1962-11-13

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that conferences of federal and provincial ministers responsible for civil emergency planning have been held from time to time. Arrangements are now being made for a similar conference to be held in Ottawa on December 3. I have asked the Minister of National Defence to act as chairman and chief representative of the federal government. It is expected that ministers from all the provinces will attend. Such conferences in the past have been found most useful in developing measures required in the event of national emergency and ensuring that both federal and provincial efforts in this respect are fully co-ordinated.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: On Thursday last the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) raised a point at the conclusion of the private members' hour in connection with the priority of a motion which was then adjourned, a motion in the name of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). In view of the fact that there are no other motions of a similar type on the order paper for a subsequent day and that such motions can only be made tomorrow, it stands to reason that it is the only one before the house and it will, therefore, occupy a priority position. If there had been motions subsequent to that of the hon. member for Essex East which had not been reached, it is my interpretation that the same procedure would be followed as applies to other matters on private members' day; it would go to the bottom of the list. On Thursday, then, there will be a continuation of the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Essex East.



GATT-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON GENEVA MEETINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I wonder whether the Minister of Finance could give the house a progress report on the GATT meetings now taking place in Geneva.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: It can only be a progress report. As I think the house well knows, discussions have been going on in connection with GATT for some time. These talks are, I believe, now approaching finality. I am not in a position to go further at the moment, but I hope that within a very few days the discussions will have been concluded and I shall be in a position to make a statement to the house with respect to them.



INQUIRY AS TO ARREARS ON SALES TO CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister say whether any payments under arrangements for the sale of wheat on credit to communist China are at present in arrears?


Hon. Alvin M. Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: In view of the importance of this matter I can assure the hon. member that all payments have been made on the scheduled due dates.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alan Macnaughton (Mount Royal):: May
I ask the Prime Minister, is he in a position to confirm today's press reports that Montreal was officially awarded the world's fair for 1967?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that the government tried very hard two years ago to achieve this result. On this occasion it has been achieved, and I know Canadians as a whole will be very happy that the 1967 international exposition will be held in Canada, in the city of Montreal.

Inquiries of the Ministry



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the announcement by the United Kingdom government that they intend to conduct an underground nuclear test, and in view of the Canadian government's declared opposition to nuclear testing by any power, will the minister tell the house whether any representations have been made by his department to the government of the United Kingdom regarding this decision, or has the hon. gentleman any comments to make in this regard?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: There have been no representations made to the British government, but Canada's position on the question of nuclear testing is clearly understood by all of the governments concerned. The United Kingdom conducted a similar test last March 1 as part of a joint program with the United States. They have now announced their intention to explode another device, but the British minister of defence, Mr. Thorneycroft, has stated that this is in no sense the start of a new series.
At this time all the nuclear powers are engaged in testing programs, either in the atmosphere or underground. As I have said, Canada's opposition to the continuation of these tests has been clearly stated in this house and at the United Nations. It is for this reason our delegation played a leading part in working for the adoption of a United Nations resolution which would assist in providing a basis for an end to testing.
None of the major powers, the nuclear powers, voted against that resolution. They agreed to the early reconvening of the 18 nation disarmament committee for the purpose of resuming negotiations on the cessation of nuclear testing in particular, and the committee is asked to report back to the general assembly by December 10. I believe the 18 nation committee will be meeting in Geneva within the next ten days, and I do not by any means rule out the possibility that during this next intensive round of negotiations in Geneva an agreement will be reached which will put a stop to all testing.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs agree that in view of what General Burns said when the Canadian resolution regarding the cessation of tests was submitted to the United Nations, this latest test announced by the
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
United Kingdom government should be regarded as contrary to the Canadian resolution?


Howard Charles Green: I do not want to get involved in a discussion on a question of that kind. As the hon. gentleman knows, this issue is being debated in the United Kingdom. In my answer to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam I set out the Canadian position very clearly.


CANADIAN SUPPORT OF COMMITTEE FOR EUROPEAN MIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of external affairs; I am sorry I have not had a chance to advise him of it. In view of the statement by Mr. Haveman, director of the international committee for European migration, in which he said "I should therefore be less than frank if I did not give you my view that the loss of Canadian support will be a severe blow to the political foundations and solidarity of the committee", is it the minister's opinion that Canada cannot alter its decision to withdraw from the committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In the very phraseology of his question the hon. member has asked the minister either to contradict or to comment upon an opinion expressed by someone outside this house, and such is not the way of putting a question on orders of the day. I think the hon. member will see the way I have indicated the question would be out of order at this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government proposes to maintain its decision to withdraw from the international committee for European migration?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer ready for that question. In view of recent press reports concerning Canada's withdrawal from the intergovernmental committee for European migration, it seems advisable to set out the reasons which led to Canada's decision to resign. ICEM, of course, is not a United Nations body but is a committee of some 30 governments. I might add that Canada is not the only country to withdraw from the organization. Sweden resigned last year. Canada's decision to withdraw was taken only after a most

careful review of all relevant factors, and was concurred in by the various departments concerned.
Canada was one of the founding members of ICEM, which was formed in 1951 to meet the problems created by refugees and nonrefugee surplus populations in Europe after world war II. At that time there were large numbers of European refugees living in camps awaiting resettlement opportunities. The problem of non-refugee surplus populations was still critical for a number of European countries, where it tended to be one of the factors impeding economic development. ICEM facilitated the transport of refugee and non-refugee migrants from European countries with surplus populations to countries overseas welcoming increased immigration. In the years from 1951 to 1961 ICEM played a very useful role in the resettlement overseas of refugees and migrants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister, who is giving very valuable information, but this is more of a long, reasoned answer than the kind of answer expected on orders of the day. If the minister has a lengthy reply to make, perhaps he would like to revert to motions in order to make it; but I think a reasoned or argued case on orders of the day is not quite the right kind of approach in view of, shall we say, the strictures that the Chair has imposed on the nature of questions.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there would be unanimous consent to permit the minister to complete his statement, in which I think the whole house is interested.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Then that is perfectly all right as long as the house agrees.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I will leave what I have already said to be reported under motions and I will go on with the rest of my statement.
However, toward the end of world refugee year in 1961 when, under United Nations auspices, an intensified effort was made to deal with refugee problems, it became apparent that the refugee problem had been substantially reduced. There are now just a few thousand refugees living in camps, and it is expected that these will be resettled in the very near future. In North America and Europe and elsewhere there are signs that we are returning to a more normal activity in the field of migration. The European economy now seems capable of absorbing most of the surplus population in that continent without international assistance.
Inquiries of the Ministry
As far as Canada is concerned we prefer- and I think this has been the policy down through the years-to rely on bilateral arrangements and on our own immigration facilities. In normal times Canada is not persuaded that national migration requires or justifies by itself the existence of an international agency. This is the essence of the reason why Canada is withdrawing.
Very little use of ICEM's services has been made by Canada over the years. None the less, Canadian participation in ICEM has involved an annual assessment of approximately $200,000. In addition, in the past few years a grant of $60,000 has been made to the refugee transport program of ICEM. While financial considerations were not the primary reason for Canada's withdrawal, it has become increasingly difficult to justify paying such a price for an organization of marginal use to Canada.
For the reasons I have given and because other international commitments have assumed a greater priority, the government decided that Canadian participation in ICEM should be terminated. This decision in no way diminishes Canadian interest in refugee problems, an interest which will continue to be reflected in Canada's support in the United Nations for programs of assistance to refugees. Canada is one of the main contributors to the work carried on by the United Nations high commissioner for refugees. In addition, the government intends to examine from year to year the question of continuing a special voluntary grant of $60,000 to the refugee transport fund of ICEM.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the minister a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether the government intends to pursue actively the policy of encouraging some of the refugees to come to Canada? As the minister stated, there is still a residue.


Howard Charles Green: As the hon. member knows, the movement of tuberculous refugees was a great success. If we see any opportunity to give further help we shall be glad to do so.


REPORTED POSSIBILITY OF INVASION BY UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister of external affairs. In view of persistent reports that the President of the United States is under pressure to launch a full scale invasion of Cuba, will the minister tell the house whether the government of Canada is

Inquiries of the Ministry being consulted and kept fully informed by the government of the United States regarding this matter?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I think any such report should be regarded with a good deal of doubt. There have been no such consultations between the two governments on any such action.


COLOMBO PLAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs if the fact that there is no Canadian cabinet member attending the ministerial meeting of the Colombo plan countries now in progress in Canberra, is in any way related to the circumstance that the Canadian government has reduced its Colombo plan appropriation by some $8 million?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker, it is a great deal more closely related to the situation in the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, as I understand it, several of the countries participating in this conference are not represented at the ministerial level.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister consider my offer to give him a pair to permit him to attend this meeting, notwithstanding conditions in parliament?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know whether I want to take a chance like that or not.


ALLEGED ASSURANCE OF NUCLEAR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. As the minister knows, a Canadian parliamentary group is visiting NATO installations in Europe, as outlined in a press report by Mr. Gordon Dewar in yesterday's Ottawa Journal. The article states that Canadian forces with NATO in Europe are working on the assurance that they will have nuclear weapons within a year. Will the minister tell the house whether his department or he himself has given any such assurance either to the Canadian NATO forces or to NATO itself?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: I read the reports in yesterday's newspapers which gave a certain interpretation to remarks alleged to have been made


by the A.O.C. of No. 1 R.C.A.F. air division in Europe. I asked air force headquarters to communicate with the A.O.C., and that was done. I find that there is a difference of opinion as to what was actually said, as well as a difference of interpretation of what was said. In view of the fact that parliamentarians from all four parties were over there at the time and are now attending a NATO conference, I think on their return they could brief their colleagues as to exactly what was said, and we had better leave this matter at that point.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a supplementary question, I wish to point out that I was not asking for the statement made by the officer in question, but rather for the minister's assurance that no such assurance had been given by him or his department either to the Canadian officers in NATO or to the NATO organization itself.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have given no such assurances nor have members of my department, so far as I am aware.
(Translation):


ALGERIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, on October 18, 1962, I directed a question to the Prime Minister and as can be found on page 656 of Hansard, he answered me as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I shall answer that question later.
Three weeks having elapsed, I feel that a reply should now be forthcoming; therefore I shall repeat my question:
We learned this morning that two million people will be facing great hardship this winter, as a result of the troubles which have occurred recently in Algeria. As we have in stock great quantities of wheat, powdered milk, eggs and canned pork, stored at present in army baracks, in Lauzon for instance, is it the intention of the government to donate to the Red Cross a portion of those goods in order to ease such hardship?
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not got the statistics here showing the amount of surpluses on hand, and I can only say there has been no request in this regard, no suggestion that this would be appropriate, and nothing to indicate that the government of Algeria would be interested in such a
measure.

(Translation):


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Since the position of director of the taxation division, in Ottawa, will become vacant following the transfer of Mr. Gordon North-field, is it the intention of the Minister of National Revenue to appoint a bilingual official to replace him?


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry, but this question is out of order, and therefore could not properly be asked on the orders of the day. Would the hon. member please put his question on the order paper.
(Text):


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked if the government would request the defence research board to investigate the feasibility of automatic sealed seismic stations for possible use following a nuclear test ban treaty.
I am informed that the defence research board, in consultation with expert seismologists of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, has examined the proposals made at the so-called 1962 Pugwash conference. Unfortunately the Pugwash group did not supply practical details of the proposal. However, making certain assumptions, the proposal appears to fall barely within the limits of feasibility, but also to be rather impractical. At the least, several hundred such automatic stations would be required; and to ship these to remote locations, to set them up without access to the working parts and to hope that they would work satisfactorily would be to ask a good deal. Nor is it possible to say how tamperproof they could be unless a working model is produced.
It will be noted that the proposal did not suggest that on-site inspection would be unnecessary, but only that the international control commission would require "very few" on-site inspections.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May
I ask a supplementary question concerning the answer given by the Minister of National
Inquiries of the Ministry Defence. In view of the importance of this question would the minister consider asking the national research council to make a working model?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know whether the national research council has the technical knowledge concerning what is required and what is involved here for this purpose. I think it is probably up to the people who are putting forward this proposal to produce a working model and let people examine it.


REPORTED STATEMENT BY COMMANDER OF ALLIED FORCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the supreme commander of allied forces in Europe conveyed to the Canadian government his view, expressed to the visiting parliamentarians yesterday, that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces were critically short in a number of ways and the deficiencies were of such serious proportions as to be occasioning unnecessary risk in the defence of Europe by NATO. If that view has been communicated, what steps if any are proposed by the Canadian government in this connection?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the supreme allied commander has conveyed this idea for several years past to ministerial meetings of NATO and to the NATO council, as well as to meetings of NATO parliamentarians. He has said that the force goals laid down some years ago had not been met in a large number of cases and asked that they be met as soon as possible. So far as Canada is concerned I am glad to tell the hon. member that our force goals have been met.


BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State based on a reply tabled in the house the other day in which the board of broadcast governors stated it had enacted its Grey cup legislation in the public interest. How is the public interest served by having not just the game but also the sponsored commercials carried on the publicly owned C.B.C. network?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member, being a lawyer, would recognize-

Inquiries of the Ministry


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am not.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I regret having said that, but I also regret that in the form in which he put his question it is seeking an argument, and for that reason I cannot accept it in that form.


Mr. Ralph B. Cowan (York-Humber):: would like to ask a question of urgent importance of the Secretary of State, to whom I have given notice in writing. In view of the ruling by the B.B.G. with respect to the Grey cup telecast, will the minister inform the house of the amount of additional remuneration the players will receive, as they will be performing before a greatly increased audience?


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Secretary of State):: As the hon. gentleman knows, or at least I hope he does, the B.B.G. and C.B.C. do not pay salaries or bonuses to players in the Grey cup series.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to rephrase my question, which I should like to address again to the Secretary of State. Does the government or the B.B.G. consider C.T.V. commercials to be of national importance?


George Ernest Halpenny: The government has not any opinion on this. The C.B.C. are a self governing independent corporation and they make their own decisions. We do not advise them. There is no political interference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The question was about the B.B.G.


Malcolm MacInnis: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, my question did not concern the decision of the C.B.C. I asked the question regarding the B.B.G.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What the hon. member has said is not a supplementary question. He is trying to get the minister to vary or to add to his answer. He is commenting on the nature of the answer, and I think he will recognize that that is not a proper supplementary question.


Malcolm MacInnis: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the Department of Justice considered the legality of the
B.	B.G. order calling on the C.B.C. to carry
C.	T.V. advertising?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is there asking the minister for a legal opinion, and that is not proper in questions on orders of the day.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not ask for a legal opinion; I asked the minister whether this question had been considered.


An hon. Member:: Sit down. Don't you know the rules?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Orders of the day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege affecting all hon. members, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a purely factual question as to whether an opinion had been sought by the Department of Justice. He did not ask what the opinion was. He asked for an answer on a question of fact having to do with matters for which the minister is responsible to parliament. Surely in a matter of this importance, urgency and public interest, it was a highly proper question and should be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would indicate to the hon. member that he is really not raising a question of privilege, which is rather narrow, but one of order. In this regard, the subject of questions on orders of the day, as I indicated and as has been indicated by my predecessors, is a matter of practice and is governed by certain principles. The question as to whether questions are admissible is for the determination of the Chair.
With the greatest respect, I would indicate my opinion that the question sought a legal opinion from the minister. That was my view. I did not think the question was admissible on orders of the day, and that was my ruling at the time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have not finished yet. The matter tends to be getting into a debate. I had given my ruling, but I will hear the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I do not want to close off the discussion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, no one questions the right of Your Honour to decide whether a question is permissible, but in view of the reason you gave for declaring it not permissible you must have failed to hear the question. The question was not as to what legal opinion was given, but merely whether an opinion had been sought by the Department of Justice or had been asked for with reference to the decision of the board of broadcast governors. It was not asking the nature of the legal opinion, but merely whether or not one had been requested.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I interpret the question as seeking a legal opinion. If it was

merely seeking information as to whether a legal opinion had been obtained, I would have some doubts as to whether the information required is of such immediate urgency as to warrant it being sought in a question on orders of the day.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State. My question relates to a series of questions passed as an order for return on October 15, over four weeks ago, concerning defeated candidates in the election of June 18, 1962, since appointed by the federal government to positions to which emoluments are attached. I wonder whether this return can be brought down soon, and will it be up to date?


George Ernest Halpenny: Mr. Speaker, I shall make inquiries and I feel it will be up to date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister, for convenience sake, give a list of names of those defeated candidates who have not yet been given posts?
(Translation):


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Minister of Public Works.
In the newspaper La Presse of November 12, 1962, Mr. Marcel Gingras suggested that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fulton) had promised to reward the Social Crediters if they would vote against the non-confidence motion introduced by the Liberal party last Tuesday.
I ask the minister whether or not he made such a promise to the members of the Social Credit party.
(Text):
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, nothing of the sort took place. As the hon. member well knows, all that happened is that hon. members concerned saw common sense and the light of day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I had hoped I would not have to do this again, but I would like to refer hon. members back to a certain
Inquiries of the Ministry statement which the Chair made some weeks ago in connection with the nature of questions on orders of the day. Sometimes, like other rather intricate matters, the principles related to questions are not seized at the first attempt, and I have noticed within the last few days that there has been a tendency to slip back into some of the habits which the Chair felt were not proper on orders of the day. I would again refer hon. gentlemen to the principles that were therein enunciated. (Translation):
[Later:)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, this time I am rising on a question of privilege concerning the same article. The newspaperman in question stated that I was politicking behind the curtains here, with the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), whereas, that evening I was giving a lecture on Social Credit, in Toronto.
(Text):



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, between two of your interesting lectures may I ask a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I trust that the hon. member is not being facetious in saying that.


Azellus Denis: I want to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the world's fair will be held in Montreal and millions of people will be there, will the minister consider the possibility of taking advantage of the building of the metro and not build the metro itself but enlarge the digging in some places so that a few hundred thousand people might be saved in the event of atomic bombing, something like the Prime Minister has had constructed?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, it is very seldom the hon. member for St. Denis honours me with a question, and I am sorry to have to tell him that I have no responsibility for providing a subway for Montreal, which I think I indicated to him a few days ago.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of section 2

Food and Drugs Act
of the bill of rights, which provides that no law of Canada shall be applied so as to impose cruel or unusual treatment or punishment, what action does the minister propose to take about the case of a Winnipeg mother of 11 children whom a Winnipeg magistrate placed on suspended sentence, upon the terms that for two years she must remain inside her house and have no visitors except close relatives?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the question concerns my ministerial responsibility only.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know anything about this case apart from what I have seen in the newspapers. I think under these circumstances it would be quite improper on my part to attempt to comment on it. If the hon. member wishes further information perhaps he would put his question on the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Justice undertake to look into this matter, since this is a decision rendered by a judicial officer?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I refer the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to my previous answer.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any good news to give to the people of Toronto, whose representatives met with the Prime Minister two weeks ago requesting federal aid for an armoury building in the Moss Park development in the downtown area of Toronto?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a question that could go on the order paper, and if there is good news it will be available to the hon. gentleman.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, November 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-3, to amend the Food and Drugs Act-Mr. Monteith-Mr. Chown in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening we were considering clause 3 [Mr. Orlikow.l
of the bill and the amendment proposed thereto by the hon. member for Halton. Is the committee ready for the question on the proposed amendment?


Some hon. Members:: No.
On clause 3-


Mr. Monieiih:: Mr. Chairman, last evening the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked if I would outline the authority which the present act and the proposed legislation gives in connection with the withdrawal of a drug from the market.
The clause which is contained in the bill prohibiting the sale of a drug listed in schedule H automatically would confer authority to seize such a drug where an inspector, on reasonable grounds, believed that a provision of the act had been violated. This requires us to look at the definition of "sell" which includes "offer for sale, expose for sale, have in possession for sale and distribute". If a drug were added to schedule H it would be in violation of the act for a pharmacist to offer it for sale, expose it for sale or even to have it in possession for sale, and an inspector would therefore be within his authority in seizing that drug under those circumstances. Similarly in the case of a drug in the hands of a member of one of the professions. Here the element of sale does not arise so directly, but the word "distribute" could well be invoked to authorize an inspector to seize a schedule H drug if a physician was distributing that drug. I have already mentioned the authority to exempt such a drug for limited purposes, and this could be invoked where necessary for research and so on.
It is felt that the present act and the proposed amendment give ample authority to deal with any practical problems that might arise in connection with the necessity to remove a schedule H drug from the market. A different question, however, was posed in connection with the right to remove a drug from the possession of a doctor, dentist, veterinary surgeon or pharmacist. This, for the reasons pointed out by the hon. member for Peace River, would go far beyond anything which is presently contained in the Food and Drugs Act and could be challenged on the ground that it went beyond the requirements of the criminal law and invaded a field that was provincial.
While I do not think any great difficulty would lie in securing the ready withdrawal of a drug from the market, and indeed our experience has shown that there would be no problem under the legislation as it is being amended, this may be a convenient time at which to place beyond any question

the right to remove a drug under certain limited conditions. I think it would be an unwarranted interference with medical practice and the right of a physician to determine his use of a drug to provide authority, even if this were possible, to take it away from him. By the same token, if complete protection were to be afforded it would also be necessary to seize or remove a drug from the possession of a private citizen. This, I suggest, would pose problems which go far beyond any practical necessity.
Because in the case of new drugs a physician's initial supplies may likely be obtained through the sampling regulations, I would be prepared to consider some authority which would give the right to the governor in council to make regulations respecting the withdrawal of these drugs if they are found sufficiently dangerous to warrant their being placed in schedule H. In other words, I would be prepared to see an amendment to the bill which would permit the governor in council to make regulations respecting the withdrawal of a drug listed in schedule H that had been furnished by way of sample. This is an area which, I think, clearly could be justified under our authority concerning the distribution of drug samples. It would not interfere with ownership, because they are in each case furnished free and subject to conditions, one of which could be an agreement that it be returned in the event that it was found necessary subsequently to put it into schedule H.
I think with the explanation I have given, and the authority which I have suggested might be contained in the act, we would be in a position to deal with any eventuality that might arise where the danger of a drug had been sufficiently established to require its addition to schedule H. Once the drug had been placed in schedule H, then its sale would automatically be prohibited and the withdrawal machinery whereby the recipient of the sample had agreed to return it would become operative. I think this would fully cover all possible situations and, in my view is as far as we could go in dealing with such an eventuality.
I trust this proposal will be satisfactory to the hon. member who had put forward an amendment to clause 3 and had asked that I explore some alternative wording to cover the situation he had in mind. I think this does that, and an amendment to provide authority in the regulations is being presented by my colleague the Minister of Public Works. In the meantime, I wonder whether the hon. member for Halton would agree to
Food and Drugs Act
withdraw his amendment, and then I would be happy to ask my colleagues to propose the one I have suggested.


Mr. Harley:: We are only dealing here with new drugs. I have been assured by the minister that the amendment he proposes plus the use of schedule H will allow new drugs to be removed from all sources. I hope the minister will give some thought at a later date to bringing in an amendment to the act which would allow this to be done in the case of any drug. However, in view of what the minister has said I would ask the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw my amendment.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Does the committee give its unanimous consent for the amendment to be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fulion:: Accordingly I move:
That Bill C-3, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, be amended by striking out clause 3 on page 1 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
3. Subsection (1) of section 24 of the said act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (1) thereof and by adding thereto, immediately after paragraph (m) thereof, the following paragraphs:
(n)	respecting the distribution or the conditions of distribution of samples of any drug: and
(o)	respecting
(i)	the method of preparation, manufacture, preserving, packing, storing and testing of any new drug, and
(ii)	the sale or the conditions of sale of any new drug,
and defining for the purposes of this act the expression "new drug".
Before you put the amendment, Mr. Chairman, may I ask that you read it as though I had included the word "labelling" after the word "packing"? It would then read: "... packing, labelling, storing and testing ..."


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the amendment
carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is difficult to compare what is now in front of us with what the minister said a few moments ago. I thought he said he would entertain an amendment to make possible the provision of regulations respecting the withdrawal of drugs. What happened to that?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The withdrawal of samples. I think my remarks indicated we did not feel it was within our jurisdiction to bring in any recommendations concerning the withdrawal of a drug which a doctor may have purchased, but we felt we could regulate concerning drugs distributed as samples.

Food and Drugs Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then this does even less than the hon. member for Halton had proposed. I thought the deficiency in his amendment was that it dealt only with new drugs. Now we are not going even that far, but we are dealing only with samples. This seems to me to underline again the desirability of having this bill referred to a special committee.


Stanley Haidasz: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This particular clause of the bill before us covers such a wide area of the problem in relation to these drugs that we should go further into the matter and scrutinize every aspect of it. After all, Mr. Chairman, we in this committee want to give to the people of Canada the best possible Food and Drugs Act, and I do not think that with the information available to this committee we have sufficient material to study the question properly. The United States congress on October 4 of this year amended the food and drug act of that country after two years of exhaustive study of the drug industry, and I believe that in two days we just are not capable of doing anything which would equalize their magnificent effort.
Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the words "testing of any new drug" which are to be found in clause 3. I believe this is the crux of the whole drug problem, especially in view of the thalidomide tragedy in Canada. It has been brought to the attention of the governments involved in the thalidomide tragedy that so far these drugs have not gone through a comprehensive test, especially in the preclinical stage, and above all in the important matter of testing drugs for teratogenicity. Dr. Helen Taussig of John Hopkins University has reviewed several X-ray films of rats fed with the drug thalidomide, and she found that the foetuses of these pregnant rats did contain malformations of limbs, so called phocomelia.
At this stage of the discussion of the bill I think the minister owes to this committee answers to several questions with regard to the testing of new drugs. The first question is whether the food and drug directorate conduct any tests at all in their laboratories as far as teratogenicity is concerned. Second, do the food and drug directorate demand any information on teratogenicity of new drugs from the manufacturing drug houses themselves? Third, have the food and drug directorate a resolution demanding that all drug manufacturers be licensed in this country? I believe that if there are drug manufacturers in this country who are not licensed, this can only work to the detriment of the people of Canada. After all, doctors

have to be licensed, pharmacists have to be licensed, engineers have to be licensed, and I think it is very important that drug manufacturers should have to be licensed before they manufacture and distribute drugs in this country. Furthermore, I believe that even distributors of drugs should be licensed, as well as importers of drugs from other countries. Otherwise how are we to get an assurance that the drugs available in Canada come from ethical companies, ethical distributors and ethical importers?
Mr. Chairman, I think I will now give the minister a chance to reply to these questions, and then I will carry on from there.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that there were no tests for teratogenicity prior to December 1, 1961, but that now we do demand, and have demanded, information concerning teratogenicity from manufacturers. That has been so prior to December 1 and since.
Mr. Chairman, all these matters will be given further consideration. As I mentioned last evening, we are expecting the report of the committee of the royal college of physicians and surgeons quite soon, and as soon as it it received naturally we will act on it. I am not saying that everything recommended in the report will be accepted 100 per cent, but there will certainly be some recommendations on which we will be acting, and at that time we will take into consideration all of the angles with regard to new drugs and new drug procedures, and as to when and how we accept a drug for distribution and permit it to be used in Canada. Incidentally, this bill is drawn up to provide the necessary authority to implement the report of the special committee of the royal college of physicians and surgeons when it is received.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Chairman, is this committee to believe that when this report is brought in we will be notified of all the recommendations they bring forward for consideration of the minister?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am told I would have to ask for the consent of the royal college of physicians and surgeons to table this report, but this would be my intention; and certainly any regulations implemented as a result of the report would be done automatically by order in council and would appear in the Canada Gazette. Incidentally, I am informed that the royal college of physicians and surgeons are agreeable to the tabling of the report, and I will certainly be pleased to do so.


Stanley Haidasz: Then I gather, Mr. Chairman, judging from the reply of the minister, that all that we, the elected representatives of the people, will be allowed to do is to read

the regulations in the Canada Gazette, and we will not have an opportunity to discuss in the house any new regulations under the Food and Drugs Act.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is standard procedure in instances of this kind. Of course if somebody has a question to raise they can put a motion on the order paper and can discuss it. I would think there would be ample opportunity, when the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare come up for consideration, to discuss any matter having to do with the department, including regulations.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Chairman, I think this is totally inadequate. 1 think the amendments to this Food and Drugs Act are of very great importance to the people of Canada, and I think we, the elected representatives of the people, being concerned with public safety in Canada, should scrutinize the recommendations which the royal college will be presenting to the government before they become law. Otherwise we shall have again this government by order in council tradition.
In view of these facts I think it is extremely important that we should refer this whole matter to a special committee of the house, where we could have expert advice, and where we the members of this House of Commons would be able to question experts in the drug industry. Otherwise, as I see it, all the work is being done by a few men appointed by the royal college of physicians and surgeons.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is completely wrong, Mr. Chairman. It is ridiculous to say that all this work is going to be done by the royal college of physicians and surgeons. This special committee of the royal college is presenting a report to me as minister. From that report we come up with the regulations which we feel to be consistent with their effort and for the good and the welfare of the people of Canada. After these regulations have been enacted they appear in the Canada Gazette. They have done so by order in council. At any time on my estimates I am quite free to discuss these regulations after they have been enacted.


Mr. Teillel:: I think the minister has led us into some confusion. He has said the regulations would be drafted so as to be consistent with that report. Perhaps he meant that the regulations would be consistent with the act.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Certainly they would have to be consistent with the act, but they will take into consideration the recommendations of the committee.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That is better.
Food and Drugs Act


James Edgar Walker: The minister will think I have a one track mind, but sometimes this is not a bad attribute. In reading over yesterday's transcript of the work of the committee I am still not clear on one point, and I wonder whether the minister could clear it up. It is still bothering some of us. The question is whether there is embodied in these amendments or implicit in them any authority for the health and drug directorate to remove supplies of drugs at the drug store level, with respect to any drugs that are put under schedule H. This is the point that I believe has not been answered.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If these drugs are in the store and are offered for sale, we have every authority to go in and seize them. The matter gets back to the definition of sell, offer for sale or, expose for sale.


James Edgar Walker: There was some confusion yesterday.


Stanley Haidasz: I should like to ask the minister where in the present amendment there is any reference to the necessity of the licensing of manufacturers, distributors and importers of drugs.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There is nothing in this act concerning the licensing of a manufacturer. This act has a threefold purpose. The purpose under clause 1 is to limit the mass sampling that has been done. Another purpose is concerning schedule H, the prohibition of sale. Clause 3 is the one we are dealing with now, and simply provides for regulations or gives us authority so that we may make regulations concerning new drugs primarily, which we expect to be reviewed in the report. As I said earlier, it is up to the department to develop the regulations, but this will be done in consideration of the report of the royal college of physicians and surgeons. Then, of course, clause 4 contains reference to two drugs, namely thalidomide and lysergic acid. Actually there is nothing in this act concerning licensing.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I wish to have just another clarification with respect to the previous answer of the minister. If I understood him correctly he said the act gave him authority to withdraw drugs from a drug store, for instance, providing that drug store was actually offering them for sale, but that in the event of those drugs being within that drug store and not being offered for sale, he then had not authority to withdraw them. Am I correct in that interpretation?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am told that this would be a matter of interpretation. I presume if they were down in the basement of a drug store and were stored away, they would not be offered

Food and Drugs Act
for sale. However, if they were in any position where it could be interpreted that they were being offered for sale, we would then have every power to pick them up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There seem to be several points of confusion in this debate. I think one of them is that we are trying to be helpful and the minister does not quite appreciate that fact.
First may I say that it is to me a source of confusion that when members of the opposition propose amendments in order to enable the department to gather in supplies of harmful drugs, it is argued from the government benches that this provision might be invading the field of property and civil rights and therefore be ultra vires of the powers of this parliament. On the other hand when we press the minister, in certain instances he reminds us of the other clause in the act that gives the government power under certain circumstances to seize some of these supplies. I suggest that is a sample of the kind of confusion we have in this debate.
The thing which it seems to me ought to impress itself on the mind of the minister is the experience he had during the thalidomide crisis. His department desired not only to stop the sale and distribution of thalidomide, but to get all the supplies back from wherever they were. He argued that there was some doubt as to whether the government had authority to do this. It is even suggested to this date that the action taken may not have had proper legal authority. What we are trying to do is suggest to the minister that there be put into the act legal authority to enable the government to do in another such crisis what it did, whether or not it had authority to do so, in the thalidomide crisis.
So far as the thalidomide crisis is concerned, I think the government is to be commended for taking the action it took. The letters that were written and the directives that were sent out must have been drafted by some fairly smart lawyers. They did not offend the law, yet they produced the result. As I say, we are trying to be helpful. We are trying to suggest to the minister that he accept the offer of members of this house to have put into the act the necessary authority so that any drug-whether it is a sample, a new drug or an old drug-that is found to be harmful, be a drug that the government can withdraw from any place in which it may be.
We do not know what the next crisis in this field will be. As I think the minister pointed out in his speech on second reading when this debate started some weeks ago, it sometimes happens in the field of science,

and in the field of medical science in particular, that as we move ahead and discover things that are a boon to human life, things can happen that cause a crisis along the way. As medical science develops new drugs that may be exceedingly helpful, drugs that may cure some of the diseases that are still regarded as incurable, there may be another crisis such as the one we had in respect of thalidomide. I wish the minister would realize that those in the various opposition groups who are pressing him to take some action in this field are of one mind with him, of one mind with the department in the attitude they took to the thalidomide crisis. I wish, therefore, he would be a little more appreciative of the things we are trying to present than he has been thus far.
The hon. member for Halton is not wedded to the wording he put forward last night. He has withdrawn those words. None of us is wedded to any form of words. As a matter of fact the hon. member for York South, the nearest legal adviser I have, has drafted some words for me that I could put forward. I do not intend to do so at this moment because I do not believe this is the place to try to settle the exact form of the wording. I think this is the place for us to deal with the principle of whether or not the government should have this kind of authority. The house, in my view, should give the government the authority to do what it did in the thalidomide crisis when that authority was not there.
If I might use the same words I used the last time I was on my feet, I would say this underlines very strongly the need for this bill to be referred to a standing or special committee. The minister would shorten this debate greatly if he would solve the riddle for us as to whether that is going to happen. He told us when he opened the debate on second reading back in October, and when he closed the debate yesterday, it was his view that we should deal with this matter first of all in committee of the whole. Then, as I recall his words, if it was the sense of the house or if it seemed desirable that it should go to a standing committee, that could be done. If he were to tell us now it is the sense of the house that it should go to a special committee, there would be less time taken on these individual clauses.
While I am on my feet I should like to say a word on another aspect of this subject which is also in support of my contention that the bill should go before a standing or select committee. I refer to the fact that the regulations, under the section with which we are now dealing, are not going to be drafted until after the government receives the report from the special committee of the

royal college of physicians and surgeons. I am not making any complaint about the fact that the government wants to wait until it gets that report before it decides what its new regulations should be regarding the manufacture, packing, storing and testing of new drugs. I think that is wise. I recognize the fact that it is standard procedure for the government to ask parliament to give to the government the power to make regulations which we do not see until later. Usually this is done because we know nothing of what is in the government's mind at this point. In this particular case, the government itself does not know what is in its mind. It is waiting, commendably, until the report comes from the special committee of the royal college of physicians and surgeons.
It seems to me it follows logically, therefore, that all of us should wait until that committee has made its report, until we have these various recommendations, until we have some idea what kind of regulations the government is going to bring down under this section. This is-I do not use this phrase with any heat-blank cheque legislation. We are being asked to give the government authority to pass regulations at a point when the government itself does not know what kind of regulations it is going to introduce because it is waiting for the report of the special committee of the royal college of physicians and surgeons.	.
I recognize what the minister says, and it is quite correct, that the government will take the responsibility for the regulations. If the government wants to wait until it gets something in the nature of guidance from the royal college of physicians and surgeons, is it not obvious that the whole thing should wait until that committee has finished its report? By the way, that committee as well as other bodies should appear before the special or standing committee of this house to which this bill is referred.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me sum this all up by saying it is an urgent appeal to the minister to indicate that this bill will go to a standing or special committee. It is also an urgent appeal to him to realize that in all this debate that has taken place in the last half hour of last night and so far today, the members of this house are trying to be helpful. We want the government to have, in the event of another crisis like the thalidomide one, the authority that it did not have in the thalidomide crisis to deal with the situation.


Jay Waldo Monteith: First of all I should like to point out to the hon. member and to the house that I am very appreciative of the fact that the house has tried to be helpful in connection with this bill. I realize that,
Food and Drugs Act
and it is because of the assistance which the hon. member for Halton was bringing to the house by way of his amendment last evening that, in discussion this morning, the departmental officials and the Department of Justice have decided that this is as far as we can go because of the criminal law of the country. If we went any farther in this respect, I am given to understand that we would be invading provincial jurisdiction in the matter of property and civil rights. There certainly has been no indication of a blank cheque type of request in this regard. We have many volumes of regulations as it is. The department is working on the regulations for this particular matter as well.
We have asked the college of physicians and surgeons for a report on new drug procedures as they find them, and what they might recommend. I think we can find no better body to advise us in this respect. Certainly we do not propose to introduce any new regulations until this body has reported and until we have had an opportunity of studying the report and their suggestions.
Now, schedule H is a new schedule. This is intended, as everyone realizes and appreciates, to put the drugs-in this case thalidomide and lysergic acid-in a certain category which makes it an offence to have them in your possession for sale or distribution under any conditions. This is what we are trying to do, and what we feel we have done. The Department of Justice has advised us that we could go as far as the amendment proposed by the Minister of Public Works; we could go along a bit in an effort to meet the request of the hon. member for Halton. However, I do not believe we can go any farther. This is the advice I have received.
Last night the hon. member for Peace River set forth these views in much more succinct language than I can from a legalistic approach. I felt last evening that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was convinced. As a result of the suggestion by the hon. member for Halton, and on the advice received from the Department of Justice, we have brought in a further amendment, but the amendment possibly does not go as far as hon. members might wish. They might wish that it would be permissible to walk into a doctor's office and, despite property and civil rights, seize whatever drug he may have there even though it is not for distribution. Under these conditions it would be understandable that an inspector could walk into a private home and seize any private drugs even though they were not for distribution under any condition. As a consequence I feel this is the furthest we can go to meet the suggestion of the hon. member for Halton.

Food and Drugs Act
I was under the impression that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Peace River had come almost to a meeting of minds in this respect, although I must admit that from a legal approach I am not in a position to say whether this was so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I was impressed, and I think that was the word I used, with the argument made by the hon. member for Peace River, and I do not take that back. Neither do I pose as a lawyer or constitutional expert; but I did not think anyone in the committee really wanted to try to put something into this legislation that the courts would decide was beyond the powers of parliament to do.
I do not want the minister or anyone else to think merely because I thought the view expressed by the hon. member for Peace River should be seriously taken into account, that I set myself up as an expert in the matter, because I did not. I must say I sympathize thoroughly with the views expressed by my colleagues over here, in which they have been joined by hon. members of the National Democratic party, that this matter would have been much better to have been sent in the first place to a special committee. Even at this late date it would be better in a special committee and, during the time it was there, the house could be getting on with other business.


Mr. Marcoux:: Following the process of reasoning of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I might say that we have many drugs labelled "poison" which we keep in our offices. They are also kept in drug stores and are used only under prescription. This thalidomide case was a real tragedy, but parents have suffered other tragedies following the use of drugs for the first time, and on occasion it has been found that it is only after a long period of use that they are discovered to be harmful. Thalidomide was a tragedy because it was apparent and people could see the results of it, but we must remember that there are also cases of phoco-melia and other tragedies to which public attention is not given.
The effects of thalidomide could be seen by the public and that is the reason why procedures in regard to its withdrawal had to be shortened; but I do not think it is advisable to give the department permission to seize any new drug which might have a harmful effect because, as I have said, there are many drugs currently in use which are labelled poison and which we doctors use cautiously according to our medical skill.

To give the department power to seize all drugs labelled poison, just because they could be used by children or servants, would be wrong. So long as the intention and motive are good I do not think there is any question about going a little beyond the straight line.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I do not want to belabour this point, but I am sorry the former minister of justice has left his seat as he might be helpful in this instance.


An hon. Member:: He is listening.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: As I understand the explanation we received a moment ago, it will be left in the hands of an inspector to decide whether these drugs are for sale within the definition read by the minister. The inspector would have to take an arbitrary decision and on the strength of that the law would be applied.
The alternative might be for a druggist, a warehouseman or a wholesaler to say to an inspector "No, these are not offered for sale," and put the inspector in a position where he would have to prove before a court of law, or in some other fashion, that in fact the articles complained of were for sale. That is a process which would take a considerable length of time. I am not being critical. I am just conjecturing these situations in the hope that the minister or his colleagues may be able to clarify the matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hesitate, being no longer minister of justice, to try what must be interpreted now as an impromptu amateurish effort to assist the committee, but I shall endeavour to do so if the committee will put it on no higher basis than that this is an opinion of an individual member and is not an authoritative statement of the government's view. I think that what the hon. member who has just taken his seat has posed is but the problem which confronts any police officer or law enforcement officer under this act or any other act under the Criminal Code.
The officer concerned, in this case the inspector, has the right to enter premises to see whether or not a breach of a statute is being committed. The statute provides that it is an offence to have certain prescribed articles in possession for the purposes of sale or distribution, or to offer them for sale. The inspector then has to decide whether the circumstances which he finds there constitute a breach of the statute. If he is of the opinion that they do, then he seizes the article in question.
The person in whose premises they are found then of course has the right, when the case comes before the courts-or he can go to the courts himself-to say there was no breach of the statute. The inspector will then

have to adduce evidence to establish that there was a breach, and the courts will decide. It will not be an arbitrary decision of the inspector. It will be subject to review by the courts, and if the courts decide there was a breach of the statute then the seizure is maintained, the articles are forfeited, and whatever penalty is decided will follow.
If the courts decide there was no breach, in other words that the goods were in possession not for the purposes of sale or distribution but in the possession of a private individual for his legitimate purposes, then there is no breach, no forfeiture, and the goods will be restored. But until the courts have decided, the goods will remain seized and will be in the custody of the courts.
That is the situation under any statute under which it becomes the responsibility of a law enforcement officer to see that the law is carried out. It is not his final decision; it is the decision of the courts which determines that question, but the inspector has authority to seize if he believes a breach of the statute is in process.


Mr. Lamoureux:: What I would like to put in the hands of the department is an instrument whereby the department can seize the schedule H drugs even when they are only in possession and there is no intention to sell.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That would be unconstitutional.


Lucien Lamoureux: The former minister of justice says that cannot be done, but I think he is wrong. Perhaps the way to get around the difficulty of seizing goods which are not possessed illegally would be to give the department the right or power to direct the return or removal of all drugs under schedule H within a specified period of time, and place a provision in the statute to the effect that the drugs would be deemed to be in possession illegally after that date if they were not returned within that period of time. Then if the drugs are possessed illegally certainly it would not be ultra vires of this statute to say that the department would have the power to seize them and have them removed from the possession of whoever held them in contravention of the direction received from the department.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, what is being suggested here could, of course, be written into the law; but it is the advice received by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and certainly advice in which I concur, that a statute containing that provision would be ultra vires of this parliament to enact. Certainly we could put it before the house and if the house chose, it could pass it, but then anyone could take it to court and in my view, if such a provision were challenged
Food and Drugs Act
in court, the court would hold that it was ultra vires and beyond our power to enact. Surely it is not really seriously maintained by the hon. member, on reflection, that the department or the inspectors should be given power with immunity to destroy property which the courts may subsequently hold was innocently possessed. I doubt whether the hon. member meant to go that far, although it seems to me, as I understood him, that he went that far. This, it seems to me, would be a breach of not only constitutional law but fundamental law which we have embodied recently in the bill of rights.


Lucien Lamoureux: That is exactly the point, Mr. Chairman. I am not suggesting the seizure of drugs that are innocently possessed, but I think there should be authority to declare that certain drugs are not innocently possessed. If these drugs are listed in schedule H, then the department through that type of legislation would have the power that members of the opposition have been suggesting should be given; that is, to obtain the return of these drugs which are in schedule H just by the mere fact that they are in possession of a certain individual.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, if I appreciate correctly what the hon. member is suggesting, it is that the statute should declare mere possession to be an offence. But, sir, we surely should not, in attempting to remedy or meet a serious situation, go so far as in fact to create a greater evil or impose greater handicaps than we are trying to remedy. If we declared the mere possession of these substances to be an offence we would, for instance, render impossible any experimentation, even the most legitimate and scientific experimentation, for the purpose of research. So it has been the scheme of the act both prior to and concurrently with the passage of these amendments that it is the possession for an improper purpose that is the offence; that is, the possession of a prescribed drug for the purpose of sale or distribution.
The powers of the inspectors are not unduly circumscribed. I think we have to recognize that they will be fully charged with their responsibility to see that there is no breach committed. They are not going to be overly tender about that. I am not suggesting they will be heavy-handed or arbitrary. But if they go into premises and if they feel that the possession is under such circumstances that it is obvious sale is being offered, encouraged or made possible, they will seize the drugs, lay an information and bring a prosecution. Then it is for the courts to determine whether or not the offence has been committed; that is, whether or not the possession is for a purpose which the act makes unlawful.

Food and Drugs Act


Lucien Lamoureux: Just one more point, Mr. Chairman. It is not mere possession that I thought should be declared illegal, but possession following a demand by the department to return or destroy the drugs within a certain specific period of time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, that is where
you get into a real difficulty because, as I have said, there are cases, obviously where the possession is perfectly proper and where the prohibition of possession becomes a transgression of the ordinary provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights. To prescribe the right of an individual to possess articles is a course embarked upon, and most necessarily so, with a great deal of care and with the proper regard for the constitutional principles which govern us here, and for the limits of the jurisdiction of parliament under the criminal law. It is those limits upon which the Department of Justice has advised my colleague and his officials and which are incorporated into this act.
Surely if you go as far as this act and the amendments go to make possession, for the purpose of distribution or selling, unlawful then, given the proper-and I think we can assume this-enforcement by the inspectors you have adequately safeguarded the public interest, at least within the limits of what it is possible for us to do. Surely, too, we should not forget-and I know this is in the mind of my colleague and I think it should be in the minds of hon. members and of the people generally-that there is also concurrent jurisdiction on the part of the provinces. There are limits to our jurisdiction. Those limits, generally speaking, are such that one could say, where our authority ends provincial authority begins. It is perhaps only proper for me to suggest, then, to my hon. friend and to all hon. members of this house that they urge upon our colleagues in the provincial legislatures that if there is this real danger that we cannot go far enough under the umbrella of our authority, then those limits should be extended under the umbrella of the supplementary, provincial jurisdiction. I think that would be the proper approach rather than attempting to extend to a point which would be to distort the limits of federal jurisdiction. Surely we should ask and expect the provinces to exercise their jurisdiction in this field as well.


Mr. Slogan:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern-


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Again, Mr. Chairman-and I do not want to get involved in this legal argument, because I am not a lawyer-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry, but I recognize the hon. member for Springfield.


Joseph Slogan: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern felt by all hon. members of the committee in this regard, but I hope the opposition is not becoming a little overzealous in this connection to the extent perhaps of imposing a strait-jacket either on the government, the professions concerned or anyone else. I think perhaps there is one avenue which we have not mentioned. That is, that all the people concerned in the sale and distribution, so to speak, of these drugs belong to professions such as the pharmaceutical profession, the medical profession or the dental profession, and once a drug is found to be harmful and is placed in schedule H, it is therefore unlawful to sell, administer or distribute it. I think these professions and the people practising them are honourable enough to realize at that point that they would be breaking the law if they continued to prescribe or distribute the drugs.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I think we are overlooking the fact that each one of these people is subject to the discipline of his own organization, because they are all members of professions which have a profound responsibility to the public at large. I think the policing within the professions themselves is far more rigid and that a member of such a profession who would break the law by distributing these drugs or prescribing them after they have been declared unlawful has much more at stake than perhaps we realize, because his whole livelihood would be at stake. Also, there is no doubt that the association to which he belongs would not hesitate to take very stern disciplinary action in the event that a drug was found to be harmful and he continued to administer it, unless it was under very strict conditions of research and experimentation which had been sanctioned.
Therefore I think perhaps we are getting a little bit off the beaten path here in this insistence by the opposition taking the position that these safeguards be instituted, because I think these men are all honourable enough that once they were asked to destroy these drugs, they would realize the drugs should be destroyed. I do not think it is practical for inspectors to go into every office to see that these drugs are removed. I think once they have been declared unlawful, those in possession of them will see that they are not used, and they will be destroyed. The government has shown as much concern as the opposition about some of these events of the recent past, such as the thalidomide question, and this is why the act is now being

revised. As further studies are made, improvements will continue to be incorporated in the act in future. However, I would ask the indulgence of members opposite at this point because I think they are going a bit too far. The government has taken cognizance of the points they have raised, and I believe those who are responsible for the administration of this legislation will see to it that it is administered to the public benefit. Having heard the discussion on this subject both yesterday and today, I think we are getting off the beaten path into a morass of legal opinion. It is time this bill was passed.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I shall not even comment on accusations that we have been trying to attack the medical profession, the druggists, and so on. We are trying to reach the point where we all feel that what we are doing today is the best that can be done. Following the explanations we have received from the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, we might possibly have another explanation of the reasons why it was deemed necessary to have this particular drug removed during the thalidomide crisis if, now, it is not thought advisable to give that power to the officials. It might clear the atmosphere if such an explanation were given, and we might be in a better position to make a decision.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: In rising to speak on this matter, I speak from the heart and not from notes. I listened last evening and today to the discussion, and I claim I have proper grounds for taking part in this debate because of the fact that for the past 13 years I have been associated with a hospital in Toronto. One of the patients in that hospital is a basket baby, born recently without arms or legs, as a result, it is believed, of the use of this drug thalidomide. The child is still living and is a glorious child.
On Saturday afternoon I spent two hours in company with the doctors of the hospital and, of course, this present debate in parliament, and the condition of the child, were the foremost topics. I was interested to hear those doctors tell me: Don't throw the babies out with the bath water. This drug is a magnificent sedative. If its sale is prohibited in Canada you are taking it away from men and from young people, particularly of the male sex. It is a wonderful sedative. They went so far as to tell me that had Marilyn Monroe taken this drug as a sedative instead of the drug she did, she would be living to this day, because there are no serious after effects following its use as a sedative as there are from some other sleeping pills.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare said yesterday he was not going to rush
Food and Drugs Act
the legislation on this matter, and I believe him. I know the minister, and he is doing a magnificent job in my opinion. I believe him when he says he does not intend to rush this legislation through. I say to him that rat poison is bad for human beings to take, yet we have it on the shelves of the stores. This drug thalidomide is a magnificent sedative and I do not think it should be banned from the shelves of Canada, despite the fact that I have seen the effects of its use by pregnant women. Thalidomide has been a tragedy in Canada and throughout the world because of the birth of deformed babies. Nevertheless, the minister yesterday gave an inkling of the thinking in the medical world on this score. How many people realize that this drug may be the answer to cancer? Research work is being done in this regard today. The growth of the foetus in a pregnant woman is a cellular growth, and it has been proven, through these unfortunate cases, that the use of this particular drug counteracts the natural cellular growth of the foetus. Cancer is also a cellular growth and researchers are now working on the theory that thalidomide may be the answer to cancer. If it is an agent which counteracts the cellular growth of the foetus, might it not be a counteracting agent to the growth of cancer cells?
In the meantime, this drug is of great benefit as a sedative for older men and adolescent men, and I suggest it should be available to the public of Canada under the same conditions as other poisons. The sale of poisons is surrounded by precautions and there could be precautions surrounding the sale of thalidomide to see that pregnant women did not use it. For these reasons I do not think its sale should be banned altogether and its use circumscribed as suggested in the proposals we have heard.
I support in every way the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the whole question be referred to a special committee of the house. I have never been more serious in my life than when discussing this subject. I have seen a baby without arms and legs, and yet I am standing up for the drug. So I think what I have said represents a considered opinion. As I have told the committee, I have seen the effects of this drug; maybe some other hon. members have not. Research teams will continue their work and it may yet be that this drug represents the lightening of the dark cloud which now overhangs the dark world of cancer.


Guy Marcoux: As I rise to make my last remarks on this subject, may I say I fully

Food and Drugs Act
agree with what was said by the hon. member who preceded me. We have to look for the reasons why doctors, pharmacists, dentists or any others who have these drugs in their possession would like to keep them. I do not think we should at once attribute bad intentions to them. Possession, after all, may be an accident. For example, a doctor might go on a vacation for a month or so and find that on his return two or three letters have been sent to his office telling him to destroy or withdraw certain drugs. Then he could be caught the moment he got back, and find he had committed an offence under the criminal law. I think we have to use our judgment and common sense.
Finally, without referring to any hon. member in particular, I think it is good to hear somebody speaking without any political animus behind his remarks.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Harry Cruickshank Harley: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to make a few remarks. I appreciate very much the attempt of the minister to bring this legislation into line with some of our thinking, and I take his word when he says that he has gone as far as he can go legally. These amendments are very narrow. We have been talking, as I have said, only of the amendments, and they are mostly dealing with new drugs and the presentation of a schedule. We on this side feel very strongly that this matter should be referred to a committee. If the minister at this time is not prepared to do this, I should like to make the recommendation to him that, at the time when the royal college of physicians and surgeons present their report on drugs, it would be worth while to appoint a committee to consider their findings and to consider this whole question of drug legislation.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to look at it at that time.


Rémi Paul: Shall the clause as amended carry?
Clause 3 as amended agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Bill reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: By leave, now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting of the house.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: the second reading of Bill No. C-4, to amend the Department of National Health and Welfare Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-4 embodies two amendments to the Department of National Health and Welfare Act. The first is of a routine procedural nature while the second envisages a major step forward in the development of welfare in Canada.
As hon. members are aware, the federal government has long had at its disposal a top level advisory council in the field of health. Consisting of deputy ministers of health, as well as non-governmental representatives, this council has a distinguished record of service to the nation stretching over a period of some 43 years. The council has not only furnished continuing advice and guidance to federal health ministers but has also served as the spearhead of federal-provincial co-operation without which our present pattern of nation-wide health services would have been virtually impossible of achievement. Indeed, an examination of the health council's history indicates the key role which this body has played in many of our greatest successes, such as the development and expansion of the national health grants, the introduction of the Salk polio vaccine, and the implementation of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. In my own case, since becoming minister I have found the health council of great assistance. It has been of substantial help in developing our general health policy and in dealing with the many difficult technical problems which arise from time to time in this field. Certainly, the government and people of Canada owe an important debt of gratitude to this very distinguished Canadian institution.
In view of this council's contribution to Canada's health progress, the government has felt that it would be equally helpful to have a similar body established in the field of welfare. This is the major purpose of the legislation presently before the house. The national council of welfare now being proposed will be in the nature of an advisory body to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with duties and functions paralleling those of the health council. With its membership being drawn up on a comparable basis, the new council will, we believe, afford social welfare the status which is its due and exert significant influence on future developments

in this field. The timing of the council's establishment is particularly appropriate in view of a further innovation currently being implemented in the welfare field. I am referring to the new program of national welfare grants. As I announced to the house on April 12 last, these grants will cover three important areas-general welfare, professional training and research. They represent a significant departure in the welfare field and it is our hope that the national council of welfare will provide the same kind of support to their development as has the health council in relation to the national health grants.
On previous occasions, I have mentioned the importance of this new council with respect to the improvement of Canada's various social security programs. For many years, we have been sharing with the provinces the cost of old age assistance, disabled and blind persons allowances, and unemployment assistance. We have now clearly reached the point when we must re-examine the mass of complex regulations and procedures that have been developed at different points in our history to meet particular needs. The time has now come for us to take a fresh look at this whole field with a view to developing a more consistent and integrated approach to public assistance in Canada.
I might mention one or two examples of the kind of problem which will be referred to the new council. There is the question of additional aid for the blind, which has been raised by organizations representing the blind in Canada. There is the question of the most appropriate approach with respect to the provision of aid under our federal-provincial assistance programs. The categorical programs covering old age assistance, blind and disabled persons allowances have an income and property test and a maximum benefit. Unemployment assistance, on the other hand, operates on the basis of a budgetary approach to need and has no upper limit under the federal legislation. Different views have been expressed as to the most appropriate method of providing federal aid under these measures, and we are anxious to obtain the best and most representative advice with respect to this matter.
I might say that the provinces have also expressed the view that these joint programs should be reassessed. At the dominion-provincial conference in the fall of 1960, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) indicated the need for further study in order that these measures might be simplified and, if possible, consolidated to some extent. The new national council of welfare will, I believe, provide a vehicle through which these matters may be considered. The nature and scope of
Health and Welfare Act the federal legislation affects the administrative operations of the provincial authorities. It would be most helpful in this regard to have on this advisory council the administrators of provincial programs, who will be in a position to make suggestions leading to greater administrative simplicity and efficiency. In addition, the background of these administrators in meeting day-to-day welfare problems in all walks of life should prove particularly valuable to the council. Their presence on the council should facilitate further federal-provincial liaison in the administration of programs and expedite the exchange of information and the discussion of common problems on a regular basis. Another matter of great importance which the council will be asked to consider has to do with the introduction of an old age, survivors and disability insurance program together with the relationship such a program will have to existing provincial and federal-provincial programs.
As hon. members are aware, this matter was included in the speech from the throne. In addition, a resolution providing for an address to Her Majesty the Queen, related to an amendment to the British North America Act, has already been placed before this house. The proposed program will pose many complex problems and it will be particularly helpful to have this advisory council available while it is being established and brought into operation. The regulations and provisions under the family allowances and old age security programs will need to be reviewed from time to time with a view to relating them to changing needs and conditions.
The question of federal aid to encourage and assist in the development of homes for the aged and other types of domiciliary care has been raised in this house and elsewhere more and more as the years go by. It is a matter that deserves further consideration and is one on which the views of the national council of welfare will be sought.
As hon. members will note, the composition of the council is somewhat similar to that which has been provided for its counterpart in the health field. For example, the deputy ministers of the federal and provincial governments are to be members of the council and will bring to its meetings many years of experience in technical problems relating to the administration of social welfare measures in Canada. In addition, provision is made for ten representatives from outside of government. This will provide an opportunity to bring to the council the experience of many persons who have made a substantial contribution in the voluntary welfare field and to provide for citizen participation as well as geographic representation.

Health and Welfare Act
Mr. Speaker, I have put before you my hopes and expectations concerning an important undertaking that we feel confident will contribute in a significant way to social welfare progress in Canada. I am sure that it will enjoy the full support of all those interested in promoting the well-being of Canadians.
I should like to refer again to the other amendment to the Department of National Health and Welfare Act which as I mentioned earlier is of routine character. Specifically, it provides for the repeal of paragraph (g) section 5. As it now stands, this paragraph lists a number of statutes which at the time of the introduction of this act were within the duties, powers and functions of the minister. With the passage of time, this list has become out of date and must either be changed to reflect the current situation or deleted altogether. We have decided on the latter course since such a list does not affect the general authority of the minister and department and since, if it were retained, this would necessitate opening up the act for amendment whenever changes occurred in our programs.
The repeal of paragraph (g) section 5, therefore, is merely a step toward tightening up the existing legislation and will, I trust, be understood as such by the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in rising to express my support for this bill I should like to say that, generally speaking, I think the statement the minister has made is one that will commend itself to the house. He has said that the bill seeks to do two things. First of all, it seeks to provide an amendment to delete a provision listing certain acts under the administration of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Second, it seeks to set up a national council on welfare. With regard to the first proposed amendment, I should like to say this. When the act was set up by the first minister of national health and welfare, , the late Hon. Brooke Claxton, there was a good reason for including various acts under the authority of the minister in the section of the act in which the enumerated powers and the enumerated legislative enactments were included.
At this time I should like to say that the Department of National Health and Welfare Act administered by the first minister of national health and welfare represented the humanitarian instincts of that hon. gentleman and his great administrative skills. At the time when the act was introduced it received wide acclaim from one end of the country to the other as well as in this House of Commons. It represented a new concept involving a new attitude on the part of the federal

government with regard to social welfare matters. In supporting this modification now being made I would not wish it in any way to be understood, nor would the minister nor would any other hon. member, that we were criticizing the original concept which the late Hon. Brooke Claxton had in mind. As his successor in that department, I think I can attest to his great qualities as an administrator and to the vision he had in establishing a department which increasingly is playing an extremely important role in the welfare of our country.
With regard to the second purpose of the amendment, namely the establishment of a national council on welfare may I say this. This is not an idea that is altogether new. It was made part of the declaration of social security for Canada by the Canadian welfare council itself on June 2, 1958. That declaration contains some 22 recommendations made *by the Canadian welfare council to the government of Canada and to the people of Canada generally, setting out various objectives in the social welfare field. Among them was recommendation 20 which reads as follows:
Machinery should be devised to ensure regular communication among provinces, and between provinces and the dominion government, on all welfare matters of common interest.
Recommendation 21 reads as follows:
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.
The council adds this commentary:
Because of the wide range and diversity of interests and programs in social security, it is essential that the dominion government should have ready access to the advice and counsel of persons, both in and out of government service, who are technically competent and experienced in matters relating to this field.
I join the minister in expressing the view that the dominion council of health which is intended to serve as a model for the new council, has indeed been a very successful body. As a matter of fact, I suppose the dominion council of health is the oldest body that serves to provide for continuous collaboration between the two senior levels of government in our country. Biannually the representatives of all of the provincial governments through their deputy ministers meet with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his deputy minister, for the purpose of collaborating on matters of mutual concern and jurisdiction. As a former minister of national health and welfare, I can attest to the usefulness of the dominion council of health. I note that the minister

intends that the new national council on welfare shall, in addition to the provincial representatives and those representing the federal government be made up of not more than 10 additional persons. I presume the reason for the larger unofficial representation is that the minister wishes to take into account bodies which otherwise would not be represented, as well as to take into account geographical considerations. My recollection is that on the dominion council of health there were three persons representing bodies other than the provincial and federal government.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Five.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister corrects me and says there are five persons.
Certainly one would want to see, on a new council of welfare, representatives of agriculture and of labour. This might be a good opportunity for the government to give some direction and some leadership to itself in the matter of labour, management and government co-operation.
The government has before it the unanimous recommendation of the special mission to Europe of the productivity council complaining about the lack of co-operation in Canada between these three partners of industry as compared with the co-operation between labour, management and government in Europe. This is one area, of course, where one would expect labour, as well as other national bodies, to be represented. But this might be one of the steps that the government could take to prod other areas of the federal government into a realization that the recommendation made by the special mission to Europe of the productivity council represents a very constructive proposal, a proposal that must not be allowed to gather dust, as one is inclined to feel may happen unless the government is continually prodded in respect of this matter.
The minister has mentioned the kind of problems he envisages will be discussed by the council on welfare. Many of the problems he mentioned are included in the statement of objectives on social security by the Canadian welfare council. There are others included in this list that the minister did not mention. I agree that, having in mind the fact that the two senior levels of government participate in joint social welfare schemes and that each of these two areas of government have schemes in which they are exclusively concerned, these factors make it desirable to have continuous consultation between provincial and federal governments. I am sure the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), who was a provincial premier, would strongly concur in this statement.
27507-3-100
Health and Welfare Act
I would regret if this device of setting up this council were in any way to be used by the government as a means of delaying action in some fields to which it is publicly committed, committed during the elections of 1957 and 1958 and committed in the language of the speech from the throne that opened our proceedings in this session of parliament. The minister mentioned, too, that the national welfare council could consider such things as a survivors' scheme or a contributory scheme for old age security. Well, of course, the council of welfare could consider matters of this sort. However, this fact should not be used as a means for postponing action in an area in which the people of Canada now expect the government to do something.
We can now proceed, without waiting for the establishment of this council, to set up the main features of a contributory scheme of old age pensions that will provide a minimum pension of $75 per month. This could be done at this session. We need not wait until this council is established or wait until it begins to function. The minister has said that other matters might well receive the attention of this council. A moment ago he mentioned additional aid for the blind. Well, the government is committed to this, as indeed are all political parties in this country in respect of this particular form of assistance. We need not wait until this council begins to function for action in that regard.
I imagine the council would not meet until winter or perhaps spring. We need not wait until then. As a matter of fact, this government need not wait to introduce its contributory pension scheme merely because it has not received approval of a constitutional amendment. There are some features of that scheme that do not require a constitutional amendment. We can begin now to provide contributory pensions providing for a national minimum of $75 per month, without any delay whatever. I am saying this because, notwithstanding the assurance given the country and parliament with regard to medical care insurance, we have had this government devising the establishment of a royal commission on health services, a commission that is not going to report we are told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) until July, 1963. This royal commission has served as a pretext for the government making no move whatever in the matter of medical care insurance, notwithstanding its affirmation in 1957 and the assurances that it gave in 1958.
I am talking about the use of the council on welfare as a possible device or excuse by the government to postpone action in certain very important fields of social welfare.

Private Bills


Jay Waldo Monteith: You are not accusing me of that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is laughing. I do not know what he said but I suspect he said that I would not attribute to him any such motive. Well, I would. This minister is the minister who, for four and a half years had on his desk the Clark report which outlined the facts involved in a contributory scheme for old age pensions. If we have not got a scheme of contributory old age pensions in Canada now, it is because of the procrastination of this government and of this minister. Those are the facts.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Twenty two years.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I do not want this very commendable idea to be used by the minister as a means of delaying something that this government said in January, 1958, it was going to introduce, namely, a contributory scheme of old age pensions.


Thomas Miller Bell: Twenty two years of nothing.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend says 22 years, but during that time every single act-


Thomas Miller Bell: Five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Murdo William Martin: -of social legislation was put on the statute books by a Liberal government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; it being five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private Bills:
October 26-Second reading of Bill SD-1, an act for the relief of Madeleine Francoise Hankowski- Mr. Mandziuk.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I have advice from the leader of the house as to whether or not we are proceeding with this divorce bill?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I wonder if you would stand Bills Nos. 1 to 305?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At the request of the government Bills Nos. 1 to 305, all the divorce bills on the order paper, will be stood.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bills Nos. 1 to 305 stand.



THE NORTH AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Mr. J. N. Turner (St. Lawrence-St. George) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-6 respecting the North American General Insurance Company.


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


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
(Translation):


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is most simple. It merely seeks to provide the North American General Insurance Company with a French name. I believe several bills of a similar nature have been introduced here during past sessions.
This company specializes in automobile and fire insurance in Quebec and Ontario. The former accounts for 85 per cent of its business, the latter for 15 per cent.
It seeks to have the name "La Nord Americaine, Compagnie d'Assurances Gene-rales" added after its present name.
If the house is agreeable, I will move that the bill be referred to the committee on banking and commerce.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Oitawa West) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-8, respecting The Trustee Board of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to clarify the powers of the trustee board of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. The legislation dealing with this trustee board is out of date. For example, it gives powers of investment to that board by reference to the type of securities in which a life insurance company, carrying on business in Canada, may invest its funds. In practice such a loose definition is not effective and it is proposed to clarify the legislation to make it clear that the power to lend its funds must be the same power as that given under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, with this change, that there is no limit on the amount of funds that may be invested in common stocks.

Then there is a power asked for to retain investments. In the case of gifts to the church it is now a fact, as the law exists, that these securities would have to be sold if they did not meet the requirements for the investment of funds. The bill before the house asks permission to retain such investments, even though they are not in the form required by the investment provisions of the legislation.
Then there is the clarification of the powers of the board to deal with the provisions for pensions for ministers. As the legislation now stands, the trustee board must invest the funds used for this purpose for handling the pensions themselves. It is thought desirable that they also have power to make a contract with the annuities branch of the government of Canada, or an insurance company, or a trust company for the management of their pensions, in other words to purchase a pension contract and transfer its pension funds to the company providing the pensions.
Then there is another incidental change in the last provision of the bill dealing with clarification of the terminology used in the legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-18, an act to amend the House of Commons Act (internal economy autonomy)-Mr. Howard.
Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move this bill on behalf of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


George James McIlraith: So far as my party is concerned we are agreeable to that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member for Timiskaming would advise the Chair whether he has authority from the hon. member for Skeena to move the bill on his behalf.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) for Mr. Howard, moved the second reading of Bill No. C-18 to amend the House of Commons Act (internal economy autonomy).
He said: In moving this bill I should first explain that its purpose is to bring up to date a practice that has developed over a period of many years in the operation of the House of Commons. The original method of selection of the internal economy committee 27507-3-100i
House of Commons Act was formulated many years ago in Great Britain, and Canada, for no apparent good reason, has followed a similar method.
The Speaker of the house, of course, is in charge of the operations of the house, and by order of the Governor General, as found on page 15 of Votes and Proceedings for Thursday, September 27 there appears the following:
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons a certified copy of an order in council appointing the Honourable Leon Balcer, Minister of Transport, the Honourable Gordon Churchill, Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Honourable George Clyde Nowlan, Minister of Finance, and the Honourable Ellen Louks Fairclough, Postmaster General, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purposes and under the provisions of the one hundred and forty third chapter of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, intituled: An Act respecting the House of Commons.
We have no objection to the method used in the past. It has worked very well but we do feel it needs to be reviewed, as it has been reviewed in the United Kingdom, and that consideration should be given to the changing times and the changing necessities of the House of Commons as it affects members of parliament and others connected with it. We feel that Your Honour would be much better served if representation for the internal economy commission came from sources other than those now selected.
While it is generally agreed that all expenditures of money must be proposed by members of the government we believe that with respect to the operations of the House of Commons the guidance and advice of persons other than those appointed from the treasury benches should be sought. Some discussion has taken place on this matter outside the house and I refer to an article which appeared in The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, headed "The financial administration of the House of Commons," by J. R. Mallory of McGill University.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the date of that?


William Arnold Peters: February, 1957, I believe. On page 109 it states:
The present statutory basis for the internal economy commission is section 16 and 17 of the House of Commons Act which enjoin the governor general in council to nominate, at the beginning of each session of parliament, four privy councillors who are members of the House of Commons to act with Mr. Speaker for the purpose of financial administration of the House of Commons. The privy councillors so appointed are invariably ministers of the crown.
It goes on to say how this has been established in England and points out the similarity in methods applied in Canada over the years. It is interesting to note that going

House of Commons Act back in the history very little is really available to ascertain how these arrangements were made. I quote from the same document, on page 111:
The two volumes in the Macdonald papers in the public archives entitled "Committee of internal economy" are equally unhelpful, for they deal chiefly with the patronage to the various appointments in the House of Commons, decision on which seems always to have been referred to the prime minister. One can do no more than echo the considered conclusion of Professor Ward, that "Whatever the statute was intended to do (and its purpose is certainly not clear from the text), in practice the internal affairs of the House of Commons, in so far as such matters as personnel, size of establishment, and rates of pay were concerned, were in the sole control of the executive branch of the government". In terms of practical Canadian politics of the period they were indeed, but it is perhaps not unimportant that the arrangement paid lip service to a different concept. That the domestic arrangements of the house fell so completely under the shadow of the executive was due, as the surviving correspondence shows, not so much to the administrative structure as to the fact that successive speakers referred even the most trivial questions to the prime minister. Considering the position of the speakership in Canadian politics, this practice was perhaps inevitable.
Mr. Speaker, the report of 1954 of the select committee on house of commons accommodation in England made a number of recommendations which I think are worthy of consideration at this time. The recommendations were these:
1.	"... the time has now come when the duties of the commissioners should be entrusted to a more representative body of members with less onerous responsibilities outside the house than those borne by the commissioners, who with the exception of Mr. Speaker are all ministers .. . the commissioners should be replaced by a body of experienced members drawn from the house who would undertake not only the present functions of the commissioners with regard to staff, but also wider duties in relation to the accommodation and management of the house".
2.	The commission should consist of the speaker as chairman, and the leader of the opposition (or his deputy), the chancellor of the exchequer (or other treasury minister), the minister of works (or his parliamentary secretary), and "a suitable number" of other members, not less than nine in number, one of whom should be selected to be vice chairman by the speaker. The commission should be set up at the beginning of each parliament for the duration of that parliament.
3.	In addition to the present duty of the commissioners with regard to the salaries of officials of the house, the commission should advise the speaker on the estimates of the house, the allocation of accommodation, the library, facilities and services to "enable members to discharge their duties", and should control the arrangements for the kitchen and refreshment rooms.
4.	Items relating to expenditure in that part of the Palace of Westminster now borne on the votes of the ministry of works and other ministries should in future be borne on the vote of the house of commons.
5.	The commission should report annually to the house, and should in future be consulted in the appointment of the clerk of the house and the sergeant-at-arms (which are, as in Canada, crown appointments).

Mr. Speaker, some of these recommendations of course do not apply to the House of Commons of Canada. We, of course, do not have the same problem in the jurisdiction of the facilities as they have in the mother parliament, where the crown has ownership of some of these facilities and where the minister of public works is asked to make decisions on their behalf. But we do in Canada have many problems that are causing us difficulty. I suggest, respectfully, that we now have these difficulties because of the fact that all the advisers to Your Honour are members of the treasury benches. I suggest it may be a little bit like the housekeeping expenses of the normal family; if they find there is not enough money to go around, this may be a very good place to introduce methods of economy. We may, because of this, be under certain handicaps.
It has been suggested by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that the members should be Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition or his appointee, the leaders of the other political parties in the house, a member representing the Minister of Finance and other members who would be appointed because of their long experience in the House of Commons and their familiarity with the particular problems. I believe that all hon. members will agree that the duties of cabinet ministers in our government have become increasingly demanding, and therefore it may be possible that they find this added responsibility something of a burden.
However, it seems to me that if we had a more representative body advising Your Honour, some of the things that would be included in the agenda for discussion and for some solution would be the problems that affect the press accommodation in this building, some of the problems that arise from day to day in connection with the facilities of the library and the fact that there could be additions made to the library which would be of great assistance to the members and which are not now provided. Certainly some arrangement would be made to assist members of parliament in the matter of research. It seems to me that facilities similar to those provided at the United Nations could well be installed in the House of Commons to allow for the establishment of studios for radio and television broadcasting from the house, thereby making it much easier for the news media to come to members of parliament and for the members to go to the news media.
Other matters could be presented and discussed on their merits in a much more satisfactory manner than is now adopted. It seems to me that many of the problems of staff could be better handled if there were

a more representative body advising the internal economy committee. I think this should include a more reasonable method of handling the staffs than the one we now have. Arrangements could be made on a more formal basis for employment on a year round basis of staffs that are now considered temporary, whether they were put into other employment in the periods when parliament was not in session or some other method were adopted. Our staffs have to work long hours and overtime, and this should be paid for as it is in other occupations and other fields. Holidays would either be given as they are in other fields, or if the committee and the house decided that the staffs should work on those days which would normally be holidays, they should be paid double time for that work. They should not be asked to take this time off on Saturdays, as happens at the end of a session. As hon. members probably know, the staffs are asked to take this form of compensation rather than the normal one.
In addition, I think that advice coming from a more representative body would lead to the protective staff of the house being given the security which police normally have. For example, they would be able to make arrests with the full authority of police officers. I believe there would be more favourable parking space allocated to those who work in the House of Commons and that the accommodation generally would be based not only on what it was considered we could afford but on recommendations made on the basis of what facilities were likely to produce the most effective operation of the House of Commons.
I wish to make it clear that I am not suggesting that in the past the commissioners or the internal economy committee have been negligent. However, I do believe that because of their other responsibilities it has been difficult for them to consider many of the problems which should be considered by such a committee. For this reason I hope the house will give consideration to the changes I have suggested in this bill and that, in consequence, representation on this committee will be on a much wider basis, reflecting all parties and all sections of the house. As I say, I hope some members will be chosen to serve on the committee simply because of their long connection with parliament and its operation. I hope the bill will be given a speedy passage in order that the satisfactory results which, I am convinced, will follow, may be self-evident to all hon. members as soon as possible.


George James McIlraith: I should like to ask the hon. member a question before he resumes his seat. It is by way of clarification. The hon.
House of Commons Act member has explained why he thinks it is desirable to remove the present provision for appointing privy councillors as commissioners. Is it his intention that commissioners should be appointed from among other hon. members of the House of Commons?


William Arnold Peters: Yes. I said that, in the main, membership should consist of Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, or his deputy, and the leaders of the other parties in the house. In addition there should be a number of other parliamentarians who have experience of the house and a long connection with it so that the benefit of their experience might be readily available to Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I could put another question to the hon. member just for clarification. As I read the bill, it does not make any provision for making such appointments. What is the hon. member's intention with regard to the method of appointment?


William Arnold Peters: I presume this could be done by order in council as it has been done in the past under the section of the House of Commons Act which provides for the appointment of the four ministers of the crown together with Mr. Speaker. If that section were withdrawn, there would be the same machinery of appointment by order in council to be used for the appointment of the persons I have suggested. It seems to me that this committee should be set up at the beginning of a parliament after the choosing of a speaker. This could be undertaken by the house itself, and appointments made from among the members themselves. I believe the membership could be reviewed at the opening of each session, because it would be difficult to name in advance the precise people who would be added to the committee on the basis of their experience and ability to assist the Speaker.


George James McIlraith: Thank you.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Parliamentary Secre-lary lo Ihe Minister of Public Works):: It
seems to me that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has just made a most unusual proposal, one which almost seems to condemn his proposal out of his own mouth. I am thinking of the answer he gave to the question asked by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) as to how he would effect a change in the present method of naming commissioners to sit on the internal economy committee of the House of Commons. If I heard that answer correctly, he suggested that these commissioners should be appointed by order in council. It seemed to me that the burden of his earlier message was that the House of Commons should not allow

House of Commons Act members of the privy council to be appointed as commissioners. Now he says that the cabinet should appoint the commissioners by order in council. I think this represents a conflict with the basic principle which the hon. member has in mind, if I gather the effect of the bill correctly, which is to take the appointments away from government and place them instead in the hands of the house. However, we realize that when he made his remarks he was acting on behalf of his associate, the hon. member for Skeena, who is not with us today, and perhaps, on reflection, he might think he had not come up with the correct alternative remedy after all.
It seems to me that in the presentation of this bill and in the arguments supporting it we have witnessed a vast piling up of a mountain of straw which has brought into being the appearance of a problem that does not really exist at all. It does not seem to me that any case has been made out for a change in the present system of the appointment of commissioners of internal economy of the House of Commons.
My experience in this field is as limited as that of the sponsor of the bill, or of his friend the hon. member for Timiskaming. I have witnessed the rare occasions upon which Mr. Speaker descends from his chair, sits among us in committee and answers questions on the estimates. I cannot recall in those debates that any serious criticism ever came forward suggesting that the affairs of the House of Commons were not being managed properly by His Honour and those commissioners appointed to advise him. I may be wrong, but my mind goes back over five or six years and I do not recall an instance where it could be said that the advice you were getting from your commissioners, Mr. Speaker, had led you or your predecessor astray. I realize the delicacy of your position, sir, inasmuch as you have to listen to us and hear us out when, no doubt, many things are on your mind which might be useful in this debate. Until the time comes when you take your place on the front bench later on, when your estimates are under consideration, perhaps you are at a disadvantage.
However, as I say, looking back over those years I cannot recall one instance which would buttress the case put forward by the hon. member for Timiskaming. Indeed, as the leader of the house so ably pointed out in the debate on March 6 of this year, the system has functioned very well over the years. It was not until the hon. member for Skeena came to this parliament that there was the suggestion that this system should be changed.

As I understand it, there had originally been a committee, I believe called the committee of contingencies, which concerned itself with the operations of the House of Commons. Then in 1878 the House of Commons by unanimous action set up the present system, and since 1878 nobody, perhaps with the exception of a high-flying intellectual has really questioned the effective operations of the commissioners of internal economy of the House of Commons. Furthermore, if I may so respectfully suggest, should there be any of what hon. members may feel are derelictions or "soft spots" in the administration of the House of Commons, it is incumbent upon them to come knocking at Your Honour's door and ask to be heard, whether they are asking you, Mr. Speaker, to see that there are more parking places allotted to members of parliament, or that there should be more protective staff, or more cleaning staff, or more waste paper baskets, or an extra telephone, or any of the other amenities the absence of which bother a member of parliament from time to time.
Mr. Speaker, I say that we have this remedy now. The commissioners, too, are all affable people, ready to hear the complaints and suggestions of those who work in the House of Commons. So it seems to me that the bill of the hon. member fails on two grounds. First, it does not remedy anything of an abusive nature; and second, there are other steps to be taken to enable members of parliament to make particular points. I do not think anyone can say that he has been given a rough hearing by Your Honour, by the Clerk of the house, by the Sergeant-at-Arms, or by any of the other officials who cater to our needs.
Since this is a somewhat esoteric subject, perhaps it would be interesting, Mr. Speaker, to note Beauchesne's reference to the work of the commissioners of internal economy in collaboration with yourself. This quotation is to be found at page 314 of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
The Speaker and four members of the privy council, who are also members of the house, are, by the governor in council, appointed commissioners of internal economy of the House of Commons. Their names must be communicated by a message from the governor to the house in the first week of each session of parliament. The powers of the Speaker for the purposes of this act are extended to last until the election of his successor by the next parliament. In the event of the death, disability or absence from Canada of the Speaker, during any dissolution or propagation of parliament,-
Mr. Speaker, I believe that word should be "prorogation", but "propagation" is Beauchesne's word. For those interested in the spelling, or possibly my mispronunciation, I am referring to page 314

-any three of the commissioners may carry the provisions of the act. The Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms shall make estimates of the sums required for the service of the house and shall submit the same to the Speaker who may approve or alter them and who shall transmit them to the Minister of Finance for submission to council. They shall subsequently be laid before the house with the other estimates for the year. All sums of money voted by parliament shall be subject to the order of the commissioners or any three of them, of whom the Speaker shall be one.
This is a further interesting point.
Questions dealing with salaries paid the staff or with details about the management of the house's affairs should not be addressed to the Speaker from the floor of the house when he is in the chair.
I must say that that is a helpful point, and I am sure the house will not mind my belabouring it for a moment, because we often wonder where these rules and procedures come from, and we find them set forth succinctly in Dr. Beauchesne's work. The quotation continues:
He is bound-
That is, the Speaker is bound.
-to give any information sought by members when the legislation estimates are under consideration in committee of supply.
That was exactly the point I made earlier, that should a member want, for example, an extra parking space, another waste paper basket, or a telephone, and he feels that he has a legitimate gripe, he can ask Your Honour about it when you appear before us with your estimates in committee of supply.
Members who wish to be informed about the expenditures under the control of the house may either write to the Speaker or place on the order paper questions addressed to the commission of internal economy.
I might do that myself and ask why this particular page of Dr. Beauchesne seems to have several printing errors on it.
The answers will be prepared and tabled by the Clerk of the House who is the official secretary of the commission of internal economy.
So I suggest to the hon. member for Skeena that there are all sorts of obvious ways to meet his complaint. The practical step is simply to consult with the commissioners of internal economy or with yourself, Mr. Speaker, in order to solve any problem which any hon. member may have.
In a speech which should be commended to any student of this subject, the house leader on March 6 of this year, as reported on pages 1539 and 1540 of Hansard, set forth some of the work of this committee of 1867 and 1868, called, I think, the committee of contingencies. I should like to quote briefly from the house leader's speech as reported on page 1539:
The House of Commons dealt with 17 resolutions which were put forward in the third report of the committee of contingencies. It is interesting to note that they were concerned with matters of
House of Commons Act financial economy to be observed in the House of Commons. They dealt with the number of translators and the number of extra clerks that should be employed. They considered such things as the reception and distribution of the printed bills and other documents. They dealt with the subject of the post office and its management. They suggested that no clerk be stationed in the reading room, that there should be but two messengers and one labourer in the joint department on routine and printing, that there be but one messenger in the library and that no messenger be attached to the office of the Speaker's secretary or to that of the assistant clerk of the house.
I believe, sir, that possibly times have changed in that regard.
They set the salaries of various people employed by the House of Commons. They suggested that the nine pages, which was the number they had working in those days

Here I interject that the pages must have been run off their feet, because I believe we have a larger number now and they always seem to be scurrying about in this chamber.
-should receive $1.50 per day during the session. They suggested that the salaries of the two night watchmen should be fixed at $400 per annum, that the stationery supplied to each member of the house should not exceed in cost the sum of $15 for each session-
Mr. Speaker, let me just stop and conjure up in the imagination of the house the unhappy prospect of what would happen to the various propaganda mills which have been established should that limit of $15 be placed again on stationery.
-and should be delivered in a box on the first day of each session, and that no more be issued.
I imagine that one of the first things the commissioners of internal economy of those far away days heard about was the suggestion that hon. members be given more stationery.


George James McIlraith: They were given a travelling bag each session.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The members of the House of Commons?


George James McIlraith: Yes, of the House of Commons.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Then perhaps we have lost some of these happy old customs and the commissioners of internal economy have blundered somewhere along the way.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, these are some of the past practices of the house, and I suggest that unless a very strong case is made it would be unwise to change what has worked for, I think, almost 90 years in this house. Perhaps it is out of order to make these suggestions. However, I know that the changes which have been wrought here, even in the past five years, have had a great effect. I refer to the work of Your Honour and Your Honour's predecessor and of the commissioners in setting up the simultaneous

House of Commons Act translation system which we did not have previously. Perhaps some day thought could be given to putting it in the seats in the galleries so that the public will be able to come in and thus be given an opportunity more properly to appreciate the debates, as is done in the United Nations. These are thoughts on what could be done by yourself and the commissioners of internal economy. However, perhaps I had better get back to the main subject before I am ruled out of order by Your Honour.
To compress this speech, if I may, briefly the point I make again is that the burden of the case has not been carried by the hon. member who proposes a change in the set-up of the administration of this house which has served us so well and faithfully since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, while this debate is undoubtedly not an urgent one, it is most interesting. I And the ideas put forward by the hon. member for Timiskaming on this subject quite helpful, interesting and positive in their approach. In debating a bill like this one, to discern what is the principle of the bill really presents a problem as the bill simply contains two clauses, namely clause 1 repealing section 16 of the House of Commons Act and clause 2 repealing section 18 of the House of Commons Act. There is no more in the bill. Hence to find the principle in order to debate it, I suppose we can only look at sections 16 and 18 of the House of Commons Act, interpret them and thereby develop the principle of the bill now before us.
Any measure which seeks to guarantee the independence of the House of Commons in its deliberations and in its work against the control of the government is a proper measure, and one which in my view deserves consideration and support. From the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming in his speech on this bill I take it that is what he was seeking to do. However, I am troubled about the bill itself in that it may not do what he put forward, I thought rather well, in his exposition of it. That is why I asked him the questions at the conclusion of his remarks.
Looking at the sections of the House of Commons Act to which I have referred, one observes that section 16 is the authority of the governor in council for appointing the internal economy commission of the House of Commons and it provides that the four privy councillors so named shall be commissioners for the purposes of this section, namely section 16, and sections 17 and 18. It is therefore well that we look at those sections. The balance of section 16 merely provides for the communication of the names and offices

of the commissioners by message from the governor in council to the House of Commons in the first week of each session. Then it provides that three shall be a quorum. Then it makes provision for what is to be done in the case of the death or absence of the Speaker.
Section 18, the other section being repealed -and I think this is the key of the whole provision-provides as follows:
All sums ot money voted by parliament upon such estimates or payable to members of the House of Commons under the Senate and House of Commons Act, are subject to the order of the commissioners, or any three of them, of whom the Speaker shall be one.
By that it will be seen that the control of parliament over the voting of money is clearly preserved in the existing act. However, what is of concern is that the expending of this money is subject to the order of the commissioners, all of whom must be members of the House of Commons and members of the privy council. Hence we have in fact control by the government of the actual expenditure of the money after it is voted by parliament. That parliament should have control over the voting of money is, of course, clear. It may not be questioned anywhere. But the narrow point at issue is whether, after that money has been voted by parliament, the control over its expenditure or the detail of its expenditure, parliament having passed on it, is left to the advice of the cabinet or comes, if the remarks of the hon. member sponsoring this bill were carried out, from a board or committee of the House of Commons representing all parts of the House of Commons as opposed to the government only. It seems to me that is the essence of the proposal and the question that would have to be considered.
If the change being asked for by the sponsor were to be brought about I should think that new provisions in substitution for sections 16 and 18 of the act would be required, as it is quite clear that the government appoints these four commissioners now under the authority of section 16 of the act. If that section is being repealed and if persons are to be appointed representing all parties, then the authority for that step should be provided. I should think that authority would best be provided by a method of appointing by resolution of the house. However, the method is open to discussion since the bill does not provide for any method. In other words, there is that defect in the bill, namely that it takes away the commission of internal economy and does not make possible the provision of a substitute body.
Section 16 of the act, by reference, incorporates section 17. Section 17 contains five subsections, which in essence, provide for the preparation of estimates each year by the Clerk of the House of Commons for those

parts of the staff whose duties come under his jurisdiction and similarly for the Sergeant-at-Arms. Then it is required that the estimates of the Clerk and of the Sergeant-at-Arms be submitted to Mr. Speaker for his approval and he has quite wide authority to approve and to make alterations. The actual section reads as follows:
(3) Such estimates shall be submitted to the Speaker for his approval, and are subject to such approval and to such alterations as the Speaker considers proper.
Then the section goes on to direct that the Speaker shall thereupon prepare an estimate of the sums requisite for the several purposes aforesaid, and shall sign the same, and that the estimates of the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms and the Speaker-the three sets of estimates- shall be transmitted by the Speaker to the Minister of Finance for his approval. Then it goes on to provide that they shall come before parliament in the ordinary way as part of the estimates.
It will therefore be seen that the function of this board of commissioners is advisory only to Mr. Speaker, or that the actual authority for the preparation of these estimates that come before parliament for parliament's approval resides in the Speaker. I would hope this is where it would always remain because parliament, as such, has control over these estimates and the voting of money.
Then, when we come to section 18 there is a point of real concern. It may well be that the advice, if I may use that term, given to the Speaker for the expenditure of the moneys voted by parliament could well come from such a committee as the sponsor proposes in so far as those things affecting the House of Commons are concerned, instead of the present commission which is really the government. It seems to me there is a real point there that should be considered. I must say that I do not regard the matter as of the utmost urgency because I have no special objection to the decisions of the commission on internal economy. However, I must say that while at times I have found some of these decisions rather distasteful I have no wish to make any point of that or to comment adversely on their decisions. Their decisions do not indicate a need for their replacement, so that there is no urgency for replacing them such as one might find in many other bills.
There is the point however that does affect the liberties or rights, if I may use that term, of the House of Commons, to have the management of its activities free from undue influence by the government. There is quite an argument to be made for that. I do not share the views of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), who seems to view the 27507-3-101
House of Commons Act matter as unimportant merely because it is academic-and I take it by "academic" he means not urgent at this time. I could not share his views about the perfection of the present system. I do not have his reluctance to make a change. For my part, I am quite prepared to accept a change if it can be brought forward in a form that will achieve some of the ideas expressed by the sponsor of the bill.
Unfortunately, the bill itself takes away what we have, as has been rightly said by the hon. member for Halifax, and does not put anything in its place; that is not my idea of the way to reform. My idea is that when you take away something that has been in use you should replace it with something that is better. The bill, unfortunately, omits the something which is better. I would hope that if the bill carries, something adequate by way of new provisions for appointment might be brought forward in the committee stage before real consideration would be given to the bill.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I rise to say that I am very pleased the hon. member for Ottawa West has brought out, to some extent, the point which I feel was completely overlooked by the hon. member for Halifax. I feel the hon. member for Halifax was suggesting, by implication, that the main purpose in introducing this bill was to criticize the manner in which the affairs of the house had been conducted in the past. I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa West when he says that in his experience, as in mine when I was here before, when the estimates of Mr. Speaker come before the house there is actually very little discussion or criticism of them. I think the point the hon. member for Ottawa West has made is one which should be of concern to all members of this house, a concern which is shared by many people observing the operations of parliament from the outside.
I refer to what appears to be an increasing encroachment by the crown through the ministry into parliament. I feel this bill is one which would tend to reduce that encroachment. I suggest that if the hon. member for Halifax were to read some of the discussions that took place when some of his friends were sitting on the other side of the house, he would find that many of the spokesmen for the Conservative party did express the sort of concern which was mentioned by the hon. member for Ottawa West, a concern which I think should be felt by all hon. members of the house and which I think is properly expressed by supporting the present bill.

Health and Welfare Act


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the proposers of the bill would be more interested in advancing their arguments than they appear to be. I congratulate the hon. member for Timiskaming for performing a difficult task in the absence of his partner the hon. member for Skeena, who introduced this bill last spring. Like the hon. member for Ottawa West, I am not opposed to change, provided the remedy is better than the disease. The present bill, as I pointed out when we discussed it last spring, is ineffective, and actually there might be other things which could be done to improve conditions within the House of Commons than simply a proposal to abolish the committee on internal economy.
I made a study of this subject last spring. In fact, I pointed out to the mover of the bill at that time that he might very well have done the same thing, and put a little research into it, as I did. The hon. member for Halifax drew attention to that and to the references that were made. In looking back to that speech of last March, I find there are two clerical errors. The date 1878 is inserted there once or twice and it should be 1868 when the change was made from the committee on contingencies to the committee on internal economy. Professor Mallory, on whose article the hon. member for Skeena based his bill, has not a complete understanding of the activities of the House of Commons. I regret that I have not the time to deal with some of his remarks in detail and point out some of his errors. I am sure he would appreciate that if he is a diligent student. If anyone is so foolish as to bring this bill up on another occasion, and I am still here, I will take advantage of the opportunity to do so.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will revert to consideration of the business that was interrupted at five o'clock. It now being six o'clock, I will now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Monteith for the second read-
ing of Bill No. C-4, to amend the Department of National Health and Welfare Act.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not propose any modification in the organization of his department through any amendment now being proposed in the bill before the house. The only proposed structural change has to do with the deletion of the provision which lists certain acts, some of which are not now in existence, which come under the function of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I assume that the government has given consideration to various suggestions which have been made by the Canadian welfare council, the congress of labour and other organizations in Canada as to the re-organization of the Department of National Health and Welfare, particularly in relation to the Department of Labour. The suggestion has been made that all welfare legislation of an insurance type, and other types, should come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He has not said anything about this. The suggestion has also been made that because of heavy unemployment the Department of Labour should be charged primarily with the responsibility of establishing a vigorous and dynamic employment service, and that the problems of insuring the unemployed should be allocated to the Department of National Health and Welfare. I take it that the minister, as spokesman for the government, does not share this view.
I am not now expressing my own preference. There are overlapping interests between the two departments. I merely mention this to show that the particular amendment offered does not go to the substance of the Department of National Health and Welfare Act.
The minister may have had an opportunity of perusing the statement made by Professor John S. Morgan on behalf of the Canadian welfare council, made some time in the month of April this year. In the opening part of that statement, Professor Morgan says:
The time has come to rethink and redesign our welfare services.
He points out that in industry, and to some extent in government, we have accepted the inevitable consequences of the industrial and technological revolution, but when the talk comes to welfare we still hear statements about public responsibility "that are so irrelevant to a wage-earning industrial society that they are as pathetic as they are dangerous." I think we will accept this statement about the responsibility of government in the modern industrial society to the problems of human welfare as being at the

base of the proposition for the proposed council. In this connection Professor Morgan points out:
I think we must recognize two important facts about welfare in a modern industrial society. The first is that all of us have needs that cannot be met without the collective resources of society as a whole and that any reasonable concept of welfare benefits includes all of us. The second is that government, representing the collective resources of the whole nation, is not merely a legitimate participant in the development of welfare services, but is the only effective instrument for the provision of preconditions of good welfare services and the larger part of those services.
Some may argue, and indeed I have seen the suggestion made in one of the more prominent daily newspapers, that the setting up of a council on welfare is a further unnecessary expansion of government activity and organization. I am not aware that the Glassco commission has said anything about this. In fact I am not aware that the Glassco commission has yet dealt with all of the services of the Department of National Health and Welfare. But lest there be anyone in this house inclined to think there is something in the suggestion that this is a further proposed organization that might well be dispensed with, we should remind ourselves of the pattern of the statutory welfare services in Canada on both federal and provincial account.
These services are provided by governments at all levels, and with specific welfare objectives. A great stride has been made in this area of activity in our country during the last 50 years. In 1913 the public expenditure on health welfare stood at $15 million, or about $2 per capita of the population. In 1959 and 1960 the corresponding figure was more than $3 billion, or about $166 per capita. Therefore public welfare services are now a major item of public service in Canada and if there is a justification, as I believe there is and was at the end of the second world war, for setting up an organization of the provincial governments and the federal government for the purposes of discussing common matters involving health there is a dollar justification for our interest in welfare expenditures. We must make sure that our plans are devised to meet the needs of the people, and that we take into account what the various governments at different levels are seeking to do.
I expect that the total welfare expenditures of $3 billion will more than compare with the total expenditures by governments in the field of health, apart altogether from proposed expenditures that would bring this total to a much higher figure, particularly if we adopt, as I hope we will adopt at the earliest possible moment, a provision for medical care insurance.
27507-3-1014
Health and Welfare Act
Mr. Speaker, may I briefly recapitulate. I think these amendments are desirable. We in the Liberal opposition will support them. We think they will strengthen the Department of National Health and Welfare Act. We believe that the suggestion which the government now makes first came from the Canadian welfare council. We think that a tribute should be paid to the work of this voluntary organization, not only for its general activities but for its specific recommendations about which I made some mention before adjournment.
While we approve the proposal of the minister, we are strongly of the view that it would be unfortunate if the minister were to use the device of the setting up of this council to postpone proposals now before parliament and which have been discussed generally in the country. It would be regrettable if, because this council was not going to be set up until next spring or late next winter, the excuse for no action was offered that nothing could be done until such time as the two senior levels of government could consider these proposals in the new council on welfare. Among these as I mentioned earlier, is the proposal for a contributory pension scheme based on the social security program of the United States. There is now on the order paper some indication of the government's present intention in this regard. There is standing in my own name a resolution urging this house to give consideration to the desirability of setting up a contributory pension plan based on the social security plan in the United States.
The government has before it all the information that it needs to set up such a plan. There is the monumental work in two volumes of Professor Clark which sets out the situation in a number of countries, particularly in the United States, with regard to contributory schemes providing for payments on a rising scale based on contributions made by the potential beneficiaries of the scheme. No delay need now take place in implementing, in the absence of a constitutional arrangement, some parts of this plan. This is particularly true in the case of the government because of its action in 1958, when before the elections of that year the Prime Minister announced the appointment of a royal commission under Professor ITewson to examine into the whole business of contributory pensions for Canada based on the social security model in the United States. We recall that Professor Hewson was unable to complete his assignment in the four-month period stipulated by

Health and Welfare Act the Prime Minister. Professor Clark, however, did make an exhaustive report. That report has been on the desk of the Minister of National Health and Welfare for over three and a half years now.


Mr. McPhillips:: Not since 1919, though.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This has nothing to do with what my hon. friend is talking about. He is now talking about another area of welfare activity. I am talking about the specific royal commission appointed by the Prime Minister about which nothing was done. I believe that if we really want to provide our people with a responsible system of old age security, one that will meet the economic needs of the moment, the way to do it is to recognize that we should adopt in Canada the principal features of a system that has now been in vogue in the United States for some time and which has been accepted by other countries since the introduction of this measure in the United States.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, that the setting up of this council is a good thing; but it must not be used as an excuse for no action by the government. We were told over two years ago that there was to be appointed a commission to examine into the whole field of health services. We were told by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago that the royal commission inquiring into health services would not make its report until some time in June or July of 1963. This warrants our concluding that the royal commission has been a successful device in the hands of this government to postpone important decisions in respect of which assurances were given to the people during the elections of 1957 and 1958. We only hope that it is not the intention of the government to set up a national council on welfare merely as an excuse for not proceeding with certain measures in the field of social security which cry for attention by the people of this country.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it is indicated in the explanatory section of this bill, and it was also reiterated by the minister, that the main purpose of this measure is to establish a national council of welfare. I believe that the needs of the Canadian people in this particular field, and also an increasing social consciousness, demand that we use every legitimate means to the end that Canadians everywhere will be able to share in the accumulated wealth of this great nation of ours.
We also notice in the explanatory section that this measure does not propose to deal with the matter of health, because it is taken care of in another section of the act. Therefore it would indicate that we are going to
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).!

deal more specifically with the economic problem and the economic postion rather than with the health factor in our society. I am sure that, regardless of the name by which it is known, each political party represented in this house has as its main concern the welfare of the people of Canada. Our approach may be different and we may differ in the nature of the measures which we may feel are necessary in order to meet the need, but I trust that the sincerity of our motives, no matter where we may sit in the house, will not be open to question in this particular matter.
If this measure passes, Mr. Speaker, and the council is established, I believe we must guard against the possibility that the government may shrug its shoulders and more or less pass on to the council the responsibility that rightfully rests upon the government, for in the final analysis it is the government that is charged with the responsibility of promoting the welfare of all people within the bounds of Canada. It is not a matter of its assuming the position that in some way or other it must by handouts and various other means provide for all the needs of the people; but it must ensure that adequate provision is made and policies are promulgated that will make it possible for everyone to have their basic needs supplied.
I think that for too long we have been obsessed, possibly, with a philosophy of scarcity, while in reality we have moved forward into the area of production to the extent that we find it almost impossible to dispose of our goods. We have failed to develp an effective technique whereby the people across this great nation of ours would be able to provide for their own needs. Therefore, instead of sharing in the abundance that is ours in Canada, many of them are just getting by and many others are in the condition of poverty and absolute destitution. These conditions ought not to exist for anyone in Canada regardless of who he may be or wherever he may live. We believe that as the beneficiaries of the accumulated labour, skill and cultural progress of generations which are past, all have a claim on a share of the great inheritance that is ours.
There is one word of caution I should like to pass along this evening. Whatever the activities of this proposed council, the prerogatives of the provinces must be fully recognized. Once one step is taken in a field which is recognized as being primarily a provincial responsibility there is a tendency for another and yet another step to be taken. Thus we find that even if it is simply a matter of research and advice, the tendency will be to move further and further into provincial

jurisdiction. For this reason I suggest that the activities and operations of the proposed council should be taken while being fully conscious of this danger. I believe the statement made by the minister to the effect that the deputy ministers of the various provincial departments will be represented on this council is reassuring, because that will be a fairly adequate safeguard in this connection.
There are several basic principles which undergird the economic condition we would like to see in Canada. First, we believe it is the right of all free Canadians to participate in the collective benefits which have accrued to our society. Perhaps this has been forgotten; perhaps in the past we have not recognized it. But as we look back over the tremendous developments which have taken place through the years, when we think of the position we have reached today in the field of production and when we think of the advances in science and technology it is clear that we can enjoy the advantages which exist today because of the contribution which was made to the development of this great heritage by past generations. Therefore I think it is the right of every Canadian to be able to participate in the results of this development.
The second principle is this: there is a need for the development of an economic system which will make this participation possible. I am sure we all understand by this time that this particular group has been emphasizing this factor down through the years. As we consider the present situation-and I intend to summarize-we find we have no problem as far as the production of goods for our people is concerned; and as far as the market is concerned, the potential market is there. The difficulty is that instead of making progress in this field, as we have done in so many others, we have not as yet reached a satisfactory answer to the problem of distribution. Until we meet and solve that problem we shall be faced continually with problems of welfare and how people are going to keep alive in various circumstances and situations of life. This is one of the great reasons why we must give particular attention to the development of an adequate financial and economic system which will meet the needs of our people.


An hon. Member:: Social Credit.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Social Credit is right.


An hon. Member:: Free money, too?


Alexander Bell Patterson: It depends on what you mean by free money. It is not what the Liberals tried to read into that amendment the other night.
Health and Welfare Act
There is a third factor connected especially with the subject under discussion tonight, and it has to do with the provision of additional resources to meet the needs of those who find themselves in an especially difficult economic situation-those who in spite of all the labour and sacrifices entailed in the building of this nation have not been able to assure for themselves an adequate income in their declining years. We are indebted to the pioneers and builders of this nation; and these people, in turn, are looking to us in time of need.
We in this group maintain that assistance should be forthcoming not as charity or as a dole but as a right to the citizens of Canada regardless of who they are. I believe we can look to some of the provinces in western Canada to find an indication that on the provincial level there is a recognition of the responsibility that is ours toward the pioneers of this nation. Those provinces have made provision for payments additional or supplementary to those now received under old age security or other allowances. There was a reference made to this subject by the hon. member for Essex East. He said he hoped the national government would not take the setting up of this council as a means of bypassing its responsibility to fulfil promises which were made in the past election campaign. I should like to say this: I trust that when this matter comes to the attention of the government the provision made for those who are in need will be a little more generous and will be granted with a little more alacrity than that which was given by the Liberal government when it was in office, because that government did not indicate with any too clear a voice that it was willing to meet its obligations in this field.
Not only do we think of those in receipt of pensions of various kinds, but we think of those who are physically and mentally unable to provide for their own livelihood. Here again we believe society must accept its responsibility and make adequate provision for these people. Again, there are those who through no fault of their own find themselves unable to secure gainful occupation in our society. I mention some of these groups in order to indicate that there are certain categories of our citizens who require additional assistance in order to meet their economic needs. I have here a copy of the first report of the Christian doctrine of wealth committee of the congregational union of Scotland presented to the assembly at Dundee on May 10, 1962. One of the observations made in this report is as follows:
Whenever paid employment ceases to function adequately as a means of providing livelihood.

Health and Welfare Act
alternative means must be offered to prevent the suffering and human wastage that arise from poverty and want.
It seems to me that this underlines our responsibility in this particular field. I should like to give one more brief quotation from this same report. As one of the objects of a social economic system, this report suggests-
-the elimination of insecurity and fear and consequent selfish materialist values, so that the individual human being may be able to live with dignity and self respect.
We welcome this particular bill. We believe that it will be of real assistance to have a committee or a council such as this to study these various matters and to bring in recommendations. I believe it is true that we must have an integrated plan with respect to our responsibilities in these particular fields. As it is now, we have a great many of them which do not dovetail together too well, but which have been put forward to meet particular situations at various times. But I believe the time has come when an integrated plan must be provided whereby all of those in particular need may have their needs taken care of. I think a reappraisal of the principle of joint programs would be a good thing, for in this respect I think there is much to be desired. The minister indicated that homes for the aged would also come in this particular category. I suggest that all these problems require thorough consideration. We believe that the proposed council will be able to give them the study which they deserve, and give the assistance which the membership of that council would be well qualified to give. So, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we welcome this particular measure and will give it our support.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does he suggest that the program he has mentioned in his interesting speech can be given effect to without government planning, government control, government direction, or government action?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I believe it can be given direction without the type of planning to which my hon. friend refers. We have indicated on many occasions that until we solve the basic problem of our financial situation, we are not going to be able to solve these other problems. On the other hand, if we make those changes which are necessary and those reforms which are required in our economic system, then we are not going to be faced with all these problems with which we are currently faced today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic party is pleased to give its support to this bill. Like others who have spoken, I would say there is other legislation in this field we should like to see introduced in this session of parliament, but that statement does not detract from our readiness to welcome what is proposed in the legislation now before the house. As the minister has pointed out, and as is clear from the bill, two proposals are made. The first is a routine one, which is really just a matter of tidying up one of the sections of the act; it calls for no further comment at this time. The other and more substantial proposal in the bill is, of course, that to set up a national council of welfare. As I have already indicated, we welcome this proposal wholeheartedly.
I should like to say at the outset that the proposal to set up a national council of welfare composed of civil servants and others working in the welfare field gives us the opportunity to pay tribute in this house to the tremendous service rendered to the cause of social welfare by people other than those of us who get elected to public bodies. All of us in this parliament know the part that members of parliament and members of legislatures play in this field. We sometimes have arguments as to which parties have played the greater part, but we can carry on that argument at some other time. Tonight I should like to pay tribute to the many devoted public servants in departments like the Department of National Health and Welfare here in Ottawa, and to their counterparts at the provincial level, as well as to those at the municipal level, who are working in this field. I would join with the minister, the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Fraser Valley in paying tribute to those in the voluntary agencies who have done a great deal to push forward the cause of social welfare. I think of those who work in our schools of social welfare. I think of the Canadian welfare council, to which reference has been made. I think of labour bodies, farm organizations, church organizations, and many groups of citizens who discuss social welfare matters, make proposals, and give support to the whole idea of advancing the cause of social welfare.
I am glad that even as we have a body of this kind in the field of health, we are now going to have a national council of welfare to study these matters, to do what it can to bring about co-ordination in this field, and to make recommendations as to further steps which might be taken. However, even though this measure is a good one and one we welcome, we too do not want it be an excuse for inaction on the part of the

government. But that is no reason why we should not give this measure our full support, for parliament is still here and as members of it we are still in the position to remind the government of its responsibility to bring in legislation in the social welfare field.
Another concern which has been expressed was that uttered a few moments ago by my hon. friend from Fraser Valley, namely that the responsibilities of the provinces in this field should not be overlooked. As I understand it, that is one of the reasons for appointing this national council of welfare and for putting on it representatives of the provinces as well as of the federal government. As I understand the measure, the idea is that there can be steady discussion among the various groups of social welfare programs so that the rights and the responsibilities of the various levels of government may be kept in view. In other words, Mr. Speaker, despite my sharing with the hon. members who have preceded me in the debate the views about this body not being an excuse for inaction on the part of the government, I see no reason why we should not welcome it wholeheartedly. I do so, and express on behalf of this party the hope that it will, as did the dominion council of health, do a good job in the welfare field.
Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the speeches made thus far on second reading of this bill. I think this debate is a very effective antidote to some of the arguments which appear in editorials in some of our newspapers and other publications. It has become almost a popular indoor sport to say that we have carried this idea of the welfare state too far. I do not agree with that view, and I was glad to hear hon. members like the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Fraser Valley joining with the Minister of National Health and Welfare in asserting that there are new areas into which we can yet move; and that there are improvements of things that are already on the statute books for which we should work. Even if some people decry the welfare state, and even though there are further advances required in the organizing of society in the way that it ought to be, I suggest that one of the finest marks of our time is the extent to which we have moved toward the welfare state. It is one of the most human and most decent things we have done, our trying to find ways of distributing at least to some extent the wealth we produce so that there will be a minimum of want or suffering amongst our people. 1 repeat that in my view it is one of the finest marks of our society, that we have accepted the principle
Health and Welfare Act that older people should enjoy dignity in their declining years; that we have accepted the principle that there should be some equalization of the incomes of our people through programs such as family allowances, disabled persons allowances, unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that these things are not just palliatives. They are not just things which should have been brought into being because of necessity. These are things which mark us as human beings, as people who can be concerned about our fellow citizens. If we are to get credit for being a decent and human twentieth century society I suggest that we must extend the idea of seeing to it as a nation, as a society, that we use our wealth to raise the living standards of all our people.
If I may digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. I think we must not only accept the welfare state and extend its principle, but that the day will come when we shall be obliged to achieve a welfare world -or we shall have no world at all. In other words, just as I feel that it is our responsibility in Canada to see that our older people, our younger people and those in between who are unable to look after themselves get their rightful share of what we are able to produce, also I think the day will come when as a world we shall be obliged to organize our economies, our trading and our governing of ourselves around the world so that there will not be a situation in which two thirds of the world's people go to bed hungry every night. I suggest that the welfare state is not something that we should go back on; rather, it is something from which we should move forward to an even better era for our people and for mankind the world around.
I hope these editorial writers who think we have gone too far with the welfare state and who say so in our newspapers, magazines and other periodicals, will note the unanimity of the four parties in this house tonight as we have taken part in this debate welcoming the setting up of a national council of welfare and welcoming the idea of going forward in this field. Sometimes these people who write against the welfare state or the welfare programs we have, imply that by some strange method, because we are paying better old age pensions today than was the case 30 years ago and because we are paying benefits under certain other programs, somehow we are using up resources or running ourselves into debt or causing the exchange crisis or whatever other trouble we may have. I should just like to point out that our senior citizens are not getting food,

Health and Welfare Act clothing or shelter that does not exist. They are not getting something that is a charge on the future. They are simply getting a small share of the goods and services that are being produced right now. There are other things that happen in our society and in our economy which are a tax upon the future or which mortgage the future of our economy. However, welfare programs do not do that. Welfare programs merely result in the people who need a decent break now getting their share of the goods and services we are producing right now at this very time.
So, Mr. Speaker, I welcome not only the introduction of this measure and the idea that we are to have a national council of welfare, but I welcome most warmly the debate that has taken place thus far. I am not worried about the crossfire there may have been and the little bit of political partisanship that has been injected into the debate. There may be some more of it before it is over. However, the thing that is significant is that from all four parties in this house there has been support for the idea of moving still further in the field of welfare. This is good, and I hope the editorial writers of this country will take note.
It has been suggested that one of the purposes of this council will be to co-ordinate the activities in this field of the various jurisdictions in this country. That is good. It had been suggested that another of its functions will be to study the various programs we now have and to make recommendations as to improvements that might be made. That also is good. I think they all need to be improved. I agree with those who have asserted already that there should be no delay, whether or not there is an election coming, in a further increase in the amount paid under the Old Age Security Act.
In my view the fact that there is on the order paper a motion calling for an amendment to the British North America Act regarding contributory pensions should not be an excuse for nothing else being done in the field of old age pensions at this session. The resolution effecting an amendment to the British North America Act may just lie on the order paper for weeks or months to come, for all we know. However, the fact is that right now we could afford and should have an increase in the pension paid under the Old Age Security Act and under the Old Age Assistance Act to at least $75 a month. I hope this will be done. I hope there will be improvements in the other plans, in unemployment assistance, in family allowances, in the Blind Persons Act and in the Disabled Persons Act. As I say, I hope we can get action on these matters without being obliged to


wait for recommendations from the national council of welfare. However, I also hope that the fact that we set up this council will suggest that we recognize that there are still other areas into which we might move.
I think, for example, of housing for senior citizens, something that has been mentioned tonight. This is an area which we have just begun to scratch. I think also of the whole question of the changes that are taking place in our society as married women join the working force, as more mothers go out to work. I know the kind of problems these developments create. However, it seems to me that, instead of just deploring these changes that take place, as some people do, we should recognize the changing patterns of society and should try to find programs which will cope with these changes. We may be obliged to define programs that will provide for assistance for the care of children and for assistance to mothers who must go out to work, assistance to families needing help in times of illness. We may be obliged to find other kinds of programs to assist people in these new situations. I am glad we are to have this national council of welfare to look at some of these new areas.
I have had the real privilege of being in this place across a good many years and I can recall the attitude there was some years ago toward some of the programs that are now on the statute books. I can recall a number of them but I shall mention just one. My good friend the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) will corroborate my story if that should be necessary, and if it is incorrect I am sure that he will tell me so. I can remember when the campaign from the floor of parliament first began for some pension or other kind of assistance to disabled persons. This plea was made from a number of quarters in this house, mainly by individual members. For a long while there seemed to be resistance to the idea. Sympathy was expressed, but it was a new idea and those who were in charge in those days, while they expressed their sympathy, did not quite see how it could be done.
Then, on one occasion, one of those disabled persons happened to write a letter, a personal letter, to the then prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent. As I understand it, that personal letter just happened to touch the heart of Mr. St. Laurent. It made him feel that something should be done about this. As I understand it, from then on things began to move. The idea was looked at in the department, and by the cabinet, and in due course the campaign succeeded. We got a Disabled Persons Act. We are used to it now. It is difficult now to look back and realize that there ever were these

technical or procedural difficulties. It is difficult to realize now that at one time even the experts of the day could not quite see how it could be done. Mind you, there are some real improvements needed in the Disabled Persons Act. The way in which it is now worded, the way in which it is now administered, a person has to be almost unable to move or even to feed himself in order to qualify under it. However, at least it is there and can be improved.
The point I am making is that within the parliamentary life span of some of us who are in this House of Commons, we have seen new ideas catch on and be written into legislative form. I hope that in this field the national council of welfare will do some real work, some real study, some real research and will come up with suggestions as to ways and means in which we might extend our thinking on social welfare. Welfare, Mr. Speaker, is no longer just relief. Welfare is no longer just a way of keeping some unfortunate people alive. Welfare, the sharing of our production has become a way of life. Welfare has become the means whereby we use a portion of the wealth that we are able to produce to see to it that all our people have a decent standard of living.
One of the other areas in which I think we shall have to move is that of maintaining a minimum standard of income. I appreciated the reference made by the hon. member for Essex East to the statement on social security for Canada which was prepared by the Canadian welfare council in 1958. One of the suggestions in that document was that we should find ways and means of guaranteeing to our people a minimum standard of income.
So, Mr. Speaker, the job is not done because we have old age pensions. The job is not done because we have half a dozen welfare programs on the statute books of Canada or on the statute books of our provinces. We have just begun. We have the principle established that it is the responsibility of our society so to organize its economic activities that people can have a decent standard of living. It is our job to carry through, and this of course involves some real hard thought on the part of all of us as to how we are going to do it.
We in this party feel that it is going to require democratic social economic planning to raise our production to the highest possible level. I do not share the view of the hon. member for Fraser Valley when he says we have completely solved the problem of production. If we are going to provide enough goods and services for a good standard of living for our people, if we are going to provide enough goods and services to raise the living standards of mankind the world around,
Health and Welfare Act including the nearly two billion who are hungry tonight, we have to go a great deal farther in the matter of organizing our economy so that we produce sufficient goods and services to meet the challenge of our time. In addition to producing goods and services, we have to find ways and means of distributing them equitably with an eye, as I say, to a decent standard of living.
This debate does not solve all these problems. The setting up of this national council of welfare does not mean that the morning after it is established these problems will be solved. But I do say, Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing we are having the council. I think it can do a good job and it should have the support of all of us. I like the kind of people who are going to be on it, the experts in the field, devoted civil servants who have given their lives to the task. When we get into committee, I should like to find out who the ten non-governmental people are to be or from what areas they are to come. They will perhaps represent labour, agriculture, business and the Canadian welfare council. I like it if people of that sort are going to become members of this body. But most of all, I like the fact that this debate is an antidote to the talk there is in some newspapers about welfare. Despite the progress we have made, the time has come to take a step forward. That is why we support the proposal to set up the national council of welfare and move ahead in this important field.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I need to say, because it has been said from this side already, that we approve of the idea contained in this bill. Any disappointment I might voice would be in the direction of the lack of principles or guideposts indicated here. Perhaps it is understandable that they are not spelled out in the bill, but I am disappointed that the minister himself did not spell them out for us. This entire question of welfare is not one which ever remains static. It is in a state of continued evolution as our new society and economic progress continually change and evolve. The suggestion, therefore, that at any time anything of this kind can be completely solved or that we should perhaps reach fixed goals, as has been indicated by my hon. friend who comes from my own province, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is completely misleading. To say that what was possible today should have been possible 50 or 100 years ago, is just not a true statement. These things change -abilities, knowledge, economic possibilities -as time goes by.

Health and Welfare Act
I do feel that the minister is to be complimented for introducing a bill of this kind at this time. In spite of that fact, however, I feel some guiding principles should have been laid down; there should have been some explanation given for the benefit of those people who will be administering this measure. The kind of thing I am suggesting here is perhaps the kind of thing for which we have been criticizing this government, the lack of ability to grasp the necessity for using a budget as an economic instrument. It is the kind of thing that guides and assists the economy, rather than the method of 100 years ago when the government just accumulated bills and expenditures and introduced a budget at the end of the year to rover them.
I believe our welfare responsibilities, our ability to assist in these areas, are limited to the extent that our economy can support them. This is two parts of one element. There is the idea that we must maintain a high level of welfare so that we can say none of the people in our society are living at such a low level that they drag the rest of us down. However, there is a limit to the ability to pay, and therefore our economic structure must be taken into consideration. I would have thought that economists in our age would think in terms of the ability of any economy in this modern age to syphon off a measure of wealth in order to make sure that the people at the lower level of income do not drag us down. These are things for economists to discuss and clarify and find out. They are things for experts to work with. If the minister would only think of these things he would be well advised to tell the people who form part of this committee that these are guideposts they must use in order to assess their ability, in terms of dollars, and in terms of the economy as a whole to support the measures they may recommend.
Just to illustrate what I called evolution a moment ago, I find this in "Le Conseil du Bien-etre en notre millieu"-and I may say I heartily endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he stated what I think should be repeated again and again, that we owe a great deal to those men and women who have participated not only in the national welfare council but in the provincial welfare councils:
(Translation):
May I quote from the pamphlet entitled "The Welfare Council and Our Environment".
Some 40 years ago there began in Canada, and particularly in the province of Quebec, a vast industrialization movement, the effects of which are still being felt today. Accompanied by a growing urbanization, they have brought about several new social problems, while destroying some of the


previous structures of mutual help and assistance and weakening the traditional parochial organization.
Save for the reference to the traditional parochial structures, the same principle applies to other areas of Canada as well.
The economic and social changes resulting from these two movements, industrialization and urbanization, are to be seen in, among other things, a decreasing number of families owning their own house, insecurity in employment, unemployment and an inadequate salary in relation to family responsibilities, the scattering about of families and outside work for women. The advent of a different way of life has also brought about new requirements such as a better education, the need for a technical training and the desire for a higher standard of living.
During the following years, as it became more and more necessary to get together, organizations were created with the purpose of working for the social welfare of the country.
The report entitled "The Financing of Welfare Councils", and dealing with social welfare of the province of Ontario, states the following:
This new role-*
The reference is to the groups, and to the financing of those groups.
That new role, designed to integrate planning in the field of health, welfare and leisure, has resulted in the expansion of the councils' program and in the creation of the present need for increased financial resources, as well as concern about the importance of sources of revenue which will be available in the future.
In the last few years, the public sector has taken on the responsibility of making available an increasing proportion of those funds.
(Text):
As a result of this evolution and the great work done by these voluntary organizations, I believe we are in a position today to make one of the greatest steps ever made in this field. I do not say, as do our friends on the far left, that this should have been done 50 years ago, nor do I say as do our friends on the extreme right, that this can only be done by private enterprise. These are all things which have been accepted in Canada as forming a basic principle in our society, as a principle in our economics and a principle in our system of government.
There is not a single government in this country, whether it be Conservative, Social Credit, or C.C.F. such as in Saskatchewan, which does not accept as a fundamental principle of its duty the idea that social welfare is a part of our everyday living. Every day the public authorities, because of the complex social system in which we live and the complex economic system in which we find ourselves, necessarily find themselves becoming more and more involved in matters of social welfare.

I think the minister could assist those people who will administer this act by laying down some of these principles and some of these ideas, and by suggesting necessary improvements requiring immediate attention.
The question of disability pensions has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Provisions regarding disability pensions have been on our statute books for some time now. Perhaps there might have been an excuse at the very outset for being a little tight in the interpretation of those provisions, but I believe the time has come when there should be a much broader interpretation of what we mean by disability pensions in order to assist those people who are really disabled even though they may be able, but only able, to walk about. The present interpretation is much too rigid, and perhaps I might do like the member for Winnipeg North Centre and quote myself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A good authority.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I refer to a speech I made in the Manitoba legislature a few years ago when we complained bitterly about the interpretation and application of the provisions regarding disability pensions in terms of their rigidity.
The minister might also take into consideration the fact that during the last few years, and unfortunately it is a relatively few years, we have finally recognized the difficult position in which we have placed the original Canadians. I speak of the Indians and Metis, and not mainly of those who are on reservations but those who are on the fringes of the reserves and who suffer most because they cannot get government assistance. Their suffering is increased also because, let us face it, while we condemn people outside this country for racial discrimination, we are often as guilty as any outsider in that respect, and these people suffer on that account.
However, I do believe a great deal of work has been done in this regard by welfare councils throughout the country. There is a sincere attempt being made to do something constructive about the problem, and I would recommend to the minister that he induce the administrators in the Indian affairs branch to come up with suggestions that would assist our red brothers to emerge from the ghettos, or reserves as we call them, and take their rightful part in modern Canada.
There is another area in which the minister could be helpful, and it concerns new Canadians, those people who have arrived in this country from outside and who find useful occupations for themselves and start life afresh in Canada. Very often, through circumstances
Health and Welfare Act beyond their control, they find themselves without a job and with family difficulties. In most cases they discover that they must move to other areas or other spheres in order to attempt to start a new life once more. Many of those people are in difficulty at present and they are not receiving the kind of assistance they need. Even though financial help is quite often available to them that is not the kind of assistance they require. What they need is guidance and assistance in relocating themselves.
Another area in which the minister might do some useful work is the displacement of workers because of automation. This is a problem which has only begun to hit us in recent years and much human suffering results from it. This is a question which is a little wide of the bill, but perhaps the members of this council could find some means of making suggestions that would assist in this field. I myself would make one suggestion in that I think it is a matter for education and adjustment instead of welfare. But here again, during this difficult adjustment period even if we do give these people an opportunity to retrain while they can still carry on and provide a living for their families, there is still an area where a council of this kind can render very useful service
I do not want to go on indefinitely, Mr Speaker, but I do want to close with a wore of very sincere appreciation for the very-great work that has been done by the large number of Canadian men and women in this field. I have here in my hand a directory of Canadian welfare services and it would take me the next 20 minutes to read the names of all the organizations and people involved in this work. I think that if the minister has a very, very close look-and I doubt not that he will-at the kind of work that has been done by the large number of people who have worked in this country in this connection he will find ample able people to assist him. I trust that in this case there will not be the kind of thing the Conservative party has been wont to do of recent times, and that they will not make political plums out of these appointments.
(Translation):


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to take part in this debate tonight, since everyone is generally agreed to say that this measure is very
good.
However, on behalf of my party, I should like to dissociate myself from the statement just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), when he said that the four parties were in favour of state welfare or of the welfare state.
1594	HOUSE OF
Health and Welfare Act
Of course, everyone knows that Social Credit is entirely opposed to the welfare state. I do not see how, merely because we had accepted the measure, he could have jumped to the conclusion that we had agreed to recognize the principle of the welfare state. Besides, I did not know either that he would talk about it, since the bill did not seem to open the door to such a statement.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated that everyone was in favour of the redistribution of wealth. Now, it is precisely on that point that we disagree. We do not feel that it should be necessary to take money away from a few people to give it to those who are without it. That is the essential difference between socialism and Social Credit.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre went on to say that the problem of production was not settled. We are aware that no answer has been found to the unemployment problem and that it is hard to achieve full employment. We also know that a large number of goods are piled up in warehouses and on shelves, while some people are starving to death. We wonder how production could be incomplete. On the other hand, we can say that production could be improved in so far as we will enable the individuals to consume the goods produced.
Our main problem today is related to consumption, or rather to the "under-consumption" of a normal production, which is perhaps the overproduction mentioned by a few people.
We all know that the farmed acreage represents only one sixteenth of the potential crop land. This means, therefore, that, whenever financially possible, it would be very easy to put two sixteenths of this potential crop land under cultivation. Then we could feed those who are starving without taking away from the rich what they succeeded in accumulating by their thrift, intelligence and ability for the welfare of their families and children.
Tribute has been paid to welfare organizations. I must say that those organizations have dealt with social welfare and not with the welfare state. I think we should also commend them and encourage them to go on with their work, because I am satisfied that those organizations are able to accomplish much more than the government can, even in the field of social welfare.


It is the government's responsibility to help them get the necessary financial means for achieving all they are able to achieve.
Some people are obviously afraid. We know that the welfare state exists in some countries where very few among us would like to live today. Indeed, the only curtains behind which we want to be, are the golden ones of this chamber. I do not think we can look forward to a welfare state when we know all its implications, which may be upon us sooner than we think.
So, as spokesman for the Social Credit party, I say that we wholly support the national council of welfare legislation, but that we do not accept the principle of the welfare state, because we know that where the welfare state exists, there is no democracy, while we consider that our role in this house is to maintain democracy by allowing the voice of the people to be heard, either in parliament or elsewhere.
(Text):


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support this bill to set up a national council of welfare. I think this is a wonderful move. There is no denying the fact that for far too long welfare has been far too much dependant upon the political whims of the politicians who in the long run so often evaluate these matters by the number of votes that might be secured. No one denies the inequality and the great variations that exist in this area today. There are great variations in the old age pension. We all know of these. For instance, a couple may live in the country in a low cost area. They may have a few hens or a cow and get along very well on their allowance. But a couple living in the city may pay out in rent per month for a couple of rooms the total of the taxes paid in the whole year by those people living in the country. Often the people living in the city in the high cost areas find themselves in very serious circumstances.
Then, again, in my opinion the disability pension is far too severe in its application. People who are unable to work because of physical or mental disabilities, or who in other words are unemployable, should be eligible for this pension. There are variations here. For example, a man may lose his leg. If that man was engaged in earning his living at physical work, he would be severly handicapped. But the fellow who loses his leg and has been doing clerical or professional work may find his income cut very little. As I have said, a fellow with his leg off may suffer a total disability. Of course, funds could be

applied for the retraining of such a man and perhaps we could get him back to the position where he is self-sustaining. There are a number of problems connected with baby bonuses and mothers allowances. Again, there are high cost areas and low cost areas, and the earning power of the various mothers varies. The same consideration applies to pensions for the blind. There are very capable blind men who are able to earn more money than some of us who have our sight. These are all matters for consideration.
Then I should like to see a better deal for our older people. I should like to see them left in their homes as long as possible. Many of them, as they get more feeble, are unable to look after their homes as they should. They are unable to provide the hot meals which are so necessary. I would suggest that the board give careful consideration to providing social aid workers to go into these homes, tidy them up, do the things that the older people find themselves unable to do and, when necessary, provide and cook a hot meal a day. I am sure that if we look into the financial side of all this it would represent a saving to us. Not only that, but it would allow these people to retain their selfrespect and a stable emotional outlook in the declining years of their lives. Many of these people deteriorate mentally at a more rapid rate when they are transferred to old people's homes than they would if they had been left in familiar surroundings. They become problems. From the humanitarian standpoint, I suggest that this point be given careful consideration.
I should also like to deal very briefly with families which have been living on welfare from one generation to another. I think there was a survey made in the city of Winnipeg which showed there were families who for five generations had been living on welfare payments. I want to say that it is a blot on our civilization and on our Christianity that we should permit young people to grow up in this country doomed to live on welfare payments for the rest of their lives. These young people must be salvaged from those homes and trained to become useful citizens. As I say, there are many serious questions awaiting the attention of this board. I congratulate the government for bringing this matter to the attention of the house because I feel that these inequalities in the interest of humanitarianism must be resolved.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to join with those who have preceded me in this debate stressing the fact that there is unanimous agreement in all parts of the house that social welfare measures are needed in Canada and that a new outlook is being provided
Health and Welfare Act through the establishment of the national council of welfare. When we learn that on the federal, provincial and municipal levels in 1960 the sum of $3 billion was expended on social welfare services, amounting to $166 per capita, it is evident that social welfare is a very important question in this country.
I think the establishment of a national welfare council as proposed in Bill C-4 is a necessary step today because the present government has no national welfare policy that we can see. The Liberal attitude to social security has always been clear, and the record of the Liberal party in the field of social welfare is a most enviable one. As the former minister of national health and welfare stated this afternoon, every piece of social legislation on the statute books of Canada has been enacted by a Liberal government.
The time has come to reconstruct our welfare services. In the fields of industry and education, revolutionary measures have already been adopted to bring our practices up to date but when discussions are held in the realm of welfare we still hear statements about public and government responsibilities which are out of date in the wage-earning society we have in Canada in the present day. We must realize that all of us have needs which cannot be met except by the collective resources of society and that government is not merely a participant in the development of welfare services but also an effective instrument for the provision of certain necessary preconditions for adequate welfare legislation. Most important, I think this government must realize that the essential condition of welfare is a healthy economy. A government which allows itself to ignore the alarming unemployment situation which has existed in this country for the past five years is only aggravating the social welfare needs of the people. Welfare services alone cannot cure the cancer of a defective economic and social policy of the present administration.
In spite of the government's pleasant reassurances that Canadians never had it so good, I meet in my daily medical practice in the richest city of the richest province of Canada numerous sad examples of poverty. In our society today we witness the need of private and individual intervention in the welfare field. Individual citizens are called upon, unfairly, I think, to carry the burden of preventable illness, untreated sickness, unrehabilitated mental disability.
All of us in this house should be concerned with the nation's well-being. In this age welfare services should be related to the national level of economic prosperity and to a decent standard of living. In Canada, our minimum wage laws are inadequate and a

Health and Welfare Act large section of the working community is existing on a substandard wage. In my constituency of Parkdale I know women who are paid the scandalous sum of 85 cents an hour. We must have in this country adequate minimum wage laws and be able to enforce them. Then we shall be able to figure out welfare benefit levels on a proper basis. Frequently we see married women forced to go out to work in order to keep up a decent standard of living for their families. There is another great need in the field of social welfare and it has to do with the government's responsibility to rehabilitate those who are disabled. But social service programs should eventually be designed to prevent or even to anticipate social problems. It is in this field that welfare education is so necessary.
Here let me mention the need for family education, which should include preparation for marriage, family formation, home nursing services, recreational activities, and the care of elderly members of the family. We in this house must also deal effectively with the justifiable complaints about the present inadequate old age pensions and disability pensions. The cost of living index has risen every year since 1957, and last month reached a record high. We must admit that it is unfair to force our senior citizens without income and substantial savings to subsist on a mere $65 a month pension which starts at the age of 70. Moreover, there are many widows and unmarried women who have written or telephoned me to say they have a very hard time to eke out a living on $65 a month at the age of 70. They all stress the fact that from the age of 60 they already feel a financial burden. There is also a great need for income protection insurance during illness and for portable contributory pensions, and in my humble opinion we will have to reorganize our entire welfare services in the federal field. We need leadership from the federal government. We need a national welfare program, and I think it is high time that Canadians got leadership in this important field.


Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to participate in this debate. However, after hearing the contribution made by the previous speaker, I thought it was necessary for someone on the government side to make a few observations. I say with regret that possibly I have not paid enough attention to all of the speeches made prior to the last, although I did hear some of the earlier contributions. It seems to me that the remarks of the hon. member for Parkdale were contributed purely from a political point of view. He mentioned,


I believe, something about the inadequate program for old age and disability pensioners, who have to exist on $65 a month. That hon. member was a member of this house previously, and I wonder what he thinks of the program which was instituted by his party when they were on the government side. It seems to me that the standards set by that government in regard to old age pensioners and disability pensions is something we are trying to overcome by the establishment of a council such as this, which would not only recognize any additional need in this regard, but would be able to judge the inadequacies which exist much more readily than would the hon. member for Parkdale, particularly when he reconciles what is now in existence with what was in existence previously. I suggest to him that if he says that the program in existence now is inadequate-


Mr. Priiiie:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: -compared with that which existed five and a half years ago, he should look at the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Robert William Prittie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the present speaker has strayed quite far from the subject under discussion, and we are back to the old Liberal-Conservative name calling again, about who did what. I do not think this is relevant to the topic we are debating.


Mr. Speaker:: I would submit to all hon. members that it is not necessary to have a tit for tat on the subject of what is being done in the field of welfare. However, I think the hon. member will recognize that there has been a pretty wide latitude so far, and that if the Chair had held the debate at this stage to the strict principle of deleting one section of the act which enumerated the powers of certain acts for which the minister was responsible, and the establishment of a welfare council, then perhaps we would have finished about an hour ago. Hon. members have treated the discussion generally, and as long as they do not get into a long and elaborate discussion of a particular field, the Chair feels that this discussion has not been without some benefit. However I am watching the course of the remarks.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I was watching this very carefully before the point of order was raised, and I thought you were rising before the hon. member rose. However, let me assure him that I am much more in agreement with the hon. member who spoke

for his party than I am with the hon. member for Parkdale. I appreciate the same points about need raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre much more readily than the political argument put up by the hon. member for Parkdale. He raised the old question of unemployment and related it to such matters as eligibility for disability pensions, which is ridiculous. One might take it from the hon. member for Essex East, but not from the hon. member for Parkdale. If there is any question of wage standards in his constituency, it is surely unrelated to this question.
All I can say this evening is that if we adopt a reasonable attitude, some of the things-not all, mind you, but some of them -raised by the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for the Social Credit party may be realized. I appreciate that the hon. member for the Social Credit party recognized a certain need to proceed on the basis of qualification, although he tried to inject something about financial policy to which I did not pay much attention.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are not too many members in this house who deal with welfare problems any more than I do myself. I realize the inequities which exist, particularly in the case of disability pensions. Possibly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was correct in his remarks about this, because I know that in many cases an extremely fine line is drawn and there are certain cases which should be considered. For example, there is the question whether a man is so totally disabled that he is unable to stand on his feet. Surely it is not necessary to take this point about qualification that far. However, I also compliment the minister in this regard because it is precisely the problem he is endeavouring to solve, along with all the other related problems. Surely we can raise this above political partisanship of the kind the hon. member for Parkdale dragged in. Let us put our heads together for once-or perhaps it is twice today-and come to a reasonably speedy agreement on this measure, which can bring only good to the people of Canada.


Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Bur-rard):: Mr. Speaker, I speak for all hon. members in this group in supporting the legislation the minister has brought forward designed to establish a national council of welfare. I think, however, that a caveat should be entered. It would be a mistake if we were to expect too much from a national council of welfare. I believe we should be cognizant of the fact that this is a large council to be comprised of 21 persons. In addition to the federal and provincial governmental repre-
Health and Welfare Act sentatives there are to be appointed ten other persons, one from each of the provinces. That, of course, means that this council is not going to meet often; so that there are going to be severe limits placed on the advice it can offer to the government on the actual work it can do. The initiative for policy making in the welfare field will remain with the federal government and it will still be the government's responsibility to bring before the house progressive welfare policies. You cannot expect this council to spearhead the development of new programs to protect those Canadians who find themselves defenceless against the economic storms which wrack this nation from time to time. It is the government which has the staff and the experience-and when I say that I am thinking of the dedicated public servants both at the federal and the provincial levels-which can shore up the individual's right to welfare or the individual's right to social security.
We in this party regard social security as the right of every citizen. It is not a handout that comes from a beneficent government which has a little bit left over so that the blind, the disabled, the young who cannot fend for themselves, and the older people who are unable to work any longer will be able to live out their span of life with a modicum of decency and a reasonable standard of living. This is the right of every citizen. When I listen to people like the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency who spoke earlier in this debate, I find it difficult to believe that there exists anywhere today a body of opinion which would deny that social security is in fact the right of every citizen not only in this country but throughout the world.


Mr. Leboe:: Read Patterson's speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read Marcoux's speech.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I suggest that it was a backward step to talk about state paternalism and to use all those old Tory cliches that our friends opposite delight in offering to the house from time to time. If the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency will look at the universal declaration of human rights adopted by the United Nations more than a decade ago, he will find in it a reference to the right of social security of every citizen. That is not just the opinion of the people in the New Democratic party. It is an opinion held by enlightened civilization all over the world. It was once said of the late prime minister W. L. Mackenzie King that, when faced with the necessity of postponing a decision of bringing in programs, he said there was nothing better than to pile on a royal commission or parliamentary committee. Of

Health and Welfare Act course, in the case of the present government we witnessed the establishment a few years ago of the royal commission on health services. That commission is still sitting and still has not rendered a report to the government. Now the government is asking parliament to pile a council on top of a royal commission. Despite the curious parallelism of the way in which this government carries out its duties and the way in which the old government did so, I think we have a right to expect that this council will be something more than a group of people meeting periodically to render to the government advice which goes unheeded or a group of people who make to the government recommendations which are delightfully accepted and then are filed away, never to be resuscitated for policy making purposes.
There are two reasons why I think we can expect a little more than that from this council. One reason is the kind of personnel designated by the act to sit on the council, the people who have been designated as members of this council, namely the people in the field of health and welfare services from all parts of the country. I think we can safely expect them to do an excellent job in whatever capacity they are asked to serve on this council. However, there is another reason also. There is in this country, and there has been for many years, informed opinion which is aware of public sympathy for the cause of welfare. I think all of us were a little bit shocked to hear the moving story told earlier this evening by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre about the way in which pensions for disabled persons were introduced in this country. Speaking for myself, may I say that I think it is a shame when a nation must depend, for the obtaining of adequate welfare legislation, upon a chance letter reaching the heads of government. I for one desire a government which is more responsible than that to public necessity. I desire a government which is not so unaware of the requirements of the underprivileged in our society that it cannot be roused to action by the entreaties of members of parliament, the advice of its departmental staff and informed opinion of various kinds. I think we might not have had to wait so long for disabled persons pensions if there had been in existence a national council of welfare in the old days of the old government. You would have had a body of informed persons able to translate public sympathy into terms which the government of the day might be able to understand. A national council of welfare would provide an


official expression and would have, as you would believe, the ear of the government with regard to the nation's welfare requirements. When the national council of welfare makes its first report or its first recommendations to the government I am sure that one recommendation which will be very close to the top of the list, if not at the top, will be the establishment of a national medical care plan.
We in this party support this measure, Mr. Speaker. We urge the government not to attempt to divest itself of its responsibilities and to place them on the shoulders of the national council of welfare. We regard this council as a device which will prevent the government from insulating itself against the currents of change in this country, and one which will make it possible for the government to bring in a program which is badly needed in order to bring Canada's welfare legislation up to date.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I went over this bill and I have heard some of the remarks that have been made. It is to be hoped that this measure is not to establish a council whose role would be reduced to discussions, but a council that will look for practical solutions, to be followed by specific action in the field of social security.
Mr. Speaker, we would have preferred to consider a bill on social security drafted in a different way. Instead of informing us that this council will be made up of 12 persons, we would have preferred the minister to announce an increase in family allowances of say $3, $5 or $6 a month. Then all the people in Canada would have been glad.
Mr. Speaker, it is not councils, boards of inquiries, surveys, that the Canadian people want today, but definite results, and the most important step the minister could take now, in Canada, would be to increase family allowances.
We agree, Mr. Speaker, that this matter should be studied. On the other hand, may I suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) that, when that council meets, the first item on its agenda should be the increase of family allowances in Canada. And when the favourable results of that study are known, it will be possible to say that every member had voted not only for a measure to allow that council to make studies, but for one that will bring positive results.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the first suggestion we make to the minister concerning the first item that should be studied by that committee, that is the increase of family allowances in Canada. I think all hon. members recognize that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation needed in this country at this time.
Mr. Speaker, my second suggestion is this. When all student members and advisers of the council meet as students or as advisers and, having come to a conclusion, they come to a practical resolution as, for instance, the increase of family allowances or of old age security or any other similar resolution, then, as soon as the government has approved the resolution, the Minister of National Health and Welfare should endeavour to meet his colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Flemming) in order to advise him not to raise the taxes at the same time as he, himself, increases old age security pensions and family allowances. Because we do not want to see, as soon as a minister increases the social security allowances, his colleague rush over and get from other pockets what the Minister of National Health and Welfare gives us.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, everybody will agree that the Canadian people gain nothing by that. It is nothing more than redistribution. That is merely an effort in equalization for all Canadians, like, for instance, taking the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and saying: "Since the former is taller than the latter, let us cut off the head and shoulders of the taller one." That is merely making everybody equal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that even though he has his heart set on planifica-tion and equalization in Canada, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would not want the hon. member for Port Arthur to have his head cut off to achieve equality between the two.
Similarly, whenever the Minister of National Health and Welfare feels like increasing social allowances, including family allowances, old age pensions, needy mothers allowances or disability pensions, I would suggest-this is the second time I make this recommendation to him tonight-that he should see his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue at once and ask him not to increase taxes. Otherwise, they would be doing nothing else but a levelling job. They would just be chopping off the head of the taller fellow.
Health and Welfare Act
As far as I am concerned, I would not be afraid of standing beside the Minister of National Health and Welfare since he would be the one to lose.
(Text):


James Edgar Walker: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Sure.


James Edgar Walker: Is it now part of Social Credit policy to cut off the head of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher)?
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, that is far from being our intention, and I said it quite clearly, I think. We believe there is room for all in Canada and that there is no need, in the name of planning, to cut off the head of those who are taller to bring them down to the level of the shorter ones.
The hon. member for Port Arthur is inevitably bigger and taller than I am, and it is obvious that because of his size his lungs are bigger than mine.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill) for example, or any other member who is bigger and taller than I am, breathes more air than I do in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: And yet, Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I exercise less.


Gilles Grégoire: -even if other members bigger and taller than I am and with lungs bigger than mine breathe more air than I do, I am not at all jealous because there is enough for everyone; there is enough for the taller and the bigger who breathe a lot and there is enough for the smaller and the more delicate who breathe less. In fact, there is air for everybody.
Mr. Speaker, I contend that it is the same for Canada when we have to provide security for everybody in this country.
There is sufficient wheat to feed all Canadians. If we increase family allowances and extend social security plans in order to make sure that every Canadian family can live in this country, those family allowances or social security benefits will allow those Canadians to buy more. There is enough for everybody.

Business of the House
Look at all the problems the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) has to face from time to time because we have a wheat surplus in Canada.
And yet Canadian commissions are appointed when there is over-production and commissioners work themselves to a frazzle.
Mr. Speaker, when this happens, I rejoice; it is when we have under-production that I complain, and rightly so.
If the Minister of National Health and Welfare can establish a council which will examine the situation not only in relation to the volume but also to the Canadian citizens, in order to see to it that each and every one of them enjoys his due share of the wealth of Canada, we will have no choice but to support his legislation, providing it succeeds in bringing about concrete results for this country.
Mr. Speaker, if we have scientists able to reach the moon to see whether hay is growing on that planet, we should also have economists capable of organizing a social security system giving inhabitants of the earth access to potatoes grown in Canada.


Mr. Cote:: Wonderful.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am quite happy to see us return to the Canadian welfare council.
It being ten o'clock-
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the house leader, for the convenience of hon. members in having it in Hansard, would indicate what the business would be for the rest of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will give the business for tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, and we will see what progress we make. We shall take third reading of Bill No. C-3, and then we will move into supply to consider the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister is aware of the fact that, of course, third reading of the bill is debatable. An unconditional undertaking was given by the Prime Minister that the agriculture estimates would be available tomorrow, so I wonder if the minister would not consider holding up the third reading of Bill No. C-3?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Third readings go through, 90 out of 100 times, in a matter of seconds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the one hundredth
time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In other words, you want to debate third reading tomorrow?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe there is any need to consider what anyone wishes to do. There is a right to debate third reading. After giving an unconditional undertaking to bring the estimates forward, the government should not seek to impose any kind of closure on that unconditional undertaking in a manner in which I am sure the minister did not intend, but would have the effect of denying the opportunity to take advantage of the undertaking.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the hon. gentleman talk about closure in this instance? It is just normal practice, having third reading. Who is suggesting closure in this instance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would submit to the minister leading the house that the Prime Minister gave an undertaking the other day, when we wanted to discuss this matter of certain proposals regarding the Canadian wheat board, that an opportunity would be given on Wednesday. I would point out to the minister that Wednesday is only a half day and that the usual routine proceedings on orders of the day will take part of the afternoon. If, in addition, we have third reading of Bill No. C-3, which I think is likely to be debated, then this means there will be virtually no time to carry out the undertaking which the Prime Minister gave. I would urge the minister to reconsider this matter of introducing third reading of Bill No. C-3 tomorrow afternoon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is not changing in any shape or form any decision or agreement made by the Prime Minister. There will be plenty of opportunity-at least I thought so- to have the third reading and then go on with the estimates, but if there is a desire on the part of hon. members, as has now been expressed, to have a lengthy debate on third reading of the bill, then I presume we can make other arrangements.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 14, 1962