1960-06-22

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, unusual occasions demand that unusual actions be taken. I am sure the house will permit me on this unusual occasion, the celebration by one of our members of his fiftieth wedding anniversary, to mention this event. I am sure I speak on behalf of all hon. members in the house when I express to him, and through him to his wife, the warmest congratulations and felicitations, coupled with the hope for many more years of health and happiness.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said this is an unusual procedure to which we are resorting, but since we are the masters of our own rules in this house it ought to be possible for us to recognize a unique occasion. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that since I come from the same section of the province of Ontario as does the hon. member whom we are recognizing at this moment I might, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and the members of this party, extend our very sincere congratulations to the hon. member and to his wife. We can only hope that when he celebrates his centenary, he will then be celebrating it under different political auspices.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I wish to make it unanimous, Mr. Speaker, and with real sincerity I wish on behalf of the C.C.F. group to extend our congratulations to the
hon. member for Huron. We have been in the house together for many years. I have always considered him a very good friend and have enjoyed working with him, particularly when he had the post of chief government whip. This is a very important occasion, and it is a great pleasure for me to extend to him and to his wife our congratulations and best wishes on their fiftieth wedding anniversary, in the hope that they will have many more years of health and happiness together.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a very embarrassing position this morning as a result of the fact that I had the misfortunate to lose a tooth and I had to send my denture out to be fixed. I assure you that it was not because my wife hit me. I wish to thank those who have been kind enough to remember my fiftieth wedding anniversary. I can only say "thank you".



STARRED QUESTIONS


LAKEHEAD HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS


Mr. Badanai: 1.	What are the names and addresses of those who submitted tenders for the recently awarded contract in connection with the third stage of the lakehead harbour improvements, and what was the amount of each tender?
2.	To whom was the contract awarded?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: The answer to starred question No. 185 is lengthy and in detail, and as it will appear in Hansard tomorrow in any case may I have the permission of the hon. member to dispense with reading all the figures and the details?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to is as follows:]
1.
Name and Address Raymond International
Company Ltd., Toronto . . . Russell Construction
Ltd., Toronto	
The Foundation Company of Canada Ltd., Toronto .... Ontario Marine and Dredging Ltd., Toronto	
Foreign "H" Piles
Foreign steel sheet piling
Foreign "H" piles
Canadian steel sheet piling
Alternative
piles
$2,498,543.00	$2,552,453.00	$2,405,080.00
2,499,346.25	2,548,763.75
2.597.624.00
2.616.416.00

Starred Questions
Name and Address
Canadian Dredge and Dock
Company Ltd., Toronto	
Pentagon Construction (1959)
Co. Ltd., Montreal	
McNamara Construction Ltd.,
Toronto	
C.	A. Pitts, General
Contractors Ltd., Toronto	
J. S. Quinn Construction
Co. Ltd., Winnipeg	
The Carter Construction Co.
Ltd., Toronto	
The Drake Construction Co.
Ltd., Winnipeg	
Brown and Root Ltd., and Christiani and Neilsen of
Canada Ltd., Edmonton	
Emil Anderson Construction Company Ltd. and Hacquiol Construction Ltd., Fort William	
2.	Raymond International Company Ltd., Toronto.



HARBOUR DREDGING, PORT ARTHUR  TENDERS

Mr. Badanai: 1.	What are the names and addresses of those who submitted tenders for the recently awarded contract in connection with the harbour dredging at Port Arthur, Ontario, and what was the amount of each tender?
2.	To whom was the contract awarded?
1.	Tendered
Class "A"
Name and Address	Material
cu. yd.
Consolidated Dredging Ltd.,
Montreal	 $19.50
McNamara Marine Ltd.,
Toronto	 no bid
Canadian Dredge and Dock
Ltd., Toronto	 20.00
Russell Construction
Ltd., Toronto	 28.00
2.	Awarded to Consolidated Dredging Ltd., Montreal.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 187
Mr. Robichaud:: What was the amount to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund as of May 31, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: The answer is May 31, 1957, $846,819,435.32;

Foreign "H"	Foreign "H"	Concluded
piles	piles	
Foreign steel	Canadian steel	Alternativesheet piling	sheet piling	piles$2,647,692.00 2,785,293.12 2,720,152.00	2,748,502.00	2,836,166.40	(a)	$2,531,786.40(b)	2,557,842.902,867,963.00	2,894,800.00	(a)	2,699,800.00(b)	2,754,800.003,093,803.00	(a)	2,920,738.00(b)	2,870,738.00
3,248,601.00


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer here and I would respectfully request of the hon. member the same privilege as that accorded on the preceding question, because it too will be printed in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to is as follows:]
Prices
Class "B"	Estimated
Material cu. yd.	total cost
$ 0.834	$359,184.00
1.22	519,720.00
1.27	545,020.00
1.46	627,560.00
1958, $662,056,156.77; 1959, $432,847,911.14; 1960, $299,293,511.04.



IVANHOE LAKE, ONT., DAM

Mr. Godin: 1.	Did the federal government assist financially in the construction of the dam on Ivanhoe lake near Foleyet, Ontario in 1931? If so, to what extent?
2.	Was permission required under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the construction of the

dam? If so, did the Department of Public Works satisfy itself that the structure was safe?
3.	Has the federal government received any request for assistance in replacing the dam? If so, what reply has been made to such request?


David James Walker: Since this question will involve a great deal of research going back over 30 years, I wonder whether the hon. member would be good enough to allow this matter to stand?


Mr. Badanai:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Question stands.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he cares to comment on a report in the press this morning to the effect that nuclear weapons for United States jet interceptors are to be stored in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: There have been discussions with the United States government regarding the possible conditions under which nuclear weapons for jet interceptors might be stored in United States leased bases in Canada. No agreement has been arrived at.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Are these discussions concerned with the storage of nuclear weapons in leased bases in Canada, and in leased bases only?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the minister care to comment on the report in this morning's press-the encouraging report, I might say-that the United States will make new compromise proposals in the east-west disarmament talks? Has the minister any information to give to the house on that matter, and any information on the role that Canada may have played in the formulation of these new proposals?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secreiary of Stale for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The house will not be surprised to learn that in
79951-0-331
Inquiries of the Ministry the course of the past several days the Canadian government has made its view known to its colleagues in the western five members of the 10-nation disarmament committee, to the effect that the western response to the new Soviet disarmament proposals of June 2 should be both flexible and forthcoming. This attitude is, of course, entirely consistent with the position which Canada has taken from the beginning of the preparation of the western position.
I think I may safely reveal that in the earliest stages of the negotiations we suggested that progress might be based upon comparison of the western and Soviet proposals with a view to finding common ground. As hon. members know, I myself have emphasized this theme several times in recent weeks in the house in referring to the possibility of bringing the 10-nation committee to grips with specific issues through negotiations on the basis of balanced concessions.
We welcome all indications that other members of the western five, on whom we have pressed these views with insistance both at Geneva, within NATO and in bilateral exchanges of view, now seem to be approaching the negotiations with the same attitude.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Can the minister say whether there will be new proposals made by the western five and, if so, at what time they will be made?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, of course this is a team operation, and I do not know at what time the proposals will be made; but I am confident that proposals will be advanced dealing with the suggestions recently made by the eastern five.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question arising out of the minister's statement that this is a matter of team work among the western powers. Has the Canadian government been informed of the proposals discussed by Mr. Eaton, the delegate of the United States, and has Canada indicated its views, if consulted about the United States proposals?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know to what proposals made by Mr. Eaton the hon. member for Essex East refers. Mr. Eaton was recalled to Washington a few days ago to discuss the situation with his government, and those discussions are still going on in Washington. Mind you, we have made it known that we think there should be proposals submitted in response to the Russian proposals of a few days ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister not aware that Mr. Eaton, the United States delegate, is reported in today's press as

Inquiries of the Ministry having discussed with his government proposals which are shortly to be discussed by the 10-power committee, and that he is now returning to Geneva for the purpose of laying those proposals before the committee?


Howard Charles Green: I believe Mr. Eaton is getting instructions in Washington as to what stand he should take at Geneva. As I said, these discussions in Washington have not yet been completed.


COLUMBIA RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice based on a most interesting press dispatch by Mr. Harold Morrison of the Canadian Press, Washington, yesterday. I will just read the dispatch because it is most interesting to us, and then I can pose my question. It says:
New snags In Canada-United States negotiations have eliminated the possibility of beginning Columbia river power construction this year. United States authorities said they had planned to meet with their Canadian counterparts at Ottawa yesterday and today-
That would be Monday and Tuesday of this week, June 20 and 21.
-in what might have been the closing stage of a draft construction treaty, but the Americans were asked by the Canadians to postpone the talks until mid-July.
The said they could only speculate that the reason for the postponement was that the Canadian government could not iron out differences with the provincial government of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the great importance of this issue and its interest, would the minister care to comment on this statement or has he any information he wishes to give to the house?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the hon. member gave me notice of his intention to ask this question. In reply I would like to point out that the information contained in the article is not completely accurate, and that the article itself indicates that it is based on speculation. I think the inaccuracies in it verify the fact that there is speculation here. The dates tentatively set for the meetings here in Ottawa were June 24 and 25, not Monday and Tuesday of this week.
In connection with this whole matter there are some problems, it is true, which are difficult of solution, as is natural in a project of this magnitude, and time and care are necessary to ensure that the best and most acceptable solution is found. In negotiations of this


kind, dates set for meetings must always, to some extent, be tentative, and no special significance should be read into the postponement of the next meeting which we now hope it will be possible to hold by or before the middle of July.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question arising out of the reply given by the Minister of Justice. Does the right hon. gentleman still expect, as he stated some weeks ago, that there will be agreement between the two governments on this matter before the end of the parliamentary session?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, hope springs eternal; but the hon. gentleman will realize from his wide experience in the Department of External Affairs that sometimes there are unexpected delays.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister make any comment on the report that the Vancouver city council has requested him to convene immediately a conference of federal, provincial, municipal, employer and union leaders to consider the present serious unemployment situation in British Columbia?


John George Diefenbaker: I will examine the record to see whether or not representations have been made, and then give the hon. gentleman a reply.


INQUIRY AS TO WINTER WORKS PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the current unemployment situation, and notwithstanding the inadequacy of the program in the past, could the minister inform the house whether he will be in a position to announce shortly a winter works program for the coming winter?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, if and when the government takes the decision that it will sponsor a municipal winter works program the announcement will be made in the usual way.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister any intention of announcing a summer works program as well?


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: For the House of Commons?


CHILLIWACK, B.C.  REQUEST FOR STRAWBERRY PICKERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Anderson (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to be of assistance to one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Fraser Valley, who I believe should change the colour of his suit. During the orders of the day yesterday he was on his feet nine times and was not recognized, and he has been on his feet four times this morning.


Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is because of the colours of the curtain and of my suit or what the reason is.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it is lack of voice. If the hon. member will rise and give voice I will certainly hear him.


William Harold Hicks: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. It has to do with an article in the Chilliwack Progress together with a photograph of some beautiful Fraser valley strawberries. The crop is now ready to pick. Five hundred pickers are needed at Chilliwack and there are only 200 people registered at the national employment service office. Further down in the article it says that 4,000 pickers are wanted in the whole valley. My question to the Minister of Labour is of a somewhat different nature from what he usually gets. Can he give me any idea where we can get pickers?


Mr. Benidickson:: What wages are offered?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will bring this requirement to the attention of the national employment service, and I am sure we can help to fill it.


UNEMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of his reported announcement the other day, when he spoke of statistical unemployment, that a committee, selected by the government for the purpose of considering a revised measurement for unemployment had reached a conclusion, will the minister 79951-0-331i
Inquiries of the Ministry advise the house what the decision of that committee is so that we might assess its validity?


Michael Starr: I have received no report of any conclusion from this committee as yet. As soon as we do, very careful consideration will be given to the recommendations contained therein.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the seriousness of unemployment at the present time, does the minister not think that committee, having now sat for almost three months, should make up its mind in a matter so important?


Michael Starr: I do not know what the hon. member means by that question. We are anxiously awaiting that report.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE MANITOBA    REPORTED STATEMENT BY PREMIER ON STABILIZATION AND EQUALIZATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: I wonder if I may put a question to the Minister of Finance. In the light of a statement attributed to the premier of Manitoba, who is also the provincial treasurer of that province, reported in the Globe and Mail this morning as having been made yesterday in Winnipeg, to the effect that whatever happened Manitoba would fight at the federal-provincial conference to retain the twin principles of stabilization and equalization, can the minister say whether it is going to be necessary for any provincial government to fight to retain the principles of stabilization and equalization?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not seen the report in question nor any statement by the premier of Manitoba. Every government attending this conference is perfectly free to take whatever position it wishes with respect to financial relations between the provincial and federal levels of government after March 31, 1962, and there will be no attempt to dictate to members of any government with regard to the position to be taken by them at this conference. It is a free conference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has obviously misunderstood the point of my question. Can the hon. gentleman assure the house the government has no thought whatsoever of abandoning the principles of stabilization and equalization?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government has no intention whatever of abandoning the principle of recognizing all the rights accorded to the provinces under the constitution.
5242	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT


CHIGNECTO CANAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. C. Stewart (Charlotte):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister in a position to inform the house what progress has been made in negotiations with the province of New Brunswick in connection with the Chignecto canal?


David James Walker: In reply to the hon. member for Charlotte, may I say that after consulting many times with Premier Hugh John Flemming, and the government of the province of New Brunswick, having undertaken to pay one half of the cost thereof the federal government has agreed to a survey being proceeded with to determine the feasibility of building the Chignecto canal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether he expects to make the same progress with this project that is being made with the Prince Edward Island causeway?


Mr. McXlrailh:: There is no election proceeding in Prince Edward Island at the moment.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, at least we expect to do it much faster than the former government did.


LAKE NIPISSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In order that the French shorthand reporters should not be completely unemployed today I will ask my question in French.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) prepared a report to the house on the present situation at Lake Nipissing?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have a question directed to me in French. My reply is no.
(Text):



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monieiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday


the hon. member for Trinity asked me for any figures available to my department relating to the number of cases of paralytic polio this year that had received Salk vaccine.
I find this information is not available at the moment, as detailed figures on individual cases have been supplied by the provinces at the end of each year. However, this year, following discussion with the provinces, a new method of reporting polio designed to provide current information is under trial. With respect to the cases of paralytic polio reported last year, 65 per cent had received no Salk vaccine and 10 per cent had received three or more doses of Salk vaccine.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question through the house leader. I apologize for not sending him notice, but my staff is overworked. My question is based on the long-established desire of the C.C.F. to ensure that every citizen may exercise his democratic rights to the full regardless of whether in any particular instance such an exercise of rights is to the advantage of the C.C.F.-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am most objective in this case. In view of the fact that the polls are open in Quebec today from 9 a.m. to 6.30 p.m., and since there are many employees of the House of Commons resident in Quebec whose hours of work are from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., has the government made any arrangements to give these public servants time off today so they may exercise their democratic right to vote? And if these arrangements have been made, have all the employees concerned been notified?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that this question comes within Your Honour's jurisdiction.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall be glad to provide information privately to any hon. member who is concerned with the House of Commons staff.


George James McIlraith: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the house leader or the Prime Minister, as the case may be, advise the house whether arrangements have been made for federal civil servants who are entitled to vote in the Quebec election to have time off in order to exercise their franchise?

Inquiries of the Ministry SPORTS


An hon. Member:: It is the same question.


George James McIlraith: No, it is not restricted to the House of Commons. The difference is several thousand employees.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the same arrangements have been made as were made on previous occasions. I think civil servants would naturally exercise their right.


George James McIlraith: Does that mean they can take the required time off without penalty?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to give an answer to that question. I think today, as in the past, civil servants will exercise their own rights and will not require assistance from either the hon. gentleman or myself.


George James McIlraith: No arrangements have been made, then.



POSTAL EMPLOYEES-INQUIRY AS TO RECEIPT OF REPRESENTATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: I think hon. members will recognize that they have not yet received the printed Hansard of yesterday's proceedings. I am informed that when it does appear it will not include a question I raised yesterday. I referred to the debate of June 20, when I addressed a question to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance with respect to representations that may have been received by the government from the Canadian postal employees association. Yesterday I addressed this question to the Acting Secretary of State. Naturally, he is not in his seat today, for reasons that we can comprehend, but he said he would look into it. I believe this question will not appear in Hansard. Unfortunately I will be away tomorrow, and I draw this to Your Honour's attention.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West asked me a question concerning whooping cranes. He inquired whether any representations had been made by the United States government to the Canadian wild life service. I am now informed that no such representations have been made in relation to the preservation of whooping cranes in Canada.



REPORTED REQUEST FOR SUPPORT FOR NATIONAL COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Like that of the hon. member for Fraser Valley, it is unusual. It relates to a Toronto Star account of yesterday about the crude efforts of government members of parliament to get government support for a Canada sports council. The effect of the article was that the cabinet was cool toward the scheme because of the unemployment problem, but these members of parliament have argued that unemployment will always be a serious problem and that it should not be a deterrent. Has the minister any information to give that will create more optimism about employment on the government benches?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the question is one that is rather broad for an immediate answer on the orders of the day. As I recall it, the house has discussed this very matter on five or six occasions. I do not want to prevent the minister from replying, but it seems to me that sort of question is not one that can be answered briefly.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the knowledge possessed by the hon. member is such that I will have to look at his question carefully before I decide whether it needs a reply.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the leader of the house whether he would not arrange to have the estimates of the Department of Labour called this week so that we can have a debate, in the light of headlines like this in the Globe and Mail today-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -"6.2 Per cent Jobless-"


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: "-in Total Labour Force Post-war peak for May".


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You should be ashamed to turn your back on the Speaker and go on talking.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the Chilliwack paper? There was no objection to reading from it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the ministry seems to regard this question of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as an improper one, particularly the Minister of Finance. I suggest that the question is in order, and in view of the seriousness of the situation I suggest that the government should answer the question at once.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the impropriety to which the Minister of Finance took objection was the action of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in going on talking for the record when you were on your feet and when he well knew you were on your feet.


Mr. Speaker:: In its first phrases the question was one about the business of the house and was in order. The reason I rose, of course, was that the hon. member sought to reinforce his inquiry about the business of the house with other material.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which I suggest, sir, with deference is not unusual in the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the part of the Liberals.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We had the precedent of the hon. member for Fraser Valley. Has the house leader no intention of replying?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, there has been a fine spirit of co-operation in the house with regard to the order of business as it has been arranged from week to week. We have tried very hard not to upset the order as announced on Thursday nights for the balance of the week. I wonder whether the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate really wants to change the order now; because other departments which are of great importance are ready for consideration today, tomorrow and Friday. There will be ample opportunity to discuss the problems that arise in connection with labour on the labour estimates, and I will consult with hon. members opposite as to the appropriate time to introduce the estimates of that department.



BILL OP RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the proposed bill of rights is to be submitted to a committee, and in view of the fact that it may be more difficult in July and

August to secure witnesses who may wish to appear before that committee, will the Prime Minister inform the house, if he can, as to his intentions with regard to the introduction of this bill?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, subject to consideration being given to the matter by opposition members and the house leader, I would think it would be available next week on whatever day is satisfactory. I hope that it would be available Wednesday or Thursday so that consideration can be given to the bill in committee, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry-Prescoit):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister comment on the meeting he had with representatives of the city of St. Laurent yesterday regarding the question of jet aircraft noise around Dorval airport?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The meeting afforded a useful opportunity for us to discuss the problems occasioned by the introduction of jet aircraft into commercial service and the steps we are taking to alleviate the problem of noise.
The department is working in close cooperation with the air lines to solve this matter. There are no scheduled take-offs of civil jets between midnight and early morning, but due to flight delays of one sort or another there have been a number of delayed takeoffs during these hours in the course of the last few weeks. Discussions are being held with the air lines aimed at preventing this situation from continuing. A substantial number of other steps have been taken or are being discussed with the air lines as well, including noise suppressors on engines, the use of preferential runway take-off patterns to avoid built-up areas whenever weather conditions permit, and similar items.
Scientific tests have in fact indicated that the noise caused by a pure jet is in fact somewhat less than that caused by some of the current piston engine types, such as the Super Constellation, but the jet noise has a different frequency value and therefore comes as a new and troublesome sound to the listener who has not had a chance to become accustomed to it. I can assure the hon. member that every possible step is being taken to deal with this problem, and particular attention is

being given to means which will avoid jet take-off noise during the core of the night hours.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I regret not having been able to send him notice of it. My question is based on a newspaper report in yesterday's Globe and Mail of a speech made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in Niagara Falls, in which she is reported to have said that competition in the newspaper field in a great many Canadian cities has diminished or completely vanished. Has this opinion been transmitted to the Minister of Justice, and are there any investigations under way to determine whether the diminishing or vanishing of competition is contrary to the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that an inquiry is taking place in one city of Canada and that this has been mentioned before. As he knows, it is not the custom to refer to specific inquiries. I am not aware of any general inquiry that is in progress, but I will be glad to find out and let the hon. member know.


Frank Howard: I wonder whether the minister could indicate-and I will mention the company and the city-because it has been well publicized, when we may expect the report of the restrictive trade practices commission on the operations of Pacific Press Limited of Vancouver.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I cannot give an answer to that question now, but I will find out.



MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN CIVIL SERVICE REPORT

Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask leave of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of moving concurrence in a report of the civil service commission which was tabled in the house on Monday and is printed in Votes and Proceedings of June 20, at page 671.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Income Tax Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: I move on behalf of the commissioners of internal economy: That the report of the civil service commission concerning certain employees of the House of Commons laid upon the table by Mr. Speaker on June 20, 1960, be now approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he has any comment to make on the statement reported to have been made by the president of the board of trade of the United Kingdom at a press conference on his return to Great Britain yesterday, to the effect that in Ottawa he had found great concern that Britain might join the European common market.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not understand why there would be any observations on my part about comments made by the president of the board of trade with regard to anything he might have discussed or considered on his trip to the North American continent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I asked the question because this was the president of the United Kingdom board of trade commenting on what he found in government circles in Ottawa with respect to this matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not seen the report to which the Leader of the Opposition refers. I am not certain of the words used. Does he mention government circles?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, he said that in Ottawa-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -he had found certain things. Of course he was speaking about the people with whom he had consulted in Ottawa, who were members of the government. He reported that he found great concern that Britain might join the European common market.



INCOME TAX ACT

Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of Bill No. C-68, to amend the Income Tax Act.
Motion agreed and bill read the third time and passed.
5246	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT



AMENDMENTS TO EXTEND APPLICATION, ETC.

Gordon Minto Churchill: the third reading of Bill No. C-64, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
242. Departmental administration, $1,641,729.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, as the committee is aware, the department's spending program for 1960-61 has been given very careful and extensive study by the standing committee on estimates. If hon. members will refer to the proceedings they will note that a total of 17 sessions were held from March 8 to May 12, involving more than 25 hours of deliberation. In addition to myself some 15 departmental officials were called as witnesses, including the two deputy ministers and the heads of many of our directorates and divisions. On the matter of emergency planning we were joined by my colleague the Minister of National Defence, the clerk of the privy council, and the director of the emergency measures organization.
In view of the comprehensive nature of the investigations and the fact that the minutes, which of course are available to the house, include my own lengthy opening statement as well as various working papers presented to the committee, I feel it unnecessary to make any general presentation regarding our estimates at this time. Instead, I should like to make a few comments on the very interesting and constructive report which emerged from the hearings and which has also been tabled in the house.
Before doing so, I want to take this opportunity to voice a word of thanks to all those who served on the committee and particularly to its chairman, the hon. member for Calgary South. Their helpfulness and co-operation were greatly appreciated. For myself, I consider that the discussions were extremely valuable to the department, and I can only hope that they were useful also to the committee. In any event, I believe the record shows that all the many pertinent questions put forward by the committee members did receive answers.

Supply-Health and Welfare program has any deterrent effect, the department will be pleased to review this subject with the provinces concerned. It is questionable, however, whether a comparative study of provincial programs with and without coinsurance charges would produce evidence to show that either admissions or the length of stay in hospital have been favourably affected by the use of such charges.
Regarding the committee's comments on staphylococcal infection in hospitals, I agree that any light which anyone can shed on this very difficult problem should be made available to hospitals at once. Here I might point out that in addition to investigations being carried out by a committee of the national research council, a great deal of work is being done in this field by the department particularly in our laboratory of hygiene and in our epidemiology and research and statistics divisions.
The report also mentioned questions relating to civil defence and the emergency measures organization. Most of the recommendations apply largely to matters outside my department's present responsibilities and have therefore been drawn to the attention of the authorities concerned. There are, however, certain aspects on which I might comment briefly.
For example, we are making every effort to accelerate the health side of the national survival program. An interdepartmental committee has been organized and has met for the purpose of co-ordinating the survival health responsibilities of the federal Departments of National Defence, Veterans Affairs and National Health and Welfare. The committee will continue this work and it is hoped that similar types of organizations will be formed at the provincial level.
As for stimulating provincial efforts in the field of emergency health services, several important steps have been taken in recent months. At the October, 1959 and April, 1960 meetings of the dominion council of health, the matter was discussed with provincial deputy ministers of health. A national conference on emergency health services has been held at which provincial representatives and delegates from national health organizations were briefed and the matter of establishing emergency health services across Canada was discussed. These various steps are being followed up by my department's emergency health services division, which is also carrying out its responsibility of assisting the provinces in developing their emergency health service assignments.
On the matter of uncontaminated food supplies, the special weapons section of our emergency health services division is collaborating

actively with the Department of Agriculture in developing means for protecting and decontaminating food supplies.
Active efforts are also being made to further the development of emergency welfare services. Here the main emphasis is on encouraging provincial and municipal governments to include such services within their regular departments of public welfare. In the case of five provinces this has already been achieved at the provincial level, and it is hoped that current discussions will have a similar result in the remaining provinces. I might add that my department's emergency welfare services division is collaborating in this work for which federal funds are available under the financial assistance program.
With regard to informational material, the department has produced over two million copies of an emergency welfare instructional pamphlet entitled "Your Emergency Pack". A further pamphlet, ''Welfare Tips for Survival", is now in production and is intended for people living in target as well as reception areas. Finally, nine exhibits have been developed with a view to giving emergency instructions to as many individuals as possible. These depict essential steps to be taken for survival.
In reply to the committee's reference to the department's general educational and informational material, I can only emphasize again, as I did during the proceedings, that this is a matter in which opinion reigns supreme. I would like to stress three points, however.
In the first place, our publications for the most part originate with requests from the provinces and are used to reinforce provincial educational programs. The views and demands of the provinces are, therefore, given considerable weight in our assessment as to the type and volume of material published. Second, on becoming minister I made a close personal survey of every piece of material which we put out. While I was not fully convinced of the usefulness of every single item, I did feel that the vast majority of the material was filling a very definite and legitimate need. Finally, the department has repeatedly discussed with the Queen's printer the question of charges for our publications. As a result we have gone a considerable distance in pricing certain items and in limiting the amount we distribute free to the provinces. The Queen's printer has been of the opinion that we have done about as much as we can in this direction.
But again I would stress that this whole area really boils down to a matter of opinion; and, as the house well knows, opinions differ widely on subjects of this kind. I would

not maintain for a moment that we are right in every instance, but I do think our over-all program is justified having in mind all the various circumstances which must be considered. I can assure hon. members that I will continue to keep a close watch on this important aspect of departmental operations.
I now come to the final area of the committee report which I believe merits comment at this stage. This is departmental efficiency evaluation. Here I was gratified to note that, in the words of the report, "the committee acknowledges that it was unable to establish any concrete evidence of a breakdown of operational efficiency". It went on to recommend, however, that the department request the organization and methods division of the civil service commission to undertake a somewhat more comprehensive study of the department's operations. While recognizing that we have already made considerable use of such surveys, it felt that more should be done in this regard pending the forthcoming general review of government efficiency announced not long ago by the Prime Minister.
I personally sympathize with this recommendation and would emphasize that the department has welcomed such studies as a means of obtaining an outside assessment of our operations. In my testimony before the committee I indicated that our policy of utilizing such analyses would be continued, and I now repeat this assurance to the committee. I believe quite definitely that such analyses could provide a very useful basis for any more general survey to be carried out with respect to government operations as a whole of which my department would be a part.
In its report the committee has expressed concern about a number of positions of similar classification in our establishment. It seems to me that this concern may arise from a misconception on the part of the committee, for which the department is no doubt responsible in that we failed to explain the situation adequately. I would like to clear up this matter with respect to the principal group mentioned, the 21 economists in our research and statistics division.
In years past it has been the policy of the civil service commission to use the general classification of "economist" for a variety of positions in this division rather than to create a number of special research categories. It should be emphasized, however, that this general classification merely provides an indication of the level of responsibility for salary purposes. It does not imply that all those classified in this way are assigned the same responsibilities. I realize now that in providing the committee with characteristic
Supply-Health and Welfare duties and responsibilities of economists used throughout the civil service we may have caused some confusion on this subject. But in point of fact the various professional positions within the research division represent an extremely wide range of responsibilities.
I should perhaps elaborate a bit on this matter. The research division services over 20 directorates and divisions in our health branch and four divisions in our welfare branch, as well as the offices of the two deputy ministers and the minister. Experience has shown that research personnel employed in a centralized unit of this kind can be used to carry out research projects for the various divisions of the department more economically than if they were placed in the divisions themselves. Staff time can be shifted more efficiently from one project to another to serve needs as they arise.
To my mind the research division has made a very considerable and comprehensive contribution to the department's operations. For example, a number of research officers have been employed in projects connected with the development of the hospital insurance program and in the continuing studies of hospital care involving expenditure analyses, cost estimates, assessment of hospital utilization and hospital services. In a program with so large a financial commitment these activities have been and will continue to be of the utmost importance to the provinces and to the dominion government.
As a part of technical assistance to the provinces, the research division has assisted in health surveys, and 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. Two members of the staff are also acting as research assistants in the conduct of this study. This survey, which among other things relates to hospital bed shortages and to the need for chronic hospital accommodation, is the type of activity which the committee has endorsed in its recommendation relating to hospital construction.
I trust that these comments have helped to clarify this matter of economists in our research division. Since there has been confusion, however, I feel that the department should approach the civil service commission with a view to developing some more appropriate designation than "economist" for our health and welfare research officers. This we intend to do so that such misunderstanding may not arise in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I have now come to the end of the remarks I want to make at this time regarding the estimates committee report on our operations. Once again I want to

Supply-Health and Welfare thank the committee for its co-operation and for the various suggestions it has put forward.
I would like to thank the members of my staff for their loyal and dedicated attention to the department's business during the past year. I would also like to thank them for the assistance they so ably provided during the deliberations of the estimates committee. And, Mr. Chairman, may I conclude by thanking the committee for bearing with me during this rather lengthy presentation,


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the minister need not apologize to the committee for the comprehensive character of the statement he has just made. He is the minister in charge of one of the important departments of government, a department that can satisfy as perhaps no other department in the government can one of the basic purposes for which government is established in a free society. So the minister may be assured that in so far as the Liberal opposition are concerned our well known dedication to health and welfare matters signals our approval of the time he has taken today in giving a review of the department which he administers.
I do not propose to follow the minister in detail along the particular lines he has chosen to pursue. When the individual items are presented there will be an opportunity for consideration of a number of matters which the hon. gentleman raised, and for comment thereon. I want simply to say that there were many things which I would have expected the minister to deal with in his opening statement. I should have expected him to say something about the criticisms which have been levelled against the administration, particularly in the field of social welfare, by the minister of welfare in the province of Ontario and his deputy minister. I should have expected the minister to make some comment on the position of the federal government concerning the question of medical care as particularly emphasized at the present time by the situation in the province of Saskatchewan. In that connection I should want to know whether the federal government proposes to give any financial assistance to the plan which the government of Saskatchewan has proposed. What is the view of the government of Canada generally with regard to this important step toward providing for the health of the people of Canada?
My views in this regard are well known. The views of my party were stated clearly at our last national convention, and they are in these terms:
We urge:
As a further step to implement health insurance provision against major medical, dental and surgical expenditures which combined with

hospital insurance would ensure that no Canadian would be financially crippled by illness.
It simply cannot be argued that no one in this country now can be denied the advantage of the best hospital and medical care on the mere ground of financial incapacity. We shall want to approach this problem, which I believe must inevitably now be faced, particularly in the light of the success which has attended the hospital insurance program in Canada, in a manner which takes into account our regional attitudes and needs and our financial capacity. The overriding consideration must be to provide our people with the most effective instrument against illness and ill health. To the extent that we measure up in that particular we shall give effect to the merits of our society as presently constituted.
The minister at the present time is without a deputy minister on the welfare side. Dr. Davidson, who has gone to another department, will no longer be available to the minister as his chief official in the matter of welfare policy and administration. I do want to say this now; that Canada owes to Dr. Davidson a debt which perhaps I am in a special way able to acknowledge and recognize. He was my deputy minister on the welfare side for 11 years, during which time Canada developed a social welfare and security system which I believe is comparable to that of any other country in the world. The contribution made to that development by Dr. Davidson is one which I am sure most Canadians will recognize, as indeed social workers throughout the world recognize, because of his outstanding talents and his devotion to the interests of responsible social welfare measures.
In this connection I should hope that the minister will see to it that the government does not delay in the appointment of a new deputy minister on the welfare side. That is, of course, a responsibility of the government, but I wish simply to say that the minister has within his department the talent necessary for the discharge of this important responsibility. I hope there will be no delay in the appointment of a deputy minister on the welfare side, because whatever may be the good intentions of the minister I am sure he will recognize that the appointment of a deputy minister will in itself be an indication of the government's concern with the problems of social welfare.
I am one of those who believe we have not reached the end of necessary social welfare programs which must progressively be devised in this country. I know it is said by many people, now that we are spending more on health and welfare than on any

other department, that the time has come when we should consider whether or not we have overreached ourselves. I recognize of course, that there are limits to what can be done, that there are financial limits. This does not mean that consideration cannot be given to future programs, or that we have not the duty to consider whether certain existing gaps may yet be dealt with. I believe that while there must be a balance between need and the capacity to meet that need, we as a parliament must recognize that we have by no means exhausted the things that have to be done.
I would remind the minister that when we assembled at our national Liberal convention in 1958, which elected our present leader, we not only dealt with the matter already mentioned, namely provision against medical, dental and surgical expenses, but we also urged that consideration be given to the extension of unemployment insurance in case of illness. There is now in my name on the order paper a resolution dealing with this matter, and I hope we shall have occasion to discuss that resolution.
In 1958 we also urged, and we still urge, the extension of pensions for disabled persons to include groups not now included in the disability program. We also urged the extension of old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age. We further proposed an improvement in the family allowance program with special reference to payment of the allowance with respect to children remaining students until they attained the age of 18 years. In addition, we proposed the introduction in new pension plans of provision for the early vesting of benefits, so that if an employee changes his employment he will reap the advantage of pension contributions previously made by himself and by his employer, so that in effect the pension would follow the man.
We also proposed that immediate consideration be given to a national contributory pension scheme co-ordinated with existing provisions for retirement, an old age security pension beginning at age 65 to be based upon federal government contributions as well as on the contributions of employees, employers and self employed. That is an objective to which we must direct our attention. I mention it at this time because I believe we should not feel that all the problems of social need have been met simply because we have devised a social security program that is balanced and expanded. In this connection I would remind the minister that we have not heard from him in this chamber about the submissions made to the government by the Canadian welfare council in 1959 and in 1960.
Supply-Health and Welfare This voluntary organization of public-spirited citizens on two occasions in the past two years has met with the cabinet and pointed out the need that still exists in certain areas of social welfare, some of which I have mentioned.
They have proposed a number of specific improvements in the field of old age security and public assistance, blind and disabled persons allowances and unemployment insurance. They have also recommended the establishment of a royal commission on social security. I am not saying that I believe this is the best way to assess our existing program and determine what further modifications and advances should take place, but I am asking the minister to tell us what is the policy of the government with regard to the submissions made by the national welfare council. In spite of several questions that have been put earlier this session we have not yet been told by the government what is its view of the suggestions made by the national welfare council, nor have we had from the minister any satisfactory reply to the questions which were put to him and declared out of order the other day, when we were discussing certain modifications of the regulations having to do with residence under the Old Age Security Act.
I refer, of course, to the strong suggestion made by the Prime Minister in 1958 that Canada should embark upon a program similar to the old age survivors' scheme in the United States. I now wish to address myself to this problem. It will be recalled, if I may briefly retrace the situation in this regard, that in January of 1958 the Prime Minister announced that he had asked Professor Huson of the University of Western Ontario to make a study of the old age survivors' plan in the United States, a plan that provides for annuities or old age security on the basis of a fully integrated contributory system of old age security. The Prime Minister said that the study which he was then proposing would take not more than four months. At the end of that four months we were told without doubt, by process of implication, that the government proposed to embark upon a program based on such a study.
Of course the four months coincided with the termination of the election. The election took place, and we have not yet had any indication from the administration as to whether it proposes to bring forward a program that was so precious to the convictions and to the heart of the Prime Minister in January of 1958.
It will then be recalled that Professor Huson, on learning that he was to complete his report within four months, resigned saying he could not complete it in that allotted

Supply-Health and Welfare time. Whereupon Professor Clark of the University of British Columbia was designated for that purpose. We were not told that Professor Clark could not complete his report in a period of four months. However, when the election was over the government returned to serenity and we now know that instead of taking four months the report of Dr. Clark took well over a year. The report was finally tabled by the minister, notwithstanding the fact that we had some difficulty in getting him to table it once we had learned that the report had been prepared. It is a voluminous report and contains very valuable information, which I contend was always available to the minister and the government through the instrumentality of the officials in the Department of National Health and Welfare.
In any event, we have now had the report for over a year. The minister has had an opportunity of reading that report many times. Many hon. members, too, have had an opportunity of carefully considering its terms. We now ask the minister again what is to be the policy of the government with regard to this report on the program in the United States, a policy which the Prime Minister said would be forthcoming once the study, lasting four months, was made. He had said there could not be more than four months' study spent on this subject so that we could embark on this program. In the light of that background it is not improper or unfair to ask the minister, now that he has had a period of protracted study, what is the policy of the government. Is it going to embark on such a program?
I have before me in this regard the view of the minister of health in the government of Premier Leslie Frost. The province of Ontario has an interest in this matter, as has every province; because if we were to adopt the system in the United States that might conceivably affect the rate of contribution paid by the provinces to the existing universal scheme which we have now and which was established in 1951. I draw attention to what Mr. Cecile had to say in this regard. His view, as expressed on March 26, 1960 in an article in the Globe and Mail of that date, is the same view expressed by the Prime Minister in January of 1958. The article reads in part as follows:
The federal government yesterday was criticized in the legislature by health minister Cecile for failing to introduce a contributory insurance scheme similar to that in the United States.
The Globe and Mail of April 5, 1960 reported the statement made by Mr. James S. Band, deputy welfare minister of the province of Ontario. Mr. Band who comes from the city of Windsor is an old friend of mine

and of the hon. member for Essex West. The article reads in part as follows:
Mr. Band praised the old age, survivors and disability insurance program in the United States. He called it a well-rounded contributory plan that covers 93 per cent of the population.
He went on to call upon the federal government to do something about this program. What is the policy of the government? Is the government through the minister going to reply during the course of our discussion and say that the minister is continuing to study this matter? If he gives that reply- and that is the reply the minister gave us in the estimates committee and that he gave to me the other day in the house-then one can only conclude that when the minister says he is studying this matter he means that the government has no intention whatever of doing anything about this program. Or if that is an unfair interpretation we might conclude that if the government intends to do something, it proposes to do it at a moment it will regard as more advantageous in political terms.
I am the last person to criticize the government for having any such political motives in mind. I know the present Prime Minister would be the last person in the world to bring in legislation because of political considerations or because he hoped to gain some advantage in an election. As I say, I would not accuse the Prime Minister of that, but I have a grave suspicion that an exception to his political technique might arise this time and that he might be tempted in 1961 or 1962, or even in 1963, to use the possibilities of this program as a means of enticing an unwilling public to support him again for a second time.


An hon. Member:: Unwilling?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If that is not the
situation, then the minister should tell us forthrightly now whether after his study of the Clark report he believes that the United States survivor program is one that is adaptable to our needs and to our purse. If he tells us that it is adaptable, then does he agree with the position we took at our convention in 1958 that such a scheme ought to be based on federal contributions as well as contributions of employees, employers and self employed? We are entitled to know where the government stands in this matter, and I hope that discussion of the minister's estimates will not conclude without his telling us, as I believe under our parliamentary system the government should, what the intentions of the government are. If the government feels that this scheme is not adaptable to our needs, let the minister say so. If he proposes to wait until an election, let

him frankly say so. That kind of frankness would raise the minister in the estimation of all his fellows in the house, and it would give us an opportunity of appraising the program itself.
The minister also spoke of civil defence matters. I propose to say little on that subject at this time but rather to wait until we reach the particular estimates. I would say now that while the minister continues to discharge his functions in a limited field we are convinced, with regard to certain outside operations of civil defence and particularly those having to do with the absence of any definite authority in the matter of emergency regulations and action, that the time has come when we should clearly know where the final authority resides in such a situation. Does it reside with the Prime Minister? Does it reside with the Minister of National Defence? Does it reside with the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Or is it clear that this point has not yet been decided?
If that is the situation it is, of course, a serious reflection on the administration of the government. I look forward to an opportunity on the estimates to discuss further other aspects of this program. I hope the minister will take advantage of these estimates to tell us frankly what the policy of the government is on a number of matters, particularly in the field of social welfare to which I have referred. I hope he will tell us what the government's position is with regard to medical care insurance. I hope he will tell us what the government's position is with regard to the United States old age survivor security system.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, as recently as last week the Canadian people saw a very important step being taken on the road to proper health care in this country. If we cast our minds back to 1947 we can all remember that it was the same provincial government of Saskatchewan that brought into being the first hospital insurance plan in this country. That hospital insurance plan was fought very bitterly at that time. Any of us who were closely interested and who watched the struggle at that time can recognize the similarity in the viciousness of the fight against the medical insurance plan which the Saskatchewan government is going to bring in next year.
But we also recall that following that historic step in the field of health care, within three years the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia had both followed suit, and that after 10 years the federal government, through the process of an election and the acceleration of action because of a change of government, finally took the lead as far as
Supply-Health and Welfare the rest of the country was concerned, accepted its responsibility and took its part in the field of hospital insurance. We find that only three short years after the federal government accepted its proper responsibility six more of our provinces followed suit, and there are negotiations under way to provide hospital insurance for the Canadian people in the last province in the country that does not have such a plan.
Now we see a second step being taken by the prairie province of Saskatchewan. It seems very strange to me that one of the poorest provinces in Canada should be the one to take the lead in this field. Those of us who have followed the newspapers in the last couple of months realize the bitter fight they had on their hands. The program was fought most bitterly by the doctors' association in the province and, incidentally, the doctors overplayed their hand. They apparently hired advisers who did not advise too well, and as a result they made their position completely untenable from the point of view of any political party in that province accepting it.
Because of the stand they took they became more or less orphans in the field and in a way the fourth group opposed to the plans of the provincial government. The Liberals in the province did not say they were against the implementation of health insurance but rather said that they would hold a plebiscite.


Hazen Robert Argue: They were against the government's plan.


Murdo William Martin: They were against the government's plan. In listening to the hon. member for Essex East I was quite amused to hear him reminiscing about the stand taken by the Liberal party at their last national convention. I might remind him of the much more recent stand taken by the Liberal leader in the province of Saskatchewan, who expressed his opposition to the implementation of health insurance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us speak as members of the federal parliament.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are wise on that one, Paul.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am always wise.


Murdo William Martin: The Conservatives in the province of Saskatchewan were not opposed to health insurance, but they thought the province might be better served by setting up a royal commission to investigate the matter. The Social Crediters were not opposed either, but they thought the public could be better served by having private insurance companies or private enterprise look after health needs.
5254	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Health and Welfare
I would say that the Canadian people are deeply indebted to the government of Saskatchewan for taking the lead in this matter, a lead that should have been taken by the federal government. I predict that in the period of the next few years, depending on how long it takes for the federal government to accept its responsibility, we will find, as in the case of hospital insurance, that health insurance, having taken firm root in the province of Saskatchewan, will spread across the country from coast to coast.
It is very unfortunate that the Canadian people are not always given a proper opportunity of studying both sides of the question of health insurance. I recall that one day earlier this session the matter of health insurance was debated in this house, and both sides of the question were very thoroughly covered by various people. Unfortunately at that time the Canadian public, as the result of some oversight or for some other reason, only received information on one side of the question through the medium of the newspapers. They received information concerning the fear expressed by certain hon. members that the implementation of health insurance would drive doctors out of the country and would increase medical costs beyond the ability of individuals to meet them. They received information concerning the fear that state medicine, as it was described, would inevitably lead to a situation where we would not have sufficient doctors to look after the Canadian people. In addition, it was stated that the standard of health care would deteriorate upon implementation of a health plan.
At that time, Mr. Chairman, I was rather surprised. Had the opinions expressed in opposition to this plan been those of laymen I could have understood very easily why the newspapers would not necessarily accept their views as against those of professional people in their own field. However, the views expressed in opposition were not those of laymen but opinions contained in the report of a commission set up for the very purpose of studying that problem. The findings of this commission were in complete opposition to the fears expressed in the house that day. Unfortunately it was only the fears which were conveyed to the Canadian public, and the report of the commission set up to investigate this subject was not carried in the newspapers.
Now, Mr. Chairman, health insurance is probably one of the most important of all the problems facing this country today in the social security field. We find that health insurance weaves in and out through the whole social security field and affects many other aspects of social security, as well as being

affected by the other aspects of social security. We find that over the last couple of decades a whole host of various forms of health insurance and hospital plans have grown up across the country, some through the trade union movement, some implemented by industry, some through nonprofit organizations and co-operatives, some by the doctors themselves and many more by private insurance companies. The greatest difficulty that we find with these plans is that usually they are too limited in scope, cover too few people or do not give adequate coverage or, because of duplication, the cost has been increased. We find that people are paying far too much for what they receive from this conglomeration of plans in operation across this country today.
Another very important reason for the unsatisfactory method we have at the present time for meeting our health needs results from the fact that the private insurance companies run these plans as a business, and as a business they must show a profit; that is only natural. If these plans are to be run as an efficient business they can only afford to insure healthy people in particular groups. The result is that the people who are in the greatest need of insurance are not insured, and the people who are insured have to pay too much for that insurance. I have always felt, Mr. Chairman, that there is something akin to ghoulishness in people or organizations making a profit out of the health needs of our citizens.
We have heard so much, Mr. Chairman, about how nice it would be to have a comprehensive health care program in this country, but where would we find the money to take care of the cost? I maintain that the costs would be no more than they are now. The only thing is that they would be honest costs. It seems to me that in this country we have a revulsion to facing up to a situation or a realization of what we are actually paying. I do not know whether it is because of the promotional devices to which we are subjected from the time we are old enough to listen to a radio or watch television, but we absolutely refuse to face up to facts. As long as we can keep the costs hidden, we think we are not paying them; we like to fool ourselves in that way.
I had an opportunity of reading an excellent article by Mr. Leonard S. Kosenfeld, M.D., associate executive director of the community health association, Detroit. He points out that in the period from 1940 to 1958 the amount of money paid through workmen's prepayment plans for health insurance in the United States increased from $100 million to $4.5 billion, and that industry's contribution had reached the point where it amounted to 14.7

per cent of the payroll or 32 cents per man hour worked. At the same time we find that only 27 per cent of the money paid for health care in the United States was covered by this insurance, $4.5 billion out of a total in 1957 of $15.1 billion. So you see, supposing complete coverage were given and supposing the cost were increased from the $4.5 billion which was paid in health insurance to the $15.1 billion, there would be no actual increase in cost. The only difference would be that the cost would be out in the open and people would recognize that cost for what it actually was.
I believe on a previous occasion in this house I pointed out-I think it bears repetition-a provision which we have in the Ontario hospital insurance with regard to what is termed temporary indigents, in other words people whose unemployment insurance benefits have run out and who have to fall back on the municipality for assistance. The municipality pays the premium for these people under the Ontario hospital insurance plan, and at the end of the year the municipality is reimbursed. However, the strange part of it is that the municipality is not reimbursed for the amount actually paid out but is reimbursed on a per capita basis. There may be two towns each with a population of 10,000, and one may have massive unemployment while the other may not. However, they both get the same rebate under the Ontario hospital plan, regardless of what they paid out. There are no strings attached to this rebate. The result is that the one municipality can pave the sidewalks and charge the amount to the hospital insurance plan. What kind of perspective can we get of the costs of health insurance when we have this sort of situation?
We also find in the remarks of Dr. Rosen-feld some further information concerning just how much coverage they really have at the present time in the United States. I might say that the coverage in the United States is much better than it is in Canada. I should like to read from his remarks. He said this:
The vast majority, covered by Blue Shield and commercial plans, are not eligible for general medical care in the office or in the home. This gap in coverage may deter the seeking of care early in illness, and reduces the availability of preventive services. Well baby care, medical inventories, medical advisory services and diagnostic services would, in general, not be covered by insurance. The fact that they can be covered has been amply demonstrated in those programs which provide such service.
The common practice among commercial plans and among many Blue Shield plans of paying the patient on an indemnity basis rather than paying the provider of service in full has led to serious inflation of medical care costs. This is largely due to the fact that there is no incentive for the physician not to charge the patient more than the amount provided for in the fee schedule. One
Supply-Health and Welfare measurable effect of this practice is the fact that between 1951 and 1956, costs of surgical care rose twice as much as the general cost of living. The result is a diminishing amount of service per dollar of expenditure. This is a source of concern to the community in general and to labour and industry in particular. It may have the effect of veto in the clinic of gains made at the bargaining table. Money expended for physicians' services is not available to meet other needs. Recent information indicates that about one half of the 15,000 union-management health and welfare plans in the United States are experiencing a deficit, largely as a result of rapidly rising medical care costs.
I quote that statement, Mr. Chairman, to point out in a small way the vastness of the scope of this field that I am discussing today. This is something that the federal government owe a duty to the Canadian people to grasp and to get their teeth into. They must remember that there are many interested parties and many interested groups in our country, many of whom have pioneered in the health insurance field and have brought it up to at least what we have today.
The medical profession and their legitimate interests must be well guarded and must be well thought out in any plan that we devise in this country for medical care. The hospitals must be taken into consideration. The insurance companies have filled the need in the past but, as I pointed out, I do not think they have a proper jurisdiction in the health field. If we are going to look at the over-all picture and take the proper government responsibility for looking after the interests of the Canadian people as a whole, I think the day must come when we have health insurance at cost in this country and not at cost plus a profit to some organization.
Non-profit prepayment agencies have pioneered this field, and I feel that use should be made of the vast amount of knowledge and experience they have gained through dedicated service by many people across this country. Industry has taken a lead in some respects, particularly the railway industry and the mining and timber industry. But again, as I pointed out previously, this action has not only tended to hide the proper costs involved in this field but unfortunately has also tended to build up across the country little pockets of vested interests which may in the long run hinder rather than help an over-all solution.
Organized labour have been among the first to become interested in this field. But again, as with industry, their responsibilities and their objectives have been too narrow and have been confined to too small groups. There has always been a tendency to look after their own membership and to say that they are the only ones for whom they are responsible. That is not good enough in this

Supply-Health and Welfare country. They may have two members living side by side, but there must be some responsibility to the neighbours living on each side of them.
Then there is a final group which is an interested party, namely the general public; and that is where the federal government responsibility comes in. Judging from past history in this country it seems that the role of the federal government has never been to take the lead in this field, in this war on sickness, but rather has been to fight a rearguard action against all the progressive elements in the country who have been trying to find some solution in order to meet this great need in our society.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at one o'clock for lunch I was criticizing the present government because similar to past ones we find that instead of taking the lead and showing some initiative in fighting the war on sickness and disease they seem to be dragging their feet down the road to health insurance and proper health care and we have to wring this out of them step by step, election by election.
I think it is time this government made some effort to put a stop to the sham and hypocrisy of the health costs we are now paying in this country. Here is what we are paying for at the present time; at least, these are some of the ways we are paying for health care. We are paying private doctors' and hospital bills. We are paying hospital insurance premiums. We are paying sales tax for health care. We are paying insurance plans and non-profit organization plans. We are paying municipal taxes for charity cases, provincial taxes and federal taxes. We are paying into crippled children's funds, retarded children's funds, cancer funds, mental care funds, polio funds, tuberculosis funds, multiple sclerosis funds, muscular dystrophy funds. We pay charity through our churches, through service clubs and individual charity. We have funds from industry, hospital funds and, last and far from least, doctors' charity through the doctors themselves. As the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa, who himself is a doctor, mentioned this year in a similar debate, estimated, up to one third of doctors' bills are written off as charity to their patients.

I have listed this number and there may be more. Imagine what we could save in just administration costs alone by eliminating the duplication of services and administration costs which we have in this conglomeration of so-called health plans across the country. Probably the worst feature of all is that it is not doing the job. In spite of this multitude of various schemes and organizations we are still not doing the job.
I would like to know when this government is going to recognize that the nation's health is the nation's wealth. When are we going to make health care available to our people as a matter of right and not as a matter of charity? When are we going to start including the people who are completely left out now in spite of all this multitude of plans which we have? So far, unfortunately this Tory government seems no better than the Liberal government which it succeeded in accepting these responsibilities. I hope that before this debate is over the minister will give the committee some indication of just when this government is going to accept its responsibilities in this regard.


Mr. Brunsden:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Murdo William Martin: By all means.


Edwin William Brunsden: The hon. member has had a great deal to say about the health wonderland of tomorrow in Saskatchewan. I wonder if he realizes that there has been a tremendous flight of doctors and surgeons from Great Britain as a result of the introduction of a similar scheme there? We have hundreds and hundreds of them in Canada. They have gone to all parts of the world and-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The hon. member said he had a question. Would he ask it immediately.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, my question is this. How does the hon. member relate this flight of doctors from this sort of scheme to the Saskatchewan future?


Murdo William Martin: I would be only too delighted to answer that question. According to the Willink committee which was set up in Great Britain to look into this very matter, we find that contrary to this concept which has been built up across this country about this tremendous exodus of doctors from Britain there are less than 200 doctors a year leaving Britain out of 60,000, which amounts to something like .03 per cent. I would say that the exodus of doctors from Canada is a lot greater than that, and if the doctors who are leaving Britain are going to the province of Saskatchewan where we have the most

advanced health care scheme operating in Canada I would say it is a very good recommendation tor the province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments at this time on the estimates of the department. First of all I should like to commend the minister and his officials for the very good way in which they have operated their department and the way in which they presented their case to the estimates committee earlier this session. I have listened with interest to the speeches of both the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Timmins, and I will comment on them a little later.
Taking first the hospitalization scheme as it is now in effect in Canada, I believe that a good portion of the reason it has operated so effectively and well is the very adequate administration which the minister and his officials have given this scheme. I believe there are some wrinkles which still have to be ironed out; certainly in any scheme as large as this there are bound to be some. I believe that the hospitals at municipal and private level should have more say on the advisory committees. Certainly these are the people who are in a position to put forward solutions to the problem of overcrowding and to the difficulties regarding the provision of increased care for chronic and convalescent cases. They are the people who are going to supply outpatient and diagnostic services. In my opinion this is an area which the provinces should be encouraged to enter to a greater degree than they have done so far. Certainly I can see no reason why the province of Alberta cannot put outpatient and diagnostic care into its hospital scheme. This would relieve the acute shortage of beds which exists particularly in the larger urban centres.
There is another thing I should like to say with regard to the hospitalization scheme, and this has to do with deterrent charges, and with what the committee had to report concerning that subject. This is a particular problem in the western provinces, and when I use that phrase I include Alberta and British Columbia and, though to a lesser extent, Saskatchewan. Possibly the provincial government is not being penalized because of these charges, but certainly the people of the province involved are being penalized because they are not recovering their full share from the federal government with respect to hospitalization costs. I support the recommendation that a study should be made with respect to these charges, because such a study might give us a lead in deciding whether they serve any useful purpose.
Supply-Health and Welfare I also wish to comment on the Indian health services and the health services provided by the department for the native population as a whole. We in Alberta are pleased that the department has announced plans to go ahead with the construction of a new Charles Camsell hospital for the treatment of our native population in Alberta and as a centre for those requiring treatment in northern Canada. I have only one suggestion to make to the department in this regard, and I am sure they will take it into consideration. I refer to the fact that for a great many years Indians all over the country have been going to private doctors for care. Sometimes these accounts are submitted to the appropriate branch which deals with Indian health services for payment, but I believe the doctors are not too well taken care of.
We have heard a lot today with regard to health insurance. The hon. member for Essex East spent some time outlining what he would do, but I was a little disappointed that he did not supply any details concerning how he would bring the principles he mentioned into effect. That is, in essence, the problem. I do not believe anybody in Canada disagrees with the premise that all Canadians should have adequate medical care available to them. It is all a problem of how one is going to bring these ideas into practice.
I should like to put on record the principles that the profession to which I happen to belong has recently enunciated at its annual convention. I think these principles are reasonable, and I commend them to every hon. member of this committee for study. They read as follows:
That every resident of Canada is free to select his doctor and that each doctor is free to choose his patients.
That the competence and ability of any doctor is determined only by professional self-government.
That, within his competence, each physician has the privilege to treat his patients in and out of hospital.
That each individual physician is free to select the type and location of his practice.
That each patient has the right to have all information pertaining to his medical condition kept confidential except where the public interest is paramount.
That the duty of the physician to his individual patient takes precedence over his obligations to any medical services insurance programs.
That every resident of Canada, whether a recipient or provider of services, has the right of recourse to the courts in all disputes.
That medical services insurance programs do not in any way preclude the private practice of medicine.
That medical research, undergraduate and postgraduate teaching are not inhibited by any medical services insurance program.
That the administration and finances of medical services insurance programs are completely separate from other programs, and that any board, commission or agency set up to administer any medical services insurance program has fiscal authority and autonomy.

Supply-Health and Welfare
These are all worthy of note. The hon. member for Timmins had a great deal to say with regard to health insurance and I should like to point out to him that human dignity is the essence of humanity in my opinion and the more we lose our individuality the more we lose our status as individuals and as a nation. Socialists invariably fail to realize this and the harm it does, despite their sincere humanitarian interests.
A colleague of the hon. member for Timmins spent a good deal of time dealing with the health scheme in the United Kingdom.
I suggest we cannot compare medical practice in Great Britain with medical practice in Canada, because we are two entirely different kinds of country. In Britain one finds a very small area in which a dense population is situated, while here we have a very large country where the population is spread from coast to coast. Thus, in Canada we depend primarily for the adequacy and the high standard of care which our people receive upon the general practitioner, while in Great Britain they do not. This is an essential difference which makes proper comparison between Great Britain and this country impossible.
Nor can we correctly compare the medical costs which we have in Canada with those in the United States, as the hon. member for Timmins did by referring to a publication from Detroit. There can be no comparison of medical care costs between Canada and the United States because those in the United States are three to four times as high as the fees charged in Canada. I would point out that the medical profession has been among the leaders in supporting health insurance. These plans are all on a non-profit basis. As I say, the profession has been one of the leaders in experimenting with health insurance for Canadians.
Another point with which the hon. member dealt at length was an assertion that the federal government should take the lead in encouraging health insurance and such matters. I do not pretend to have a legal mind as great as that of the hon. member for Essex East but it was pounded into my head when I came here that constitutionally it is the provinces which have the prime responsibility for initiating action with regard to such matters as health insurance, and that it is only after they have come to a decision that the federal government can consider entering into collaboration with the provinces with regard to any such schemes.
The other important difference I should like to bring to the attention of the committee is the difference between the question of hospitalization, which is a service supplied by

an organization or institution, and that of medical care which is a very personal relationship between two people, the doctor and his patient. While you may be able to socialize hospitalization, provided you allow the hospital some local autonomy, when you delve into the very personal relationship between doctor and patient then I suggest that the idea of forcing it into one mold will not and cannot work if humanity is to progress.
One final word with regard to health insurance. We have seen the action of the profession in the recent election in Saskatchewan. I do not hold any cause for the way in which they conducted their part of the campaign. I believe it was wrong. I believe that doctors as individuals must take a greater part in the political life of their communities in all levels of government from the municipal to the federal and in this way contribute to the various political parties in Canada their views and those of their colleagues in the medical association. I do not believe that any organization including labour unions should have a party of their own and do as the profession did in Saskatchewan, that is, launch their own campaign.
I wish also to deal briefly with the question of drug prices, a subject which I know is of great interest to all hon. members and of particular interest to the hon. member for Skeena. I agree that this area needs investigation but we must look at the problem in a reasonable light so that patients receiving medicine will not be hurt. In other words, we must make sure that the Canadian pharmaceutical industry develops on a par with other countries, that our medical research program is not hampered and that there is no restriction in getting drugs to the patients who require them. Certainly there are areas in the developing of drugs and the availability of certain kinds of drugs which in my opinion require investigation. I would be very happy to support the idea of such an investigation as I am sure would every ethical pharmaceutical house in Canada.
With respect to the social welfare legislation, I listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. member for Essex East had to say in this regard. I commend to the attention of the committee, the minister and the government the recommendation with regard to blind persons' allowances. It seems to me that the means test should be completely abolished in respect of this affliction. I have a particular interest in the question of disability pensions, having a number of patients who are now in receipt of this pension. I strongly recommend to the government that the income limitations placed on those in receipt of the disability pension should be at least doubled and this should be done as soon as possible.

I have encountered completely disabled people in wheel chairs who prior to the advent of the disabled persons' allowance got through by handicrafts or work of that nature. After the inauguration of the pension they continued working at their handicrafts or other work and immediately had their pension cut off by the provincial authorities. It seems to me this takes away the very meaning of the pension. These people benefit therapeutically from working in handicrafts or other work and enjoying the feeling that they are making a useful contribution to society. To rob them of this feeling has an adverse psychological effect.
With respect to disability legislation we have heard a great deal of discussion inside and outside this chamber with regard to the very strict nature of the definition of disability. I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members and particularly to the attention of the hon. member for Essex East a paragraph to be found at page 522 of the minutes of proceedings of the standing committee on estimates dated May 24, 1960 with respect to disabled persons' allowances:
It was drawn to the attention of the committee that certain provinces have introduced programs of their own which provide relief to disabled persons who are unable to qualify under existing federal regulations. Where an applicant is disabled and only employable at intervals, or incapable of working except under special circumstances, the provincial authorities grant relief through the Unemployment Assistance Act. Members of the committee were of the opinion that as the federal government pays substantial amounts to certain provinces through this act, a possible solution to the problem referred to above might be found if a similar action were taken in other areas of Canada.
I commend that to the attention of the hon. gentleman and suggest to him that it was the action of the present government in late 1957 when it removed the threshold provisions of the Unemployment Assistance Act that enabled those provinces to set up their own disability allowance based on employability rather than disability alone.
I think it is worth while reminding the committee of a statement to be found at page 116 of the annual report of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958 relating to conditions under which unemployment assistance might be given:
The conditions under which assistance is granted, including the rate of assistance, are determined by the province or municipality.
Expenditures for both employable and unemployable persons may be included and the costs of maintaining individuals in homes for special care, such as nursing homes or homes for the aged, are sharable under the agreement.
I suggest that the hon. member for Essex East and all members of the Liberal party
Supply-Health and Welfare are a little late. This government did in 1957 what hon. gentlemen opposite were advocating in 1958.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The previous administration initiated the whole thing.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: But it put a
threshhold on it so the provinces could not enjoy the benefits they would have liked to enjoy.
I agree with the hon. member on one point. When we look at social welfare legislation we should seriously examine a proposition which would provide survivor benefits for the elderly and disabled.
Returning to what is for me a vexing problem, that with regard to income limitations, the abolition of the means test at age 55 or 60 for aged persons in receipt of disability pensions should be considered. I highly recommend to the government that the income allowable with respect to recipients of old age assistance should be elevated a great deal. Invariably you run into situations in which you find elderly people prevented from getting out and enjoying exercise by taking a light job and doing the things they would like to do because of the strict interpretation that is given the means test and the rigid application of it.
I cannot speak for the rest of Canada but a serious situation exists in the province of Alberta. I have a great number of elderly patients who have given up doing anything. This is not good for them medically or otherwise. They are afraid that any income they earn in this manner will be deducted from their pension. I know elderly women who have ceased baby sitting because the welfare inspector was prepared to deduct the amount so earned from their pensions. I know elderly men who surrendered the jobs they had as janitors for Legion and other community halls and buildings in small towns in western Canada. They gave up the jobs because the small amount of money they earned was to be deducted from their pensions. Part of the reason for this, of course, is the way the regulations are interpreted by the provinces with regard to the amount of income that is calculated for the home they own and other capital assets.
It seems to me that we could do a great deal for our older people with respect to this very serious problem and it would not cost the government a great deal of money if we raised the allowable income under the Old Age Assistance Act and Disabled Persons Act and waived it altogether with respect to assistance to the blind. We could do something really worth while to encourage self-help which is the kind of thing I believe we need in this country. 1 know a great number of
5260	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare these elderly people, some even in their eighties, who would love to be able to do a little light work. They are physically and mentally able to do it but they do not, and I do not blame them, because they do not want to give up the security of their pension benefits.
Again, sir, I want to commend the minister and the department for having done a great deal for the health and welfare of the people of this country. The institution of the hospitalization scheme has certainly meant a great deal to the people of Canada.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I should like to touch on one or two matters to which he made no reference. The first is the fluoridation of water. I know that last year I tried to get him to commit himself officially that he was in favour of the fluoridation of water and he said he was in favour of it in his own area, Stratford. But I think that if the Department of National Health and Welfare would go on record as being in favour of fluoridation it would help the cause of fluoridation a great deal in the province of Ontario and in Canada generally. In the Toronto Star of December 31 last there was an article to the effect that the federal government was giving new backing to the fluoridation of water as a safe and efficient means of drastically reducing tooth decay among Canadian children. Dr. H. K. Brown, dental consultant of the Department of National Health and Welfare, was the author of a report which said in part:
There is no doubt as to the efficacy of a mechanically fluoridated water supply containing one part per million in very markedly reducing the caries experienced in children born subsequent to fluoridation.
He went on to say that no ill effects had been observed by the medical and dental authorities in Brantford and Stratford where fluorine is present in or added to the water. Previous to that time there had been some investigation in three cities of about equal size, Brantford, Sarnia and Stratford. Stratford has natural fluorine in its water. I do not know how many parts there are per million. In Brantford one part of fluorine per million was added to the water while Sarnia gets its water from the great lakes and it has very little fluorine in it.
In Brantford and Stratford the results in children were about the same. From 1948 up to last year the number of children in Brantford and Stratford showing no decay or caries in the teeth had increased from 6 per cent to 44 per cent. In Sarnia the increase was from 6.6 per cent to 8.6 per cent. I think that definitely shows that fluorine has a very
[Mr. Homer (Jasper-Edson).I

marked effect in preventing caries in teeth. I might say that in my home town fluoridation of water was started in 1952 and since that time caries in teeth among children in the schools has gone down by 65 per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In Thorold.


William Hector McMillan: Yes. There is a consolidated school in my area and about half the children attending the school come from country districts where they drink well water with a natural fluorine content while the other half of the children come from the city where the water supply is from the great lakes. As I said before, the water from the great lakes contains very little fluorine. One would not need to be a dentist or doctor to be able to go into that school, look at the teeth of the children and know where they come from. I certainly think this is a very important matter because we know that caries of the teeth can lead to certain infections which have systemic effects. I know that an investigation is going on in Toronto as to the value of fluorine and I observe in today's paper that evidence is being heard in camera. I do not know why evidence should be heard in camera. However, that is a matter outside our jurisdiction.
But when so many associations have gone on record in favour of the fluoridation of water supplies I think the minister should state publicly that the Department of National Health and Welfare is in favour of the fluoridation of water. He may not think that this means anything. In the municipalities of Ontario people can apply to have a vote as to the fluoridation of water and in my town the anti-fiuoridationists did force a vote. They put up all kinds of signs outside the town to the effect that the water supply was contaminated, that it contained rat poison and was not fit to drink. This certainly hurt the tourist trade.
One reason advanced by these people was that the Department of National Health and Welfare at Ottawa had not said that fluoridation of water supplies was a good thing. I think the department should definitely take a stand one way or the other.
I was sorry that I was unable to attend the meetings of the committee on estimates, but I have read the reports of the committee. The minister referred today to some of the recommendations made by the committee and I was particularly interested in their recommendation with respect to hospitalization, particularly the overcrowding in our hospitals. I think the minister said that the department would not conduct a survey as was suggested. In my opinion a survey should be undertaken



I960

[Stage Direction]
because many municipalities and some provinces have no idea what may be needed in the future. I think some advice could be given by the department.
I believe a full investigation should also be made into the chronic bed situation and the provision of beds for convalescents. Most of these patients do not require the facilities of an active treatment hospital and in my view they can be better provided for in chronic bed hospitals or by the addition of wings to hospitals for this purpose or in convalescent centres. This can be done much more cheaply.
In recent years many insurance companies, and I think probably this applies as well to the regulations of the hospital commissions, stipulate that outpatients cannot get diagnostic procedures unless they are admitted to hospital. I feed that this helps to make the bed situation more acute. For instance, if a person needs a gastro-intestinal series he will need to be admitted to hospital in order to obtain these particular X-rays at no cost to himself. He will have to be in hospital from five to seven days. He could just as easily go to the hospital for radiology, have this diagnostic procedure and yet stay at home. I do not see why some movement has not been made by the health branch to take up this question with the different provincial commissions.
Reference has been made also to the fact that we should have more research in connection with mental health. I am in favour of more research here. I think much can be done. In St. Catharines, just to give an example, we have a number of beds available for those who are mentally ill. They are set up in connection with a mental health clinic, and people who are mentally ill are admitted to the hospital there. From observations I have made I can say that many of these people improve and are able to return to work who would otherwise stay outside the hospital until their condition deteriorated to the point where they would have to be committed to a mental institution. I believe that more work along these lines would cut down the number of patients in our mental institutions. These clinics are doing all sorts of work with shock treatments and with the newer drugs, and I believe that with proper direction many of these patients could be kept out of our mental hospitals. They could be taken into these other hospitals that are connected with our general hospitals, kept for a short time and after being discharged they could report to the outpatient clinics. A good many of these patients do well. I think a lot more work along that line should be done in other centres.
Supply-Health and Welfare
In addition to this I find that patients will readily go to a mental health clinic connected with a general hospital and occupy one of these beds for a short time, whereas they are very backward about going, or will refuse to go to a mental hospital unless they are committed. There is still a stigma connected with being committed to a mental hospital. I think a lot of work can be done for our mentally ill patients, particularly in the early stages.
There is one thing upon which I feel the minister should comment, and that is the content of strontium-90 in our food and milk supplies. I noticed an article in the Toronto Telegram of June 1, 1959 which said that the department was neither exercised nor panicked over the condition, which is probably right. I do not believe any of our scientists, and some of them admit it, know how much strontium-90 it takes to have a deleterious effect on our bodies, both genetically and directly in causing bone cancer and leukemia. I was glad to see the Canadian delegation proposing that we set up a committee of all nations to calculate the amount of strontium-90, resulting from fallout from atomic explosions, which enters our food supply. More work can probably be done along that line.
Since I am a doctor, and since the health insurance question has been very much to the fore in Saskatchewan, I think I should say something about it. I think I can best describe what I think about health insurance by quoting what I said when I first came to the house in January, 1951. It was my honour at that time to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and I had this to say about health insurance as reported on page 10 of Hansard for January 31, 1951:
I am quite aware of the fact that most health measures come directly under provincial jurisdiction; but after practising medicine for over 30 years I realize that one of the main elements in connection with the insecurity of our people is the high cost of hospitalization and the expensive diagnostic, medical and surgical procedures so often necessary without warning. I have often seen life savings wiped out in a few weeks or months of unexpected sickness or accident. I cannot help but express the hope that we shall soon see the day when there will be available to all our people a contributory health plan to meet the cost of major sicknesses and accidents. We have many group plans that are fine so far as they go, but they are either not available or are not easily available to the large majority of our people.
I said that when I first came here in 1951. I can clearly understand the objections that the members of my own profession may raise in connection with this matter. I would be less than honest if I did not admit that I would prefer to practise medicine as it is
5262	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare now practised in Ontario. The doctors themselves naturally have a fear of the disturbance of the doctor-patient relationship. I must say from observations of the scheme in operation in Great Britain that I found this interference did occur. I hope the same thing will not happen in Saskatchewan.
Many doctors whom I observed in Great Britain had large panels of patients and they could not give them close attention, certainly not sufficiently close to make any proper diagnosis. The doctors' offices became largely clearing houses for sending patients to hospital. I saw that in two or three areas. Some doctors admitted to me that since they could not follow their patients to the hospital they did not keep up as well in the practice of medicine as they should. I could quite understand that. They were working hard and seeing too many patients. In the areas which I visited, there were too many patients and too few doctors. I hope nothing like that will happen.
Hazen Robert Argue: There are more doctors now than there used to be.


William Hector McMillan: I am referring to the time when I was over there, seven years ago. I know that there is a tendency to criticize the doctors, at least by the press and by others. What I say of myself certainly applies to a good many other doctors. I will say that during the depth of the depression and since then I have worked from 12 hours to 18 hours a day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You still do in this House of Commons.


William Hector McMillan: During that time fully
three quarters of my time was devoted to medical and surgical work for which I received and expected no remuneration. That was in the worst of the depression. It was difficult at times to get enough on which to live. I do not mind admitting that. The fees were not high back in the 1920's. The fee at that time for looking after a woman during pregnancy for nine months and attending her during delivery varied from $10 to $20, and it was mostly $20 when you got it. Of course, attending a delivery generally involved the loss of a night's sleep. I do not believe that over the years I have been overpaid, no matter what some people may say about doctors. During the depression there were times when upwards of 75 per cent of the people in some of the hospitals in Ontario did not pay their way. They were paid for by municipalities and the province. Certainly in those cases no medical man or surgeon sent them a bill. Many a surgeon spent many nights at the hospital-and I include myself-trying to figure out surgical problems in order to try


to go ahead with some surgical procedure. I do not think I am prejudiced, Mr. Chairman, when I say that there was not a time during the thirties and certainly during the early forties when the doctors did not discharge more than their full obligation to the people of this country. I will say this, however. If we had had hospital insurance at that time the doctors would have been a great deal better off but the country would not have been as well off. There were no doctors at that time who complained of that fact. I have stated my position in connection with this matter and the hon. member for Essex East has stated the position of our party. I should like to hear the minister state his position on this matter also.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was a very courageous speech.


Mr. Campbell (Lambton-Keni):: I have
listened with great interest to the contributions which have been made by the various speakers on these matters of health today, and I must say that I greatly appreciate the privilege of taking part in these discussions concerning the need for the appropriation of moneys for the purpose of improving the health of the people of our country.
May I say that it is my intention to speak about and to attempt to place special emphasis upon the need and the part that a physical fitness program encouraged from the federal level could play in working toward such a goal of improved health. I feel that there are practically unlimited possibilities in this field. I feel that I should at this time also acknowledge that it is generally recognized that the responsibility for this matter of physical fitness falls under the jurisdiction of the provincial authority, but I have long felt that more encouragement should be given from the federal level to encourage and assist the provincial governments, and in turn, the local municipal governments and the people themselves, in a program which would broaden and intensify their efforts in this regard.
At this time I wish to pay my tribute to the great contribution made by the medical profession in maintaining the health and thereby increasing the life expectancy of our people in these late years. I want to express my appreciation to the medical men for their latest effort to get our people to become more fitness minded. May I say also that I appreciated greatly the remarks of the hon. member for Jasper-Edson when he was commenting on the need for activity, particularly for older people. I have in my hand a clipping from the London Free Press of a few days ago which outlines a meeting



[Stage Direction]
which was held in Banff, Alberta. I should like to read from this clipping which states in part as follows:
You will be healthier if you have some physical activity-no matter what your age ...
These were the findings of committees which reported Wednesday to the Canadian Medical Association's annual convention.
The committee on public health said that even though proof is lacking, "we are all agreed on the benefits to health for all ages which are derived from physical activity and participation in games."
That was the meeting of the Canadian Medical Association. I also have here another clipping to which I should like to refer. It is headed "Fitness Program for All: Children get Priority, House Told". This is in Toronto. The article reads in part as follows:
Health minister Dymond said yesterday the government's new physical fitness program will be slanted towards giving every child in Ontario a chance to develop mental and physical soundness, rather than place emphasis on the development of a small number of outstanding athletes.
In asking the legislature to approve departmental estimates of $92,195,000 for 1960-61, Dr. Dymond said this year's budget of $35,000 for physical fitness would go towards a small study committee to formulate a suitable program.
I have here another clipping which I took from an Ottawa paper a short time ago. It mentions a series of articles entitled "Keeping in Shape". The author of this series is Bonnie Prudden who is, I believe, an expert in advising women on keeping fit. I should just like to read one extract from this article. It states:
Keeping in Shape is dedicated to the proposition that no reader is too young, too old, too full of aches, too fat, too thin, too flabby, too lazy or too far gone to keep fit.
The feature is written by Bonnie Prudden, one of America's foremost champions of physical fitness. For years she has carried on a long crusade against limp muscles, drooping postures and joy-killing fatigue.	~
I also have here a copy of a resolution from the central fitness council of British Columbia. It is a long resolution and I am not going to take the time of the committee to read it all. However the meat of it is as follows:
It is requested that the federal government authorize action to recognize and support, in co-operation with the provinces, such a national fitness council, based upon the policy, administration and operational plan submitted with this proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I feel I can speak with some authority on this matter myself as on May 24 last I had participated in organized sports for a period of 40 years. It was exactly 40 years ago last May 24 when a ball team was organized in my part of the country to play other teams, and that was the start. The sports I have participated in include hockey, football, boxing, wrestling, baseball, a little softball, and in recent months the sport of curling and a bit of bowling. I know 79951-0-332
Supply-Health and Welfare there are many hon. members in this committee today who can vouch for the last two at least.
I have had some experience as an instructor in physical culture in my early days and I have often said since that time that what you eat, the way you think and what you do will determine what you will be. I am more convinced than ever of that as the years pass by.
I do not say this boastfully, but I offer this as proof of my statement. I have here a photograph of myself which was taken on December 22, 1924, at the time when I first started to be an instructor in physical culture. I have another photograph, a newspaper clipping, taken just shortly before I came here as a member, when I was acting as an instructor for the police departments in the city of Chatham and the town of Wallaceburg, instructing in physical culture, judo and wrestling. This photograph is taken some 30 odd years after the first one, and if I do say so myself, I had little difficulty in handling men who were 30 years younger and 60 pounds heavier than I. I say that as proof of the value of this work.
May I say that I have not had the opportunity to participate in these activities as regularly as I would like since coming here as a representative of the people of my area, but this experience here has given me an opportunity to make an accurate comparison of one's physical well-being when engaged in work such as this, compared to the kind of life to which I had been accustomed in days gone by. The opportunity to participate in organized sports at that time was of the kind which I found gave me considerable benefit, more than I get here. I have to make special effort to keep in condition as compared with those times when I was participating more freely in sports.
May I also say that I am one who possesses the firm conviction that there is great value in the kind of training-and I would lay special emphasis on the word training-that sports coaches and athletic trainers generally recognize as being essential to the development of physical and mental strength which is a part of the successful athlete. It develops self-reliance, self-confidence and self-control. It teaches one to think while on his feet under fire.
I am one of those who believe that health and strength is just as valuable and important to the average business man and other people as it is to the athlete, and that the same things which the athlete does in a somewhat modified form would also promote strength and health for the one who may not wish to participate in organized sports. The
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Health and Welfare difference is that the sport often provides the stimulus and the incentive to the effort that is necessary to inspire individuals to do the things that are essential for their well-being which they would not do otherwise. To put it in a short sentence, one must work and earn and deserve his well-being.
There is another thought I should like to leave with the committee in connection with this matter, and it is that one can continue to participate safely and sanely in quite strenuous activities long after most people think it is safe for them to do so if they would continue to train their bodies for those activities. However, by the same token I would seriously stress the folly of attempting to participate in strenuous activities without training, particularly after an extended period of inactivity, no matter how expert a person may have been in his former years.
I should like also to draw your attention Mr. Chairman, to the part that physical activities play as a deterrent to crime. It is a recognized fact that there is not only a higher physical and mental standard among those who are sports minded, but generally the true sportsman will possess the higher ideal and more objective goal in life. This to my mind is a factor that is well worth considering, because when you stop to think of the many thousands of dollars that are spent on the administration of justice, the building and maintenance of prisons, and so on, it is not perhaps an exaggeration to say that if some of the cases of crime could have been prevented through the medium of wholesome physical activities the money required would be well spent.
I should like also to point out that the need for a physical fitness program on a national scale is becoming increasingly more important in this day and age when men are devising mechanical ways of doing the work which they did by hand in days gone by. As a result of the increasing nervous strain caused by the pace at which we are moving today I predict that there will be an ever increasing need in the years to come for something to take the place of the work that our bodies were intended by nature to perform.
As I have sat here in my seat my memory has taken me back many times to the time when that fine old gentleman-quite a number of hon. members here today will bear me out on this-the Reverend Dan Mclvor would march in here in what he would call his parliamentary stride and sit, I believe, in this self-same seat I occupy today. There was never an occasion that he would miss to rise in his seat and extol the virtues of physical fitness. He was a fine athlete, I understand, in

his youth, a good sportsman in later life and still young at heart when I knew him, when well on in his eighties in years. The last I heard of him he was still active in the ministry, which is further proof of the value of physical fitness in the building of good citizens, and I feel that his words and his works will live long after he has passed on.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a moment to point out the tremendous benefit that could come to the people of Canada from a dollar and cents standpoint if a concerted effort were made to sponsor a health program which would be dominion wide and in which physical fitness would play a prominent part. I feel this to be especially important at this time since the government has become responsible for the health insurance of the people. An ounce of prevention to my mind is worth any number of pounds of cure. I therefore suggest that the government give most serious consideration to the advisability of encouraging some such program. However, I feel that in fairness to the people and so as not to give them the impression that you can just pick this physical fitness condition off trees, the people should be told that they are entitled to that greatest of all assets, namely a high standard of physical fitness. However, to be fit will also require a bit of self-discipline, a measure of self-denial, a bit of the will to do and a bit of hard work. But for their efforts they will acquire a greater enjoyment of their work when they realize that work is a necessary part of their well-being.
It has been a great privilege to have been given the opportunity to take part in this discussion today and I trust I have contributed something which will be of benefit to the people of this country.
Hazen Robert Argue: We in the C.C.F. believe that now is the auspicious time for Canada to move forward in the field of social welfare measures. There is a school of thought which believes that the welfare state has already gone too far and that the measures we have today are hurting initiative, but we in this group feel that these measures which we have today provide only a basic minimum of protection and are the foundation of a better life for the majority of Canadians.
Because there is widespread unemployment, because the government has balanced its budget on unemployment and a depressed economy, is no reason for the rest of us to acquiesce in the government's belief that it should mark time, forget about its election promises and do nothing of substantial importance in the welfare field. I think the people of Canada expected this government to go forward much more rapidly in this

regard than it has done. One of the pressing needs of our country today as we see it is for a vast increase in the pension benefits which accrue to Canadians upon retirement. We feel it is not nearly good enough to have a basic minimum pension given to everyone at the age of 70 of a mere $55 a month. Surely the minister would be the first to agree that anyone who is forced to live on an income of $55 without a supplementary income has not sufficient money to provide the very basic necessities of life, food, clothing and shelter, to say nothing of the costs of medical care should they arise. I think it is a disgrace to our country that thousands upon thousands of our elderly citizens are living in hovels, living in fire traps, and suffering malnutrition in this year 1960 because of an inadequate pension.
I had hoped that this government really meant business when it said it intended to embark on a greatly improved old age security system. As has been pointed out today by the hon. member for Essex East, the Prime Minister, when he was in the position of having only a minority in this house, seemed in great haste to do something for his fellow Canadians who were in receipt of old age pensions. At that time he was not only in great haste but he was convinced that Canada should benefit from the type of old age security they have in the United States which to a large degree is related to recent income and is not merely a minimum pension paid to everyone on reaching a certain age. After that appearance of haste we had a long delay in the final preparation of the Clark report. We are confronted with an even longer delay in the government's consideration of that report. The fact is that this government has a hard, calloused and inhuman attitude toward the people on old age pensions who have no other means of support, since the government has failed to take any steps to improve their position.
Before the election this government was very expansive in its protestations of generosity for the aged. The Prime Minister has indicated great sympathy for the people living on a minimum old age pension. Since then he has had the Clark report. The minister says it is being studied, but that means, to all of us who have had experience in this house, that the government is delaying, that it is procrastinating, that it is postponing the issue. The government is failing to do now that it is in office what the public expected it to do after they had given it this tremendous majority at the time of the last federal election.
We in this country need an old age security system which has embodied in it a type of pension system so that people neither feel
79951-0-332J
Supply-Health and Welfare bound nor tied because of potential pension benefits to a given industry, nor can they be cast aside and dismissed without benefit of pension when after many years of service a company finds their employment is no longer needed. It breaks one's heart to ride on the railways of this country at this time and to hear the sad tales of railroaders who are being unceremoniously dismissed without pension benefits after 25 or 30 or more years of service. These are people who have spent their whole lives working for the railroads of Canada, and they now find that in their declining years they are placed on the labour market without the benefit of an adequate pension program to which they can look forward within a few years. This is certainly one of the best examples of the need for an over-all security system in this country containing a portable pension plan which will provide for the best protection of Canadian citizens.
I think now is the time for action by this department in co-operation with other departments, and I refer particularly to the Department of Transport, to ensure that Canadians in our nation will not be placed on the labour market in their declining years without the benefit of a pension scheme to which they have contributed for 25 years or more.
During many years in this house I have taken an active interest in making suggestions for the increase and expansion of family allowances. Many Canadians raising families find it difficult to meet the expenses of a home and the family budget particularly during that period of earning power. Family allowances have been a great benefit to Canadian families. I think it was wrong under the former administration and it is just as wrong today for a government to allow an increase in the cost of living to whittle away and undermine the benefits of family allowances.
I feel there is a substantial argument in favour of increasing family allowances so as to restore the purchasing power of the family allowance cheque to the purchasing power it had at the time when family allowances first became effective in 1945. That would mean an increase of more than 50 per cent.
I believe, too, that the time has come when there should be an extension of the age for which a family allowance cheque can be received. I think the age should be extended particularly in view of the fact that many young people whose parents no longer receive the family allowance on their behalf remain in school. If family allowances were paid to the age of 18, or even better to the age of 21, while a child was still in school this

Supply-Health and Welfare wbuld be of great assistance in meeting the large costs of the education of a child at late high school age or of university age. I recommend this to the government as I did to the former government on other occasions as an expansion of our social security system which would be of great benefit to Canadians.
Much has already been said in this debate on the subject of a prepaid medical care program. I am pleased to come from the province of Saskatchewan that has shown great leadership in the field of health services in recent years. Saskatchewan and its people have the distinction of having formulated and implemented the first provincial hospitalization plan in Canada. Although it is some 13 years since the plan was first placed on the statute books of Saskatchewan some Canadians are still not covered by the hospital plan. Despite this fact there is now an assurance that this situation will soon be corrected.
The people of Saskatchewan gave the Saskatchewan government a mandate to implement a prepaid medical care program in that province. I express the hope that it will not be another 13 years until all Canadians in all provinces have the benefit of a prepaid medical care plan like that soon to he provided for the people of Saskatchewan.
The hon. member for Essex East referred to the Saskatchewan situation when he used the words, "with regard to this important step toward providing for the health of the people of Canada." This is an important step forward, a step being taken after a great deal of consideration, study and planning.
The reason we in the C.C.F. believe a .prepaid medical care program is necessary .for all Canada is that a substantial part of .the population is not covered by any plan .whatever and will have to bear the whole of their medical expenses in time of illness. About one third of the people of Saskatchewan are not covered by any plan whatever. There is another reason why we feel a program is necessary at this time. It is because of the increasing cost of medical services. With modern medical techniques being improved and introduced and with an increasing number of specialists' services being required, the cost of medical care mounts. This makes it difficult for Canadians to afford the kind of medical care they need.
There is a third reason why we feel now is the time for action in this field. That is the tendency on the part of many private plans to reduce the amount of coverage under the plan, or to increase the premiums, or both, and very often to exclude persons they feel are a high risk and therefore persons who are likely to be in need
IMr. Argue.]
of medical care. Private plans, good and valuable as they have been, have not provided the amount of prepaid medical care to which we think Canadians should be entitled.
The Saskatchewan program has been twisted and misrepresented in many ways. It has been called by our political opponents, state medicine, socialism, regimentation, dictatorship and other things. We feel the program has been and will be based on sound democratic principles. It will provide universal coverage. Everyone will be covered under the plan, not just those who can afford to pay the premiums under private plans, or those whose health record is such that they are accepted in private plans or those who happen to live in a certain geographic area or belong to an occupational group where they are covered.
The second principle of such a program is that there will be a small prepaid payment into such a plan. It is estimated it will cost approximately $35 to $40 for an adult couple with no cost for children. This would mean that in the province of Saskatchewan by an annual payment of some $70 or $75 a whole family would have their hospitalization and medical care covered. This would not be the total cost of the plan, of course, but it is believed that additional costs can be raised from general revenues within the province.
A third principle that has been enunciated is that the patient will have free choice of doctors. There will be no interference whatever in what is called normal doctor-patient relationship. The main principle of the plan will be that a doctor instead of sending his bill to the patient will send it to the central prepaid medical agency established by the government and from that agency will be issued to the doctor payment for the services rendered. A schedule of fees and costs will have to be worked out but I think there is every indication that doctors will fare very well financially under the proposed plan.
I am sorry to say that whenever the C.C.F. has proposed a prepaid medical care program each of the other political parties has opposed it. It was opposed and very bitterly opposed by the Liberal party. It was opposed by the Conservative party whose candidates said that if they were elected their government would establish a royal commission. In other words, they were going to duck the issue and shelve it as quickly as possible.


Mr. Jones:: Nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Social Credit party said that they would have nothing to do with it at all. They were completely opposed to any

universal plan which would cover everyone and all they would do would be to use public money to bolster private plans already in existence. Three political parties were opposed to a prepaid medical care program and the C.C.F. took on the field.
But these were not the only people who opposed a prepaid medical care program. They had the help of the Saskatchewan college of physicians and surgeons and they had the help of the Toronto Telegram. They also had the help of some people who found untold sums of money to use to publish scurrilous attacks on the government of that province and to issue a lot of nonsense and tommyrot to which the authors failed to attach their names.
They have become rather worn but I have in my hand what appear to be four pages taken from the Toronto Telegram of Saturday, April 23, 1960. These pages contain a number of articles by a man by the name of George Brimmell, Telegram staff reporter, about Saskatchewan's plans for a prepaid medical care program. I might say that this literature was issued freely and placed in the box of every boxholder in the province of Saskatchewan. There is no indication who published it or who authorized it to be mailed but it is indicated that the series is reprinted by permission of the publisher of the Toronto Telegram.
After the speeches yesterday I do not know whether this was a Tory medical axis in operation or a Liberal medical axis that had been arranged for the election or whether there was some insurance company money behind its distribution. But there are some interesting things said in these articles. One article is entitled, "Blood Boils Over Saskatchewan Medical Plan". Another is entitled, "Scalpels Out, Saskatchewan M.D.'s Fight Socialism". The scalpels were not out on this occasion for an appendix that needed removing but for the democratic franchise of the people of that province. On the next page there is an article headed, "Many Saskatchewan U.K. Doctors to Move if Douglas Wins".
I have been following the newspapers since the election and I have not heard of any doctors moving out of Saskatchewan. I do not know of any satchels being packed and doctors leaving. This afternoon the hon. member for Welland said that a number of doctors had left the United Kingdom. As has already been said in reply to him, this, of course, is correct.


William Hector McMillan: I did not say that.


Hazen Robert Argue: The good doctor tells me that he did not say it. My ears must have been
Supply-Health and Welfare fooling me. A number of United Kingdom doctors have left that country but there are more doctors in the United Kingdom today than there have ever been. I hope the day will never come in the United Kingdom, as in Canada, when doctors along with other citizens will not be free to remain in the country or to leave as they see fit.
In Saskatchewan we have the services of a very fine group of doctors who have come to Saskatchewan from the United Kingdom. If they left Great Britain to escape socialism and state medicine, it is a strange thing that many of them came to the Swift Current health region in Saskatchewan, the only area where there is a prepaid medical care plan, and that they have been practising under that plan. Their neighbours say that economically they have been doing very well and that they are exceedingly good doctors. In spite of this kind of scaremongering I am certain that the United Kingdom doctors now in Saskatchewan by and large will remain in our province, as I hope they do.
But this article goes on to say that if the United Kingdom doctors move from Saskatchewan "they will have to fill up the profession with the garbage of Europe". I think that is an uncalled for slur on doctors in Canada who have come from European medical schools which I feel in many in-" stances are among the best in the world. I notice that the hon. member for Jasper-Edson, who is a medical doctor, is nodding his head in the affirmative. In this modern day and age I do not think we need to attempt to divide the medical profession-


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I agree with you.


Hazen Robert Argue: -or any other profession or group on the basis of the country in which people happen to be born. There should be medical standards set, as I know there are, for all newcomers, and there should not be any slur cast on the basis of the part of the world from which these people happen to come. I think the medical profession themselves, and I still do not blame the majority of medical doctors in the province of Saskatchewan-


Mr. Bigg:: You killed that straw man.


Hazen Robert Argue: What straw man?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The one you just built up.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member should know all about straw men. Apparently some of his people believed this fiction but I do not believe it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Wheat straw.
5268	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare


Hazen Robert Argue: I think wheat straw is a very good type of straw. A lot of things can be done with it that might compare favourably with some things I could say about the hon. member. In any case, I do not think it is necessary to attempt to divide the medical profession by this kind of slurring attack. I think the medical profession in the province of Saskatchewan has been badly led and badly misled by some of the people who have been giving them this kind of advice. Of course, they should know better than to go along with some of the propaganda that they issued. I have in my hand an advertisement in which a number of names of doctors are listed. It appeared in the Assiniboia Times of Wednesday, June 1, 1960, a weekly newspaper, but similar advertisements also appeared all over the province. The advertisement reads as follows:
In recent weeks, we have been increasingly disturbed by the numerous comments made by a number of politicians regarding a compulsory government controlled medical care plan.
The advertisement goes on to say:
We, the undersigned doctors, will continue to serve our patients to the best of our ability and will strive to give them the same high quality of medical care they have known in the past regardless of what may take place at government level. However, we will not participate in any compulsory government controlled medical care plan. We shall continue to conduct our practices on a private and personal basis.
This is another method of trying to influence the electorate. I do not believe this statement for a moment.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, are we discussing the Saskatchewan election or the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare?


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jung):: I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the estimates.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was endeavouring to point out how the prepaid medical care program had been misrepresented and attacked in Saskatchewan. Nevertheless, the people of that province showed themselves in favour of the plan.


An hon. Member:: Forty per cent.


Hazen Robert Argue: That interjection is significant; it makes it clear that the people who voted C.C.F. were for the plan and those who voted for the other political parties were opposed to it. If you want to take the attitude that a political party has to have an over-all majority in order to implement its program, then democracy would come to a standstill in this country because very few governments ever obtain a clear majority from the electorate.
[Mr. Bigg.)

All Canada will watch this program with a great deal of interest. The C.C.F. in Saskatchewan is once again showing the way. But I plead with the Minister of National Health and Welfare to speed up the government's consideration of a prepaid medical care program. Let us hope the federal government will not take another 10 years to act on this type of program as the federal government took to implement a national hospitalization program. The people of Saskatchewan, because of the results of the recent election, will have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a prepaid medical care program.
I am asking this government to also show some leadership so that the Canadians in other provinces may have a chance to benefit from a prepaid medical care program. The federal government has a responsibility in this field, just as the federal government has accepted responsibility in the field of hospitalization. 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.


Mr. Speakman:: He wants us to bail out the C.C.F. in Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: Nobody will need to bail out the C.C.F. This is a strange remark coming from the member of a party, the Conservative party, that failed to elect a single member in the recent election. It is not the C.C.F. that needs bailing out but the Tory party which has ceased to exist in Saskatchewan on a provincial basis since 1938.
Even with a prepaid medical care program we will not have a complete health program. The day must come, and it will come, when we have a dental program and a program which will take care of the costs of drugs. Only when we have a comprehensive national health insurance program which will include hospitalization, medical care, dental care and drugs will the people of Canada be able to enjoy a modern, scientific, health program to which every citizen has a right.


Mr. Taylor:: It is a pleasure to rise in my place today and find the chairman of the committee is a colleague of mine who represents a riding adjacent to mine. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speakers from both sides of the house who have spoken on the estimates of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I particularly enjoyed the remarks of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent who spoke about national health and fitness. I enjoyed also

listening to the hon. member for Jasper-Edson who spoke on these estimates, as did the hon. member for Assiniboia who just sat down.
Hon. members will recall that about a year ago I had the pleasure of placing on the order paper a resolution which read as follows:
That in the opinion of this house the government should give early consideration to the advisability of establishing a Canada sports council with the object of fostering and encouraging amateur sport in Canada, such council to have representatives from each of the provinces of Canada.
Hon. members will recall that on that occasion sincere and wholehearted support was given to the principle of the resolution. It was encouraging to me to find that the Leader of the Opposition and the representative of the C.C.F. group, the hon. member for Vancouver East, gave wholehearted support to that resolution. Again this year I placed the same resolution on the order paper, but for one reason and another I, along with other members, was not able to debate this resolution. Today, therefore, I want to speak for a few moments on that resolution as it pertains to the minister's estimates.
When I spoke last in the house on this resolution I referred to the fact that it was only a few years ago that the prime minister of the day rose in his place and gave, in a most refreshing manner, the reasons for the necessity of establishing the Canada Council in order to assist the arts, humanities and social sciences. The reasons advanced by the then prime minister for the establishment of the Canada Council could be applied equally to the case for the establishment of a sports council. If there was a need for the Canada Council, then I submit that there is an equally pressing need for the establishment of a Canada sports council because we are dealing with the health and fitness of the people of Canada.
We must remember that a nation's health is a nation's wealth. In glancing at the report of the Canada Council one would seem to find confirmation of the views and opinions of those who advocated the council. I noticed on reading page 20 of the report for 195758 that the council supported seven symphony orchestras and while the number of regular concerts given was the same as in the previous year, the number of performances for children and others was almost double, increasing from 93 to 175, while the total attendance increased from 320,000 to 477,000. I am sure that if hon. members were to give support to the establishment of a Canada sports council the first annual report of the proposed new organization would be equally glowing.
Supply-Health and Welfare
I suggested when I spoke before in the house on the subject that if a sports council were formed one paramount rule should be that the organization be as free from state control as it is prudent for any body to be that is entrusted with public funds. I would further suggest that the general rules which now apply to the Canada Council also apply to the proposed Canada sports council, with of course minor changes.
I also suggested, that a representative from each of the provinces of Canada be appointed so that the organization would be a truly representative one. The resolution speaks for itself in that regard. The persons chosen, as I mentioned before, should be familiar with the great problems now facing all athletic clubs and all athletic associations from one end of the country to the other. The persons chosen should be prepared, I submit, to devote much time to the youth of Canada who desire to play games in national and international competitions.
In my earlier address I referred to a few outstanding Canadians who would, I was sure, serve on this sports council and would give substantial leadership to the pressing and urgent problems facing amateur athletes in Canada today. If suitable persons are chosen, and if a reasonable fund is created, the indignities and embarrassments that have plagued our amateur athletes can be to a large extent eradicated.
In 1958 at the British empire games we gained one gold medal in rowing. In the final point standing we ranked fourth, well behind South Africa and a mere 100 points in front of Pakistan and the host country, Wales. At the last Olympic games held in Melbourne in 1956 Canada gained only 52 points to place 16th amongst 44 nations. What about the forthcoming games in Rome? We can only hope that at least once the Canadian flag will be atop the masthead in the Rome coliseum to warm the hearts of all Canadians attending. It would appear that there will be a large delegation from this country, and I only hope that we do well in Rome.
There are indications that we will not do so well. I feel that now is the time, before the results are posted, for some remedial action to be taken, so that at some future international show we can make a better showing. In 1958, in Davis cup tennis, Canadians played against a United States team that was virtually untested and the United States team made a clean sweep of the five game series. At the Pan-American games a year ago in Chicago Canada made a fair showing but in a limited field. May I say there was one significant thing about those

Supply-Health and Welfare games-I refer to the Pan-American games in Chicago-namely the fact that the Canadian Prime Minister was there in person. That was the first time to my knowledge that a prime minister had attended such an international event outside of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But not the first time a minister of the crown had done so.


John Russell Taylor: I did not hear what was said by the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said that was not the first time that a minister of the crown had done so.


John Russell Taylor: The hon. member may be right but I think it was the first time a prime minister has attended an international event outside of Canada. It was heart warming, of course, to see him there. He certainly gave great encouragement and lifted the morale of the Canadian contestants. I am confident that under the inspiring leadership of the Prime Minister appropriate help will not be long withheld from our Canadian sports ambassadors.
At the 1956 winter Olympics in Cortina our Canadian hockey team was defeated by Russia. In 1960, as hon. members well know we had the opportunity of regaining the Olympic hockey award but we did not do so to the dismay, discouragement and annoyance of Canadians everywhere. It is for that reason that we should possibly plan now to make a better showing when we play again. That is possibly one of the reasons why I am urging the minister and the hon. members in the chamber today to do something about the situation. It is no sin to lose. I do not think that is what is bothering Canadians. What is bothering them is the fact that the nation does not go to sufficient trouble to assemble and train the best that we have.
We know what took place with respect to our Canadian hockey club. At Squaw Valley we placed eighth out of 16 countries. As a country which should normally excel in winter sports we placed behind such countries as Austria, Norway and Finland. We secured less than half the points of Sweden and Germany and we gained about one fifth the points obtained by Russia.
After almost all of the international events, certainly after the Olympic games of 1948, 1952 and 1956 and after the event at Squaw Valley, considerable publicity was given to Canada's inadequate showing. Generally speaking, there are many who say that we have been left wallowing in the wake of some of the more energetic countries which have become activated by the spirit of competition. I hope in the days to come we can


make a better showing. Certainly when you sit in these large stadia outside of Canada you would like to see our contestants do well and go to these international shows properly clothed and equipped.
In the last ten years many countries refusing the role of also-rans have introduced development programs. The idea is to encourage many to take part and from the many more super-stars as a natural by-product will be produced. These countries have also set up a centralized coaching system. Certainly a study could be made through the proposed sports council of Canada's athletic needs and problems. Canadians like any other group like something to cheer about. Certainly it does something for our morale both nationally and individually.
How proud we all were to be Canadians -and I can certainly speak for those of us in western Canada-that day in 1928 when the lean and hungry Percy Williams popped the eyeballs out of the athletic world at Amsterdam. He became a national hero, and in his home town of Vancouver, in particular, he provided the spark and incentive to hundreds of school children to take an interest in track and field. The result has been that Vancouver annually stages the largest track and field meet in Canada. That credit, as I have indicated, is due to one performer who did so well in an international competition.
How proud we were as a nation of Anne Heggtveit of Ottawa for her great triumph at Squaw Valley. The same statement applies to Bob Paul and Barbara Wagner who did such a fine job in skating competitions. They certainly inspired to greater feats the other athletes assembled and, let us say, the small fry on rinks and ponds everywhere.
Canadians at the winter Olympics were provided with an emotional thrill through the victories of the people whom I have just mentioned. Because of their victories and their examples will not hundreds and hundreds more take up skiing and figure skating? Does anyone feel that because of Barbara Ann Scott fewer Canadians became interested in ice skating? Is not the morale of Canadians higher and thus is not Canada a better place in which to live because of the great achievement of these fine amateur athletes? Take away national pride and what have you left?
What we legislators and the various government departments must realize is that our citizens are interested not only in these international sports but in sports in general. What we must also realize is the substantial potential ability of our amateur sport ambassadors in improving public relations around

the world. Surely Barbara Ann Scott, Anne Heggtveit and so many others have left a lasting impression upon the peoples of the world that Canada is a place of nice people and fine things. How else do you become acquainted with a country? If our few sports ambassadors have left a good impression upon the minds of the nations overseas, have they not made it just that much easier for our Department of External Affairs?
Mr. A. D. White, who I believe is not now a coach at the University of Toronto but who was a very popular and successful coach, delivered an address to the Couchiching conference and when referring to the Olympic games he said this:
It appears that in Canada there is little understanding of the professional calibre of this international sports show in which our athletes seem so poorly equipped to compete.
One interesting observation was this. Some observers have interpreted our results at the games as an indication that the Canadian population is below par physically. I do not go along with the general notion that we are well below par. However, I think there is a real problem to be met. If we are below par physically then something ought to be done about it at an early date. I am sure that all hon. members and for that matter all ministers are tired of the appeals being made to them for federal funds to assist travelling clubs. The creation of a Canada sports council would not satisfy all of them by any means but at least the athletic governing bodies would be able to police themselves better and the essential things could be taken care of. That is what the Canada Council has found to date. That council could not and cannot take care of all appeals but certainly some of the essential appeals are being taken care of.
During a relatively short period I have received as I imagine have all hon. members, letters from various athletic clubs throughout the country. There was an appeal made by the team that represented Canada in Moscow in November, 1958. There was the appeal of the basketball team that represented Canada in Chile. There was the request for funds by the Canadian grass hockey team that played in half a dozen countries in Europe in 1959. All hon. members will recall the general appeal of the rugby team which left from Vancouver and toured Japan and made so many friends there. It made an equal appeal for funds but unfortunately, like the others, received nothing.
We all know about the plight of the Belleville McFarlands and the appeal for funds for the Canadian Pan-American games committee and the Canadian winter Olympics committee. In almost all of these cases the 79951-0-333
Supply-Health and Welfare Canadian team was seen abroad either in stadia or on television by millions of persons. During the Squaw Valley games the Columbia broadcasting system estimated the total television coverage reached an audience of some 66 million people. The cost to the C.B.S. company was $2 million. This, I submit, is in the realm of big business.
The Minister of Transport when being interviewed over a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation program in Toronto mentioned that some Canadian athletes are better known outside Canada than most prominent politicians.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Leader of the Opposition was denied a similar opportunity.


John Russell Taylor: Yes, I recall that. I may say that I have long been a follower of the Leader of the Opposition, and perhaps on some of these sports programs I would find it a pleasure to hear about some of the events he participated in so many years ago. I am very pleased he took the time to support this resolution and I feel sure that he will continue to support it, at least I hope he will.
Mr. Chairman, if you agree with me that our amateurs now perform before millions of persons and have the fortunate ability of assisting us in so many ways, what, might I ask, do we as federal legislators do for them, and in turn for the younger sports minded people of the country? I am not criticizing in any way the present administration or even the previous administration, but from almost time immemorial the senior government of Canada has been obliged to reject about 99.9 per cent of all appeals for financial assistance save and except the appeals of the Canadian Olympic association, which makes an appeal every four years.
For the 1956 Olympic games this house provided $60,000. That was provided by the previous administration. When it came to 1960 the present administration provided the same amount of money. But I want to point out that the $60,000 in 1960 had to be spread over three major international events, the one at Squaw Valley, part went to the PanAmerican games in Chicago, and part to the large sports event which is coming up in Rome later this year. I wish to point out that we provide such seemingly small sums for these international events, whereas in the field of entertainment, for example the C.B.C., we provide some $79 million. We also provide upwards of $1 million to the national gallery and many millions to the national film board. I feel that some of these sports ambassadors are doing the same job


The Chairman:: I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


John Russell Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it was a pleasure to speak on this subject again, and I hope the minister will do everything possible to assist.


Frank Howard: While I was listening to the discussion a moment ago I thought there had been a cabinet shuffle and I was about to offer my congratulations to the new minister of national health and welfare. But I see now the hon. gentleman was only substituting while the real minister absented himself for a moment or two.
I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Jasper-Edson and the hon. member for Welland, both of whom are practising medical men who have an intimate knowledge of the subject matter of this discussion. Many others of us can only attempt to understand in a vicarious way these questions affecting the health of the people of this nation. While, as I have indicated on other occasions, I believe that the health and physical welfare of our Canadian citizens is the most important national effort we have, and while the department, through its various branches deals extensively with the health and welfare of our people, I feel, especially in view of the fact that the hon. member for Timmins and the hon. member for Assiniboia have both dealt with the question of further promoting the health of our citizens, that I might, perhaps, leave further discussion of that subject at this stage and perhaps comment more extensively upon it when the individual items of the esitmates are before the committee.
I was interested in the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson, especially his reference to the need for an investigation into drug prices. The

Supply-Health and Welfare hon. member also mentioned the methods of advertising used in the drug industry. He was referring, of course, to the ethical drug industry. I want to say that we support him wholeheartedly in this regard. It is to this end that I should like to direct some of my remarks at this time.
There has been a good deal of discussion in recent months instigated by the remarks of hon. members of this house, by the so-called Kefauver committee hearings in the United States and by the inquiry presently being conducted by the combines investigation branch of our Department of Justice. Out of all this there has been probably more public information given about this industry both by the pharmacists themselves and by the manufacturers than has been available for a long time with regard to what the industry is doing and what it plans to do.
One of the main reasons for what I consider to be the unnecessary high cost of drugs is that the ethical drug manufacturers-and I cannot understand how that word "ethical" got in there in relation to them, but it is there -are obliged to spend a considerable amount of money each year on research and in developing new drugs. The high prices therefore are said to be necessary in order that they may recoup the investment on research before the product is replaced by products of better quality, or of a different type or of greater effectiveness. Now the drug directorate of the department prepared a statement in March of this year for presentation to the estimates committee, and I should like to refer to part of that statement which appeared on page 2 of the report in so far as the question of research is concerned in relation to the drug manufacturing industry in Canada. Under the heading "Research and Investigation" the report deals with the administration and enforcement within the department itself. Then it says:
It should be noted that there is almost no investigation work on foods carried out by the industry or the universities in Canada and only a few drug manufacturers have research laboratories in this country.
Just the other day a booklet came to my attention entitled "Facts about Pharmaceutical Manufacturing" and no doubt it was sent to every hon. member of this house as well as to myself. It is published by the Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers association, whose address is the King Edward-Sheraton hotel in Toronto. There are some passages in this booklet to which I should like to refer in relation to research in Canada. As to the Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers association about which I shall have something to say later, I would simply point out that

it is not a Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturing association. They are not Canadian but claim they are and make some reference to it. On page 9 of the booklet it is stated:
As we have noted, it costs money to bring a new drug or compound into being. Penicillin and the Salk vaccine each cost $20 million before they were available to the medical profession in quantity.
The inference is quite clear, that the drug manufacturing industry spent $20 million on the development of each of the drugs, Salk vaccine and penicillin. That is not true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government of Canada spent a lot of the taxpayers money on the development of Salk vaccine.


Frank Howard: The hon. member has stated the point I am making. The implication in the booklet is that this money was spent by the industry in the development of penicillin and Salk vaccine which is not in accordance with the facts. The discovery of penicillin had nothing to do with the drug industry in Canada or the United States. It was developed in the United States almost exclusively by the use of government funds. The same with Salk vaccine. The treasury of this nation put up the money to develop Salk vaccine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the United States it was developed out of the moneys collected by people through the march of dimes campaign.


Frank Howard: I appreciate that the hon. member for Essex East has a thorough understanding of this subject and if he wants to enter the debate in a formal way when I have concluded the committee will benefit from his experience and he could comment without interruption. However, if he attempts to continue at this time his presentation will be interrupted by me because I have the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I merely want to help, that is all.


Frank Howard: The drug manufacturing industry in Canada did not spend one red cent on the development of Salk vaccine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not completely correct.


Frank Howard: I know the industry spent some money after it was developed. However, now the situation is worse. My hon. friend has left his seat and is half way out the door.


Hazen Robert Argue: Now he is gone.


Frank Howard: Yes, he has left. The booklet goes on to state:
It is estimated that in North America this year the pharmaceutical industry will spend approximately $200 million on research and development-

Reference is then made to the distribution of that amount of money. The sum of $200 million is a considerable sum to spend on research and development. I do not have access to the financial statements of the companies concerned but the following statement casts some doubt on the validity of the previous quotation. In the 1958 issue of Consumer Reports there appears a statement by Mr. Chet Shaw, director of the health news institute, who addressed the American drug manufacturers' convention in 1956. I appreciate that there is a difference of four or five years in the figures. With reference to the amount of money spent on research Mr. Shaw is reported to have said:
We've done a lot of talking about an estimated $100 million-
Spent on research. I continue:
-but we'd be hard put to document it. What if someone questioned it-someone whose voice we couldn't afford to ignore?
Most research work is done in the United States. Generally speaking the amount reported to have been spent on research is not very great compared with the portion of the sales dollar that is spent on advertising to sell the product. I have in my hand the United States federal trade commission's economic report on antibiotics manufacture dated June of 1958. It is their policy not to refer to specific companies by name because this would disclose information about the companies and they are simply enumerated as company No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, etc. The report reveals that in 1956 company No. 1 spent 8.1 of the sales dollar on research and 26.4 per cent on advertising and selling; company No. 2 spent 13.9 per cent of the sales dollar on research and 24 per cent on advertising and selling; company No. 3 spent 7.9 per cent of the sales dollar on research and 28.1 per cent on advertising and selling; and company No. 4 spent 3.5 per cent of the sales dollar on research and 30.7 per cent on advertising and selling. In other words an average of between 8 and 9 times what was spent on research was spent by these companies on advertising and selling. Therefore the reference to the amount spent on research has been over-stated to a large extent.
I return now to the booklet published by the Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers association. They indicate that they are representative of 60 pharmaceutical manufacturing companies which are listed by name on page 20. By reference to Moody's directory and the industrial index I have discovered that only 3 of the 60 are Canadian. I find that 25 are subsidiaries wholly owned or controlled by United States pharmaceutical houses and others are subsidiaries of German,
22, I960	5275
Supply-Health and Welfare British, French or Swiss manufacturing concerns. When the booklet refers to money spent it is talking about money spent by the United States drug manufacturing industry, not the Canadian industry. The booklet also distorts the figures as I illustrated by referring to Salk vaccine and penicillin research.
In recent years there has been an intense and continuous search for a drug to retard the progress of cancerous growths and to cure this dread disease. I have examined university publications containing lists of gifts, bequests and grants and have here the one pertaining to the University of British Columbia. While it would appear that some contributions are received from certain drug manufacturing companies in Canada, in looking through reports of this type I have not been able to find one single instance where any drug manufacturing concern in Canada or the United States has contributed a cent toward cancer research in any of the universities of Canada. They may have done so but I cannot find that they have contributed a single cent to organizations such as the cancer research foundation.
I think it would be a tremendous asset to the health of our nation and in finding a drug or other method to curtail cancer if some of the money these companies say they are pouring into research could be directed toward finding some cure for cancer. It may well be that they spend funds along these lines within their own research establishments. I do not know about that and have not heard any reference to them doing so. However, a great deal of research work is done under sufferance through grants from government and individuals by the cancer research foundation and the universities, and I think the drug industry could provide some money for this work. They are not spending their money specifically on an attempt to make a major break through in the pharmaceutical field and do not have too good a record in this regard but are rather spending their money on developing additional uses for or refinements of drugs and pharmaceuticals that have already been developed to a great extent under public control.
I should like to deal with the question of quality control to some extent and refer to page 11 of this booklet issued by the Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers association. It will be recalled that its publication stems from the fight with regard to the purchase of brand name drugs or generically named drugs, the idea being that if you buy by the generic name you pay less than if you buy by the brand name, although that is not necessarily always the case. The association also says that generically named drugs

Supply-Health and Welfare are imported from other countries, notably Italy, where the manufacturers do not have the same standard of quality control as exists in the United States or Canada and therefore the drugs are of poor quality. On page 11 of the booklet I find the following:
The keynote of production and quality control is uniformity. The last batch of a pharmaceutical must be identical in every way with the first batch, even though years might separate them.
This leaves the impression that every time you buy a particular drug in a drugstore you are guaranteed that it is precisely the same in every way as when you bought the same drug four or five years ago or even longer. That is the impression they leave. They say that every batch meets certain standards over the years and that if I buy a certain pharmaceutical today there is a guarantee that in every way it is the same as when I bought it some time ago, even though I may not buy it in the same place. That is the impression that is being left and we know that is not so.
We know that variations are allowed by the food and drug directorate in their testing of drugs. We know that a drug may range from 90 per cent to 110 per cent or 115 per cent of the initial standard. There is a variation of 15 to 20 per cent from the norm set by the food and drug directorate. I am not trying to leave any false impression about the matter. I am merely trying to clear up what I think are incorrect impressions created by this booklet.
I know that some members of the committee are pharmacists and I am sure that the committee would be delighted as I would be if any of them would get up and give us their point of view because, so far as the drug question is concerned, I think they have been much maligned. It would be helpful if they would participate in the debate and explain their point of view as to this matter. As an aside, may I say that unfortunately for the pharmacist he is the person with whom the consumer deals. When a person is given a prescription he takes it to a pharmacist to have it filled and the pharmacist is the person to whom the customer pays $10, $15 or $20. Because the pharmacist is the one who deals with the patient, he is the one to whom the patient looks as being responsible for the high price of the drug. This is not so because the pharmacist is merely doing business. These are things that those members who are pharmacists could explain to us.
I should also like to deal with the question of advertising in the ethical drug industry. We know, of course, that the expression "ethical drug industry" means that they do not make drugs for sale directly to patients but for sale under prescription by a doctor

and through a pharmacist. Therefore they do not advertise in the normal sense of the word in that they are not trying to reach the consumer but rather the doctor, pharmacist or wholesaler, those people who are in between the consumer and the manufacturer. There is a difference in the advertising approach that is used.
While the advertising of proprietary medicines is, I understand, controlled pretty well and carefully checked by the food and drug directorate, advertising directed to doctors by the ethical drug industry is not controlled to that extent and there is no check as to the truth of the advertising. In this field perhaps I might call upon some comments by Professor Nickerson, professor of pharmacology and therapeutics at the University of Manitoba and Associate Professor Gemmell, associate professor of medicine at the University of Manitoba. These two gentlemen wrote an article which appeared in the Canadian medical association journal of April 1, 1959. It is entitled, "Doctors, Drugs and Drug Promotion". The article is five pages long and that is far too much for me to read.
However, I should like to make one or two references to the attitude and opinions of these two gentlemen, one a professor of pharmacology and the other an associate professor of medicine, with respect to what they think about the advertising approach of the drug manufacturing companies which, as I indicated earlier, spend from 25 per cent to 30 per cent of their sales dollar on advertising. Actually I have a reprint of the article here. I do not think I should ask the committee to listen to extensive reading but perhaps I might be permitted to make one or two references. I quote from the article:
A casual local survey during the past year revealed the following:
1.	A majority of physicians utilizing a "new" and effectively advertised analgesic did not know that it is simply the standard A.P.C. (acetylsalicylic acid, phenacetin and caffeine) plus a little barbiturate.
Apparently in the advertising this was represented to be a new and effective drug but was substantially the same as that which had been on the market for some time. Then the article says:
2.	Several physicians did not know the composition of the mixed electrolyte solutions they ordered by a simple number or letter designation. As a result, we have seen two recent patients with posttraumatic oliguria receiving potassium-containing solutions. Both died of potassium intoxication before renal function was re-established.
3.	A mixture of antimalarials and a steroid was administered for a dermatological condition without any appreciation of the amount of steroid in the mixture, and consequently without any

provision for gradual withdrawal to allow recovery of suppressed endogenenous pituitary-adrenal function.


Hazen Robert Argue: Look out.


Frank Howard: As long as I can wrap my tongue around them I will be all right.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are doing as well as the minister.


Frank Howard: I have been practising my reading. These are the results of the type of advertising in which the drug industry engages in trying to sell its products. It is something like an Alice in Wonderland approach; we will have the verdict first and the trial afterwards. As Professor Nickerson points out, it is the advertising department that will discover and establish the superiority of a particular product, not the drug manufacturing industry or the medical man himself. This is unfortunately the result of this intense concentration on the selling approach to advertising; the industry is trying to push particular products.
As I have said, I have only selected one or two excerpts from this particular article, and of course if we went into it in detail then the full article should be read, especially in view of the fact it is a scientific paper. Then my remarks could be related to the text of the article and a full appreciation gained of the points Professor Nickerson is making. I have quoted from the article because it refers time and time again to the advertising. At another point he says:
For example, the full significance of a recent promotional effort, which provided references to both efficacy and lack of toxicity, was not apparent until it was noted that the doses used in studies quoted to demonstrate the lack of toxicity were considerably lower than those used to substantiate efficacy.
References such as this are all through this particular article. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that I have perhaps run out of time. I had two or three other references I wanted to make on the question of advertising.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: That is the democratic reaction of the Conservatives, as I have noticed them in many places. As soon as a member who does not belong to their party indicates that his time is up, they are quite pleased. In any event, perhaps they should show the same appreciation when the Minister of Finance is speaking. Perhaps I will have an opportunity later to make some other remarks on this important subject. Perhaps my remarks will promote the entry into the debate of other people who are interested in this particular field and perhaps as a result
Supply-Health and Welfare of our exchange of views and attitudes we might come up with a more successful approach to this drug question than has been the case in the past two years.


Mr. Beech:: Mr. Chairman, I want to add my congratulations to those of other hon. members to the Minister of National Health and Welfare upon the splendid strides forward that have been made during the time he has had charge of this department. He has done such a good job that I hestitate to hold up the passage of these estimates. I hope he will excuse me for taking a few moments to speak on this subject because it is the only opportunity I have had during this session to make these remarks.
I am referring to the appeal for assistance for housing for elderly persons. I introduce this matter in the hope it will encourage the building of more accommodation for our elderly citizens by municipalities and service groups such as the Canadian Legion, Lions, Kiwanis and Rotary clubs. This is not to belittle in any way the progress that has been made since the limited dividend section of the National Housing Act was first introduced. In fact the success of these early developments has brought into being many such projects, sponsored by various agencies but all financed under the limited dividend section of the National Housing Act and administered by the sponsors. Since 1950 some 4,825 units have been approved and it is interesting to note that of this number 1,328 units were completed up to the end of 1956 and since that time, 3,497 units to the end of 1959; in addition to which there were 586 hostel beds provided in the province of Saskatchewan during the latter period.
The provinces in which they were approved are: New Brunswick, 16; Quebec, 993; Ontario, 1,837; Manitoba, 216; Saskatchewan, 860; Alberta, 124; British Columbia, 779. The amount of loans approved for these projects totalled $24,711,318, and the sponsors for the projects were as follows: city and municipality, 41; church or church groups, 7; private enterprises, 16; the Canadian Legion, 8; corps of commissionaires, 1; charitable organizations, 16; service clubs, 35. There are approximately 9,000 persons accommodated in these projects, including the hostel beds.
These figures indicate the growing interest in this problem by the people and the various governments. Indeed, the very acceptance by the public has only accentuated the need and desirability of this type of housing. What does this type of housing accomplish?
First, it provides housing for those who are in advanced years and still able to perform the necessary duties to maintain a home without supervision.
5278	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare
Second, it allows these senior citizens to have their own homes and live their own lives instead of living with sons or daughters who may be hard-pressed to provide a place for them or living in back rooms or attics.
Third, it provides accommodation at rents they can afford to pay, thus maintaining that feeling of independence which comes with the knowledge that they are paying their way.
Fourth, it gives them a feeling of security when they know they will not be asked to move at a landlord's whim.
Fifth, it gives them a feeling of content because of the design and comfort of the accommodation and the environment.
Sixth, it reduces the need for costly county homes for the aged.
Seventh, the first grants made are the only assistance needed with the exception of some aid in relation to taxes as the projects are self-sustaining.
Eighth, welfare costs in these projects are practically nil.
Ninth, it encourages the introduction of new sources of money into the housing field.
In this connection, I may say that the Canadian Legion branches in the Toronto area have been trying for some time to induce the trustees of the Ontario canteen fund to make grants for the purpose of erecting housing for elderly veterans or the widows of veterans. This fund still has some $470,000 which belongs to the veterans of world war I, and there is no better way in which to use these funds than to provide decent homes for them in their declining years. So far the appeals have not borne fruit but it is hoped that continued pressure by the veterans concerned will convince the board that the five cents required from them out of every dollar spent on such housing is the best investment that can be made.
I may also say that there are many trade unions that have many thousands of dollars in funds which could be spent for this purpose and not only provide housing for our elderly persons but also provide work for their members. I mention this to point out the type of funds that can be made available for this type of housing and encouragement should be given to the use of these funds for this purpose.
All of these points have been recognized by some provincial governments which made grants under the following legislation. In the province of British Columbia the act is cited as the elderly citizens' housing aid act and came into being on March 15, 1955. The main body of the act reads as follows:
Subject to an appropriation by the legislature for the purpose, and provided the plans have been


approved by the provincial secretary, the lieutenant governor in council may grant aid to a municipality or non-profit corporation incorporated for the purpose of providing homes for elderly citizens, to assist in the construction or reconstruction of low rental housing units for elderly citizens of low income who are unable to purchase adequate accommodation according to their needs.
The amount of such grant shall not in any case exceed one third of the total cost of construction or reconstruction: and no grant shall be made unless the municipality or non-profit corporation makes a cash grant towards the cost of construction or reconstruction equal to at least one tenth of the total cost of construction or reconstruction.
In the province of Manitoba the elderly persons housing act came into effect on March 15, 1956. The requirements under this act are somewhat more complicated but for the purpose of these remarks the following apply:
In the case of an elderly persons housing unit for two persons, 10 per centum of the capital cost of the construction thereof, but not exceeding $500.
In the case of an elderly persons housing unit for one person, 10 per centum of the capital cost of the construction thereof, but not exceeding $350.
In the province of Ontario an act to authorize provincial grants to assist in the erection of housing units for elderly persons came into effect on April 10, 1952.
The amount of any such grant shall be calculated at the rate of $500 for each dwelling unit or 50 per cent of the capital cost of the project to the municipality, whichever is the lesser.
The minister of public welfare may grant aid to any municipality to assist it in any project for the construction and equipment of low rental housing units for elderly persons.
This act was amended in 1952 as follows:
The minister of public welfare may grant aid to any limited dividend housing corporation that has been incorporated by or on behalf of a municipality or has been approved by a municipality and that has had a loan made to it under The National Housing Act, 1944 (Canada) to assist it in any project for the construction and equipment of low rental housing units for elderly persons.
The purpose of this amendment was to allow service clubs and other interested organizations to sponsor this type of housing and to assist in the obtaining of equipment such as stoves, refrigerators, Venetian blinds, et cetera, necessary for these developments.
I have been unable to find the legislation under which the province of Saskatchewan operates but from information gleaned from the report on social welfare and rehabilitation it would appear that this province has advanced up to 20 per cent of the total cost of housing projects for homes or lodges constructed by non-profit housing companies for the accommodation and care of aged, needy, infirm and blind persons.
I have mentioned these facts in order to point out that grants made for housing for elderly persons are made by the welfare

departments in various provinces. In addition to this assistance, most of the municipalities in which these projects are erected give substantial assistance either in the form of land grants or in a reduction of taxes. In metropolitan Toronto, for instance, the council makes grants to cover the cost of taxes over and above $25 per unit. These grants have been made and this assistance has been given all with the primary purpose of keeping the rents at a level the tenants can economically pay, and up until the last few years this assistance has been sufficient to achieve this purpose. Perhaps I should point out here that the rents on the earlier projects run from $18 a month up, depending on the percentage of grants made by the province. However, with the increased interest rates, cost of construction and cost of land, it is now impossible to develop these projects and rent them to people on old age pensions, war veterans allowances or low fixed incomes.
This brings me to the purpose of this appeal. In these days when it is so necessary to reduce the cost of government I believe that more attention should be given to increasing the value of the dollars paid out under social security measures. For instance, while it might be impractical at this time to increase old age pensions generally, grants to elderly persons housing would increase the value of the pensions of the tenants and assist the more needy section of our aged population. By doing the thing in this manner we would avoid what happened after the last increase was made in the old age pension when some landlords immediately increased their rents and so gobbled up the increase granted to these people.
The federal government has recognized the need for assistance to the provinces and municipalities by paying 50 per cent of old age security pensions, old age assistance, blind and disabled pensions; and it seems to me there could be no more worth-while assistance granted than that which would allow our senior citizens to obtain the type of housing I have been speaking about.
It is my firm belief that the costs of construction and financing of the more recent of these developments will eventually spell disaster for this plan which was designed to assist elderly persons with low incomes and which has worked so well and with such great benefit throughout the country, because when rents for this type of accommodation exceed $50 a month they are exceeding the amount which these people can afford to pay unless they have other income than the pension mentioned.
When I first spoke of this problem in this chamber it was my belief that perhaps a
Supply-Health and Welfare fixed rate of interest was the answer to the problem. This suggestion did not seem to be acceptable and so I am making the appeal to the same department that handles this type of assistance in the provinces, namely the Department of National Health and Welfare. This grant would be as in all cases, for the primary purpose of keeping the rents at an economic level and in no case to reduce the equity of the sponsors of such projects. Sufficient safeguards already exist to prevent the abuse of this type of assistance.
We cannot praise too highly the work being done by members of the limited dividend companies who sponsor and administer these projects, all of whom serve in an honourary capacity and who must be really dedicated to the work to which they are committed. The best way for this government and this committee to acknowledge the splendid work being done by these citizens, and to encourage others to do likewise, is to give them a tangible expression of our appreciation by making grants in the form I have mentioned. To this end I earnestly solicit the government's favourable consideration of this appeal.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have always been interested in health and welfare, and the older I grow the more my interest intensifies. First of all, before going on with the few remarks I wish to make, I must express my appreciation for the courtesy that has been extended to me by the minister when I have taken any matter up with him or have raised any question in the house. I must also express the appreciation of this group for the excellent work being done by his two deputies and his competent staff. The minister's staff in Ottawa and throughout Canada carries on quietly this excellent work, with all its ramifications and many divisions, and does so without glamour. I do not want to be misunderstood, Mr. Chairman. I am not suggesting that the department has not within it individuals with glamour. What I am suggesting is that its work is carried on officially without glamour. I have heard it whispered that there are members of the staff of the minister's department whose glamour is in such evidence that they have actually influenced the attitude of committees of the House of Commons. I therefore do not want to be misunderstood. When I say "without glamour", I mean as far as the scientific, administrative and technical work of the department is concerned.
By the way, in looking around, I am somewhat inspired and flattered by having a lady in front of me, one to the right of me and one to the left of me, all listening raptly while I volley and thunder. So I have a good start now.

Supply-Health and Welfare
The first movements in the direction of the modern state health, health insurance and other welfare plans and ramifications appeared toward the middle and latter part of the Victorian period in western Europe, and had their beginnings in Great Britain prior to 1900. Why? Because there were many new problems created in the development of industrial society and the increasing densities of population which were not so apparent previously. New conditions of poverty were created as the result of the development of industrial society which did not exist even under feudalism, where, with the exception in the case of crop failures, the people had a roof over their heads and good and sufficient plain food to eat.
It came to fruition with increasing rapidity after the turn of the century. While I appreciate that we must give credit to those persons in Great Britain w-ho had some influence in other countries of the British commonwealth, such as Kier Hardie-


Paul Joseph James Martin: And Cadbury.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Cadbury and Lloyd George. They were a small and devoted group of Labour and Liberal members of parliament to whom the British people owe a great deal in the development of their social security system.
The first legislation in Great Britain was in 1911 when there was passed the national insurance act. I read about that with interest at the time and I read some of the debates. That act was inspired by the activities of this small group led by the Right Hon. Lloyd George, assisted by people like George Bernard Shaw, the Cadburys, the Rowntrees, the Fry's and all the Quaker families who took some interest in social welfare in Great Britain at that time.
However, as far as Canada is concerned there has been a somewhat slower development, and understandably so. First of all, we have a more difficult problem in a country like Canada than in a unitary state like Great Britain to establish an over-all security scheme on a national basis. Our industrial development was later. We had a pioneer society much later than in Great Britain; in fact it has not entirely gone today, although I must say the spirit has gone in some quarters.
Anyway, the first official recognition by a political party of this question was at the famous Liberal convention of 1919. I do not think the hon. member for Essex East was in attendance. Possibly there might have been a little better result if he had been in attendance. But that was the first official recognition of the problem in Canada, and

we all know about the famous resolution which was passed at that convention.
However, very little was done, except in very limited national, provincial and municipal spheres, to look after the poverty stricken and those people next door who were going to the Salvation Army or rescue organizations, and things of that kind.
Then we had the Rowell-Sirois report of 1940. War brought about an interest in this subject. Then we had the Marsh report of 1943 and the House of Commons special committee on social security in 1944. I am sure the hon. member for Essex East was a member of that committee and took a very active part in it. Then the latest was the Clark report, which was tabled in the house on May 5, 1959, and according to the Prime Minister is still under study.
I had the report sent to my office, like other hon. members, but I simply did not have the time to wade through all that material so I took advantage of the opportunity to purchase a condensed copy of the report issued by the Canadian welfare council. I should like to congratulate them upon providing that condensed report because it is an excellent piece of work and contains the essential features of the other rather massive report. One can digest the facts contained in the condensed version very easily.
There was a great fanfare when the person was appointed who was going to make the investigation. He was told to do it as quickly as possible, but it took longer than expected. There is no doubt that a great deal of information is contained in the report which could have been obtained from the department. I am sure the former minister of national health and welfare will agree with me on that. Other information was gathered together, and I do not want to belittle anyone's efforts in this respect, but after all this fanfare we got a massive report without any recommendations contained in it. There were a few evaluations and hints and timid suggestions in various paragraphs but no definite recommendations, and we are still awaiting the decision of the minister and the government who are studying this report.
In addition to that I am safe in saying that studies of the reports have been conducted over quite a period of years by other professional and public bodies interested in helping Canada. I would also give credit to the work which has been done by prior governments. But it has all been done on a piecemeal basis, and possibly no one is to blame for that in view of the fact that these things have to be sold. They have to obtain common acceptance. Provinces have to be

dealt with and, as I said before, it is not quite as simple as dealing with this matter in a unitary state such as Great Britain or some of the other states in western Europe.
Then we have old age pensions, and hon. members will remember that the late J. S. Woodsworth was a very prominent figure in this sphere. We have had family allowances, unemployment insurance and health grants given us by the former Liberal government; and I have no hesitation in saying that I am quite confident that when the former minister of national health and welfare arrived here as one of the more radical members of the Liberal party, I think in 1935, he was one of the more aggressive members of that party at that time who did everything he could to urge the government in power to take action along the lines which was later taken with respect to family allowance, unemployment insurance, health grants and so on.
That was a step forward and this legislation has been of great benefit to many people. But the big weakness today is that this has all been done on a piecemeal basis and we in the C.C.F. group say that what we want is an over-all social security system in Canada.
This action which was taken by the former government was spurred on by representations from farmers organizations, labour organizations, women's organizations, various groups from universities and various other devoted groups throughout Canada as well as devoted individuals who all took an interest in this problem throughout the years. Today we have on the statute books the legislation which' was passed by this parliament, largely under the auspices of the former Liberal government. In that respect at least they were following up the traditions of the Right Hon. Lloyd George.
However, we say that more should be done and that more should have been done prior to this. Up to a few years ago people were opposed to over-all security and national health insurance on financial grounds. They said it was impracticable, impossible. That phase has passed entirely as the result of the experience in Great Britain. We all recognize the accomplishments of the British health service and legislation providing over-all security. No aspect of the peaceful revolution brought about by the British Labour government is more dramatic than their health services legislation and their social security legislation, and X must say that is to the everlasting credit of the pioneers I mentioned previously.
The Labour government which was elected after 1945 gave, I think, the lead to the British commonwealth of nations with respect to national health insurance and social security. In a matter of a few years the old style
Supply-Health and Welfare fee for sickness system has been converted into a new style socialist free health service.
Whether hon. members like it or not, a free health service available to everyone in Britain, including visitors, is accepted beyond doubt and there is no need to search for socialist opinion in support of this view. I want to quote two authorities to indicate how solidly this idea is based in Britain and in the west European countries and how great is the need for action on the part of the present government. I have read some of Sir Winston Churchill's speeches when he was a member of the Tory party early in the century, and the Tory party took a very strong stand against suggestions by various Labour and Liberal members such as I have mentioned. But I want to read a quotation from the converted Right Hon. Winston Churchill. He said in the United Kingdom House of Commons in March of 1943-and the war had a definite impact on the thinking of even Conservatives in Britain and most countries with respect to this question:
Anyone can see what large savings there will be in administration once the whole process of insurance has become unified, compulsory and national.
Here is a real opportunity for what I once called "bringing the magic of averages to the rescue of millions." Therefore you must rank me and my colleagues as strong partisans of national compulsory insurance for all classes, for all purposes, from the cradle to the grave.
I quote that statement with some relish because you still get a remnant of Victorian sentiment criticizing people who suggest that when we aim to produce security from the cradle to the grave we are going to make a soft, coddled nation. Here is one of the most distinguished figures in our history, and one who cannot be accused of coddling anyone, recognising that in an industrial society this type of overall security is imperative and necessary.
I also want to quote from the London correspondent of the Wall Street Journal of November 27, 1951 just after the Labour government had been elected in Great Britain. This is what I read:
-one pillar of socialism-'socialized medicine'- is certain to remain intact. .. The "free" health service set up by the late Labour government is so popular that it can no longer be made a political issue here.
Now I want to tell the committee of an interesting conversation I had with Mr. Rab Butler, who was, I think, at that time chancellor of the exchequer. Mr. Butler, in addition to being a very charming individual, is a very progressive type of Conservative which is more than I can say for some members of the Conservative party we see on the opposite side of the house. British Conservatives are really progressive both in national and international affairs and I am sorry I

Supply-Health and Welfare cannot say the same of all the Progressive Conservative party members who sit in this chamber. I was chaffing him about the attitude of the Tory party when I was a boy, a long time ago, about its antagonism to over-all social security and national health insurance. I said: Mr. Butler what is the attitude of the Conservative party now? This was shortly after the election in 1950 or 1951; I am not sure of the date. I asked him what the attitude of the party was then in view of its record with regard to the national health insurance and over-all security legislation which the Labour government had built up. He said: Mr. Herridge, the national health insurance plan and social security in Great Britain meets a need in a modern industrial society. It has served a great purpose and it is performing a great function in the nation. Its retention is demanded by the great majority of the British people. When you ask me to tell you what is the policy of the Conservative party with respect to national health insurance and social security, I simply put it in these words: It is the aim of the Conservative party in Great Britain to continue to improve it.
I offer that suggestion to the minister and his colleagues when they come to deal with legislation concerning old age pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowances and other pension legislation which is sought and which is considered desirable for the welfare of Canadians.
Having said that, I want to go off on a somewhat different tack from the one which is usually expected of an hon. member speaking on these estimates. I do it because of my work with a certain organization which has not received sufficient recognition from this chamber or from Canada generally. I refer to the Canadian welfare council of which I have been a member for some years. As a matter of fact, I have taken a good deal of interest in health insurance and welfare services for many years. I was a director of a hospital for 18 years and I have been on relief committees during the depression. In addition I have operated a sort of one-man welfare service on occasions.
On one occasion, in order that hon. members may be able to see the type of assistance which I was able to provide, may I say a young lady wrote to me asking for assistance in deciding which of two young men she should marry. It appears she was in love with both. I wrote to her saying that I did not wish to risk either her future or my own by advising her definitely in favour of one or the other of the candidates for her affection. But I did eventually advise her to observe a cooling off period of six months, at the end of which time I felt confident she would be in a better position to make up

her own mind. As a matter of fact this was exactly what she did. I forgot all about this incident until I was on a visit to a town in my constituency, and as I was coming out of one of the public buildings a young lady rushed up to me and said: You are Mr. Herridge aren't you? I said I was, and she said to me: I want to thank you for the wonderful advice you gave me. Then she took me over to her car which was nearby and there in the back were four children.
That is just by way of example of the manner in which I sometimes function as an unofficial welfare officer. Perhaps I might tell the committee of another occasion on which I was able to be of assistance to people in difficulty with the welfare authorities. I can recall an occasion when a small farmer was being questioned by a relief officer. The man was in possession of a few cows-four or five cows, I believe-and a small quantity of hay. The relief officer was pressing the owner of the cows to explain why he did not sell the hay. I said: He uses the hay to feed the cows, and the officer said: Oh, I did not think of that.
But I see my time is slipping away, and I want to put on record the basic principles of the welfare council which I think are worth putting on the record:
The responsibility of government to provide financial assistance to those lacking the basic necessities of life should be stated in legislation. Such legislation should, among other things, define eligibility for assistance and provide for the establishment of eligibility tests. This would aid in securing impartial administration and lessen the number of people who, even in circumstances of dire need, will not apply for assistance because in their minds there is a stigma attached to it.
The legislation should make provision for the right of the applicant to appeal and, while it safeguards the interests of the person in need, should clarify the authority of the administration to give assistance.
The assistance given should be sufficient to maintain the health and welfare of the recipients. If society does not provide this minimum, the results of its policy will be physical, mental and social breakdown which will in the long rim be more costly to the community.
We in this group say amen to that statement of basic principles. Over the years the council has worked unobtrusively. It has had a devoted number of members, officers and governors interested in the problem and representing a cross section of Canada. The list of members for 1959-60 contains about a hundred names and I see the names of prominent industrialists, church people, people engaged in church work and social welfare work as well as well-known socialists, Liberals and Conservatives.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And well-known businessmen.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes. I give credit to these people who have a social conscience and who

recognize that this is a problem that must receive consideration, not only by governments but by organizations such as this and others throughout the country. Indeed, the problem has received consideration by farm organizations, women's organizations, labour organizations, other organizations and devoted individuals.
The Canadian welfare council published a policy statement adopted at the annual meeting held June 2, 1958. I understand the policy statement still stand's although more emphasis was contained in the final recommendation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I referred to it this morning.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to know that for once I am following in the steps of the hon. member for Essex East instead of him following in mine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are walking along parallel roads.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I hope I am walking on the road to over-all social security.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am walking on the road to Damascus.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member suggests that he has just seen the light. Not everyone will agree with these recommendations but I think it is worth while to read them. They are:
1.	The present universal flat rate pension commencing at age 70 should be retained.
2.	Consideration should be given to arrangements which would enable certain classes of people in the 65-69 age group to qualify for the old age security pension.
3.	Provision should be made for a continuing review and periodic consideration of adjustment in the amount of the universal flat rate pension on the basis of adequate statistical data relating to such important factors as minimum needs and levels of expenditure of older people.
4.	Financial assistance should be made available by the provinces to all persons 65 and over who are in need, with federal sharing of benefit costs.
5.	A joint parliamentary committee should be established to study the question of contributory wage-related old age benefits in addition to the universal pension and to make recommendations to parliament.
6.	Whether or not a compulsory contributory old age pension program is developed, the dominion government should lay down appropriate standards for private pension plans in connection with which income tax deductions are granted.
7.	There should be a federal public assistance act which would be, in effect, an extension of the Unemployment Assistance Act and which would enable the dominion government to share the aggregate costs to a province, and to the municipalities in a province, of providing financial assistance to all persons who are in need. The Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons' Allowances Act, and the Disabled Persons' Allowances Act should be incorporated as specific sections of this general public assistance act. The proposed act should, under these sections, provide the provinces with the option of continuing old age assistance,
Business of the House blind persons' allowances and disabled persons' allowances as separate programs, or of incorporating these categories in a generalized public assistance program with the same provisions respecting the sharing of costs as in the Unemployment Assistance Act.
8.	The operation of all public assistance programs should be based upon sound and clearly defined standards, particularly with respect to amount of assistance, etc.
9.	The basic assumptions underlying the Unemployment Insurance Act and the regulations pertaining to it should be reviewed in the light of experience and of changed conditions since the system was established and should, where necessary, be revised.
10.	Unemployment insurance coverage should be extended to include as many of the uncovered groups as possible.
11.	The ratio of benefits to earnings under the Unemployment Insurance Act should be increased. _ 12. The services provided by the unemployment insurance commission should be improved. Particular attention should be given to the need to strengthen the staff and administration, especially of the special placements section.
13.	More attention should be given to the problem of long term unemployed and marginal workers who find difficulty in obtaining satisfactory placements in a competitive labour market, but who may have the capacity and potential to profit from training.
14.	Adequate health services should be an Integral part of public assistance programs and as such, should be eligible for federal sharing of costs.
15.	Consideration should be given to the establishment of a cash sickness benefit program or programs.
16.	A program of benefits without a needs test should be instituted for dependent survivors.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what the business will be for tomorrow and Friday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we shall carry on with estimates, Mr. Speaker. Responding to requests we will postpone taking the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources until later on. We will continue tomorrow with the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Depending on the length of time we spend on that department we will follow with the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of Justice. The estimates of the Department of Transport will be available for either Thursday or Friday.
I may have to ask the house for some slight change at the conclusion of the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare depending on various circumstances that may arise tomorrow. There will not be any change in the departments I have named but perhaps a change in the order.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question pi#, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions