenay West but the minister has not given us a reply as to whether the government proposes to accept the suggestion made by the national welfare council.
Supplementary questions were asked on this subject during the present session, and I find that the point of view of the national welfare council was referred to by implication recently in an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal. That article posed the question: "Are Canada's social security laws being abused?" We recall that there have been references this session to the alleged abuse of certain social welfare measures in this country. I think that some of these abuses have possibly been overemphasized and, again, others may not have been recognized, but I think the minister should indicate to the committee what consideration he has given to this recommendation of the national welfare council.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Presumably the hon. gentleman means the Canadian welfare council.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What consideration has been given to the suggestion of the Canadian welfare council that a royal commission should be appointed and, more especially, will the minister tell the committee whether he accepts the projection as to the future of the Canadian welfare council, particularly in the representations it made in January, 1960.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I support what the hon. member for Essex East has said. While the hon. member for Kootenay East was speaking there was some conversation around me and I did not hear his opening remarks clearly, but in general I endorse what the hon. member for Essex East had to say. The Canadian welfare council has done a magnificent job. Its national offices here are, of course, to deal essentially with policy and administrative questions. When I listened to the commendable efforts made to assist one unfortunate person, I thought the case demonstrated very clearly one of the points made by the Canadian welfare council in its policy statement and its representations to the Canadian government. It is obvious that in this case no one is taking any responsibility for assisting this unfortunate person.
I do not recall whether the hon. member for Kootenay East mentioned that he was a veteran or, in that case, whether the Legion authorities here in Ottawa were contacted. I am sure that if he was a veteran, and if they had been told, the Legion officials
Supply-Health and Welfare would have assisted him at least on a temporary basis until he could be settled.
I suggest this situation adds weight to the argument made by the hon. member for Essex East and later by the hon. member for Kootenay West that there are gaps in our national welfare system which have to be filled, and I trust the minister will have a few words to say with regard to the unfortunate case which has been brought to his attention.


Jay Waldo Monteith: First, I cannot express myself too strongly about the particular situation which arose on that occasion, and if the hon. member for Kootenay East will bring this question to my notice personally I shall be happy to examine it and see what might be done in the future to prevent a similar situation from arising. I should like to think that such an unfortunate situation would never have to arise in this Canada of ours. However, I do not suppose we shall ever be perfect. We have made a great deal of headway during the last few years, I think there can be no doubt about that, and I trust that as time goes on all these gaps will eventually be closed.
The hon. member for Essex East brought in another angle concerning the Canadian welfare council, suggesting that I did not reply to a question directed to me asking whether the government had considered the proposals made to us by that body. I did reply in this vein earlier in the afternoon. I do not know whether the hon. member was present or not. However, I did at one time during the afternoon link portable pensions, the Clark report and the representations of the Canadian welfare council in one loop, so to speak, in that they are all being considered in one context. I do not have anything further to add. We have these representations under consideration continuously.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot say that I am happy with the minister's reply. I have tried now three times to elicit information on this subject but I have not succeeded, and I can only characterize my efforts in terms of a distinguished British ambassador and say this represents on my part the failure of a mission.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Don't admit it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is that?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Carry on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the list of national associations which are given financial assistance as set out on page 352 I note that there is one organization which is not included. It may be that assistance is being given to this body under the national health

Supply-Health and Welfare grants. I certainly know that when the heart foundation was established in Canada under the presidency, first, of Mr. Douglas Ambridge, I think, there was a commitment made that if a request was put to the government, such request would receive very sympathetic and, I believe, we said, even favourable consideration. I do not know whether since 1957 such a request has been made or, if it has been made, whether assistance has been provided out of the national health grants program for that organization. But I do urge the minister to give careful consideration to assisting the Canadian heart foundation.
Illnesses of the heart represent the major cause of death in our country. We have had examples from the membership of this house which indicate the strength and the relevancy of this statement. We know of its existence all over the country. The federal government is, I believe, or was at one time, providing assistance toward research into heart diseases through the Dr. David institution in Montreal and through a research body in Toronto which engages in the study of heart diseases. But more than this is required.
Since the heart foundation is not referred to here I am wondering if the department is giving any financial assistance, (a) for research into heart diseases and (b) into the operations of the heart foundation which is a body that receives support from the public but because of the primacy of this particular disease it would seem to me it warrants some special consideration by the government of Canada.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, the government of Canada is certainly giving this foundation very special consideration. I would point out that as an assistance to the organization in itself no request of this type has ever been received similar to the situation that obtained when the hon. member who has just taken his seat occupied the ministerial chair. I would also reply, however, that there are substantial funds from the health grants which go to studies and research of this nature. Concerning assistance in this respect I may say that substantial funds for the purchase of special equipment and research studies have been provided through the general public health grant. For example, aid is given to the Ontario heart foundation which sponsors a program of clinical research in this field. I would imagine that answers the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Were those grants given this year? Does what the hon. gentleman said relate to this year?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I cannot definitely tie that in with this year but may I say that


it goes on continuously. There may not be a similar amount each year but certainly there is something given every year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
255.	Civil defence health, welfare and training services, $4,593,008.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, does the minister intend to make a statement on this item?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Chairman, I made a statement in my opening remarks covering this department's responsibility in the field of civil defence.


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us how many civil defence organizations there are across Canada?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but we do not appear to have readily available information as to the number of civil defence organizations across the country.


Oscar William Weichel: The reason I asked that question is that I wondered if the minister would care to comment concerning whether we have a number that might give us adequate protection.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Let me deal with that question in this way. I have publicly made the statement before and I repeat that when I first came into this department it was four days before I realized that civil defence was under my department. My experience in the first year was to say the least very frustrating. There seemed to be no out on the whole matter. I have to say this and I do not do so in a spirit of disparagement or anything of that nature. I believe that as far as civil defence is concerned the question has always been one involving a certain amount of frustration for the department. Upon considering the whole picture the government undertook to revamp the entire civil defence set-up. This has taken some time but I believe we have at last achieved a functional form of national survival which can be and will be effective if the need arises.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the minister's difficulties in this matter.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member should.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When the minister says he experienced frustration at the beginning of his administration with regard to civil defence, that, too, I can understand, because civil defence is one of the most difficult assignments which could be entrusted to a government or a department of government. Difficult and frustrating as it may be,

however, as long as we are going to spend public money in this matter we have to explain policy, discipline our frustrations and present a report about the usage of moneys which we are asking the taxpayers of Canada to provide.
It is in the light of that background that I approach the question. I feel it would not be right for us to pass these estimates in this parliament without some consideration of this important problem. If one has any doubt about how important it is all one has to do is to think what would happen if for any reason there were set in motion those agencies of human destruction which civil defence is designed to try to meet.
The budget for civil defence in the fiscal year 1959-60 was $7,220,817; it is given for 1960-61 as $4,593,008, a decrease of $2,627,809. Am I right in saying that the decrease is because of the assignment of civil defence functions to the office of the privy council and to the Department of National Defence?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says, "Yes". The total amount of moneys-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could intervene for just a moment. There are really three reasons for this reduction. The emergency health service has increased 10 per cent or approximately $325,000 mainly due to an increase in the cash provision for the medical stockpile and portable hospital programs. The second reason is that emergency welfare and training services remained at about the same level but major decreases are due to the deletion of provisions for those functions which have been transferred from this department; namely (1) $2 million for grants to provinces for general civil defence purposes; (2) $913,950 for the acquisition of equipment resulting from the deletion of provisions for warning systems such as mobile broadcasting transmitters, sirens and a federal civil defence radio station at Arnprior, Ontario; (3) $215,000 for professional special services mainly related to siren installation costs; (4) $134,207 in salaries and wages resulting from the deletion of 40 positions; (5) $102,652 no longer provided for the lease of communication services; and, offsetting this gross decrease, is the assurance of a bulk reduction applied to this vote in 1959-60 in the amount of $752,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was about to say that the total amount spent for civil defence by the Department of National Health and Welfare, the office of the privy council and the Department of National Defence basically is the same as last year. Can the minister give us the figures?
79951-0-337
Supply-Health and Welfare


Jay Waldo Monteith: I cannot give the figure for the Department of National Defence without looking at the details but I know that the figure for that department is up considerably and the figure for our department is down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would it be up over half a million dollars?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh, more than that;
E.M.O. is up considerably; the office of the privy council also.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The fact that civil defence is now assigned to three departments does make a review of the matter in the immediate perspective somewhat difficult. My own calculations had been that the total expenditures for all three divisions of government were not much over half a million dollars.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh, yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On purely civil defence matters I think the minister will find this is the case. In national defence they are charging up to civil defence some matters which normally were charged up to the Department of National Defence before the division of powers, and the functions being carried on in respect of those expenditures are no different. When we come to analyse the total expenditures I think it will be found that my statement is correct.
The government appointed Lieutenant General Graham, former chief of staff, to make on behalf of the government of Canada a survey of all aspects of Canada's civil defence. We did ask the government to give us this report, but he regarded it as confidential. Although it had been discussed with the provinces it was felt that the government was not disposed to give its recommendations to parliament. I regret that because it would give us an opportunity, apart from security matters, to make an assessment of the recommendations of General Graham.
The Prime Minister said on March 23, 1959 that the government had decided to make rearrangements in the division of responsibility for civil defence. As I understand it, the health and welfare aspects of civil defence continue to be the responsibility of the hon. gentleman and his department. The emergency measures organization is to be attached to the privy council and it is to co-ordinate the work of other agencies in the field of civil defence planning and the like. The Department of National Defence is to be entrusted with the responsibility of warning of an attack, the location and the

Supply-Health and Welfare monitoring of explosions and radioactive fallout, the assessment of damaged areas, contamination and clearing of such areas and the rescue of the injured.
It seems to us that the minister ought to explain the situation as he has done so only in part in the committee. We ought now to be given this information because of the importance of the matter if for no other purpose than emphasizing to the public what the chain of authority is.
The minister is in charge of health and welfare measures. The office of the privy council is in charge of the work of coordination. The army is in charge of those functions which I have just outlined. The Prime Minister told us that the Minister of National Defence is the minister to whom one must look for ministerial direction in the first instance. Since in the national health and welfare report reference is made to the emergency measures organization one, I think, must ask the minister which minister, the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or the Minister of Justice, which of those four, is responsible for the decision that must be taken in the event of an emergency. Is it a decision that must be made by the Prime Minister? What active interest does the Prime Minister have in the particular responsibility which comes under the privy council? Is this matter left to the Minister of National Defence? If an attack were to take place tomorrow and a very important decision had to be made which one of the four ministers would make the decision?
The Prime Minister said that the question was one that should be addressed to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister of National Defence says it is one that should be addressed to the Prime Minister. This matter ought to be resolved so that we shall have a clear idea as to where-in the event that what we all hope sincerely will never happen, does happen-the ultimate authority and responsibility lie. I am asking the minister now on these estimates to outline the facts for us.
I should also like to know from the minister when the last meeting of the federal-provincial advisory committee was held? In the report of the department at page 121 reference is made to the fact that early in 1958 such a meeting was held with provincial ministers from all of the 10 provinces and at that meeting a committee was established on a continuing basis for the purpose of maintaining a continuing interest and concern in civil defence policy between the


two jurisdictions. When was the last meeting held? To what extent are the provinces fully acquainted with all of the plans of the federal government? What about the question that I have just mentioned, the ultimate authority and chain of authority? What is the situation with regard to compensation agreements? Have all the provinces now an agreement with the federal government in the matter of compensation?
I understand that in January of last year an extension was made to some of the agreements covering enrolled civil defence workers while engaged in operations arising out of natural disaster as opposed to civil defence. Since the minister deals with sirens, line rental and maintenance, as indicated in the report at page 123, what is the situation in that regard? Are sirens still regarded as effective instruments of alert? Under which minister does a matter of this kind come?
With regard to the information services division, is there a special civil defence information service division serving all the departments concerned, or is there an information service division in the matter of civil defence for each department? These are questions to which I think we should have some reply.
Then I should like to know from the minister how many civil defence workers on the health and welfare side he estimates we now have in the country? If he is in a position to give us the over-all picture that will also be of immense value.
On the welfare side, which is unmistakably, of course, the responsibility of the minister, I understand that at the end of 1959 we had some progress in the organization of welfare services in at least five provinces. These provinces I think were Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Has there been any expansion since that time?
In the field of emergency feeding, what progress has been made in developing the program the government had in mind when it made its report?
Now the minister in his report at page 26 says that some time ago seven hospital disaster institutes were held across the country for the purpose of studying hospital disaster plans. When was that? Was it in 1959 or in 1958? Have there been any similar institutes held in the past year? This is obviously a matter that comes within the present responsibilities of the minister. Were there any courses held at the civil defence college within the last calendar or fiscal year for physicians, dentists and other health workers? Perhaps the minister would give us an indication of the work that is now being done by the radiological defence group. This

is a very important matter. Some reference was made to some aspects of this today in another context by the minister, but perhaps he would find it possible to expand his remarks in this connection.
Then I should like to ask the minister what progress has been made with regard to civil defence organization in the civil service itself. These are some of the matters to which I direct the minister's attention in an effort to try to assist him in what I recognize at once is a very difficult task.


Arthur Smith: I am glad the hon. member does not have a birthday every day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will not have a very happy birthday unless we take every precaution we know how to take within this difficult context to deal with this difficult situation. If we are going to spend this much money we ought to have a clear case made for what we have done. The minister has not told us what the government is thinking. Do they feel we should do more or are we taking a calculated risk? Our pattern, I know, is not unlike that of the United States. However, I am sure I need not remind the minister of the continuous criticisms that are made in this country with respect to this matter. He has received them, just as I have received them. Does he not think he ought to take advantage of this opportunity of explaining exactly what he has in mind?
If he will do me the honour of looking back at some of my pearls of wisdom which were uttered when I sat where he is he will find that I faced this situation squarely. I did not fail to disclose anything. I discussed the matter frankly. I discussed the question of evacuation. I discussed the question of shelter. The minister has not told us anything about evacuation. We know now that that is no longer the policy of the government, but the only statement we have had on that was a statement by the Minister of National Defence to the effect that evacuation was no longer our policy.
What is our policy in connection with shelter? The other day the Prime Minister tabled a pamphlet in which we were given instructions on the building of a shelter. The shelter is to be built by individuals. In spite of that, a civil defence official from the province of Ontario was speaking the other day in Windsor and he said the province was taking steps, in co-operation with the federal government, to provide assistance to individuals in the construction of shelters. Is that the policy of the government? We certainly have been told nothing about that.
79951-0-337i
Supply-Health and Welfare
This and many other engaging questions in this field, I think merit more than a brief, terse, businesslike statement from so imaginative a minister as my friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I must say that I cannot cope with the hon. member for Essex East when it comes to imagination. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I could not possibly reply at this stage to all the questions which were suggested or which perhaps should be asked. I do not believe the hon. member actually came out and said, I should like to know this. He was suggesting that perhaps I should say something or other.
I should like to remind him, first of all, that there has been quite a change in the oragnization of civil defence which I think will be an improvement and for the betterment of the country. I cannot help but feel that the hon. member perhaps has not fully assimilated the changes that have taken place. Perhaps he has had quite a bit of ground to cover in his present position and it may be a little difficult to keep on top of every move that is made. I fully appreciate that. I sympathize with him in this respect. I should like to point out only one thing. If war were to come, and I mean this very sincerely, I feel there would be only one job for the government of Canada, headed by the Prime Minister of Canada, and that would be the survival of the Canadian citizens to the greatest extent possible. Now, under those circumstances, that is the thing for which we are working.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Essex East asked the minister if he was going to make a statement on this very important question he said he had already made a statement in his speech. I looked up his speech and I found there were a few brief paragraphs dealing with this very important question in connection with which the committee is being asked tonight to vote $4,503,000. This is not good enough.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I beg to differ, Mr. Chairman. There are many more paragraphs in my opening remarks to the estimates committee. The hon. member should check back on my report to the estimates committee. '


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am referring to the minister's reply to the hon. member for Essex East when the hon. member asked if the minister was going to make a statement tonight and the minister referred to his opening remarks on these estimates. We have three departments concerned with civil defence, national defence, veterans affairs and the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And privy council.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And privy council. Why are we not able to get an over-all statement on the situation? When the national defence estimates come before us the minister will say that the militia is involved to such and such an extent and that is about all. We do not know what General Graham's report was or what he recommended. In so far as veterans affairs are concerned, we have heard very little to date from that department with regard to civil defence. We have the minister's very brief statement on these estimates. I do believe that even though the minister did make a statement before the committee, this matter is of such importance he should deal with it at greater length before this committee.
Only a certain percentage of the hon. members can attend committee meetings, and I think this is information which the public should be given as frequently as possible so that the public understands the situation. Like the hon. member for Essex East, we would like to know who makes the decisions under certain circumstances. We would like to know how the three departments concerned are getting along with the provinces. The minister, in his opening remarks in this connection, in the two paragraph to which I referred, said that he hoped-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I must take exception to that. My opening remarks to the estimates committee start on page 24 of the report and end on page 28. The hon. member is not giving a correct inference. He should check on the committee reports which are delivered to his office.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have read some of the committee reports, but I have not had time to read them all.


An hon. Member:: You have not done your homework.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I can tell the hon. member that if he does his homework as well as do the members of this group he will do well indeed.


Arthur Smith: You would not be on your feet if that were the case.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There are other matters that are not even raised in the minutes. I think the hon. member for Essex East was quite correct when he said we would like to know the degree of co-operation with the provinces. The minister says that he hopes there will be similar re-organization in the provinces-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Where do I say that?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In this report made to this committee.


Jay Waldo Monteith: What page?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Page 5248 of Hansard for June 22, 1960. The minister said that it is hoped that similar types of organizations will be formed at the provincial level. This is purely a hope. We should know why it is only a hope at this stage because civil defence has been going on for a number of years and money has been voted year after year. The members of this group think we should have from the minister-I am not asking for a great deal of repetition-at least a summary of the situation as it exists today with respect to the organization of civil defence in the federal field and the co-operative arrangements with the provinces and municipalities. I think the hon. member for Essex East was quite correct in suggesting that this was the place for the minister to make a brief statement of the situation for the information of the members of the house and the public.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think I made quite an extensive statement on civil defence as it concerns my department. I do not propose under any circumstances to go into civil defence as it concerns other departments. I do not think I should be called upon to do that. I do not propose to do it. We are responsible for emergency health services and emergency welfare services and the operation of the civil defence college at Arnprior.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Why is it that under the heading of civil defence there are nine pages in the report of the department which cover a number of matters other than those that come strictly under the jurisdiction of the department itself?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to be fair with the minister but I do not think he is being fair with himself.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am being more than fair with you.


Peter Francis Martin: What was that
remark?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I said I was being more than fair with you, but only because it is your birthday.


Peter Francis Martin: I thank the hon. member for being considerate with me. I need that kind consideration. I greatly appreciate it. But nevertheless, we have an obligation to perform in the opposition and the minister's generous treatment of opposition members must not in any way interfere with what we regard as our duty. The minister says that he made a statement in the defence committee-I have it before me here-of six

pages on that account he is precluded from the obligation of making a statement to this committee.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No. I made a statement yesterday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Kootenay West-


Jay Waldo Monteith: He said there are two paragraphs and there are many more.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know the number of them. I do not think there were many more.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Look at your copy of Hansard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did so. In any
event, whether there were two paragraphs or three paragraphs.-


Jay Waldo Monteith: There were eight paragraphs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says there were eight paragraphs. That does not represent in my judgment a very comprehensive statement on civil defence. We are now in the parliament of our country discussing a matter of great importance. We have the right to know what is the policy of the government in this matter. If the minister continues speaking, as he did at the beginning, I will understand his predicament. I think it was a difficult problem. We all appreciate that fact. Our effort here in this matter should be to assist, and I say this to him sincerely because we recognize how difficult this problem is.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I thank the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister does not help himsdelf when we seek information from him. In answer to the hon. member who has just taken his seat he takes the position that as he is responsible for health and welfare measures, that he should not be called upon to deal with other matters that since March 23, 1959, have come under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and himself and, in so far as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are concerned, the Minister of Justice.
However, I would point out to the minister that he presented parliament with a report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959. That report deals with all of the activities in the field of civil defence during the period from January 1 to March, 1959 and the period from April, 1958 to the end of December, 1958; and that refers to such questions as compensation agreements, financial assistance, siren installation, supplies and equipment.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Jay Waldo Monteith: Is the hon. member actually discussing the estimates for next year in the year ending March 31, 1959?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Are we not discussing next year's estimates?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely on the discussion of next year's estimates one is entitled to detect what government policy is in the light of what the government has done during the past fiscal year or other years.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member has gone back two years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It does not matter whether I go back ten years. That is the privilege of debate. My hon. friend may not like my argument but he certainly cannot take issue with my desire to build up a case, as I see it, referring to policies that he has pursued. All through this report reference is made not only to health and welfare measures but to engineering, training and education. There is reference here to the Canadian civil defence college. A few moments ago I asked the minister what about the civil defence organization in the government of Canada. I asked him when was the last meeting between the provincial and federal governments. I received no reply to that question.
All the minister said-and I believed him when he said this, of course-was that this was a difficult problem and that he and the Prime Minister who were in charge of civil defence were doing their best. I have not any doubt about that, but I want to know what constitutes their best. That is the great difficulty that we have with the minister, not only with regard to civil defence but other matters as well. I say to him, as Mr. Humphrey Mitchell used to say, in the kindliest way, that my hon. friend when confronted with a problem tells us that the matter is receiving study. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is, in my judgment, the most studious minister of those who sit on the ministerial benches. However, we do not want only a scholar sitting in the ministry, we also want a man of action. The minister is a man of action. I ask him now to show that such is the case.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I cannot go beyond my responsibility of dealing with civil defence as it resides in this current year in the Department of National Health and Welfare. I would mention this to the hon. member who is in a very conciliatory mood today as usual, but particularly today. 1 should like to mention that a conference was held on, I gather, the last Friday before April 27, 1959. I can only say that because I have here
5340	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare a copy of the question that was asked of me by the hon. member for York-Humber as to giving the house a report on the civil defence conference with the provinces that took place "last Friday". This question was asked on April 27, so I presume that was the date. I should like to mention this. I do not have, as the hon. member for Waterloo North reported earlier, the number of units across Canada but I have the approximate number of civil defence workers who attended courses. During 1957-58 there were 3,524 and in 1959 or during the calendar year 1959, 2,737.
Then there is within my responsibility the civil defence college at Arnprior, and I should be glad to answer any questions with respect thereto. We continue to hold courses. There was a very interesting course not long ago which was arranged by the province of Ontario actually, at which many of the mayors and the officials of the province of Ontario were present. These conferences go on week after week. Incidentally, during 1959 there were staff courses, including all phases of civil defence planning and operations; indoctrination courses on civil defence for physicians, dentists, nurses and pharmacists. Welfare courses in organization, emergency feeding, personal services, emergency lodging, registration and inquiry; radiological defence courses; techniques of instruction; rescue courses; casualty simulation courses; indoctrination conference of agrol-ogists from provincial and federal departments of agriculture and forums on communications and engineering.
Special courses in civil defence indoctrination and rescue were again conducted for the training of personnel of the armed services. The Department of National Defence also took advantage of the course schedule, primarily for civilians, to train a large number of officers and warrant officers in civil defence procedures.
Just as a matter of history, the civil defence college was established in Arnprior during 1953. The main function of the college is to train key civil defence personnel at federal, provincial and local levels and, in addition, to train civil defence instructors for all levels of civil defence authority.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the minister has gone somewhat further than he did at the outset in answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Essex East, but he did make a statement a moment ago which I think is a strange one and which I think he should explain to the committee. He said


in effect that so far as civil defence was concerned, he was going to deal with the matters that affected his department and his department only and was not going to enter into the fields of other departments. I think the committee is entitled to more than that.
If it is a fact that civil defence is a matter which concerns several departments then we should have the over-all policy as it concerns these other departments or otherwise the ministers who are responsible in part for the over-all policy should be here and should report to the house on that policy. I know that from time to time the Prime Minister has made statements of a general nature, but I do not know that any minister rising in his place has spoken on behalf of all the others.
If we are going to have to ask each minister to deal with that portion of this matter which is under his jurisdiction, then we will not know what the over-all position is. For that reason I think the statement made by the minister is not a proper one. I do not think it is the kind of statement that the committee should accept. Certainly it is not the kind of statement that should be expected in a matter of this importance.
I do not want to repeat what has been said by those who have spoken. I think we all realize that this is a matter of extreme and grave importance for every citizen of Canada, and I think it behooves the minister, whose estimate reads "civil defence, health, welfare and training services" to give to the committee the over-all position as it affects other departments as well as his own so that the committee will have before it, when considering the last item of his estimates, the position so far as the various departments are affected.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, this is a bunch of nonsense, if I may say so. I do not think we were required to do so by any means, but the Minister of National Defence was requested to come before the estimates committee and give evidence, as were the officials of the emergency measures organization, including the clerk of the privy council. I think the hon. member for Laurier is completely wrong in suggesting that these officials should be here tonight. The hon. member has seen or has had an opportunity to see the evidence given before the estimates committee and I do not think this committee should be called upon to go further. As Minister of National Health and Welfare I do not think I should be called upon to go one step beyond accounting for my estimates concerning the emergency and welfare services.

We did our best to co-operate in the estimates committee. The Minister of National Defence did his best. He appeared before several meetings. As the hon. member for Essex East knows, there were several times when he could not be present at meetings and so it was arranged that the Minister of National Defence would attend when the hon. merfiber could be present. The greatest of cooperation was shown, and in my estimation what the hon. member is saying is simply nonsense.


Mr. Matthews:: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak on this important subject because I thought it was well in hand all the way through. I can well remember that the minister made arrangements for two civil defence displays and that it was open to all members of the house to go and see what was being done and what was in store for people in case of an emergency. I attended. I do not recall whether the three members who have been doing so much talking tonight were there, but they had the opportunity to attend. I will go further and say that if they would shut up and listen they would learn more. I want to say that I have found from experience in the House of Commons that a lot of loud talking does not constitute an education. I have found that out.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think the remarks made by the last speaker are going to deter anyone on this side of the house from insisting on what we think are our responsibilities and our rights in this matter. Even though it was discussed in another committee, the House of Commons is entitled to get the information which has been requested. I thank the minister for saying that the remarks I made earlier were nothing but a bunch of nonsense, but I should like to recall the attitude taken on more than one occasion by government members when they were in the opposition. I can think of one particular item which concerned more than one department and I know what the opposition did at that time. They insisted that the two ministers responsible for the matter should be present and give the house the information and details required.
It is not necessary to have the officials here. The minister should have his colleagues here to give us the additional information, and he says there is, which falls under the jurisdiction of other departments in connection with the over-all policy. That he has not done. He has replied by saying that is bunkum. That is all right. The record is there and can be seen by those who want to read it.
But I repeat again what was said on more than one occasion by those hon. members
Supply-Health and Welfare who sat on this side of the house. When matters fell within the jurisdiction of two ministers there was the strongest insistence that the ministers be here so that we would have the over-all policy. The minister continues to state that he is not going to do that. That is his business, but I am telling him now that the House of Commons is entitled not only to part of the situation but the whole of it and his colleagues who are responsible for the other parts should be here to explain the matter to the House of Commons.


Arthur Smith: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could say a word on this matter because some little responsibility falls on me in that I was chairman of the committee to which reference has been made. The three other elements in the national survival program were investigated by the committee. Surely that was the purpose of the estimates committee and when we now have before us one vote in the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare surely that is the subject matter for us to consider at this point.
Under the principle of the committee system and because of the interlocking nature of the other elements, national defence and the privy council, it was considered advisable by the standing committee at that time that they should be brought into the picture. With the flexibility of the committee system, all members of the house, including the hon. member for Essex East, had an opportunity to examine every aspect of national survival, and that is where the whole problem of civil defence and national survival should be considered. I would remind the hon. member for Laurier that this was done and that, like every other member, he has access to the full deliberations of this committee with respect to the three separate votes brought before the committee at that time.
I am also bound to note that it is regrettable that certain members of the opposition did not take advantage of the committee meetings to have a full discussion, in accord with the flexibility of the rules of the committee, with respect to all three votes. Surely we are considering one item now in the estimates of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and for the hon. member for Laurier to insist that all the people who were heard before the estimates committee be now called is simply an illustration of the kind of thing that is slowing up the business of the house and making the work of the estimates committee of absolutely no use.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his remarks about the

Supply-Health and Welfare flexibility of committees but I would remind him that he has not been in the house so very long.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Smith: It is not becoming to the hon. member for Laurier to make an observation which is not relevant at this point.


Lionel Chevrier: I would remind the hon. member that the flexibility of committees applies not only to the government which is now in office but it applied in former years also.


An hon. Member:: It sure did not.


Lionel Chevrier: The flexibility in those years, I will remind the hon. member, applied in so far as at least two committees of this house are concerned, that is, the committee on railways and canals and the committee on railways and shipping to which all matters concerning Canadian National Railways were referred. All the officers of the C.N.R. and those of Trans-Canada Air Lines gave evidence, and repeatedly I would come with my estimates before the house and say: we have discussed these matters in committee. But do you think the members of the opposition would accept that? No, they would not. They insisted upon a discussion of matters which had, very often, been discussed at length in committee. They insisted, not that the officers should be called again-I am not asking for that-but if a minister was not able to give a statement on the over-all policy, then some other minister should come forward and make that kind of statement.
This question of the flexibility of committees should apply in the same sense now as it did when we were in office. I know that repeatedly I would be asked exactly what I am asking those who sit on the other side of the house today and I had to repeat on a number of occasions many of the things which were dealt with by the committees to which I made reference. All I am asking now is, not that the officials be brought back but that time be saved by someone acting on behalf of the government, and in a position to give a picture of the over-all position as far as civil defence is concerned. If that were done I am sure this item would go through quickly.


Arthur Smith: It is my regret that I have not been in this house as long as the hon. member for Laurier, but at least I am attempting to live in the present.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope the hon. member for Nanaimo will not take exception if I speak again. He is a new member and I do not wish to take advantage of him-


William Heward Grafftey: We have lots of new members.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are lots of new members, but I can assure them that if they try to abridge us by shouting "shut up" they will not be here very long, because the people of Canada sent us here to discuss these matters in accord with our concept of what is our duty as members of parliament. The very essence of this chamber is that we should have the fullest freedom of discussion without regard to where we sit, and without it being suggested that we should not take up the time of the house. We are here for that purpose, and it is the responsibility of the opposition to scrutinize, as we are endeavouring to do, the policies of the government and its proposed expenditures. We shall not be doing our duty if we bow to suggestions from the numerical strength that surrounds us at the moment that we have taken up too much time. We are taking time in order to elicit information which we have not been able to get.


William Heward Grafftey: Filibuster.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says "filibuster". I should think that after the experience he had yesterday in Quebec he would not want to be talking about filibusters. I listened with interest to the hon. member for Calgary South-


Arthur Smith: Would the hon. member permit a question? Accepting, with regret, that the hon. member was, unfortunately, ill, can the hon. gentleman acknowledge how many meetings he attended during the period when this particular department was being discussed? I will tell him if he cannot tell us.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to. I was going to deal with that in a few moments. The hon. gentleman made a statement a few moments ago, and I thought it was a fair statement. He had a perfect right to make it as chairman of the estimates committee. I went to as many meetings of that particular committee as I could stand. The hon. member for Calgary South, who is an able chairman, depending on one's point of view, would give members of the committee a nod: he would say, you may ask a question now, you may ask three and a half questions, but after that you must give the floor to someone else. The committee became a schoolroom performance-


Arthur Smith: On a point of order, we are completely out of order in discussing the procedure followed in that committee.


Lionel Chevrier: You started it.


Arthur Smith: But in view of the fact that the hon. member for Essex East has introduced the subject, may I say that he occupied more time during the period he was in the committee than any other member.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, surely the hon. member for Calgary South is the one who introduced the matter of the action in the committee. Now he is complaining about the hon. member for Essex East discussing it.


Arthur Smith: It is to be noted that I had no reply.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I was saying, the committee was chaired very effectively by the hon. member for Calgary South, depending on one's point of view I soon ascertained that in order to get a clear elucidation of civil defence policy something else would be needed; I was not going to be able to get it in a committee where time was abridged and where I was repeatedly told I was taking up much time.
Now we are in the House of Commons, and we are taking the time. The position we are in is exactly as was stated by the hon. member for Laurier.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Those catcalls are not going to hasten in any way our acceptance of this item. We intend to discuss these estimates as long as we think they should be discussed, and if hon. gentlemen want to see them passed I ask them to give the attention implied in the bill of rights shortly to be brought down by the Prime Minister in this house. That means there has to be freedom of discussion, not only outside this chamber but right here within the precincts of parliament itself.


Jacques Flynn: I think the hon. gentleman is right in saying that he can discuss the item which we are considering, but I ask him to come back to that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree, and I hope you will recognize that these interventions warrant-


Walter Franklyn Matthews: Before the hon. member goes on any further, I should like to explain something. I should like to explain to the committee and to the hon. member for Essex East that I was not telling anyone to shut up. All I said was that if people would shut up they would hear more. The hon. member for Essex East certainly did sow pearls of wisdom, and perhaps he has pearls of wisdom to sow, but I want him to remember that tapioca pudding looks like pearls but it contains no pearls.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Nanaimo obviously understands the rules of this house, and for that reason I do not propose to take issue with what he has said. Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but their laughter will be noted outside this house. The people of Canada will learn that while we are discussing this important matter this government with its large majority has taken the whole subject as lightly as hon. members opposite would take one of the amusing incidents that they might read in their comic strips.


An hon. Member:: Not true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is not a laughing matter. This is something which, as the hon. member for Calgary South said, affects the survival of the people of Canada. In spite of that, hon. gentlemen have treated the subject tonight with a levity rarely seen in parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: On a question of privilege, I certainly do not think that is an appropriate statement for the hon. member for Essex East to make.


Lionel Chevrier: Where is the privilege?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I repeat that statement. Hon. gentlemen opposite-I do not say the minister but hon. gentlemen sitting behind him-have treated this debate with a levity which will be noticed by the Canadian people. What we now say reflects our concern over the fact that the government of Canada does not regard the matter of civil defence as the important issue it is.


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speakman:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for
Davenport.


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East has just made a statement which I think reflects on every hon. member of this committee. Just because the manner in which he made his presentation caused a certain amount of amusement among hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house the hon. member has no right to suggest that our laughter in any way reflects the approach we take to the serious question of civil defence.


Lionel Chevrier: Why do you laugh?


Mr.   Morion@: We were laughing not at the matter but at the manner in which the hon. member for Essex East and his colleague the hon. member for Laurier have been making a mockery of this debate.
5344	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare


An hon. Member:: For political purposes.


Mr. Hodgson:: The hon. member for Essex East should be in Hollywood.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that valid questions of privilege have been raised. I did not intervene when the hon. member for Davenport was speaking because he comes from the city of Toronto and I know that in that city there is great public interest in civil defence.


Murray Douglas Morton: That is correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the city of Toronto there is also strong criticism of this government in regard to its policy in the matter of civil defence.


Jay Waldo Monteith: And a great deal more co-operation since the change-over.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I expect that the hon. member for Davenport rose on his question of privilege in order to indicate that he wished to be excluded from the general condemnation that I made about hon. gentlemen opposite. I will therefore exclude the hon. member from that condemnation. I will say that there was one hon. member of the Conservative party who tonight took this matter as seriously as it should be taken and that was the hon. gentleman who just raised the question of privilege.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: That is only your opinion.


James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. It is the same question of privilege raised by my friend the hon. member for Davenport. I think the hon. member for Essex East is drawing inferences which are completely false as to the attitude of Conservative members in respect to this highly important question of civil defence.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The hon. member for Essex East is trying to get ready for the next election,


Jacques Flynn: May I suggest that we stop discussing the personalities of hon. members and return to a discussion of the item under scrutiny.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I believe your suggestion is valuable now and it would have been valuable a few minutes ago before these interruptions took place. The fact is that hon. gentlemen opposite have treated this subject tonight with levity-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. members object. I say again that hon. gentlemen opposite have treated this subject with levity.


Jacques Flynn: I have just asked for the co-operation of the hon. member for Essex East in not discussing the conduct of hon. members. I invite him instead to direct his attention to the problem of civil defence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman,
I would respectfully suggest to you that my remarks are perfectly in order. I have the right in debate to explain why I take a particular position and why I condemn attitudes with regard to that position. That is what I have done and that is the essence of a free assembly.
The hon. member for Laurier stated the situation as it has always been observed in this committee. Where there is a matter of divided responsibility the government, when confronted with questions as to overall policy, must be in a position to state that policy. It is true, as the hon. member for Calgary South said, that when we were in the estimates committee the Minister of National Defence, the director of the emergency organization and the clerk of the privy council were present but the Prime Minister who has over-all responsibility was not there. I am not saying that the Prime Minister should have been there because I recognize that he has heavy obligations. We know that those I listed were present. That was a committee of this house. We have the right to discuss policy in this parliament regardless of what went on in a committee of this house. That is what we are doing tonight.
The minister has not satisfied us on the questions we have put to him tonight. The hon. gentleman has not answered all our questions and with some he has not dealt at all. We cannot go any further. When the Minister of National Defence comes before us with his estimates we shall expect him to give us an over-all statement of the problems of civil defence which we were not able to elicit tonight. We will expect that those who are in charge of E.M.O. in the office of the clerk of the privy council will also be here, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Justice, all of whom have responsibility for civil defence.
As the hon. member for Laurier has said, only by eliciting from the government as a whole what its policy is will we on this side of the chamber feel that we have discharged our duty in scrutinizing these estimates presented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Spencer:: Read the evidence of the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I resent the remark made a moment ago by the hon. member for Davenport when he said that the

hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Laurier were making a mockery of this debate.
When I rose a moment ago I asked the minister to take responsibility for the other departments that were concerned with civil defence in this country. I emphasized that point on two occasions and I repeated it in so far as it concerned two committees of the house with which I have had some experience and that is as far as I went. That I was entitled to do. My hon. friend has made a grossly exaggerated statement. The hon. gentleman should not have made the statement which he made when he said I was making a mockery of this debate.
I believe that I have the right that is enjoyed by any hon. member of parliament to ask the government questions about the over-all position in so far as the several ministers responsible for civil defence are concerned. If that is making a mockery of this item or of parliament then I want to plead guilty to it.


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Chairman, in no way did I wish to imply that the hon. member for Laurier had no right to make any observations he might care to make in this debate. I was objecting to the fact that when a certain atmosphere of amusement was created through the manner of presentation adopted by the hon. member for Essex East and by the hon. member for Laurier in a supporting role the hon. member for Essex East accused hon. members on this side of the chamber of not treating the subject of civil defence with the seriousness it deserved. In taking that attitude the hon. member for Essex East was in my opinion taking an unfair advantage of hon. members of this committee.


Mr. Regnier:: Mr. Chairman, I remember making a speech last year on the subject of civil defence. 1 read at that time a statement about a meeting of the federation of mayors held at Edmonton on August 31, 1955. Present at the meeting were experts from NATO speaking on the subject of civil defence. They stated that the time to take action was at that very time, August 31, 1955. Tonight we are witnessing all the Rip Van Winkles waking up from their long sleep. I am very happy to see that they are finally taking an interest in the question of civil defence. They should have taken action in 1955 when they were warned by their own experts to do so. The experts at the conference to which I referred included General Worthington and experts from NATO and an outstanding doctor who explained the dangers of the situation.
To indicate that action is now being taken I wish to point out that starting tomorrow
23, 1960	5345
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys there will be a bomb shelter exhibited in the city of Winnipeg at the opening of the Red river exhibition. Publicity on the subject will be made available to the citizens of Canada. Last week a pamphlet was issued telling Canadians how to go about building a bomb shelter. When I came to the house in 1958 I had to write to the United States in order to get information about civil defence. The Liberals were in power for a long time but took no action at all in this field despite the fact that their experts advised them to take action in 1955. It is not my wish to take up any more of the valuable time of the committee. I am very happy to see a few of the gentlemen of the old Liberal party wake up tonight.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: This concludes the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS Departmental administration-
187. Administration, operation and maintenance, $860,962.


Jacques Flynn: This item will be found at page 187 of the blue book, and the details on page 260.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, there is a matter that I wish to point out to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois), and one that I usually raise every time his estimates are being considered by the house. The minister probably knows what I have in mind. It is about the dividing line between the province of Quebec and Ontario in lake St. Francis and in one section of the St. Lawrence river.
I should like to call his attention to this problem again this year, because I think that there might be some chance of finding some answer to it.
In order to be brief and not to delay the house unduly, I shall recall only the broad lines of the problem.
The south boundary between Ontario and Quebec on the St. Lawrence river has never been marked. All other boundaries, to the east, west and north, with a small exception, have been settled as a result of acts of parliament. But the boundary dividing the provinces of Ontario and Quebec has not. This matter has been outstanding for 40 years.
5346	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys Attempts were made to settle it, boards were established by both provinces and a great deal of progress was made.
I think that this line which runs from la Pointe-au-Beaudet to the international boundary between Canada and the United States opposite Cornwall and which is perhaps 25 miles long has been marked, except for a distance of about 10 miles. It is this 10 mile boundary that should be defined by a board of some sort.
I am convinced, as I have already stated on more than one occasion, that this matter does not strictly come under federal jurisdiction. It is under federal jurisdiction indirectly, so that if both provinces could reach an agreement, the federal government could pass legislation for the purpose of marking this boundary. But the point on which I wish to call the minister's particular attention is that in several instances, I suggested to him that if he invited those two governments to set up such a board, the problem might be settled once and for all.
The circumstances are quite different today from what they were two years ago. Since the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway, there has been a channel extending more on the north side of the St. Lawrence than on the south side. Perhaps some agreement might be reached with the two provinces partly on the basis of that channel. I realize that the matter has been considered, and I know there are a few islands at the upper end of lake Saint Francis that are a cause of dispute between the two provinces. However, while those islands were tremendously important some 20 or 25 years ago-I am not saying they have no importance today-they have lost some of their importance. The federal government is interested in the problem, because it is holding those islands in trust for the Indians. I would ask the minister, therefore, when he deals with the various questions that have been put to him, to tell us whether he intends to make another attempt at settling this problem.
Oh, I am afraid the minister will give me quite a different answer now, because of the recent events.


Mr. Comtois:: Not at all.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. minister says
"not at all". I am quite pleased at that, because I was speaking quite candidly, and the minister is right in pointing out it is not a political matter. I think the leader of the next Quebec provincial government will be just as willing to settle the problem, because the


province of Quebec has as much interest as Ontario in taking a special interest in the problem.
Therefore, I am wondering if the hon. gentleman will not make a new attempt with regard to what I said a few moments ago. If he succeeds, I shall be the first to commend him, because I have told him before, that, when I was at the head of another department than his own, my efforts to settle that issue had not been successful. It is a very delicate problem for people living on both sides of the boundary between Ontario and Quebec. I am speaking, more particularly, of the citizens in the riding of Huntingdon in the province of Quebec, and of the counties of Glengarry and Stormont in Ontario.
The suggestion would prove to be of benefit, not only with regard to the administration of the fishing and hunting legislation, but in the case of accidents which are always liable to happen on the seaway.
As a matter of fact, if there were some accident, if two ships collided, for instance, causing severe damage, it might very well happen that nobody would know if the civil code, which is recognized in Quebec, or the common law of Ontario would apply.
There is no need to stress the point any further. I know that the minister noted my remark, because he told me so personally.
May I only remind him, knowing how kind he is, to ask the governments concerned to establish some commission which would, once and for all, settle that delicate matter.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the last time the estimates were before the committee the hon. member for Yukon did not have an opportunity to get on with his remarks. My speech was incomplete on the first day. The minister spoke to me afterwards about one of my remarks in which I had suggested that the Canadian metal mining association had indicated it wanted a restricted rather than an expanded research program on the part of the government. I have also been in touch with the Canadian metal mining association and I have the original clipping from which I gained the impression. I do not want to apologize particularly, but I took the wrong interpretation from the information I had. In actual fact the association was, I understand, willing to go along with the minister's suggestion that the mining research organization should handle production and ore problems, while the federal government mines department concentrated on basic

research. I should explain to the minister that my reason for pushing the interpretation further was the result of a personal conversation I had with someone in the metal mining association who did not represent the official view of the association.
One point I wanted to make to the minister is that in our part of the country there is great concern over the fact that if it is at all possible for a direct reduction steel mill to come into existence we think it would be a powerful thing for our economy. One of the minister's own economists, Mr. Elver, has made an analysis and indicated that either Port Arthur or Seven Islands would be an economic site.
One of the suggestions that has been put forward by groups in our area is that the government consider some kind of subvention such as that now offered to the maritime coal people in order to get their material into the central Canadian market. This suggestion is that a subvention or a subsidy be given in a rather revolutionary approach to get this direct reduction mill into operation. This is something that is completely new in North America, this kind of mill is rather revolutionary and I believe the idea of a subsidy would be revolutionary, too. Perhaps the economist who made this estimation of the prospects for the iron ore industry in Canada might consider what a policy of subventions of various kinds, such as developmental rates, might do for progress in this field.
I feel there will be an important contest in the next decade between Canadian iron ore resources and Venezuelan and African resources in competing for a share of the United States and European markets. Any assistance that we could get that would enable us to get a producer into the field now, especially with such a high value product as is put out by a direct reduction mill, would be of great value.
The last point I want to make concerns, in a sense, an apology to the house. A number of weeks ago I brought up a question with the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the uranium industry and the tremendous number of telegrams that had been received by the hon. member for Assiniboia as well as other members of the house. I understand the telegrams numbered well over 2,000, and they were dispatched to Ottawa in order to sway political opinion here in favour of Rio Tinto's plans to amalgamate or take up some of the contracts that existed. I think the minister and hon. members may be interested in knowing that the hon. member for Assiniboia and I took the trouble to send replies to several hundred of these people.
23, 1960	5347
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys I sent replies to over 300 people who bothered to send me telegrams. I sent the replies to the names and addresses on those telegrams, but I have received back almost every one of those replies. The same thing has happened to the hon. member for Assiniboia. In other words, we can do nothing but suspect that these were dummy telegrams suggested by the mine interests, and we must assume those interests to be Rio Tinto.
I bring this up at this time because the minister has indicated that his department has been consulted by another department to estimate the stature and economic prospects of one iron organization in my area. I just wish that the same people would take a look at Rio Tinto and this kind of situation because to me this is almost blasphemy against the House of Commons and the integrity of the members of this house when we receive telegrams from people who apparently do not exist. I can understand that in a community such as Elliot Lake there would be a portion of the replies that would be undeliverable because the population of the community is shifting. However, when almost all of these hundreds of letters come back as undeliverable, then one can only suspect that some mining manager is taking some members of parliament for a ride. Since these telegrams were sent not only to members of this party but to all the Liberal party and the members of the government, I think this is a situation that merits some kind of check. It certainly arouses a great deal of scepticism in my mind about the integrity of the Rio Tinto organization or whoever it was in that organization that got this particular scheme going.
There is one other point I do want to mention. The minister has made a suggestion, not publicly but I do not believe he will mind if I refer to it publicly, that members of this group, especially the hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon. member for Timmins, have been sceptical of the underground inspections carried out under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. He has made the suggestion that this question of underground inspections might be aired in the mines, forests and waters committee. We would appreciate that suggestion. We think the question could be gone into very quickly, perhaps in one or two meetings, and it would certainly go a long way toward satisfying the views we have expressed.


Mr. Nielsen:: The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is of great importance to the people of my riding, and I hope any remarks I make this evening will indicate just how important I think the department is in so far as the development of the rest
5348	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys of the nation is concerned. I feel that nothing is more basic or more fundamental, nothing is more vital to the advance of Canadian human and material betterment, than the work of this department.
One thing stands out most clearly from the evidence heard while the estimates of this department were before the standing committee on mines, forests and waters last year, that is, the failure of government for at least 10 and, in some branches 25 years to recognize the value of the work of the department. Not only has there been a continuous disregard of the material benefits to Canada which would have resulted from allowing the department to fully perform its proper function but the skill and brilliance of the departmental scientific and technical personnel has gone almost unnoticed, and their counsel and advice unheeded. Over many years, at least a decade, there have been clear and persistent indications of the need for reform. For just as long and just as clear have been the indications of the important benefits to Canada which would be the natural and inevitable result flowing from these reforms. But the need and the importance of the need were either ignored or neglected year after year.
The kindest thing that can be said for the Liberal administration in this regard is that they failed to realize the real significance of the work being produced by the department, that they remained for so many years in ignorance of the true value of this work and its relation to all phases of Canadian development. If they did realize the significance of the contribution to be made by the work of the department, their failure to do anything about it amounts to the grossest neglect of their duty while in office.
I submit that the evidence given before the standing committee last session stands as a massive indictment against the former administration to which they may plead either ignorance or neglect but to which they cannot be heard to plead innocence.
I have said that there is no single phase of the economic life of this nation that is not affected by the work of this department. Despite this very important fact, however, the restrictions which have been placed upon the functions of the department in past years have relegated it to playing an insignificant role in national development. When it had so much to offer, advantage was not taken of its capacities. It became the orphan of government and continued to be regarded as such over the years.
This is the condition then that faced this government when it first took office in June of 1957. Members know that one of the first


steps taken by this government during the first session of parliament after the present cabinet took office was to reactivate the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, a committee which had lain dormant for over 22 years during Liberal administration. In my opinion the first fruits of the work of this committee have been realized. The searching inquiry conducted into the function of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has resulted in the production of a useful report to the house.
It would be exceedingly difficult to exaggerate the importance of the functions of this department. Its chief role should be regarded, I feel, in the light of the significance of the Canadian mineral industry. The significance of minerals in providing the material basis for the economic life and social organization of humanity has long been recognized. Our civilization today, more than ever before, depends for its continuance on the minerals which permit and sustain its existence. The geometric increase and the concentration of world populations, the frequency and speed of movement of transport, the extent and quality of human control over the forces of nature are all directly dependent upon the discovery and utilization of mineral resources. It is, therefore, of prime importance that we in Canada should have as accurate information as can be obtained about the extent of the available reserves in this field.
It would be a great mistake to assess the functions and the needs of this department on the basis only of the requirements today. And it is not enough to simply say "We will not make such a mistake" without giving a good deal of thought to the reasons for saying such a thing. I believe there are sufficient indications of the trend of future demands for minerals as to warrant the assertion that Canada must be prepared to meet the needs of 10, 20 or 30 years from now. Indeed, there is no reason why we should not, in our considerations, contemplate the fact that upon the expiration of a century from now all world sources of minerals will likely have been exhausted. There are a number of very basic factors which justify taking this position. I feel that these factors are clearly distinguishable now, but before discussing them I should like for a moment more to deal with the importance of minerals to Canadians today and tomorrow, all in the light of the objectives which should be those being pursued by this department. A good many of the department's requirements and shortcomings are known now, thanks largely to the examination of departmental activities and deficiencies by the mines, forests and waters committee last session.

It is very difficult to chart future courses but I think all will hasten to agree that we must make a concerted effort to do so; and in doing so I do not think it would be desirable for us to confine ourselves to domestic needs and trends. In so far as the world picture is concerned, the more optimistic observers point out that there is today no serious or general shortage of any essential metallic or non-metallic mineral product. These people say that the discovery of new sources has always kept abreast of the increasing demand and, further, that new discoveries combined with increased efficiency in methods of processing and utilization will be adequate to meet any future needs.
How about the pessimists? They emphasize, and rightly so, the fact that mineral resources are wasting assets. They are not replaceable as are our agricultural products, our forest products and the like. Once the mineral content supplied by nature in the crust of the earth has been exhausted either by wasteful or beneficial use, it cannot be restored. These people say that the rate of consumption today presents an entirely new problem for which past experience gives no assurance of a solution.
But there is one thing that all scientists agree on and that is the necessity of maintaining an ample supply of minerals and metals if our civilization, as we know it, is to be maintained or if further progress is to be made. Iron, copper, lead, zinc, nickel, aluminum, magnesium and other base metals are, by definition fundamental to our way of life. Almost equally important are such alloying metals as manganese, chromium, molybdenum and tungsten, which are essential to the steel industry. The industrial minerals, limestone sulphur, salt and fluorspar supply the raw materials for much of the world's chemical industry, while the mineral fertilizers, phosphate rock and potash, are of growing importance in agriculture. Without these or effective substitutes large segments of the prospective population of the earth will be condemned to lives of misery and degradation.
Eminent scientists have said that the implications of these facts raise a problem so vast and of such universal incidence that in a sane world they would be made the immediate subject of common study and cooperative planning. The best proof of this statement is to be found in the difficulties that are being experienced in adapting atomic energy to beneficial rather than to destructive uses. In the race between education and catastrophe, education is falling farther and farther behind.
Business of the House
I said earlier that we are justified in stating that within the century ahead we can see the exhaustion of practically all known ore deposits and that there were a number of factors that justified such an assertion. The first of these is the rapidity with which the number of human beings on the earth is increasing. This geometric increase is resulting in the addition of some 122,400 births every day or 45 million per year. In the 30 minutes allowed me to speak here 2,550 more humans are born than have died.
A second fundamental factor is the almost universal demand for a higher standard of living. This will mean, inevitably, an expansion of the demand for mineral products. In fact, it is quite clear that the combination of an increasing population and rising standards of living will place a strain on world metal resources which will almost certainly in the end prove beyond the capacity of man and nature to supply.
I do not think I need dwell at any length upon the importance of these factors in the common western fight against the spread of communism.
May I now say a brief word on conservation. I think it is important to observe that since 1914 the depletion of world mineral resources has been proceeding at an unexampled rate. It should cause us all to pause for serious reflection to realize that the quantity of mineral products consumed between 1914 and 1949-that is 35 years-far exceeds that of the whole preceding period of man's existence on earth. It is a fearful realization that human intelligence has allowed a great proportion of the minerals used in the last 50 years to be criminally wasted in the most destructive wars in history.
As world resources of metals are exhausted the significance of Canada as a major supplier increases. The importance of the work of this department becomes even more significant as we consider the factors affecting resource consumption.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business will be for tomorrow? Also can the house leader indicate what we will be doing next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will carry on with the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys,

Business of the House
followed by the Department of Justice; and, if things move rapidly, we have the Department of Transport.
Next week, on Monday and Tuesday there are a number of legislative items which can be dealt with. The first item on Monday will be a motion to extend the hours of sitting of the house just as was done last year at this particular time. The second item will be second reading of Bill No. C-76, an act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act. The third item would be second reading of Bill No. C-78 to amend the Judges Act. Between now and Monday there will be appearing on the order paper certain resolutions. One will deal with the extension of the freight rates assistance act for another year or part of a year. The next will be a resolution with regard to setting up a
department of forestry. The third will concern an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act and the fourth an amendment to the Criminal Code. These should be available for the house on Monday or Tuesday.
For the balance of the week, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, I believe the program with regard to estimates will be a continuation of the ones which may not be finished tomorrow. So that members may make preparation but without determining the exact order at this moment, may I say that we will then take external affairs, northern affairs and national resources, public works and national revenue. On Monday night we might reach agreement as to the order in which these estimates would come forward.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[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. Argue: 1.	Do the armed forces employ manning (i.e. recruiting) teams?
2.	If so, are they unified or does each service maintain its own separate teams?
3.	How many personnel by ranks are employed In all manning teams?
4.	How many manning teams are there by service?
5.	How many personnel by ranks are employed In manning duties, including all manning teams,
Questions
manning staffs at area, command and army headquarters, and personnel depots?
6.	What was the total cost by services of manning
(a)	exclusive of staffs and personnel and manning
depots in fiscal year (i)	1958-59; (ii) 1959-60;
(b)	inclusive of staffs and personnel and manning depots in fiscal year (i) 1958-59; (ii) 1959-60?
7.	How many personnel by services were enlisted due to the efforts of manning teams during fiscal year (a) 1958-59; (b) 1959-60?
8.	How many personnel by services were enlisted directly by personnel or manning depots without going through manning teams during fiscal year (a) 1958-59; (b) 1959-60?
9.	How many personnel by services were rejected for service after being despatched by manning teams to personnel or manning depots during fiscal year (a) 1958-59; (b) 1959-60?
Answer by: Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):
1.	Yes-recruiting offices including some mobile units.
2.	Each service maintains its own recruiting units. Tri-service Canadian armed forces recruiting centres have been established m a number of locations to assist in coordinating recruiting activities and to reduce accommodation costs.
3.


Lt Cdr	 9
Lt	 19
CPOl	 11
CPO 2	 11
PI	 16
P 2	 5
LS	 3
AB	 4
Total	 83
Total.


CA(R) RCAF
[Stage Direction]
Capt	 3
Lt	 43
Sgts	 94
S/L	 4
F/L	 64
F/0	 4
Sgts	 22
Cpl	 22
LAC	 38
Total	 154
[Stage Direction]
54
[Stage Direction]
Capt	 1
Cdr	 l
LCdr	 10
Lt	 21
CPOl	 11
CPO 2	 11
PI	 16
P 2	 5
LS	 8
AB	 4
Total	 88
[Stage Direction]
Col	 1
Lt Col	 4
Maj. Capt..
Lt....
S/Sgt. Sgt.... Cpl.... Pte____
18
2
15
Total	 217
[Stage Direction]
O/C..
w/c.
S/L.. F/L.. F/O.. Sgt... Cpl... LAC.
Total.
1
66
23
40
6. The totals shown below include under (a) costs of advertising, travelling expenses of staffs and recruits, rents, medical examinations by civilian practitioners and vehicle operating costs, and under (6) the costs under (a) plus the pay and allowances of the staffs shown in the answer to question 5.
1958/59
1959/60
(°) RCN	 $	489,967.00
CA(R)	 1,378,458.00
RCAF	 1,108,914.00
(6)		 *	976,750.00
CA(R)	 2,653,619.00
RCAF	 1,938,420.00
$	530,809.00
1.334.024.00
1.061.765.00

[Stage Direction]
Questions
7.	Total enrolments were as follows:
1958/59	1959/60

[Stage Direction]
8.	Analysis of total enrolments on this basis is not available.
9.	Total rejections were as follows:
1958/59	1959/60

Mr. Boulanger: 1.	Since the new Farm Credit Act was passed, by provinces, how many applications for loans were received (a) under part II; (b) under part in, by the farm credit corporation?
2.	How many inspections were made?
3.	How many loans have been granted?
4.	What is the total amount of loans in each province?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):
1.	British Columbia	
Alberta	 [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]-
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
Ontario	*	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island	
Newfoundland	
2.	British Columbia	
Alberta	 [DOT] [DOT]
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island	
Newfoundland	
3.	British Columbia	
Alberta	-	
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island	
Newfoundland	
4.	Principal of loans outstanding as of March 31, 1960.
British Columbia	 $ 4,432,000.
Alberta	 20,311,000.
Saskatchewan	 36,536,000.
Manitoba	 9,462,000.
Ontario	 34,522,000.
(a) Under part II (5) Under part III
146	6
1,227	20
1,775	26
127	11
1,756	38
161	12
49	2
24	1
64	2
0	0
549
43
87
16
0
513
48
71
11
0
Quebec	 3 5,795,000.
New Brunswick	 1,782,000.
Nova Scotia	 1,285,000.
Prince Edward Island	 3,104,000.
Newfoundland	 Nil.

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


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
242.	Departmental administration, $1,641,729. National health branch-
Health services, including assistance to the provinces-
243.	Administration, $367,444.
244.	Consultant and advisory services, $762,288.
245.	Laboratory and advisory services, $1,880,791.
246.	To authorize general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $63,591,941, $42,000,000.
Indian and northern health services-
247.	Operation and maintenance including grants to hospitals and other institutions which care for Indians and Eskimos, $21,362,102.
248.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,786,600.
Supply-Items Passed
249.	Medical advisory, diagnostic, and treatment services, $3,863,807.
250.	Administration of the food and drugs and the proprietary or Patent Medicine Acts, $1,984,777.
251.	Administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act, $247,081.
Welfare branch-
Family allowances and old age security-
252.	Administration, $3,077,462.
Aid age assistance, blind persons and disabled persons allowances-
253.	Administration, $113,390.
General-
254.	Grants to health and welfare and related organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $243,250.
255. Civil defence health, welfare and training services, $4,593,008.
National health branch-
Health services, including assistance to the provinces-
532.	Laboratory and advisory services-further amount required, $125,479.
General-
533. Civil defence health, welfare and training services-further amount required, $750,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 24, 1960

Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. LaRue) who regrets that he will be unavoidably absent from the house, I suggest that I be made the sponsor of Bill No. S-24, an act respecting the Wabush Lake Railway Company Limited and Arnaud Railway Company. Accordingly I would request, with the leave of the house, that my name be substituted for the name of the hon. member in the records of the house as sponsor of the said bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable to giving unanimous consent to the request of the hon. member for Davenport that his name be substituted as sponsor of this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


REFERENCE OF WHEAT BOARD AND GRAIN COMMISSION REPORTS TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Gordon Minto Churchill: That the annual report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year ended July 31, 1959, which was tabled on February 10, 1960, and the report of the board of grain commissioners for 1959, which was tabled on May 2, 1960, and the supplementary report of the Canadian wheat board on the 1958-59 pool accounts for wheat, oats and barley, tabled today, be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice, in view of the fact that he received a delegation from the Chinese community yesterday, whether he has any comment to make on that part of their brief which charged that some members of their community had been picked up by the R.C.M.P. and held incommunicado; that they had then been questioned by special agents
from the Hong Kong police, and that they were being asked to submit to the indignity of completing questionnaire forms.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that allegation in the brief yesterday when the delegation was before the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and myself. I pointed out to the members of the delegation that one or two complaints with regard to this sort of alleged treatment had been received, had been carefully investigated and had been proved to be entirely without foundation, particularly with regard to intimidation and being held incommunicado.
May I point out that so far as the R.C.M. Police are concerned the investigation and the questioning are being carried out by a group of most reliable, highly trained and experienced members of the force. It is true, as has been known, that we are making use of the services of some members of the Hong Kong police force who have been sworn in as special members of the R.C.M. Police. They have also been carefully instructed in Canadian police methods and in the law regarding the carrying out of investigations and the questioning of individuals.
I have suggested that if in fact there should be any improper conduct it be brought to my attention for investigation; but I stress again that such allegations of this nature as have been brought to my attention have been proved to be without foundation.


EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the press report this morning that Canada, along with Australia and New Zealand, will challenge the legality of certain import controls that the European common market have announced will be levied against agricultural products, and that this challenge will be made at the meeting of the general agreement on tariffs and trade in Geneva this fall. Would the minister say whether Canada is preparing such a protest, and would he enlighten the house as to why this is necessary since we have been given the assurance from time to

Inquiries of the Ministry time that the European common market was not being used to reduce or exclude imports from outside?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the problem of what may happen within the common market concerning its agricultural policy has been under study now for several years. I spoke on this subject at the GATT conference in 1957, and ever since then at the ministerial level and through official channels we have expressed our point of view concerning the agricultural policies which might be developed by the Six.
At the present time the representatives of Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Argentina are participating in a round of informal consultations with the common market countries regarding the agricultural policies of the European economic community. The Canadian delegation is headed by Mr. J. H. Warren, assistant deputy minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Representatives of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Finance are included in the delegation. That delegation will, in the course of consultation with representatives of the common market, once again express the point of view of Canada and urge that restrictions be not placed against our trade in agricultural products.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister not agree that this is now a matter of greater urgency in view of the fact that the tariff arrangements of the common market are to come into effect at the end of this year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It has been treated as a matter of great urgency all along, but whether those tariff arrangements will come into effect at the end of this year is a matter of question. It was proposed that they should come into effect on July 1 of this year but there was a postponement until January 1, 1961. Consultations will be continued in the interval.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister give the house an assurance that representations of the strongest kind will be made with regard to any suggestions that there should be a discriminatory tariff on salt fish?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That will be taken into consideration, and every possible step will be taken to protect the marketing of Canadian products overseas.
[Mr. Argue.)


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the answer the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave a little earlier may I ask whether he can report what headway, if any, is being made at meetings of the O.E.E.C. so that the disastrous consequences that might flow to the Canadian economy because of the actions of the inner six or outer seven may be averted? Have any meetings been held lately?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, a series of meetings have been held since January. Tentatively a date has been set later in July for a meeting of ministers to discuss the various problems. I deplore the use of the words "disastrous consequences" by the hon. member. I think we do not need to be that fearful. There is proper concern with regard to the development of these trading blocks, but I suggest that a more moderate phraseology would be acceptable.


Erhart Regier: Is the Canadian government making any move to associate Canada with either one or a number of these trading blocs?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, when the
Minister of Finance and I were at the conference in Paris in January that matter was taken into consideration. The meeting which may be called in July will have that as one of the subjects for discussion.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue, and ask him whether he is aware that representatives of 1,200 television performers walked out of contract negotiations after they had termed the offer of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a ridiculous one. Has the minister any comment to make on this information which appears in this morning's Gazette, which I presume the minister has seen?


George Clyde Nowlan: I have seen the statement and I heard the news dispatch with respect to it this morning. I presume the hon. gentleman may have heard the C.B.C. news, too, in which the corporation denied that this was an unreasonable proposition and said it was prepared to discuss further arrangements at any time.

I have not been able to contact the president himself during the last two or three days because he has been busy at a meeting of directors in Ottawa. Thus I have had no formal or, indeed, any discussions with him, but I propose to get in touch with him tomorrow after the meeting of directors is over.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister not think it would be a good idea to have top management sitting in on these discussions, as has been requested and as was done last year, I believe, during the course of similar negotiations?


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not dissent from the general principle, which seems to me a fair proposal. However, the C.B.C. has acquired a lot of experience in these matters in the last year or so and I hope the corporation knows how to deal with the situation. But I will discuss that matter with the president tomorrow.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Roy Tucker: wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister say what steps are being taken to avert tragedies similar to that which recently occurred on lake Williams, Nova Scotia, when a boy was drowned because a pilot, taking off from the lake, failed to notice the sailboat in which he was a passenger?


George Harris Hees: I shall be very glad to look into that matter.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am now in a position to give an answer to the question asked me this morning by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception. Under the air regulations certain regulatory procedures aimed at guarding against mishaps of this nature are prescribed. We have not yet received from our district officials the formal report with respect to the tragedy referred to by the hon. member.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND    INQUIRY AS TO VISIT BY MINISTER OF FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance whether the report is correct that he is contemplating a visit to Newfoundland
Inquiries of the Ministry on public business, and whether he can inform the house the nature of the public business he proposes to deal with there?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have accepted a very kind invitation from the board of trade of the city of St. John's to address them at a meeting in that fair city next Wednesday evening. I hope, if the business of the house permits, to lengthen my stay in the province by perhaps another day or two.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would consider being very, very careful about the choice and use of his statistics on that occasion?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister, Mr. Speaker, tries according to his lights to be very careful about his choice not only of statistics but of other things; and I can give to the hon. member the assurance that I know he so much wants, that in anything I do or say in Newfoundland I will not be placing any reliance on the Martin bureau of statistics.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. On his way to Newfoundland will the hon. gentleman be stopping in the city of Quebec?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this is intended to be a direct flight, but I can assure the hon. member that under any circumstances it is always a pleasure to visit Quebec.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister bring the house up to date on the employment situation in the province of Quebec?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I will be watching with interest from now on what is done in that respect in that province.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the minister if the several cabinet ministers from Quebec have applied for unemployment insurance?

Inquiries of the Ministry


ELLIOT LAKE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the committee considering federal assistance to the uranium communities in Canada will be in a position to report?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope very soon, Mr. Speaker.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister any comment to make on a report which appeared on the financial page of today's Globe and Mail to the effect that Canada's economy is falling short of earlier expectations?


Mr. Speaker:: That question sounds like an invitation for a half hour dissertation.


Lionel Chevrier: Your Honour certainly knows the habits of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister could answer yes or no I could perhaps permit the question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if I answered "yes" I should go on for at least half an hour to complete the answer.
(Translation):


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Egan Chambers: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) put a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) concerning a bill-board erected at the entrance of the cadet camp at Farnham. That question was based on a letter published in he Devoir of June 20, 1960, under the assumed name of "Passant" (passer-by). The correspondent complained that the inscription on the bill-board erected outside the Farnham camp reading:
(Text):
Department of National Defence Canadian Army Camp Farnham.
(Translation):
-was in English only.

The hon. member asked if the department intended to erect a similar bill board carrying a message in French. Mr. Speaker, the answer is simply no, for the good reason that there is already a similar sign in French on the camp grounds. I am forced to the conclusion that the writer of the letter must have gone by a little too fast since the bill board bearing the French message faces toward Montreal, while the one carrying the English message faces toward Farnham.
(Text):


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): May I ask the Minister of Public Works whether a decision has been taken by the government to construct a dock in the Blind River area in order to facilitate the industrial development of that district.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, that and many other suggestions and recommendations are being considered by the Department of Public Works.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, arising out of requests by the premier of Ontario and the premier of Manitoba for more generous federal-provincial financial arrangements and the reported request of the Ontario association of municipalities for the federal government to establish a bank loan service. My question is, at the next federal-provincial conference is it the intention of the federal government to submit to that conference a series of proposals, or will the conference be more along the lines of general discussion?
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, the determination as to the course to be taken by the conference will of course be made between now and the opening of the conference.


BIRTHDAY CONGRATULATIONS TO HON. MEMBERS FOR ESSEX EAST AND BONAVISTA-TWILLINGATE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, may I speak on

another matter. It is unusual that two hon. members should have a birthday on the same day, as have the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill).
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I on behalf of the official opposition thank the Prime Minister for his kindly reference to these two bright young members of our party.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I associate the good wishes of the C.C.F. with those offered by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to these very distinguished members, who sometimes act as the delinquent twins of the Liberal party.

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


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
242. Departmental administration, $1,641,729.
Jacques Flynn: Department of National Health and Welfare, item No. 242. This item will be found on page 50 of the blue book and the details on page 331.


Arthur Smith: It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to speak for only a few minutes, having had the pleasure of acting as chairman of the committee to which the minister made some detailed reference. May I therefore, at the outset, join with many hon. members of the house who have congratulated the minister on the manner in which he has conducted the affairs of his department during the past year; and in particular may I thank him on behalf of the committee for the great co-operation which he and his departmental officials extended to us during several weeks of intensified hearings.
First of all I should like to say that I recognize that I have no authority to make these comments as chairman of the committee and that these remarks are not intended in any way to serve as a rebuttal to the statement of the minister. However, having had the responsibility of compiling the report I thought I would make one or two references to the statement, perhaps by way of explanation or clarification of the references contained in the report of the estimates committee. In so doing, while the minister has already indicated the great degree of unanimity in the views of the committee and his departmental officials, I hope I can illustrate that we are even closer together in our views than his statement might have indicated at first glance.
Supply-Health and Welfare
In his opening remarks the minister made reference to our conclusions with respect to the hospital bed shortage in Canada. If I may quote from his statement as found at page 5246 of Hansard, he said in part:
I can assure the committee that the department is also concerned with this matter. At the same time we have serious doubts as to whether the suggested immediate review on a nation-wide basis of the availability of beds in relation to demand would be the most effective approach.
He then went on to point out the responsibility in the first instance of the provinces in dealing with this matter, with which, of course, the committee agrees. The explanation that I would make to him and to his department officials is just this. Throughout the entire report we were very conscious of the thin line separating the responsibility of the federal government and that of the provinces. We realized that in many of our recommendations we were indeed treading on dangerous ground having regard to the impropriety of making recommendations affecting the responsibility of the provinces. But having said that, we should also state that we felt that even though the responsibility in the first instance lies with the provincial authority, this fact does not relieve the federal government from some responsibility as well. If I may, I should just like to make reference to the recommendation itself with regard to the hospital bed shortage in Canada:
.. . the committee recommends that the relationship between the three levels of government be examined-first, to determine the seriousness of the hospital bed shortage in Canada by instituting an immediate review of availability in relation to demand;
Second, by discussing the results of this survey with provincial and municipal authorities so that any future critical bed shortage may be averted;
Third, in co-operation with the provinces, by attacking the problem of chronic bed care, with a view to providing increased accommodations for the more critically ill patients.
In all three references we acknowledge the responsibility of the provinces. We also accept the view of the minister that every effort should be made by the provinces to determine what is their problem with respect to the hospital bed shortage. However, it seems important to us, if only to standardize the review in order to determine what is the seriousness of the problem, that this could best be initiated by the federal authority. This does not, Mr. Chairman, in any way offend the rights of the provinces. It merely assists them, and of course the federal government, in coming to some conclusion on the question of how we can resolve this serious problem.
I would point out that there is not a city in Canada that is not concerned with the problem. That being the case, we concluded that the federal government as such could do

Supply-Health and Welfare a service to the provincial and municipal authorities by assisting in a review to ascertain how great the problem actually is.
The next point to which the minister took some exception dealt with the question of closed hospitals. In fact he said that his most serious exception to our recommendation was what he described as a basic disagreement with the implication of the committee's comment relating to this problem. I do not intend to argue the point at all, but merely point out that in the final paragraph of his statement dealing with this problem he said this, as reported at page 5247 of Hansard:
While I cannot therefore agree with such an action-
The action of the committee, or the recommendation of the committee.
-I would emphasize that the department does have a definite interest in this matter, and we have expressed this interest through what we consider to be the proper channels-
From this I think it is right to conclude that the committee had brought to the attention of the minister the problem of which he has been well aware, and that we disagree only on the method by which this problem should be approached, not on the existence of the problem.
There are a number of other items on which the committee and the department, through the minister, have expressed general agreement. The item with respect to civil defence and the emergency measures organization perhaps is one obvious example. The minister rightly points out that some of the recommendations of the committee are outside the jurisdiction or the authority of his department, and that he has referred those recommendations to the departments that are concerned with them.
He then went on to point out the progress that has been made on health studies with respect to his own department. We of the committee, of course, were happy to learn of this progress and I congratulate him on it, but perhaps the one point I would make is this. He discussed the amount of literature or pamphlets which are currently being printed or are under review. I would ask permission to draw to his attention the one reference we made in this respect, and which reads as follows:
(d) Information in either pamphlet form or through visual aids should be reassessed so that in the event of a national emergency, instructions will be expressed in concise and simple terms, thus avoiding confusion by too many complicated orders.
In other words the committee, or at least this member of the committee, expressed the view that the essential thing is to have the

population realize, in the event of an emergency, what action they must take immediately. We must avoid any risk or any danger of overcomplicating the problem by overwhelming our people with too much information or too many pamphlets.
The next reference which the minister made deals with the comment in our report concerning the difficult problem of publications within his department. He pointed out that these publications have provided a very useful service, and in that the committee concurs. He went on to state that provincial authorities have, in the first instance, requested these publications, and of course, this is true. I would point out however that when the cost is so small to the province it is perhaps understandable that these publications would be requested in great volume. We also acknowledge, sir, that in many instances these publications have been extremely useful, and it would undoubtedly cause some distress if they were all eliminated.
What we do ask, though, is whether the department should' not review an item which represents something in the vicinity of $400,000 to the government and which involves a staff of 33 people, to ascertain whether, in relation to the cost, the department and the country are receiving fair value for this expenditure. I feel this is a sound argument. The minister agreed, as the report points out, that this comes under the heading of information. Here again I am happy to note that the minister intends to keep this matter constantly under review.
In his reference to the efficiency evaluation of the department the minister rightly took credit for the fact that the committee were not able to find any breakdown in operational efficiency of the department. He then went on to make reference, as the committee did in its report, to the number of surveys and reviews which have been made by the methods division of the civil service commission. Our whole approach in making our recommendations assumed that further reviews would be made by this organization. We have looked at the type of surveys that have been made by the methods division in the past, and in each instance, taking a particular segment of the department, there is no evidence to suggest that this is in any way related from one department or one division of the department to another.
We suggest, therefore, and I think rightly so, a survey of a nature which would make an over-all estimation of such problems as overlapping of responsibility. Such a survey would no doubt be useful. We need not remind the committee, Mr. Chairman, that the department under review is one of the largest in terms of the expenditure of money,

spending something over a billion dollars. This need not be construed as meaning that the department is necessarily not inefficient, but quite the reverse. It means that if it is to maintain its present status these reviews from time to time could maintain its operational efficiency and therefore would be extremely useful to the minister. Here again I am happy, Mr. Chairman, that the minister concurs when he suggests that he has some sympathy for this recommendation as well.
I finally come, sir, to the one reference I would make outside of the minister's report in which he lumped together a number of recommendations and categorized them as part of government policy. Of course the committee recognizes them as such. There is one in particular however, the blind pension, payable to our handicapped in Canada to which I should like to refer.
We argue, sir, that not just from a humanitarian point of view but also from a basis of a practical policy our recommendation to eliminate the means test makes good sense and has validity. If this action were taken, this group of people who suffer such an unusual handicap would be encouraged to rehabilitate themselves to a greater degree and thus conceivably make of themselves even more useful citizens. We hope, therefore, that the government, the minister and his colleagues, will give special consideration to this recommendation.
I do not propose to go on, sir. I wanted to make reference only to those items, as I said, by way of explanation and not by way of disagreement. Perhaps it is significant to note, Mr. Chairman, that this department was under review by the committee during some 18 meetings, and on examination of its activities has produced what we hope will prove to be constructive suggestions rather than anything in the nature of serious criticism of the functions or operations of this department. As a private member of that committee I would be one of the first to congratulate the minister and his officials.
On this note, sir, I shall resume my seat and thank the minister again for his reference to the committee's work. We sincerely trust that in the not too distant future he and his officials will again come before the estimates committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, rarely do I speak at such length that my remarks have to be continued in the next edition of Hansard. However, I am interested in this question, and I do wish to complete bringing to the attention of the committee the recommendations contained in the policy statement of the Canadian welfare council. Last evening when I was required to take my seat
Supply-Health and Welfare because my 30 minutes had expired, coincidental with the arrival of six o'clock, I had dealt with all the recommendations up to No. 16. I now wish to continue the recommendations. I quote:
17.	The dominion government should create in the Department of National Health and Welfare consultative and technical services in welfare, analogous to those now available in health. These services should include such technical advice as may be required in, for example, statistical reporting, and the professional consultation that may be useful in such matters as the care of the aged, problems of social welfare administration and staff training.
18.	The dominion government should contribute substantially to the cost of professional and in-service training required in the administration of social security programs.
I think that is a very good suggestion indeed.
19.	The dominion government should make funds available for demonstration and research projects, in the causes and prevention of dependency, social and economic rehabilitation, and similar problems.
We see the need for that to an increasing extent in the various communities in Canada.
20.	Machinery should be devised to ensure regular communication among provinces, and between provinces and the dominion government, on all welfare matters of common interest.
I might say at this stage that I am very pleased to note that they always refer to the federal government as the "dominion" government.
21.	The dominion government should establish a broadly representative body of competent persons, the purpose of which would be to keep under constant review all aspects of Canada's social security program and to advise on changes and improvements that may from time to time be desirable.
I think that really does provide for cooperation and an exchange of competent persons across the country in a continuing review of the changing circumstances, the changing needs, and the need for changed programs to meet those needs.
Then the final recommendation, No. 22, reads as follows, and I am very interested in this one:
22.	The dominion government should appoint a royal commission to study all aspects of social security for which it has a direct or indirect responsibility and more particularly to make recommendations with respect to:
a.	Gaps in existing provisions and priorities in dealing with unmet needs.
b.	The appropriate methods of providing social security benefits, whether by social insurance, statutory social welfare payments, public assistance, or by a combination of these methods, in respect of old age, unemployment, sickness, disability, death of the breadwinner and the cost of child rearing.
c.	The development of a more integrated system of social security.
d.	Federal-provincial co-operation in the field of social security.
5292	MOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare
e.	The negotiation of reciprocal agreements with other countries in order to provide social security coverage on an equitable basis for immigrants to Canada and for Canadians residing in other countries.
f.	Other questions having to do with the design, content and administration of Canada's total social security system.
The council suggests that in the selection of members of the royal commission account should be taken of cultural differences, and of the need to include people with practical and theoretical knowledge of social welfare and social security.
I think the final paragraph is well worth reading into the record:
The appointment of a royal commission would ensure that these problems receive the thoughtful consideration they require. It would also provide an opportunity for interested and informed groups to appear and present their views. Only through such careful study and wide consultation can we be certain that the kind of design and structure toward which we move in our social security system will satisfy both the needs and wishes of the Canadian people and take full account of the realities of Canadian life.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am sure all hon. members of this house receive correspondence almost daily which indicates the need for an over-all social security system. I have received a letter just this morning from a lady in my constituency whose husband has been unemployed for six months, who has done his best to obtain employment and who has exhausted his unemployment insurance benefits. The provincial authorities refuse to place him on social assistance, and he is left stranded without any source of income or any money even to travel around and try to locate employment. That type of situation arises because of the lack of an over-all social security system which dovetails the policies of the federal and provincial governments.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I think all of us recognize this need and that it is obvious, but the need requires immediate attention. Without doubt we have the financial capacity to meet the cost of an over-all social security system. We have the administrative staff and the medical personnel. We have the technical and other staff both in the federal and provincial governments as well as in other institutions; competent, talented people capable of administering such a program. We do not go into this in darkness, because we have the experience, although the circumstances are somewhat different, of Great Britain and other western European countries to guide us. We also have the information as to the attempts in this direction in the United States; and best of all in Canada we have the experience of that


pioneering province in social security, Saskatchewan, which has now received a mandate from the people of Saskatchewan to institute a provincial health insurance scheme. No doubt within a few months we will have valuable experience as a result of the institution of that scheme.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that in the immediate future this government should attend to the urgent needs of the people, particularly with regard to old age security, old age assistance and other forms of relief which require attention, by means of amendments to social security legislation. At the same time the government should accept this recommendation of the Canadian welfare council for the appointment of a royal commission which would have the opportunity to do the things mentioned in their policy statement; which would get the views of provincial governments, municipal organizations and other organizations and interested people across Canada, and which would have not vague terms of reference but terms of reference that would authorize the royal commission to make recommendations for an over-all social security plan to meet the needs: of the Canadian people.
(Translation):


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: Mr. Chairman, the standing committee on estimates, of which I have the honour to be a member, convened for a few days to look over all sections of the important Department of National Health and Welfare. First of all, I must say that our task was greatly facilitated by the full co-operation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) and all the department's officials. As a matter of fact, the minister, after stating that he was very happy to take part in the discussion of his department's affairs by the members of. our committee, supplied a detailed report; which enabled us to have a good general': idea of the work to be accomplished.
According to the minister, the total estimates of his department for the year 1,9601961 would amount to $1,439,240,729, which; means an increase of more than $38 million, over those of the previous year. One-reason, for that increase can largely be attributed: to payments intended under the unemploy-, ment insurance scheme, in which the province of Quebec has decided to participate in , the future. At this stage, I am very happy to. point out that wise decision on,the part of the legislators in my province..

In future, many unemployed who are unable to work because of their age or physical handicaps will therefore receive assistance of which they had been deprived under the Disabled Persons Act. Indeed, under that legislation, assistance was available to only fully disabled people who had no hope of recovering.
Among the many items provided in the significant budget of $1,439,000,000 submitted for the Department of National Health and Welfare, there are three main ones which almost cover the whole amount. I referred to the sum of $599 million required for the Old Age Security Act, the sum of $508 million required to enforce the Family Allowances Act, and finally the sum of $167 million to pay the federal government's contribution under the provincial Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.
May I be allowed, as a doctor, to make a few comments on that last item.
As mentioned by the minister in his general report on the operations of his department, the implementation of a federal-provincial contributory hospital insurance program is just beginning. However, the budget had to increase more than twofold yearly, since 1958, to such an extent that the estimated budget for 1958, that is, $55 million, will reach $162 million for 1960-61.
With regard to those estimates, the province of Quebec remains the only province not included in that program. That abstention on the part of my province may have seemed unusual to the other nine. In this connection, I have heard here, several remarks, often commented upon in our newspapers, and which were all of a political character.
I myself, during the last session, referred here in the house to some remarks I personally heard from the late Mr. Duplessis on that matter. "Tell your colleagues in Ottawa", he told me, "that I am not opposed, in principle, to hospital insurance, but we have to be wise and honest. Wisdom compels us to see how the other provinces will fare in this field, and to benefit from their experience, favourable or unfavourable; honesty compels us to avoid establishing a hospital insurance plan before we have a sufficient number of beds to meet the needs. Nobody has the right, he added, to open a drugstore if he has not the necessary drugs to put on his shelves".
Consequently, the policy of building hospitals of all sizes and for special requirements has received a new impetus in the province
Supply-Health and Welfare of Quebec, these last few years. While there were 9,000 beds in 1944, there were 27,000 in 1959.
May I be allowed to point out, incidentally, that several large hospital construction projects are still under way this year. 1 would refer in particular to Savard Park hospital located in my constituency, so often referred to here and in the press, as an example of injustice towards Indians and Eskimos. That hospital will be the first of its kind to be placed at the disposal of family doctors who, until now, had the greatest difficulty in getting their patients admitted and treating them there in general hospitals.
Our province will therefore have its hospital insurance plan this year. A commission has been appointed by the Barrette government-and I hope it will continue its job under a new government-to consider a particular plan appropriate to the needs of a province that is different from the others-.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Lesage made a statement on that subject.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: I beg your pardon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The new premier made a statement on that subject.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: Yes, but we shall have to wait and see whether his statements will be translated into action.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You can be sure there will be no delay. Mr. Lesage is a man of action, as yesterday's results show.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: We hope so.


An hon. Member:: Time will tell.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: -a plan, as I was saying, that will answer the needs of a province that is different from the others, especially in the field of hospitalization. In fact, Quebec hospitals are mainly owned by religious orders and this will have to be taken into account.
Besides, as I said earlier, action on this plan having been delayed, the experience of the other provinces will allow to make up for lost time and to avoid many mistakes. So, in due course, we will have our hospital insurance plan, as my hon. friend from Essex East (Mr. Martin) has stated, and as 1 personally hope. This plan has become necessary because of the prohibitive costs of hospital care especially for people of average income. The quality and improvements of care, the ever increasing cost of construction, development, equipment, drugs, food, wages, etc., are
5294	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare responsible for this situation and the whole medical profession has recognized the need for such a plan.
But we must make a distinction. If the medical profession is in favour of hospital insurance, I hope they will always oppose state health insurance. The doctor is, by reason of his professional character-and here I express my own view as a doctor-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Hear, hear.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: By reason of his professional character, the doctor can never become a civil servant.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: Unlike the latter, he must retain his freedom toward his patient, who after all is his employer, while the patient must remain free to choose his own physician. Unlike a civil servant, he has to work devotedly round the clock in his fight against disease and death, which are unpredictable and have no time limit.
I hope none of you will ever suffer a heart attack at two o'clock in the morning, at the very moment when the general practitioner or specialist, having become a civil servant, could refuse to get out of bed and answer your call until nine in the morning. A British doctor whom I met in Geneva told me he had had to wait three weeks for his turn to get a tooth pulled by the civil servant dentist, who inevitably closed his office at 5 p.m. and reopened only at 9 a.m. That just shows the drop in professional standards under state medicine. And what about a doctor's ambition to improve himself, to study and to devote himself, when he knows that his statute as a civil servant will be based less on his efficiency in treating the sick, than on his readiness to fill departmental forms. Doctors have not deserved to be drafted.
There are practically no citizens in the world except doctors who can claim to devote 18 to 20 hours a day of their time to their fellow men, and at a rate of remuneration reduced to 60 per cent in the case of the poor. The charges of greed recently levelled by a provincial premier at the doctors of his province were therefore baseless, and were just intended to justify his state medicine scheme. Under such legislation, doctors will become slaves to the state and the sick.
I therefore solemnly urge my colleagues in the noble medical profession never to lend themselves to the schemes of politicians of any colour or stripe. They will use every device they can think of to get their program through


at the expense of the medical profession, and at the expense of something we deeply cherish, the nobility of our mission, with all the freedom of action it involves.
I am pleased to mention here the position taken by the Canadian medical association, particularly by its Quebec section, at its last meeting a month ago. It passed a resolution in support of hospital insurance, but came out squarely against state health insurance. It will therefore support every form of free, noncompulsory health insurance, to which governments may perhaps contribute in favour of the poor and of the small wage earner, but it will never be persuaded to accept compulsory state insurance. It will not prostitute that noble profession, nor betray its ideals for political ends.
Then too, doctors should remain free, and their devotion should never be drafted, mainly to gratify the ambitions of politicians or socialist extremists.
I therefore urge the government never to agree to share in the costs of a policy of drafting the members of the medical profession into a state-run plan whose standards will certainly be lower.
Mr. Chairman, a third item of the estimate, which it is also very important to point out, is the one dealing with preventive medicine and general health grants. The amount included in the estimates in this regard, for 1960-61, is $63,591,941. This shows the vital role of preventive medicine and of measures to preserve our health and to prolong human life.
A learned physician and physiologist stated recently that man is built to live a hundred years or more. Hardly 30 years ago the average life expectancy was 40 years, but today it is between 68 and 70. We are therefore well on the way towards the objective suggested by our learned physiologists.
Before concluding, I want to add a few words about the very noble and honourable mission that our government entrusted to me in May 1959, when I was appointed as an observer at the 12th annual meeting of the World Health Organization in Geneva. Perhaps I should have reported immediately upon my return, but the session was drawing to a close and I have had no other opportunity until now.
I owe this honour especially to the minister of health and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker) and I take this opportunity to thank them publicly and cordially.

Our delegation was headed by Dr. G. D. W. Cameron, deputy minister of national health, a man of prestige and wide experience. Deputy head of the delegation was Mr. Wer-shop, ambassador and permanent representative at the European bureau of the United Nations.
As acting delegates we had such distinguished men as Dr. C. F. Amyot, deputy minister of health for British Columbia, Dr.
D.	B. Layton and Dr. Percy Moore, both senior officials of the department of national health, and Mr. R. X. Jay, first permanent secretary at the European bureau of the United Nations. I was therefore happy, Mr. Chairman, to be appointed as an observer with such a team, in so important a delegation.
Mr. Chairman, may I summarize now some of my impressions. This organization, a United Nations agency, is in my opinion, one of its most important ones. Because of its objective, the health and welfare of men all over the world, it is indeed the best peace organization, the most beneficent and humane one, without which peace cannot be achieved.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, during all those meetings there were no bitter discussions, none of those intractable obstinacies which, unfortunately, so often mar meetings at United Nations headquarters.
At the opening sitting, after the roll-call and the examination of delegates' credentials, Sir John Charles, chief medical officer of the department of health in Great Britain was elected chairman for the term 1959-60. Delegates from 87 regular member countries and from three associate member countries were in attendance. It was therefore a large gathering. Some representations were made by representatives of the communist bloc against the barring of continental China from a regular membership in the World Health Organization; but there were no attempts at sabotage. I might add that representatives from communist countries missed no opportunity for propaganda whenever the occasion offered.
Mr. Chairman, with regard to the barring of communist China, I daresay, speaking as a physician of course, that I found that discussion rather saddening. Indeed, when you consider the World Health Organization on a strictly medical and humanitarian basis, something comparable to the international Red Cross, it is distasteful to a doctor to think that 600 million human beings in com-79951-0-334
Supply-Health and Welfare munist China are being kept out of that essentially humanitarian organization, prevented from sharing in its great advantages, and of making their own scientific and material contributions to it.
On the other hand, if you look upon the World Health Organization as a United Nations agency, there was obviously no point in discussing the problem, at least until such time as communist China is admitted into the United Nations family.
I said a moment ago, that the WHO is doing highly humanitarian work which is needed throughout the world. I would even go further, Mr. Chairman and say that this indispensable work is being carried on particularly in underdeveloped countries. It is all to Canada's credit and honour, Mr. Chairman, to have been one of the first countries to join the WHO in 1946. Dr. Brock Chisholm, then Canadian deputy minister of health, was its first director general. It is therefore obvious that, since the start, our country has joined with the great powers in financing and promoting the establishment and growth of that peaceful organization. Its procedure is similar to that of a parliament. There is, first of all, a general meeting of all delegates to discuss the program of the session and to form committees on the various matters to be discussed; committees on health problems, on financial and legal administration, on research, on resolutions, the committee on estimates, et cetera.
The general assembly meets when necessary and is supplied with the reports of the various committees, to discuss and pass them.
Mr. Chairman, those committees discussed many of these matters, particularly the main causes of the appalling death rate in underdeveloped countries and ways to reduce it. Among the leading causes of heavy mortality are such infectious diseases as malaria, typhoid fever, smallpox, tuberculosis, leprosy and venereal diseases. However the problem of drinking water transcends all others. Water, almost to the same degree as air, is necessary to life.
My deskmate at the meeting, a delegate physician from Pakistan, stated that the average life expectancy in his country is 28 years and that 50 per cent of deaths were due to the lack of drinkable water. The water problem became the general theme because of the great number of countries which were deeply affected and interested by it.

Supply-Health and Welfare
A delegate from France even suggested that WHO should concentrate solely on the study and solution of this single problem, that of polluted water-which incidentally would have helped solve many other health problems, instead of trying to tackle all problems at once, because, he said, quoting an old French proverb:	"Grasp all, lose
all". In other words, he who tries to solve everything at once solves nothing.
Therefore, before Mr. Khrushchev offers to settle the water problem, there is urgent need for all the favoured nations in the world to take the necessary steps, at least, to supply good drinking water to the hundreds of millions of human beings who are dying of hunger, thirst and infectious diseases in underdeveloped countries. Is it believable that two persons out of three in the world do not have enough to eat, nor enough to drink, except infected water?
Very serious studies have been undertaken about the steps to be taken to control contagious diseases which are so widespread and dangerous among tropical peoples. But money will always remain the sinews of war.
The assembly expressed regret that its budget was inadequate to achieve its dedicated program of controlling malaria. To obtain additional funds it called upon governments, industries and all private organizations that are in a position to contribute towards the control of that plague, malaria, and to press further, if possible, the implementation of a health program throughout the world.
Reference was made also to special funds designed to organize research and to direct it along the efforts being made by the organization to raise health and welfare standards throughout the world. The sum of $500,000 was therefore added to the budget for research purposes.
The assembly also decided to have the necessary plans prepared for the construction of a special headquarters building for the permanent staff, and for carrying on of all the activities of the World Health Organization. The space it has occupied until now at United Nations headquarters has become inadequate. The federal government of Switzerland, and of the canton of Geneva in particular, have offered the land and their assistance in preparing the financial operation, totalling close to $7 million, involved in that construction.
Before closing its session, the World Health Organization approved a budget of $16,918,700

for the implementation of the 1960 program, Canada's contribution being fixed at $483,000.
In conclusion, I may state as an observer that it is altogether impossible to evaluate the work carried out by the World Health Organization. This work is absolutely necessary and essentially humanitarian, as I said earlier, since its purpose is the health and welfare of human beings. It is a work likely to bring peace because its object is to fight thirst, hunger, disease and death. World peace is unattainable in the presence of extreme poverty. So far, peace secured by armaments has always proved a failure. Physical and moral misery has always been the spark that ignites war.
You may be sure that our annual contribution of $500,000 to the World Health Organization fund is an investment much more likely to bring peace than the hundreds of millions of dollars that we spend each year on armaments whose effectiveness in establishing peace is not only often questionable but actually nil.
(Text):


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, before commencing my remarks I wish to express appreciation of the excellent address given by the hon. member for Quebec West. Those who have known him over the last number of years realize that he is one of the men most devoted to the principles of the medical profession of which he is so distinguished a member.
Having paid my respects to the hon. member, I wish now to comment on what he said. Among other things he seemed to be apprehensive about what is happening to prepaid medical care plans. This group has always advocated prepaid medical care for the Canadian people, but I believe I can honestly say that none of us has ever advocated state medicine. If we decide on how we are to pay for medical care, while at the same time leaving to the doctors the pursuance of their profession as they deem wise and advisable, we feel that is far removed from what is commonly understood to be state medicine.
I do not think our group has ever been an advocate of state medicine. All we advocate is that when we are well we pay for the days when we shall be ill, and that we all hold one another's hands so that all of us can receive the finest care that the medical profession has to offer, regardless of the financial ability of the particular individual at that time.

The hon. member may wish to make a distinction between voluntary prepaid medical care plans and prepaid medical plans operated by various levels of government. I believe that is a minor detail. Our main contention is that it is only when it comes to the matter of payment that we ought to co-operate one with another so that no one shall go without necessary medical care. I believe that in the long run it will even be of assistance to those engaged in the medical profession; because I cannot understand how a doctor, having to worry about income, can more ably attend to his work as a doctor, namely the healing of the ill, than if he does not have to worry about who is to pay the bill.
At this time I wish to express my appreciation to the minister for the courtesy and kindness that have been extended to me and, I have noted, also to other members in the opposition within the past year. I believe that all of us in this house, regardless of where we sit, are vitally interested in the work being done by the Department of National Health and Welfare. I believe the health of our people ought to supersede political interests at all times. Never, to my notice at least, has the minister replied to inquiries with a political ax hidden behind his back. He has never done that when we have asked him for information. I think that attitude is commendable.
This house is exceptional in that it contains an unusually large representation from the medical profession. However, the minister has, as had other ministers before him, made it very clear that to be vitally interested in and to have some knowledge of the work of this department and the needs of the department do not necessarily mean that one has to be a medical man. The minister has shown that an accountant can be as greatly interested in this work as can a lawyer coming out of the Windsor area.
I wish to offer a number of recommendations. My initial recommendation has to do with our whole approach to the administration of social security in this country. We have veterans pensions, family allowances, widows' allowances, mothers' allowances, pensions for the disabled, pensions for the aged, pensions for this and pensions for that, pensions for almost every other thing, each with its own administrative arrangements. I feel there is a reason for this. We have obtained what little social security we have in Canada by concessions here and concessions there, always from unwilling governments, and some have been given at election time. However, that may be a political reality or even a need in Canada.
Now that we have this vast array, this vast conglomeration of welfare and pension plans 79951-0-3341
Supply

Health and Welfare in Canada, I think the time is overripe when we should begin to think in terms of consolidation; because, as every hon. member knows, we continually meet individual Canadians who, despite our terrific array of plans designed to help the unfortunate in Canada, are left out, who do not get into any of the many existing plans and schemes. I think if we agree to broaden the base and accept the fundamental concept that no one in Canada shall have to do without the basic needs in health, education, food, clothing and housing, then we should begin a process of consolidation. I see no real, valid reason why there must be a separate plan to pay pensions to the handicapped as apart from pensions to the blind, for instance. After all, even the blind are in receipt of pensions because they are handicapped, yet we have two different administrations with all the costly overhead. And, as I said before, because of this terrifically complicated machinery, for each little new need we set up a whole new administration with its overhead; yet it fails to meet the needs of ever so many individuals as each hon. member, I am sure, has experienced.
At an early date the government might well begin an investigation in to whether it is not possible to combine most if not all of our social security measures into one social security organization. This is in existence in those countries of the world where the people did not get their social security measures by bits and pieces, where they received it all at one time. In those countries we do find this over-all administration. Here in Canada we have not arrived at our social security measures in that way; therefore we have built up organization after organization after organization without having one over-all machine adequate to meet the needs of each and every individual.
I noted what the minister had to say in regard to hospital care for those who are chronically ill. I know he has given this matter a great deal of consideration over the past year, and that some research is under way. However, I noticed the minister's great hesitation in imposing any care for chronic hospital cases upon any provincial government. I can understand why he takes that attitude, because according to the British North America Act fundamental health care is under the jurisdiction of the provinces. However, when the minister and the federal government are under attack for this lack of action in certain respects, and that attack emanates from a provincial government, then I do believe the minister would be completely within his rights if he replied to such attacks without hesitation.

Supply-Health and Welfare
What I have reference to is that at the last meeting of the British Columbia legislature the minister of health of that province explained that the reason the people of British Columbia could not enjoy chronic hospital care was that the federal government refused to make grants for the building of chronic hospitals or to pay any of the cost of the maintenance of chronic hospitals. The health minister of the province of British Columbia knows that his contention at that time was not in accordance with what the situation really is, because for many long years now Ottawa has always been ready to share on a per bed basis the cost of building hospitals designed to care for the chronically ill. I believe that right now the federal government is prepared to contribute to a program in any part of Canada for building hospitals for the chronically ill an amount of $2,000 per bed. In spite of this the minister of health in British Columbia wants to lead the people of that province to believe that Ottawa is responsible for the fact there is not any real chronic hospital care in that province.
The federal government since the introduction of the national health insurance plan has gone a little farther and, as I understand our national health insurance plan, if a province now institutes a hospital insurance plan for those within the province who need hospital care because of chronic ailments, the federal government is prepared to share, to the same extent that it shares in other hospital care matters, in the cost of such care. The federal government, therefore, by legislation is prepared to contribute toward the construction of hospitals to look after the chronically ill, and also for the maintenance of such hospitals. The British Columbia minister, I rather suspect for political purposes or in order to avoid having to face this issue as a result of the demands of British Columbia residents, unjustly attacks the federal government. I believe the federal government should immediately reply to that attack, and reply in such a manner that the residents of that province become aware of that reply.
We in British Columbia are interested in seeing that the chronically ill are given adequate hospital care at the earliest possible moment. As the minister knows quite well, our hospital insurance plan in British Columbia provides only for hospital care so long as the doctor certifies the patient as acute. Immediately the patient passes the acute stage-this applies especially to our elderly people-and the doctor declares the patient to be chronically ill, then you have to leave the hospital or pay roughly $18 a day to the hospital, or you have to go to a nursing home. If you want to enter a nursing
[Mr. Kegier.l
home the rates are $185 a month and up, and the waiting list is as long as your arm. If you have not got that amount of money you have to either impose on some relative, if you have one who is able to look after you, or you have to go to one of the many disreputable nursing homes or so-called rest homes that will accept you in exchange for your old age pension or whatever pension you get from the municipality or provincial government.
The people back home are insisting that our existing hospital insurance plan be expanded to cover those declared chronically ill. I know that the federal government, by legislation, long ago decided that if a move is made anywhere in Canada to look after the chronically ill, there will be national money available to help.
I should like to see our national health insurance plan amended to include the cost of all prescribed drugs. I believe this would, perhaps, do more than anything else to resolve the questionable prices of these commodities. I have every sympathy, Mr. Chairman, for the interests of the men engaged in the practice of medicine. In the light of the income received by a lot of other people in Canada today, I doubt whether the income of our doctors is at a level which will inspire many young men or women to spend all the necessary years in obtaining that particular degree.
However, what really upsets me is the fact that when I receive a bill from the doctor and then when I receive a bill from the druggist I very often notice that the drugs that were prescribed cost much more than the time and work of the doctor who had the responsibility of prescribing the drugs. I believe that is away out of line. The man of medicine certainly ought to receive a higher compensation than the man who mixes chemicals, who is a chemist or a scientist and who only knows how to mix up a prescription in accordance with the orders of the doctor.
I should like to plead that the government, in the light of what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard and others, give serious consideration to the restoration of grants for a physical fitness program in Canada. When these grants were abolished a number of years ago that was done on the ground that few parts of Canada had taken advantage of the physical fitness legislation. I believe at that time only Saskatchewan had done so. Perhaps if the federal government again offered to share the cost of a physical fitness program, now that even such an eminent individual as the Duke of Edinburgh has made reference to the need for such a plan

in Canada, many more parts of Canada would indicate an interest and a willingness to participate.
I should like to say just a few words with regard to the physically handicapped. Mental retardation and physical handicap are often related, possibly more often than not. I note with a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction the hard work that thousands of parents in Canada are undertaking on a voluntary basis to supply education to the mentally retarded. I believe that if the federal government could aid in the cost of vocational education, and I agree that it ought to do so, then the health department ought to give some consideration as to whether in the long run it would not be more economical to help pay for the cost of providing mentally retarded children with an education. I believe that if our educational program for the mentally retarded could be greatly enhanced we might save ourselves a lot of pension money because many of these people, in later years, would not need pensions.
I should like once again to call the attention of the minister to the urgent need for establishing a portable pension plan available to all Canadians, but more specifically immediately designed for the industrial workers of Canada. I have spoken to many audiences and have asked them to indicate by a show of hands how many of them, in their lifetime, have paid into a pension fund and have later, either through some fault of theirs or through no fault of theirs, had to leave their place of employment, thus losing their pension rights. In most cases 90 per cent of those in attendance who had contributed to a plan have, somewhere along the line, lost their pension rights.
I know very well that in most cases when they leave these places of employment they can obtain a refund of their contributions. However, if most people are like me in this regard, a lump sum of money always comes in handy and may be used to buy a new car or a new television set. I do not realize that the money I am spending was really designed for my old age.
I do not think the refunds should be allowed quite so freely. I am glad that the annuities branch of the Department of Labour does not permit a refund. If you pay money into the annuities branch in order to buy yourself an annuity, that money must remain there for that specific purpose. However, because of the vagaries of the Canadian economic picture-partly, I think, because we are a growing nation-we find that less than 10 per cent of the people who today pay into a pension plan will ever receive the benefits
Supply

Health and Welfare of that pension as those benefits were designed to be paid at the time they were making their monthly payments.
I think the government could help the Canadian people to help themselves if they showed some initiative in this regard. I know there is a great deal that organized labour and employers could do. If they all invested their pension funds in the Canadian government annuities branch, our problem would automatically resolve itself. I deplore the lack of initiative on the part of labour unions and on the part of employers, when they sit across the bargaining table, in that they do not explore ways and means whereby the pension arrangements they are making with their workers shall carry the provision that the pension being arranged for will be portable and that the worker will be able to carry his pension rights with him wherever he goes, exactly as today he carries his unemployment insurance book and unemployment rights with him in moving from one employer to another or from one part of Canada to another.
I should also like to plead with the government to reconsider the level of grants it pays in the field of research in health matters. We have the heart foundation collection, the tuberculosis collection, and the diseases of children collection. We have umpteen health organizations all depending on charitable donations for their research work which is most essential. I have every respect for the voluntary efforts of tens of thousands of Canadians, and especially those of Canadian women who undertake this important and often thankless task of going out in the rain from house to house, knocking on doors and asking for donations in these multitudinous appeals. The work is necessary because there is no other way at the present time. The grants from the government are modest indeed. However, when this research turns up some useful knowledge it is added to the general pool of knowledge and everyone in Canada receives the benefit.
There is no one in this chamber who does not know that he may some day receive the benefits of the research going on with regard to heart ailments. I therefore submit that if we all share the benefits of this research work, we all should be made to share the costs as a community. I submit that this research work should not be handicapped by the lack of funds or by the lack of volunteers or by the unwillingness of some people to make voluntary contributions. Even if the government today absorbed all these organizations and the responsibility for them, I know that tomorrow there would be more volunteers for other worthy causes in Canada, and I think that is the way it ought to be.

Supply-Health and Welfare But once the need has been established and once the volunteer work has reached a certain stage of general public acceptance, then I think the government ought to move in and assume this responsibility on behalf of the people as a whole.
When the minister replies I should like him to tell us what exchange of research information is taking place between countries of the western world and countries behind the iron curtain. I believe the minister is well aware of the fact that in many respects in the field of research the medical profession in the Soviet union has made remarkable headway. I often wonder whether we in the western world receive some of the blessings of that research and, vice versa, whether the people behind the iron curtain receive the blessings of the research work that our medical scientists are doing. I know there is some medium of exchange through the auspices of the United Nations. I hope we can obtain a bit of information on that particular score.
I want to express in only one or two minutes my utter dismay at the issuance of this particular little book having to do with civil defence and entitled "Your Basement Fallout Shelter". I should like the civil defence department of the minister to be called the civil disaster plan. I believe it would be much more acceptable to the Canadian people, because we often face severe disaster in our communities. I think the population as a whole would be much more united if, behind any plans for community survival and for survival of the individual, the whole plan were called a civil disaster plan.
I am a little afraid that there may be interests at work who are attempting slowly to convince the people of North America that there is hope for survival in case of a nuclear war. I hope the Canadian people will maintain what I believe is their present position, namely that should we have a nuclear war there is no defence for the Canadian people. I hope there is not a move afoot gradually to convince them and to condition them into thinking that "maybe I and you will survive". I think we ought to realize that in case of nuclear war there is no defence and that we will not survive. I do not expect that I will survive, and I do not think any other Canadian has any logical reason to expect that he can survive the rigours of an all-out nuclear war. I hope this is not part of a process of conditioning the public mind. It is for that reason as well as for practical reasons, in order to get the public to really rally around this effort, that I believe the whole effort ought to be changed in name from civil defence to civil disaster.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: On a question of privilege, I should like to convey to my colleague the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam my sincere thanks for his compliments, and to tell him how greatly I appreciate his agreement on the health insurance question and his recognition of the work of the doctors in the community.


Henry Frank Jones: In speaking on the subject which I intend to discuss now for just a moment, may I say that I ordinarily would have raised it later on the estimates, but I am not quite sure that it neatly fits into any one particular category. I refer to the matter of household chemicals. Before asking the minister the question I have in mind, however, and in view of the great amount of attention which has been paid by the members of the C.C.F. group to the Saskatchewan medical care plan, I think I should say just a word about that situation.	-
Much has been said about it except who is to pay for it. On June 13 I asked the Minister of Finance whether the premier of Saskatchewan had as yet approached him for federal assistance to help pay for the Saskatchewan medical care program. That question was received with cries of anguish from the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Derision, not anguish.


Henry Frank Jones: "Derision", says the hon. member for Port Arthur; but yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia did exactly what I have mentioned. As reported on page 5268 of Hansard he said:
The Canadian government should come forward now with a federal prepaid medical care act by which the federal government would co-operate with any provincial government prepared to embark on such a prepaid medical care program.
That of course is a clear call for federal aid for the Saskatchewan medical care plan.
The point I wish to draw to the attention of the minister, and my principal reason for rising at this time, is the serious situation in my view which has arisen because household chemicals are not properly labelled as to whether they are dangerous or poisonous. Many of them do not have described on the label antidotes which would provide for emergency treatment where children or even adults might take these kitchen chemicals by mistake. It is my opinion that something should be done about this problem.
In the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of June 13 appeared the headline "Coroner warns householders against household poisons", and the article under that headline sets forth the sad case of a two and one half year old boy who died of poisoning as the result of getting to a can of household chemical labelled "RX.15",

containing plant food. Apparently there was not an antidote on the can or any suggested course of emergency action. I am not suggesting, of course, that this child would be able to read the label, but certainly the parents might have been in a position to take action which could have saved the boy's life. In certain cases, I am advised by medical people, when children take substances like this that may be poisonous, if a finger is stuck down the throat or if they are given some mustard emulsion the poison may be regurgitated and the child saved. But in this particular instance the child unfortunately lost his life.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge that some action be taken to deal with this particular problem. I think it is necessary action for the protection of children and people in general in the home. It is not always possible to have a doctor immediately available, and often emergency action is required. Even when a doctor is available the doctor cannot be expected to have at his fingertips the antidote for every type of household chemical. The case I have described is by no means an isolated one but one which has occurred time after time in this country, and surely we should call for action to bring about a remedy to this problem.
I do not know whether this responsibility lies solely upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare or whether the Minister of Justice should be called upon to assist in providing a remedy under one of the acts for which he is responsible. But I would suggest that the Minister of National Health and Welfare might very well take this problem unto himself and discuss it with such members of the cabinet as may be necessary in order to bring about action whereby packages of household chemicals are labelled and indicate whether or not they are poisonous. Also they should have on the label the antidote and the required emergency remedial action in case the substance is taken by human beings.


George Stanley White: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the deliberations of this committee for very long, and I think I can finish by a minute or two after one o'clock.
First of all I wish to commend the minister for his able administration of the department, and I want to compliment the hon. member for Quebec West for his very sound contribution to the deliberations of this committee this morning.
The reason I rise at this time is to bring to the attention of the minister and the committee a certain amount of consternation which was aroused among my constituents, as well as, I feel, many other people in the province of Ontario, when it was mooted in
Supply-Health and Welfare the press that the cost of hospital insurance in the province of Ontario would be increased by 10 per cent. Ontario residents are not unaware that prior to the commencement of hospital insurance, hospital rates were increased considerably. I am not prepared to say the percentage, but there was quite a considerable increase percentagewise. The residents of Ontario were sold the hospital insurance plan simply because the cost of hospitalization was getting to the point where many citizens of the province felt that unless they had a hospital insurance plan of some kind they certainly could not afford hospitalization.
So I rise to protect an increase in hospital insurance rates, and I do so also because we were told that this was going to be an economical method for the people to obtain insurance. We hear a good deal today from certain quarters about monopolies; there is a lot of complaint about monopolies on the part of companies. But the worst monoply in my estimation is a state monopoly, something against which you cannot legislate, something against which you cannot argue. It is a bureaucratic monopoly, and that I am certainly against.
If hospital rates could be increased by 10 per cent after one year without any protest from the people paying the rates, what is to hinder them being increased another 10 per cent two or three years hence? This leads to sloppy administration on the part of hospitals, and I do not think we want that.
I want to commend the hon. member for Quebec West for his plea that we evade at all possible cost what is spoken of as state medicine. I believe it is quite possible for the medical profession-and I am certain they are engaged in doing so-to work out a prepaid plan that will be acceptable to all Canadians. Then the medical profession can go on with their very worth-while work and the ill can have the doctor of their choice. Bureaucracy in the treatment of the ill is something which I personally have no wish to see.
Mention was made of annuity plans and the possibility of being able to transfer from one job to another or from one industry to another the pension plan that was commenced at an earlier date. All these pension plans are commendable, but let us look back 20 years and see what has actually happened. We must examine the value of the dollars people contributed to pension plans some years ago, and recognize that it bears no resemblance to the 50-cent pieces they draw out today. That is what inflation does. If we are going to witness a continuation of the galloping inflation that has gone on since 1945 we will witness

Supply-Health and Welfare a corresponding decline in the incentive for people to save and the ultimate destruction of all incentive so to do.
I thank the committee for its indulgence.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I intend to make only a few brief comments this afternoon, because the field has been fairly fully covered. One comment I will make is that we are going to have more and more hospitalization costs in the future as an increasing number of our population will be people over the age of 65. In the light of medical statistics it is interesting to glance around this chamber and realize that 30 out of every 100 people in this or any other group in the country owe their lives to the miracle drugs and serums and vaccines that have been developed in the last 50 years. I have only to list a few of the significant discoveries in this field to illustrate my point.
In the early 1900's, I believe in 1906, diphtheria antitoxin was developed. This was followed by the development of typhoid fever vaccine. It is important to remember that during the time of the Boer war more people lost their lives as a result of this dread disease than lost their lives in active service. It is significant to remember, too, that the war of 1914-18 could not have been fought on the scale it was if typhoid vaccine had not been discovered.
Coming to the twenties we find that on this continent, in the city of Toronto, there was discovered one of the most important findings in the history of medicine, insulin. This is an injection of pancreas that has extended the lives of many people and enabled them to live a full life span. Those of us who are old enough to be able to look back to the time before the discovery of this drug well remember those afflicted with diabetes who had poor, frail bodies and enormous appetites, and who could not pass a pail of water or a pump without pausing for a drink, and will be grateful that this is a disease now under control.
In 1928 significant advances were made by Minot and Murphy, working in a laboratory in Chicago, with respect to the discovery of the anti-pernicious anaemia factor, from liver and stomach. This represented another great victory by science in the field of human welfare.
Then came the discovery of the sulfa drugs and their derivatives in 1935. May I remind


hon. gentlemen that dagenan and sulfa derivative was worked out after more than 600 attempts. Hundreds of scientists have worked diligently in laboratories in their search for the elusive materials that would cure human ills.
The forties witnessed the discovery of penicillin. I well remember the first case in which I used penicillin. A shot was required every two hours and there was much pain involved. Hon. gentlemen will know that further advances have been made with respect to this drug, and it is no longer even necessary to take penicillin through a needle. It may be taken by tablet, and only one dose is required in a 24-hour period.
I have listed a few of the advances made by science over the years. Not long after the discovery of penicillin came the discovery of the new antibiotic drugs, the myocins; achromycin, terramycin, chlormycin, ilo-tycin and other derivatives that have saved countless human lives.
My friend the hon. member for Welland in his excellent speech dealt with his experience as a general practitioner. He recalled to my mind that in the early days when we were called out by a patient with pneumonia we went with the knowledge that one out of every five persons suffering from pneumonia was doomed to certain death. Today it is possible to go to a doctor and be cured of pneumonia within a few days. This in itself is of vast economic assistance to Canadians, not only in work hours saved but in eliminating hospital costs and in the prevention of suffering.
The speed with which many illnesses can now be retarded or cured results in decreased costs for many Canadians. The advances made -by science have also served to increase longevity in the population. As an illustration, may I point out that during the last 50 years the general population of Canada has increased two and a half times but that portion of the population age 65 years and over has increased four times in that same period. I do not have to point out that this will mean that there will be an increasing number of people in hospitals.
At the turn of the century, life expectancy was under 50 years. Today a child coming into the world can look forward to 70 years of life. This, however, is creating a problem in the field of employment and in other fields. For instance, the cost of hospitalization and welfare will continue to rise at a rapid rate as more people reach advanced age.
I suggest that it is not fair to put people age 65 and over suffering from chronic diseases in general hospitals along with persons who are under active, acute treatment.

I do not think you have to stretch your imagination very much to realize that the person who is acutely ill, whose life is hanging in the balance, will probably get the major share of the treatment, and that the older person with the chronic disease will not get the aggressive treatment that he would receive, perhaps, if there were a wing put on to that hospital where all those cases of people over 65 suffering from chronic diseases could be treated in accordance with what their condition demands.
I have only to recall to the committee that in 1920 I do not think there was a pediatric unit across Canada, if my memory serves me correctly. I well remember that when I was a student a few years later a pediatric wing was organized in the Kingston General hospital under Dr. MacGregor; and to tell you that the establishment of that pediatric unit as part of the general program of establishing chairs and professorships in our universities has cut our infant mortality so that today we can boast of life expectancy of 70 years for a child born in this country today is just to remind you of the results of our work in the field of pediatrics over the years.
I should like to suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the same principles and the same practice be followed by our hospitals today in the care of the increasing number of people in the geriatric class; that the same procedure be followed with chairs set up in universities and departments headed up with people concerned with the treatment of those older people. I think we would find that hospital costs would be cut considerably and that the people in the older age brackets would get better and more efficient treatment.
I wish to dwell on this for one more minute. There has been some talk about building separate units. I do not go along with that at all simply for the reason that we have to train medical students. Those medical students will be going out as general practitioners. They need all the knowledge of the treatment of those cases they can possibly get. I would remind you further that in the care of those cases certain drugs and certain types of treatment will be used, and the general practitioner will require to know about them. If they were put in separate units the tendency would be, in my opinion, to make the teaching inadequate.
I should like to dwell for a moment or two on the matter raised by an hon. member who said that only 200 British doctors had migrated to Canada and therefore conditions must be satisfactory in the old country. I have only this to say. When a doctor graduates from a university in another land and then comes to Canada, in most of the 79951-0-335
Supply-Health and Welfare provinces he is required to write another council examination. It is pretty difficult for a fellow who has been in practice a number of years to remember all the scientific theory that he was taught. The remark was made that there were 60,000 doctors in the United Kingdom. If my memory serves me correctly there are only 50,000. I know this is just an error in figures, but I do wish to point out that the figure of 200 is no criterion of the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the doctors in Great Britain. The fact is that it is difficult to pull up your roots, go to another country and write examinations before you can practise.
I just bring this to your attention, Mr. Chairman. In Saskatchewan, where people are inclined to say "Here comes the golden age", according to statistics one third of the doctors practising in that province are from Great Britain. I am wondering why that province has such a high percentage of British doctors when the rest of the country does not have that percentage. Maybe there is an answer to it.
I am also wondering about this. The golden age which they talk about in the province of Saskatchewan is in a little difficulty, or was in a little difficulty, with the hospitalization plan; because Dr. Erb, who I believe is their minister of health, stated that something had to be done to cut down on these spiralling costs. It was suggested to him by the head of the college of physicians and surgeons of that province that perhaps a deterrent would have to be added to control hospitalization.
I am just giving these facts, not to condemn any plan that will give the Canadian people the best of care, because I am sure every hon. member would want to do that. I hope we shall never let politics interfere with the profession or with the training schools in the United States of America and Canada, the countries that have given us the highest standards of medical practice in the world today, that have given us most of the major discoveries in the last 50 years.
When we consider some of the places that are state controlled perhaps we should hark back and take Russia, as leader of the communist world. We can state that there has not been one major discovery in medicine or one major advance in the field of medical science come out of Russia in the last 40 years. I am not saying that we should not have forms that are changed a little from what we have today; that may be necessary in a changing world.
I do wish to refer to New Zealand as an example of socialized medicine. We hear people stating over and over again that 52

Supply-Health and Welfare per cent of the doctors there practise outside the hospitals and 48 per cent practise in the hospitals, all graduates of the same schools. The 52 per cent who practise outside are the have-nots and the fellows on the inside are the haves. Their social legislation brought them to the point where they were almost bankrupt. I talked to many of the doctors, both the ins and the outs, and I wish to tell you that I did not find any of them perfectly satisfied with those plans. I had the same experience in England where I talked to some gentlemen on the inside and some on the outside whose names I will not mention. The fellows on the inside were getting better pay. You would think they would be satisfied but they said, "No, we do not believe in any system that tends to downgrade the fellow who graduates from the same school we did and from that day onward is an outside fellow, as compared with the fellow on the inside". This is the answer to those people who say that this is the system, this is heaven. It is not. I ask the committee to weigh all the facts and not just be swayed by some written arguments to the end so that any change we inaugurate in this country will be right and proper and best for all the people.
I want to spend a minute on rising medical costs. The hon. member for Middlesex West spoke about this. We have been told some of the reasons why our people are living longer. We in the field of medical science are responsible for that. I think every doctor and scientist in Canada will surely take pride in that, but I also want to recall to the attention of the committee that many of those people have given gratuitously of their services on boards or as nurses receiving small pay and working 12-hour days. When I was in hospital in those days the nurses took their 12-hour shifts. I remember the dear old superintendent we had. She supervised everything. She made up her books at night, and if anybody was short or off she covered up. She had an 18-hour day. I remember the personnel, the nurses in training. I recall back to the days when some of them just got enough to buy their stockings and their shoes. If they got more than that they were lucky. We do not want to go back to those days, and I am not suggesting that we should.
I want to pause now to pay a compliment to that great group of nursing sisters and nurses of all faiths who did such a great job in those training hospitals and are still doing it. They have made a wonderful contribution. They gave us the care that has enabled many of us to be in this house today, and the drugs that were developed through a system of


individual enterprise that stimulated freedom of thought and action to its fullest extent.
So in conclusion, I say that the cost of hospitalization has risen simply because two thirds of that cost represents the cost of labour; that is the situation. Does anybody want to cut costs by decreasing the payment to labour? Only one third of the cost is made up in other ways.
Then someone mentioned the high cost of drugs. There is one drug item I might mention which was used in this hospital that I selected at random, the cost of which represents only 4.5 per cent of the total cost of these lifesaving drugs. These drugs can save you anywhere from one week to four weeks of hospitalization in cases of pneumonia and other diseases. I remember the cases of appendicitis that we used to see in which the appendix had ruptured, and now as a result of these drugs such patients may be out in a week. These are the contributions these drugs have made to us.
There are one or two other things upon which I should like to dwell for a moment. The first is disabled persons; I noticed that someone referred to them. I want to say that in my opinion the examination policy respec-ing disabled persons by both provincial and federal governments may be wrong. I am not saying it is, but I am wondering about this policy. I recall a case in which I was interested during the time the hon. member for Essex East was minister. This was a difficult case, and this fellow was positively entitled to a pension. The pension was turned down by Ottawa. I knew the case well, and I knew it was grossly unfair to turn down the application for pension. I am wondering, therefore, whether we should perhaps take a long look at that situation and eliminate the doubling up on these examinations.
The other thing about which I want to speak is the provision of adequate shelters in our hospitals. I am wondering if this is being done. This thought occurred to me when we were talking about shelters the other day. It appears as though we are going to have to make preparations, such as the construction of shelters, for a long time to come. If that is true I am wondering whether we are looking at this problem realistically. Perhaps these shelters should be built in when hospitals are constructed, and perhaps they should even be built into houses constructed under the National Housing Act; because I am sure everyone will admit that it appears the need for them will not be removed in the foreseeable future.
The next thing about which I am wondering is our training of medical personnel. I just


I960
[Stage Direction]
want to leave a few figures with hon. members. As has been mentioned before, we in Canada are not managing only with our own graduates but with the help of graduates from other countries. In the United States today they have in their hospitals over 8,000 interns who are foreign born. I am not giving any statistics for Canada. The Minister of National Health and Welfare might have them, but I have not. I know that we would not be able to run our hospitals the way we are today if it were not for the fact we have in this country a great many graduates from British and other universities. I think we should look at that, too, in order to assure ourselves that this country will provide the proper medical care.
In conclusion may I say that any criticisms I have made have not been in the nature of destructive criticisms. They have been made for the purpose of stimulating interest in this problem in order that the people of Canada may continue to get the best medical care in the world.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, perhaps other members have noticed what I thought was a very significant development in the discussion of these estimates. The minister began by giving what amounted, in the main, to a rebuttal of the report by the House of Commons estimates committee which examined the Department of Health and Welfare. When I say "rebuttal" I mean it in the wide sense rather than in the sense of a direct confutation.
Today we had one of the earlier speakers, the hon. member for Calgary South, who is chairman of that committee, get up and make a rebuttal of the minister's rebuttal. I do not draw attention to this to particularly underline anything in connection with the department, but I think it is a significant parliamentary development. There has been a large grey area in so far as the rights and powers of parliamentary committees are concerned. I was not a member of this committee, but I thought it did as good a job as a committee could do in analysing the estimates of the department. I thought its report was vigorous and direct, and it was certainly understandable in so far as the average member was concerned.
I knew, from talking to some of the civil servants in the department, that the department's reaction to the report was to say the least rather strong. One could expect to get from the minister, therefore, a reflection of the bureaucratic feelings toward the committee's report. It seems to me that a house committee, even if the civil servants and the 79951-0-335J
Supply-Health and Welfare minister concerned react against its recommendation and against the policy considerations it entertains, should stimulate the department. In my opinion there is inertia on the part of the administration at times which must be overcome, and I think much of the stimulation will come from parliamentary committees that will face up to an analysis and perhaps make some overbold suggestions and criticisms. I believe this committee is to be congratulated, and I think the hon. member for Calgary South should be congratulated very strongly for standing up today to rebut the minister's rebuttal.
The comment I wanted to make about the minister of this department would be much the same as the comment made by other members. The few times I have had anything to do with the department he was most agreeable. Unfortunately he has not been able to find a solution to the largest constituency problem I have in connection with health and welfare matters. I refer to the problem of one of my constituents who writes letters on a weekly basis to me, to the minister, to the Prime Minister, to the Leader of the Opposition and to almost everyone in Ottawa in connection with a marvellous invention he has in the field of health. I wish the deputy minister would tell me how we can satisfy this dissident gentleman in my riding who has a magic invention which, when applied to the shoes of all Canadians, would cure so many of the ills to which they are subj ect.
In trying to assess the stature of a minister, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us have tended to look at his predecessors holding that post. We all know that the urbane gentleman, the hon. member for Essex East, was the minister of national health and welfare. The distinction I draw between him and the present minister is that as minister, the hon. member for Essex East was much more ambitious in a political way, in terms of looking for political promotion and going right to the top. I have a feeling that the present Minister of National Health and Welfare has no ambition to be prime minister or anything like that.
You may wonder, Mr. Chairman, what particular distinction I am trying to arrive at. It is this. I think the hon. member for Essex East, as minister, because of his ambition was constantly trying to expand, if you wish, or blow up his role as minister of national health and welfare and make it appear as one of the major posts in government, an extremely important one. I believe he achieved that to quite an extent. The only comment I would make about the present minister, giving him credit for his lack of
530S

Supply-Health and Welfare over-all ambition to reach the summit, is that he should not be so quiet or so passive in his relationships with his more ambitious, thrusting colleagues in the cabinet as to allow the department to shrink in stature.
I was interested in the committee's comments on the amount of printing being done by the Department of National Health and Welfare. I have always found it difficult to become enthusiastic about these publications, but I would be willing to accept the minister's argument that he has gone into the matter thoroughly and feels that the amount of publications is justified.
I hope he will continue to be tougher and tougher with the Queen's printer, because if ever there was an agency in the government charging -too high prices to the departments for the services provided, I think the Queen's printer is an example. I have raised this matter in the house with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who is responsible for that particular branch, and I think it still holds true that the system under which the Queen's printer tends to give a blanket price under which there is no volume discount-that is, no discount to the department-if it happens to come up with a best seller or something that really moves or for which there is a great demand, is a rather unbusinesslike practice, to say the least. I think it would be a great encouragement to departments in connection with their publications if there were some kind of volume discount, and if we had a more flexible policy in so far as printing is concerned.
I do not know how far one could go in doing printing on a direct basis as between government departments, in certain kinds of publications, and private printers. But from this procedure I think you would get a stimulation in terms of design and some greater level of competition as between the standards of the Queen's printer and those of the private printers. This is a minor aspect of the minister's department, but this is a problem that ranges through all the departments in their relations with the Queen's printer. It is not an organization of the government in which I at least, as a member looking at it, take a great deal of pride.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who is well known for his interest in sports and who returned last winter with that lovely tan after his visit down to the Olympics in the Sun Valley area, was off on his kick about a Canadian advisory sports council or a Canadian sports council. I have spoken to this argument of his before, especially when his resolution had a day's debate. I admire the fervour with which he, the hon. member for York Centre, the hon. member for Calgary

South and the hon. member for Hamilton South, who is an ex-footballer, are pushing their efforts in this regard. I pointed out to the Minister of Labour yesterday how amusing was the story in the Toronto paper about the expressed feeling of this small volunteer group that the cabinet was not taking too seriously their suggestions about a sports council because of serious unemployment in Canada. The newspaper went on further to say that it is perhaps arguable that Canada will always have serious unemployment, and that this consideration should not be a deterrent to creating this council.
I was interested in this for the humour of it, and also because it indicated a certain amount of bravery. I think it is a fairly brave member of parliament who will rise in his place and express himself to the effect that even although there is serious unemployment, he thinks the government should go ahead with a project such as this. I suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who is pushing this matter, and also to the minister that we have a genuine cultural lag in Canada in our attitude toward sports. If the minister wants to go into the matter in a sociological way I could give him bibliographies on it, although I do not think it is a topic of extreme importance.
However, we have the attitude that now we have finally reached the stage-and the Canada Council is an example of it-where we are prepared to subsidize through our government agencies musical and artistic endeavours, but we are still some way from the point where we are prepared to subsidize sports or sporting endeavours through the government; and this is the situation despite the fact that the Canadian people in the main are much more interested in sports than they are in the group of seven or in classical music.
When the Canada Council estimates were before the committee the hon. member for York-Scarborough tried to make the argument that there was no reason at all why a barber shop quartet was not as justified in getting support from the Canada Council in order to take part in that particular phase of cultural activity as was the Toronto symphony orchestra or the Ottawa philharmonic orchestra. I would not necessarily agree with the hon. member for York-Scarborough, but I was bothered by the headline reaction to this, indicating what a silly proposal this was. I put it down to the fact that there is, if you want to call it that, an educated elite in Canada who have reached the stage that they feel that fine painting, symphonic music and cultural things of that level are wonderful and fine-and more power to them-and they have an agency now in the Canada Council.

But I should like to point out to them and to the minister and to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard that our problem so far as sports are concerned is that the common denominator of the people are strongly for sports. Not only do they want their nation to be represented by good teams, but they want Canadians to have fine hockey teams at the Olympic games and they want us to express our national spirit by having a winner. Unfortunately the elite have not quite come to that point yet. What we really need is a Vincent Massey in the sports field. I do not know whether the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard or the hon. member for Calgary South are going to be able to rise to that particular challenge, but I hope they will continue the fight.
It is rather disturbing to national pride to know that in so many fields of both team sport and individual sport in track and field we make such a poor showing. I tend to blame our very success in certain professional aspects of sport for our refusal to support on a government basis those elements of our sport that cannot be put on a professional basis. Because we have viable football leagues and hockey leagues, such as the National hockey league and the two professional football leagues, I think we tend to feel that the judging one makes as to whether a sport is worth while is based on whether it can be put on a commercial basis. Every country in the world which has a sporting thrust within its population has discovered that you cannot compete as amateurs on an international basis with any kind of professional organization.
I think the British experience in the sport of football is a fine example of that fact. There is not any question but that England and Scotland have the best professional football leagues in terms of the number of teams, the public response and everything else, but just because of the very selfishness of the professional set-up they are not able to field an international team, and so the disgrace is very great in Britain about their showing there. We have tended to have much the same kind of reaction in the field of hockey. I think the hon. member's argument for a sports council is a good one. However, I think we must have a great deal more educating before we are going to achieve it. As I say, we need a Vincent Massey in the sports field.
The question of a national fitness program as put forward by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent had a great deal of force behind it. The bothersome thing there is the pitiful way in which the last effort in that field collapsed. The National Physical Fitness Act, when it was introduced in 1944,
Supply-Health and Welfare came in with a fanfare of trumpets. This was to be the answer to the disturbing physical situation that had been discovered in the enlistment or recruitment for Canada's armed forces. We were to have an answer. The answer was to be this voluntary council with one permanent director and approximately $225,000 each year to go out to the provincial agencies to support this effort.
It broke down. I think it broke down, first, just because there was not enough money for each team, and second, because of the difficulty of working out something in this regard within our constitutional framework.
I suggest to the minister that if he is going to subscribe to a national physical fitness program that is going to be a real contribution he must look carefully at the failure of the previous effort. As I see the situation and as I read the speeches made when the scheme was introduced, as well as when the whole matter was discarded, the failure was based upon an inability to get all these agencies working for physical fitness. It seems to me that if something is going to be set up it needs to be much more centralized and should have much larger funds at its disposal than the last national physical fitness council had, and I think the provisions of the act should be broader and should give the federal government a larger role than it played before.
In saying this it is in almost diametrical opposition to what the minister said in his rebuttal to the committee report. The main thing which seemed to concern the minister in his rebuttal was that the committee was urging federal encroachment into a field which was primarily a provincial one. So far as the sports aspect is concerned, I suggest that our interests there are not provincial or local but national. I would tend to think that the same situation has been reached with regard to fitness. We have a crisis of a kind in the fitness field, as the hon. member for Lambton-Kent exposed very well. If the federal government is going to play any role at all I cannot see it being a mere liaison organization; it has to have something of real power. Like most people, Canadians respect money as far as power is concerned. There is no use going into such a field unless the government is prepared to spend considerable money in setting up a really strong organization.
The last point I want to make to the minister deals with the situation of the blind people in my constituency, who are quite dissatisfied with the present provisions of the act which the minister's department administers. I am not going into details as to what they want,, because I think the minister is very much aware of that, but I can assure him that from
5308	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare my contact with the blind group in the lake-head area there is a unanimity of view on this matter which one rarely finds, to use a phrase, in pressure groups.
The hon. member for Simcoe East made a speech which I took to be an appeal to us to consider very carefully any moves to be made in the direction of medical schemes, and he generally extolled the worth of the medical profession and also pointed out the difficulty which the medical profession is having in recruiting people and developing its organization. Mr. Chairman, if I were a doctor I would be almost as concerned as I think politicians should be about the general low state of their reputation amongst the general public. As a matter of fact, I think those of us who are politicians are sometimes stunned on going around when we find how little we are appreciated; but recently I have heard more and more of the same kind of thing said about the medical profession. The picture is getting out into the land that they are money grabbers, graspers, people who will not make a call and who want only people who will come to their offices; that they want prompt payment of their bills, and so on. In other words the old charm and aura which hung over the medical profession have disappeared, and I think disappeared remarkably fast.
Because of this I think the public is perhaps much better prepared or much more prepared to want the kind of medical schemes which have been debated out in Saskatchewan and which are in existence in other parts of the world. As most hon. members know I support that type of scheme, and I am well aware that most of the doctors, certainly the ones of my acquaintance, feel at the moment that such a scheme is undesirable. I would suggest to those doctors that the only way they will save themselves from this kind of scheme is by doing something about the general reputation of the profession as a whole in the country.
I cannot put my finger on all the reasons why this should be. It was startling to me as a school teacher in contact with quite a number of students who want to go to university when I discovered how few of them were any longer interested in being doctors or dentists. I tried to find out why they were no longer interested in going into these fields. The standard answer-I do not know whether it is the right one-is not a question of money at all. It has nothing to do with the fact that more and more doctors are becoming employees. It is always the length and the cost of the training rather than any worry or concern about the kind of money they will


be making later. If this is one of the fundamental reasons why the profession is no longer recruiting, then it seems to me that the profession should be prepared to make some very strong recommendations to some agency somewhere which will be effective in righting this situation.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that today the only way you can get young people to go into professions where further education is required beyond high school is to offer a very attractive set-up both in terms of scholarships and of-I was going to say easy courses, but I do not think it is that so much; the kind of course which is comparable in its length and toughness and difficulty with some of the other training carried out in universities.
This to me is the root problem of getting more people into the medical profession. As most hon. members know, the situation is much more serious in the dental profession than in the medical profession. We are getting to have a grave shortage of dentists, and most dentists are still very much more under a private enterprise set-up than are the doctors. I know the hon. member for Simcoe East is an employer of doctors, and as I understood an article I read recently, one third of the doctors in Canada are on salary rather than on an individual private enterprise basis.
This does not hold true as far as dentists are concerned. A very small percentage of dentists are employed; in the main they are self employed and in many ways comparable to lawyers and small business men. Yet it is a group which, as any one who looks at the income tax statistics can determine, is one of the higher income professional groups in Canada. Despite the fact that there is a good chance for individuality and working on their own as well as having a high income, the situation is not able to meet the challenge and in so many parts of Canada we are short of dentists.
The problems of recruitment in this field I think have to be part of the minister's concern, if not his responsibility; and if the professions themselves will not come up with answers, I think he has to try to find some of his own. All the medical schemes and dental schemes in the world, whether of the state or of the prepaid kind, are not going to be much good if we have not got the practitioners to work the schemes.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I hope I have said nothing which would hurt the minister's sensitivities as minister. I reiterate that I think every hon. member of the committee appreciates the friendly manner in which he carries out his duties.


Chesley William Carter: I should like to pay my word of tribute to the minister's department and his devoted staff, and to express my gratitude for the co-operation I have always received with respect to the problems I have brought before him. In particular I am very grateful for the assistance they gave and the interest they took in connection with the radiation problem which occurred in one of the mines in my area.
My purpose in intervening in this debate is twofold. First, I should like to support what the hon. member for Simcoe East had to say about disability pensions. There is no doubt that great progress is being made in achieving greater uniformity with respect to the administration of these pensions, yet there are still a large number of people who are subjected to unnecessary hardship because of the difficulty which arises out of the wording of the act, in particular the words which require a person to be "totally and permanently disabled".
In the light of the great advances which are being made almost every day in medical science these terms are no longer valid. In many cases what appears to be a permanent disability today may be curable tomorrow; what appears to be a total disability may be alleviated or reduced later on by new techniques, knowledge or appliances. Nevertheless, hardship exists as long as a person is disabled and prevented from earning his livelihood as a consequence.
I see no solution to this problem unless we change the wording of the act, or at least agree to place upon it an interpretation different from the one now being used. It seems to me that if a person has been disabled for six months and the best medical advice he can get agrees that he is likely to remain disabled for another six months, that should be regarded as total disability. There is no reason why such cases cannot be reviewed every year, or every two years, or even every three years. We have cases now where people have to remain in this state for years before they can get somebody to certify that they are totally and completely disabled.
The other problem I wish to draw to the attention of the minister is one which has to do with mental health. It seems to me that most of our efforts with respect to mental health have been directed toward the adult, and there is no doubt that great progress is being made not only in the direction of new drugs and new treatments but also with respect to the general attitude of the public toward mental illness.
The part of the problem which I emphasize today has to do with the children. I
Supply-Health and Welfare recognize at once the difficulty of this problem, because it ranges all the way from children who are slightly retarded to those who require custodial care. It seems to me that because this problem does flow over into the realm of education the federal government has tended to leave it to the provinces and to private groups. We know enough today to realize that the problem is too great to be handled properly in this way. It is too big to be handled by private groups, and in many cases it is beyond the resources of provincial governments. Even those provinces which in the past have been able to provide accommodation for these mentally ill children are being hard put to increase this kind of accommodation in accordance with the growing needs. In my own province we have no such accommodation at the present time, and we are finding it almost impossible to keep pace with the increase in the demand for expansion of present facilities, not to speak of being able to branch out in the direction of providing new facilities along the lines I have mentioned.
It seems to me that two things are necessary. First, we should have a complete survey made so as to know exactly how big this problem is. We should then find out not only how many children would fall into this class but how they can be divided into the different classifications. Once this is done I think it should be possible to work out some agreement with the provinces whereby those classifications which fall mainly into the realm of education can be treated on a basis different from those who require custodial care.
That is the field where I believe the federal government could take the initiative, and I would urge the minister to show the way in determining just how big the problem is, and in finding out just how many children require custodial care. I should like him also to take the lead in providing the necessary staff and accommodation for this latter group, because at the present time it is beyond the capacity of most of the provinces of Canada to do so.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to say a few words on this subject, some of them having to do with the Clark report, which was brought in sometime ago. I believe the Canadian people have been promised that pensions would be raised in keeping with their needs, though we as a government have found great difficulty in financing the increase we made in old age pensions on the last occasion we made improvements. We believe this old age pension should be at least $75 a month, and we are also of the opinion that
5310	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare it would obviate a great deal of difficulty if this were implemented under the present scheme.
I believe the government, when they set up the Clark commission, did so with the backing of the people in general who believed that an investigation of the pension schemes in other countries throughout the world, particularly in the United States and Britain, would be advantageous to the Canadian government in ascertaining how best to provide for the elderly citizens of Canada. One of the sad facts of political life is that though we set up commissions to investigate certain matters, and although these commissions come to conclusions with which we agree or disagree, it does not seem to make a great difference because nothing happens once the reports are presented. This is evidence of the fact that the government has given little consideration to the report. Upon receipt of a report the government should state why it cannot implement its recommendations.
I am sure the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet will agree that in 1957 they wanted to increase the old age pension even more. A pension higher than $55 is needed. The old age pension is contributory in a sense. It may be the sole pension which a Canadian receives or it may be supplementary to an industrial pension. In any event the old age pension has some effect on pension plans throughout the country. The old age pension is payable on the basis of citizenship and length of stay in Canada. It should be made portable in an industrial sense. There should be a national pension plan which a worker could take from job to job, province to province, industry to industry. At age 65 he should draw a pension equal in value to at least half of his wages. Such a plan could be easily introduced and would be in keeping with the recommendations of the government's own commission.
We have unemployed over 40 years of age who are not accepted in other lines of work because it is not actuarially sound to accept people of that age under many existing pension plans. I believe I heard someone say that this may make a difference in Quebec and there may well be some people in that province who would be interested today. Everyone, including politicians, should have an opportunity of retiring on a decent standard of living without having to accept jobs on the basis of political patronage.
I recently heard of a new excuse advanced by industry for not employing workers. I spoke to a young lady who is disillusioned about the slowness of her promotion in a large Canadian company. After some persuasion her boss told her that the company


got in trouble for hiring her. The reason was that she was over-weight and therefore a poor risk under the company's pension plan.
We are not asking the government to give our senior citizens something for nothing. They should be able to take their pension from job to job and find employment up to or beyond age 65. The pension would be contributory or compulsory. If it were a national pension plan the government would have to administer it. Such a plan would make money rather than lose it. This must be so or else insurance companies would not be involved in this business. Administrative costs would be slight. The minister could assist his colleagues especially those concerned with national housing and public works. Money would be available as a result of a national pension plan for use in making loans for home construction.
Canada is not poorer than other countries. The United States is not better off and in many respects is much poorer. Canada has national resources, an expanding population and challenging opportunities. If other countries can pay higher pensions and make more money available to the citizens than we can it must be because we are not using our resources to the best advantage. We should examine the recommendations of the Clark report and make more money available to our senior citizens. This will enhance industrial harmony because industrial disturbances are caused by pension plans as presently operating. People grow dissatisfied with their work but cannot change jobs without losing their pension rights. Workers could make more valuable contributions to society if a national portable pension plan was in effect.
The government should institute a superannuation plan to provide a fair and reasonable retirement fund in keeping with the earning power of an employee during his working years. The government could incorporate existing pension plans under a national scheme without disturbance to the plans now in operation.
We should examine the pension plan available to the hon. members of the House of Commons. Through the death of the provincial member of parliament in my riding it was brought to my attention that Ontario has a better plan than ours. I understand that at the last session of the Ontario legislature they amended their pension plan so that upon the death of a member his rights in that pension plan go to his wife as survivor insurance, and that consideration is given to his family.

It would seem that we in Ottawa are living in the horse and buggy days of long ago. It appears to me that our thinking is somewhat along the line of the old timer who said, "Let everybody worry about himself; I will worry about myself; I have been able to save a few bucks, I am looking after myself and to heck with everybody." This may be all right in some respects; it might have been all right in those days when it was possible to save. It seems to me that pensions in particular are one field in which we cannot look after ourselves any longer. Pensions we buy in the form of annuities and superannuation are very expensive and apply to a very limited number of people. The time has come when we should be able to devise much better systems of pensions for ourselves and for the Canadian people than we have at the present time.
We are not suggesting that we can finance this out of the present plan; we are not suggesting that at all. We are not only suggesting that the contributions and the amount paid be increased but also that there be a complete overhaul of the plan and a different method arrived at to supplement the contributions that it would be necessary to make for this type of plan. The government has an obligation to do this now. The old age pensioner should not be put in the position of having to wait for an election before he gets an increase in his old age pension.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, there are several groups of people in Canada who have no voice; they have no union and once in a while it becomes the honour of a private member like myself to stand up and espouse their cause. I speak of student nurses. This group is one of the neglected groups in all Canada. I say they have no effective voice. They do have a student nurses association in their own hospitals, which has no voice whatever. In fact if they stand up and say they should have a little pocket money, in some cases they are expelled.
The only one excuse for not paying these girls, as I understand it, is that the hospital believes that this would put out the lamp. Of course, they are referring to Florence Nightingale. Florence Nightingale was an English gentlewoman with considerable private means. She did light a lamp in nursing and it has not gone out yet. But there are literally hundreds of girls, the finest girls in Canada, serving long hours at what is at times a very disagreeable job, and I believe the highest rate of pay they get up to graduation is $12 a month. This may have been all right in the days when the R.C.M.P. rode across the plains on horseback for 50
Supply-Health and Welfare cents a day. But, as my hon. friend has just said, it is about time we got out of the horse and buggy days.
Those girls are giving a signal service to our people and are not being paid for it. I do not know why they should not be. The hospitals are hard pressed financially and the dominion government has come to the aid of the provinces and the hospitals during the last few years. I think we can do more and I think we shall have to earmark our help in this respect to make sure that it gets to the people whom we want to help, namely the student nurses. I speak with some authority because one of my daughters has just graduated. It is safe to bring this up because she has graduated and therefore we stand to gain nothing in our own family at the present time except that I have two more daughters. They may want to be nurses, but at the present time I can hardly recommend the training period to them on financial grounds.
I would suggest that perhaps a student nurse be given $12 pocket money during the first six months until she finds out whether she really wants to be a nurse. If she can stand the first six months in hospital she wants to be a nurse all right. I think we can afford to give her at least $1 a day to buy her nylons, or take herself to a moving picture so that she would not have to rely on a date with an intern. In the second year I suggest she is of more value and perhaps $45 a month might be a reasonable figure. In her graduating year, when she has already learned to be a nurse-she is just staying in hospital to pay for her first two years board I think $2 a day should be the minimum sum.
You will never get the nurses together; they are not unionized. You will never get them together in one body; they are too busy working. They have nobody speaking for them but I venture to say that everybody within earshot of my remarks has been in hospital and has been looked after by one of those wonderful girls. I think it was probably a shock to some hon. members to know that they did all that work for nothing. At the end of three years they are so fed up working for nothing, whether they admit it or not, that they rush off into marriage, they go south of the line or they quit nursing altogether.
There are no scholarships for nurses and yet they are our best young girls. A smart girl today in high school can qualify to go to university if she wishes without very much expense to herself. But if she wants to be a nurse she has to put in these three years of near slavery. This is a harsh word. I can call it nothing else.

Supply-Health and Welfare
There are a good many families in Canada who can no doubt afford to keep their daughters in nursing school for three years, but there are a great many more who cannot. Therefore I do not hesitate to stand up here today and start the ball rolling. I know that everybody who hears me will agree that this is a worthy cause. I expect the minister himself will be sympathetic to it. If we can rouse public opinion I think we will get a reform which is long overdue. I hope the minister and his department will carry the ball from here.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to pay my public respects to the hon. member for Essex East on the occasion of his birthday anniversary today. I might point out that he is one day older than me but, of course, many years older in his experience in this particular department.
I should also like to mention that I could not agree more wholeheartedly with his remarks concerning the ex-deputy minister of welfare, Dr. Davidson. I should like to repeat what I said at a testimonial dinner which was held by the department for Dr. Davidson on the night of May 30, to which the hon. member for Essex East was invited but happened to be out of the country at that time. I then labelled Dr. Davidson Mr. Social Security of Canada. I think this is most appropriate, and I cannot speak too highly of his service to the department and to the country in this capacity in the past number of years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to thank all hon. members who have spoken on these estimates for their very helpful remarks. There are undoubtedly some things I shall mention as I go along. I cannot cover all the items, but I should like to point out that in his remarks the hon. member for Essex East indicated that he wondered why I had not commented on certain remarks by officials and ministers in other spheres of government.
I do not believe that this is my particular obligation at the moment. I feel that all these items, such as portable pensions which many hon. members have mentioned, and with which I have some sympathy; the study of the Clark report which has been under way in my own department and is in the hands of a very competent committee in the department, are receiving study in one bundle, one might say. This includes the presentation of the Canadian welfare council which we have received for the past two or three years and which was particularly spoken to by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Other hon. members mentioned it as

well. Here again, these representations have been given close study and are being given a tied-in close-up look.
I believe the hon. member for Essex East asked what I might think about medical insurance. My remarks to the estimates committee on that subject are contained on page 13 of my brief, I am not sure of the actual page in the committee report. However, I am sure they cover the picture completely. Pages 31 to 41, by the way, of the same brief cover some of the problems and difficult considerations that have been gone into in connection with the Clark report.
The hon. member for Timmins spoke about the Saskatchewan medical plan. It seemed to me that there were other members of his party who mentioned this subject and who seemed to be fighting the Saskatchewan election over again.


William Arnold Peters: It was not necessary.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That was what I thought. I was just a little concerned about one intimation the hon. member for Timmins gave. Perhaps I am wrong, but I gathered that he might possibly do away with all charitable organizations, all voluntary organizations.
The hon. member for Jasper-Edson spoke, and I should like to thank him for his kind words concerning the operation of the hospital plan. There certainly are wrinkles still to be ironed out; we do not deny this. As I pointed out when we were before the estimates committee, there are certain possibilities under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act of which full advantage is not being taken. I was interested in his remarks concerning deterrent charges. I would just repeat one sentence from my opening remarks to this committee. It was to this effect: As to whether or not this type of co-insurance charge under a hospital insurance program has any deterrent effect, the department will be pleased to review the subject with the provinces concerned. This is just one of the aspects of the hospital insurance program which are being reviewed all the time.
The hon. member for Welland returned to his favorite topic. I would point out that actually there is a study being conducted in Ontario of fluoridation. I shall be interested in the report when it is forthcoming.
The hon. member for Lambton-Kent and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard spoke at some length about physical fitness. I certainly will be glad to examine the remarks of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent in greater detail. I know he has given a great deal of study to this important problem, as has the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.

Other hon. members, I believe, also mentioned the possibility of a Canada sports council. Incidentally I might say that I saw the pictures to which the hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent referred at close range, and I think in some 30 years he has only varied in weight by something like one pound. I would not suggest that would apply to me.
The hon. member for Assiniboia suggested giving increases in practically everything, and again I gathered he was refighting the Saskatchewan election. I would suggest that we have lived up to our undertakings in the social welfare field.
There was a return requested by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, which I think is somewhat self-explanatory. The question was:
Has there been an Increase in social security payments between the fiscal years 1956-57 and 1958-59? If so, how much?
Then under No. 2 he asks:
How much of such increase is attributable to
(a)	an increase in the number of recipients, and
(b)	legislation enacted before June 21, 1957, and
(c)	legislation enacted since June 21, 1957?
Under (c) I should like to point out that old age security has increased approximately $91 million as a result of legislation passed since June 21, 1957; old age assistance by $5,900,000; blindness allowances by $775,000; disability allowances by $4,900,000. Also under unemployment assistance the estimate in the return is approximately $250,000 monthly. Then, hospital insurance and general health grants, the amount paid as a result of legislation permitting the provinces to start their schemes on July 1, 1958 meant that there was an expenditure of $54,708,474 in 1958-59. Incidentally the change in the hospital construction grants resulted in an increase of $5 million. This is a small indication of the increases between 1956-57 and 1958-59 as a result of legislation passed following June 21, 1957.
The hon. member for York South had a very interesting suggestion that the department make grants toward housing for elderly people. I think possibly this would be better dealt with by the Department of Public Works because these loans are made through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The hon. member for Kootenay West certainly made quite a philosophical dissertation. I was very interested in some of his remarks concerning some of his personal problems and his ability to give very sound advice.
The hon. member for Calgary South, I think, rebutted the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Arthur who claimed that the hon. member had been making a rebuttal of my rebuttal. In other works, I think the hon.
Supply-Health and Welfare member for Calgary South was really making a rebuttal of the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur rather than of mine. I can only thank the hon. member for Calgary South for making the explanation he made and setting forth the simple fact that the department-myself as minister and the officials of the department-do not differ with the committee fundamentally in their findings but more in the way of approach in that we felt there were certain things which might appear to be interfering with what have always been considered to be provincial rights. We are always here, of course, to give advice and financial assistance in many areas. I should like to repeat what I said in my opening remarks, namely that we will keep a continuous review under way of our informational division.
Many hon. members have mentioned the problem of the blind and the disabled. These are under constant consideration. Last October, I think it was, we had a meeting with provincial ministers of welfare with a view to bringing up to date the regulations concerning these various assistance acts. These changes in regulation have been made through the justice department and have been agreed to by the provinces at this stage.
The hon. member for Quebec West mentioned several problems. I should like to thank him for his remarks concerning the World Health Organization and its extremely important work. He might be interested to know that the membership has now risen to 101 countries.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam speaks, as always, after having given considerable thought to matters. I should like to thank him for his remarks concerning myself and the members of my department. He recommended the consolidation of all of our assistance acts. I recognize the problems in this particular matter and certainly will view his remarks with interest.
I would point out that, as he mentioned, the federal government has definitely offered to share the costs of constructing chronic hospitals on a per bed basis, the same as with any other hospital and also in the hospitalization of the chronically ill. All that would be needed to have the province of British Columbia have us share in this particular, namely in the hospitalization of the chronically ill, would be simply a request to amend the schedule of hospitals which would benefit from the act.
One item on which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam requested information was the exchange of research information with countries behind the iron curtain. Last March we had two representatives from
5314	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare Canada in Russia in order to view the use of live polio vaccine in that country. That is one instance.
The hon. member for Saskatoon was interested in poison control or labelling. I should like to mention something about the poison control program in Canada. This program is established for the emergency treatment of children and others accidentally poisoned with household products including medicines. The food and drug director of my department has collected information about the potentially dangerous constituents of substances such as cleaners, soaps, fuels, paints, waxes and polishes often found in the home. This information and the composition of household medicines has been tabulated on cards. Incidentally, information on the methods for treating poisoning from the products listed was also put on cards. In 1957 sets of these cards were sent to provincial deputy ministers of health who selected the hospitals where poison control centres were established in the provinces. These centres used the information supplied by the department and have facilities and staff present at all times for the treatment of poison cases.
I should like to mention one or two statistics in order to point up what, in my estimation, is the root of this trouble. Having raised three children, at least to varying degrees of maturity, I know the problem involved. Up to April, 1960, 8,826 accidental poisonings have been reported, of which 56 per cent were due to medicines and 44 per cent were due to household chemicals. Almost all of these poisonings were of children under four years of age. I would point out that there are actually more than 170 poison control centres in Canada at the moment. I cannot help feeling that one of the gravest problems is simply ordinary care in keeping dangerous medicines and chemicals out of reach, in view of the fact that almost all of these 8,826 poisonings were of children under four years of age.
The hon. member for Middlesex East was worried about the reported increase of 10 per cent in hospital insurance premiums. I would point out that this is a provincial problem in that they decide how to collect their share of hospital expenses or operational costs. Whether it is done by current revenue -general taxes or sales taxes-or a general hospital tax or by premiums, the matter is up to the province. I must not leave the impression that we are not concerned with the increase in hospital costs. We are concerned, but these costs have been going up over the years.
I think the hon. member for Simcoe East gave a fairly direct answer in this respect.


I think it lies in the simple fact mentioned by the hon. member, namely that in 1920 there were no pediatric wings in Canada. Today's modern pediatric wings in many hospitals-possibly in practically all of them- indicate the great progress we have made. We cannot do this without some increased costs. Statistics indicate that the cost of operating hospitals had actually been increasing at something of the rate of ten per cent a year before hospital insurance came into effect.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo thanked the department for its assistance in the St. Lawrence mine radiation problem and I would like to acknowledge that appreciation. He is also concerned with the disability pension and the mental health problem, and he mentioned the education of mental children. I would like to point out that the William Anderson school for retarded children in Galt is the first new experimental school in this particular category, and I understand that as of this morning it has been indicated that property has been purchased for the extension of this project so that it will include students over 18. This is being done incidentally by private endeavour and the Kinsmen's club of Galt.
The hon. member for Timiskaming mentioned the portable pensions in which I said I have great interest. The matter of the members' pension I think is one for finance, not one which comes within the sphere of my department.
Mr. Chairman, undoubtedly I have not answered all of the questions of hon. members who have spoken, but I do feel that most of them spoke with the thought in mind of assisting the department and offering suggestions. We heartily accept these suggestions and will study them very closely. Again I would like to thank the committee and hon. members for the helpful suggestions which have been made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
Health services, including assistance to the
provinces-
243. Administration, $367,444.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the minister for his good wishes, and in anticipation of his anniversary tomorrow I would like to extend to him, and I think I speak for all hon. members of this committee at the moment, our very best wishes.
The minister has replied to a number of questions in the statement he has just made to which I directed his attention when I spoke briefly yesterday, but he has not answered

all the questions. It may be he is reserving some of them for some particular items as we come to them.
On this particular item of administration of the health services, which includes assistance to the provinces, there are a number of matters I would like to raise at this time. In the first place, the minister might give some indication of when the department will move into new and more permanent quarters. We would be interested in knowing what progress has been made with regard to planning and actual construction of the new administration headquarters in Tunney's Pasture.
The hon. member for Calgary South in his statement, a statement which had more than unusual importance because he spoke not only as a member of this house but as chairman of the committee on estimates, dealt with a number of points and indicated that while the objective of the recommendations made by the committee and the minister were the same, the methods to be pursued in the realization of those objectives were different.
One of the matters that the hon. member for Calgary South mentioned was the question of the shortage of hospital beds at the present time. The administration of the hospital insurance act requires for efficient operation the availability of the maximum number of beds, and while a great deal of preparation was made between 1948, when the national health program was announced and the passage of the hospital insurance act, in assisting the provinces in reducing then-bed shortage, it was never anticipated that those efforts could possibly succeed to the full in meeting the requirements.
I mention that because I want to indicate to the minister that I am not attributing any blame to the Department of National Health and Welfare for this situation. Nor am I blaming anyone, because I have in mind the tremendous strides which have been made in hospital construction over the past decade and a half in this country, the great contributions that have been made by governments on all levels, by voluntary organizations, individuals, nursing groups, the medical profession and so on. We have no reason to be ashamed at the results of this co-operative effort.
However, if I understood the minister correctly he took the position that the matter of a national survey of hospital bed capacity and of hospital bed needs was something that he did not feel could be initiated by the federal government. I agree with him that the direct responsibility is one for the provincial governments; but under the national health program it would seem to me that it
Supply-Health and Welfare would be open to the federal government to provide the necessary financial assistance which would make possible such a survey. Certainly such a survey of the national need at the moment is one that could not be accomplished by any provincial government except by a provincial government within the territories of that government. But what is needed is not only an assessment of provincial needs but an assessment of the situation in the light of the national interest.
It will be remembered that when the national health program was embarked upon in 1948 there was provided for at once the sum of some $600,000 which was to be expended by the federal government in cooperation with the provinces and which was provided for entirely out of the taxpayers' resources on recommendations of federal government policy for the purpose of making health survey grants to assist the provinces in assessing their health needs and finding ways and means in which they could be made. There was likewise provision made for what were then the eight annual grants to assist in the extension and development of provincial health services; and finally the annual grant to assist in hospital construction, the increase of which was provided for by the present government two years ago.
That survey is still available and undoubtedly the minister has examined and studied its contents. I would think that from that survey, which was exhaustive, it ought to be possible to draw certain deductions, not only as to provincial needs but indeed as to local needs of common bed capacity requirements. It is open to the minister, out of the $42 million now being voted, to provide funds which would make possible a survey and assessment of the hospital beds required throughout Canada.
I suggest to the minister that he give this matter further consideration to determine whether or not the provinces could be assisted in this way, and thereby run more efficiently the hospital insurance program which, as he said, is generally speaking, operating very efficiently now in all the provinces of Canada which have adopted the scheme. As the minister has said, there are, of course, some problems to be ironed out. It was to be expected that a scheme of such gigantic proportions would present difficulty from time to time, but looking back in retrospect and looking at the situation as it is today I think we have reason to be satisfied with the very satisfactory way in which, generally speaking, these schemes are operating.
Now I should like to ask the minister a further question, and I do this only because I am anxious to see hospital insurance extended in the one area where it is not now
5316	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare available. I am thinking of the declared position of the premier designate of the province of Quebec with regard to hospital insurance. I hope the minister will lose no opportunity of seeing to it that his officials and, if necessary, he himself take every occasion to present to the new administration, if and when that is effective, the federal government's material in this regard so that in accordance with the wishes of the new government and of the people of that province, which must of course be the governing factor, there may be no delay in implementing for that province a program which we know to be so beneficial to the people in those provinces who are now able to take advantage of a hospital insurance scheme, and so that the province of Quebec can take advantage of a scheme to which its taxpayers, in so far as the federal contribution for existing schemes is concerned, may utilize these benefits.
I simply want to make one more statement with regard to this matter. I outlined our position on the subject of prepaid medical care. All the parties in this house on this side have taken their positions with regard to this important matter; a matter which, I think, will increasingly engage the attention of government and of the public generally. The minister referred to the statement he made on this subject in the estimates committee. As a member of that committee I recall that statement, but it seems to me it was of such importance that it ought to be made in this house where other hon. members who were not members of that committee would have the opportunity of learning the position of the government and, if they felt so disposed, of interrogating the government with regard to it.
For my part I regard the government's policy in this particular as unsatisfactory and as not giving the kind of leadership which I think a matter of such great importance requires. The initiative, I recognize at once, is a matter, as the minister said, for the provinces themselves. Under our constitutional arrangements that is an essential requirement. We cannot develop these schemes in a country like ours, which is based on the principles of federation and confederation, unless we recognize the division of jurisdiction. The federal government cannot do these things alone, and it seems to me it would be difficult for the provinces to do these things alone. But together, I am sure, the two senior levels of government can do something to deal with the problem of medical care in this country on a responsible basis, a basis that will recognize, as several medical doctors who are hon. members of this house have said, the principle of the traditional doctor-patient relationship, the principle of


free choice of doctor and the other principles which I believe at the moment are not in issue here. Those freedoms must be preserved.
(Translation):
I quite agree with the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Bissonnette) that there should be no restriction whatever of a patient's freedom to choose his own doctor, nor any attempt to impede the medical profession in the pursuit of its calling.
(Text):
I believe that this freedom of choice in so far as the declared positions of the parties are concerned is not actually in doubt. But we do have to face this point, and in facing it I want to say that I agree with those doctors who have spoken, that the medical profession, while it may have its point of view in this regard, and one must respect it-and I note with interest what the hon. member for Jasper-Edson had to say on this subject-I want to say that while I feel strongly on this subject, and while I feel that the basic consideration is the public interest and that we must see to it that Canadians are not denied the best medical care because of financial incapacity, I do not want anyone to think that by recommending prepaid medical schemes I was in any way reflecting on the medical profession.
But there have been suggestions here about the doctors, and I can only say that my own experience over 11 years is that Canada has every reason to be proud of the over-all objectives and contributions of the Canadian medical profession. We need only think of the work of the general practitioners and others -the family doctor, the man with the black bag-to realize this debt. I do not think we should allow an occasion like this to pass without-not rising to every incident requiring their defence-recognizing, as we should, the public service, the contribution, which the medical profession and other health workers make in our country.


Murdo William Martin: I can recall last year that when questioned about the hospital insurance plan the minister stated that a considerable number of bugs had developed in the administration of these plans and I wonder if the minister could say what progress has been made to overcoming these difficulties.


Jay Waldo Monteith: To answer the hon. member for Timmins first, I do recall intimating at that time that there were certain bugs, as he suggested, in the scheme but I think good progress is being made in ironing them out. A meeting is held twice a year of the advisory committee on hospital insurance and diagnostic services to consider

everything which has been happening in the intervening six months. The problems which have developed are brought to the attention of that committee and eventually to the attention of myself and the provincial ministers, and we believe great progress has been made in ironing them out. No doubt there is still the odd individual case which comes to mind. I do believe, however, that the provinces themselves are also trying their best to iron out these problems.
The hon. member for Essex East asked at what stage is the administration building. I am happy to say the drawing board stage is almost complete and we hope to get along with construction quite rapidly. I will be pressing the Department of Public Works in that respect.
The hon. gentleman also referred to grants to provinces for technical advice. As I pointed out in my earlier remarks, this is now done and as a part of the technical assistance to the provinces the research division has assisted in health surveys. At the present time the director is acting as a consultant to the government of Manitoba in connection with its survey of hospital facilities and personnel.
I have not as yet today received a wire from the premier designate of Quebec concerning hospital insurance but whenever I hear from him I shall be pleased, of course, to enter into negotiations. With respect to medical insurance I would refer the hon. member for Essex East to the comments I made in my earlier statement which is in the record of the proceedings of the committee. I do not feel it is necessary to repeat those remarks here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health services, including assistance to the
provinces-
532. Laboratory and advisory services-further amount required, $125,479.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, would the minister give us the details of this item.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, this is an amount for the work undertaken by the department on behalf of a resolution by the United Nations concerning the analysis in Canada of fall-out samples from all around the world.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a matter of very considerable importance. It is one, of course, that concerns not only the Department of National Health and Welfare but also the Department of External Affairs and arises out of the initiative taken by Canada at the last assembly of the United Nations. We know from a report made to the house during the course of the present session by
Supply

Health and Welfare the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the hon. gentleman had gone down to the United Nations to see if he could not ascertain why more progress had not been made in the co-operative effort pledged by other member states in the United Nations toward this objective.
Could the minister tell us something about the progress that has been made in Canada itself? New testing stations have been set up to measure more accurately and comprehensively the levels of radioactivity. Could the minister also tell us what progress has been made in getting other countries, pursuant to their commitment at the last assembly, to carry out their share of this effort on a world scale so that we can determine whether or not the levels of radioactivity are continuing? This is a matter which in the future may be of first importance.
We are told by the minister and by other ministers of health that there has been no appreciable increase through nuclear tests in the amount of radioactivity that would add to the sources of human danger and the like but the only way in which we can have a reasonable certainty about this is by making sure that our instruments of assessment are as effective and as accurate as we know how to make them. I would hope that the minister could give us some details along the lines I have asked.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member can rest assured that the equipment to be used in making these tests will be the best available. There is no doubt in the world about that. I wish to say that we consider our radiation division is one of the best in the world in the field of testing.
I agree with the hon. member that this matter is of first importance. The question of communications with foreign countries is actually in the hands of the Department of External Affairs. I understand there are negotiations going on with two countries at the moment but until they are completed I think perhaps I should not name them. This is really a responsibility of the Department of External Affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree that it is, Mr. Chairman, but I am sure the minister will appreciate that our own assessment cannot be effective unless other countries are also cooperating. We cannot hope to create in Canada a wall against the danger of radioactivity unless there is world-wide co-operation. However, I will not press the point any further except to ask the minister if he can tell us how many testing stations there are now in the country. I know that our equipment is as up
5318	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare to date and as good as that of any country. I am also aware that we have taken a lead in this field by our participation in the original 12 state committee at the United Nations and in the work of our own medical scientists in the Department of National Health and Welfare. I believe, however, that the people of Canada would like to know how many new stations there are in the country and what is the total.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, there were originally 15 stations set up to collect monthly samples of milk powder for analysis in our laboratories here in Ottawa. More recently a second network of 24 stations has come into operation for the collection and subsequent testing of air, rainfall and soil.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the department yet decided upon the increase in the permissible levels of strontium-90 pursuant to the initiative taken by the United States in that regard?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the new report will be available within two weeks. Actually the departmental report for January to March, 1960 will be available on Monday. That will give the complete picture. I believe that fairly recently I answered a similar question by the hon. member for Trinity and perhaps also the hon. member for Essex East concerning the permissible level having been decreased from 98 to 79 or some figure in that neighbourhood as a result of the study.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
246. To authorize general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $63,591,941, $42,000,000.
James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct two questions to the minister under this item but before doing so I wish to associate myself with the expressions of commendation the minister has received for the fine way he is administering his department. I also wish to compliment the hon. gentleman on the splendid outline he presented of the operations of his department and on the many answers he has already given to questions asked by hon. members of this committee.
I do not think proper acknowledgement or credit is being given to the minister, to his department or to the federal government with respect to the financial assistance in various


health programs being given to my own province of Saskatchewan and to the other provinces.
In order to direct more attention to the federal health and welfare contributions to Saskatchewan and to the other provinces, I should like some detailed information from the minister under item 246, and other items coming before this committee. Item 246 refers to health grants to the provinces. On page 339 of the blue book details of the item show, for Saskatchewan, "Hospital construction grant, $1,857,967." Then, there is another item listed as "Other health grants, $1,875,046." I hope the minister will outline what is covered under this heading of "Other health grants".
Under the same item, but with a separate vote of federal money, are listed what are known as contributions to provinces under agreements entered into pursuant to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. When the minister answers my first question in regard to health services will he also inform this committee what federal contribution was made to Saskatchewan this fiscal year under the hospital insurance act. Will he also indicate whether this federal contribution goes directly toward helping to pay the cost of Saskatchewan's hospital plan which last year cost a little over $31 million? In this regard I might point out that the hon. member for Assiniboia made no mention of federal financial help to Saskatchewan's proposed hospital and medical plan when he spoke in the committee yesterday. I presume he was speaking officially for his party in Saskatchewan when he said, as reported in Hansard of June 22 at page 5266:
-by an annual payment of some $70 or $75 a whole family would have their hospitalization and medical care covered.
As I said, I presume we can take this as an official party statement as to the annual cost of the direct compulsory payment. The hon. member for Assiniboia went on to say that the remainder of the cost will be raised from general revenues within the province. I should like to emphasize the statement. He said that the remainder of the cost will be raised from general revenues within the province. To go back to my question, will the minister outline what federal payments are being made to the Saskatchewan government under the two parts of item 246? To what extent is the federal government helping to pay the cost of the Saskatchewan hospital plan?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre mentioned the hospital construction grant, estimated for 1960-61

as $1,857,967. The breakdown of the $1,875,046 of other health grants is as follows: General public health, $744,881; tuberculosis control, $151,035; mental health, $464,936; professional training, $94,856; cancer control, $185,656; medical rehabilitation and crippled children grants, $140,406; child and maternal health, $93,276.
If the hon. member will turn back to page 338 of the blue book he will see that the first item is labelled "General public health grant". This is not specifically allocated to provinces, but it is to be used in support of research projects sponsored by one or more provinces, and in this instance some might be going there.
To answer the second question, for the fiscal year 1959-60 the federal government paid $13,152,145.37 to the province of Saskatchewan for Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act purposes.


James Ernest Pascoe: Does the minister have any indication of the payment for this fiscal year?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I cannot give that at the moment.


Harris George Rogers: Will the minister give the committee the same information on Alberta?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Can we table that, Mr. Chairman? Is that agreeable to the hon. member?


Charles Edward Rea: I understand the minister wishes to insert something in Hansard'?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I will have to do a little searching to get the figures.


Murdo William Martin: Would it be possible for the minister to give us the information for all the provinces? I am sure it would be interesting.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes; I shall be glad to get this information for all the provinces.


Charles Edward Rea: Do I understand that the minister wishes to table it or put it in Hansard?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am in your hands. How can I get it in Hansard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I make a suggestion to the minister. If he inserts in Hansard the detailed plans pursuant to the question which was properly asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre I am sure that Hansard would be considerably increased in the number of pages, not that the information is not desirable. It is available through another medium. Does the minister not have a composite table showing the totals for each province, and that certainly would not be an unnecessary encumbrance.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is the type of thing I was going to suggest. I suggest we produce a table for all the provinces, but I am in the chairman's hands because I do not have it with me at the moment. I am in your hands, sir, as to how I get it on record.


Charles Edward Rea: Unfortunately, we cannot table anything in committee. The only thing we can do is print it in Hansard. Perhaps the minister might make a request tomorrow to put it in Hansard, or table it when the house sits tomorrow.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes. I think that this can be ready later today and it could possibly be printed in today's Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The question asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was a valuable one because one forgets that considerable sums of money are being provided by the federal government out of moneys made available by the taxpayers and passed over to the various provinces to assist them in carrying out their health services. The response to the question of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre will reveal the extent to which this is being done in this current year in the province of Saskatchewan, and the table to be produced will show the extent to which it has been done in all of the provinces. That has been going on now since 1948 when the national health program was announced in May of that year. It is important to realize that when the health grants were announced it was said by the prime minister of that time that this departure on the part of the federal government was a prerequisite to the establishment of health insurance in Canada. These grants were being made available for the purpose of preparing for the ultimate realization of health insurance in Canada, so that we would have the necessary facilities, hospital beds, the necessary personnel and the like. That is the purpose of this particular grant.
I asked the minister yesterday what was the policy of the government of Canada with regard to the only announced pre-medical care program in Canada, namely that in Saskatchewan. If and when the government of that province embarks upon this scheme of medical care, what is to be the policy of the government of Canada with regard to providing financial assistance? Has a policy been formulated? The minister has not replied to that. Of course, if he says that the policy is to be announced by the government in due course that will be a reply which we are obliged, under our usages, to accept. I repeat it because it is a matter of some importance. The reply will be noted by other

Supply-Health and Welfare provinces as well, and it will be an encouragement or discouragement depending upon what is the reply.
With regard to the answer given by the minister to the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, this much is clear: The province of Saskatchewan has been assisted to some extent in the consideration, not only of its hospital insurance program which frankly it brought into being before there was any action taken by the federal government, and the province will be assisted, perhaps in a way that is not easy to detect, in the consideration by the government of that province of its proposed medical care program. Now, I suggest that is an important fact to remember.
I should like to ask a question of the minister based on the suggestion made by the hon. member for Athabasca, with regard to student nurses' assistance. I think we all appreciate the problem which he has outlined. It is not a problem which has arisen since the present minister has been in office, but it is a problem that has existed for some time. We all appreciate the sacrifice that has to be made by parents in providing for the training of their daughters in this particular field, as well as in the provision of a university education for their children. The minister might possibly give us some more detailed information in reply to the hon. member's observations.
In considering this particular question, I should like to know how many new nurses training schools have been built. There was one at the Western hospital in Toronto; there was one at the Metropolitan hospital in Windsor, and I think there was one in Alberta. Assistance was given to these schemes, which were pilot schemes in order to assist in assisting and rationalizing the nurses training. That represented a considerable measure of assistance, not directly in the way the hon. member for Athabasca had in mind, but assistance of some sort by the federal exchequer. I noted that the day before yesterday in Toronto there was an announcement made by the nurses-I do not know whether it was the nurses of Ontario or the nurses of Canada, but I suspect the latter-to the effect that they proposed to set up a college training establishment of their own. In addition, they have been given by the province of Ontario adequate power over nurse training, somewhat similar to the control that is exercised under provincial statutes over the medical profession and the dental profession. These are all steps which, while they may not meet what the hon. member had in mind, are in that direction and which seek to emphasize the importance of the problem which he has raised.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We do not have any information available at the moment concerning the number of nurses schools, as requested by the hon. member. He did refer to the one at Toronto, and that information will be obtained.
I may say, however, that I have these figures available now and I can give them to the Hansard reporter to be inserted in the record. I refer to the figures concerning the distribution of general health grants as between the provinces and territories, and also the payments for 1959-60 under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. I should like to point out that the latter are advance payments, and that the final payments have not been made.


Charles Edward Rea: Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, does the committee give unanimous consent to put these tables on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables referred to are as follows on pp. 5321 and 5322:]


Murdo William Martin: Before the vote carries, there is just a minor point to which I should like to refer. Both the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and the hon. member for Essex East made reference to the federal grants to the provinces of Saskatchewan. One might think that there were special grants given to the province of Saskatchewan, and I should like the minister to clear up that point if he could. The grants given to the province are no more and no less than those given to all the other provinces.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, it is the same principle.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I notice that the amount estimated for the health branch last year was $46 million and this year it is estimated at $42 million. Before putting my next question, perhaps the minister will jog my memory by telling me how much he would be authorized to request for the fiscal year?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The commitment authority for the fiscal period is $63,591,941. The commitment which is not expected to be spent amounts to $21,591,941, leaving what we estimate to be spent, $42 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At a time when there have been various suggestions made in this house about various health problems that remain to be solved, and of course which will continue to confront us in one form or another in the days to come, it does seem to me that the minister owes the committee


ADVANCE PAYMENTS
[Stage Direction]
Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act-1959-1960
Date	B.C.	Alta.	Sask.	Man.	Ont.	N.B.	N.S.	P.E.I.	Newfoundland$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$April	.. 1,588,466.00	1,357,530.02	1,027,630.22	971,338.76	5,876,078.72	-	686,907.97	-	375,439.40May	.. 1,497,069.79	1,394,143.01	1,040,886.59	865,760.90	6,668,811.10	-	606,166.54	-	356,306.66June	.. 1,537,872.59	1,330,926.07	1,110,263.05	906,705.28	5,849,878.56	-	780,198.72	-	336,675.08July	.. 1,667,397.18	1,236,748.58	1,066,255.97	960,282.41	5,878,939.40	409,999.04	632,399.88	-	405,333.36August	.. 1,693,452.82	1,162,032.52	1,000,475.02	1,024,531.70	5,766,024.11	461,666 17	663,234.39	-	359,325.84September	.. 1,599,649.04	1,163,838.83	1,076,682.17	929,567.91	5,681,813.85	474,588.92	648,341.33	-	384,135.44October	.. 1,587,574.38	1,138,501.45	1,106,439.01	966,172.03	5,625,628.29	509,724.57	640,091.69	61,410.32	379,637.74November	.. 1,584,417.30	1,170,507.73	1,096,155.39	933,712.03	5,622,847.77	558,708.80	656,282.88	68,667.07	377,997.52December	.. 1,677,246.58	1,450,280.50	1,361,307.07	928,028.13	6,166,475.36	565,040.02	585,780.72	76,709.72	376,038.99January	.. 1,673,732.12	1,207,445.58	1,055,872.91	990,876.24	5,787,166.90	552,934.85	778,011.80	79,211.47	384,274.63 'February	.. 1,674,419.60	1,217,330.05	1,063,916.81	906,044.19	6,473,525.49	534,978.03	736,978.97	79,923.10	389,845.51March	.. 2,095,886.10	1,191,142.84	1,086,261.16	941,446.77	6,495,644.11	507,734.50	748,145.89	81,416.59	436,589.04TOTAL...	.. 19,877,183.50	15,020,427.18	13,152,145.37	11,324,466.35	71,892,833.66	4,575,374.90	8,162,540.78	447,338.27	4,561,599.21

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Health and Wei
[Stage Direction]

to
to

[Stage Direction]
Othek Health Grants
Province
Hospital
construction Professional	Mental
(a)	training	health
General
Tuberculosis	public
control	health
Medical
rehabilitation Child and Cancer and crippled maternal control	children	health	Total
Total
allotments
(M
Nfld....
[Stage Direction]
N.S	
N.B	
Que	
Ont	
Man	
Sask....
Alta....
B.C	
N.W.T- Yukon- ALL..
1,401,919	52,240	243,993	164,678	395,900	97,439235,690	19,596	74,749	29,557	128,579	29,8642,033,443	77,358	374,218	146,292	601,591	149,4341,411,662	65,505	312,763	122,527	504,523	124,8974,971,858	480,284	2,463,183	1,275,068	3,901,120	983,5099,575,956	569,938	2,927,993	904,242	4,635,290	1,169,0961,285,813	93,257	456,645	180,662	731,784	182,3451,857,967	94,856	464,936	151,035	744,881	185,6561,361,175	126,936	631,253	210,975	1,007,580	252,0631,669,604	157,699	790,742	305,112	1,259,493	315,743132,336	4,034	15,389	6,085	26,472	6,14872,127	2,497	9,527	3,767	16,387	3,80626,009,550	1,744,200	8,765,391	3,500,000	13,953,600	3,500,000
74,914
24,747
113,515
95,299
732,727
870,507
137,948
140,406
189,706
236,982
5,095
3,154
2,625,000
71,576	1,100,740	2,502,65920,209	327,301	562,99177,046	1,539,454	3,572,89776,533	1,302,047	2,713,709569,945	10,405,836	15,377,694480,501	11,563,567	21,139,52389,597	1,872,238	3,158,05193,276	1,875,046	3,733,013126,413	2,544,926	3,906,101132,167	3,197,938	4,867,5424,161	67,384	199,7202,576	41,714	113,8411,750,000	35,838,191	61,847,741
cn
n
o
[Stage Direction]
o
[Stage Direction]
s
o
a
(A
(a)	Includes the following revotes: Revote for new projects $8,345,261_; First five year program $296,969.
(b)	Does not include public health research grant unallotted by province-$1,744,200.
March 2, 1960. Soubce: Joint Administrative Unit.
Supply-Health and Welfare

an explanation as to why the $21 million additional is not being made available, pursuant to the declaration of policy originally made in 1948 and confirmed by the present government. We do know that there are many problems requiring attention. The hon. member for Athabasca mentioned the question of nurses' assistance. We hear from time to time of the great need for further research into heart disease, and the like.
The minister and I were present one night in Ottawa when he spoke at a meeting of the Ottawa heart foundation, a branch of the national organization, whose purposes are designed to promote greater research into the greatest killer of all. Some provinces and some communities have through voluntary efforts provided funds for what is required in their communities, but not enough money is available in the country to make the kind of attack on heart disease which medical scientists believe should be undertaken. In view of the fact the minister has the power to ask for another $21 million, I think he ought to explain why he has not asked for this additional sum of money.
I know that the expenditure of these sums of money depends largely on the capacity of the provinces to utilize these funds. They must have the necessary personnel to make a wise and economic use of the moneys provided by the federal government. To the extent that the provinces are not prepared or are not adaptable to accept further assistance, that will be a satisfactory answer, as far as I am concerned. But in so far as certain voluntary organizations are concerned, such as the heart foundation, I believe a more comprehensive answer should be given by the minister.
For instance, are we satisfied that we have enough funds with which to deal with cancer? The Canadian cancer society are providing assistance out of these grants to the extent of $3,500,000, I believe. Is that enough to meet this research problem? If it is enough, is it possible to provide more money in order to bring the best possible cancer treatment within the reach of those in Canada who for one reason or another cannot get it? I merely mention these as samples of the kind of problem which yet requires attention and which could be met if the necessary funds were provided. There are funds available and it would be valuable, I think, for the minister to explain why they are not used.
Jay Waldo Monteith: I can assure the hon. member that the necessary funds are available as set out in the estimates. As he well knows, this difference between $63 million and $42 million is largely a carry-over and chiefly in the hospital construction grants, mainly
Supply-Health and Welfare because, while a commitment may be made this year, there may not be any payment at all until next year. There are three progress payments; one at 25 per cent, one at 50 per cent and then one at 75 per cent; and when the construction is completed the final 25 per cent. Hence there must be a large carryover from year to year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of that $21 million, what portion represents hospital construction commitments?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am told we might be able to work that out. But actually the $42 million, from past experience, is the estimate of what will be required finally this year. The other portion is simply open for determination, and may not be committed because the provinces may not request all their shareable grants.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian and northern health services-
247.	Operation and maintenance including grants to hospitals and other institutions which care for Indians and Eskimos, $21,362,102.
Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the program now for additional hospital construction for Indians and Eskimos in the current fiscal year?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The main program ahead is the building of the Charles Camsell hospital in Edmonton. As the hon. member is probably aware, this past year we completed the hospital at Inuvik. The Charles Camsell hospital is the next big project. There are, of course, smaller items of building going on all the time such as nursing stations, offices and so on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I note that there is an increase-and I am not criticizing it- in this vote of a little less than a million dollars as compared with the amount for last year. How much of this $21 million estimated for this year is going to be devoted to new construction?


Jay Waldo Monteith: New construction is covered by the next vote.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
248.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,786,600.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister give the answer to the question about new construction?


Jay Waldo Monteith: For new construction during the current period, $702,800.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Health and Welfare
249.	Medical advisory, diagnostic, and treatment services, $3,863,807.
Peter Francis Martin: What does this vote deal with exactly? Does it cover any of the diagnostic services provided for under hospital insurance or are they only dealt with in a statutory way? My memory does not serve me at the moment and I forget precisely what they are for.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This vote covers principal medical officer, medical advisory service, quarantine and leprosy examination, medical and sick mariner service, civil service health and civil aviation medicine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The diagnostic reference I suppose is for the personnel that advise on the diagnostic services grant.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No; on immigration, I am told.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
250.	Administration of the Food and Drugs and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Acts, $1,984,777.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Carried.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I note that I provoke an automatic reflex in the hon. member for Halifax whenever I rise. I want to assure him that this is a matter which is of great concern to more than just the people in one particular province.
You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that last evening, under the administrative item I had some remarks to make with respect to the advertising approach used by the ethical drug industry in advertising its products to the medical profession. I should like to make one other reference to this matter before I make inquiry of the minister. I should like to point out that the drug manufacturers in many cases, or at least in one case of which I have knowledge, make use of so-called invisible physicians to prove the efficacy of their particular product. I should like to make reference to an article which appeared in the January 3, 1959 edition of Saturday Review, at pages 38, 39 and 40 of that particular edition. This has reference to an advertisement or a brochure produced by the Pfizer Laboratories, which is a division of Charles Pfizer and Company, a drug manufacturer in the United States, and has reference to a drug called sigmamycin. There is here on this particular page a reproduction of part of that particular advertisement. It is headed as follows:
Everyday .. . Everywhere . .. More and more physicians find sigmamycin the antibiotic therapy of choice.
Then it lists the names, addresses and telephone numbers of a number of specialists

who had made use of this particular drug and had endorsed it. The cards of four of them are reproduced here and reference to another four is made in name only. The four whose cards are reproduced are as follows:
Thomas Wright, M.D.
Eye, ear, nose and throat
And an address and phone number are given in Lowell, Massachusetts.
E. N. Stephens, M.D.,
Pediatrics
And a phone number, address and office hours are given. The address is Taylor street, Portland, Oregon.
Joseph Burns, M.D., internal medicine, 245 South 1st street, Miami, Fla.; Paul D. Friend, M.D., dermatology, 1345 Eastbourne avenue, Tucson, Arizona;
As I said before, there are others; a urologist, a general practitioner, a surgeon, just picking them out of the article. The article goes on:
The staff of SR/Research has tried to reach each of the eight individuals named. Telephone calls have been made, telegrams have been sent, and the following letter has been written;
"Dear Dr.-:
If you have published any of your clinical experiences with sigmamycin, I would appreciate your sending me the reference or preferably a reprint, if available.
Then reading further:
The telephone operators have reported all of the phone numbers to be false numbers, Western Union has reported inability to find such persons, and seven of the eight letters had been returned unclaimed by the post office-
Four of those letters are reproduced in photostat form which were returned unclaimed with various postal marks on them to indicate they were returned by the post office because the doctors to whom they were addressed could not be found. In fact they did not exist. Here is one indication only as shown by this particular article where Pfizer and Company, I say, attempt to mislead other doctors by indicating that some members of the medical profession, specialists, general practitioners and surgeons alike, had used and had endorsed it, had found that this particular drug was a good drug for the purpose for which it was to be used.
I also read other references yesterday from a paper by Professor Nickerson, professor of pharmacology and therapeutics at Manitoba university, which paper was co-authored by an associate professor of medicine whose name I have forgotten at this moment. The gist of Professor Nickerson's article was that perhaps we should have some form of control by a public authority such as the food and drug directorate over the type of advertising material that is prepared by these drug

manufacturers and which is sent out to various medical doctors' offices across the country.
It is quite true that the reference I have just made to the Saturday Review concerns the United States and only makes mention of the names of each of the doctors who are supposed to have existed but in fact who did not exist. But it is also a fact Charles Pfizer and Company has a subsidiary which sells various pharmaceuticals in Canada.
I wonder if the minister would indicate what has been the experience of the food and drug directorate so far as checking the advertising material which drug manufacturers produce in the ethical trade compared with the type of checking and editing that is made of such food and drug advertisements directed to the consumer such as in the proprietary medicine field?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, the food and drug directorate do check on the advertising of patent medicines and preparations which are on the shelf or are sent through the mail or even sold on the streets, as well as advertisements concerning goods which may be ordered by mail, and that sort of thing. But we are not in a position due to staff shortage to concern ourselves particularly with the advertisements going to doctors. We feel they are possibly sufficiently knowledgeable to be aware of the situation. We are concerned with it but we just do not have the staff to do this at the time and we feel that our responsibility is to the public rather than to the medical profession.


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I just follow that up. I believe this is probably the reason why there were no checks by public authorities of the correctness or otherwise of brochures and advertising material for the ethical drugs which were directed to doctors, because doctors themselves are sufficiently trained and knowledgeable with regard to the intricacies of the field of medicine and would be able to determine whether any advertisement was incorrect or otherwise. Therefore they could disregard the advertisements which were not correct and only use those drugs which had been clinically tested and proved to be safe.
Of course I am not casting any reflection whatsoever on the medical profession. However, I have spoken with four or five medical men in the city of Ottawa and with one who is a member of this house and they all say that they are virtually swamped with advertising material. I have heard estimates ranging from 300 pieces of literature a year
Supply-Health and Welfare to perhaps a thousand pieces a year which get into a doctor's office advertising particular medicines and things like that.
All the doctors I have spoken to in this city say that most of it is wasted. They are very selective and naturally will pick out that piece of advertising material relating to pharmaceuticals which they would use in the normal course of their practice and they discard that advertising material they would not normally use or which is new material about which they would rather have additional tests made to prove its efficacy. They all say there is far too much of it. It is far too sketchy and it is designed solely to leave the brand name of the product in the mind of the doctor. The initial advertising material makes very sketchy reference to the clinical tests given to a particular drug, and if the doctor is interested he can follow it up by consulting the detail man as he comes around or he can get the information himself.
I read into the record yesterday the results of a casual survey which had been conducted. The article I read did not give any indication as to exactly where this particular survey had been conducted, amongst how many doctors it had been conducted, or who had conducted it; but Professor Nickerson pointed out that the majority of the physicians who were contacted who were utilizing a new and effectively advertised analgesic did not know that it was simply the standard A.P.C., which is listed as acetyl-salicylic acid, in other words a well-known headache cure. Professor Nickerson pointed out that this had been advertised by the ethical drug industry as a new and effective analgesic, yet in fact it was something which had been on the market for many years, plus a little barbiturate.
The article pointed out that certain physicians did not know the composition of pharmaceuticals of certain types and that they ordered by a simple number of like designation. As a result, it continues, two patients died of intoxication because of the use of these preparations. One or two further references are made to similar incidents.
As I say, I have heard reference to the effect that this is an attempt to brainwash doctors. I have no remarks to make which are derogatory in any way of doctors themselves. I have the greatest admiration for the persons in the medical profession whom I have met. They have been people of extremely high calibre, solely concerned with the health and welfare of their patients. But I point out that some of the advertising which is directed toward these doctors is absolutely untrue, false and misleading, and I express the view very strongly that there should be some check against it.
5326	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare
If the ethical drug industry itself intends to persist in this sort of practice about which I read from the Saturday Review a while ago in which they pull out of thin air a list of eight doctors and state that these eight doctors have used a particular pharmaceutical and found it good, whereas in fact the eight doctors do not exist, it is obviously time that this false and misleading type of advertisement should not be allowed to continue. If the ethical drug industry-and, again,
I cannot understand how the word "ethical" got into it-is going to carry on this false and misleading advertising and if it is not prepared to put its own house in order, then some public authority will have to do it in order to ensure that in the final analysis the consumer is protected to the fullest possible extent and also that the doctor himself is protected against having his office invaded by false propaganda which misleadingly states a product to be something which it is not.
I know that the food and drug directorate may be overworked at the moment, but I do think steps should be taken at some time to ensure that the public of Canada are not left at the mercy of these misleading claims such as are made by Charles Pfizer and Company, not for the purpose of producing more effective drugs but for the purpose of racking up tremendous profits. There has to be some protection placed between such firms and the public.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to assure the hon. member that the public is protected in that respect right now.


Charles Benjamin Howard: How?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Because we check advertising.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The department checks all advertising that is mailed by the ethical drug manufacturers?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I indicated earlier that we do not check advertising sent to doctors' offices, but we do check advertising which appears before the public.


Charles Benjamin Howard: We are talking about the ethical drug industry, and this is an industry wihch produces drugs which are only sold on prescription. The great majority of the advertising of this industry is not directed to the consuming public; it is directed to the doctors, and I still say that outlets such as Charles Pfizer and Company about which I read from the Saturday Review-and I take the report to be correct, because I do not know of any libel action instigated by Pfizer against the Saturday Review-should be prevented from carrying on advertising of this type. In fact, we do not check this sort of


advertising by the ethical drug industry, and that is what I took to be the case from the minister's remarks.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On June 13 I directed a question to the minister on the orders of the day as to the possibility of lipstick colouring containing cancer-causing agents. The minister at that time replied in part that as far as the colouring now being put in lipstick was concerned there was no evidence that amounts normally absorbed into the system could create any risk to health.
Since that time I have read in a Washington dispatch that the food and drug administration in the United States was continuing to study this question because it suspected these cancer-causing agents, and on June 16 in Washington, according to a dispatch from that city, a decision to ban the use of 14 coal tar colours in lipsticks was announced by the United States government. Coal tar colours had been mentioned by the officials as a possible cause of certain types of cancer.
I suppose as a result of my question, which I asked on account of correspondence which I had received, there has been a greater interest aroused, and I have received further correspondence. I want to make it clear that I have no personal concern in this matter, because I am far beyond the age to indulge in osculatory exercises; I am doing this because persons have written to me and shown concern, not only about the colouring used in lipstick but also in respect to cosmetics imported from the United States such as hair dyes and nail polish which may or may not contain harmful ingredients which could produce toxic conditions in the human body over a period of time if used constantly.
My question to the minister is this: would he inform the committee what the division is doing to check on these substances which apparently are causing the food and drug division of the United States government some concern in order to make certain that the health of the Canadian people and, in this case, particularly of the ladies in whom I am sure we are all interested or at any rate maybe some of the younger hon. members are, is protected.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We are, of course, continuing to study this matter. Our regulations regarding colouring agents are very tight and very severely administered. As a consequence we are not worried about cosmetics in Canada. However, we are following the developments in the United States very closely.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That was the question I was about to ask. Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

251.	Administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, $247,081.
Paul Joseph James Martin: The annual report of the department with regard to narcotic control and the authority of the minister and the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act reminds us that there has been no marked trend either way in the number of addicts in Canada over the last five years. The last figure given is for 1958-I refer to page 94 of the department's annual report-and the number of drug addicts given for 1958 is 3,412, a slight increase over 1957 and a somewhat larger increase over 1956 but a reduction compared with 1955 and an increase of about 200 over 1954. This figure, however, represents much economic loss and much human suffering. In this country we must try to deal with this problem through the Criminal Code, through the operations of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act and through the health departments of the provinces. I rise at this time mainly to request the minister to comment on the problem as he sees it at the present time.
I note that there were 522 convictions registered under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act during the calendar year and that this represented 494 persons of whom 336 were male and 158 female. We are all aware of the great misfortune that attends those who are addicted to this practice but we in this country and in other countries have not yet succeeded in finding a formula that really meets the problem.
I have before me a report which appeared in the New York Times in the month of March in which the commissioner for drug control in the United States pointed out that in his judgment the heavier mandatory jail sentences for agents has resulted in a decline in narcotic usage and in what is called dope peddling in that country. It will be remembered that pursuant to the recommendations of a committee of the other house four years ago there was an increase provided in the terms of punishment which could be meted out by the courts in respect of those found guilty of a violation of the act. It would be interesting to know whether the minister subscribes to the view of the United States commissioner that as a result of the increase in the severity of jail sentences that are now open to those exercising judicial administration of this act there has been any decline in the usage of drugs or in the activities of peddlers in the manner suggested by the United States commissioner.
On several occasions during the past six months the Minister of Justice has made public declarations about his intentions in regard to this matter. The Minister of National Health and Welfare will recall the question 79951-0-336
Supply-Health and Welfare I put to him this session-I believe in the month of February-when I asked whether he regarded this matter as one that came within the responsibility of the Minister of Justice or as one coming within his own competence. I am not clear in my own mind at the moment what the reply was. I think it was to the effect that the Minister of Justice has some responsibility under the Criminal Code but that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has a responsibility on the health side.
If that was the reply, of course, that is a clear statement of the demarcation of the functions that exist as between the two ministers. It has always been the practice for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to regard this as his matter because in many respects, perhaps in so far as the majority of drug addicts are concerned, the problem has deep health aspects in addition to criminal aspects. Be that as it may I have no quarrel with the two ministers. What I am more concerned about, as we all are including the ministers themselves, is that as satisfactory a solution as we can find be provided for this problem.
The Minister of Justice said in British Columbia and also in Winnipeg, I believe, that he hoped within the foreseeable future to carry on some discussions with the provincial governments for the purpose of dealing more effectively with this matter of narcotic control. The hon. gentleman did not say whether that had to do with further punitive measures. From what the hon. gentleman said in this chamber in answer to my question it was not clear exactly what he had in mind. I asked him whether or not it was the intention of the federal government, for instance, to make available in British Columbia quarters where there could be provided treatment for drug addicts on the assumption that this is basically a health problem. I did not receive a satisfactory reply to this question. It may be that the Minister of Justice was thinking of the experience in the United States, particularly in Lexington, Kentucky, where they combine both the principle and method of treatment with confinement, where there is an admixture of the criminal and the patient, with results that I do not think have yet been properly and finally assessed. I would be interested in knowing from the Minister of National Health and Welfare if that is what the Minister of Justice had in mind. Obviously there must have been consultations between the two ministers in this regard.
Is there any intention of which the minister is aware-and this would be within
5328	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare his ministerial interest and concern even though it might be more strictly applicable to the Minister of Justice-to give consideration to the imposition of punishments heavier than those now provided for under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act and under the Criminal Code? Is there any contemplation such as is frequently suggested that the sentence which ought to be meted out is a sentence which must go away beyond even confinement? It has been suggested that there is no more effective punishment for certain crimes having to do with drug traffic than capital punishment. I am not advocating that and I would think that would not be the most constructive way of dealing with the problem but that is a suggestion that has been made in this house once this session.
I do not know what the government has in mind. Is the government thinking merely of attempting to do what has been done in Lexington, Kentucky, or was the Minister of Justice just out on a fishing expedition? Was this really a serious effort on the hon. gentleman's part and, if it was, would the minister whose estimates we are considering give us the details?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I could hardly be expected to give the details of what might be a serious concern of the Minister of Justice. I might point out that there has been some interesting experimental work on rehabilitation going on in New York. We had observers at the meeting held there some three or four weeks ago and we are in close consultation at all times with the Department of Justice on this matter. We have a responsibility for the supervision of the legitimate distribution of narcotic drugs. Because many addicts do become criminals the Department of Justice has a responsibility for their custody and through the parole service for some aspects of their rehabilitation. The whole matter is continually being studied by my department and the Department of Justice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot accept that reply. If the minister has something in mind with regard to narcotics control that is a matter that ought to be divulged to this committee either by the Minister of Justice or the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister whose estimates we are considering is responsible for the administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. He is the hon. gentleman who recommends to the Department of Justice the personnel employed in prosecutions. He is the one who provides for the compensation paid to prosecutors. The minister surely cannot say, because the Minister of Justice may have some pet scheme


about which he is unaware, that this is a matter concerning which information cannot be supplied to the committee. I would remind him that that has not been the attitude of his predecessors. I am not talking about myself because I would be a very poor example for the minister and I am not suggesting that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Thank you very much.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The other ministers never hesitated to indicate this.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt, no minister has ever tried to tell the house what he was going to do at all. Our responsibility is to report to the house after a decision has been made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the minister's reply is along that line it is a reply he should have made a while ago. He is now saying that government policy will be announced in due course. If that is the minister's reply I can do no other but accept it, except to say that I believe in a matter of this kind, where there is such public interest, and where on other occasions there has been such wide discussion in this house, there is no reason why the government should not tell us of its broad concepts in this matter. That was done on other occasions, and I regret that the minister does not take advantage of this very festive mood to give us a frank statement on this very important problem.


William Arnold Peters: We are not too concerned to any extent with drug addiction in my area. The suggestion has been made that the government itself deal with the distribution of drugs to those people who will declare themselves to be addicts. There would be little cost involved to the people who declare themselves to be addicts. The drugs would be given to them at a nominal cost. This system would, according to some informants, eliminate pushers in the field entirely because there would be no profit. Has the department ever given consideration to this particular proposal?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, extensive consideration has been given to all these problems, of course. My understanding is that the vast majority of those who have any close contact with this problem are not of that line of thinking.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Family allowances and old age security-
252.	Administration, $3,077,462.
Paul Joseph James Martin: This is the item that deals with the administration of the

welfare branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The minister said in his statement in reply before we left the main item-


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is family allowances and old age security administration only, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; that is what I was referring to. This is the welfare branch. Family allowances and old age security have to do with welfare. This is the administration item.
When he was making his reply before we had concluded the main item the minister said that the government had lived up to all its social security commitments. I do not believe that one could allow that statement to pass unchallenged because, of course, the case is otherwise.
I do not want to retrace what I said about the government's proposals with regard to the old age survivors system. I dealt with that yesterday. That and other matters that still have to be dealt with would hardly warrant the statement made by the minister. Has the minister any comment to make on the proposal which I outlined yesterday and which represents the view of the Liberal opposition with regard to increasing the age of students who are now entitled to receive family allowance? When I spoke I asked the minister to give us an indication of his intentions in that regard. If he is in a position to do so I would be very grateful for the answer.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We are always
giving continuous consideration to those problems and, of course, when any decision is made it will be reported to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Old age assistance, blind persons and disabled
persons allowances-
253.	Administration, $113,390.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought when you passed item 252 you were referring to family allowances, Mr. Chairman. Now we have the old age security item.


Charles Edward Rea: I called item 252.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You called family allowances but you did not call old age security.


Charles Edward Rea: I called item 252; I am now calling item 253.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will wait until we come to item 253.


Charles Edward Rea: We are on it now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I asked the minister what was the government going to do about the Clark report and he has not told
79951-0-336J
Supply-Health and Welfare us except to say that he is studying the matter. I pointed out yesterday he has new had a long time to study this matter. As I indicated before, I recognize that the minister is a studious man, but there ought to be limitations on the capacity of a man to study; there ought to be a limitation on the length of time that he is expected to take in studying a report which the Prime Minister said in 1958 should be prepared in four months. That is a long time ago, and nothing has happened except the presentation of those two volumes containing information that was already available. We have asked the minister time and time again what is the government going to do about this report. This report was to be prepared in four months. Because the man to whom the writing of the report had been assigned could not do it within four months he was asked to resign or he voluntarily resigned and his place was taken by Professor Clark, who has taken not four months but over a year in the preparation of a document which we were told had to be prepared in four months. That period of four months coincided with the holding of an election. The election is over and we have heard nothing more about the report except the minister has told us time after time, day after day, that this matter is receiving very close study.
Surely the minister can give the committee, if not his final conclusions, at least the results of his present study because that study, which has been so extensive, cannot have failed to yield some results in the minister's mind. Perhaps the results have not congealed into definite convictions on all fronts, but they certainly have touched some matters about which one could conclude with some reasonableness that the minister has reached a conclusion. Are we to have it? Is it too expensive in the minister's mind? Is it properly supplementary to our existing universal system? If we do have it, what would be the contribution made, if any, by the government of Canada towards its realization? Are we satisfied that, while the returns of the United States system are in some respects larger than our own, the long period required for the making of contributions balances out and possibly puts the whole scheme in a different perspective? What is the situation?
Surely with the encouraging words which I have now used in asking the minister to give a reply in the presentation of his estimates in 1960 we are not to be told once again that the minister is studying this matter. That is not what we were told by my dear friend the Prime Minister who has now come into the chamber. That is not what was told by others, and the minister is the one responsible for the administration of this matter. He

Supply-Health and Welfare cannot hope to convince the Canadian people that the government was serious about this matter unless at least on the presentation of his estimates he gives us some kind of progress report. I would be encouraged beyond dreams if the report which the minister gave was even so small that it would indicate some progress.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am afraid the hon. member is probably just a little frightened that the government is serious about this problem. We really have been studying it, and that will certainly be demonstrated to the hon. member if he will read pages 27 to 31 in the report of the estimates committee which indicates the problems we have encountered thus far during our study.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am familiar with what the minister said in the estimates committee and it was because of that I have taken the position which I have taken this afternoon. I find it difficult to do that today because the minister has been so generous and the Prime Minister has been so generous that one naturally cannot forget about an obligation of that sort. However, one has a duty to perform.


William Heward Grafftey: Twenty two years of study.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My friend from Brome-Missisquoi has finally come into the house. I might say I am surprised to see him here so early after the cataclysmic event which occurred in another part of the country. However, I am always glad to see the hon. member for whom I have, as he knows, great affection if not always the fullest appreciation. The minister has to realize, I think, that the statement he made in the estimates committee does not meet the point that I have raised.
In any event, all members of this committee were not members of the estimates committee, and on a matter of this sort I think we are entitled to have all members learn what the government's policy is, as stated by the minister in the pages referred to in the estimates committee report.


Jay Waldo Monteith: All members of this committee receive copies of the estimates committee report. It does not seem to me that it is necessary for me to go through all that evidence again in the committee of the whole.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I make one final observation? I can only conclude from what the minister has said that he is going to continue to give serious, conscientious study to this problem on which he has spent so much of his valuable time already.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member can rest assured I will certainly be doing that with the utmost vigour.


James Ernest Pascoe: In view of the fact that I consider the Saskatchewan government gives little credit to the federal government for financial contributions to the programs listed in this vote, would the minister give the committee a breakdown of the federal contributions to the Saskatchewan government for old age assistance, blind persons' allowances, disabled persons' allowances and unemployment assistance?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The sums are, old age assistance, $1,757,281; allowances to blind persons, $195,614; disability allowances, $433,211; unemployment assistance, $1,828,313.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister able to inform the house as to exactly who determines the regulations or conditions governing the means tests as they apply in the case of old age assistance, blind persons' allowances and disabled persons' allowances? Which level of government is responsible for laying down all the details and conditions?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, these are set out in regulation form. They are discussed by the advisory committee. I mentioned earlier that this committee met last autumn. At that time there were some changes suggested in these regulations, which were agreed upon and which have since been agreed to by the provinces and put in form by the justice department.


Erhart Regier: Is the means test equal in each of the provinces? Is the means test for residents of British Columbia exactly the same as it is for a resident of Alberta or Saskatchewan?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The federal provisions are exactly the same.


Erhart Regier: Would the minister admit that each provincial government is able to impose its own conditions in addition to the conditions that apply nationally?


Jay Waldo Monteith: As long as they meet the federal conditions. We would not share in any extra costs; we would only share the moneys that were paid out under federal regulations.


Erhart Regier: I think the minister somewhat misunderstood me. Is the minister admitting that the provincial government is able to add additional handicaps to the regulations before an individual is eligible?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I would not say that.


Erhart Regier: I wonder if the minister might then explain how a province has any right to impose conditions of its own, if it is not by way of limitation or the imposition of extra handicaps?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, there would be nothing in the way of limitations in that respect, but they might decide to pay something extra.


Erhart Regier: Would the minister then care to say that no province is imposing any limitations that prevent anyone from receiving these allowances or these pensions, that no province is able to impose any of these limitations if they do not apply in any other province?


Jay Waldo Monteith: All provinces must abide by the federal regulations, and we will only participate in these cost-sharing plans if the provinces are following the federal regulations.


Erhart Regier: May I be a little more specific? If our regulation was that a man may have $2,000 in the bank and yet be eligible for old age assistance, can the provincial government hold that within that province a man may have only $1,000 in the bank?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Chairman, this is not so. They must abide by our regulations in these cost-sharing plans. If the hon. member has something in mind where some variance seems to have occurred I would be pleased to hear about it and look into it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is it correct to say that the means test regulations are drafted by the federal government and agreed to by the provinces before they are applied in that province? The province accepts the regulations and agrees to them after discussion?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, that is correct.


William Arnold Peters: Is the minister able to explain why there is such a large decrease in the old age assistance payments? The tendency normally is for them to go up.
Mr. Pallet!: Increased prosperity.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have not any real explanation. The monthly expenditure for the current year has shown an increase of approximately $6,000 per month. It seems that we estimated a little high last year, and that is the explanation. There was an overestimate in 1959-60. The actual expenditure was $30,349,000, so we are estimating for $30,900,000 this year.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With respect to the statutory unemployment assistance, it has increased from $20,960,000 to $38,660,000 this year or an increase of $17 million. Does that increase
Supply-Health and Welfare indicate that the government expects a continued high level of unemployment?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, this increase results from the fact that the province of Quebec signed an agreement with the federal government effective July 1, 1959.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
General-
254.	Grants to health and welfare and related organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $243,250.
Murray Lincoln McFarlane: Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in this item. I notice that we are contributing a considerable amount of money to various health and welfare organizations in Canada. I should like to refer specifically tonight to the donation of $35,000 to the Canadian welfare council. I quite realize that they are doing wonderful work but at this time I should like to refer to part of the report of the president of the council for 1958. I wish to read part of the report to substantiate my argument.
Because of the nature of our membership, we act from time to time as spokesman for welfare interests in Canada, and it seems to me that the council has for this reason a particular and effective place in Canadian life. Two recent activities illustrate this function. Last year when we had a large influx of refugees from Europe, the council acted both as a spokesman and a co-ordinator in resolving many of the problems which arose. Then the council's discussions of certain social security issues stimulated our members' interest and drew outstanding participants from a wide field.
There are two sides to this role of spokesman. One is that the community at large or legislative bodies look to the council for advice, counsel and suggestions. The other is that any or all groups and individuals with an interest in social welfare find in the council a forum for the expression of their views, and frequently discussion leads to an influential public statement on social welfare policy.
But of course national planning and action is only one side of our activities. In this report, which gives examples of our work in all its branches, we can look beyond the reports, surveys, conferences and briefs to governments. We can see a homeless child placed in a new home by an agency the council has helped to improve its practices; old people benefiting from a program set up with council advice; an unemployed man regaining his self-respect through financial assistance and services the council has worked to bring about; an ex-convict going straight because of help the council has promoted.
I have only read part of the report of the president of the Canadian welfare council for 1958. Within the last couple of days a case has been brought to my attention

Supply-Health and Welfare which is actually not a welfare case but I wish to bring it up at this time. A young lad with his wife and three very small children got off the train in Ottawa the day before yesterday and we were very fortunate in being able to take care of them for one night. In the meantime we got in touch with various people for advice and assistance without receiving any help at all. We got in touch with practically all the social service agencies in Ottawa, the traveller's aid, the public welfare society, neighbourhood services, city services, social services, the Salvation Army and last of all a member of the Department of National Health and Welfare, in order to try to solve the problem.
As I look at the picture now, no one has been able to do anything for a Canadian citizen who has served in the armed services overseas. This is an emergency that should be met now, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month. It was necessary that something be done today and it was impossible for us to find anybody in the city of Ottawa or the government department who could deal with this case on an emergency basis.
If leadership is being given by the Canadian welfare council to local organizations such as I have mentioned, then something is definitely lacking because the incident I have described should not have taken place under any circumstances. I have looked through this report and I find that immediate assistance can be given to indigent travellers, to refugees and to immigrants coming into the country. It can be given to prisoners who are out on parole and it can also be given to offenders released from our penitentiaries.
But no assistance or help, and I am speaking now of immediate help, can be given to a Canadian citizen who comes to the city of Ottawa or any other Canadian city. He is not able to get any immediate help to look after his wife and his children until certain applications have been made, investigations have been carried out and all the red tape has been gone through. I am simply using this case as an example and I am not reflecting on some of the good work this organization does accomplish. Nevertheless, I think some action should be taken to look after cases which require immediate attention.
After spending two days on this problem there is, as far as I can see, no welfare service that is capable of or able to handle problems on an emergency basis without going through a tremendous amount of formality. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the committee. I hope that some good will come out of my having done so and that the minister will find time to look into the matter through the welfare department.
[Mr. McFarlane.l


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the minister would like to deal with this matter.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I thought that the hon. member might have something to say on this item so I was waiting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was going to deal with something else.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Is it on this item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. However, before mentioning what I have in mind with regard to what has been said by the hon. member who has just spoken about the Canadian welfare council, may I say that while I can understand his frustration, I do not believe that body should be indicated for the failure of existing machinery to deal with the case which he has quite properly brought to our attention. If it is possible for us, as it is and as I think it should be, to provide assistance to the needy not only in our own country but in other countries such as assistance for refugees, it would be difficult to argue that we should not provide assistance to our own people. Under the public assistance act it would be possible to provide assistance in the case mentioned by my hon. friend if the province to which the individual had come had an agreement with the province from which he came providing for a reciprocal arrangement. It is surprising to me that it was not possible for the hon. member to get some indication from the various sources he mentioned as to how help might be provided. Because of the particular experience he had with regard to this case I do not think he would want to imply that the national welfare council is not a body that should not receive the support of parliament. The Canadian national welfare council was strongly supported this afternoon by the hon. member for Kootenay West who at one time, I believe, was one of its national executives and may still be. In any event, he was.
This is a body of public-spirited citizens who do not provide relief administration but who are mainly concerned with promoting an interest in and an understanding of social welfare problems and social security programs. The minister will recall that yesterday I referred to a submission which had been made to the government of Canada in 1958, in 1959 and again this year by the Canadian national welfare council. That body had pointed out that commendable as was the social security program there were existing gaps, there was a pattern yet to be fully formulated and that as a means of accurately defining activities in social security by the two senior levels of government and also for the purpose of making an assessment of the

flexibility of the existing programs, a royal commission should be appointed by the government. This point was also emphasized by the hon. member for Kootenay West but the minister has not given us a reply as to whether the government proposes to accept the suggestion made by the national welfare council.
Supplementary questions were asked on this subject during the present session, and I find that the point of view of the national welfare council was referred to by implication recently in an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal. That article posed the question: "Are Canada's social security laws being abused?" We recall that there have been references this session to the alleged abuse of certain social welfare measures in this country. I think that some of these abuses have possibly been overemphasized and, again, others may not have been recognized, but I think the minister should indicate to the committee what consideration he has given to this recommendation of the national welfare council.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Presumably the hon. gentleman means the Canadian welfare council.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What consideration has been given to the suggestion of the Canadian welfare council that a royal commission should be appointed and, more especially, will the minister tell the committee whether he accepts the projection as to the future of the Canadian welfare council, particularly in the representations it made in January, 1960.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I support what the hon. member for Essex East has said. While the hon. member for Kootenay East was speaking there was some conversation around me and I did not hear his opening remarks clearly, but in general I endorse what the hon. member for Essex East had to say. The Canadian welfare council has done a magnificent job. Its national offices here are, of course, to deal essentially with policy and administrative questions. When I listened to the commendable efforts made to assist one unfortunate person, I thought the case demonstrated very clearly one of the points made by the Canadian welfare council in its policy statement and its representations to the Canadian government. It is obvious that in this case no one is taking any responsibility for assisting this unfortunate person.
I do not recall whether the hon. member for Kootenay East mentioned that he was a veteran or, in that case, whether the Legion authorities here in Ottawa were contacted. I am sure that if he was a veteran, and if they had been told, the Legion officials
Supply-Health and Welfare would have assisted him at least on a temporary basis until he could be settled.
I suggest this situation adds weight to the argument made by the hon. member for Essex East and later by the hon. member for Kootenay West that there are gaps in our national welfare system which have to be filled, and I trust the minister will have a few words to say with regard to the unfortunate case which has been brought to his attention.


Jay Waldo Monteith: First, I cannot express myself too strongly about the particular situation which arose on that occasion, and if the hon. member for Kootenay East will bring this question to my notice personally I shall be happy to examine it and see what might be done in the future to prevent a similar situation from arising. I should like to think that such an unfortunate situation would never have to arise in this Canada of ours. However, I do not suppose we shall ever be perfect. We have made a great deal of headway during the last few years, I think there can be no doubt about that, and I trust that as time goes on all these gaps will eventually be closed.
The hon. member for Essex East brought in another angle concerning the Canadian welfare council, suggesting that I did not reply to a question directed to me asking whether the government had considered the proposals made to us by that body. I did reply in this vein earlier in the afternoon. I do not know whether the hon. member was present or not. However, I did at one time during the afternoon link portable pensions, the Clark report and the representations of the Canadian welfare council in one loop, so to speak, in that they are all being considered in one context. I do not have anything further to add. We have these representations under consideration continuously.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot say that I am happy with the minister's reply. I have tried now three times to elicit information on this subject but I have not succeeded, and I can only characterize my efforts in terms of a distinguished British ambassador and say this represents on my part the failure of a mission.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Don't admit it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is that?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Carry on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the list of national associations which are given financial assistance as set out on page 352 I note that there is one organization which is not included. It may be that assistance is being given to this body under the national health

Supply-Health and Welfare grants. I certainly know that when the heart foundation was established in Canada under the presidency, first, of Mr. Douglas Ambridge, I think, there was a commitment made that if a request was put to the government, such request would receive very sympathetic and, I believe, we said, even favourable consideration. I do not know whether since 1957 such a request has been made or, if it has been made, whether assistance has been provided out of the national health grants program for that organization. But I do urge the minister to give careful consideration to assisting the Canadian heart foundation.
Illnesses of the heart represent the major cause of death in our country. We have had examples from the membership of this house which indicate the strength and the relevancy of this statement. We know of its existence all over the country. The federal government is, I believe, or was at one time, providing assistance toward research into heart diseases through the Dr. David institution in Montreal and through a research body in Toronto which engages in the study of heart diseases. But more than this is required.
Since the heart foundation is not referred to here I am wondering if the department is giving any financial assistance, (a) for research into heart diseases and (b) into the operations of the heart foundation which is a body that receives support from the public but because of the primacy of this particular disease it would seem to me it warrants some special consideration by the government of Canada.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, the government of Canada is certainly giving this foundation very special consideration. I would point out that as an assistance to the organization in itself no request of this type has ever been received similar to the situation that obtained when the hon. member who has just taken his seat occupied the ministerial chair. I would also reply, however, that there are substantial funds from the health grants which go to studies and research of this nature. Concerning assistance in this respect I may say that substantial funds for the purchase of special equipment and research studies have been provided through the general public health grant. For example, aid is given to the Ontario heart foundation which sponsors a program of clinical research in this field. I would imagine that answers the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Were those grants given this year? Does what the hon. gentleman said relate to this year?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I cannot definitely tie that in with this year but may I say that


it goes on continuously. There may not be a similar amount each year but certainly there is something given every year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
255.	Civil defence health, welfare and training services, $4,593,008.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, does the minister intend to make a statement on this item?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Chairman, I made a statement in my opening remarks covering this department's responsibility in the field of civil defence.


Oscar William Weichel: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us how many civil defence organizations there are across Canada?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but we do not appear to have readily available information as to the number of civil defence organizations across the country.


Oscar William Weichel: The reason I asked that question is that I wondered if the minister would care to comment concerning whether we have a number that might give us adequate protection.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Let me deal with that question in this way. I have publicly made the statement before and I repeat that when I first came into this department it was four days before I realized that civil defence was under my department. My experience in the first year was to say the least very frustrating. There seemed to be no out on the whole matter. I have to say this and I do not do so in a spirit of disparagement or anything of that nature. I believe that as far as civil defence is concerned the question has always been one involving a certain amount of frustration for the department. Upon considering the whole picture the government undertook to revamp the entire civil defence set-up. This has taken some time but I believe we have at last achieved a functional form of national survival which can be and will be effective if the need arises.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the minister's difficulties in this matter.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member should.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When the minister says he experienced frustration at the beginning of his administration with regard to civil defence, that, too, I can understand, because civil defence is one of the most difficult assignments which could be entrusted to a government or a department of government. Difficult and frustrating as it may be,

however, as long as we are going to spend public money in this matter we have to explain policy, discipline our frustrations and present a report about the usage of moneys which we are asking the taxpayers of Canada to provide.
It is in the light of that background that I approach the question. I feel it would not be right for us to pass these estimates in this parliament without some consideration of this important problem. If one has any doubt about how important it is all one has to do is to think what would happen if for any reason there were set in motion those agencies of human destruction which civil defence is designed to try to meet.
The budget for civil defence in the fiscal year 1959-60 was $7,220,817; it is given for 1960-61 as $4,593,008, a decrease of $2,627,809. Am I right in saying that the decrease is because of the assignment of civil defence functions to the office of the privy council and to the Department of National Defence?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says, "Yes". The total amount of moneys-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could intervene for just a moment. There are really three reasons for this reduction. The emergency health service has increased 10 per cent or approximately $325,000 mainly due to an increase in the cash provision for the medical stockpile and portable hospital programs. The second reason is that emergency welfare and training services remained at about the same level but major decreases are due to the deletion of provisions for those functions which have been transferred from this department; namely (1) $2 million for grants to provinces for general civil defence purposes; (2) $913,950 for the acquisition of equipment resulting from the deletion of provisions for warning systems such as mobile broadcasting transmitters, sirens and a federal civil defence radio station at Arnprior, Ontario; (3) $215,000 for professional special services mainly related to siren installation costs; (4) $134,207 in salaries and wages resulting from the deletion of 40 positions; (5) $102,652 no longer provided for the lease of communication services; and, offsetting this gross decrease, is the assurance of a bulk reduction applied to this vote in 1959-60 in the amount of $752,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was about to say that the total amount spent for civil defence by the Department of National Health and Welfare, the office of the privy council and the Department of National Defence basically is the same as last year. Can the minister give us the figures?
79951-0-337
Supply-Health and Welfare


Jay Waldo Monteith: I cannot give the figure for the Department of National Defence without looking at the details but I know that the figure for that department is up considerably and the figure for our department is down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would it be up over half a million dollars?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh, more than that;
E.M.O. is up considerably; the office of the privy council also.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The fact that civil defence is now assigned to three departments does make a review of the matter in the immediate perspective somewhat difficult. My own calculations had been that the total expenditures for all three divisions of government were not much over half a million dollars.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh, yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On purely civil defence matters I think the minister will find this is the case. In national defence they are charging up to civil defence some matters which normally were charged up to the Department of National Defence before the division of powers, and the functions being carried on in respect of those expenditures are no different. When we come to analyse the total expenditures I think it will be found that my statement is correct.
The government appointed Lieutenant General Graham, former chief of staff, to make on behalf of the government of Canada a survey of all aspects of Canada's civil defence. We did ask the government to give us this report, but he regarded it as confidential. Although it had been discussed with the provinces it was felt that the government was not disposed to give its recommendations to parliament. I regret that because it would give us an opportunity, apart from security matters, to make an assessment of the recommendations of General Graham.
The Prime Minister said on March 23, 1959 that the government had decided to make rearrangements in the division of responsibility for civil defence. As I understand it, the health and welfare aspects of civil defence continue to be the responsibility of the hon. gentleman and his department. The emergency measures organization is to be attached to the privy council and it is to co-ordinate the work of other agencies in the field of civil defence planning and the like. The Department of National Defence is to be entrusted with the responsibility of warning of an attack, the location and the

Supply-Health and Welfare monitoring of explosions and radioactive fallout, the assessment of damaged areas, contamination and clearing of such areas and the rescue of the injured.
It seems to us that the minister ought to explain the situation as he has done so only in part in the committee. We ought now to be given this information because of the importance of the matter if for no other purpose than emphasizing to the public what the chain of authority is.
The minister is in charge of health and welfare measures. The office of the privy council is in charge of the work of coordination. The army is in charge of those functions which I have just outlined. The Prime Minister told us that the Minister of National Defence is the minister to whom one must look for ministerial direction in the first instance. Since in the national health and welfare report reference is made to the emergency measures organization one, I think, must ask the minister which minister, the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or the Minister of Justice, which of those four, is responsible for the decision that must be taken in the event of an emergency. Is it a decision that must be made by the Prime Minister? What active interest does the Prime Minister have in the particular responsibility which comes under the privy council? Is this matter left to the Minister of National Defence? If an attack were to take place tomorrow and a very important decision had to be made which one of the four ministers would make the decision?
The Prime Minister said that the question was one that should be addressed to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister of National Defence says it is one that should be addressed to the Prime Minister. This matter ought to be resolved so that we shall have a clear idea as to where-in the event that what we all hope sincerely will never happen, does happen-the ultimate authority and responsibility lie. I am asking the minister now on these estimates to outline the facts for us.
I should also like to know from the minister when the last meeting of the federal-provincial advisory committee was held? In the report of the department at page 121 reference is made to the fact that early in 1958 such a meeting was held with provincial ministers from all of the 10 provinces and at that meeting a committee was established on a continuing basis for the purpose of maintaining a continuing interest and concern in civil defence policy between the


two jurisdictions. When was the last meeting held? To what extent are the provinces fully acquainted with all of the plans of the federal government? What about the question that I have just mentioned, the ultimate authority and chain of authority? What is the situation with regard to compensation agreements? Have all the provinces now an agreement with the federal government in the matter of compensation?
I understand that in January of last year an extension was made to some of the agreements covering enrolled civil defence workers while engaged in operations arising out of natural disaster as opposed to civil defence. Since the minister deals with sirens, line rental and maintenance, as indicated in the report at page 123, what is the situation in that regard? Are sirens still regarded as effective instruments of alert? Under which minister does a matter of this kind come?
With regard to the information services division, is there a special civil defence information service division serving all the departments concerned, or is there an information service division in the matter of civil defence for each department? These are questions to which I think we should have some reply.
Then I should like to know from the minister how many civil defence workers on the health and welfare side he estimates we now have in the country? If he is in a position to give us the over-all picture that will also be of immense value.
On the welfare side, which is unmistakably, of course, the responsibility of the minister, I understand that at the end of 1959 we had some progress in the organization of welfare services in at least five provinces. These provinces I think were Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Has there been any expansion since that time?
In the field of emergency feeding, what progress has been made in developing the program the government had in mind when it made its report?
Now the minister in his report at page 26 says that some time ago seven hospital disaster institutes were held across the country for the purpose of studying hospital disaster plans. When was that? Was it in 1959 or in 1958? Have there been any similar institutes held in the past year? This is obviously a matter that comes within the present responsibilities of the minister. Were there any courses held at the civil defence college within the last calendar or fiscal year for physicians, dentists and other health workers? Perhaps the minister would give us an indication of the work that is now being done by the radiological defence group. This

is a very important matter. Some reference was made to some aspects of this today in another context by the minister, but perhaps he would find it possible to expand his remarks in this connection.
Then I should like to ask the minister what progress has been made with regard to civil defence organization in the civil service itself. These are some of the matters to which I direct the minister's attention in an effort to try to assist him in what I recognize at once is a very difficult task.


Arthur Smith: I am glad the hon. member does not have a birthday every day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will not have a very happy birthday unless we take every precaution we know how to take within this difficult context to deal with this difficult situation. If we are going to spend this much money we ought to have a clear case made for what we have done. The minister has not told us what the government is thinking. Do they feel we should do more or are we taking a calculated risk? Our pattern, I know, is not unlike that of the United States. However, I am sure I need not remind the minister of the continuous criticisms that are made in this country with respect to this matter. He has received them, just as I have received them. Does he not think he ought to take advantage of this opportunity of explaining exactly what he has in mind?
If he will do me the honour of looking back at some of my pearls of wisdom which were uttered when I sat where he is he will find that I faced this situation squarely. I did not fail to disclose anything. I discussed the matter frankly. I discussed the question of evacuation. I discussed the question of shelter. The minister has not told us anything about evacuation. We know now that that is no longer the policy of the government, but the only statement we have had on that was a statement by the Minister of National Defence to the effect that evacuation was no longer our policy.
What is our policy in connection with shelter? The other day the Prime Minister tabled a pamphlet in which we were given instructions on the building of a shelter. The shelter is to be built by individuals. In spite of that, a civil defence official from the province of Ontario was speaking the other day in Windsor and he said the province was taking steps, in co-operation with the federal government, to provide assistance to individuals in the construction of shelters. Is that the policy of the government? We certainly have been told nothing about that.
79951-0-337i
Supply-Health and Welfare
This and many other engaging questions in this field, I think merit more than a brief, terse, businesslike statement from so imaginative a minister as my friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I must say that I cannot cope with the hon. member for Essex East when it comes to imagination. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I could not possibly reply at this stage to all the questions which were suggested or which perhaps should be asked. I do not believe the hon. member actually came out and said, I should like to know this. He was suggesting that perhaps I should say something or other.
I should like to remind him, first of all, that there has been quite a change in the oragnization of civil defence which I think will be an improvement and for the betterment of the country. I cannot help but feel that the hon. member perhaps has not fully assimilated the changes that have taken place. Perhaps he has had quite a bit of ground to cover in his present position and it may be a little difficult to keep on top of every move that is made. I fully appreciate that. I sympathize with him in this respect. I should like to point out only one thing. If war were to come, and I mean this very sincerely, I feel there would be only one job for the government of Canada, headed by the Prime Minister of Canada, and that would be the survival of the Canadian citizens to the greatest extent possible. Now, under those circumstances, that is the thing for which we are working.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Essex East asked the minister if he was going to make a statement on this very important question he said he had already made a statement in his speech. I looked up his speech and I found there were a few brief paragraphs dealing with this very important question in connection with which the committee is being asked tonight to vote $4,503,000. This is not good enough.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I beg to differ, Mr. Chairman. There are many more paragraphs in my opening remarks to the estimates committee. The hon. member should check back on my report to the estimates committee. '


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am referring to the minister's reply to the hon. member for Essex East when the hon. member asked if the minister was going to make a statement tonight and the minister referred to his opening remarks on these estimates. We have three departments concerned with civil defence, national defence, veterans affairs and the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And privy council.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And privy council. Why are we not able to get an over-all statement on the situation? When the national defence estimates come before us the minister will say that the militia is involved to such and such an extent and that is about all. We do not know what General Graham's report was or what he recommended. In so far as veterans affairs are concerned, we have heard very little to date from that department with regard to civil defence. We have the minister's very brief statement on these estimates. I do believe that even though the minister did make a statement before the committee, this matter is of such importance he should deal with it at greater length before this committee.
Only a certain percentage of the hon. members can attend committee meetings, and I think this is information which the public should be given as frequently as possible so that the public understands the situation. Like the hon. member for Essex East, we would like to know who makes the decisions under certain circumstances. We would like to know how the three departments concerned are getting along with the provinces. The minister, in his opening remarks in this connection, in the two paragraph to which I referred, said that he hoped-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I must take exception to that. My opening remarks to the estimates committee start on page 24 of the report and end on page 28. The hon. member is not giving a correct inference. He should check on the committee reports which are delivered to his office.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have read some of the committee reports, but I have not had time to read them all.


An hon. Member:: You have not done your homework.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I can tell the hon. member that if he does his homework as well as do the members of this group he will do well indeed.


Arthur Smith: You would not be on your feet if that were the case.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There are other matters that are not even raised in the minutes. I think the hon. member for Essex East was quite correct when he said we would like to know the degree of co-operation with the provinces. The minister says that he hopes there will be similar re-organization in the provinces-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Where do I say that?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In this report made to this committee.


Jay Waldo Monteith: What page?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Page 5248 of Hansard for June 22, 1960. The minister said that it is hoped that similar types of organizations will be formed at the provincial level. This is purely a hope. We should know why it is only a hope at this stage because civil defence has been going on for a number of years and money has been voted year after year. The members of this group think we should have from the minister-I am not asking for a great deal of repetition-at least a summary of the situation as it exists today with respect to the organization of civil defence in the federal field and the co-operative arrangements with the provinces and municipalities. I think the hon. member for Essex East was quite correct in suggesting that this was the place for the minister to make a brief statement of the situation for the information of the members of the house and the public.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think I made quite an extensive statement on civil defence as it concerns my department. I do not propose under any circumstances to go into civil defence as it concerns other departments. I do not think I should be called upon to do that. I do not propose to do it. We are responsible for emergency health services and emergency welfare services and the operation of the civil defence college at Arnprior.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Why is it that under the heading of civil defence there are nine pages in the report of the department which cover a number of matters other than those that come strictly under the jurisdiction of the department itself?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to be fair with the minister but I do not think he is being fair with himself.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am being more than fair with you.


Peter Francis Martin: What was that
remark?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I said I was being more than fair with you, but only because it is your birthday.


Peter Francis Martin: I thank the hon. member for being considerate with me. I need that kind consideration. I greatly appreciate it. But nevertheless, we have an obligation to perform in the opposition and the minister's generous treatment of opposition members must not in any way interfere with what we regard as our duty. The minister says that he made a statement in the defence committee-I have it before me here-of six

pages on that account he is precluded from the obligation of making a statement to this committee.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No. I made a statement yesterday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Kootenay West-


Jay Waldo Monteith: He said there are two paragraphs and there are many more.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know the number of them. I do not think there were many more.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Look at your copy of Hansard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did so. In any
event, whether there were two paragraphs or three paragraphs.-


Jay Waldo Monteith: There were eight paragraphs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says there were eight paragraphs. That does not represent in my judgment a very comprehensive statement on civil defence. We are now in the parliament of our country discussing a matter of great importance. We have the right to know what is the policy of the government in this matter. If the minister continues speaking, as he did at the beginning, I will understand his predicament. I think it was a difficult problem. We all appreciate that fact. Our effort here in this matter should be to assist, and I say this to him sincerely because we recognize how difficult this problem is.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I thank the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister does not help himsdelf when we seek information from him. In answer to the hon. member who has just taken his seat he takes the position that as he is responsible for health and welfare measures, that he should not be called upon to deal with other matters that since March 23, 1959, have come under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and himself and, in so far as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are concerned, the Minister of Justice.
However, I would point out to the minister that he presented parliament with a report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959. That report deals with all of the activities in the field of civil defence during the period from January 1 to March, 1959 and the period from April, 1958 to the end of December, 1958; and that refers to such questions as compensation agreements, financial assistance, siren installation, supplies and equipment.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Jay Waldo Monteith: Is the hon. member actually discussing the estimates for next year in the year ending March 31, 1959?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Are we not discussing next year's estimates?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely on the discussion of next year's estimates one is entitled to detect what government policy is in the light of what the government has done during the past fiscal year or other years.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member has gone back two years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It does not matter whether I go back ten years. That is the privilege of debate. My hon. friend may not like my argument but he certainly cannot take issue with my desire to build up a case, as I see it, referring to policies that he has pursued. All through this report reference is made not only to health and welfare measures but to engineering, training and education. There is reference here to the Canadian civil defence college. A few moments ago I asked the minister what about the civil defence organization in the government of Canada. I asked him when was the last meeting between the provincial and federal governments. I received no reply to that question.
All the minister said-and I believed him when he said this, of course-was that this was a difficult problem and that he and the Prime Minister who were in charge of civil defence were doing their best. I have not any doubt about that, but I want to know what constitutes their best. That is the great difficulty that we have with the minister, not only with regard to civil defence but other matters as well. I say to him, as Mr. Humphrey Mitchell used to say, in the kindliest way, that my hon. friend when confronted with a problem tells us that the matter is receiving study. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is, in my judgment, the most studious minister of those who sit on the ministerial benches. However, we do not want only a scholar sitting in the ministry, we also want a man of action. The minister is a man of action. I ask him now to show that such is the case.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I cannot go beyond my responsibility of dealing with civil defence as it resides in this current year in the Department of National Health and Welfare. I would mention this to the hon. member who is in a very conciliatory mood today as usual, but particularly today. 1 should like to mention that a conference was held on, I gather, the last Friday before April 27, 1959. I can only say that because I have here
5340	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare a copy of the question that was asked of me by the hon. member for York-Humber as to giving the house a report on the civil defence conference with the provinces that took place "last Friday". This question was asked on April 27, so I presume that was the date. I should like to mention this. I do not have, as the hon. member for Waterloo North reported earlier, the number of units across Canada but I have the approximate number of civil defence workers who attended courses. During 1957-58 there were 3,524 and in 1959 or during the calendar year 1959, 2,737.
Then there is within my responsibility the civil defence college at Arnprior, and I should be glad to answer any questions with respect thereto. We continue to hold courses. There was a very interesting course not long ago which was arranged by the province of Ontario actually, at which many of the mayors and the officials of the province of Ontario were present. These conferences go on week after week. Incidentally, during 1959 there were staff courses, including all phases of civil defence planning and operations; indoctrination courses on civil defence for physicians, dentists, nurses and pharmacists. Welfare courses in organization, emergency feeding, personal services, emergency lodging, registration and inquiry; radiological defence courses; techniques of instruction; rescue courses; casualty simulation courses; indoctrination conference of agrol-ogists from provincial and federal departments of agriculture and forums on communications and engineering.
Special courses in civil defence indoctrination and rescue were again conducted for the training of personnel of the armed services. The Department of National Defence also took advantage of the course schedule, primarily for civilians, to train a large number of officers and warrant officers in civil defence procedures.
Just as a matter of history, the civil defence college was established in Arnprior during 1953. The main function of the college is to train key civil defence personnel at federal, provincial and local levels and, in addition, to train civil defence instructors for all levels of civil defence authority.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the minister has gone somewhat further than he did at the outset in answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Essex East, but he did make a statement a moment ago which I think is a strange one and which I think he should explain to the committee. He said


in effect that so far as civil defence was concerned, he was going to deal with the matters that affected his department and his department only and was not going to enter into the fields of other departments. I think the committee is entitled to more than that.
If it is a fact that civil defence is a matter which concerns several departments then we should have the over-all policy as it concerns these other departments or otherwise the ministers who are responsible in part for the over-all policy should be here and should report to the house on that policy. I know that from time to time the Prime Minister has made statements of a general nature, but I do not know that any minister rising in his place has spoken on behalf of all the others.
If we are going to have to ask each minister to deal with that portion of this matter which is under his jurisdiction, then we will not know what the over-all position is. For that reason I think the statement made by the minister is not a proper one. I do not think it is the kind of statement that the committee should accept. Certainly it is not the kind of statement that should be expected in a matter of this importance.
I do not want to repeat what has been said by those who have spoken. I think we all realize that this is a matter of extreme and grave importance for every citizen of Canada, and I think it behooves the minister, whose estimate reads "civil defence, health, welfare and training services" to give to the committee the over-all position as it affects other departments as well as his own so that the committee will have before it, when considering the last item of his estimates, the position so far as the various departments are affected.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, this is a bunch of nonsense, if I may say so. I do not think we were required to do so by any means, but the Minister of National Defence was requested to come before the estimates committee and give evidence, as were the officials of the emergency measures organization, including the clerk of the privy council. I think the hon. member for Laurier is completely wrong in suggesting that these officials should be here tonight. The hon. member has seen or has had an opportunity to see the evidence given before the estimates committee and I do not think this committee should be called upon to go further. As Minister of National Health and Welfare I do not think I should be called upon to go one step beyond accounting for my estimates concerning the emergency and welfare services.

We did our best to co-operate in the estimates committee. The Minister of National Defence did his best. He appeared before several meetings. As the hon. member for Essex East knows, there were several times when he could not be present at meetings and so it was arranged that the Minister of National Defence would attend when the hon. merfiber could be present. The greatest of cooperation was shown, and in my estimation what the hon. member is saying is simply nonsense.


Walter Franklyn Matthews: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak on this important subject because I thought it was well in hand all the way through. I can well remember that the minister made arrangements for two civil defence displays and that it was open to all members of the house to go and see what was being done and what was in store for people in case of an emergency. I attended. I do not recall whether the three members who have been doing so much talking tonight were there, but they had the opportunity to attend. I will go further and say that if they would shut up and listen they would learn more. I want to say that I have found from experience in the House of Commons that a lot of loud talking does not constitute an education. I have found that out.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think the remarks made by the last speaker are going to deter anyone on this side of the house from insisting on what we think are our responsibilities and our rights in this matter. Even though it was discussed in another committee, the House of Commons is entitled to get the information which has been requested. I thank the minister for saying that the remarks I made earlier were nothing but a bunch of nonsense, but I should like to recall the attitude taken on more than one occasion by government members when they were in the opposition. I can think of one particular item which concerned more than one department and I know what the opposition did at that time. They insisted that the two ministers responsible for the matter should be present and give the house the information and details required.
It is not necessary to have the officials here. The minister should have his colleagues here to give us the additional information, and he says there is, which falls under the jurisdiction of other departments in connection with the over-all policy. That he has not done. He has replied by saying that is bunkum. That is all right. The record is there and can be seen by those who want to read it.
But I repeat again what was said on more than one occasion by those hon. members
Supply-Health and Welfare who sat on this side of the house. When matters fell within the jurisdiction of two ministers there was the strongest insistence that the ministers be here so that we would have the over-all policy. The minister continues to state that he is not going to do that. That is his business, but I am telling him now that the House of Commons is entitled not only to part of the situation but the whole of it and his colleagues who are responsible for the other parts should be here to explain the matter to the House of Commons.


Arthur Smith: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could say a word on this matter because some little responsibility falls on me in that I was chairman of the committee to which reference has been made. The three other elements in the national survival program were investigated by the committee. Surely that was the purpose of the estimates committee and when we now have before us one vote in the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare surely that is the subject matter for us to consider at this point.
Under the principle of the committee system and because of the interlocking nature of the other elements, national defence and the privy council, it was considered advisable by the standing committee at that time that they should be brought into the picture. With the flexibility of the committee system, all members of the house, including the hon. member for Essex East, had an opportunity to examine every aspect of national survival, and that is where the whole problem of civil defence and national survival should be considered. I would remind the hon. member for Laurier that this was done and that, like every other member, he has access to the full deliberations of this committee with respect to the three separate votes brought before the committee at that time.
I am also bound to note that it is regrettable that certain members of the opposition did not take advantage of the committee meetings to have a full discussion, in accord with the flexibility of the rules of the committee, with respect to all three votes. Surely we are considering one item now in the estimates of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and for the hon. member for Laurier to insist that all the people who were heard before the estimates committee be now called is simply an illustration of the kind of thing that is slowing up the business of the house and making the work of the estimates committee of absolutely no use.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his remarks about the

Supply-Health and Welfare flexibility of committees but I would remind him that he has not been in the house so very long.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Smith: It is not becoming to the hon. member for Laurier to make an observation which is not relevant at this point.


Lionel Chevrier: I would remind the hon. member that the flexibility of committees applies not only to the government which is now in office but it applied in former years also.


An hon. Member:: It sure did not.


Lionel Chevrier: The flexibility in those years, I will remind the hon. member, applied in so far as at least two committees of this house are concerned, that is, the committee on railways and canals and the committee on railways and shipping to which all matters concerning Canadian National Railways were referred. All the officers of the C.N.R. and those of Trans-Canada Air Lines gave evidence, and repeatedly I would come with my estimates before the house and say: we have discussed these matters in committee. But do you think the members of the opposition would accept that? No, they would not. They insisted upon a discussion of matters which had, very often, been discussed at length in committee. They insisted, not that the officers should be called again-I am not asking for that-but if a minister was not able to give a statement on the over-all policy, then some other minister should come forward and make that kind of statement.
This question of the flexibility of committees should apply in the same sense now as it did when we were in office. I know that repeatedly I would be asked exactly what I am asking those who sit on the other side of the house today and I had to repeat on a number of occasions many of the things which were dealt with by the committees to which I made reference. All I am asking now is, not that the officials be brought back but that time be saved by someone acting on behalf of the government, and in a position to give a picture of the over-all position as far as civil defence is concerned. If that were done I am sure this item would go through quickly.


Arthur Smith: It is my regret that I have not been in this house as long as the hon. member for Laurier, but at least I am attempting to live in the present.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope the hon. member for Nanaimo will not take exception if I speak again. He is a new member and I do not wish to take advantage of him-


William Heward Grafftey: We have lots of new members.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are lots of new members, but I can assure them that if they try to abridge us by shouting "shut up" they will not be here very long, because the people of Canada sent us here to discuss these matters in accord with our concept of what is our duty as members of parliament. The very essence of this chamber is that we should have the fullest freedom of discussion without regard to where we sit, and without it being suggested that we should not take up the time of the house. We are here for that purpose, and it is the responsibility of the opposition to scrutinize, as we are endeavouring to do, the policies of the government and its proposed expenditures. We shall not be doing our duty if we bow to suggestions from the numerical strength that surrounds us at the moment that we have taken up too much time. We are taking time in order to elicit information which we have not been able to get.


William Heward Grafftey: Filibuster.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says "filibuster". I should think that after the experience he had yesterday in Quebec he would not want to be talking about filibusters. I listened with interest to the hon. member for Calgary South-


Arthur Smith: Would the hon. member permit a question? Accepting, with regret, that the hon. member was, unfortunately, ill, can the hon. gentleman acknowledge how many meetings he attended during the period when this particular department was being discussed? I will tell him if he cannot tell us.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to. I was going to deal with that in a few moments. The hon. gentleman made a statement a few moments ago, and I thought it was a fair statement. He had a perfect right to make it as chairman of the estimates committee. I went to as many meetings of that particular committee as I could stand. The hon. member for Calgary South, who is an able chairman, depending on one's point of view, would give members of the committee a nod: he would say, you may ask a question now, you may ask three and a half questions, but after that you must give the floor to someone else. The committee became a schoolroom performance-


Arthur Smith: On a point of order, we are completely out of order in discussing the procedure followed in that committee.


Lionel Chevrier: You started it.


Arthur Smith: But in view of the fact that the hon. member for Essex East has introduced the subject, may I say that he occupied more time during the period he was in the committee than any other member.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, surely the hon. member for Calgary South is the one who introduced the matter of the action in the committee. Now he is complaining about the hon. member for Essex East discussing it.


Arthur Smith: It is to be noted that I had no reply.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I was saying, the committee was chaired very effectively by the hon. member for Calgary South, depending on one's point of view I soon ascertained that in order to get a clear elucidation of civil defence policy something else would be needed; I was not going to be able to get it in a committee where time was abridged and where I was repeatedly told I was taking up much time.
Now we are in the House of Commons, and we are taking the time. The position we are in is exactly as was stated by the hon. member for Laurier.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Those catcalls are not going to hasten in any way our acceptance of this item. We intend to discuss these estimates as long as we think they should be discussed, and if hon. gentlemen want to see them passed I ask them to give the attention implied in the bill of rights shortly to be brought down by the Prime Minister in this house. That means there has to be freedom of discussion, not only outside this chamber but right here within the precincts of parliament itself.


Jacques Flynn: I think the hon. gentleman is right in saying that he can discuss the item which we are considering, but I ask him to come back to that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree, and I hope you will recognize that these interventions warrant-


Walter Franklyn Matthews: Before the hon. member goes on any further, I should like to explain something. I should like to explain to the committee and to the hon. member for Essex East that I was not telling anyone to shut up. All I said was that if people would shut up they would hear more. The hon. member for Essex East certainly did sow pearls of wisdom, and perhaps he has pearls of wisdom to sow, but I want him to remember that tapioca pudding looks like pearls but it contains no pearls.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Nanaimo obviously understands the rules of this house, and for that reason I do not propose to take issue with what he has said. Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but their laughter will be noted outside this house. The people of Canada will learn that while we are discussing this important matter this government with its large majority has taken the whole subject as lightly as hon. members opposite would take one of the amusing incidents that they might read in their comic strips.


An hon. Member:: Not true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is not a laughing matter. This is something which, as the hon. member for Calgary South said, affects the survival of the people of Canada. In spite of that, hon. gentlemen have treated the subject tonight with a levity rarely seen in parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: On a question of privilege, I certainly do not think that is an appropriate statement for the hon. member for Essex East to make.


Lionel Chevrier: Where is the privilege?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I repeat that statement. Hon. gentlemen opposite-I do not say the minister but hon. gentlemen sitting behind him-have treated this debate with a levity which will be noticed by the Canadian people. What we now say reflects our concern over the fact that the government of Canada does not regard the matter of civil defence as the important issue it is.


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for
Davenport.


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East has just made a statement which I think reflects on every hon. member of this committee. Just because the manner in which he made his presentation caused a certain amount of amusement among hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house the hon. member has no right to suggest that our laughter in any way reflects the approach we take to the serious question of civil defence.


Lionel Chevrier: Why do you laugh?


Mr.   Morion@: We were laughing not at the matter but at the manner in which the hon. member for Essex East and his colleague the hon. member for Laurier have been making a mockery of this debate.
5344	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare


An hon. Member:: For political purposes.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The hon. member for Essex East should be in Hollywood.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that valid questions of privilege have been raised. I did not intervene when the hon. member for Davenport was speaking because he comes from the city of Toronto and I know that in that city there is great public interest in civil defence.


Murray Douglas Morton: That is correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the city of Toronto there is also strong criticism of this government in regard to its policy in the matter of civil defence.


Jay Waldo Monteith: And a great deal more co-operation since the change-over.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I expect that the hon. member for Davenport rose on his question of privilege in order to indicate that he wished to be excluded from the general condemnation that I made about hon. gentlemen opposite. I will therefore exclude the hon. member from that condemnation. I will say that there was one hon. member of the Conservative party who tonight took this matter as seriously as it should be taken and that was the hon. gentleman who just raised the question of privilege.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is only your opinion.


James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. It is the same question of privilege raised by my friend the hon. member for Davenport. I think the hon. member for Essex East is drawing inferences which are completely false as to the attitude of Conservative members in respect to this highly important question of civil defence.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The hon. member for Essex East is trying to get ready for the next election,


Jacques Flynn: May I suggest that we stop discussing the personalities of hon. members and return to a discussion of the item under scrutiny.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I believe your suggestion is valuable now and it would have been valuable a few minutes ago before these interruptions took place. The fact is that hon. gentlemen opposite have treated this subject tonight with levity-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. members object. I say again that hon. gentlemen opposite have treated this subject with levity.


Jacques Flynn: I have just asked for the co-operation of the hon. member for Essex East in not discussing the conduct of hon. members. I invite him instead to direct his attention to the problem of civil defence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman,
I would respectfully suggest to you that my remarks are perfectly in order. I have the right in debate to explain why I take a particular position and why I condemn attitudes with regard to that position. That is what I have done and that is the essence of a free assembly.
The hon. member for Laurier stated the situation as it has always been observed in this committee. Where there is a matter of divided responsibility the government, when confronted with questions as to overall policy, must be in a position to state that policy. It is true, as the hon. member for Calgary South said, that when we were in the estimates committee the Minister of National Defence, the director of the emergency organization and the clerk of the privy council were present but the Prime Minister who has over-all responsibility was not there. I am not saying that the Prime Minister should have been there because I recognize that he has heavy obligations. We know that those I listed were present. That was a committee of this house. We have the right to discuss policy in this parliament regardless of what went on in a committee of this house. That is what we are doing tonight.
The minister has not satisfied us on the questions we have put to him tonight. The hon. gentleman has not answered all our questions and with some he has not dealt at all. We cannot go any further. When the Minister of National Defence comes before us with his estimates we shall expect him to give us an over-all statement of the problems of civil defence which we were not able to elicit tonight. We will expect that those who are in charge of E.M.O. in the office of the clerk of the privy council will also be here, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Justice, all of whom have responsibility for civil defence.
As the hon. member for Laurier has said, only by eliciting from the government as a whole what its policy is will we on this side of the chamber feel that we have discharged our duty in scrutinizing these estimates presented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Norman Leonard Spencer: Read the evidence of the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I resent the remark made a moment ago by the hon. member for Davenport when he said that the

hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Laurier were making a mockery of this debate.
When I rose a moment ago I asked the minister to take responsibility for the other departments that were concerned with civil defence in this country. I emphasized that point on two occasions and I repeated it in so far as it concerned two committees of the house with which I have had some experience and that is as far as I went. That I was entitled to do. My hon. friend has made a grossly exaggerated statement. The hon. gentleman should not have made the statement which he made when he said I was making a mockery of this debate.
I believe that I have the right that is enjoyed by any hon. member of parliament to ask the government questions about the over-all position in so far as the several ministers responsible for civil defence are concerned. If that is making a mockery of this item or of parliament then I want to plead guilty to it.


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Chairman, in no way did I wish to imply that the hon. member for Laurier had no right to make any observations he might care to make in this debate. I was objecting to the fact that when a certain atmosphere of amusement was created through the manner of presentation adopted by the hon. member for Essex East and by the hon. member for Laurier in a supporting role the hon. member for Essex East accused hon. members on this side of the chamber of not treating the subject of civil defence with the seriousness it deserved. In taking that attitude the hon. member for Essex East was in my opinion taking an unfair advantage of hon. members of this committee.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Mr. Chairman, I remember making a speech last year on the subject of civil defence. 1 read at that time a statement about a meeting of the federation of mayors held at Edmonton on August 31, 1955. Present at the meeting were experts from NATO speaking on the subject of civil defence. They stated that the time to take action was at that very time, August 31, 1955. Tonight we are witnessing all the Rip Van Winkles waking up from their long sleep. I am very happy to see that they are finally taking an interest in the question of civil defence. They should have taken action in 1955 when they were warned by their own experts to do so. The experts at the conference to which I referred included General Worthington and experts from NATO and an outstanding doctor who explained the dangers of the situation.
To indicate that action is now being taken I wish to point out that starting tomorrow
23, 1960	5345
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys there will be a bomb shelter exhibited in the city of Winnipeg at the opening of the Red river exhibition. Publicity on the subject will be made available to the citizens of Canada. Last week a pamphlet was issued telling Canadians how to go about building a bomb shelter. When I came to the house in 1958 I had to write to the United States in order to get information about civil defence. The Liberals were in power for a long time but took no action at all in this field despite the fact that their experts advised them to take action in 1955. It is not my wish to take up any more of the valuable time of the committee. I am very happy to see a few of the gentlemen of the old Liberal party wake up tonight.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: This concludes the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS Departmental administration-
187. Administration, operation and maintenance, $860,962.


Jacques Flynn: This item will be found at page 187 of the blue book, and the details on page 260.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, there is a matter that I wish to point out to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois), and one that I usually raise every time his estimates are being considered by the house. The minister probably knows what I have in mind. It is about the dividing line between the province of Quebec and Ontario in lake St. Francis and in one section of the St. Lawrence river.
I should like to call his attention to this problem again this year, because I think that there might be some chance of finding some answer to it.
In order to be brief and not to delay the house unduly, I shall recall only the broad lines of the problem.
The south boundary between Ontario and Quebec on the St. Lawrence river has never been marked. All other boundaries, to the east, west and north, with a small exception, have been settled as a result of acts of parliament. But the boundary dividing the provinces of Ontario and Quebec has not. This matter has been outstanding for 40 years.
5346	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys Attempts were made to settle it, boards were established by both provinces and a great deal of progress was made.
I think that this line which runs from la Pointe-au-Beaudet to the international boundary between Canada and the United States opposite Cornwall and which is perhaps 25 miles long has been marked, except for a distance of about 10 miles. It is this 10 mile boundary that should be defined by a board of some sort.
I am convinced, as I have already stated on more than one occasion, that this matter does not strictly come under federal jurisdiction. It is under federal jurisdiction indirectly, so that if both provinces could reach an agreement, the federal government could pass legislation for the purpose of marking this boundary. But the point on which I wish to call the minister's particular attention is that in several instances, I suggested to him that if he invited those two governments to set up such a board, the problem might be settled once and for all.
The circumstances are quite different today from what they were two years ago. Since the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway, there has been a channel extending more on the north side of the St. Lawrence than on the south side. Perhaps some agreement might be reached with the two provinces partly on the basis of that channel. I realize that the matter has been considered, and I know there are a few islands at the upper end of lake Saint Francis that are a cause of dispute between the two provinces. However, while those islands were tremendously important some 20 or 25 years ago-I am not saying they have no importance today-they have lost some of their importance. The federal government is interested in the problem, because it is holding those islands in trust for the Indians. I would ask the minister, therefore, when he deals with the various questions that have been put to him, to tell us whether he intends to make another attempt at settling this problem.
Oh, I am afraid the minister will give me quite a different answer now, because of the recent events.


Paul Comtois: Not at all.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. minister says
"not at all". I am quite pleased at that, because I was speaking quite candidly, and the minister is right in pointing out it is not a political matter. I think the leader of the next Quebec provincial government will be just as willing to settle the problem, because the


province of Quebec has as much interest as Ontario in taking a special interest in the problem.
Therefore, I am wondering if the hon. gentleman will not make a new attempt with regard to what I said a few moments ago. If he succeeds, I shall be the first to commend him, because I have told him before, that, when I was at the head of another department than his own, my efforts to settle that issue had not been successful. It is a very delicate problem for people living on both sides of the boundary between Ontario and Quebec. I am speaking, more particularly, of the citizens in the riding of Huntingdon in the province of Quebec, and of the counties of Glengarry and Stormont in Ontario.
The suggestion would prove to be of benefit, not only with regard to the administration of the fishing and hunting legislation, but in the case of accidents which are always liable to happen on the seaway.
As a matter of fact, if there were some accident, if two ships collided, for instance, causing severe damage, it might very well happen that nobody would know if the civil code, which is recognized in Quebec, or the common law of Ontario would apply.
There is no need to stress the point any further. I know that the minister noted my remark, because he told me so personally.
May I only remind him, knowing how kind he is, to ask the governments concerned to establish some commission which would, once and for all, settle that delicate matter.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: 
Erik Nielsen: The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is of great importance to the people of my riding, and I hope any remarks I make this evening will indicate just how important I think the department is in so far as the development of the rest
5348	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys of the nation is concerned. I feel that nothing is more basic or more fundamental, nothing is more vital to the advance of Canadian human and material betterment, than the work of this department.
One thing stands out most clearly from the evidence heard while the estimates of this department were before the standing committee on mines, forests and waters last year, that is, the failure of government for at least 10 and, in some branches 25 years to recognize the value of the work of the department. Not only has there been a continuous disregard of the material benefits to Canada which would have resulted from allowing the department to fully perform its proper function but the skill and brilliance of the departmental scientific and technical personnel has gone almost unnoticed, and their counsel and advice unheeded. Over many years, at least a decade, there have been clear and persistent indications of the need for reform. For just as long and just as clear have been the indications of the important benefits to Canada which would be the natural and inevitable result flowing from these reforms. But the need and the importance of the need were either ignored or neglected year after year.
The kindest thing that can be said for the Liberal administration in this regard is that they failed to realize the real significance of the work being produced by the department, that they remained for so many years in ignorance of the true value of this work and its relation to all phases of Canadian development. If they did realize the significance of the contribution to be made by the work of the department, their failure to do anything about it amounts to the grossest neglect of their duty while in office.
I submit that the evidence given before the standing committee last session stands as a massive indictment against the former administration to which they may plead either ignorance or neglect but to which they cannot be heard to plead innocence.
I have said that there is no single phase of the economic life of this nation that is not affected by the work of this department. Despite this very important fact, however, the restrictions which have been placed upon the functions of the department in past years have relegated it to playing an insignificant role in national development. When it had so much to offer, advantage was not taken of its capacities. It became the orphan of government and continued to be regarded as such over the years.
This is the condition then that faced this government when it first took office in June of 1957. Members know that one of the first


steps taken by this government during the first session of parliament after the present cabinet took office was to reactivate the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, a committee which had lain dormant for over 22 years during Liberal administration. In my opinion the first fruits of the work of this committee have been realized. The searching inquiry conducted into the function of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has resulted in the production of a useful report to the house.
It would be exceedingly difficult to exaggerate the importance of the functions of this department. Its chief role should be regarded, I feel, in the light of the significance of the Canadian mineral industry. The significance of minerals in providing the material basis for the economic life and social organization of humanity has long been recognized. Our civilization today, more than ever before, depends for its continuance on the minerals which permit and sustain its existence. The geometric increase and the concentration of world populations, the frequency and speed of movement of transport, the extent and quality of human control over the forces of nature are all directly dependent upon the discovery and utilization of mineral resources. It is, therefore, of prime importance that we in Canada should have as accurate information as can be obtained about the extent of the available reserves in this field.
It would be a great mistake to assess the functions and the needs of this department on the basis only of the requirements today. And it is not enough to simply say "We will not make such a mistake" without giving a good deal of thought to the reasons for saying such a thing. I believe there are sufficient indications of the trend of future demands for minerals as to warrant the assertion that Canada must be prepared to meet the needs of 10, 20 or 30 years from now. Indeed, there is no reason why we should not, in our considerations, contemplate the fact that upon the expiration of a century from now all world sources of minerals will likely have been exhausted. There are a number of very basic factors which justify taking this position. I feel that these factors are clearly distinguishable now, but before discussing them I should like for a moment more to deal with the importance of minerals to Canadians today and tomorrow, all in the light of the objectives which should be those being pursued by this department. A good many of the department's requirements and shortcomings are known now, thanks largely to the examination of departmental activities and deficiencies by the mines, forests and waters committee last session.

It is very difficult to chart future courses but I think all will hasten to agree that we must make a concerted effort to do so; and in doing so I do not think it would be desirable for us to confine ourselves to domestic needs and trends. In so far as the world picture is concerned, the more optimistic observers point out that there is today no serious or general shortage of any essential metallic or non-metallic mineral product. These people say that the discovery of new sources has always kept abreast of the increasing demand and, further, that new discoveries combined with increased efficiency in methods of processing and utilization will be adequate to meet any future needs.
How about the pessimists? They emphasize, and rightly so, the fact that mineral resources are wasting assets. They are not replaceable as are our agricultural products, our forest products and the like. Once the mineral content supplied by nature in the crust of the earth has been exhausted either by wasteful or beneficial use, it cannot be restored. These people say that the rate of consumption today presents an entirely new problem for which past experience gives no assurance of a solution.
But there is one thing that all scientists agree on and that is the necessity of maintaining an ample supply of minerals and metals if our civilization, as we know it, is to be maintained or if further progress is to be made. Iron, copper, lead, zinc, nickel, aluminum, magnesium and other base metals are, by definition fundamental to our way of life. Almost equally important are such alloying metals as manganese, chromium, molybdenum and tungsten, which are essential to the steel industry. The industrial minerals, limestone sulphur, salt and fluorspar supply the raw materials for much of the world's chemical industry, while the mineral fertilizers, phosphate rock and potash, are of growing importance in agriculture. Without these or effective substitutes large segments of the prospective population of the earth will be condemned to lives of misery and degradation.
Eminent scientists have said that the implications of these facts raise a problem so vast and of such universal incidence that in a sane world they would be made the immediate subject of common study and cooperative planning. The best proof of this statement is to be found in the difficulties that are being experienced in adapting atomic energy to beneficial rather than to destructive uses. In the race between education and catastrophe, education is falling farther and farther behind.
Business of the House
I said earlier that we are justified in stating that within the century ahead we can see the exhaustion of practically all known ore deposits and that there were a number of factors that justified such an assertion. The first of these is the rapidity with which the number of human beings on the earth is increasing. This geometric increase is resulting in the addition of some 122,400 births every day or 45 million per year. In the 30 minutes allowed me to speak here 2,550 more humans are born than have died.
A second fundamental factor is the almost universal demand for a higher standard of living. This will mean, inevitably, an expansion of the demand for mineral products. In fact, it is quite clear that the combination of an increasing population and rising standards of living will place a strain on world metal resources which will almost certainly in the end prove beyond the capacity of man and nature to supply.
I do not think I need dwell at any length upon the importance of these factors in the common western fight against the spread of communism.
May I now say a brief word on conservation. I think it is important to observe that since 1914 the depletion of world mineral resources has been proceeding at an unexampled rate. It should cause us all to pause for serious reflection to realize that the quantity of mineral products consumed between 1914 and 1949-that is 35 years-far exceeds that of the whole preceding period of man's existence on earth. It is a fearful realization that human intelligence has allowed a great proportion of the minerals used in the last 50 years to be criminally wasted in the most destructive wars in history.
As world resources of metals are exhausted the significance of Canada as a major supplier increases. The importance of the work of this department becomes even more significant as we consider the factors affecting resource consumption.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business will be for tomorrow? Also can the house leader indicate what we will be doing next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will carry on with the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys,

Business of the House
followed by the Department of Justice; and, if things move rapidly, we have the Department of Transport.
Next week, on Monday and Tuesday there are a number of legislative items which can be dealt with. The first item on Monday will be a motion to extend the hours of sitting of the house just as was done last year at this particular time. The second item will be second reading of Bill No. C-76, an act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act. The third item would be second reading of Bill No. C-78 to amend the Judges Act. Between now and Monday there will be appearing on the order paper certain resolutions. One will deal with the extension of the freight rates assistance act for another year or part of a year. The next will be a resolution with regard to setting up a
department of forestry. The third will concern an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act and the fourth an amendment to the Criminal Code. These should be available for the house on Monday or Tuesday.
For the balance of the week, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, I believe the program with regard to estimates will be a continuation of the ones which may not be finished tomorrow. So that members may make preparation but without determining the exact order at this moment, may I say that we will then take external affairs, northern affairs and national resources, public works and national revenue. On Monday night we might reach agreement as to the order in which these estimates would come forward.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[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. Argue: 1.	Do the armed forces employ manning (i.e. recruiting) teams?
2.	If so, are they unified or does each service maintain its own separate teams?
3.	How many personnel by ranks are employed In all manning teams?
4.	How many manning teams are there by service?
5.	How many personnel by ranks are employed In manning duties, including all manning teams,
Questions
manning staffs at area, command and army headquarters, and personnel depots?
6.	What was the total cost by services of manning
(a)	exclusive of staffs and personnel and manning
depots in fiscal year (i)	1958-59; (ii) 1959-60;
(b)	inclusive of staffs and personnel and manning depots in fiscal year (i) 1958-59; (ii) 1959-60?
7.	How many personnel by services were enlisted due to the efforts of manning teams during fiscal year (a) 1958-59; (b) 1959-60?
8.	How many personnel by services were enlisted directly by personnel or manning depots without going through manning teams during fiscal year (a) 1958-59; (b) 1959-60?
9.	How many personnel by services were rejected for service after being despatched by manning teams to personnel or manning depots during fiscal year (a) 1958-59; (b) 1959-60?
Answer by: Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):
1.	Yes-recruiting offices including some mobile units.
2.	Each service maintains its own recruiting units. Tri-service Canadian armed forces recruiting centres have been established m a number of locations to assist in coordinating recruiting activities and to reduce accommodation costs.
3.


Lt Cdr	 9
Lt	 19
CPOl	 11
CPO 2	 11
PI	 16
P 2	 5
LS	 3
AB	 4
Total	 83
Total.


CA(R) RCAF
[Stage Direction]
Capt	 3
Lt	 43
Sgts	 94
S/L	 4
F/L	 64
F/0	 4
Sgts	 22
Cpl	 22
LAC	 38
Total	 154
[Stage Direction]
54
[Stage Direction]
Capt	 1
Cdr	 l
LCdr	 10
Lt	 21
CPOl	 11
CPO 2	 11
PI	 16
P 2	 5
LS	 8
AB	 4
Total	 88
[Stage Direction]
Col	 1
Lt Col	 4
Maj. Capt..
Lt....
S/Sgt. Sgt.... Cpl.... Pte____
18
2
15
Total	 217
[Stage Direction]
O/C..
w/c.
S/L.. F/L.. F/O.. Sgt... Cpl... LAC.
Total.
1
66
23
40
6.	The totals shown below include under (a) costs of advertising, travelling expenses of staffs and recruits, rents, medical examinations by civilian practitioners and vehicle operating costs, and under (6) the costs under (a) plus the pay and allowances of the staffs shown in the answer to question 5.
1958/59
1959/60
(°) RCN	 $	489,967.00
CA(R)	 1,378,458.00
RCAF	 1,108,914.00
(6)		 *	976,750.00
CA(R)	 2,653,619.00
RCAF	 1,938,420.00
$	530,809.00
1.334.024.00
1.061.765.00

[Stage Direction]
Questions
7.	Total enrolments were as follows:
1958/59	1959/60

[Stage Direction]
8.	Analysis of total enrolments on this basis is not available.
9.	Total rejections were as follows:
1958/59	1959/60

Mr. Boulanger: 1.	Since the new Farm Credit Act was passed, by provinces, how many applications for loans were received (a) under part II; (b) under part in, by the farm credit corporation?
2.	How many inspections were made?
3.	How many loans have been granted?
4.	What is the total amount of loans in each province?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):
1.	British Columbia	
Alberta	 [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]-
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
Ontario	*	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island	
Newfoundland	
2.	British Columbia	
Alberta	 [DOT] [DOT]
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island	
Newfoundland	
3.	British Columbia	
Alberta	-	
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island	
Newfoundland	
4.	Principal of loans outstanding as of March 31, 1960.
British Columbia	 $ 4,432,000.
Alberta	 20,311,000.
Saskatchewan	 36,536,000.
Manitoba	 9,462,000.
Ontario	 34,522,000.
(a) Under part II (5) Under part III
146	6
1,227	20
1,775	26
127	11
1,756	38
161	12
49	2
24	1
64	2
0	0
549
43
87
16
0
513
48
71
11
0
Quebec	 3 5,795,000.
New Brunswick	 1,782,000.
Nova Scotia	 1,285,000.
Prince Edward Island	 3,104,000.
Newfoundland	 Nil.

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


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
242.	Departmental administration, $1,641,729. National health branch-
Health services, including assistance to the provinces-
243.	Administration, $367,444.
244.	Consultant and advisory services, $762,288.
245.	Laboratory and advisory services, $1,880,791.
246.	To authorize general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $63,591,941, $42,000,000.
Indian and northern health services-
247.	Operation and maintenance including grants to hospitals and other institutions which care for Indians and Eskimos, $21,362,102.
248.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,786,600.
Supply-Items Passed
249.	Medical advisory, diagnostic, and treatment services, $3,863,807.
250.	Administration of the food and drugs and the proprietary or Patent Medicine Acts, $1,984,777.
251.	Administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act, $247,081.
Welfare branch-
Family allowances and old age security-
252.	Administration, $3,077,462.
Aid age assistance, blind persons and disabled persons allowances-
253.	Administration, $113,390.
General-
254.	Grants to health and welfare and related organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $243,250.
255. Civil defence health, welfare and training services, $4,593,008.
National health branch-
Health services, including assistance to the provinces-
532.	Laboratory and advisory services-further amount required, $125,479.
General-
533. Civil defence health, welfare and training services-further amount required, $750,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 24, 1960