1961-06-24

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, on this day of "St. John the Baptist", may I associate myself with my French speaking fellow Canadians to pay tribute to their patron saint and to again recall in this parliament the contribution of French Canadians to our national life in all its aspects.
I should like to draw a lesson from the life of St. John the Baptist, who was beheaded for his indefectible courage in the defence of freedom and in denouncing the ways of the tyrant of the day. Today, when as a result of the historic evolution of peoples, western nations are faced with the task of defending man's fundamental freedoms, all Canadians need to feel united and draw from their traditions the courage and inspiration required to overcome the problems that may arise and hamper their common efforts for the establishment of a strong and prosperous nation, and full development of all its resources and possibilities.
(Text):
It is fitting as well, Mr. Speaker, to recall that today is Discovery day in Newfoundland. We offer common tribute to the people of Newfoundland who, by joining confederation, have given to all Canadians the right and privilege of claiming a share in their history.
(Translation):
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, like the Prime Minister, I should like also to call the attention of the house to an important event in the life of French Canadians: the celebration of St. John the Baptist day, in honour of their patron saint. Throughout French Canada, this feast day is celebrated with joy and enthusiasm. Not only in the province of Quebec are there joyous demonstrations-especially in Montreal, that big city, where is staged every year a parade of floats-to stress the importance of this patron saint's day, but also elsewhere in Canada.
I am just back from western Canada and in Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan, St. John the
Baptist day was being celebrated this year. In Cornwall, Ontario, the French week will conclude with the celebration of St. John the Baptist day.
Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that our patron saint's day should thus be celebrated because its purpose is to show that French Canadians are strongly attached to their language and religion. As long as our two cultures, the French and the English, can flourish without hindrance, we will have unity and peace, because they are the prerequisites of the progress and development of the whole country.
I should also like to call attention to the anniversary of the discovery of Newfoundland of which the Prime Minister spoke a few minutes ago. On this occasion, we should like to associate ourselves with our fellow citizens of that province and offer them our best wishes.
(Text):


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of this group I wish to say that we join with the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Laurier in their comments and their recognition of this day so important to Canadians of French origin. I can well appreciate what it means to them, because I know that on their part it is the counterpart of what St. George's day means to many other Canadians. I wish them a happy and successful day in all parts of Canada where this occasion is celebrated.
(Translation):


Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on behalf of my French speaking fellow citizens for the good wishes he just tendered to us French Canadians. I also very much appreciate the wishes expressed by the hon. members for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge).
The holiday we are celebrating today in Quebec gives us an opportunity of stopping a few moments, not only to recall our history, but also to note that we now look forward to the future with greater confidence, as the Canadian people today are more and more converging towards a well-conceived and well-applied national unity.
I therefore tender all my English speaking fellow members the most sincere thanks of my countrymen for the regard they expressed today on the occasion of our national holiday.

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


Mr. John R. Malheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, as a Scottish Protestant may I associate myself with the remarks that have been made. I am sure all of us are moved by them. We also note with satisfaction the words from Maria Chapdelaine, selected by the incomparable Leonard Brockington in today's magazine section of the Globe and Mail.
(Translation):
May I suggest that, in this country, no one particular ethnical or religious group can claim sole possession of even its own treasures. These are the heritage of all those who are prepared to acknowledge their value.
(Text):



REPORTED FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES RESPECTING FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the statement he made yesterday in answer to a question concerning Senator Courtemanche, in which he said he had ensured that all ministers should be dissociated in every way from directorships in companies or associations dealing with the government, was the Prime Minister aware that in the Parliamentary Guide for 1960 under "Henri Courtemanche" it is clearly stated that Mr. Courtemanche was a director of l'Hopital Jean-Talon?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I have not the record before me at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but I think Mr. Courtemanche ceased to be a member of the house on January 8, 1960.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Has the minister or the officials of his department received a letter from Mr. Guay, secretary of the royal commission on the Jean Talon hospital, or from a representative of that commission, including a transcript of the evidence relating to the Hon. Henri Courtemanche?
(Text):


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday about noon we received in the office of the deputy minister of justice a copy of a transcript of the proceedings of Friday, a week ago yesterday. We have not yet received copies of the transcripts of the subsequent proceedings relating to Senator 
Courtemanche but, as the Prime Minister advised the house yesterday, in the letter asking for this first transcript we also requested to be provided with copies of transcripts of any subsequent proceedings in which Senator Courtemanche was involved.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given by the Prime Minister to my previous question, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would care to comment on the fact that the Parliamentary Guide for 1959 lists Mr. Courtemanche as a director and treasurer of l'Hopital Jean Talon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member is entering the field of cross examination rather than seeking information. The Parliamentary Guide is available to all members. In effect the hon. member is asking whether the Prime Minister read the Parliamentary Guide, I suppose, at a certain time. It does not seem to me that is a question which should be asked.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister made a statement to the effect that ministers of the crown would not be associated with directorships in companies. This morning I asked whether the Prime Minister was aware that in the Parliamentary Guide of 1960 Mr. Courtemanche was listed as a director and treasurer of l'Hopital Jean Talon, to which the Prime Minister replied that in 1960, as far as his memory was concerned, Mr. Courtemanche was no longer a member of parliament but had been sent to the other place. My question is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I comprehend all those facts which the hon. member has repeated, but it seems to me that rather than asking for information the hon. member is seeking to cross-examine or debate the earlier statement which the Prime Minister made. There is a more appropriate time to do that than on the orders of the day.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I wish to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Essex East concerning the supply of munitions to Portugal.
As the house is aware, Canada has a mutual aid program which was designed for the purpose of helping our European NATO allies build up their capacity to resist aggression. It is carried out under NATO sponsorship, and allocations are made on the basis

of recommendations from the central NATO military and civilian authorities.
Under this program Canada has given assistance to Portugal. Such assistance has been provided on the understanding that it should be used only to strengthen the capacity of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to defer or resist aggression, and only for the defence of the NATO area as defined in article 6 of the North Atlantic treaty. This understanding has been formally communicated to all countries, including Portugal, which have received Canadian mutual aid.
There have been no deliveries of munitions to Portugal since November 1960.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement made by Mr. Jacobsson, managing director of the international monetary fund, that gold speculators in the United States, Canada and other countries are inventing and spreading rumours about currency changes that are damaging the economies of the countries in question, would the minister inform the house whether he has any knowledge of activities of gold speculators in Canada?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: None in particular, Mr. Speaker. Purchases and sales of gold are undoubtedly going on in many markets the world over, and those who are engaged in such transactions no doubt are interested in whatever plans various countries may have in relation to currency changes.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? I asked the minister a question along these lines yesterday in order to ascertain whether Mr. Rasminsky informed Mr. Jacobsson of the minister's intention prior to the presentation of the budget.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought I made myself clear yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when in reply to a similar question I told my hon. friend that Mr. Rasminsky was in Washington on Tuesday and Wednesday. He had talked to Mr. Jacobsson and I believe to other members of the executive board of the international monetary fund. I did not have the precise times of
Inquiries of the Ministry these discussions, but I understood these discussions did take place on Tuesday and Wednesday.


William Moore Benidickson: There is some significance that I think the minister is overlooking, as to whether or not this information was given before or after his presentation of the budget. I hope that perhaps by Monday the minister could ascertain whether the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada did or did not inform the international monetary fund's director of the minister's intention before the presentation of the budget.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, let there be no question about that matter. There are contacts frequently with Mr. Jacobsson in regard to various questions of interest to the international monetary fund. Mr. Rasminsky, as Canada's member on the international monetary fund board, had permission to discuss with Mr. Jacobsson any of these matters that might be thought to be of interest to the international monetary fund authorities.


William Moore Benidickson: Will the minister please be so good as to be precise on Monday?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall be glad to get that information, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure the hon. member that it will not have significance as far as the point he is pursuing is concerned. Mr. Rasminsky and I had discussed this question and he had authority to have such discussions as might be desirable with the authorities of the fund.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a related question. In view of the fact that it is proposed on Monday to debate the act respecting the Bank of Canada, will the minister consider getting the information and replying to my starred question on Monday in order that this information will be available for the debate?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I asked the officials of the Department of Finance yesterday to obtain that information. I cannot guarantee that it will be available, but we will do our best.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he can inform the house when the order of the house relating to notice of motion No. 142, which was passed on Wednesday, June 7, will be complied with. The order requests the production of the list of awards to veterans made by the Newfoundland commission government. It is a very short list; I think there are only about 18 names or 19 names on it.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will check on that matter and give an answer later.


John Whitney Pickersgill: While the Secretary of State is doing that checking, I wonder whether he would mind checking in order to find out how soon it is proposed to make a return to two motions adopted in this house some time ago with respect to the tabling of orders in council for which there was no legal authority. Presumably there are such orders or the motion would not have been adopted by the house. I think it would be most interesting to have this particular matter accelerated.


Noël Dorion: I will check on the matter, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I wonder whether I might raise an urgent matter with the Prime Minister. I regret that I was unable to give him notice, but I have only now received a wire. I understand that a Mrs. Maloney is being held in Oakalla prison without benefit of bail and that she is in danger of being deported from Canada at any moment. Is the Prime Minister in a position to assure us that Mrs. Maloney will not be deported until she has had adequate legal aid?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing about Mrs. Maloney. I will have the question looked into.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Prime Minister whether, particularly in view of the fact that today is Discovery day in Newfoundland and that on this day in an area very close to the place where Canada was discovered in 1497 there are really quite serious and possibly disastrous fires burning, the government of Canada would consider joining with the government of Quebec in offering any assistance it might be possible to give in the fighting of those fires.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of National Defence might reply to that


question. That department is always ready to give assistance, and I am sure the minister has something to say in this connection.
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, I received information just before coming into the house that Newfoundland has asked for help from the Royal Canadian Navy and the R.C.A.F. They have asked for both personnel and vehicles to fight forest fires in the vicinity of the northern portion of the St. John's area. Eastern command Halifax has instructed the Newfoundland area commander, Brigadier Morres, to make arrangements to honour the request to every degree feasible by the resources of the R.C.N. and R.C.A.F. that are there and able to be used.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to thank the minister for his reply and say that I am sure his attitude will be greatly appreciated.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Perhaps it could be taken as notice, but I prefer to give him notice now because of the urgency of time. I have been receiving a great many telegrams, letters and telephone calls about a condition in the Post Office Department respecting postal employees who are required to work on Saturday, July 1. Because of some apparent uncertainty as to the exact provisions, would the minister advise the house what allowance by way of overtime pay or extra leave will be granted to postal employees who are required to work on Saturday, July 1?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do so. I might point out to the hon. member that some days ago a directive covering this matter went out to all our offices across Canada explaining the situation to those who are directly concerned. Of course I will be delighted to try to explain this to the hon. member with the hope that he will eventually be able to understand.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should add that it is that directive that has caused the uncertainty and confusion.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may address a question to the senior parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, and ask him whether on one of his recent rare visits to the house and to the capital the minister has had the time to bring the question of compensation in respect to potato rot in Prince Edward Island about which he made promises over two months ago, to the attention of his colleagues.


An hon. Member:: We do not get anything for tommyrot.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: The minister answered that question very favourably the other day when you asked it. I suggest that the hon. member just wants to get his name in Hansard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That answer is not very complimentary to the potato growers.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since housing starts seasonally adjusted have declined since February of this year, has the government any plans to reverse this trend, such as the lowering of National Housing Act interest rates?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I seem to recall that the hon. gentleman objected to information being given in regard to housing starts the other day.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, if I may say so with respect, the matter you are referring to was a matter of statistics, and the matter I am now referring to is one of policy which has resulted in a decline in housing starts, despite the figures which have been given to the contrary, because the seasonal adjustment shows that these starts are down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will appreciate that matters of policy are not declared on orders of the day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or any other time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.
90205-6-442
Supply-Health and Welfare



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
255. Departmental administration, $1,821,267.
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minisier of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Chairman, in line with my usual practice I propose to make a brief general statement in opening the committee's consideration of the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
As hon. members will note from the blue book, we are budgeting for a total expenditure in the fiscal year 1961-62 of approximately $1,600 million. This represents an increase of close to $150 million or roughly 10 per cent over the previous 12-month period. A customary feature of the department's annual spending program is the predominance of statutory expenditures. This is again apparent in our proposed outlays for 1961-62, in which statutory items amount to about $1,500 million or 94 per cent of the grand total.
Here the main components are: $606,600,000 for payments required under the Old Age Security Act; $523 million for payments required under the Family Allowances Act; $270 million for the federal share of costs under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act; $45,100,000 for federal contributions under the Unemployment Assistance Act; $30,900,000 for payments to the provinces under the Old Age Assistance Act; $16,600,000 for payments to the provinces under the Disabled Persons Act; and $4,200,000 for payments to the provinces under the Blind Persons Act.
Such statutory items account, as I have said, for 94 per cent of our projected total outlays for the fiscal year 1961-62. The remaining 6 per cent or $96 million represents items to be voted by parliament. These include: $47 million for payments to the provinces under the national health grants; $25 million for Indian and northern health services; $8 million for emergency health, welfare and training services; $3,700,000 for quarantine, immigration medical and sick mariners services; $2,300,000 for administration of the Food and Drugs Act; and $2,400,000 for laboratory and advisory services.
Looking at the increase in departmental outlays for 1961-62, statutory items account for $141,100,000 of the $150 million total increase. By far the most important factor is an additional $103 million required for the hospital insurance and diagnostic services program. This is to take care of anticipated increases in expenditures including the first full year of federal contributions under the agreement signed with the province of Quebec which became operative on January

Supply-Health and Welfare 1, 1961. The remaining $38,100,000 increase will cover the normal year to year growth of the various statutory welfare benefits which are paid either fully by the dominion government or on a sharing basis with the provinces.
Of the over-all $8,900,000 increase in voted items, $5 million relates to the national health grants and chiefly to the acceleration of hospital construction projects. The $2,600,000 increase in emergency health, welfare and training services is required largely for completion of phase 1 of the transportable hospital program. The net increase of $590,000 for Indian and northern health services is associated with the further expansion of services provided by that directorate.
This, then, is the broad outline of the department's spending program for the fiscal year 1961-62 which, as I have pointed out, totals close to $1,600 million. As hon. members are aware, there are a number of important policy steps which have recently been implemented in connection with my department. These include a new narcotic control act, an amendment to the Food and Drugs Act with reference to the so-called goof ball problem, and the announcement of the membership and terms of reference of the royal commission on health care.
In this regard, it has been most gratifying to the government to note the generally favourable reaction which these steps have evoked throughout the country. This is particularly evident in relation to the comprehensiveness of the study outlined in the terms of reference of the royal commission. On this point, we have felt that it would be unwise to attempt to examine any particular aspect in isolation, since health services are interdependent and must be closely integrated.
For example, the committee will note that the terms of reference not only envisage a close study of health services but also focus attention on the importance of training of professional and technical personnel and related medical research. This is to ensure that health services in Canada keep pace with developments in medical science which in turn will provide the highest possible quality of health care for all Canadians.
As far as the commission itself is concerned, I know the committee will welcome the fact that such a distinguished group of Canadians have been willing to set aside their ordinary activities in order to serve the country in a matter of such great importance. Under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Hall I am sure the study will proceed with all possible dispatch.
I should like to say a few words about the hospital insurance and diagnostic services


program, which is now in operation throughout Canada. As hon. members will recall, the twelfth and final agreement was signed with the province of Quebec in December, 1960 and became effective January 1, 1961. While not all the provinces have as yet fully implemented the federal legislation with respect to insured out-patient services, we have reached the stage where some 18 million Canadians are eligible for coverage for basic in-patient hospital and diagnostic services.
From the point of view of my department, our estimated contribution to provincial programs for 1961-62 is $270 million. This, as I said, represents an increase of $103 million over the original estimate for 1960-61. The bulk of the increase is due, of course, to the fact that the province of Quebec, with a population of some 5,200,000, will be participating for the first time over a full 12-month period. Federal advances in this regard have been set at something over $72 million. In addition, an allowance has to be made for the final adjustment with the provinces for the calendar years 1959 and 1960, as well as for expected rises in costs associated with such factors as increasing bed utilization owing to increased numbers of hospital beds and growing population.
If I might be permitted to go back to the fiscal year 1960-61 for a moment, the house will recall that our original estimate of federal contributions was $167 million. As things turned out, this was on the low side. It did not include, for example, the participation of Quebec during the first three months of 1961 which, of course, could not have been foreseen when the calculations were made. This has involved federal outlays of some $13,900,000. When allowance is also made for increases in the cost of hospital operations generally, the total federal contribution for 1960-61 amounted to $189 million.
I turn now to the national health grants. Hon. members will note a change in their presentation in the blue book. For 1961-62 they have been split up into two separate votes, general health grants and hospital construction grants. Formerly they were all under one vote but under separate headings. The new arrangement, I would point out, is merely for greater administrative convenience. As the committee is aware, there are certain differences between hospital construction grants and the other grants, particularly the fact that funds outstanding under the former are subject to annual revote while those under the latter lapse at the end of each fiscal year. In view of such considerations, it has been felt more appropriate to have them appear under separate votes.
I wish to say a word now about polio vaccine. The dominion government has, of

course, played an important part in the nation-wide Salk immunization program. Some $6 million in federal funds has been contributed toward the cost of producing the vaccine, and the same kind of support is now being given the development in Canada of the new Sabin-type live polio virus vaccine. This oral vaccine is being manufactured in Canada at the Connaught medical research laboratories in Toronto, and plans are under way at the institute of microbiology and hygiene in Montreal for similar production. Federal financial support in this regard has already amounted to over $250,000. While it is still too early to assess the results of various demonstrations conducted in different parts of Canada, indications so far have been favourable. Because, however, of certain technical difficulties, licensing of the vaccine is still a matter which is under review.
Another development in connection with my department's health activities merits brief mention. This was the opening on January 16, 1961 of a new 80-bed general hospital at Inuvik, Northwest Territories. Costing close to $2 million, the hospital provides an important additional link in our far flung services for Indians, Eskimos, and other residents of the north. It will cover primarily the Mackenzie river delta, and brings to 22 the total number of hospitals operated by our Indian and northern health services.
On the welfare side of my department's operations, it will be noted that this continues to account for the great bulk of our annual expenditures. In fact cash benefit programs such as family allowances, old age security and various joint federal-provincial pension arrangements add up to $1,200 million out of our total budget of $1,600 million.
For 1961-62 our expenditures for old age security are expected to reach some $600 million. This substantial amount is due not only to the steady increase in the number of recipients but also to the higher rate of benefits paid now as compared with the amount provide at the time the program was inaugurated. Indeed, of the amount now involved, approximately $165 million is due to the increase in benefits from $40 to $55 a month.
A further point worth mentioning is the current state of the old age security fund. In the fiscal year just completed, revenues from the three earmarked taxes were sufficient to meet benefit payments. For the first time in the history of the program it was not necessary to resort to loans to make up a deficit. This is a most encouraging development, and means that old age security has at last achieved the original objective of financing on a pay as you go basis.
90205-6-442J
Supply-Health and Welfare
As hon. members will recall, an important change was introduced in the program last year. I refer to the new provision permitting qualified old age security recipients to draw pensions while residing outside Canada even on a permanent basis. This move was very well received throughout the country and has, I believe, been of substantial value to many pensioners who for one reason or another have chosen to leave Canada.
It is interesting to note the number of persons who have taken advantage of the amendment. As of April 30, 1961, 6,758 pensioners were receiving old age security benefits out of the country. This represents three quarters of 1 per cent of the total number benefiting under the program. Of these out of country recipients, 1,357 were residing in the United Kingdom, 4,536 in the United States and 865 in other countries of the world. As I have pointed out the legislation now permits payments to qualified pensioners who are absent indefinitely. According to our latest figures, 2,777 pensioners have been away from Canada beyond the period of six months. This is one third of 1 per cent of the total number of recipients.
At this point it might be of interest to see where Canada stands in relation to other federal states of the western world in the matter of cash benefits for senior citizens. In 1959-60 our expenditures, including old age security and old age assistance, represented 2.45 per cent of the net national income. In the same year, payments in Australia accounted for 2.33 per cent of national income and in the United States for 2.66 per cent. The latter includes both the O.A.S.I. and old age assistance programs. This small differential between the United States and Canada is particularly significant when you consider that per capita personal income in the United States is almost a third higher than in Canada.
Before leaving the matter of benefits for senior citizens I should perhaps add that the government is continuing its examination of various approaches to old age income security. This includes of course matters such as portable pensions, the Clark report, and developments in other countries. In view of the growing interest on the part of labour, management and a number of provinces in the provision of more adequate private pension arrangements, this area has been receiving particular consideration. As hon. members are aware, the Minister of Finance in his latest budget statement indicated that the government has decided to ask the cooperation of the provinces to deal with the solvency and portability of private pension plans. We consider that there is room for

Supply-Health and Welfare more widespread expansion of these plans on a secure basis, and are prepared to work with the provinces toward this end.
A survey which is now being carried out by the dominion bureau of statistics should prove to be of particular value in connection with this latest proposal. This survey will provide up to date data on the number of persons covered under private pension plans, the nature and extent of vesting and cash surrender provisions, as well as information on the transferability of pension rights. These and other facts relating to private provisions for old age income security should prove most helpful in any federal-provincial discussions on this subject.
I might also say a word or two about the unemployment assistance program. As I mentioned earlier, our estimated expenditures in this regard amount to some $45 million for the current fiscal year. Since claims by the provinces for federal reimbursement may be as much as six months late in reaching my department, it is not possible to provide up to date figures as to the number receiving benefits under the program. In October, 1960, however, it appears that the total coverage had reached something over 400,000 persons including dependents.
The increase in expenditures under unemployment assistance over the past few years has been due to a number of factors. Among these are the program's extension to all provinces and the territories, the removal of the threshold provision and the increase in rates of benefits paid by the provinces and municipalities. In addition, there is the fact that a number of provinces, including Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, are now using the program to provide supplementary relief payments to recipients of old age security, old age assistance, blindness and disability allowances. This means in effect that the dominion government has been sharing in additional aid above the general level of $55 a month, which in cases of special need has not constituted a rigid ceiling on benefit payments.
I do not plan to make any remarks at this time with regard to the fitness, recreation and amateur sports program forecast in the speech from the throne and which, as the Prime Minister mentioned in answer to a question in the house recently, will be dealt with through legislation. An opportunity will be provided for detailed consideration of this subject when the matter is brought before the house.
Finally I should like to turn to our efforts in emergency planning and radiation protection. Earlier this year cabinet approval was given for the establishment of a special


advisory committee to the Minister of National Health and Welfare on emergency health services. Like its predecessor, the defence medical and dental services advisory board, this committee is composed of the appropriate federal officials as well as representatives of various national health organizations. Its first meeting took place here in Ottawa last month, and I am glad to say that a good start was made toward providing greater stimulus and continuity to the progress of emergency health planning in Canada.
As in the case of emergency health activities, the greatest problem in emergency welfare planning has been to encourage the setting up of suitable organizations within provincial departments. I am therefore happy to inform the house that arrangements have now been worked out with nine provinces, including the appointment of five provincial emergency welfare service planning officers to be paid under the financial assistance program. Taken together with the increasing coordination of policy and stepped-up training activities, this development, I believe, augurs well for the continued growth of Canada's capability to meet whatever emergency welfare needs may arise in the years ahead.
On the matter of radiation protection, I have indicated on previous occasions that preparations were under way for what is called a total body monitor unit. The physical facilities for the unit have now been completed and the necessary equipment and special steel shielding installed. When in full operation the total body monitor will constitute a major addition to our over-all radiation measurements program.
Other aspects of our radiation protection activities have continued to expand to meet the increasing demand for services. A network of 23 stations has been set up across Canada for the regular collection of samples of air, rainfall and soil. The well established milk sampling program is going ahead, and we are also beginning to receive human bone samples in accordance with a revised sampling pattern. The results of all of these studies are published in quarterly and annual reports.
In this connection, the latest figures on strontium-90 in milk bear out our expectation of declining levels. For the fourth quarter of 1960 the national average was 9.5 micromicrocuries per gram calcium compared with 15, 12.9 and 9.3 during the previous three quarters of 1960. These levels are all the more significant when it is recalled that the quarterly figures for 1959 were 10.8, 18, 14.6 and 14.2 respectively.
During the past 12 months additional laboratory facilities have been provided for the

analysis of radioactive samples from foreign countries. This, as hon. members will recall, was planned as Canada's contribution to the world-wide fall-out study program of the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation. In this connection negotiations have been under way with four countries, Ghana, Pakistan, Burma and Malaya. Agreement in principle has now been reached with the first three, while discussions with the fourth are still in process.
Just before resuming my seat, Mr. Chairman, I should like to pay a tribute to the staff of the Department of National Health and Welfare who have assisted me during the past year, many of whom have been in the department for many years, and to their dedication to duty during that period. I should also like to mention that yesterday morning I had the pleasure of turning the sod for a new headquarters building at Tunney's pasture. This will bring units now scattered in some 19 different locations throughout Ottawa under one roof for the first time, and while it is going to take some two years to complete the building I am sure that the new headquarters will lend itself to much more efficiency in the management of the department.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, no one regrets more than I the unavoidable absence this morning of the former minister of national health and welfare, the member for Essex East, by reason of a previous commitment. In these late days of the session we have very little advance notice, of course, which departmental estimates will be discussed on Saturdays. So it falls to me today, as it did two years ago, I believe, under similar circumstances involving short notice, to make some observations on behalf of the official opposition in connection with the department's program and comment upon the statements made by the minister in introducing his estimates for 1961-62.
I was a bit disappointed by his presentation. This is a terrifically important department of government from the point of view of human benefit and advancement. The minister did not say so, but in recent years it has been the second largest spending department of the government. The minister also did not say so, but I suspect that in the coming year it may perhaps overtake the Department of National Defence as the biggest spending department. Although the minister indicated that over 94 per cent of the department's expenditures result from prior statutory decisions and are not policy matters that come before us for consideration at this time, the fact is that new advances require legislation and the minister has not given
Supply-Health and Welfare us any indication that such new legislation is being planned by the department.
In my opinion he confined himself too much to a financial and statistical analysis of the department. In a department of this kind I would have thought we might have had from the minister an indication that the department is not standing still, that it has studies actively under way beyond those to which he referred, which were not very many in number, that would involve new programs which would indicate that the department was continuing to provide inspiring and imaginative leadership in welfare and health arenas. I regret that in the report the minister made in introducing his estimates there was nothing with respect to the views of the department on a comprehensive medical health plan.
Respecting pensions, we have heard from the minister every two months during the past two years in which he has had the Clark report in his possession that he has been studying this report. He said nothing more about it in his presentation today.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes I said we were studying it.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, studying it; and, as I have said, the minister has made similar statements every two months over the past two years.
All of us receive copies of the representations that are made to the cabinet each year by the Canadian welfare council, and we note the many imaginative and advanced programs set out therein. The minister made no reference to the attitude of the government toward the representations made by this most competent, most dedicated, voluntary organization. A resolution was introduced during this session by the hon. member for Mount Royal respecting the problem of mental health. At that time the minister said he had a great deal of sympathy for the purport of the resolution. This is another important field in which no report was given to the nation by the minister during the introduction of his estimates.
Earlier this session I raised a question with regard to Canada's participation in an important conference held in Washington relating to medical care for the aged. We have heard no reference to that. If the government is not prepared to embark upon a comprehensive medical plan, are there no studies under way in respect of medical assistance at least for the aged? There was some reference in the minister's statement to portable pensions. The Ontario government has had a committee at work in this field, and this committee believes a central agency should undertake consideration of portable and trans-

Supply-Health and Welfare ferable pensions. This subject was mentioned in the budget speech, and reference was made to the fact that it is merely under study and that the participation of the provinces is required.
The minister mentioned the old age security fund. He said that, for the first time, the fund was in balance. We all know that in 1959 new taxes were imposed on the income tax side, on the excise tax side and on the corporation tax side which were designed to bring in from the point of view of tax imposts $2 for every dollar to which the government had committed itself in extra payments under old age security in the previous year.
The minister gave some illustrations of the percentage of national expenditure applied in some countries in the health and welfare field. He compared Canada's position in this respect to that of the United States, Australia and some other countries. There is a feeling in Canada and the United States, particularly among businessmen, that one of the handicaps from which they suffer in competing in world markets is the fact that we have an unnecessarily heavy burden of welfare payments.
I have been looking at some reports recently provided by the Canadian tax foundation. I was startled to realize that this impression that is held and spread by many Canadian businessmen to the effect that they cannot compete in export markets because of the tax burden imposed by welfare payments is not borne out by the facts. I find that, on the tax side, our taxes are not higher than those imposed by the countries of western Europe and Britain from which our businessmen are getting the keenest competition. On the welfare side, the tax foundation reports that the welfare payments of those countries take a greater percentage of the national income than is the situation in either Canada or the United States. We must not excuse our failure to compete in the markets of the world with countries such as Germany and the other keen, aggressive countries in western Europe by saying that we pay higher taxes in Canada, or that government legislation in Canada and the United States imposes upon the business community the cost of welfare payments beyond those of our competitors in western Europe. These are not the facts.
The minister referred to unemployment assistance. I hope later, during the discussion of his estimates, we will hear much more about this subject. It is true that $45 million will be required under this program, according to the estimates which are before us. The minister said that in October, 1960 some

400,000 Canadians participated in the unemployment assistance provided by this legislation. He said that this resulted from a number of factors. He quoted some liberalization of the rules under which the federal department participates with the provinces and, in turn, with the municipalities in this field. Of course one would not expect the minister to mention what I believe to be the fundamental factor, that such a huge number participated. I pointed out the reason for this condition the other day in the budget debate, when I referred to the complacency and lack of planning on the part of this government which has resulted in a lack of proper growth in our economy, a stagnation which has meant that the gross national product has not increased in the same way it has in other countries throughout the world to take care of those who are entering our labour force.
I remind the members of the committee that as recently as last year the estimates committee spent 20 sittings studying the program and expenditures of this Department of National Health and Welfare. I was a member of that committee. I felt the review was very rewarding indeed. The Hansard record of the estimates committee covers over 500 pages, and as a result of that review last year perhaps we will be able to shorten the debate today in this committee of supply of the House of Commons.
However, I want to refer again to what I think is the most important next step that must be considered by those in the Department of National Health and Welfare. I refer, of course, to a comprehensive medical plan. We have had a short experience now with the hospital insurance plan. However, hospitalization insurance alone falls short. I think all national political parties have been giving this matter considerable attention. Better programs are available in other countries. However, I wish to put on the record the up to date plan the Liberal party proposes in this field. In doing so may I say that I am quoting from the resolution presented and approved unanimously at its rally in January, 1961:
Second only to the threat of unemployment is the threat of illness. Hospital insurance, which has now become available to all Canadians, does much to lessen the insecurity of ill health. But it is not enough. Many people still face medical costs outside the hospital scheme, that are financially crippling to them. While various good schemes of prepaid medical care are in operation, they are not available to everyone, on terms everyone can afford. In consequence there are still many Canadians who go without medical care that they need; and others, whom serious illness forces to go to a doctor are thereby pushed into overwhelming debt or a catastrophic impairment of their savings.

It is the Liberal policy to end such social evils. Universal hospital insurance was a big step forward. Further measures are needed to reduce the insecurity arising from illness. A new Liberal government will undertake at once, to provide extended hospital facilities including mental health and rehabilitation, comprehensive care by doctors, drugs and medicines and diagnostic services.
Now the question arises, how is this plan going to be paid for? This, of course, was questioned when we were still dealing with the supplementary budget of the Minister of Finance in January after the rally of the Liberal party. Nothing could be clearer as to the Liberal party's position in this respect than what was stated by the Leader of the Opposition on January 20, 1961 when those on the government side questioned the financial responsibility that was involved in a program of this kind. As found at page 1273 of Hansard the Leader of the Opposition gave four fiscal measures which he felt were being neglected and were of imperative concern after more immediate actions such as dealing with unemployment. He referred to reduction of the rates of personal income tax. He referred to extra unemployment benefits and some other matters. But with respect to the allembracing plan for health he said this; that perhaps the most important of those things that must come forward as needed new programs for Canadians is the matter of a medical health plan. The leader of this party said that this, of course, is one of those things that should be implemented during an expanding economy and not a contracting economy. Under the present government we have had five deficits in succession. Under the previous administration we were able to provide surpluses and reduce our debt. Under circumstances such as these, on a deficit financing basis, of course, perhaps it is not possible to finance the substantial costs of a medical health plan. However, given policies that would return us to surpluses in our financial administration I say, as did the Leader of the Opposition, that this would be one of the first of the new measures that should be added to Canada's health and welfare program.


An hon. Member:: The Liberals were in power for 22 years.


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend refers to that. I say to him that there was not one of the programs advanced to the Canadian electorate by the Liberal party in 22 years and involving no participation by other governments, such as governments at the provincial level, that was not carried out according to the commitments that were made by the Liberal party.
In addition I point out that inflation is a very important factor as to the value of the welfare programs that are provided. I
Supply-Health and Welfare think of the very pertinent comment that was made in the session of 1957-1958 when this government assumed office. We were then debating the speech from the throne. The former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, had taken his position on the other side of the chamber as leader of the opposition. I think he described a sensible position with respect to welfare advance in these words, as found at page 44 of Hansard of October 16, 1957:
As for the measures forecast to increase old age security and other social benefits, naturally every true Liberal will welcome them in principle. Our sole concern will be to see how they fit into the whole financial picture and how far the government will take effective measures to control the rise in the cost of living which, if unchecked, could easily take away all the advantages of the proposed increases.
Naturally, as I perhaps take a special interest, because of party assignments, in the financial policies of the country, I express some apprehension about inflation. Some of the matters that we shall debate during the budget discusison and even in connection with the Bank of Canada bill concern welfare payments. I wish to say that Mr. St. Laurent's words of 1957 should be regarded by members of this house with the utmost attention. The people who will lose most or suffer most by reckless financial policies, by monetizing in an unnecessary or improper way or by any wild operation of the Bank of Canada, are those whose cheques we are concerned about today when we are examining the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: I should like to start off by doing something that I think I always try to do, namely by giving credit where credit is due and, of course, to criticize where we feel criticism is warranted. I should like to pay tribute to the sincerity of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I have always found him to take his duties very seriously and to discharge them very sincerely. I should also like to pay tribute to the devotion to duty of the members of his department. Because of the fact that the departments are so closely intertwined and interwoven I also pay a special tribute to the provincial department of health and welfare in Ontario and to the deputy minister, Mr. James S. Band, with whom I have had occasion to have considerable dealings in connection with individual problems in the field of health and welfare.
For four years the party to which I belong has been critical of the policies of the present minister, as we were critical of the policies of the previous government during their term of office. With all due respect to my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River, for whom

Supply-Health and Welfare I have a very high regard, I do not think we can take the Liberal promises any more seriously today than we could when I was two years old and they promised us health insurance. However, in my few remarks today, in the interests of getting this extended session drawn that much closer to a close I intend to try to make a technical, at least in my humble opinion, rather than a political criticism of this situation.
If the C.C.F. party has for many years criticized this particular field it is because we feel that as a nation possibly this has been our greatest failure. In this very favoured country in which we live this is one field in which we lag far, far behind so many countries throughout the world. It is interesting to note that recently we have been joined in our criticism of the present methods and policies in connection with health and welfare by an ever growing number of people and newspapers throughout the country.
I should like to draw particular attention to the Globe and Mail of May 10, 1961. The whole of page 7 of this newspaper is devoted to this very problem. I think some of the things stated on this page might very well be placed on Hansard while we are debating this issue today. There is, for example, an article written Professor Kenneth Duncan, who is in the department of economic and political science, University of Western Ontario. I think some of his words are very apropos to the item before the committee. He says:
Welfare and social services provided to needy Canadians should be rationally organized and entirely financed from the public purse. In every province-and the province is the effective jurisdictional unit-these services are now provided by ill co-ordinated, overlapping, understaffed and underfinanced congeries of private and public agencies.
This ramshackle structure is a heritage from a time when all seemed to agree that it was no part of the government's duty to do much to comfort the afflicted. Most charity and social service work was then regarded as a matter for religious bodies, personal philanthropy or private organizations of the tender minded. It was in such a day that some of our best known and most useful agencies were founded.
A little later in his article he says:
Today, we find every level of government providing a variety of services or welfare payments such as family allowance, mother's allowance, old age assistance, public relief, medical care of the indigent, treatment for alcoholics, blind pensions etc. Yet public authorities were always willing to permit private agencies to go on providing services since it kept down taxes-
I should like to digress for a moment, Mr. Chairman, to underline that point. I have mentioned this on many occasions in the house. This is one of the fields in which we like to indulge in our favourite pastime of self-delusion. We feel that as long as we can

keep taxes down the government are doing a good job in this field, when in fact they are failing and are remiss in their duties. By virtue of keeping taxes down they do not provide these services and in fact, as is mentioned in this article, through a conglomeration of various agencies the cost to the public is actually higher than it would be if these agencies were properly organized. Professor Duncan goes on to say:
-and there remains as a consequence a complex of private agencies providing such things as child care and protection, family counselling, nursing and health services, care of homeless and transient men, protection of unwed mothers and numerous other services which by contemporary standards are necessary to the community.
Such an arrangement as this leads almost inevitably to inefficiency in operation, poor inter-agency co-ordination, high costs in terms of services given and to some abuse by professional indigents. It has persisted this long because each private agency inevitably becomes a vested interest.
I think that is one of our greatest problems in trying to get something done in this field. Over the years we have seen so many fields in the many different branches that make up the Department of Health and Welfare. We have seen these little, vested interests grow up in our society, and once they have grown up they dig in their heels and resist all efforts to improve the over-all situation because it interferes with their own particular organization.
In saying this I am not being critical of the individual organizations as such. Many good people devote many hours of hard work in order to make a success of their particular organizations. However, I think if we look at the over-all picture we see that the headline on this page is very well warranted. The headline reads:
Is full government control the answer to the failure of our welfare agencies?
That is being very critical of the present situation of the various health and welfare agencies in our society, but I think the criticism is very much warranted because if governments were doing the job they are capable of doing and should be doing in the first place, we would not need this great conglomeration of agencies be they religious, service club, private or what have you. The only reason these have sprung up across the country and have grown is that there was a great need in this field. I fully appreciate that at one time the thinking was that governments had no responsibility in this field, but I do not think we will find too many people in the country today who will go along with that type of thinking.
On the same page of this issue of the Globe and Mail there is another article written by a man who is very well known in this field, Professor John S. Morgan, who is

in the school of social work of the University of Toronto. The first paragraph of his article is, I think, well worth mentioning at this time. It reads:
The time has come to bring welfare up to date. Too many of us think of welfare as something that the rich provide for the poor or the wise give to the foolish. In actual fact, in a modern industrial society, all of us are recipients of welfare services and all of us contribute in some way to the provision of welfare services. The problem of welfare in the future is to organize the complex operations of this mutual dependency in the most effective, the most economical and the most efficient way.
I think the minister could do much worse than give a great deal of thought to the words of Professor Morgan. He is well known as one of the experts in this particular field on the North American continent. On the same page there is another article written by a gentleman who is becoming well known and who certainly is well versed in his own field. I am not going to deal with some of the most bitter criticisms in his article, because I think I could go as far as to say there may even be a political twist to this. I know the gentleman very well; he originally came from my own town of Timmins. This is an article written by Mr. Gower Markle, who is the Canadian director of education and welfare for the united steel workers of America. I should like to read one paragraph which I think is apropos of my remarks today. This paragraph reads as follows:
Much of the current debate on welfare is on the level of "who will give and how much" and "who will receive and how much". This serves only to obscure the fact that Canadians have yet to make a fundamental decision whether we are socially responsible or not. And if the answer is negative all the rest becomes irrelevant.
If the answer is positive-then, we have to determine how best to provide the goods and services required to take care of the present needy.
I should like now to highlight one matter which I believe to be a great problem and drawback in our efforts to develop some kind of sensible, comprehensive health and welfare program across this country. This problem involves a tendency on the part of many individuals and newspapers to look only at the actual cost in dollars involved in the development of a program upon which the government, through the Department of National Health and Welfare could embark, and completely ignore the resulting savings from the adoption of measures of this kind. They also completely ignore the better health standards that accrue from the adoption of such measures.
Another drawback to our efforts in this regard is the tendency on the part of governments, both federal and provincial, to boast about the number of dollars spent in certain fields, as though by the mere mention of the
Supply-Health and Welfare amount spent the job is accomplished. I suggest it is time to look at our health and welfare measures in the light of what has been accomplished and what has yet to be done rather than by just totalling up on an adding machine the X number of dollars which have already been spent.
We in this group for many years have propounded the need in this country of a portable pension plan. I have mentioned before one of the biggest obstacles to the accomplishment of this type of plan and do not intend to deal with it at length today. However, I should like to say that the obstacle arises because of the fact that over the years we have built up little groups of vested interests with pension plans, such as in industry and in municipalities, here and there and all over. In fact we have heard a great deal within the last few days about one pension plan, and we shall probably hear quite a bit more about it within the next few days.
Have we ever stopped to think that even this particular controversial pension plan of the past, present, but not too far in the future, governor of the Bank of Canada would involve no issue at the present time if it were part of a portable pension plan available to all citizens of this country? I believe this controversial pension plan will provide approximately 50 per cent of the governor's salary on retirement. I think that is a very laudable objective in respect to a comprehensive portable pension plan available to all citizens. I believe that if citizens of this country, from the governor of the Bank of Canada down, were to contribute their just and equitable share toward that type of a pension plan there would be no beef regarding anyone receiving 50 per cent of his salary on retirement, because each and every person in this country would then have paid an equitable share toward this pension to be received at retirement age.
Whenever we hear about pension plans, just as when we hear about health or hospital insurance plans, while we believe they are wonderful ideas we wonder where the money is to come from to pay for them. I should like to remind hon. members that a portable pension plan, such as I have referred to, should in the long run be self-liquidating and self-supporting. I agree that to establish a plan of this kind will involve the spending of a good deal of money for some time; but what we will be doing is paying off our past shortcomings, and once we have done so the plan will carry itself and there will be no cost as such then to the Canadian taxpayer.
I do not for one moment think this will be an easy task. I have given considerable study to the problem and realize the tremendous complexities involved. My greatest

Supply-Health and Welfare criticism of this government at the present time arises because I see no effort being made to reach this goal. This goal cannot be reached in six months or perhaps even in five years, but I maintain that if we never start, the job will never be done.
I fail to see any real measure of progress being made in this field by the present government, although it has been in office for four years. I believe this government should launch boldly on a plan, giving a complete and honest picture of the costs and prospects to the Canadian public. If this were done I am sure the public across the country would get behind the program and support it. If the taxpayers realized that by paying their proper share they could accomplish this job; if they knew they would not be hounded every Saturday morning by organizations carrying out tag days, which will not accomplish the job but only keep things going, they would support the government's program. I suggest that if the businessmen of this country knew that through the paying of proper taxes the job could be accomplished without their being hounded, not only on street corners during tag days but through their businesses and service clubs, which have never been able to accomplish the job in this country, the government would then get the full support of all those taxpayers, and this great program could be accomplished.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, like previous speakers I should like to acknowledge the responsible manner in which the minister and his senior officials have discharged their responsibilities to parliament and to the country, and I should like to assure him that the small bouquets I throw do not contain any hidden bricks.
The previous speaker in his concluding remarks mentioned the undesirable feature of people wandering the streets on Saturdays holding tag days. While his remarks are prominently in my mind I should like to state that I do not think anyone in this country would stop publicly minded citizens from endeavouring to make their communities better places in which to live, or from helping their fellow citizens. I do not think this type of argument should be entertained in respect to this particular subject.
At the beginning of the present session I placed a resolution on the order paper which I hoped would have been discussed before this time. I regret that in referring to it now I am taking up some of the time for the discussion of the minister's estimates, but I feel that I should do so. That resolution requested the government to give early consideration to the advisability of instituting a contributory


pension system available to age 65 as a more equitable means of supporting the independence of Canadian senior citizens.
My purpose in bringing this resolution before the house and the country stems from my personal realization of the desire of most Canadians for such legislation and, I assure the committee, from my own humanitarian ideals, divorced completely from any political implications.
I believe that the three political parties now constituting the house agree unanimously that some such program should be instituted. I hold in my hand a press clipping of a statement by the hon. member for Essex East, who expressed a desire for such a plan. I have a statement by the Prime Minister which may not deal directly with it, but the inference one gathers from the statement is that the Prime Minister favours such a plan. I also have the statement made by the Minister of Finance when he presented his budget. This statement is taken out of context, of course, and has a slightly different meaning, but his words are as follows:
It is desirable that those who have been employed throughout their working years should be able to retire without fear of want.
I have a further statement by the minister of public welfare for the province of Ontario, part of which reads as follows:
In almost every country a contributory insurance-maintenance plan anticipates the future needs of these persons. We could view this as a responsibility which should be treated by the individual, himself. We might consider that he should prepare, well in advance, for his own future needs and the needs of his family-for the eventualities which will probably arise.
These are the important words:
Experience has shown, however, that such individual preparation does not take place.
When we hear the minister relate that 7,934,374 individuals collect $1,226,400,000 from the federal treasury I believe the wishes of the people should be given consideration in regard to the proposal I am making.
When I decided to discuss this matter in the house I immediately realized that the entire subject is too vast and complicated to discuss specifically. However, I hope the basis of my thoughts will be sufficiently clear to convince the minister, the government and all hon. members of the desirability of such a plan. Social security, as we refer to it, is by no means new to the world at large. I was interested in an excerpt from the book I hold in my hand, written by Mr. Arthur Larson, who is now director of the world rule of law centre at Duke University, North Carolina. This is the excerpt I should like to read:
It Is always something of a shock to those who call social security "socialistic" to discover that

it was, in origin, an anti-socialistic measure. It is an even worse shock to find that the father of social security was no dewy eyed liberal or left winger, but the iron chancellor himself-Otto von Bismarck.
During the years following the war of 18701871, Bismarck began to be concerned about the growing strength shown in elections by the Marxian socialists-whom we would now call communists. He met the situation, and took the wind out of the Marxians' sails, by laying before the Reichstag a comprehensive social insurance system. It was enacted in various measures between 1883 and 1887, and contained provisions for payments in case of sickness, accident, disability, widowhood, and old age.
The idea spread gradually throughout Europe, and received an important addition when the British, in 1911, added the idea of unemployment insurance. Once more, it is significant that it was not socialists or even trade unions who put through unemployment insurance in England. In fact, the Fabian socialists, including Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and the free trade unions, all opposed it. Unemployment insurance and related measures were put through in England by such people as Winston Churchill, Lloyd George, Beveridge, Lord Asquith, Hubert Smith, Neville Chamberlain, and Joseph Chamberlain. It is typical of the history of social security that it did not come in on a great wave of popular demand from the mass of people, as Marxians would now like to have us believe. It came largely because of the efforts of farsighted individuals, who were found as often as not among the ranks of those who would be called conservatives.
At the present time I believe that most authorities on this subject consider the United States plan to be the best in operation. Therefore I have chosen to make a few observations concerning our separate systems on a comparative basis. We are aware that the Canadian system in effect is financed on the 3-3-3 formula, with these percentages being collected from sales tax, corporation tax and personal income tax. This formula supplied $603.1 million in the year 1960-61, which represented $10.7 million in excess of receipts over expenditures. In the current year it is estimated that $607 million will be required to finance the necessary payments.
With the flat rate payments of $55 a month I have learned and the minister indicated, that Canadian payments amounted to 2.45 per cent of the national income, whereas in the United States payments amounted to 2.66 per cent of the national income of that country. The difference is accounted for by the fact that in Canada the minimum and maximum are the same, while in the United States the payment ranges from a minimum of $33 to a maximum of $127. There are two very relative points to be borne in mind, namely that the United States per capita income is from 25 per cent to 30 per cent higher than in Canada, and that the United States plan supports a disability and survivors insurance program as well, in addition to the program that we have in effect.
Supply-Health and Welfare
With regard to welfare payments as we understand them, I think the time has come when we must give further consideration to unemployment insurance benefits. This matter has been studied by the authorities in several of the provinces. I am sure hon. members will be aware of this. They have said, and this is also my opinion, that unemployment insurance benefits could be more adequately handled if they were paid out directly by the provinces. As I have said, this has been requested by some of the provinces. In the United States unemployment insurance is handled entirely by the state authorities, and is no concern of the federal government.
In the United States in 1960 the average income for retired workers was $69.50 for a single person and $123.40 for a married person. The differential as compared with the Canadian figures can be discounted, if one chooses to do so, on the basis of the difference in income. One of the great advantages of the United States program, in my thinking, is the benefit paid to widows and their children under the age of 18, or the survivors benefit, and also the disability insurance, which I would advocate, if the government were to institute such a plan. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I think I should say that the United States system is financed by a 3 per cent employee and a 3 per cent employer contribution, with 4J per cent being paid by the self-employed, based on a maximum taxable income of $4,800 for this purpose.
Because of the many experiences I have had where people under the age of 70 have become disabled and are not eligible for old age assistance, I would recommend that the government include the disability class in a prepared program. This I realize, from the experience of 1951, and in consideration of survivors benefits, may create a constitutional problem but I should hope that it would be of minimal proportions. I believe that such a program could be put into effect on a 2 per cent employee and 2 per cent employer basis, and adjusted as experience required. I have been assured that such a program would carry itself financially on a 1 per cent and 1 per cent basis if the 3-3-3 formula were retained; but I would not advocate such a course, because the people want a plan on the basis of contribution so the returns are a personal right as opposed to some of the current thinking. Moreover, I believe the minimum could be raised and the maximum set to allow a flexible scale for those who contribute the maximum, possibly a range from $70 to $100.
Those who have studied this matter will realize that in such a system the problems
7000	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare of portable pensions and of vesting rights would be removed, because there would be a lessening in the tendency to change jobs, which usually results in the employee losing some of these privileges under existing private schemes. Therefore I was interested, of course, in the statement of the Minister of Finance in presenting his budget. Private companies which have expressed certain fears in regard to the implementation of this type of legislation need only to look to the United States, where the experience has been that such insurance sales have increased tremendously since the inception of their program.
I should like to state, Mr. Chairman, that a contributory social security system, as I have referred to it, would foster many of our fundamental beliefs such as self-respect, dignity and personal pride. You may ask why, and my answer is because there would be entitlement by right with no stigma attached, no means test. I believe it is a Christian concern for the state to assist the people of the state, particularly some of the weaker members; for, as Abraham Lincoln stated:
A legitimate function of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but what they by their individual efforts cannot do quite so well.
Such a plan does not result in the loss or the control of the rights of anyone, nor does it require the sacrifice of any personal freedom. It would be fair to require the participation of all groups in our society. I would not advocate the principle of contracting out such as was done on the inception of the plan in Great Britain.
A flat rate contribution on maximum amounts of income would assure that up to that maximum-and ours might have to be slightly higher than in the United States- the earner in the higher bracket would support the program to a greater degree than the earner whose income is in the lower scale, but to compensate there would also be a graduated scale of benefits which in reality would give the minimum income group more than they could buy for the contribution they actually make, and the maximum less than they would receive on a similar basis.
My observations indicate that beyond doubt this is the general desire of the Canadian people, and I respectfully request consideration of such a program by the minister and the government.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question? I was very interested in his speech, and I ask the question because of his quotation from a book. Does the hon. member know that the records of the United Kingdom House of Commons and House of Lords prove that while the Liberal and Labour members in Great Britain urged an


over-all security program it was delayed for years because of the opposition of the Conservative party?


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, before dealing with the one subject with which I wish to deal at length I should like to make some reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Timmins. He suggested that, having regard to certain remarks that were made by the first speaker from my party, he could not give credence to any Liberal promises, since such promises had not been fulfilled in the past.
With reference particularly to the provisions respecting hospitalization, which were brought in by the former administration, I suggest that this was one of the most forward looking measures ever introduced. It was introduced by a Liberal majority, and it was designed to be brought into effect only when a majority of Canadians and a majority of the provinces had indicated that they were prepared to accept and pay for such a plan.
The suggestion of the hon. member for Timmins was that the plan should have been imposed from the top whether or not the people of the country were prepared for it. I simply observe that when it was introduced it was brought in by a Liberal administration with the proviso that this country is a democracy, that the majority rules, and that only at such time as there was a majority would the plan be instituted throughout the country.


Murdo William Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am not going to deal with all of the matters which come within the minister's purview. As has been said before, this is one of the largest spending of all federal departments. However, I wish to deal with one isolated part of the operations of the department, something which has reference not only to this department but to other departments. Therefore it will be necessary to refer to some of the things which have been done by the Department of Public Works and by the Department of Labour in particular.
I wish to deal specifically with the problems of aging in the community and the contribution which has been made so far by the federal authorities, by voluntary welfare organizations throughout the country and by the provinces. Particularly since the last war this country, in common with most of the other western nations, has been required to pay particular attention to the problems of youth. Because of the population explosion

which took place about the end of the war, because of the fact that we have had a great many young people going through the school system, we have been concerned with using our resources first to give these children public school education on a free basis and then high school education, and in many quarters there is pressure to give them university training.
Only this year we have seen strengthened legislation introduced to deal with the matter of technical training for those who have left the formal education field and require some other training. But too little has been done and too little thought has been given by the public generally to the problems of the aged on the other end of the scale. The aged are not only those who require to be in nursing homes. The aged can be almost any age. Certainly the lowest age which is usually considered to be included is 60, but when one considers related problems, the problems of portability of pensions, the problems of retraining for employment, it is shocking to find that the aged in a modern society are those 40 and over.
These people are increasing in numbers. According to the latest figures I have, which are taken from a report in the Ottawa Citizen of April 18 last of a meeting of the local council of women, the number of those 60 or over in 1921 constituted 7.5 per cent of our population or 660,000 people. By 1951 this had risen to 11.4 per cent or 1,592,000 Canadians, and it is projected that by 1980 the aged group of the Canadian population over 60 will constitute 12.8 per cent or more than 3,400,000 Canadians.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Just before the noon adjournment, I had put certain figures on the record as quoted in a copy of the Ottawa Citizen. Those figures came originally from a study prepared by the research statistics division of the Department of National Health and Welfare, a report of which was issued in June of 1957. Even at that time-and in the past few years the problem has become increasingly important-it was realized that the percentage of the population in Canada above 60 was creating considerably more pressure and would continue to do so. We are reaching a situation in Canada wherein, by reason of the number of years required for young people to take training, whether
Supply-Health and Welfare it be the academic type or the trades training type, it is taking so long for people to become producers in society that, when taken together with those who are forcibly, as a result of pension agreements, employer-employee agreements or the policies of governments, put out to pasture at 60 or 65, there is an increasing burden on the producers of the nation.
If we continue to treat those who are aged, in particular those who are above 60, as individuals who are no longer necessary to the mainstream of society, if we persist in putting them aside, if we persist in saying to them, you cannot stay in this place of employment because other people are coming along and because of your age you are no longer capable of contributing in this employment, then we are going to add to our problems. In addition to this we have the fact that, in the last 60 years, there has been a considerable change in the size of houses now being constructed for the young married people. The young married people are no longer able to keep their aged parents or relatives with them, so this forces the older people out of the home and breaks the family association. The elderly people are thereby cut off from the mainstream society.
Welfare agencies, either govermental or voluntary, are trying to set up recreational programs or "busy" work for the aged. It is my belief from my study of this problem, that the older citizen of Canada does not want to be treated as a special class with particular disabilities. As everyone knows, we all age at a different rate. We all cease to have our full capabilities at a different time. We say that 65 is the time when a Canadian is no longer of any use to his country, is no longer efficient. We make them feel unwanted, that they are no longer useful. It is significant that all studies indicate that there is a higher suicide rate in the group above 60 than in any age group in our nation. These figures are identical with those for the United States. No human being wants to feel he or she is not wanted by the family or the community, to feel there is no purpose in continuing to live. No person wants to be a parasite in society. Everyone wants to be an effective human being and able to contribute all they have throughout their productive period.
Yesterday the hon. member for Leeds referred to the fact that we cannot afford to have trained people in our society who are not contributing to the public welfare. I would suggest that we cannot afford to arbitrarily put people out of work at 65 and dislocate them from everything they have known. We cannot afford the waste of these

Supply-Health and Welfare people. They have the greatest training and the greatest experience. Our philosophers have said that up to age 40 you simply gain experience and beyond 40 you apply it. The problem is one for the nation as well as for the individuals concerned.
In studying this problem, Mr. Chairman, I have written as widely as I could to welfare agencies in both Canada and the United States, and I should like to refer briefly to some of the agencies that are working on some of the problems in relation to the aged. As an indication of the increased interest which is being shown in this particular problem, I may say that in the province of Ontario, with which I am most familiar, there was set up in metropolitan Toronto a social planning council which has been meeting for the past few years dealing with the special problems of the ageing in our community. In addition, the Ontario society of the ageing has been set up and it has called conferences and established study groups. This organization has been responsible for some excellent reports dealing with the problem in Ontario. In 1957, the Ontario society for the ageing called a conference which met for a month in Toronto. A report was published entitled, "Proceedings of First Ontario Conference on Ageing". This conference was attended by individuals from government and from voluntary societies. As I have said, the study lasted for one month at the University of Toronto.
May I, Mr. Chairman, refer to some of the things which were discussed so hon. members will realize the scope of the problem. This is not just a welfare or health problem, but it goes much further than that. These are the subheadings in this report: Mental health in later years; the challenge of the ageing population; financing health services; working together; total community programs; patterns of living of older people in Ontario, and here research was undertaken; the cost of living and retirement income; nutrition for the ageing; pension plans; compulsory retirement plans; the problem of the cost of living; government programs and other sources of income; housing and living arrangements; money available for housing; types of accommodation, including boarding home care and private care; charitable institutions and their contributions; self-contained accommodation; community services; care and rehabilitation at home; friendly visiting; clubs and recreation; educational interests; church and synagogue; senior citizens' service bureau; employment, unemployment and retirement; the effect of the changing patterns of employment; work opportunities; satisfying the psychological needs in retirement; employment of older persons; preretirement counselling and planning; the care,


treatment and rehabilitation of the ageing in hospitals and homes; long term illness in institutions; the acutely ill aged in institutions; private hospitals and nursing homes; the care of the senile aged.
Reference was made to what is being done in the United States and Great Britain. This is a magnificent report and I would commend it to the attention of all hon. members of this committee who are interested in the ageing elements in our population. As a result of this conference subcommittees were set up and after three years' study another one day workshop was set up on March 26, 1960; it was a workshop on ageing. Reports were made as to what had been done in the intervening free period and certain of the research which had been commenced was also reported on. Perhaps one of the most interesting things was of a couple of studies which had been undertaken which indicated that what was necessary in order for an individual who had retired and was living alone to live-just to exist-was between $86 and $90 a month and that for a couple retired, living alone, it would require $130 to $149 a month. This is a modest but adequate living standard and it is only for the province of Ontario. So far as I know that type of study has not been undertaken anywhere else.
In addition to the Ontario society for the ageing there has been magnificent work done by a national board and that is the committee on ageing of the Canadian welfare council of which the Hon. Muriel Fergusson of the other place has the responsibility and honour of being chairman. This agency, which is a well known one, has for the last couple of years been particularly interested in the matter of housing and there have been set up in various provinces particular agencies to deal with housing for the aged.
Most hon. members read the local press here in Ottawa and will have seen that there has been considerable pressure and a considerable number of press reports with respect to a new home for the aged in Ottawa. This is a matter which is becoming increasingly important in all communities across Canada. At one time it was considered sufficient to set up what was called an old people's home, to put there indigent people, to close the door and to forget about them. This is the same sort of thing that once happened in Eskimo societies where you sent the aged out on the ice expecting them never to come back. For too long in Canada we have sent the aged to old people's homes, closed the door, hoped that they would die and that the problem would go away.
In the most recent years we have been considering what can be done not just for

these people but with them, or what can they do for themselves. Certainly the more modern approach appears to be that we do not build an old people's home some place out in the wilds of a community away from all the interrelation of the community, but that we try to build smaller units in down town areas where they can get out, see their friends, go to the theatre and things of this kind.
Housing is only one problem and there has been considerable assistance in the past few years from the Department of Public Works. Under N.H.A. a particular brochure has been prepared called "Housing for Old People". Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have put out this brochure. There are also a great many most interesting booklets which are of assistance to every community which has to face this problem. They include "Housing and Living Arrangements for the Aged", "Everyone Grows Old", "The Needs of the Aged", and things of this kind. They are of assistance and they indicate that some research, study and attention have been given to the problem. But this is fragmentary.
In the Department of Labour a considerable amount of work has been done as well. I have had the benefit from the Department of Labour of a considerable number of booklets indicating the extent of the work they have been doing over the past few years. They have made a study of the older worker as such. They put out in May 1960, in mimeographed form "The Problem of the Older Worker" which is a reference manual containing certain factual information and references to other works. In addition, they have prepared something of particular interest to women, namely a booklet entitled, "A New Career after 30". This is a most interesting study of women above age 30 who launched into new careers and took new training. It indicates that they are a most effective addition to the productive part of the population.
Also in the Department of Labour there has been a considerable program over the last five or six years of a study of pensions-


An hon. Member:: The last four years.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Over the last five or six years. Many of these are dated early in 1957. On pension plan and employment of older workers an excellent report has been prepared by the Department of Labour. There was, set up, I believe, in 1953, an interdepartmental committee and there are representatives of labour, of national health and welfare, of veterans affairs, of finance and some other departments who meet to discuss the interrelated problems of ageing. This has been going on now for some eight or nine years and it is producing more and more research information. There is indeed a
Supply-Health and Welfare pamphlet which is put out called "Two Minutes of Employment Facts", pension plans for the employment of older workers. The intent of this was that it should be sent around to employers in order to encourage them to employ people above what would normally be called the pensioning off age.
There were two radio broadcasts made on the older worker problem, the scripts of which are available to the public. There is another booklet called "Speaking Out About the Older Worker Problem" also prepared by the labour department. In addition, there is an excellent study made by Professor S. A. Clark of the University of Toronto on the employability of the older worker. This is a review of his research covering a long period which was produced in October of 1959. It goes into the whole problem in Canada. There are many studies of employing, housing and caring for, in a medical way, older people in the world but not too many Canadian studies.
In addition, the department of health and welfare, since the publication of "The Ageing Worker" by the Department of Labour, has instituted research and has produced a number of pamphlets and pieces of material which have been of assistance to those interested in the problem. There is one booklet produced by this department under date of July, 1959, "Health Services for Public Assistance Recipients in Canada" with particular reference to older people and "Rehabilitation Services in Canada", part 2, which sets out the provincial and local programs available. This is under date of February, 1959.
In addition, there have been a number of private or semi-private groups most Interested in the ageing. I would particularly refer hon. members to the problem which is clearly set out in the Saturday Review of January 28, 1961, which deals in particular with the desperate world of the senior citizen in the United States. Apart from the figures which are given there the problem is identical to that in Canada. I would commend this to all hon. members.
In addition, through its leaflet "Occupational Health Review" volume 12, No. 2, 1960, this department has put out a long and informative article on the lengthening life span which again gives evidence of the increasing numbers as well as the increasing percentages of the aged in our community. This is something which we can no longer allow to be attacked on a piecemeal basis. In the United States, as a result of the type of pressure that there has been from private agencies over the past two years, there was

Supply-Health and Welfare held on January 9 to 12, of 1961, at Washington the first White House conference on ageing. It may be of interest to hon. members to know that there were about 2,800 voting delegates attending that conference and there were 20 Canadians there as invited observers. Papers were produced as a result of the conference which dealt with all aspects of ageing. In the field of federal-state, such as our federal-provincial programs of public assistance, surveys and studies were considered that had been undertaken by research organizations and universities without knowing that anyone else was undertaking the same type of work. This conference dealt with the increasing concern in the fields of health, rehabilitation, housing, income maintenance, and education and retraining of the aged.
The population trends on the North American continent are inescapable. Because of the triumph of medicine over those diseases which have caused our people to die at early ages we have an increasingly larger group of the ageing in our communities. It is necessary that they be treated as human beings; it is necessary that they continue to be a part of our population. Most individuals who are of retirement age do not like to be called senior citizens, aged or ageing. I think all of us would like to say that we are forever young. However, when one realizes that because of the present lack of portability of pensions even 40 year olds, or in some cases those in their thirties, fall into the classification of the aged. They cannot move from one place to another because of the lack of portability of pensions, and because of the pressures of modern living their bodies age more quickly than they did in the past and people are falling within the classifications of the ageing well below the age of 60 or 65 years.
Mr. Chairman, most of the work which has been done by various departments of this government was instituted prior to 1957, as anyone who would study these publications will readily ascertain, because one can see from the length of time devoted to the studies and the date the reports were produced that is was a Liberal administration which brought in all the social welfare legislation which is on the statute books of this country. These were the studies which were undertaken and I would venture to guess that had that administration continued in office, at this point we would have a co-ordinating agency to devote concentrated attention to this particular problem.
Hon. members will have noticed within the past few months discussions in the Financial Post, in the local press and the national press respecting the Canadian welfare council meeting which was held recently, where the director of the council, Mr. Kenneth Parker,
[Miss LaMarsh.l
pointed out in his presidential report that "better welfare is not achieved only at the cost of a higher total of public spending".
Notwithstanding the fact that these people are leaders in bringing together health workers and social workers in a community, they said that the total cost of Canada's public health and welfare programs, in the vicinity of $3 billion including taxes and private donations from volunteer agencies, was not enough; that it was necessary for a searching study to be made in Canada of the whole approach of social welfare measures, and particularly of those involving the aging. There was an editorial to this effect, which hon. members may have seen, in the Ottawa Citizen of June 1, 1961.
In March of this year the Financial Post undertook a thorough study of whether or not in Canada we are receiving enough for our welfare dollar. It was indicated that 11.4 per cent of our national income is devoted to welfare payments and that this is steadily increasing each year, but that there is a considerable amount of duplication in private and government agencies. Reference was also made in the Financial Post of February 18, 1961 to a tremendous new study which has been undertaken in the province of Ontario under the provincial department of labour. This is a study of Canadians over the age of 45 years in which from 1958, 2,000 men in the province are being studied until they reach age 65. This is perhaps the first such study undertaken anywhere in a western democracy. This study will provide invaluable information, but the information will only be relevant to the province of Ontario. It is not sufficient, I would suggest, to leave this to the provincial departments, because it is a national problem.
There is no question that, like education, the administration of assistance to the ageing can best be done on a local level and on a level in which they themselves can actively participate. I would suggest that, following the report of the 20 observers who attended the White House conference on the ageing, following the report of the Canadian welfare council, a massing together of the information which has been brought together in the various departments of government and the interdepartmental committee, from private welfare agencies, and from provincial departments, now is the time for this department to take a bold step and to call a national conference on the ageing in which there will be participation not only by federal-provincial departments, not only by those whose whole responsibility is to assist in the problems of the ageing, but also by all volunteer agencies. The Canadian Red Cross has been active for years in matters

respecting the ageing, and the Canadian welfare council, as I said before, has a particularly active group set up to deal principally with the problems of the ageing.
Mr. Chairman, may I in closing refer to an article which appeared in the February 1961 issue of the magazine Health, published for the Canadian family by the Health League of Canada. The article is by Dr. Edward L. Bortz and is entitled:
Breaking those "ageing" barriers.
On page 19 of the magazine he writes:
Then another problem, perhaps the greatest problem facing society today, appears, namely, what to do with all the old folk. Surely we do not want a majority of our population to be tottery, senile, vegetating parasites. Would it not seem that experience and maturity that come as we grow older should have some social usefulness that we have not yet identified? Too often we invite premature decay by withdrawing from the active stream of social usefulness and sit on the sidelines. The zest and joy of living are likely to be lost if one withdraws from productive living. One becomes a consumer instead of a producer, and the world already has too many consumers. The yardstick of social value, so far as the individual is concerned, is just that easy to apply.
It is necessary, then, Mr. Chairman, for the good not only of those involved, those who are ageing, but for the good of our country nationally that we now bring together the information which has been obtained at all levels and undertake research and study in order that those in our community who have the greatest experience, the greatest judgment, shall be able to continue to contribute to the mainstream of our community life.


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, before presenting my remarks may I extend my congratulations to the minister, who I understand is celebrating his birthday today. It is not very often that a minister has the privilege of celebrating his birthday and also presenting his estimates on the same day. I am sure we all wish him well in his future health and welfare. May I say to the minister:
Count not your age by years you live But by the happiness you give,
The friends you make, the good you do,
The confidence that's placed in you,
The little things that day by day,
Bring cheer to others on life's way,
And count this day one more mile,
Upon the road to God and things worth while.
I appreciate the opportunity of speaking briefly on the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. This department, under the energetic supervision of the minister and his staff, is no doubt one of the most important in the administration of our country's affairs, and the fine advances made in social justice are proof of the competent work being done by all those concerned.
I understand that assistance to every category of social justice

old age security, old
Supply-Health and Welfare age assistance, blind and disability allowance, unemployment assistance, not too well known to some Canadians, hospital insurance and health grants-has been substantially increased. Perhaps one of the most beneficial improvements was the lowering from 20 to 10 years of the residence requirement in regard to old age pensions. As we know, recipients are now permitted to take their pension with them when leaving Canada on a permanent basis. Senior citizens living outside of Canada, and those contemplating doing so, are very appreciative of this legislation. Many of these recipients living in Canada, happy and satisfied with conditions here, are obliged to leave our country for health reasons or because of family ties and uncontrollable circumstances.
Mr. Chairman, about a year ago I spoke in this house in favour of the new federal plans concerning emergency measures and civil defence. At this time I should like to add that the progress and development that have taken place since that time have justified the optimism I expressed then as to the workability of the new plan. It has been brought to my attention that the Department of National Health and Welfare has assumed two important responsibilities; first, the arrangements for the maintenance of public health and welfare in case of disaster. This is in accordance with government planning for wartime emergency. Two departmental divisions, the emergency health division and the emergency welfare services division, are continuously planning and preparing for this task. The emergency health services staffed by experts in the health field have in operation an $18 million medical stockpiling program. This supplies to the purchasing, packaging and distribution and storage depots across Canada, tremendous amounts of first aid supplies, medicines, drugs and surgical equipment. These depots along with hospital facilities play a big part in wartime as well as in peacetime emergencies.
Another important move has been that hospital medical resources are being reinforced by the issue of nearly 3,000 kits each containing supplies that would be in heavy demand in the establishment of a readily transportable 200-bed improvised hospital in a school, town hall or other public or industrial building. A very important part of this set-up includes special conferences for the medical profession including dentists, pharmacists and nurses, which are held regularly at the Canada civil defence college at Arnprior.
The department's emergency welfare services division is playing a big part in working out arrangements for their five main areas
7006	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare of responsibility for survival. These responsibilities include emergency feeding, emergency clothing, emergency lodging, registration, answering inquiries and rendering personal services. Much of the welfare services work, I am informed, is related to the day by day activities and specialized fields. As an example, I believe many social welfare workers may be counted on in time of disaster to assist and staff the many hundreds of welfare reception centres which would exist across the country to take care of the homeless population.
In Waterloo county and surrounding district, at such places as Kitchener, Waterloo, Preston, Galt, Stratford, Guelph and others, reception centres can be set up to look after the population of such centres as Toronto and Hamilton, and other larger cities. Social workers could include former veterans of the army, navy and air force, thousands of whom reside in this district.
Much can be said of the development of equipment for mass care which would include an emergency mobile feeding unit capable of feeding 100 people per hour on a 24 hour basis.
The minister, his department and the government which in peacetime, as hon. members know, are continuously engaged in the betterment of the health and welfare of the people of Canada are to be commended for the preparations made to continue their specialized services during wartime emergency if they are ever called upon to do so.
Provincial governments and our federal government have made many fine contributions in grants to hospitals across Canada. In Waterloo North we are indeed fortunate to have two splendid hospitals. The Kitchener-Waterloo hospital which has 320 beds, plus 110 for chronic cases, is at present filled to 85 per cent capacity, which would mean about 385 cases. This hospital has a waiting list of 180 surgical patients and 35 medical patients.
The St. Mary's hospital in its present building has a capacity of 112 beds but, by crowding people into the hallways and former closets, they have at present 155 patients and have on occasion accommodated as many as 165 persons. Some time ago a drive was held to raise funds for new buildings. Because of the kindness of many public spirited citizens and the splendid grants by the Ontario and federal governments, this drive was exceptionally successful. Much credit is due Colonel Heasley, chairman, and his committee. New buildings for this hospital are now being erected and will be completed sometime before December 31 of this year.
IMiss LaMarsh.l

These additions will mean an increase of 465 beds, cribs and bassinets for this outstanding hospital.
Other places receiving government assistance are Huronia hall for the blind-so badly needed-Sunnyside home for the aged, where 170 citizens are accommodated, elderly persons' homes sponsored by the Canadian Legion, and the home for senior citizens as well as other smaller homes throughout the country. All these are providing excellent services for our elderly persons, and for the blind, sick, depressed and disabled.
In closing, may I say that this government has always been anxious to provide medical care, financial assistance and other comforts to individuals who because of age, disability, unemployment, or for other reasons otherwise would not be able to enjoy a reasonable share of the good things of life.
Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that we give further consideration to those of our citizens reaching the retiring age of 65 years. These folk in many cases have not had the opportunity of providing for the future through superannuation or pension plans. Many of them are on the unemployment list or were unable to have their retirement postponed and, therefore, are in financial difficulty at an age when they should be able to have some security other than just owning their own homes and a few belongings. It is a recognized fact that these citizens have played a prominent part in developing the economy of our country.
Our Minister of National Health and Welfare understands the problems confronting his department and the following remarks he made show the great interest and confidence he has in the future of our great country. I quote his words and suggest that they are appropriate on his birthday:
Canada's health and welfare balance sheet is encouraging. Certainly it is a good deal brighter today than it was several years ago. We still have important liabilities but the over-all balance is clearly set toward a fuller measure of social justice for every Canadian. Our aim must be to keep it tipping more and more in that direction.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
(Translation):


Mr. Deschatelets:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take advantage of our discussion of the Department of National Health and Welfare estimates to deal with a subject very close to my heart, the matter of improving the lot of the epileptics with regard to medical care, research and the relation of this disease to everyday life.
Of all diseases affecting human beings, none has been less understood than epilepsy. In fact, people still have all sorts of antiquated notions about it, even though medical science

offers good hopes of recovery, because it is a known fact that nowadays 50 per cent of cases can be successfully treated.
The purpose of my remarks today is to help put an end to those antiquated ideas about epilepsy and to that lack of understanding which amounts to a lack of charity. I do not know whether we have very accurate statistics on the number of such cases, but I am informed from a reliable source that there are 10,500 epileptics in the Montreal area, 40,000 in the province of Quebec and around 145,000 in Canada.
People who suffer from that disease must fight on two fronts: first, the disease itself and, then, society whose lack of understanding gives rise to all kinds of complexes among epileptics, society which does not give these people the moral and economic support they need to put up an efficient fight under normal conditions.
It is said that the term "epilepsy" derives from a Greek word meaning "seizure"; apparently, that disease goes back to the remotest history of mankind. It seems that those seizures or fits, which vary in seriousness and frequency from one individual to another, are brought about by some irritation of the brain the causes of which are mostly unknown to this day. Epilepsy is not an hereditary disease as such, since it is said that only one epileptic out of every 50 has an epileptic child. In some cases, an operation is necessary but in most cases drugs are the recommended treatment. As I said, the purpose of these remarks is to get both the government and the public to show more understanding for the plight of epileptics and take positive steps to help them.
May I suggest three types of measures already within our reach. First, in the research field, I think we should promote and speed up medical research in order to develop the most appropriate drugs for this disease. "We should keep abreast of developments in medical research, not only in the western countries but also in the countries behind the iron curtain, because in the field of research there is no such thing as frontiers. The officials in the Department of National Health and Welfare should be given every facility to take an active part in any medical conference, anywhere through the world, in order to be always on the watch for any new treatment.
I would be very much in favour of the federal and provincial governments joining in a construction program for various research centres in Canada's major cities, where thousands of epileptics could be admitted, so that we could give them the appropriate
Supply-Health and Welfare care and promote their rehabilitation to a normal life, without their having to depend on anyone.
As a second step, I would suggest that epileptic children of school age attend regular schools.
At this point I must say something which is probably not known to any hon. member. If a six, seven or eight year old child, is registered in a school in the province of Quebec and the school authorities notice that he or she suffers from epilepsy, this child is sent home. Epileptics are not getting any education, whereas they need the benefit of education more than others. Such conditions are unwarranted, indeed. Experience has shown that most epileptics who have had a chance of getting some education, and more particularly those whose parents were able to afford private tuition-and this is the only way they can be educated-have always got on in the struggle for life, and never became a burden for the state.
If the only result of my remarks were to rouse the public conscience with regard to that extraordinary fact that epileptic children have no possibility of education, that they are not admitted in our schools, I think I shall not have wasted my time in drawing public attention to a problem for which an eventual solution may be found.
I have a third suggestion to submit. It deals with the adult epileptic, who had no chance of getting an education. How can such an individual, who, in spite of his illness, is able to take on a responsible job in many fields have a chance of being employed? Unfortunately, we are living in a callous society, which is often lacking in charity. I must say that we are not very progressive in this field, as I am informed that in Great Britain for instance, there are laws providing that in large companies, 2 or 3 per cent of the labour force must be made up of handicapped people such as epileptics. I wonder why we could not do the same thing here. If we want industry to do its share, if we want our industries to give epileptics an opportunity to work, it is only fair that the state should set the example.
I was saying a moment ago that generally speaking our society is callous. However, Canadians are also very generous people, and when face squarely with a problem of this kind, I am sure they will respond and give jobs to those handicapped, who seek nothing more.
Moreover, if the government were to set aside 1 or 2 per cent of the jobs available in the federal civil service for those people, this would provide employment for 300 to 400 of

Supply-Health and Welfare them. We must not forget that nothing prevents an epileptic from marrying and raising a family.
I also stated a moment ago that this disease is not hereditary. I hope the minister will give special consideration to this suggestion and will be able to prevail upon the government to lead the way in this field.
In closing, may I say a few words about two organizations which have been showing great devotion in the care of those sick people. I refer particularly to the Dieppe home, at St. Hilaire, an establishment devoted to the treatment and rehabilitation of male epileptics. Unfortunately, when those people are released from the Dieppe home, there are no jobs available to them, despite the fact that they are able to work.
Moreover, there is no institution to take care of women thus afflicted. They have to depend upon public charity or their relatives. So far, the government has not taken any real step to assist that rather large number of our fellow citizens.
I was saying a moment ago that we have in Canada 145,000 epileptics who expect us to come to their assistance. They are not asking for favours, but only the support they are entitled to. All they want is to be able to play a productive part in our society.
I hope that the minister will give serious consideration to my suggestions.
(Text):


Mr. McLennan:: Mr. Chairman, may I first congratulate the minister and the government for the many good pieces of legislation they have brought forward in the interests of the health and welfare of the Canadian people. In my constituency alone there are over 10,000 old age pensioners, many of whom have come from other parts of the nation, especially the prairie provinces, to live in the banana belt of Canada. In many instances these are people who pioneered western Canada and who have made Canada the great nation it is today.


An hon. Member:: From Bruce county?


William Alexander McLennan: Yes, there are some from Bruce county. All have contributed a good deal in their own way to the development of this country but some, through misadventure or misfortune, find themselves in a pretty hopeless position in the sunset years of their lives. May I ask the minister to give serious and sympathetic consideration to providing some relief by increasing the social assistance to those of our senior citizens who can qualify for additional help under the means test. I know that the minister and his officials are giving careful and serious study and

consideration to the Clark report on contributory pensions. I believe that the introduction of legislation setting up a system of contributory old age pensions and a social security program would be among the most beneficial and popular health and welfare legislation ever introduced in this country. I should also like to thank the minister, his executive assistant and his officials for the friendly and courteous reception they have given me as a private member and for the help they have given me with respect to many problems concerning my constituents.


Mr. Wralten:: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Department of National Health and Welfare is one department that touches practically every home and every individual in the country in some way, shape or form during their lifetime, and today I want to extend the thanks of the citizens of Brantford for the very generous help we have had in building two new hospitals. We are fortunate that we have two practically brand new hospitals, one operated by the sisters of St. Joseph who do a very excellent job and operate the hospital most efficiently, and the other our own Brantford General hospital, a 500 bed hospital. Incidentally, I happen to have the honour of being a member of the board of governors of this big institution.
One point that I want to bring before the government today has to do with the building of nurses' homes and nurses' training schools. We are in the process now of trying to draw up plans and raise the money to build a new nurses' home and a new nurses' training school. This is a big problem because in a large hospital such as ours we need from 60 to 75 girls going into training for nursing every year. This means that we have to have a building to look after at least 225 girls because we must have enough beds for the trainees and also for those engaged in supervisory duties.
This is a big responsibility for the municipality. Because of the way hospital grants are now made and because of the fact that people coming under the Ontario hospital plan can enter any hospital, when the municipality is called upon to construct these large buildings in order to maintain these hospitals it puts a terrific burden on the taxpayer who is already suffering a good deal from high taxes in municipalities throughout the country.
Some time ago when the government extended to 75 per cent the subsidy to vocational training schools in order to help to train the male population of our country, I asked myself why a subsidy of the same proportions was not also extended to training schools for nurses. After all, if we do not train nurses we will not have the necessary staff for our hospitals. New hospitals with

plenty of beds are of little value unless we have efficient nurses and can get girls to enter training as nurses in order to staff these hospitals.
This is a problem that every hospital faces right throughout Ontario and I suppose right throughout the country. We have brought nurses from overseas but they did not stay too long. While they helped to tide us over a period when we were very short of trained nurses, we have to rely on the nurses we can train in our own hospitals to maintain them and to look after the patients there. The building we now have for a nurses' home is not adequate by any means. The fire department would like to condemn it and not have it used at all but we must continue to use it until such time as we can construct a new building.
Other hospitals have a slight advantage over us when they can show prospective trainees a new nurses' home and an excellent training school. We have very excellent teachers in our hospital and that counteracts to some extent the difficulty we are having. Not too long ago the government saw fit to help parents with children going to university and if parents of university children can be helped in some way I certainly think that parents with daughters training for nurses should also be given some assistance. As you know, the trainees receive practically no remuneration for the first two years of their training, and I think their parents certainly should be given some consideration so far as income tax is concerned in order to help keep the girls we have and induce girls to train as nurses.
We have heard a good deal today from various hon. members about our old people, our senior citizens. I hope that before too long we will be able to increase the assistance to our older people. I am happy that I was a supporter of the government in 1957 when it raised the old age assistance pension to a level that enabled these people to at least live in some degree of comfort rather than only exist as had been the case before. When we hear about social legislation being brought in, it is important to remember that it is of little or no use unless it is made good enough so that people have to live on and are not existing from hand to mouth and having to go to welfare agencies in order to get enough to sustain themselves. The people who are now reaching the age when they will receive old age pensions are people who went through the last depression. As one who is old enough to have had that experience, I can say that I know what it was to go through the thirties. These people lost everything through no fault of their own. Then the war came and the depression ended-that was the only thing that did end it. When the economy
Supply-Health and Welfare slowed down again, these people were the first to be laid off because they were in the age categories which the factories wanted to eliminate in terms of employment. These are the people who need this extra assistance in order to get the necessities of life. In a country such as ours, these older people should not have to go to welfare agencies with their hat in their hands to ask for enough in order to live.
Another point I should like to bring to the attention of the minister concerns pensions for the blind. We in Brantford have the problems of the blind brought to our attention more forcibly than other people because we have the Ontario school for the blind in our city. Pupils come from all over Canada. When one visits this school, one is amazed to see how these youngsters are trained to participate in all types of sports as well as the different vocations for which they are suited in order to enable them to earn a livelihood. However, there are always some who cannot be trained, and some senior adults who need extra help. I would commend to the minister the brief presented by the Canadian institute for the blind and urge him to give help to the older blind people. It is a most heart-rending sight to see a person who has lost his sight late in life because he finds great difficulty becoming accustomed to a new way of life.
We have a man in Brantford who looks after the needs of the blind. He is blind himself. I refer to Mr. Ian Grills. He does an amazing job in finding occupations for these older people and helping them work out a new way of life. He certainly should be commended for the excellent work he has done.
We are fortunate also to have in Brantford a building which is only five or six years old, and to which we are adding two new wings. This building is called the John Noble home. Hon. members should visit this home to see how we take care of the people who need some medical attention but do not require hospitalization. This home is run in conjunction with the old people's home, as it used to be called. We now have room for aged couples who can live the last few years of their lives together in good surroundings. I had the honour of being the chairman of the organization in control of this building two years after it was constructed. One of the most heart-rending sights I ever saw was an old couple who came to that home and whom we had to separate because we did not have room to put them together. The old lady was a pathetic figure as she sat in the rotunda of the building. They had been married for some 50 years, yet this would be the first night on which they had
7010	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare been separated from one another in all that time. One of the reasons this project was undertaken to increase the size of the John Noble home was to enable elderly couples to live together during their declining years.
There is just one more matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. I see that we make grants to some very worth-while organizations. I should like to call the minister's attention to an organization that is trying to eliminate leprosy, not only in Canada but throughout the world. There is a lady in Brantford by the name of Miss LeRoy who has dedicated her life to this end. I do not want to take the time of the committee this afternoon to indicate the small sum of money necessary to cure a case of leprosy. Fortunately, we do not have too many cases in Canada, but there are a great many cases throughout the world which could be cured at a small cost. I would ask the minister, in future, to include a grant for this organization in order to help these people who have dedicated their lives to the elimination of leprosy throughout the world.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief remarks concerning these estimates. This is a very important department for two reasons: First, because of its responsibilities to a very large number of Canadians directly and, second, because it involves the expenditure of over $96 million.
Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, I must say that there are certain advantages in occupying a seat in this corner of the chamber, in addition to being close to the Speaker. For many years I sat at the other end of the chamber and I did not have the opportunity of looking at the most attractive section of the senior officials in front of the minister.
I welcome the opportunity of viewing them from this angle and it will give me some incentive in dealing with these estimates. I want to thank the minister and his senior officials for their prompt attention to any question of mine in respect of administrative matters and regulations. I wish to thank the officials in Vancouver, too, because being a member from British Columbia I have a closer relationship with them.
As I have said, this is a very important department with regard to the welfare of the Canadian people. In view of this country's great natural resources and the profits made even in the last year by great corporations, to suggest that we as a nation cannot afford to accept our responsibilities for the health and welfare services provided to our people is to suggest that we are not doing our duty in this house. One hon. member who spoke this morning-I just forget the constituency he represents-made a very interesting speech.


I thought his speech indicated his interest in this general problem of health and welfare. He quoted from a book which would indicate that the Conservatives were the first to legislate in the field of old age pensions in Great Britain.


Mr. Chambers:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence says, "Hear, hear". I am afraid his enthusiasm has outrun his knowledge. Let me say this. I happened to mention that they did pass some considerable body of legislation after it was advocated for many years by the Liberals and the Labour party in Great Britain. The credit for the first old age security or pension legislation must go, without a doubt, to the Liberal party in Great Britain. I have a volume of United Kingdom Hansard on my desk because I just wondered if my memory was slipping by reason of increasing age. Here I find a speech by a member of the Conservative party in which he says frankly they must give credit to the Liberal government, which was the government of Campbell Bannerman's day, and later, for the introduction of the old age pension legislation. I thought I would mention that because I think it is wise for us to keep our facts straight. I give the Conservatives of Great Britain great credit for allowing themselves to be influenced by the members of the Liberal and Labour parties of the day. I give Winston Churchill, the former prime minister of Great Britain, great credit because of his natural common sense. But let us not forget this fact. When former prime minister Winston Churchill first advocated old age pensions he was a member of the Liberal party in Great Britain. But later on,-he was a very common sense prime minister-he saw the need for this provision and his government moved forward in that direction.
Generally speaking we in this country are far behind Great Britain and European countries with respect to over-all social welfare legislation. I suppose it comes from our more recent pioneer circumstances in the first instance and second because we are not a unitary state. I admit that it is much more difficult to develop an over-all security program in a country such as Canada in which there is a federal government and ten provincial governments that have to be considered and their wishes with respect to policy, administration and finance, shall I say, obtained and agreement reached.
In this country there is a need, as there has been for years, for an over-all security program. If there is any question about the need for it and about the thinking in this

direction, I just wish to refer to a very interesting conversation with the former chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Butler. I was ribbing him a bit. It was shortly after the Conservative government came into power in 1951. I said to him, "Mr. Butler, in view of the history of your party since 1895 with respect to over-all security programs, what are you going to do now that you are in power?" Do you know what he said to me? He said, "An over-all security program is a necessity in the modern age. It is demanded by the British people. It is serving a great purpose. It meets a great need so far as the British people are concerned. As far as our government is concerned I will tell you this. Our policy as a Conservative government is to continue to improve the revolution." That is because there is a great change in thinking as a result of changing circumstances. There is the advocacy of these things for almost a generation when they were unpopular but finally the will of the people prevails and governments in a democracy are obliged to reflect that will.
While an over-all security program is necessary, the foundations must be laid by the state, shall I say, so there is a minimum security with respect to health, employment, old age and so on. I do not overlook the necessity under the best arrangements for a continued operation of private agencies. In my opinion there will always be a place for compassion and personal responsibility and efforts in this respect. Regardless of the type of society we have, we must have an opportunity for those sentiments to find expression through organized groups and through the efforts of individuals as further supplements to anything that the state can do.
What about the need in this country? I was just looking at this copy of Canadian Welfare magazine which is published monthly. I think it is the latest edition. In this magazine there is a very interesting article written by Mr. E. F. Watson and entitled "How Much is Enough in Social Assistance". I wish to quote one paragraph in order to indicate the circumstances that exist in Canada. I am not quoting this material on a partisan basis but rather to indicate the opinion of a very experienced person in this field. The first paragraph of this article reads as follows:
Hunger and grinding poverty continue to exist for too many people in Canadian communities today.
In 1961 there are still men, women and children who are not getting enough to eat, who are living in appalling housing and who lack sufficient clothing to keep them warm. Unprecedented national productivity, rising wage levels and vastly Increased social welfare expenditures have left this segment of the population in an economic and social backwash.
Supply-Health and Welfare
I think that is quite true and that it is one of the anomalies of our present civilization.
Before going on to say a few words about an over-all security program I wish to refer to the annual report of the executive director of the Canadian welfare council with regard to the part that is still played by private agencies. I mention this matter because I am a great believer in individuals accepting some responsibility within the field of their circumstances and so on. I read in this report an interesting paragraph:
Another thing we observe as we look around is the vigorous growth everywhere evident in the voluntary welfare field. Throughout the whole country many forms of health service, child and family welfare, recreation programs, programs for delinquent youth and the aftercare of adult offenders, housing for the aged and a large variety of other facilities and services continue to be provided largely under private auspices, although in a number of instances with financial subsidies from public funds.
A notable feature of the private welfare movement in Canada during recent years, and one of the secrets of its present strength, is the development of federated financing through community funds. Today there are 107 such funds across the country as contrasted with 54 just a decade ago. During the same period the Canadian per capita contribution to community funds has increased by 50 per cent to well over $3, the number of agencies receiving support has more than doubled to around 1,800 and the total money raised, now approaching thirty million dollars annually, has nearly tripled. This growth during the 50's is by any standard impressive, and greatly exceeds that of the entire earlier period back to 1917 when the first Canadian federation was established in Montreal.
I will tell you what I think that indicates. I think it indicates that when governments take a lead and give effect to policies, as the federal government has done in certain fields in the administration of this department, it is a spur to action on the part of private organizations and agencies and even to individuals. I say again that whatever the state does-and the state must accept its full responsibility-there is a great deal of scope for compassion exercised through private agencies and through the activities of individuals.
In 1958 the Canadian welfare council adopted a policy statement for social security for Canada. I wish to refer to it briefly because it is still up to date. This statement was the result of a considerable study by very well informed and experienced persons in this field, and I understand that these recommendations were presented to the federal government at that time. What do they say here? I am going to quote just some of them. While there are some things that we could not agree with entirely, possibly where they do not go far enough in some instances, I think the general outlook is excellent and progressive.

Supply-Health and Welfare


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I heard a sort of bellow over to my left. I did not know whether it was complimentary or otherwise. Oh, I understand. I had thought the hon. gentleman was going to rise in order to make some comment on what I was saying. It is the pipe line section of the chamber. I read as follows:
Recommendation 1:
The present universal flat rate pension commencing at age 70 should be retained.
That is in view of the proposal being put forward for an over-all security program. I think that is quite correct, and we believe that is correct until it is replaced by some over-all security plan which provides for something better.
Recommendation 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.
I have received a number of letters on that question and a number of instances have been brought to my attention which indicate that the government should give immediate consideration to that recommendation because of the circumstances in which people between 65 and 69 years of age find themselves at the present time. I continue:
Recommendation 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.
I am sure all hon. members of the committee have during recent months received letters from organizations representing old age security recipients and old age pensioners' organizations urging reconsideration and adjustment of the present basic rate of pension because of the increase in the cost of living since the pension was raised in 1957. We have given consideration, and properly so, to disability war pensioners; we have given consideration to recipients of war veterans allowance, and I think it is now appropriate for us to recognize the needs of those on old age security and old age assistance. Recommendation 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.
This recommendation encompasses assistance to two groups of persons in particular, recipients of the universal old age security pension who are in need, and persons 65 to 69 years of age who are in need. I know this is not as simple a problem as appears on the surface, but I trust that in the very near future we will hear of a conference being

called among the federal government, provincial governments and private agencies to discuss the problem faced today by the aged in Canada. At this stage I wish to compliment the hon. member for Niagara Falls on what I thought was a very logical speech. It showed good preparation coupled with, as usual, excellent presentation. I continue:
Recommendation 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.
When the minister replies to the various questions raised on item No. 1 I hope he will inform the committee whether the government has given consideration to that recommendation. I continue:
Recommendation 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.
At this stage I certainly want to support the remarks of the hon. member for Timmins, who urged the government to make provision, in co-operation with the provinces, for a national portable or transferable pension scheme which would cover all persons in Canada. There is responsibility on the federal government because this question is directly related to exemptions from income tax and the action of the federal government will largely determine the benefits and the type of legislation which will be put into operation by the provinces. The leadership in this field must come from the federal government if the provinces are going to provide any satisfactory type of transferable or portable pension. The next recommendation reads as follows:
Recommendation 7:
There should be a federal public assistance act which would be, in effect, an extension of the Unemployment Assistance Act-
Then it spells out the details. I do think there is great need for further consideration of that problem in view of the present liabilities and costs thrown upon municipalities. That is a rather involved and complicated question, and I certainly support the recommendation of the council. Recommendation No. 8 reads:
The operation of all public assistance programs should be based upon sound and clearly defined standards, particularly with respect to:
a. Amount of assistance.
i.	A definition of what constitutes a minimum level of health and decency.
ii.	A schedule of minimum requrements based upon this definition, and related to the age and size of the family unit.

iii.	The periodic translation of minimum requirements into monetary terms, appropriate to the specific community, which would form the basis of public assistance payments.
I think that is very necessary indeed. I have read statistical tables dealing with the minimum requirements, for example in Toronto and in some other places in Canada. No standard has been set which can be taken as a yardstick across this country as to what minimum requirements are necessary.
In connection with unemployment insurance the council makes several recommendations, but as those do not come under this department I shall not mention them. The council concludes with a recommendation for intergovernmental co-operation and administrative standards. I think that is very necessary indeed. There is a great diversity of standards between the federal government and the provinces with respect to administrative practices and, shall I say, uniformity of administration and procedure.
I think something could be done in this connection along the lines of the uniformity of legislation committee which meets once every year. I understand the Solicitor General, the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general of the provinces, or their representatives, meet once a year in order to maintain uniformity of legislation. I think this could be the basis of an excellent study. I think this is the sort of problem to which the other place, having more leisure and freed from day to day, shall I say, partisan strife and things of that sort, could devote some attention after the fashion of their present land use study and the excellent study that has been made with respect to manpower and employment.
This is the type of study that takes time in order to assimilate the information with respect to procedures in other countries and Canada and, on the basis of that information, devise a standard of administration and procedure which is accepted from the Atlantic to the Pacific and will provide greater efficiency, lower costs in relation to the units served and therefore more service to the Canadian people from the tax money expended. Recommendation 19 reads as follows:
The dominion government should make funds available for demonstration and research projects, in the causes and prevention of dependency, social and economic rehabilitation, and similar problems.
That was mentioned, Mr. Chairman, by previous speakers and it has validity. This would take some time, possibly years, to accomplish but it should be given consideration. Recommendation No. 20:
Machinery should be devised to ensure regular communication among provinces, and between provinces and the dominion government, on all welfare matters of common interest.
90205-6-443
Supply-Health and Welfare
I do not know whether there have been any changes in the channels of communication since these recommendations were presented to the government, but I presume that as years go by they are improving. I remember that when the old age pensions act was first introduced, I think it was in 1926, dealing with the problem in British Columbia, in conversation with officials we were faced with the atmosphere-this is the impression I obtained-dealing at arms length, as it were, with the senior government. However, I think that situation has greatly improved over the years. Recommendation No. 21 provides:
The dominion government should establish a broadly representative body of competent persons, the purpose of which would be to keep under constant review all aspects of Canada's social security program and to advise on changes and improvements that may from time to time be desirable.
That is in general terms a very worth-while recommendation. I am not sure just how it can be given effect, but possibly it could be accomplished by including it on the agenda of the type of conference mentioned by the hon. member for Niagara Falls. I think it should be given serious consideration.
The final recommendation is:
The dominion government should appoint a royal commission to study all aspects of social security for which it has a direct or indirect responsibility and more particularly to make recommendations with respect to-
The present royal commission I understand will not be as comprehensive as that provided for in the recommendation of the council.
We are living in a changing society in which we are depending more upon industry than agriculture. This creates many problems which did not exist 40 or 50 years ago. We cannot remain stagnant. First of all we must try to catch up with those who are ahead of us in the United Kingdom and Europe, but we have some way to go before accomplishing that.
I am not suggesting for one moment that these problems are to be solved easily or overnight, but I think the recommendations of the council should be seriously considered by the government and by the members of this committee because they come from a body with a long history of experience in this field.
I know the minister has great respect for the work being done in Canada at this time by similar agencies on national and provincial levels, but we in this group have the feeling that we have not, to date, laid the broad foundations upon which to build the very necessary and comprehensive over-all social security program which Canadian people need and which Canada can well afford.

Supply-Health and Welfare
A few minutes ago I was looking at the report in respect to the problem of social security for aged people in United States and Canada submitted by Dr. Robert M. Clark, which was tabled in the house on March 5, 1959. So far that report has been apparently a matter of academic interest, as far as the government is concerned. Possibly the minister can give us further information as to what the government intends to do in respect to those proposals which can be related to the information contained in this report. I suggest this report indicates how slowly we are moving in this field.
As years go by the need increases, but the government has not, from our point of view, laid the broad foundations necessary to erect the structure of over-all security. Leadership must come from the federal government in this field first of all, although there is a great deal of work done by provincial governments and private agencies, because it is the central government and has the facilities as well as the opportunity of providing the financial assistance required. That leadership must be followed by co-operation between this government and the provincial governments. They must first reach an agreement on the basis of an over-all security program. There are some very good portions of this in effect now, but agreement must be reached in respect to the financing of this program, as well as agreement regarding its administration.
I am confident that if the Canadian people were presented with such a program and told of the cost they would accept it. We do not get something for nothing, but only that which we are willing to pay for, whether it is from corporations or individuals, because two and two make four under a capitalist or socialist administration. I am sure that if the government laid the groundwork for an over-all security program and presented it to the provinces and the people, informing them of its cost and the taxation necessary to carry it forward, it would be acceptable. We in this group do not suggest that we can get something for nothing, but I am sure Canadians would welcome such a forward step which should have been taken years ago.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question now. I did not wish to interrupt him while he was speaking.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly, and I shall answer if I am able to.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. gentleman had to say, and I take it from his remarks that he wishes to extend the benefits of

welfare. My question is, does he believe that if we extend these benefits we can do so without increasing taxes of all kinds, including income tax, levied on the entrepreneurs or employees of this country?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I do not for a minute suggest that we can provide these extra services without collecting more revenues. However, we in this group maintain that we can collect that extra revenue without any difficulty from the corporations and private individuals who have the capacity to pay.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I should first like to wish the minister a happy birthday. I am sure he can hear me although he has just left his seat. I hope he will have many more as minister of this department. I should also like to congratulate him for the splendid job he has done as well as for the capable and efficient manner in which he is administering his department.
Perhaps I might just mention a few of the things which were badly needed that he has provided. They are; the doubling of grants in respect to hospital beds, the implementation of hospital insurance as well as the various other building grants to hospitals for internes' quarters, nurses' residences, and so forth. Those are only a very few of the legislative measures which have been brought forward since this minister took charge of this department.
I am sure that I do not need to remind him that he also heads the department which spends 22 cents of every dollar that is spent by this government, and in that regard is second only to the Department of National Defence which spends 26 cents of each dollar spent. I am sure that if we look ahead we will find it is only a matter of years until the Department of National Health and Welfare becomes the largest spending department in the federal government.
As one looks ahead and realizes that more and more hospital beds will be required as the span of life is increased one will understand that special emphasis must be placed on the provision of hospital accommodation for elderly people who are chronically ill. Surely those individuals will not require the expensive equipment and buildings necessary for the treatment of active and acutely ill patients for whom we must construct hospitals at a cost of $12,000 to $15,000 per bed. I suggest accommodation could be built for the chronically ill at approximately half that cost.
It is my contention that chronically ill elderly citizens are the responsibility of governments. Many of these people find it difficult today to find accommodation unless they

live in areas where nursing homes have been certified. Those certified homes receive $5 per day per patient from the commission. In comparison, I suggest that the average cost per active permanent hospital bed in Canada is over $18 per day, or almost four times the cost of treatment and accommodation for chronically ill individuals. This certainly applies in Ontario. I also wonder how many active patient hospital beds are being used at this high rate of chronically ill individuals who could be looked after in nursing homes. In this connection I should like to deal in a few moments with mental health. While I appreciate that this is the responsibility of provincial governments, I wonder whether more research could not be done at the federal level. I am aware that Dr. Farquharson has pointed out the scarcity of personnel to carry on this work, but I am also aware of the old proverb that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I am going to speak for a few moments on the mental health of our people because I believe, with the stresses and strains we are now subjected to, more and more of our people suffer emotional upsets. In this regard I think we should take a look at this very important problem when we realize that one out of 10 babies born in Canada will wind up in a mental institution; that mental and senile deterioration will increase as our life span lengthens. In the last 60 years it has lengthened 20 years. The fact is that one out of every 10 people is either mentally imbalanced or has a serious problem in adjusting himself. It is estimated that 2 per cent of our population is substandard in intelligence. It is stated that 15 per cent of all our school children and university students need psychiatric counsel and it is a well known fact that 2 per cent of our population are alcoholics and need treatment at various times in hospitals or in mental institutions. Indeed, Dr. Wolf states that 50 per cent of all hospital patients suffer from emotional problems that delay their recovery and their stay in hospital was, according to his figures, three times as long as in the normal case. Thus this has increased greatly our hospital costs of which this government pays one-third.
This makes us wonder whether progress is active enough in the research field including researh on virus infection; whether enough dollars are being spent to explore all avenues. Virus sickness, including the common cold, can cost this nation a vast sum in terms of research, treatment and the loss of time of employees from work. Polio is being conquered. The success in this field is a great tribute to the work being done both by the federal and provincial governments; but, what 90205-6-443*
Supply-Health and Welfare about some of the other viruses? What about the virus of measles, for instance, that works on the pregnant mother with the end result a defective child may be born? Should all pregnant women who are not immunized be given measles serum? Should pamphlets be put out by the federal government advising that this should be done?
The province of Ontario has a very fine health department. It has a very capable administrator in the person of Dr. Mat. Dymond. Duplication is costly and unnecessary. Let us make sure that we cover the field properly by aiding and helping the provinces in the fields in which they are unable to undertake and incapable of undertaking the necessary research.
What about the welfare of our older people? More and more are living beyond the arbitrary years. The hon. member for Niagara Falls mentioned the importance of our senior citizens. This is indeed a problem. Just as an illustration, there are more than 5,000 people in the United States who are over 100 years old. This is an astounding figure. It just illustrates that more and more people are entering into the geriatric field. Indeed, in the province of Ontario they organized a geriatric section in the Ontario Medical Association. I believe about two months ago they had their annual meeting in the city of Toronto. Our arbitrary retirement age was set at the time of Bismarck, and that is getting close to 100 years ago. It is ridiculous for us today to be following the same premise. At the time of Bismarck, the average person lived to be 40 years of age; today he lives to be 70 years. We have to take another look at this question.
A great many of these older people live in their own homes, but they are unable to carry on normal household duties to the full extent that they should. The husband and wife are living there. In many instances, if a well cooked meal was prepared and taken to them they could continue living at home. That is being done in some parts of the United States; they call it "meals on wheels". Those people get one good cooked meal a day and they stay in their homes where they are happy in their own environment, without the cost of housing them, thus saving the government millions of dollars. The same thing applies to cleaning up and looking after the house. If a welfare worker were to go in the home once a week and probably do some of the heavier work the old people could carry on. The premises would be kept clean and the old people would be cheered up by the welfare worker. I would suggest to the federal government that they give leadership to the

Supply-Health and Welfare provincial governments in some of those things that have been pointed out, particularly by the United States geriatric society.
We always speak about the pensioners and the increases needed in their pensions. I believe in this. I am in favour of increases but also let me say that I have seen old people die not for want of money but for want of love. Love and the feeling of being wanted are very necessary if we are to have a successful program for the aged. As a matter of fact, this is fundamental. Again this is something that should be instituted at the community level. It costs nothing. Let us put it into practice.
I want to touch on another problem which concerns our children. I hope I am not making too many suggestions to the minister because I know some of the problems he has. I believe that the federal government should assist in or carry out a plan across Canada to supply milk to all the school children. This is done in nearly every country today that has a standard of living comparable with ours. Canada is particularly fortunate in having some of the finest dairy cows in the world. Why we should be behind other countries in this field is very difficult to understand. No better food could be provided for a growing child at such a low cost.
I want to say a few words about cardiovascular diseases which are caused by a high cholesterol diet. The villain is said to be cream, butter, animal fats, all products produced in abundance in our northern climate. Not only are they important to our economy but milk and cheese are cheap sources of protein, calcium, riboflavin and vitamin A. It has been contended that butter, cream and fat in the meal would cause heart disease, particularly coronary thrombosis. People have been urged to use less fat, to discontinue butter and cream and to drink skim milk or powdered skim milk instead of whole milk.
I believe it is readily admitted today that humans obtain their cholesterol in one of three ways: first, by eating foods that contain it; second, by manufacturing it from the starch, sugar and protein they consume; third, by manufacturing cholesterol within the body which varies in reverse with the amount of cholesterol they have.
I think it is pretty well accepted now that cardio-vascular disease runs in families; that only a small percentage of people run cholesterol over normal on normal diets, and those that do may be helped by diet, but more likely will have to be helped by a drug which will control it as insulin controls diabetes. The perfect drug to control it has not been developed but there is a drug that does stop the body producing cholesterol just short of its synthesis.

The medical profession, and I plead guilty with them, may have unwittingly done a great deal of harm to the dairy industry. To prove how fallacious our concepts may have been may I say that we in Canada use far more butter and have far less coronaries than our neighbours to the south. In talking to representatives of health departments in Great Britain and Europe I learned that no particular diet was stressed. The only thing they did stress was to avoid obesity and to control weight.
In examining the matter more closely we must have in mind that milk has been a food for human beings since life began. Perhaps the health and welfare department could emphasize the importance of milk, cheese and dairy products in general in our economy as being the cheapest sources of calcium, riboflavin and protein.
I wish to dwell for a few minutes on the shortage of trained personnel. We hear so many people say: We will put in a health plan tomorrow and we will cover all dental and medical care. Let me say this. I am wondering what can be done federally by the Department of National Health and Welfare to encourage young people graduating from high schools to enter the fields of dentistry and medicine. Something has to be done if the high standard of dentistry and medicine, the finest in the world, are to be preserved.
It is shocking to learn that only 193 dentists graduated in 1959 compared with 306 in 1950. Nine out of every ten people suffer dental destruction and all children need dental attention before the age of 15. To do all this work in Canada there are only 4,579 dentists in private practice or one dentist for over 3,000 people. In Sweden there is a dentist for every 1,400 and in the United States there is one dentist for every 1,800 people. To meet the need of prevention partially, V.O.P. is training dental hygienists as auxiliary helpers in this field, particularly with regard to the maintenance of healthy mouths in children.
How do we increase the number of dentists to the point of at least keeping the present ratio of dentists to the number of patients? Dentistry schools would have to be enlarged. How are the costs of the course to be met? How are the students going to be able to meet the fees and the other costs of attending university? If they are able to borrow this money, will their earnings be high enough to compensate them for the five years of expensive training plus dental office equipment costing between $7,000 and $10,000 and high rental offices in our cities? Has the

federal Department of National Health and Welfare undertaken any research in this field to learn the answers?
Would a course of four years, with an additional month or two months per year, cut the costs and allow more students to be graduated? The same buildings could be used for the extra two months without any or very little additional cost. I am wondering whether, with our high cost economy in every field, we can allow our educational buildings to stand idle for some months in the year bearing the cost of depreciation and interest charges? I know it will be said that we are short of teachers to carry on any program like this. Yet we met that crisis when the war was on and many of our medical and dental men were away in the services.
There is another point. Should tax incentives be granted until the young graduate has some of his debt off his shoulders? I am speaking particularly of the dental profession although the statements I have made can be applied to many of the other professions, including my own. In the dental field there is now insurance as to dental care with free choice of dentists. Yet what is the use of health insurance or dental insurance if we have insufficient personnel to give the necessary care?
In the medical field it seems to me that everyone wants to be a specialist. In many places there is, I believe, a shortage of general practitioners. Is there anything that can be done to make general practice more attractive to the young graduate? It seems to me that today a young man goes through medical school and rarely meets a general practitioner. Should qualified general practitioners be put on the teaching staffs of universities?
When I went through school all teachers, as I remember, had done some general practice work, the work of the man who has been so aptly described as not only the healer but the friend and counsellor of the family. Too many specialists add to the costs with which the public is already overburdened. In case I may be misunderstood, let me say that the specialist often is able to save lives. Special training is very necessary in many cases, but do not let us lose the general practitioner.
In this field we need many more graduates. Had we not taken in so many doctors from other countries, we would not have sufficient medical personnel today to look after the people of Canada. Again, as I have suggested with regard to dentistry, should the time be cut from six to five years and the course each year lengthened? Should tax incentives be offered young medical graduates? Is the fear of a government dominated health plan scaring away promising young men from the
Supply-Health and Welfare medical and dental fields? Should we encourage young women in our high schools to go into this field, a field that appears to me is being vacated by the young men? In some countries in Europe women doctors are more numerous than men. Perhaps we should learn some of the answers before it is too late and we find ourselves short of necessary medical care. It is my hope that judge Hall and his commission will come up with a sound scheme that will not have to be put in reverse because of hasty, ill-conceived plans.


Erhart Regier: Would the hon. member permit a question? I know he is an honoured member of the medical profession. However, there is a suspicion abroad that the medical and dental professions are closed union shops and that there are limitations imposed upon the numbers who may become doctors or dentists. Would the hon. member for Simcoe East, who has a considerable reputation in this field, comment on this allegation that we hear so often?


Philip Bernard Rynard: We have the highest standard of medical care in the world and there has to be close scrutiny of the students and personnel who are trained in the medical field. We want to maintain our standards if we can.


Mr. Regnier:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on that part of the estimates dealing with the emergency advisory committee and radiation protection. I do not believe anyone today has touched on that part of the program of the minister, and this is a fact I deplore. I believe there is great apathy among the people of Canada and I am sorry to say that it seems there is great apathy in the House of Commons regarding this very important matter. I do not believe it is possible to exaggerate the necessity of having a program for human survival in the event of war. In the newspapers on June 21 last we noted that Douglas Dillon, treasury secretary of the United States, had said that today the Berlin situation is crucial and that a house foreign affairs expert had said that it was possible the United States would be at war with Russia by the end of the year over Berlin.
In the report of the special committee on research I have read that Dr. Stewart said:
I know of no approved shelter in the country, no shelter that has a stamp of approval.
We have had a civil defence organization for ten years and if we continue at the same tempo for the next ten years and war comes we will be totally unprepared. I feel that it is only by a well organized and well

Supply-Health and Welfare thought out civil defence, which will provide fall-out shelters for all Canadians, that this nation will survive a nuclear attack.
With the recent threat of Mr. Khrushchev that he will make a separate peace treaty with east Germany by the end of this year and with the firm warning of President Kennedy and Prime Minister Macmillan that they will resist such a move, hon. members will agree that the tension in the world today has almost reached the cracking point.
While a military defence may have the desired effect against an attack, one must not forget that a well established civil defence is also a great deterrent. If a nation is organized for human survival in the event of a nuclear war, the effect of the nuclear bomb is diminished to the damages caused by the explosion. The greatest damage a nuclear bomb can cause lies in the after effects of the radioactive fall-out. It is of the utmost importance for national survival that precautionary measures be taken at once to safeguard our population. Since 1955 when, at a meeting in Edmonton on August 31, military experts and nuclear war experts warned the nation that the time to act was "now", almost six years have passed.
Although in the last two years a vigorous publicity campaign has been waged by the authorities, there has not been any significant progress toward provisions for human survival. We can say without hesitation that, while the danger of nuclear attack has been brought home to the Canadian people, no concrete measures for the protection of the Canadian people have been taken. There is no purpose in being like the ostrich and burying our heads in the sand. The only way to bring about satisfactory results is through action by the government in enlisting the people in a national defence organization in the same manner as the nation would do if it were at war. The time to act is "now", when we have idle hands, people who are not actively employed in our industry should be enlisted in the same manner as soldiers during a war emergency. There is no point in pretending that we are getting anywhere in our civil defence. We can come to the definite conclusion that if we proceed at the same tempo as we have been proceeding since August 1955 when the nation was told that the time to act was "now", then we will not be ready when war comes. It will then be too late. We must prepare for civil defence now.
In the Toronto Saturday Night of June 10, 1961, there is an article by General F. F. Worthington, former civil defence co-ordinator, comparing what Russia is doing with what Canada is doing. I quote from that article:

Russia:	People are trained and organized
In the U.S.S.R., civil defence training is mandatory for every male person between the ages of 16 and 60 and for every female person between 18 and 50 not in the armed forces or excused for medical reasons. The government provides, maintains and supplies both blast shelters and fall-out shelters.
The basic component of the Soviet organization is the "self-defence group" in heavily populated areas and the "unitary team" in sparsely populated areas.
In peacetime, the duties of both groups, as set out in the Soviet union's civil defence manual under the title "Defence Against Agents of Mass Destruction", are to maintain a constant state of preparation against an attack and to work with the regular authorities in such services as fire prevention.
In the event of an attack, they give first aid to the injured (and veterinary aid to animals), organize the evacuation of the population from destroyed areas and generally work to eliminate the after effects of an attack.
Self-defence groups consist of a chief, his deputy for political affairs, a property manager, communications officer and fire fighting, anti-chemical, emergency rescue, medical (two), shelters, law enforcement and veterinary (in farm communities) teams. Each team is composed of a team commander, four to seven members and a reserve of two men.
Canada:	Survival is up to the individual
Survival for Canadians in a nuclear war is very much a voluntary decision. The government provides no bomb shelters, no fall-out shelters and no supplies or services, apart from essential national services, to aid the citizen. Canadians may, if they choose, build their own fall-out shelters following a government approved plan. Or they may not; no one is compelled to take any precaution against a nuclear war. Those who do choose to take what action they can to protect themselves face a difficult task.
In "eleven steps to survival", publication No. 4 in the blue print for survival series by the emergency measures organization, it is made clear that to be at all effective they must know the effects of nuclear explosions, the facts about fallout, the warning signals (and have a battery powered radio), have a shelter and fourteen days' emergency supplies (100 items), know how (and when) to fight fires; know home aid and nursing, know emergency cleanliness, know how to get rid of radioactive dust, know municipal emergency plans, and finally, have their own plan for their own families.
In all this, the government and government supported agencies provide only the basic information. In many cases, particularly in municipal emergency plans, even the information is as yet unavailable.
As I have just said, in Russia the people are trained and organized. In Canada, survival is up to the individual. It is not sufficient for the government to give good advice to the nation. The government must save the people in spite of themselves. We cannot permit this nation to commit suicide. We must save the people. It is foolish to keep an army just to pick up the pieces after the bomb falls. While first aid is important, it is more logical to avoid casualties and thereby take the sting out of the bomb. As I said before, I feel it is impossible to exaggerate the necessity for a proper civil defence organization. I should

like to say also that if we did have the proper civil defence organization, we would have no unemployment in this country. We could employ anyone who was willing to work and in this way we would have prosperity in peacetime and we would have some assurance of protection in time of war. Let us not kid ourselves. If we did not have insurance agents, we would not buy insurance. If the insurance agents were not paid, we would have no insurance. We will have no proper civil defence organization as long as we are not ready to organize it in a businesslike manner. We know that today the war clouds are all over the world and if we are not careful we will be caught without preparation.
I am sorry to see that there is no more interest in the discussion of this most important item in the estimates. I know the government has advised the people of the dangers; they have told the people what to do, but I believe the people are entitled to more leadership in connection with this matter.


Erhart Regier: I was greatly interested in hearing the remarks of the hon. member lor St. Boniface. If I have taken his words down correctly he said, "In Russia the people are trained and organized". I do not mean to say very much on the subject of civil defence of our population in case of a nuclear war. However, I should like to inform the hon. member for St. Boniface that, even though the people in Russia may be well trained and organized as to how to defend themselves in case of a potential nuclear war, I am not at all impressed because if nuclear war comes I can assure the hon. member that I do not expect to survive. I can also assure him that if I should be unfortunate enough to survive I would not regard the world as worthy of living in afterward regardless of political organizations or of all kinds of ideologies that may be involved. I consider this to be a whole bunch of nonsense. I think the hon. member might be well advised to consider what he, I and all of the rest of us in the eastern world and in the western world are able to do to prevent this horrible catastrophe from happening.
I have also a brief observation to make on the remarks of the hon. member who preceded the hon. member for St. Boniface, namely the hon. member for Simcoe East. He made a reference to the issue of chronic hospitals. At this point I wish to compliment our government on making available hospital grants and also maintenance grants in respect of the problem of chronic hospitals. I should like to condemn our provincial departments of health in this respect. I completely agree with
Supply-Health and Welfare the hon. member for Simcoe East in his contention that we are operating most uneconomically when we are maintaining in our hospitals many people who ought to be looked after in chronic hospitals.
I believe that our provincial governments are guilty in that they have not supplied any leadership whatsoever with respect to the initiation and the building of hospitals for those who are chronically ill. For a number of years now our federal government have offered to make a major contibution towards the construction of these hospitals; and under our national hospital insurance plan they have also offered to bear what I consider to be a major share of the cost of operation of such hospitals. Yet our provincial governments are evading their responsibilities in this field. This evasion is costing the taxpayers needless amounts of money and it is also causing a great deal of needless human suffering.
Further, I wish to call to the minister's attention at this time especially one particular item. If a man and his wife are each beyond the age of 70 years they are entitled to and receive $55 times 2, namely $110 a month. At the moment either the husband or the wife dies the survivor-and statistics will show that the husband usually dies first and then the widow survives-is left with $55 a month.
I know this issue does not arise in the case of the people who have gone through the means test. However, we have ever so many hundreds of thousands of cases in Canada in which a man and his wife live on the $110 a month. They receive no supplementary benefits. They have been independent people all their lives. They have a minimum amount of savings. They may even have their own home. They may even have an income by way of annuity or pension or what-have-you. However, the moment that one of them dies there is a reduction of 50 per cent in their receipts. This reduction places many of these people in the position in which the survivor-and as I indicated previously in most instances it is the widow-has to submit to the means test in order to receive whatever supplementary benefits are available within the province or within the municipality. I feel that this is most unfair. I feel that we ought to adjust our social security act in order that the survivor, upon the death of the other partner, might be able to receive a little more than 50 per cent of the amount that had been received previously. I know that this issue involves the marginal case.


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


Erhart Regier: Yes.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Edwin William Brunsden: As usual the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is dealing in the abstract. He is pointing out cases. He is deploring conditions. Would he care to make a concrete recommendation?


Erhart Regier: I would indeed, Mr. Chairman. I note that the hon. member for Medicine Hat is again in his regular old form. Every time I speak he raises a point of order. However, at this time he did not raise a point of order; he asked a question. 1 would recommend that a man and his wife receive, as they now receive $110 a month. However, if one of them dies, I would recommend that the survivor receive at least $75 a month. I believe this would be a compensation in the case and would eliminate the need for the survivors to subject themselves to the means test and to have their houses and whatever other small annuity or income they might have subjected to scrutiny by welfare officers. I believe it would help to maintain the dignity of these people.
This is an issue that has been called to my attention many and many a time. I pledged my word that I would raise it on the appropriate occasion. I have written letters to the minister and in his replies he always refers me to the ability of the provincial governments and the municipal governments, to deal with the matter, and says that in the case of need they may grant supplementary allowances. I do not think the minister has completely understood the issue involved. All these people know they can apply to the municipalities and provincial governments; that they can submit their case to a means test. However, I feel our basic law is wrong and is weak in this respect, because the basic expenses of maintaining a home for one are not half what they are for maintaining a home for two. The grant should recognize this fact. I think the minister appreciates it. Perhaps our Old Age Security Act ought to be amended in this respect, because as it is now operating we are forcing all kinds of people needlessly to appeal to the municipality or the provincial government, to plead poverty and be humiliated in a way that I think the Old Age Security Act never intended.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my thanks to the minister for his resume this morning of the work of his department. I think the minister gave us some very interesting figures to consider. The minister pointed out, as have other hon. members, that the Department of National Health and Welfare is now the second largest spending department of the federal government, being second to the Department of National Defence.


The minister also pointed out that of this $1.6 billion we are spending on health and welfare, 94 per cent is statutory. We know that as our population increases and as people live longer this statutory grant is bound to increase year after year. Of course the figures the minister gave us this morning do not tell the whole story, because in addition to federal spending there is provincial spending.
I do not know whether the minister has available the total amount spent on health and welfare throughout Canada. If he has that figure, I think it would be very useful to have it on Hansard, because I think the federal figure would be much more meaningful if we could consider it against the background of the total cost of health and welfare services throughout Canada. As I have said, these amounts are going to increase year after year and, comprehensive as are our plans for health and welfare, there are still many things we would like to see included in this program.
Some hon. members mentioned portable pensions this morning. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat mentioned that the pension plan should be revised so that the survivor would receive $75 a month instead of the $55 he now receives under the present plan. I think these suggestions are worthy of consideration and are certainly things we would like to include in future plans.
However, because of the kind of economy we have in Canada, we can only have as much as our country can afford. I think this raises the point of whether or not it is possible to organize our expenditures on health and welfare in a more efficient manner than is the case at the present time. According to the figures which the minister gave us this morning, of the $1.6 billion we are spending this year, approximately one quarter will be spent on health. That, of course, is a considerable sum in itself, but we must consider that health is the primary responsibility of the provinces. Therefore the total amount spent on health throughout Canada will be many times that figure.
I have been wondering whether it is possible to find out just what relationship exists, or whether there is any relationship between expenditures on health and expenditures on welfare. I do not know whether the minister's department has carried out any study in this regard, but I think it would be useful to undertake such a study.
Money spent on health must be regarded as an investment, because health means wealth and more production. Health is an important factor in our economic production. Today we have a program of preventive medicine and I wonder whether it might not

be possible to extend that preventive idea a little further than we are at the present time. At the present time we think mainly in terms of vaccines to prevent certain diseases. This morning the minister spoke of physical fitness programs, and these are certainly directly related to health.
I was impressed with the remarks of the hon. member for Simcoe East concerning nutrition and diet. I noted that in the minister's report there is a section on nutrition; we are examining certain foods and setting up certain nutritional standards. However, I think these things should be correlated; I think they all tie in together. I say this because it is my opinion that as a people we Canadians are not healthy. I think we are far too soft physically, mentally, morally and in many other ways.
If we are going to have a program of physical fitness, let us go all out and have a co-ordinated plan, not just a separate plan for physical fitness, a separate plan for nutrition and a separate plan for dieting; let us have a program in which will be incorporated all the factors that contribute to health. I should like the minister to tell us what consideration his department has given to this question.
The minister mentioned another point this morning which was of great interest to me. I refer to radiation protection activities undertaken by the department. The minister said the level of strontium-90 in milk had declined to 9.5 micromicrocuries from 15 points a few years ago. I understand that figure to be an average figure, but I wonder whether the minister could tell us what the latest figures are in respect to the range of levels in the various parts of Canada.
The question of radiation hazard is not confined merely to radiation fall-out. We have now reached the point in our industrial development where atomic energy is coming into greater use. I suggest this raises the problems of hazards from atomic wastes.
I am informed of the decision of the United States court of appeal which prevented the establishment of an atomic power plant at Lacoona beach on lake Erie, some 30 miles southwest of Detroit. That court held that the United States atomic energy commission in issuing a provisional licence for this plant was unmindful of the welfare and safety of the 2 million people who live within a 30 mile radius of that location. I wonder whether, in view of the advent of atomic power in industrial use, Canadian cities and centres might not also be endangered, and should like to know what steps are being taken to forestall this.
As the number of plants using atomic energy increase the disposal and dumping of 90205-6-444
Supply-Health and Welfare wastes and radioactive garbage becomes more and more of a problem. We know that the Ontario hydro electric commission has chosen a site 15 miles north of Kincardine for the establishment of a 200,000 kilowatt atomic power generating plant. I should like to ask the minister what arrangements are being made for the disposal of atomic or radioactive wastes from that plant. I understand that this waste will be disposed of in the waters of lake Huron.
Last November health authorities in Nova Scotia became concerned about the United States atomic energy commission dumping atomic wastes in the ocean 200 miles south of Yarmouth. Individuals who live on the eastern seaboard depend primarily on the products of the ocean-various fisheries-for their livelihood and are very much concerned about the possible effects of radioactive contamination. About that time the Nova Scotian authorities reported this matter to the department of health in Ottawa, but so far as I am aware nothing has resulted since. I should like the minister to comment in respect to this problem when he replies because it seems to me that if radioactive waste dumped into the ocean can be a hazard then the radioactive wastes being disposed of in our inland waters would certainly be a much greater hazard.
Before I resume my seat I should like to thank the minister and his department for the co-operation which was forthcoming a year or so ago in connection with radioactive hazards in my own riding. This radiation hazard occurred in the fluorspar mines at St. Lawrence. Through the co-operation between the minister's department and the provincial departments of health and mines arrangements were worked out whereby safeguards were adopted to protect the health of miners working in that area. It was also my understanding that some arrangements would be arrived at whereby the miners themselves would be provided with some means of monitoring the radioactivity in these mines. I know a lot of miners working there who have been exposed to what they consider the limit and who left because they did not wish to expose themselves any further. I should be grateful if the minister could bring us up to date in respect to what has developed in connection with the radiation hazard in these mines.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, the minister's department is not one with which I have had much dealing or contact and I am, therefore, not in a position to be either critical or flattering in respect to its administration. However, I do wish to ask the minister a few questions and make several

Supply-Health and Welfare comments in regard to one phase of a topic which is considered to be of interest at the present time, and has been of interest for a number of years.
We are all, of course, aware of the situation which has developed in connection with Jean Talon hospital in Montreal, and I am very curious and interested to receive an explanation from the minister as to how grants from the federal government were allocated to this particular institution. I should like to hear about the timing of those grants.
I should like to ask a question of the minister resulting from a certain dissatisfaction with an answer he gave in the house to a question relating to a press release which emanated from his office embodying a speech he made in the constituency of York-Humber while assisting the hon. member representing that riding at a constituency meeting of some kind. I should like to know whether the minister has looked closely at the contents of that speech and whether he does not think he owes his political opponents an apology for embodying in that release very hard hitting, critical and nasty references to both the Liberal and C.C.F. parties. It was a bit of a shock to me that the minister would use his facilities in order to give wide distribution to an out and out political attack such as was embodied in that press release. We appreciate that, politics being what they are, the minister is entitled to have his view that the Liberals are a bunch of rogues and the C.C.F.'ers a scandalmongering group, but when allega-gations and accusations such as those are embodied in a speech emanating from his office one wonders about the coherence of the minister's attitude toward his role as minister. I would appreciate an early explanation in this regard.
Another field in respect to which we deserve some kind of an outline, which I do not believe the minister covered in his introductory remarks, has relation to a fitness council or the rumoured and heralded legislation that was going to be brought forward this session in relation to major support for a physical fitness program. I am sure the minister knows the sad fate of the fitness council which was set up during the war by the previous administration, and how it gradually fell away and finally was put to one side as a useless field of endeavour for the federal government.
A little over a year ago the Prime Minister indicated that the idea of a national fitness council had won his support and that he was going to have federal authorities study the possibility of government participation in such a program. We must assume that this 

is part of the legislation heralded in the speech from the throne. I think we need to hear from the minister as to what form the plans are taking. Anyone who goes back and reads the concluding debate that wound up the affairs of the previous national fitness council and the legislation with regard to it knows that it sickened and died despite whatever merit or purpose it may have had. If we are to get into the field again I think we are entitled to an explanation of what went wrong with the previous legislation. What was wrong with the liaison and the co-operation among all the bodies that made up the former fitness council that led to its demise? If we do not get this information it seems to me we shall be faced with an attempt to do what has already been attempted and found to be a failure.
The aspect of the fitness council that has, of course, more public interest, more fascination, is whatever it may do in the nature of supporting national sport. Here again I think we would welcome from the minister some indication of the role he feels the federal government or his department may play in supporting the national athletic reputation of Canada. My own feeling, and I think that of many of my friends, is that this is not a line of endeavour that should be sponsored by the federal government. And yet increasingly in other nations of the world the national team, whether it be track and field, or team athletics, is becoming an aspect of national pride and national heritage. This being so, a decision has to be made concerning the role the federal government will play. Somehow or other we have never been very bold in determining what that role will be. Since legislation is supposedly coming in this session about it, I think the minister should give us an indication as to the reasons why we should get into this field, or why we should not.
The debate which has taken place in the public mind on this matter has taken place largely on the sport pages of the Canadian newspapers. While I do not think the sport pages are the favourite reading matter of politicians, as someone who checks them with some regularity I can say that in the main the writers of the sport pages of Canada, when they turn to this problem, use an editorial line which is strongly in support of some kind of national endeavour in the field of sport in order to improve the status of Canada's reputation in this regard. Some writers have tried to deal with the very difficult and delicate problem of what role professionalism is to play in this kind of endeavour. In general, no one has worked out a clear-cut approach as to when a sport or an athletic activity becomes of importance

to the national government. We can see this problem in hockey perhaps more than in any other place in that we cannot field a good amateur team in world competition that is a genuinely amateur team according to the traditional classification of amateur, and yet our players have to face units that are organized. developed and sponsored by the states, particularly by the states in the Soviet bloc, where their attitude toward athletics seems to be that, both individual sport and team sports are an important adjunct of life and fully deserve the support of the government.
I think an example we should look at in this particular field is the United States where for many years the state department has backed the sending of United States athletes to different parts of the world, supporting them, providing an appropriation that does not recompense the athletes in terms of professional stipend but ensures that United States athletes are prepared and trained and participate in athletic events around the world.
Of course, the United States, through private auspices, comes forward at Olympic time and at the time of the Pan-American games and provides exceptionally large, or relatively large, sums of money to see that Old Glory is well represented in the athletic fields of the world. One of the reasons the United States can do this without getting into it to the extent that this country can is that the four semester system in their universities leads to a much greater thoroughness and intensity in the kind of training that can be given to athletes of all kinds. In a sense they are subsidized.
I had the pleasure of reading the local newspaper the other day and seeing where three students that I had once taught had graduated from a United States university, and their whole education at these universities was subsidized because of the fact that they were excellent hockey players. Another lad who graduated was an excellent runner. Well, the Americans have built into their universities this promotion or subsidization of their athletes, and so it becomes a support for their international performance. We have not that situation in Canadian universities particularly in track and field sports and in others. Therefore, Canada continues to make a terribly poor showing.
Several weeks ago a bound volume was put out in commemoration of the Olympic games that were held in Rome. If Canadian nationalism is sparked or supported by seeing indications that Canadians have done well, hon. members would be very disappointed in looking at this volume, because continually they would see that athletes from New Zealand, Australia, United States, 90205-6-444i
Supply-Health and Welfare Poland, Hungary, Norway, Finland were all there on the rostrum accepting medals for doing very well. You could see what a reflection of national pride it provided. For Canadians there is almost nothing. I think we have one picture of the famous Ottawa skier, and that is about it. In terms of the actual text of that very thick volume Canadians hardly appear at all. I am not putting it to the minister that this is a very grave or a very serious condition in my opinion, but many people in the country feel that it is, and I am trying to put it to the minister that we should have some indication from this government as to what its views are because whether I, the hon. member for Greenwood or the hon. member for Kootenay West think it is important, it is an issue in much of the country with a certain number of people.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask the hon. member a question. In his research-and it has been very interesting-into the relative success of Canadians and others in international competitions has he discovered whether the success or failure of representative athletes has had any effect in the relative countries on the participation in healthier athletic games?


Douglas Mason Fisher: It has had a tremendous effect, according to what I can find out, because of the tendency today for younger people in particular to search for heroes and symbols of success. When a country does not produce any people who stand in the forefront of world achievement, there is no one to look to for an example. This is one of the difficulties.
Of course, in the Soviet bloc an athletic person of high performance is given a tremendous amount of respect and encouragement and the same, as we know, applies in the United States. We do so too but most of our athletic hero worship at the present time is tending to focus upon activities in two fields, professional hockey and professional football. In the one those who do the chore are mostly Americans and in the other field they are concentrated in a fairly small league of six teams. It is not really international competition in a sense. Good as Jean Beli-veau may be, he is not of world stature such as a runner like Herb Elliott or a runner like Vladimir Kucs or some of the British runners.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask the hon. member a question? In the list of countries which produce many champions he would include Great Britain, would he not?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member with, I would almost say, his British-Israelite zeal should recognize that many people in Britain

Supply-Health and Welfare are greatly disturbed about the situation. They have had the Wolfenden report on the situation which was prepared by the same man who did the study on homosexual psychopaths. He made a study of playground facilities and other sport facilities in Britain and very recently the government there provided more funds for playgrounds and coaching activity in line with the report. If the hon. member wants to look at the British for an example, I would point out that they are very concerned about this problem. It is not surprising to find that in very serious, one might say stodgy, media such as the London Times and the Daily Telegraph, strong support for the old English tradition of games and athletics. We do not seem to have that here.
In concluding this particular aspect of my remarks, I want to say to the minister that I am not advocating that we come out with a policy that strongly supports national endeavour in the field of sport because I am not sure it is a line we should pursue. However, as long as we are going to have an organization like the Canada Council operating in what one might call the field of high culture, we have to recognize that a much larger group of people in Canada strongly believe that in their particular popular culture, sports culture, there should also be leadership. It seems to me that the government has indicated by its acknowledgement in the speech from the throne that it is going to do something about this matter. We would like to know how far it is going to go and what it feels the real urgencies are.
The last point on which I want to touch relates to a very general field that was brought to my mind by the remarks of the medical member for Simcoe East who issued not quite a lament but at least an appeal for the general practitioner. In a couple of contracts I have had with groups of doctors recently I noticed that if you are talking to a surgeon or some other kind of specialist his attitude toward medical insurance is much different from the attitude of the general practitioner. The general practitioner seems to be the doctor who is most against any extension of state operated medical insurance in particular. I should like to refer hon. members to one of the most entertaining articles on doctors that I have ever encountered. It is entitled "Doctors and Politics". It is written by William A. Glaser and it appeared in the American Journal of Sociology for November, 1960. It is filled with a certain amount of sociological jargon but it analyses the medical profession in terms that seem to me to be true. I start with this quotation:
The doctor Is a highly trained expert who uses a codified and technical body of knowledge and skills to solve complicated problems with certainty

and with a high rate of demonstrable success. The politician uses common sense knowledge and personal relations to promote and adjust the demands of competing groups, and his solutions are never permanent and seldom unambiguously successful. From their perspective at the pinnacle of the achievement and reward systems-
He just means that doctors make more money than most people and are looked up to more than most.
-many doctors may look down upon politicians and lay pressure groups as inept and inferior. Medical journals sometimes publish patronizing harangues against politicians. In two surveys doctors and medical students described politicians as people less intelligent, moral and dignified than themselves. The editor of a leading medical journal sums up a viewpoint probably widespread in the profession:
"The doctor's dilemma today emerges from the fact that politics is a dirty-hands business, and medicine has always been a clean-hands profession. Healing and heeling don't go together. Actually, what exponents of pressure-group action by doctors may be saying is that a good end justifies evil means-a doctrine that has been rejected by philosophers since the time of Hippocrates and is shunned by most doctors today in their personal and professional lives."
For all these reasons, the average doctor is not an unusually active participant in campaigns and is neither able nor willing to maintain the year-round involvement in lay politics which yields the greatest political influence.
This analysis of the medical profession and the attitude of the doctor toward politics seems to me particularly relevant at a time when the Canadian Medical Association is trying to give leadership to the doctors in meeting a challenge that is coming from the fact that most political parties have gone on record as supporting a medical insurance scheme that will apply to all or the great majority of the people in the particular jurisdiction in which that party may be interested.
If this analysis is true, it seems to me that the doctors are perhaps peculiarly or particularly inexperienced in understanding or appreciating the pressures that politicians may be under and also the situation into which they are now fully settled. It is for that reason that I would hope that both the provincial medical association and the Canadian Medical Association will continue to do everything in their power to maintain a progressive attitude. If they feel, as their bulletins indicate, that the medical profession can accept this challenge and provide through doctor-supervised plans some complete answer to the medical needs that the people are wanting to have satisfied at the present time, then I think we will tend to be grateful. However, because I believe that this analysis has some sense and is a fairly correct one, I have grave doubts whether doctors as a whole will be able to weather the kind of storms that they will face in producing such a scheme. I would only ask that they

do their best to recognize that, whether or not they produce a scheme that is acceptable to the politicians, they must accept the tact that the country wants a state supported or state sponsored or state led medical scheme for all of the people of the country. It seems to me that as long as they keep trying to come up with something that through cooperation and liaison with government leadership will provide the service, then just so long will they remain in the forefront of their profession both in its practising aspect and its administrative aspect. Of course, it is the administrative aspect that draws them into politics.
One of the answers I always get when I ask both doctors and dentists why they are having difficulty in recruiting at the present time is that there is so much socialism abroad that they cannot attract people into the profession. There is not nearly the urgency to be a doctor or a dentist today because of the fear these professions are going to be taken over by the state. This always seems to me a most incomplete and unsatisfactory response because when one analyses what the medical profession in particular has done, one finds that they have formed into clinics and co-operative groups themselves. They have been doing this for a very long time. The tendency, at least in the part of the country from which I come, is to have a kind of co-operative arrangement among doctors. You rarely find a single doctor operating any more. I am sure there are good reasons for this. There are the expenses that need to be covered, the increasing complexity, the complementary nature of so much that is done in specialized fields in the medical profession.
It seems to me that in answer to that kind of response, I am correct in saying that you, yourselves, in the medical profession have started and have gone along with this trend toward socialism. One of the points I noted two years ago was that the Canadian Medical Association indicated in a statement that one third of the doctors in Canada were on a salary. Surely, if there is that large a proportion of the doctors in Canada on a salary, the whole idea that the trend of the times is undermining recruiting in the medical profession must be haywire. When the percentage is so high, there is every indication that the payment of a salary does not inhibit people from going into the medical profession.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would he agree with the statement that one third of the doctors
Supply-Health and Welfare in Canada today came from the socialist medical plan in Great Britain?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Why should I agree with that statement? I do not know whether or not there is any substance to it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is a statement that has been bandied about quite a bit, and I wondered whether or not the hon. member had read it and agreed with it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have not read it. However, I have met a great many doctors from Great Britain in Canada who are great advocates of socialized medicine. I want to tell the hon. member that in the year or so I was attending university in England, I could not find a Conservative anywhere who wanted to ditch the national health plan.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There still seems to be a number of Conservatives over there.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, there certainly are and those Conservatives, I point out to the hon. member, are supporting the national health plan. I am sure that his party will be, too, when this subject becomes an election issue.
The last point I wanted to make in relation to this situation of inability to recruit professional men, I think that the difficulty is the cost of education, that is in so far as doctors and dentists are concerned. I agree with the hon. member for Simcoe East that the urgency in connection with dentistry is even greater than in connection with medicine. We are desperately short of dentists in this country. Unless we are prepared to do something to ameliorate the tremendous costs that fall upon people going into these two professions, then I think we are going to run short of practitioners. However, I would hate to believe that the fact we are getting fewer dentists and fewer doctors stems from a situation in which young people today are worried about the encroachment of the state. I would hate to believe that there are not still challenges and worth-while roles for young people in medicine and in dentistry.
I come back to the point again that I feel it is because the training is so long, so expensive and in a way so difficult, it is no longer attractive to very many young people who can get an easier education and a quicker means of earning their living today. The only way we can balance this situation is by giving greater incentives to people who are in training for both those professions.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to inform the hon. member of this, but his time has
expired.


William Moore Benidickson: It was not my intention to delay the estimates-
7026	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare


Jay Waldo Monteith: If I might interrupt the hon. member, I would say that my own remarks would probably take until six o'clock, if that is his objective.


William Moore Benidickson: That is not my objective. Would the minister like to answer some of the questions and speak now?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I would prefer to answer them all at once.


William Moore Benidickson: I would be pleased to sit down and allow the minister to reply to some of the questions that have been put this afternoon.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If the hon. member has a question, I should be glad to hear it.


William Moore Benidickson: I would want to be assured that we would not, within 20 minutes, take any chance that there would be a hurried reply on the part of the minister to the very important questions that have been raised by so many members, including members on his own side this afternoon, when we are dealing with expenditures of $1.6 billion. I have remained seated after having spoken earlier today until all other members had an opportunity to make their first remarks in connection with this opening item of this department.
I did not have time this morning under the rules to raise a question that disturbed me after I looked at the white paper presented in connection with the budget this year. I refer to certain tables which relate to the Department of National Health and Welfare found on page 81 of that white paper. In these tables one can find the federal government share of old age assistance, disabled persons' allowances, blind persons pensions and unemployment assistance. The minister and I both represent constituencies in the province of Ontario. Only two or three days ago I observed some of these figures. I rise again because I felt it very important to ask the minister to explain why Ontario, with a larger population than that of the province of Quebec, seems to have received a disproportionate amount in connection with these matching grants related to federal statutes.
I refer to old age assistance in the province of Quebec, the same federal formula being applicable all across Canada, and I notice that the province of Quebec asked the federal government for $10.8 million for these needy people in 1960-61 and received $10.8 from Ottawa. The benign Mr. Frost of Ontario, who has created for himself very sucessfully an image of benevolence, kindness and so on, heads a larger population. I assume, there is in Ontario an equal proportion of needy people in the age group that would


ask for old age assistance, under his administration. Claims are advanced from Ontario to the federal government of only $6.7 million. I thought perhaps the minister would explain why this has occurred. I believe that the opportunities are the same in each province.
Then when one comes to the disabled persons' allowances, with the same understanding that the population in Quebec is smaller than is the population in Ontario, one wonders why under a national basis offer made to Ontario as well as to Quebec, Ontario asked for only $3.9 million of contributions from Ottawa for disabled persons in the year ended March 31, 1961, as compared with $8.5 million given to the province of Quebec.
If one looks at blind persons' allowances, one finds this. According to this latest white paper presented by the Minister of Finance in the province of Ontario with a population, as I repeat, which is larger than that of the province of Quebec, the Frost government seemingly applied for grants in this category of $800,000 compared with applications from the province of Quebec and granted in the sum of $1.5 million. I am not going to deal with the next column of the statistics in the budget white paper.


Mr. Broome:: Go ahead.


William Moore Benidickson: Would you encourage me to do so? All right, the next column of statistics refers to unemployment assistance.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: By those figures does the hon. member imply that there are more blind people in Ontario than there are in Quebec?


William Moore Benidickson: I think perhaps the hon. member for St. Boniface was casting a personal aspersion. But putting that matter aside, I wish to say that I do not believe that. I believe that there is the same entitlement or the same amount of people in Ontario who are needy, or who might be entitled under old age assistance, who are handicapped because of blindness, who perhaps have the physical handicaps that give them entitlement under a law passed by a Liberal government giving disabled persons allowances. I think that in a quantitative way the situation would be the same physically in one province as in another. My point is that these requests for help for these people must be funnelled through provincial agencies. I say that the figures indicate that in Ontario today there seems to be a harsher measure of examination of the entitlement of these needy people than would seem to be

the case in the province of Quebec. I would hope that the minister perhaps later would say something about this matter.
With regard to the column that 1 have been challenged now to speak about, namely that relating to unemployment assistance-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Will the hon. member give us the figures that were in the vote four years ago?


William Moore Benidickson: I should like to assure the older parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture that four years ago we had the same government in Ontario as now and no person who needs old age assistance, no disabled person or no blind person can get anything under the legislation that the former Liberal federal government provided unless he has what I would regard as a reasonably kind government in the province. The provincial government must advance to the federal government its request for assistance under this welfare legislation. I say that these figures indicate that the great old province of Ontario, with its big population, seems to fall behind the province of Quebec and every other province relative to population according to the table. I say that Mr. Frost must answer to the old age assistance applicant, to the disabled and to the blind as to why there are fewer successful applicants in Ontario for this kind of benefit which was put on the statute books by the federal Liberal government years ago and why they have less opportunity to derive the benefits than seemingly is possible in the province of Quebec.


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


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Has the hon. member any figures as to the number of rejections of applications for the social allowances in the province of Ontario?


William Moore Benidickson: May I say this to the parliamentary secretary to the the Prime Minister who is an intelligent man, I know. Surely, it would appeal to him as I think it would appeal to all in the country that these figures speak for themselves. There are surely the same number of needy people between the ages of 65 and 70, relative to population in the province of Ontario as there are in the province of Quebec. I do not imagine that there are more blind people-and I say this in answer to the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary and to the hon. member for St. Boniface-in Quebec than there are
Supply-Health and Welfare in Ontario. With regard to the disabled and the need for taking advantage of what the former Liberal government provided in legislation of this nature some time ago, in co-operation with the provinces, I say that it is unlikely that the situation en masse would be any different in the province of Ontario than it would be in the province of Quebec.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Will the hon. member permit another question?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Does he know of any specific cases in Ontario in which these applications have been refused?


William Moore Benidickson: Of course I do. I am a
resident of the province of Ontario. I am in public life, and I receive from my constituents applications for the benefits that were provided in federal legislation by the former Liberal government that made possible these disability pensions, our old age assistance, these blind pensions, etc.


Ernest James Broome: What are you doing with them?


William Moore Benidickson: Because of our constitution I am obliged to say to my constituent that he must utilize the welfare organization of the province in each county of my province. What I am disturbed about is that apparently the welfare officials in Ontario who must know of the availability of the federal grants, are instructed in Ontario at some level on a sterner, harsher basis than would appear to be the situation in connection with the province of Quebec. I observe that the figures show that the province of Quebec has requested from the federal government and the minister and received grants under the same legislation that according to population, are disproportionate. I think this is a very serious challenge.


Ernest James Broome: You mean they want more?


William Moore Benidickson: Who wants what?


Ernest James Broome: Quebec; that is what you are saying.


William Moore Benidickson: No. I say that here we have legislation for the needy, the most needy people in our land; those who are without assets and without jobs at 65 years of age and before they get the old age security pension automatically. I refer to the people who are disabled, those people who are unfortunately blind, those who are unemployed, and I say that federally we must have a standard that is applied from coast to coast.


Ernest James Broome: Do you not believe that standard applies to blind people right across

Supply-Health and Welfare Canada? Are you saying that blind people in Ontario are not treated as well as blind people in Quebec?


William Moore Benidickson: I am saying that these figures indicates that going through the crucible-


Ernest James Broome: The which?


William Moore Benidickson: The crucible-


Ernest James Broome: What is that?


William Moore Benidickson: -of administrative provincial screening-I think the hon. member knows what that means-and considering the attention that must be given administratively under the government of Premier Frost of Ontario, it would appear there is less likelihood of an applicant for old age assistance, a disabled person or a blind person getting as kind or as careful attention as he would get if he happened to reside in the province of Quebec and made his application in that province. The figures bear that out.


Ernest James Broome: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he mind telling the committee when the hon. member for Essex East will be back?


An hon. Member:: Not today.


William Moore Benidickson: That is completely irrelevant. Mr. Chairman, I think I have provided a good summary of what the statistics tell us when we look at page 81 of the white paper attached to the budget of the Minister of Finance presented on Tuesday, June 20.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Five more minutes to go.


William Moore Benidickson: I think that I have made a very serious indictment-


Ernest James Broome: You have talked it out.


William Moore Benidickson: -as to the examination in Ontario of these applications, in kindness and consideration, with regard to what the federal laws provide when I recite-


Ernest James Broome: The crucible.


William Moore Benidickson: -the final expenditure figures in all these welfare categories comparing Quebec with the province of Ontario. In his opening statement the minister did refer to the fact that, perhaps for the first time, the old age assistance fund was coming into balance. It is true, Mr. Chairman, that it did come into balance this session, but it came into balance only because of a financial trick typical of the Minister of Finance.
I raised this matter a year ago. Until the budget last year never before has a minister of finance of this country refrained from taking into his budgetary expenditures the deficit
[Br. Broome.]
in the old age security account. This Minister of Finance did not do that a year ago.


Mr. Hodgson:: We are on the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


William Moore Benidickson: And as a result of doing that, $28 million was put out of the budget for 1960-61. That was, of course, to achieve his objective of having a $12 million surplus last year when the minister presented his accounts. If one looks at the report of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the old age security fund, one finds that this deficit to which I referred a year ago, which I complained about a year ago, has not been recovered in the budget accounts of 1960-61.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


William Moore Benidickson: I say in addition, Mr. Chairman, that we want some of these questions answered by the minister. I think they are very important. We expect a more realistic report from the minister regarding the relationship of his department to the care of human beings across this land. Before we conclude the discussion on item No. 1 I wish to hear the minister's explanation of the relationship between the unemployment insurance fund and sickness. This question has been raised on previous occasions. Are we going to revise the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Do you mean unemployment insurance, or unemployment assistance?


William Moore Benidickson: Are we going to have this bankrupt unemployment insurance fund revised during the current session? It has gone down from $900 million to $100 million in four years. In the amendments that will be necessary to revise it, are we going to have the opinion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Will we have some recognition of the fact that we should have co-ordination between his department and the labour department and that there should be coverage for those who are unemployed by reason of ill health? Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 255 carry?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, as I have a few remarks to make on this item, I wonder whether we might call it six o'clock.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Liberals like to hold up the house.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, last evening the house leader indicated what the business would be for Monday and Tuesday. I presume there is no change. I wondered whether we could be told the business for Wednesday.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the business as announced. On Monday we will start off with second reading of Bill No. C-114, an act respecting the Bank of Canada, followed by the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport. The third item will be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the industrial development bank.
I think we will have to see what progress we make on Monday before announcing the
Business of the House
business for Tuesday and Wednesday. It might be that we will continue with the budget debate, but I would prefer to leave it open until the announcement of the business on Monday night.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I just remind the house leader of this fact. Did he not indicate that on Tuesday we would be resuming the budget debate?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said that was likely, but it is not possible at this stage of the session to determine too far in advance exactly what we will be taking up, because we are not certain how long the session may last.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

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

Mr. Pitman: 1.	When did the Department of Labour first hire field men for the purpose of setting up labour-management production committees?
2.	What was the peak number of persons employed on this type of work during the last war?
3.	What was the low peak, and the date, of the number of persons employed on this type of work in the labour-management co-operation service since the war?
4.	If increases in the number employed on this work have been made since the low peak after the war, what were the numbers involved, and on what dates?
5.	What was the cost of maintaining this service for the years 1944, 1950, 1956, 1960?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of
Labour):
1.	The Department of Labour first hired field men for the purpose of setting up labour-management production committees in 1944, following establishment of the industrial production co-operation board by P.C. 162 of January 18, 1944.
2.	The peak number of persons employed on this type of work during the last war was 20 in 1945.
3.	The low peak of the number of persons employed on this type of work since the war is 11 in 1961.
4.	Not applicable (see answer to 3 above).
5.	The cost of maintaining this service was $72,461 in 1944-45, $127,000 (estimated) in 1950-51, $143,297 in 1956-57 and $162,750 in 1960-61.

Monday, June 26. 1961

(Translation):