1963-11-14

PRIVILEGE


Mrs. Margaret Konanlz (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be permitted to say a few words on a question of privilege raised in my absence from the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). Yesterday afternoon I returned from the United Nations in order to come before the house to answer some of the questions which were asked here last Tuesday afternoon. On Tuesday night I sent the Minister of Transport a wire from our Canadian mission in New York, which reads as follows:
Winnipeg Tribune reporter called me at 2.30 p.m. local time today asking me what I had meant in the story of our annual meeting in Winnipeg South at Lois Parkhill November 5, when I said "Mr. Mcllraith showed me the Dixon-Speas report."
I explained that I had made a courtesy call on you while in Ottawa when attending the federal Liberal women's conference. At that time you stated the Dixon-Speas report could not be released and pointed to four volumes on the table behind your desk. The reporter asked me if I had been talking to Ottawa today, to which I said no. He told me of Mr. Orlikow's statement in the house.
Now, there are two points I would like to make. Because of my deep concern over the problem of T.C.A., this summer I went through the overhaul base and visited with the men. On another occasion I met with management. I was shown reports, records and documents, so that when I saw the Dixon-Speas report on the minister's table I well understood this report would probably contain confidential information. At the annual meeting of the Winnipeg South constituency, when reporting on the T.C.A. question I did say, without giving any details, that the Minister of Transport had shown me the Dixon-Speas report. It was unthinking of me to allow any impression that I had seen the report itself.
On reviewing the newspaper stories of our meeting I realized how I must have embarrassed both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport. For this reason, on Tuesday night I telephoned the chairman of my advisory committee in Winnipeg to ask him if at any time I had given any suggestion that I had read the Dixon-Speas report. As 28902-5-301J
a result the following wire was sent to the Minister of Transport from the Winnipeg South Liberal association and a copy was sent to me in New York yesterday morning:
Mrs. Konantz did not say at her annual meeting or elsewhere that she had seen and therefore read the Dixon-Speas report but did say that the five volume report was pointed out to her by the minister. From her conversation with him she could well understand why the information contained in it could not be made public because it would then be available to the competitors of T.C.A.
Yesterday morning the Minister of Transport wired me to come to Ottawa. I have now had a chance to read the questions which were raised in the house on Tuesday. I believe I have given frank answers to them all. I have read the statement made by the Minister of Transport to the House of Commons. Needless to say, it is entirely correct.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. James Forgie (Renfrew North) presented the second report of the standing committee on veterans affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's)
presented the first report of the standing committee on debates, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I should like to make an announcement on a subject which I am sure will be of considerable interest to the house and to the Canadian people. I refer to Canada's program of economic assistance for the developing nations of the world. The record demonstrates, I think, that since 1950, when Canada was one of the founding members of the Colombo plan, Canadian governments have regularly reviewed the adequacy of their aid programs and have made provision for increases whenever national circumstances permitted. Last year only was a reduction

Expansion of Economic Assistance made in the level of our assistance as part of a general program to reduce expenditures in every area of government activities.
When the present government took office it became increasingly apparent that because of the changing framework of international assistance a fresh look was required at our international aid effort. The requirements of the developing countries are urgent and growing, and economic assistance for them has become an established policy of all of the advanced nations of the free world which have recognized the need to co-operate in assisting to the best of their ability those countries in the process of economic development.
Accordingly, our Canadian aid effort cannot be viewed in isolation but rather as part of a broad collective effort. We would be failing in our responsibilities both to the developing countries and to other advanced countries with which we are associated, if we did not ensure that Canada played its proper role in this common aid effort.
As an integral part of our foreign policy our Canadian aid programs have, I am convinced, the broad support of the Canadian people. By sharing our resources, skills and experiences we not only benefit others but also help to expand and enrich our own experiences. Our aid programs provide a stimulus to the domestic economy and contribute to a betterment of employment conditions, since the main part of our aid funds is spent in Canada to purchase Canadian goods and services required in the developing countries.
Taking all these factors into account, the Canadian government has now formulated general plans for an expansion of Canada's aid programs beginning in the fiscal year 1964-65.
The main proposed area of expansion would be in special Canadian lending for development purposes. If Canada is to be in a position to provide assistance on terms commensurate with the needs of recipient countries, consistent with the agreed objectives of international bodies of which we are a member, and in line with what other major donors are providing, there should be available for implementing Canada's bilateral assistance programs facilities for lending of the type now carried out by the international development association, involving such features as long maturity periods, liberal grace periods, and little or no interest. It is proposed, therefore, that a lending program of this type should be commenced in the fiscal year 1964-65 with an initial ceiling for commitments of $50 million.
It is the government's intention to ask parliament to make separate provision beginning

in 1964-65 for a food aid program, as already announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and for Canada's contribution to the Indus basin development fund, which was set up in an effort to resolve the difficult dispute between India and Pakistan over the use of the waters of the Indus basin. These are now included in Canada's bilateral grant aid programs, which will be continued in 1964-65 at their present level of about $50 million, but which will in the future be limited to the provision of project assistance, the supply of industrial commodities and the carrying out of technical assistance for the developing countries. The result will be a significant increase in our grant aid.
These improvements in our aid programs would, of course, be additional to Canada's other existing programs of assistance, including our long term financing arrangements under the Export Credits Insurance Act and our contributions to the multilateral programs of the United Nations. Recent references have been made in the house to the increased Canadian contribution to the United Nations special fund and the international development association.
In the current fiscal year it is expected that the over-all level of Canada's expenditures for assistance to less developed countries will be in the neighbourhood of $120 million. It is the government's intention to seek authority to make available an additional $70 million in 1964-65. It is, of course, not possible at this stage to forecast an actual expenditure level for 1964-65, but it is expected that with the new resources available, the level might be in the range of $180 million to $190 million.
The over-all program which I have described will be a flexible one designed to place Canada in a position to make an effective response to changing national and international circumstances. In particular, it will provide:
(1)	aid to Colombo plan countries of Asia at a higher level than was provided prior to the reduction in 1962;
(2)	a more comprehensive and sizeable Canadian program for the commonwealth countries of the Caribbean. In this connection, it will be remembered that when the Prime Minister of Canada saw the President of the United States he indicated that it was Canada's intention to increase its assistance to the commonwealth countries of the Caribbean with which Canada, of course, has a long and historic association;
(3)	a larger and more effective program for Africa, including the French speaking states;
(4)	a further contribution to Latin American development, in close co-operation with the

inter-American development bank, through the availability of new and additional lending resources.
I make this announcement at this time in view of the O.E.C.D. ministerial meeting in Paris next Tuesday and Wednesday, at which the subject of aid to developing countries will be discussed.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: It is difficult, Mr. Speaker, to follow the minister in the detail in which he indulged without having before one the actual figures and the computations that he has before him as he speaks. However, in so far as a program is concerned which will raise standards in other parts of the world and will assure technical assistance, in what the minister has stated he represents the viewpoint of the Canadian people.
As a matter of fact, when we came into office we made alterations in the amount of assistance given under the Colombo plan by increasing the amount from $35 million to approximately $50 million. Furthermore, during our period of office we brought into effect assistance for those developing French speaking countries in Africa, a work which was particularly appreciated by those people in view of the dual nature of our country. Mention is made in the announcement of expanding assistance to the Caribbean countries. This is a continuation of a course which we launched in 1959. It is a worthy one, for those nations have much in common with us, and contiguous to us as they are within the commonwealth they have a particular claim upon our consideration.
In so far as the loan plan is concerned, that is something that will have to be examined with care. I believe that Canada, as a member of the commonwealth, should do her part toward encouraging within the commonwealth the establishment of a commonwealth loan plan for the assistance of countries within the commonwealth, because represented within the commonwealth are almost all the races and colours of men. What the minister has said, in effect, is that Canada, as a leading nation desiring peace and the raising of standards throughout the world, accepts her responsibility as nations must today as being their brother's keeper.
In so far as the general purport of what he has said is concerned, there will be widespread approval. The particulars, however, will require examination to the end that in any contribution we make internationally in this regard, first consideration should be given to the commonwealth countries.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is quite correct when he says
Expansion of Economic Assistance that the bulk of the Canadian people will support a generous program of aid to the underdeveloped and emerging nations of the world. I believe they will welcome the announcement which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made regarding proposed increases in Canada's assistance in the coming fiscal year.
However, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has such a marvellous capacity for wrapping up any gifts in tinsel, fancy ribbon and gift packaging that one might tend to be a little deceived as to just how much is in the package. Even after the increases which are proposed for the coming fiscal year, Canada's aid to underdeveloped countries will amount to less than one half of one per cent of our gross national product, and part of this amount of some $185 million to $190 million will be in the form of loans at low interest rates, so that it will not be entirely a gift.
I was surprised that the Secretary of State for External Affairs made mention of the assistance given to the Caribbean countries which have passed through very difficult times in recent months as a result of tornadoes. Our contribution to the entire Caribbean area was $20,000 in cash and skim milk powder worth about $80,000. This is a total contribution in cash and kind of about $100,000 to cover several countries which suffered very serious damage.
The government and the people of Canada have to take seriously this question of economic aid to underdeveloped areas. The latest figures available show that the share of the world's goods which goes to these nations is less now than it was before the war. It is greater in total, but in terms of the share of the world's total production it is less, because western production has grown so rapidly that the underdeveloped areas are today getting a smaller share of the world's total production than they used to get.
If the world is to have any hope of living at peace, then we must be prepared to spend more money assisting these underdeveloped areas. In the long run this will do more to maintain peace in the world than will the billions of dollars which the western world is spending on armaments. Many of these countries not only require immediate assistance but their most crying need is for capital and capital equipment, so they can increase their productivity and raise the living standards of their people.
We in this party welcome the announcement which has been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but we think that even with this small increase we are doing far less than we ought to be doing.

Expansion of Economic Assistance We should not be satisfied with anything less than 1 per cent of our gross national product, and we in this party have for years advocated that our goal should be 2 per cent of Canada's gross national product as an investment in peace and in bringing economic prosperity to the underdeveloped areas of the world. We contend that the best hope for future generations to live in peace lies in this kind of aid, and that we ought to be diverting more of our money in this direction.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made this announcement today. Certainly any increase in the aid we can give to those in a less favoured position than our own is to be commended, but I am concerned that even though this word is encouraging it is still only a very small part of what we could and should be doing.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has mentioned that this will be adding something more than 50 per cent to the budget for this particular type of aid in the coming fiscal year. Even at that, and considering the statistics he gave to us yesterday, it will bring us only to approximately one half of what is being given per capita by the United Kingdom and West Germany, and only to a quarter of what is being given by the citizens of the United States and France. This is not good enough. I think we should realize that it is not only our moral obligation but it is also our privilege to be in a position where we can be doing more, and it is not to our credit that more is not being done.
I note with interest the areas to which this assistance will be given, and I agree with previous speakers that it is our first obligation to the commonwealth countries to prove that the spirit of understanding and good will that we have in the commonwealth should express itself in the type of assistance afforded in the Colombo plan that we have known so well down through the years. It is of particular interest that this assistance will be aimed to further helping the Caribbean area. I think this is a timely opportunity for us, because this is an area right on our own doorstep which is part of a volatile situation that could blow up at any time as far as Latin America and the neighbouring area of central America are concerned. It is an area where we could be making a total contribution that would really do some good. I trust the government will see fit to still further increase the aid that they suggest be given to the Caribbean area.
It is good, also, that we have Africa in mind. The Secretary of State for External

Affairs spoke of Latin America, and certainly there is no more needy part of the world than this. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs might be considering tying in this materialistic assistance with the moral aid for which the people of Latin America have been looking for a long time, in our becoming a member of the organization of American states. I think this is a very important question, and we cannot very much longer avoid taking a decision on it.
I suggest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that one of the greatest developed resources we have as Canadians is that reserve of good will which Canadian people have created for themselves and for their country. We should be making sure this resource is exploited to the maximum in considering this program of aid.
I also suggest that in planning the distribution of this aid we should make sure that it goes to areas where the assistance can make a distinct contribution in the field in which it is needed. It is not just in giving away that we can help these countries. Therefore I think it is a good thing that financial assistance is being made possible at no interest cost. We have this ability to help other people help themselves. I think this is a phase of aid which is not considered often enough. It is not just a hand-out that is wanted; it is assistance that will help people help themselves.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we support wholeheartedly what has been said here today, but we do hope it is only a small part of what is to come in the future.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people will, I am sure, welcome the announcement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) to the effect that Canada's assistance to underdeveloped countries will be $190 million, that is an increase of $1-40 million over the contribution of the past few years. Canadians are anxious to help the have-not countries in the world through their government.
Canada's economic aid to underdeveloped countries will take the form of financial and technical assistance. As stated by those who spoke before me, financial aid is important but technical assistance is even more important since it enables the recipient countries to initiate projects, for if those countries need our financial help, they need above all the means to become self-supporting eventually. That is how we can contribute to the protection of those countries against subversive ideas.

We have been contributing to the Colombo plan for years. I am quite in favour of helping certain members of the commonwealth, that is certain, hard-pressed Caribbean countries. When I was in Jamaica, over a year ago, I saw people who wanted not so much our credit to purchase products as our technical assistance to improve their condition. Those countries have their own natural resources and they can develop themselves if we show them how and if we help them.
Now, it is a fine thing to help those countries, but I should like to remind the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that we still have in Canada areas which are underdeveloped and where people experience hard times in the midst of abundance. We approve and we commend this assistance to the underdeveloped countries but the government should also have some thought for the Canadians who contribute to the development of this country of ours.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs which is related to his announcement about external aid. Is the cost of bringing students to Canada from overseas for courses to enable them to contribute to the development of their own countries included in the cost totals that he gave today, or is this an additional amount?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That kind of program could be included. It is a matter for decision in each case. The program to be covered by the expenditures is a matter to be decided when dealing with the application and with each project.



SOUTH VIET NAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs say what the decision has been regarding recognition of the provisional revolutionary government of South Viet Nam. What are the considerations that impelled the government to its decision, and would the minister deal in general with the ominous situation in that country consequent upon the change of administration?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Inquiries of the Ministry gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. When he asked me the other day about this matter I was not in a position to deal with it, for a number of reasons. One was that there had been no request for recognition from the provisional government of the republic of Viet Nam.
Since then such a request has been received and this question has been examined. The government has decided to accord recognition to the government of the republic of Viet Nam. The considerations which the Canadian government examined were: The fact that the government is in actual control of the major part of the territory of the state; it has undertaken to observe international obligations entered into by its predecessors, and it has secured the acquiescence of the population. It has also promised to protect foreign lives and property and to guarantee fundamental freedoms "within the framework of the anti-communist struggle and the security of the state". Moreover, the Vietnamese government has undertaken to maintain co-operation with the international supervisory commission on which Canada serves.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Press reports today tell of a Mrs. Miriam Stevenson, aged 53, of Vancouver, who has been ordered deported from Canada on the ground that back in the depression of the 1930's she belonged to the communist party in Los Angeles for a period of one year. I should like to ask the minister whether it is the policy of his department to deport an individual for having belonged to the communist party 30 years ago. Is this considered a crime in the eyes of the present government?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest of the hon. gentleman in this matter may I say that yesterday, because of certain representations made to me by two sources to the effect that they wanted to make further representations and supply additional information, I ordered that the deportation be deferred for two months so as to give me the chance to look further into the matter.
4722	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES



PURCHASE OF NEW PLANES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Has he replied to the request of the chairman of the executive committee of the city of Montreal, Mr. Lucien Saulnier, concerning the purchase of Caravelle aircraft by T.C.A.? If so, what was his reply?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think a reply has been made. To the best of my memory the letter was received only yesterday or the day before, but I will look into the matter at once.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Has he the power or the authority to repeal the decision made by T.C.A. directors to purchase the DC-9 aircraft instead of the Caravelle? If the Prime Minister has such authority, does he intend to repeal this arbitrary and autocratic decision of the T.C.A. president?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will allow me to point out that his question should be put on the order paper. In addition, it is out of order because it expresses an opinion and is controversial.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I simply asked the Prime Minister if he had the authority to revoke a decision made by Air Canada to purchase the DC-9. I just want an opinion from the Prime Minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The question, of course, as you have said, Mr. Speaker, was out of order, especially when an adjective such as "autocratic" is used in putting it.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the minister of health, and in her absence 
I will address it to her parliamentary secretary. A Dr. Frederick Bock, a cancer research specialist, has made this statement as reported in the press:
Dr. Frederick G. Bock, associate cancer research scientist at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, said 2,000 to 3,000 Canadians died in 1962 of lung cancer, the most prevalent disease arising from smoking. This figure, coupled with the number of heart and bronchial diseases bred by smoking, put cigarettes well ahead of traffic accidents and infectious illnesses as a killer, he said.
My question is, can the minister, or in her absence the parliamentary secretary, state what has been done in the preventative field to date?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder whether the minister could tell us whether it has been possible for the minister's officers in the United States, particularly in Washington, to be of any assistance to the premier of Newfoundland in his dealings with the Kennedy administration on the Canadian Javelin matter?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give consideration to that question. I am not presently familiar with the full situation to which my hon. friend directs my attention.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue relating to the same subject I brought up with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Under the provisions of the Canada-United States tax treaty has the minister's department obtained transcripts of the evidence at hearings before the United States courts regarding gifts made by Mr. Doyle of Canadian Javelin to one certain Canadian?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could take the hon. gentleman's question as notice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on this question I have had an opportunity to consider further my reply to the question which the hon. member asked me. I now refer him to the reply tabled in the house yesterday to question No. 1,627 by the hon.

member for Queens, which will be found at page 4687 of Hansard.



HONG KONG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of his statement on external aid, and I think it can be answered quite briefly. Does the minister's announcement mean that the government has now decided to continue the emergency food program to Hong Kong which was commenced in 1962?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, that question will be considered when I deal with my estimates.


John George Diefenbaker: No decision yet.



INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I understand that yesterday afternoon discussions were carried on with the Cuban authorities regarding the two Canadians who are being held as prisoners by the Cuban government. Can the minister tell the house what was the outcome of these discussions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I saw the Cuban ambassador, and I impressed on him the desirability of a postponement of the trial, which had been scheduled for Saturday, I think. I pointed out that not enough time had been made available to provide for a full appreciation of the charges, to provide for counsel and to permit the necessary preparation of the defence. The Canadian ambassador saw the foreign minister of Cuba last night and repeated the request which I made in Ottawa to the Cuban ambassador. I can now say that the trial will not proceed on the originally scheduled date but will take place some time later. I do not know the exact date yet, but I have been assured that there will be a postponement of the original date.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what is the charge against these men; and will the minister say whether he discussed with the Cuban authorities the right of these accused to have their own Canadian counsel?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the precise nature of the charges because they have not been made available. This has been one of the subjects on which the Canadian government has been seeking information from the government of Cuba. With regard to counsel, some ten days ago I suggested to the Cuban ambassador that in order to give the assurance we would want that acceptable standards of justice were going to be observed, Canadian counsel should be provided by the government or by the accused themselves. This has been denied to us. However, I can say that the vice consul, who himself is a lawyer, has had the opportunity to see the accused. This aspect of the matter continues to be a subject of discussion between us.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the
minister to give us a general idea of the nature of these charges. He says he does not know the particulars, but what is the general nature? Is it making an armed attack on Cuba? What is the nature of the charges?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of the accused themselves, I believe it is not desirable that at this time I should give partial particulars of the charges, which have not yet been made completely known to us. If I thought it was in their interests to give the partial particulars I would unhesitatingly do so.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the reason for secrecy as to the nature of the charges against the accused? That is what I do not understand.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My answer is that in my view the way to protect these Canadian nationals is to take the course I have indicated in the responses I have just made.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NOVA SCOTIA  PROTEST RESPECTING OFF-SHORE MINERAL RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coales (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the house of the federal government's policy regarding off-shore mineral rights as a result of the protest being lodged by the government of Nova Scotia relating to the granting of a licence to the Shell Oil Company for gas and oil exploration off the Nova Scotia coast?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer that question at the moment, but I will be glad to look into it and give an answer tomorrow.

Inquiries of the Ministry



BRIEF FROM FEDERATION OF MAYORS AND MUNICIPALITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietie-L'Ascomption-Mcnicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Following the speech he made in this house yesterday, is it the minister's intention, or that of his government, to ask the federation of mayors and municipalities in future to submit a brief to the federal government, thereby overlooking the rights and privileges of the provinces in this field?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: The Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities customarily presents a brief to the government of the day each year. It is usually a good brief, and I hope they continue the practice.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Since the number of unemployed is still increasing, would the minister tell the house whether he has any plans to eliminate unemployment, as was promised during the election campaign?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the house that the results of the October labour force survey are on the whole fairly encouraging. Total employment increased by an estimated 11,000 between September and October, whereas it usually decreases during this period. Also, the situation in the province of Quebec has altered; the October survey showed that employment was 100,000 or 5.8 per cent higher than a year earlier.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A supplementary question. Could the minister give me an explanation of the difference between what he says and what is printed in a bulletin issued at 10 a.m. on November 14, which shows, under the caption "Unemployment", that unemployment rose from 250,000 to 265,000?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction between what I have said and the normal chain of events.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Picfou):: Could the Minister of Labour advise the house whether this includes all the unemployed Liberal candidates in the last Nova Scotia election?


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour relating to the previous question which he answered. Does the Minister of Labour now feel that sufficient time has elapsed since the last general election to enable the government to take credit for increases or discredit for decreases in employment?


Mr. Pickersgill:: That is an argumentative question.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State says this is an argumentative question, but I believe we should know now whether the minister takes credit for increases or decreases in the labour force.



BANCROFT, ONT.  PROVISION OF EMPLOYMENT FOLLOWING MINE SHUT-DOWN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Fronienac):: should like to ask the Minister of Labour what consideration is being given by the government to alternative means of employment in the Bancroft area, in view of the impending shut-down of the Faraday uranium mine.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This morning I had a chance to discuss this matter with representatives of the Bancroft area. The government will naturally apply all its special programs that can be applied to this particular area. The action already taken by the government has been successful in at least postponing the difficulties to which the hon. member refers.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: May I ask a supplementary question. Does this mean the government will consider naming Bancroft as a designated area?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The government has stated already that these designations will be subject to review periodically, and on the occasion of that review the Bancroft area will be considered for designation.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman inform the house whether any tenders are to be called for the construction and location of a heavy water plant in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; a decision has not yet been reached on that matter.


Robert Muir: Would the right hon. gentleman either confirm or deny the statement appearing in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald allegedly made by his parliamentary secretary that tenders will be called for a heavy water plant?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary secretary has assured me that the statement attributed to him is inaccurate.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour a question?
Could the minister tell the house which Canadian affiliates of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. shipping trade unions wish to go to the United Nations to seek the abolition of the Canadian trusteeship over shipping unions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This question is not within the administrative responsibility of the federal government.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the Canadian government intend to take the necessary steps or to protest officially so that the fight against the trusteeship under which the Canadian government put the maritime unions will not be submitted to the United Nations, since the matter is a domestic one?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that question was addressed to me, but I can answer it by saying that there is no basis whatever for bringing this question before the United Nations. It is a domestic matter, or a matter concerning relations between Canada and the United States; and I would be very surprised indeed if the United Nations would entertain it should an attempt be made to bring it before that body.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I offered to bring on the estimates of the Secretary of State for
Inquiries of the Ministry External Affairs tomorrow at 2.30. 1 would be glad to repeat the offer now in view of the nature of the questioning today, if the opposition would like to consider it.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the supply of annually minted silver dollars available in the banks across Canada be sufficient to meet the Christmas demand this year?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am informed by the master of the mint that despite the limited capacity of the mint it will be possible to issue additional silver dollars for Christmas sale. I am informed the mint has issued more than double the number of silver dollars to date than at this time last year.
The current scarcity of the 1963 silver dollar is due to the unprecedented demand for 25 cent, 10 cent, 5 cent and 1 cent coins. Preference in production is given to these lesser denominations because they are used more in conducting commercial transactions than are the dollar and 50 cent coins.


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Did the minister take this action on the advice of the hon. member for Red Deer and his supporters?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: I have a question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the recent admonition of Mr. McNamara, chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board, to farmers in western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan to move their wheat into marketable position, would the minister check into the serious shortage of box cars in these areas which prevents these very farmers from marketing their grain, as is necessary to meet our overseas commitments?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: There is no over-all shortage of box cars. The box cars are being utilized more effectively and on a much greater scale than ever in the past. But, as I have explained on other occasions, there is a great diversity of treatment of various areas because of the necessity of moving as much

Inquiries of the Ministry wheat as possible to the lakehead in order to meet urgent demands before freeze-up. I am hopeful that after freeze-up it will be possible to move toward much greater equality.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Does that policy mean that some marketing points in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are being discriminated against because the movement of grain from those points cannot be expedited, or dealt with as fast as it might be from certain other points?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not know whether it could be called discrimination. It is the necessary consequence of the policy being followed by the Canadian wheat board in an effort to move as much grain as possible out of Canada during this crop season.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Does the minister not think it will be preferable to allow those points which are still on the initial quota extra cars so that they may be able to deliver the grain before the snow falls? I have a letter here bearing on this very subject, and I shall be glad to let the minister see it.


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall be happy to bring these suggestions to the attention of the Canadian wheat board. I have discussed this matter with the chairman of the board from time to time. He is very much aware of these complaints, and he regrets very much that it should be necessary for such a great difference to exist, but it is an inevitable consequence of the situation we are now facing. I am sure that by the end of the year all hon. members will be glad that the board has persisted in its policy of moving as much grain as possible.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Would it not help in preventing some of this discrimination if the Canadian wheat board had its powers extended from the lakehead on to the eastern provinces so that it might take the grain directly from the western provinces into eastern Canada, and then it would satisfy our needs?


Mitchell William Sharp: This is being done.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture for giving me notice he would not be in the house today-


An hon. Member:: So what else is new?


Raymond Langlois: -and also for pointing out to me that he had misunderstood my question yesterday and thought I was referring to the wheat board when in fact I was referring to the board of grain commissioners, which is under his department. I am glad he has learned that from his department. I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the serious grievances brought up a while ago by some of the western members, is the Minister of Trade and Commerce considering extending the powers of the wheat board to control the movement of wheat from the western provinces right into the eastern provinces?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I was unaware that my hon. friends on the other side had any grievances against me.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question. Is the minister up to date? Does he not know that Canadians in the east have many grievances?



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister advise the house why the Canadian United Nations delegation did not support the resolution so strongly endorsed yesterday by the assembly, calling for an embargo on oil shipments to South Africa?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: The Canadian delegation fully supported the basic aims of the resolution to which the hon. member directs my attention. We support, in principle, its reaffirmation of the right of the people of South West Africa to self determination and independence, and its condemnation of South Africa's persistent refusal to co-operate with the United Nations. We were in favour of a renewed effort to establish the United Nations presence in South West Africa.
The Canadian delegate pointed out yesterday that the imposition of sanctions in specific cases is a matter which, under the charter, reposes in the security council and not in the general assembly. Moreover, in the view of the Canadian government enforcement action by the United Nations should await the outcome of the proceedings presently before the international court as well as the reaction of the South African government to the findings of that court. In our view it weakens rather than strengthens the United Nations if such important principles of orderly procedure are disregarded.

I should like to emphasize the deep concern felt by this government about developments in South Africa. We deplore the application by that government of the policy of apartheid in South West Africa, where it has a duty to administer the territory under international authority in the best interests of the population. The present serious situation could develop in such a way as to call for support by Canada of measures in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations charter to enforce respect for international obligations.


Mr. Bell:: On a point of order, that answer is an example of why the question period does not work.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I just say that the question asked by the hon. member for Queens was a vital one. It was one which was dealt with by my predecessor at considerable length. If the hon. member does not fully appreciate its importance, I regret to say he will have to take some time to inform himself of its significance.


Thomas Miller Bell: I stand by my statement.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs explain to the house how it was possible for Canada to express support in principle while at the same time voting against the motion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman is wrong in the last statement he made. Canada has expressed strong condemnation of the policy of apartheid, but Canada has taken the position, along with other countries, that the imposition of sanctions is a responsibility given under the charter to the security council and not to the general assembly. Because Canada believes in observing the constitutional practices and provisions of the charter, this does not mean that our condemnation of the policy of apartheid as practiced by South Africa is, on that account, less sincere.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister not think that the other members of the United Nations who voted in favour of this sanction are as concerned about the jurisdiction and the correct functioning of the United Nations as the Canadian government and its representatives?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not want my answer to the hon. gentleman's question to be interpreted as a reflection on the action taken by those states which did not agree with the position we have taken juridically. But the fact is-and the hon. member as a student of these matters knows this to be the case-that responsibility for sanctions rests with the security council. The African
Inquiries of the Ministry states feel, naturally, very keenly about the policies of discrimination which are being applied in South Africa. It is understandable, since they wish to express their deep condemnation of those policies of discrimination, that they should in the circumstances have pursued yesterday's course. However Canada, as a loyal member of the United Nations, considers that the integrity of that body presupposes a recognition of established constitutional procedures in order to maintain the organization as an effective instrument for peace.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a further question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the Canadian delegation intend to abstain on the resolution soon to be brought before a plenary session of the general assembly opposing racial discrimination, or will Canada continue to cast a vote of abstention as it did in the third committee?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government gives consideration to the positions it is going to take, and it is not the custom to announce policy in this house before that consideration is completed, even if a course is recommended by an hon. gentleman sitting to Mr. Speaker's left.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General. Is it the intention of the Postmaster General to have a stamp issued commemorating the 50th anniversary of the birth of the 4-H clubs in Canada, which took place at Roland, Manitoba, in 1913?


Hon. Azellus Denis (Postmaster General):: No, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I wonder if his parliamentary secretary has an answer to the question I asked yesterday concerning Mr. Banks being absent from the jurisdiction while on bail.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: I regret that I have not got an answer today, but I will bring it to the minister's attention when he comes back.

Vocational Training Assistance Act CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



INQUIRY AS TO CHECK ON LANGUAGE USED ON PROGRAMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosfhern):: I have a question for the Secretary of State. I wonder if he could let us know if there is any authority that scrutinizes C.B.C. radio and television programs to determine the decency and good taste of the language that is used on these programs?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I regret very much that I could not hear the hon. gentleman's question. I will read it in Hansard and endeavour to reply tomorrow.



TOBACCO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is now in possession of information which would enable him to answer the question I put to him yesterday concerning the possible purchase of Canadian tobacco by the tobacco monopoly of Japan.
Hen. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Yes; I was looking to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to answer the question. We have received no advice as yet from the Japan monopoly corporation, which controls the purchase and importation of tobacco into Japan, that they have decided to purchase Canadian tobacco. However for some time my department has been attempting to convince the Japanese authorities that Canadian tobacco is suitable for their requirements and, in this connection, we are sponsoring a small Japanese trade mission to Canada for the purpose of acquainting the appropriate Japanese monopoly officials with the Canadian tobacco industry. This mission from Japan will arrive in Canada next week.



TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 2, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
That it is expedient, as a means toward the further development of manpower in Canada and toward increasing employment opportunities for Canadians, to introduce a measure to amend the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act:
[Mr. Macdonald 1
(a)	to provide that in respect of the costs incurred by a province as training allowances for unemployed persons, the contributions payable by Canada to the province be increased from 75 per cent to such percentage, not exceeding 90 per cent, as may be specified in the agreement made under the act between the Minister of Labour and the province:
(b)	to provide in respect of the costs incurred by the province for such part of the program for training employed persons in industry as may be specified in the agreement, the contributions payable by Canada to the province be increased from 50 to 75 per cent thereof;
(c)	to extend, until such date as may be specified in the agreement made under the act between the Minister of Labour and the province, the period during which the contributions payable by Canada to the province will be 75 per cent in respect of costs incurred by the province for capital expenditures on training facilities; and
(d)	to increase the number of members of the technical and vocational training advisory council from twenty three to twenty eight and to provide an honorarium for the chairman thereof.
Mr. Starr:: Mr. Chairman, when the government introduced this resolution for consideration by this house on October 2, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Kootenay East, made a statement on behalf of the minister. Amongst other things that day he said this resolution set forth the government's new employment and manpower development program. This is indeed a surprise, when the government describes this resolution as a new employment and manpower development program. This has been the habit of the government since it took office, to adopt all those good programs that were put on the statute books of this country and camouflage them to the extent that they describe them as new. Later on he said these measures are designed to improve the federal-provincial program of technical and vocational education.
Well, there is nothing in the statement or in the resolution itself to show what the improvement will be, except that the government is agreeing by this alteration of the existing legislation to increase the federal contribution. I should like to deal with this matter item by item as set out in the resolution.
I want to say, first of all, that this resolution does not introduce any new or improved legislation. All it does is raise the federal government's contribution in order to carry on the program the Conservative government initiated and pressed forward from 1960 on. I immediately say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this last observation of mine is generally looked upon in this session of parliament as a sort of partisan statement. There seems to be a new point of view in parliament, at least this session, that partisanship should not have any place in this house. Well, I recall

the days when government members were sitting on this side of the house, and they claimed that if partisanship had no place in parliament then parliament would almost die on its feet. I think it is only normal and natural that those who are in the opposition should criticize the government, and should also take advantage of the opportunity to point out that they inaugurated programs of this type when they had the opportunity.
1 feel, too, that when one is referring to what has been done in the past the record should be kept straight, and that any misleading or camouflaging statements by this government should be challenged. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour went on in his statement to say that the provision of capital facilities for the training of youths and adults under the Technical and Vocational Training Act of 1960 is far from complete in many of the provinces. It is therefore important to continue a high level of federal financial assistance to those provinces which still need to develop extensive training facilities.
In this statement there is an admission by the government that this is not a new program, but rather that the program should be continued in order to provide additional facilities in those provinces that did not avail themselves of that opportunity in the period from April, 1961 to March 31, 1963. However, it is regrettable that in his statement the parliamentary secretary failed to set out what has been done in this school building program since that time.
Before we launched into this program we asked the provinces to set out what they considered would be their facility needs for the next five years, and it is interesting to note their responses to this query. Newfoundland stated that it would need some $6,300,000 worth of facilities, Prince Edward Island $750,000, Nova Scotia $9 million, New Brunswick $9.5 million, Quebec $53.5 million, Ontario $50 million, Manitoba $9.5 million, Saskatchewan $6.5 million, Alberta $28 million and British Columbia $19 million.
We of course set out to plan and provide for these needs. What has happened since then? There has been a total projects estimated cost of $511,274,390, and the federal government contribution has amounted to over $326 million. A total of 519 projects were completed in that time, including 254 new schools, four technical institutions and 47 trade schools, providing space for some 138,000 students each and every year.
When this program was nearing completion the ministers of education for the provinces met with me here in Ottawa, and only the province of Quebec felt it had not had its full share of the program. It was pointed out
Vocational Training Assistance Act to Quebec that there was no ceiling set on the amount of money available for the construction program, but that it was left to each province to proceed with its required needs as it foresaw them during that period of time. I may immediately say all but one of the provinces signed the agreement with the federal government some time in April, 1961, but Quebec did not sign an agreement until six months later. Therefore it is understandable that Quebec did not proceed as rapidly with this program as some of the other provinces, particularly Ontario.
In his statement the parliamentary secretary set out the policy to guide the federal government in its contribution of 75 per cent, and the basis upon which this contribution would be considered, having as a ceiling $480 per capita applicable to the population in the age bracket of 15 to 19 years. Evidently this has been based on the amount of construction which has been carried out in the province of Newfoundland.
I decided to work out how much money would be available to each province as a result of this new formula, having in mind what the federal government had already contributed to this program ending on March 31, 1963. It is discovered that from now until March 31, 1967, Newfoundland will have been overpaid by some $17,000. Prince Edward Island will have some $2 million in contributions from the federal government coming to it in the next four years. Nova Scotia will have $24 million coming to it, and New Brunswick will have a credit of some $20.5 million. Quebec will have a credit of $199 million, Ontario $9 million, Manitoba $29 million, Saskatchewan $26.5 million, Alberta $10.5 million and British Columbia $40.5 million. The Northwest Territories will receive some $751,000 and the Yukon will have been overpaid or overdrawn on this program by some $312,000.
These figures are approximate, but when you examine them you will note that some of the smaller provinces in the maritimes will have a sizeable credit coming to them between now and 1967. But you must also consider that they have to put up 25 per cent of the cost of construction of these schools. Therefore the question arises to what extent will these provinces avail themselves of this program in addition to what they have already done? How far can they extend their financial resources to take advantage of this program?
Ontario certainly cannot do very much. All that is left coming to it is some $9 million, so its building program between now and

Vocational Training Assistance Act 1967 will be very slight. Quebec is the outstanding province and can avail itself of some $199 million in federal contributions. It is all well and good.
In the field of training the unemployed, and this has been a very worth while effort, we increased the federal contribution by 25 per cent. Until 1960 very little training was carried out in this area. In the year 1959-60 some 4,638 people were trained; in 1960-61 this figure increased to 10,774 because of the increased federal contribution to the provinces; in 1961-62 the number of applicants trained was 26,887. Then in the last year, 1962-63, some 38,439 people were trained. One might reasonably criticize this figure and say it is not sufficient, and I would be inclined to agree. I think this program is very worth while and should be accentuated. However, one can immediately see that the action taken in 1960 has increased the number of people trained under this program by some 34,000. This is indeed a worth while program; because those who find themselves unemployed, whether they are young or more elderly, can benefit from the courses that are provided under this program.
Under this resolution the government proposes to increase its share by 15 per cent; that is to say, from 75 per cent to 90 per cent. I would like to spend just a moment or two making some observations in respect to this program of training the unemployed. It has always been a puzzle to me why this program was not endorsed by organized labour, and particularly the Canadian Labour Congress. In reverse, however, there has been a great deal of criticism stemming from some hon. members. It was pointed out at one time that this program was so unco-ordinated that in one instance nine welders were trained by an experienced welder and then they all became unemployed. This story was repeated in the election campaign by some hon. members who now sit on the treasury benches. I think they did a great disservice to this program, because I think if everyone co-ordinated their efforts to make it successful, many thousands of Canadians would benefit.
I would like to cite as an example the city of Cornwall. This city was left in the position where it had a great many unemployed after the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway, first of all, and then because of the closing down of a textile mill. However, people were not despondent about the situation. They gathered together and organized, and every part of their economy grouped together in one combined effort. They were able-and they did not have to try very hard-to persuade the provincial and federal governments

to take part of this mill, convert it into classrooms and provide $85,000 worth of equipment in order to retrain their people. I think 800 people were retrained, and 90 per cent of them were placed in jobs as a result of that retraining program in this area. The amazing thing is that the program that was instituted in Cornwall brought to that city two new industries, because they were able to train people and provide the skills required by those industries. Therefore I think all of us in this country should give encouragement to this program in order to help those who need new skills and trades.
I attended the opening of this training school in Cornwall, and I was very much impressed to find a gentleman who was 62 years of age working on a lathe alongside a young man 19 years of age. I was curious about the elderly gentleman and asked him whether he was learning machine work at his age. He said "I used to be a machinist in the old days, but I have not engaged in this trade for quite a number of years. However, I find myself unemployed and I am here taking this course in order to brush up, because I now have a job available to me". So this program is not just for the purpose of training young people; it has had the effect of inducing older citizens to take part in this retraining program in order to reinstate themselves in employment.
There are a number of things in this resolution to which we could refer. One is paragraph (b), under which the government proposes to increase by 25 per cent its contribution to the provinces for the training of employed persons. This is very necessary. We started a pilot project in the town of Leaside, in which three industries each contributed ten employees, making a total of 30 students, in order that they might upgrade themselves and learn those skills that were required for this upgrading. I think that pilot project will be of great help to industry in the retraining of people in order to provide them with better jobs and consequently better financial remuneration.
I think this program is one that will be the basis in our battle, in the war that we are waging to provide jobs for Canadians and to alleviate the unemployment situation in this country. I think we have taken forward steps in this regard. I do hope that the provinces will avail themselves of this additional 15 per cent increase, to 90 per cent, and establish more training centres in order to provide training facilities for those who find themselves unemployed. Education is a very worth while thing. Not very many years ago we in this country particularly were stressing the three "R's" type of education; that is to

say, in the academic field. It has been somewhat difficult to sell people this new type of education upon which we launched in 1960. However, I think people now understand that every person in this country cannot apply himself to academic training, but many have certain skills with their hands and could usefully perform these skills. We must of necessity provide this opportunity.
For many thousands of Canadians education is the frontier of the future, and I feel certain that technical and vocational training forms a very essential part of that frontier. I had always believed that in no single field is a concerted, co-operative effort on the part of provinces and the federal government of more importance to the future of the development of our country in this regard. Education, of course, is subject to fads, just as any other branch of human endeavour, and for many years a classical and academic education represented the ultimate achievement for many young people in this country. But the pendulum has swung back in the last few years, and there is a new emphasis on those branches of knowledge relating to the technical and the practical which in the past were neglected except for the efforts of a few pioneers. One need only travel across the country today and visit some of these schools which have been opening and are opening at this moment to receive a tremendous revelation at what is being done. One would be very impressed indeed at the enthusiasm of those who are taking their places in these schools and learning the skills and trades afforded to them.
Criticism was made at the beginning to the effect that many of these schools would be half empty, that the enrolment would be insufficient to fill the classrooms. On the contrary, most of the schools which have been opened have waiting lists, and I think this condition will be accentuated. Certainly where it is greatly accentuated the provincial authorities should take steps to provide more facilities for those who want to avail themselves of this type of education.
There is a new recognition, Mr. Chairman, of the place in society of those whose genius is along practical lines. Opportunity is being provided for those who are doers as well as those who are thinkers. This is only fitting in face of the impressive and revolutionary accomplishments of the physical and technological sciences in recent years. In the physical sciences man, having spanned the earth, has now taken the first step toward spanning the universe. In technology we are moving toward a state of affairs where new electronic and mechanical processes will eliminate the routine processes of production in so far as men and women are concerned.
Vocational Training Assistance Act But in that elimination of what is routine will be posed the challenge to our working force to adapt itself to operations demanding skills of a high technical quality. This, of course, means the acquirement of basic skills and a high degree of adaptability and mobility in our labour force.
I said earlier in my remarks, Mr. Chairman, that we are providing an educational plant capacity for more than 139,000 additional students. This is over the accommodation which was available only three years ago. A program of this type cannot be conceived in terms of money alone. This has cost the federal treasury many hundreds of millions of dollars, but it is a worth while expenditure when we are investing in the future of our citizens. When we do that we are investing in the future of our country. Therefore I say that this program must not be conceived only in terms of money but in terms of what it can accomplish in the upgrading of our labour force and in bringing about a condition where those in the labour force, rather than being at the mercy of the sudden shifts and changes of the automation age, will be able to play a constantly expanding role in production.
I must repeat that during the last parliament we introduced a bill, No. C-83, with respect to industrial change and manpower adjustment. In doing that I thought we were moving in the right direction to deal with those who would be displaced by automation. We tried to make that bill as flexible as possible in order to fit into the conditions of any industry which would avail itself of the services thus provided. We felt that we must bring to the attention of those who would be affected by such technological change the services available to them under the bill, and we intended to do this by calling a national conference of employers and unions in order that they would have the opportunity, based on their own experience, to offer to us suggestions upon which we would base our regulations in respect thereto. I only regret that the government has seen fit to abandon this item of legislation.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that the hon. member shall continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: I can only regret, Mr. Chairman, that the government has not seen fit to reintroduce that bill but rather is proceeding now under agreements with the provinces. I do not think it will have the same success in capturing the imagination of the people of this

Vocational Training Assistance Act country as had the previous bill, which received many favourable comments from all parts of the country and from all segments of our economy.
These programs for conducting training cannot be treated each one in isolation. They must all be taken together and dovetailed in mutually complementary fashion. However, I am sure that with the progress we are making in providing training facilities across the country, in placing trained students in the working force, in encouraging industry to produce in Canada, and in encouraging labour and management to work together to cope with the far reaching shifts and changes which must be faced if we are to remain competitive-with all these things we are working toward a better and brighter world of tomoi'row in which those who are engaged in production will offer a contribution which will be both more efficient and more valuable to the economy as a whole.
I should like to say at this time, Mr. Chairman, that I feel that boards of education in our cities, towns and areas of our townships who play a part in the construction of these particular vocational schools, in addition to the high schools, should be congratulated for their co-operation and their clear-sightedness in launching upon this program in co-operation with the federal and provincial governments.
The teaching staffs have been a problem in this whole area. For those provinces which availed themselves of the opportunity offered by the federal government in its contribution of 50 per cent toward the cost of training those teachers there has not been as much difficulty as others have experienced. It was reasonable to assume that there would be a shortage of teachers, because when you are providing only the short space of time which has been provided under this program you must certainly launch yourselves on a crash training program of teachers. But that is not the only profession in which we have a shortage in this country. There is a continuing shortage of nurses, and there are shortages in other fields of endeavour as well. I think we have done well in providing teachers to staff these schools.
These are in total my remarks today. I hope the government does not lose its drive. I hope it does not allow the momentum in this area to diminish, but that the Department of Labour and its minister will keep on top of all these things and encourage the provinces to take advantage of these incentives which the federal government has offered during all these years.


Mr. Webster:: The hope has been expressed that at the resolution stage of this bill a contribution by one speaker from each party

will suffice. We agree, on the understanding that there will be no such voluntary restriction of debate on second reading. I am sure a number of hon. members will speak at that time.
It is the responsibility of this parliament to strengthen the capacities of our people in order that they may make a maximum contribution to our economic growth and our cultural advancement. I and my colleagues in the New Democratic party are pleased to support this resolution, which is designed to improve existing provisions for vocational and technical training across this nation. Education, not of the few but of the masses, is essential in the twentieth century. To attain this objective there is urgent need of more facilities and more effective training of our young people. Today, Canadians are not a well educated people. According to recent labour statistics only 32 per cent of our students complete high school; fewer than 10 per cent enter university; only 4 per cent graduate from an institution of higher learning.
In the technical field the story is the same. Canada has never trained enough manpower to meet the needs of industry. One out of every three Canadian youngsters leaves school totally unprepared for work. This constitutes a national catastrophe. The real tragedy lies not so much in the cost of unemployment and welfare benefits but in the loss to the nation of the abilities of mind and hand of thousands of able young people. In five skilled occupations recently studied, one third of the men were trained outside this country. Records indicate, too, that the flow of this type of immigrant is slowing up because of favourable economic conditions in Europe.
The following editorial appeared in the Globe and Mail of July 6, 1963:
Education has so consistently held the spotlight of attention during the past few years that most people have been under the impression that Canada was taking large strides in the field, and that the children of the nation were being graduated into the working force with more and better education than ever before. It comes as a shock, therefore, to discover that the number of school dropouts is on the increase and that more young people are being turned out every year without the education or the skills to make an adequate living.
This gloomy picture emerges from a survey conducted by the Ontario department of education and the national employment service of students who leave school early, and of their employment prospects. The survey discloses that 36.4 per cent of students, who left school in Ontario in 1962, earned neither certificate nor diploma.
The employment side of the survey indicates that the fate of these early school-leavers is to spend their lives chasing unskilled and semi-skilled jobs in a world where such jobs are becoming progressively fewer and in which they can look forward, therefore, to frequent periods of unemployment.

What can we do to raise educational standards among the working force of Canada? In seeking an answer I suggest seven points as worthy of consideration by educational authorities:
1.	Parents must express an appreciation of the value of education in terms of employment and future happiness and income. Youth must be convinced that to be uneducated is to be handicapped for life. They should be told that only 30 per cent of the jobs in Canada are available to the unskilled or semi-skilled workers, and the number is decreasing rapidly with the advancement of automation. Recently Professor Marcus Long of Toronto predicted that automation will make any student without grade XII education unemployable within ten years. Young people should be encouraged to remain in school until they possess skills that are currently in demand.
2.	Greater prestige must be associated with occupational education in Canada. Unfortunately, too many people are inclined to look down on hand work even in a very specialized field. We should remember that our complex society cannot function without many different varieties of highly trained personnel. Without downgrading academic achievement we should elevate the status of the skilled artisan. Prejudices by parents against vocational courses are foolish and antiquated. They try to make professional types out of boys best fitted to become mechanics, technicians and tradesmen. Too frequently, as a result, they end up academic failures and embittered unemployed.
3.	A critical assessment needs to be made of the courses of study in our vocational and technical schools. Narrow specialization to the exclusion of general knowledge should be avoided in order that the student may develop a flexibility of mind that permits a shift from one job to another with a minimum of difficulty. His training needs to be as up to date as possible and related to the dominant needs and interests of the community in which he lives.
4.	More qualified teachers and administrators should be attracted to the new technical schools which are being opened across Canada. It is urgent that we should train an increasing number of science teachers if we are to take advantage of the fast developing technological revolution in North America.
5.	Importance of continuing education must be emphasized for all ages. More facilities for trade and occupational classes at post-high school level should be provided. In an era of rapid change there is no better insurance for the worker and the citizen than to improve
Vocational Training Assistance Act his skills and add to his knowledge and experience at every opportunity.
6.	Training programs will be successful only if there is the closest co-operation between federal and provincial authorities in the field of education. The final decision in such matters must always rest with the provinces. There must be no suspicion of domination by Ottawa.
7.	Closer partnership is needed between the school and industry. The activities of the classroom should be co-ordinated with those of the workshop. According to a recent report only 31 per cent of manufacturing establishments in Canada had any training program at all designed to assist a boy to fit into his first job.
In a recent article entitled "Employers' Role in Job Training", J. Bascom St. John wrote as follows:
Far too little responsibility for the transition from school to work is taken by employers. An incredibly small proportion of them have any special training program, or any system of induction into work methods or skills.
They take a boy from school, let him flounder in an unfamiliar environment and if he does not happen to light on his feet they get rid of him. Nothing the school might have done, or could do, will get over the problem of the irresponsible employer. No guidance program or teaching pattern can prevent the harm that selfish employers do when the schoolboy enters the world of work.
We expect far too much from our schools if we assume they can do the whole job of work training. You learn the techniques of work by working, and it is through a partnership between the schools and employment that the most effective progress may be made in meeting the needs of skill and the special training for work in the technological era.
The question of the relationship between education, work, citizenship and national economic and employment policies cuts through all aspects of our society. The schools ought not to be asked to carry the burdens that other interests are too lazy or too unimaginative to deal with.
Finally, I wish to say that facilities relating to training in the occupational field are as important to the future economic strength and social well-being of Canadians as those in the areas of secondary and higher education. All obstacles must be removed to permit not only youth but men and women of any age to take full advantage of the educational opportunities available in this country. If we are wise we shall determine to provide for these purposes in the future a larger percentage of our gross national product than we have been willing to do in the past. Education must be given a higher priority in our national thinking and our national planning.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Chairman, I feel the members from Quebec must give very special attention to the resolution under consideration

Vocational Training Assistance Act which would amend the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act.
I cannot but take advantage of this opportunity to point out the complaints of the province of Quebec in connection with that act. It is unfair and discriminatory with regard to Quebec, and if the minister does not make the necessary changes, we shall bring in amendments to protect the interests of the province of Quebec.
The Quebec minister of youth, the Hon. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, released last winter a statement regarding the capital expenditures contemplated under that act, from April 1 to November 5, 1962. The figures quoted by the minister are revealing; they show that Quebec's share is only 3.3 per cent of the total number of students covered by that act throughout Canada, whereas Ontario's share amounts to 73.1 per cent.
Out of a total of $511 million-and these are recent figures published by Ottawa-the province of Quebec got only $25 million, or 5 per cent of the total, whereas Ontario got over $200 million, or 40 per cent of the total.
We claim it is unfair that our province should have to pay its share of federal taxes, when other provinces benefit from them to a larger extent.
Mr. Chairman, that act, which was passed in 1960 and gives such results, works entirely against the interests of the province of Quebec because it is based on discriminatory and unfair principles. In fact, as it stands now, that act is tailored according to the needs of the English system in the other provinces of Canada and does not suit the province of Quebec whose education system is entirely different.
In Ontario, for instance-and I suppose also in other English speaking provinces-secondary vocational schools are part of the high school system. In that case, the federal law applies, and we see that the province of Ontario received grants enabling it to build almost 200 high schools and vocational schools.
In Quebec, secondary educational institutions, like elementary schools, are not under the government but under the public education council. In that province, vocational schools, whether they be trade schools or other schools, are not considered government institutions as in other provinces. Consequently, if federal grants cannot be used for technological institutes and trades schools, in the province of Quebec, whereas they are used also for secondary vocational schools in Ontario and other English speaking provinces, we have here a discrimination which the Liberal and Conservative members let go through at the time.
It is therefore not suprising that the province of Quebec is unable to take full

advantage of the federal technical and vocational training program, because its educational and professional training system differs from that of other provinces.
Here is what the Quebec minister of youth, the Hon. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, had to say on that point at a meeting in Dorion, last March:
The problem with regard to federal assistance in the building of training centres is the following:
1.	Ottawa contributes in the same degree to the financing of training centres and to the financing of technical and vocational schools;
2.	The federal contribution is always proportional to the provincial government contribution;
3.	In every province except Quebec, training centres are subsidized by the provincial government only;
4.	In Quebec, however, the apprenticeship centres are developed not only with Quebec subsidies, but also with subsidies from the apprenticeship commission, a joint employer-employee body unparalleled in Canada;
5.	Therefore, Ottawa subsidizes apprenticeship centres in Quebec only according to the provincial government contributions and not according to the total grants paid out to training centres.
In the light of the treatment meted out to Quebec, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie speaks of discrimination.
"To date, the federal government has refused to contribute to the financing of apprenticeship centres in Quebec to the same extent as it does to the financing of technical and vocational schools.
Ottawa does not take into account the expenditures made by the Quebec apprenticeship commission out of its revenues for the setting up of apprenticeship centres."
The minister responsible for education said that an end must be put to such discrimination at any cost; indeed it is a repetition of the one created by Ottawa's refusal to continue for a certain period its 75 per cent contribution to technical and vocational training in general. Because of that refusal, the contribution is brought back to 50 per cent: without Quebec having had by far the same opportunity as Ontario to take advantage of supplementary grants.
Then, stressing the importance of the report of the committee for the study of technical and vocational training, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie came to the conclusion that the main thing was to adapt our educational system to the needs of our economic development.
In conjunction with economic development, we must, he said, "train our young people in relation to the special requirements of modern industry and business.. .So, I find it particularly significant that the first building under construction in the first youth centre should be a training establishment, precisely an institution where education and work are directly related."
Here is, Mr. Chairman, another statement published in Le Devoir of February 16, 1963, which reads as follows:
Deficiencies in federal assistance to vocational training. Grits and Tories in Ottawa largely responsible.
In Ontario and other provinces, some form of vocational training is given in vocational schools which are part and parcel of the high school system. In Quebec, vocational training and technical courses are given in trade schools, training centres and technological institutes which are not part of the high school system.
Consequently, Ontario has been able to use-
At that time, that is on February 16, 1963.

-$186,700,000 from the federal treasury to build and improve 207 vocational schools, 7 technological institutes and 14 trades schools to meet the needs of a school population of 93,056 students.
On the other hand, the province of Quebec was able to use only $13,600,000 in federal funds to build 3 institutes...
...To give justice to all the provinces, the federal government has only to amend its act and I would say that it should.
It can do so in various ways. First, it can adopt an equalization formula or use the formula which existed previously in that field: giving federal grants in relation to the number of students or young workers between 14 and 19 in each province.
Another way to right an obvious injustice with regard to Quebec is to allow it to receive federal grants for training centers now in existence.
Here is what the Quebec minister of youth stated in Quebec city at the conference of the education ministers of the ten provinces:
The minister of youth said yesterday that the decision of the federal Minister of Labour to extend for six months only the agreement by which Ottawa pays 75 per cent of the construction cost of technical and vocational training schools is a provocation.
That federal contribution was to be reduced to 50 per cent by April 1, 1963; but the education ministers from all the provinces had asked for a continuation of the 75 per cent contribution until 1967.
To that request, the federal minister, Mr. Michael Starr answered on Thursday by offering a six month extension for works started before October 1 and for which contracts had been awarded before April 1.
Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, chairman of the conference of the education ministers of the ten provinces stated yesterday that Mr. Starr's decision did not meet in any way the request made by all the provinces.
"As far as Quebec is concerned," he added, "far from being a solution to the problem, such a decision appears as a provocation. It will favour even more the provinces which are already engaged in a large construction program."
In fact, explained the minister, as far as the development of technical training is concerned, Quebec finds itself today in the situation which confronted the province of Ontario in April 1961.
"Moreover," said Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, "it must be realized that the implementation of a vast program of physical development in the field of technical education (which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and will mortgage the future for many years) must not be considered as an obstacle race between the provinces".
Federal moneys should not be intended as a reward to provinces succeeding in completing as soon as possible a building program-especially not when they are in an uneven position at the start.
The federal program for assistance to technical training should be designed rather as a means to solve the problem of labour training throughout the country.
In order to achieve this goal, the ministers of education of the ten provinces jointly urged the federal government to review the existing agreement.
Mr. Chairman, there is another point of divergence between the province of Quebec and the other provinces; this difference can be found also in the concept of vocational training.
Vocational Training Assistance Act
Vocational and technical training means any kind of education aimed at preparing a person for a profitable job in a primary or secondary industry or a profitable employment in the service industry, or at increasing his skill or technical ability in a similar job or employment. And, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, this includes the training thus directed in relation to any of the following industries or employments: agriculture, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining, communications and, as a general rule, any primary or secondary industry or any employment in a service industry which asks for a knowledge of scientific and technical principles, and their application.
Therefore, any intelligent person can conclude that vocational training, whether it is given in factories, in private institutions or in state schools, qualifies as vocational training within the meaning of the present legislation.
There is in the province of Quebec a vocational training system which is controlled not by the department of youth but by the department of labour.
Under the jurisdiction of the department of labour, there are training centres for all building trades in Montreal, Sherbrooke, Quebec city, Joliette and Chicoutimi. There is a school for shoe workers in Montreal and other vocational training institutions of a public character, for they do not belong to individuals but to professional bodies.
Those professional institutions give a better vocational training, according to several experts, than the state-owned trade schools and institutes of technology.
In 1960, 846 regular day students attended the only building trades school in Montreal, and since this centre was built in 1946, 15,446 apprentices and journeymen have taken refresher courses.
It should be recalled that since that date, this body has contributed $4,044,314 to provide vocational training for construction workers, while the contribution of the provincial government was only $375,000, or an annual subsidy of $25,000.
Now, there are no real vocational schools in the other provinces. As a result, there is no provision in the present federal legislation for a federal contribution or assistance to those schools. This is discriminatory to the province of Quebec which has very special institutions that it intends to preserve and with which employers and workers are entirely satisfied.
Mr. Chairman, since the resolution does not contain anything to make up this deficiency in the act, I move, seconded by Mr. Gauthier:
That this house urge the federal government to hand back to the provinces, except those which prefer the status quo, a percentage of the income
4736	HOUSE OF
Vocational Training Assistance Act tax equal to the amounts the federal government would otherwise pay them as its contribution to the vocational and technical training assistance program, in order to enable the provinces to set up their own vocational training system as they see fit.
The amendment is in French and in English. The English version is a translation of the original amendment.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Kin-dersley.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was an understanding, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there was to be one representative from each group. I think the hon. member for Medicine Hat stood up.


Lucien Lamoureux: I appreciate that. I might mention that I came to the chair rather late in the proceedings. I did not realize a representative from the group to which the hon. member for Medicine Hat belongs had not spoken as yet. Perhaps the hon. member for Kindersley will not mind, therefore, if I recognize the hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Mr. Gregoire:: About the amendment- [Text]


Lucien Lamoureux: Yes, this is a matter I have to look at.


Mr. Olson:: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, while you are considering the amendment I could begin.


Lucien Lamoureux: There is an amendment which has been proposed by the previous speaker, and perhaps I should read it at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are just reading it; you are not putting it as yet?


Lucien Lamoureux: No, I think I should read it first.

It is moved by Mr. Beaule:
That this house urge the federal government to hand back to the provinces, except those which prefer the status quo, a percentage of the income tax equal to the amounts that the federal government would otherwise pay them as its contribution to the vocational and technical training assistance program, in order to enable the provinces to set up their own vocational training system as they see fit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to reserve the right to say a word at the appropriate time about whether or not the amendment is in order. Perhaps the hon. member for Medicine Hat wants to proceed in the meantime.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is this agreed? The understanding we have now is that we will allow the hon. member for Medicine Hat to make his contribution, subject to the Chair having the opportunity to look at the amendment and decide whether or not it is in order. Perhaps I could hear argument from hon. members on this point in due course.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wanted to say just a few words, Mr. Chairman, on the resolution before the amendment is put. At the outset, I want to say that my remarks will be brief because, as will be found by referring to page 3353 of Hansard for last February 1, we did spend some time outlining the views of this party in respect of technical and vocational training generally.
We are now presented with a formal and considerably more specific resolution to take some legislative action in four separate fields. We agree that there is a need to train and retrain a large number of people who, from time to time, find themselves unemployed because they lack skills that are required for the jobs that are available.
If we accept the premise that it is the responsibility of the federal government to take action in respect of unemployment, then we have to accept the provisions in this resolution and agree that they will go some distance towards meeting the problem.
At this time I think it would be fitting for me to repeat the commendation I made with respect to the former minister of labour when he established the technical and vocational training program. It was a good move, and from it came an admission by the federal government that it had some responsibility and was prepared to spend some money. However I am convinced that both provincial and local authorities have had to do almost all of the spadework and research work in formulating programs to meet their needs.
I am not going to repeat a lot of what 1 said. We are basically in agreement that there is a federal responsibility and that the various items in the resolution before us do meet some of the need. However I would like to point out, and this may be relevant to the proposed amendment, that in this field of vocational and technical training lies a tremendous opportunity for Canada to do something constructive in the field of foreign aid.
I remember last year being a member of a delegation from the commonwealth parliamentary association, Canadian branch, that went to Africa, and I was impressed by the lack of technical people required to keep the African economy moving and to expand it in the way which the African peoples want to see it expand. When we mentioned to some

Nigerian officials that Canada had embarked on a large vocational training program they were very interested, and suggested the possibility of sending some of their bright young people here to participate in it, young people who would go back to their own country and be of assistance there. If we did this we would be helping them to help themselves.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-

Mr. Chairman, it being nearly five o'clock, and before adjournment of the debate, would it be possible to ask you to reach a decision regarding the proposed amendment? I am of the opinion that this would be more consistent with the rules.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member for Medicine Hat had concluded.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, but I had very nearly.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, that is my very point. If the hon. member for Medicine Hat asks you to call it five o'clock, we shall not have the opportunity to discuss whether the amendment is out of order or not.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member will understand that there are barely two or three minutes left before this debate comes to an end.
Moreover, there will be no limitation or restriction whatsoever on the debate as to whether the proposed amendment is out of order or not when this measure will be considered again, tomorrow or later on. Therefore, it seems to me that it might be more convenient to allow the hon. member for Medicine Hat to complete his remarks, and we could discuss later on whether the amendment is in order or not when the question is up for debate again.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be more appropriate as regards the business of the house, to deal with the amendment first, before other members give their views on the subject. I believe that it would be more in order.


Lucien Lamoureux: It is almost two minutes to five o'clock now, and should we let the committee members express their opinion, they could not possibly do it during the two or three minutes that are left.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the unanimous consent of the house so that we
Private Bills
could go on dealing with this point, even after five o'clock, in order to settle this matter today?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the intervention of the hon. member for Lapointe is completely unjustified. No one interrupted any other hon. member. The committee agreed to let the hon. member for Medicine Hat proceed and complete his speech, as other hon. members had done, before we considered this point. I do not think any one of us should interrupt him, any more than the hon. member for Quebec East was interrupted.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I thought we had unanimous agreement from the members of the committee that we were going to carry on until Your Honour was pleased to give a decision. You may interrupt me any time you are prepared to give that decision, but I see now it is five o'clock and so we will have the decision the next time the committee meets.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. So that the house may proceed to consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as; listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers), and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-28, to incorporate Allstate Life Insurance Company of Canada-Mr. Ryan-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, a few brief remarks only on Bill S-28, to incorporate the Allstate Life Insurance Company of Canada.
This company seems to take advantage of the legislation recently adopted providing that when the degree of ownership of companies is 25 per cent Canadian, these companies may be considered as Canadian.
Actually, we do not wish to prevent transactions in the insurance field or in any other field, but to state our views about this inflow of American capital, because in fact, the Allstate company is 87J per cent controlled by Americans and only 12J per cent Canadian owned.

Private Bills
We have been told that the assets of the company are made up of 25 per cent of Canadian capital and 75 per cent of American capital. However, if it is considered that the company which holds 25 per cent of the Canadian capital is the Simpsons-Sears Company which is itself jointly owned by Canadians and by Americans on a 50-50 basis, that is its capital is made up of 50 per cent Canadian funds and 50 per cent American funds. This means that, actually, the Allstate Company of Canada is 87\ per cent controlled by Americans and only 12J per cent by Canadians.
We urge the Allstate company to increase Canadian representation on its board of directors and also the Canadian participation to 50 per cent of its assets or 50 per cent of its subscribed capital, so that we may have at least a 50 per cent Canadian company, because throughout the country, we are asked to encourage by all possible means the establishment of new Canadian companies. We are not asked to authorize the investment of new foreign capital in Canada but rather of Canadian capital which could be used for the expansion of our economy.
Insurance companies, and Allstate is no exception, are the second largest trust in Canada after the chartered banks. Therefore, we must take positive steps to prevent the American trust from taking over our economy through insurance companies or otherwise. That does not mean that we should close the door to foreign investments.
Still, we must force those people to make concessions which will raise economic standards in Canada because, in the final analysis, the important thing is the economic strength of Canada.
In this case, it is obvious that Allstate will pay taxes but it will still be making profits from the people and industry of Canada and this American company will make further profits from their investment in Canada.
As I said, we do not want to forbid completely foreign companies from settling in Canada. But we suggest to that particular company, as I mentioned before, that it increases the Canadian ownership in its assets.
In clause 1 of Bill S-28, we find the names of the citizens who make up that company: Messrs. John Atkinson, insurance executive; Edgar Gordon Burton, merchant; James Wilson Button, merchant; Gordon McCalla Graham, merchant; John James Illingworth, insurance executive and Norman Currie Urquhart, financier, all of the city of Toronto.
This company will have a part to play- actually it does play it now, and we all wonder why this bill is before us when this company already operates in Canada, holds a

federal licence to sell insurance in all Canadian provinces. In fact, we have seen for a long time Allstate advertised in the Simpsons-Sears catalogue. But we have before us today a bill to incorporate that insurance company which already holds a licence, and that without the matter having been submitted to the House of Commons. That company has therefore been operating until now. So, what advantages-there will certainly be no disadvantages-does that company anticipate in having this bill brought before us, if it operates in all the provinces?
We suggest to the company-and this is not separatism-to take into account the existence of two cultures in Canada, and to have among its directors both French and English Canadians, since it will operate, as it is already doing, in the province of Quebec as in the rest of Canada.
Those are suggestions we make to further improve the relations between the various ethnical groups but especially between the two major ethnical groups in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, this bill has no other purpose than to give recognition to a company which is 100 per cent American-owned and which is already in operation.
There is a slight improvement in that 12.5 per cent of the shares will be held by Canadians and 87.5 per cent by Americans.
I will say no more about the bill except that we strongly suggest that this proportion of 12.5 per cent should be increased gradually but as fast as possible until 50 per cent of the ownership and management of Allstate of Canada is in Canadian hands.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I shall only take a few minutes.
On several occasions Bill S-28 concerning the Allstate Company has found its way on the order paper for consideration during the hour reserved for private members' business from five to six o'clock. We have repeatedly blocked the bill and we have stated our reasons for doing so.
We have now decided to allow the bill to pass if that is the wish of the house, and here is the reason why.
When we spoke against other legislation like, for instance, federal subsidies to the C.N.R., we had received representations from trucking associations or individual truck drivers who were backing us in our efforts.
When we objected to Bill S-7, an Act to incorporate the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada, we were receiving lots of letters, telephone calls and messages encouraging us in our fight.
As concerns the Allstate Life Insurance Company bill, we never received a single remark, a single telephone call, a single letter,

a single message, from any insurance companies, insurance brokers or insurance agents whatever in Canada. This shows, in my opinion, that insurance companies that are Canadian to the extent of 100 per cent or 90 per cent, as well as insurance brokers or insurance agents, are not at all interested in the work we do in trying to prevent other insurance companies from getting a foothold in Canada, inasmuch as Canadian companies can very well look after all our insurance needs.
For these reasons, and also because we want to see what the work of the members of the other parties in this house will be in that respect, we have decided not to oppose any longer the adoption of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, we are still convinced that Canadians are able to look after the insurance needs of our country, but in view of the lack of co-operation on the part of insurance companies, brokers or agents, and their lack of interest in that matter, we have decided to let this bill pass.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-36, respecting the Canadian Union Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists-Mr. Honey.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Wahn for Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace) moved the second reading of Bill No. S-42, respecting the Canadian Equity Insurance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to change the name of the Canadian Equity Insurance Company to the Guildhall Insurance Company of Canada and also to give the company the corresponding French name. By way of explanation, the company now known as the Canadian Equity Insurance Company is a subsidiary of an English company called the Guildhall Insurance Company Limited which has carried on business in Canada since 1925. This English company, the Guildhall Insurance Company Limited, is in turn a subsidiary of the London Assurance Company which was incorporated in England by royal charter in 1720. It is now the intention that the English company called the Guildhall Insurance Company Limited will withdraw from business in Canada and the business previously carried on by 28902-5-302
Private Bills
that company will now be carried on by the company known as the Canadian Equity Insurance Company. It is for this reason that it is desired to change the name of the Canadian Equity Insurance Company to the Guildhall Insurance Company of Canada.
As this request is sometimes made in the house, perhaps I might mention that the great majority of the directors of the company are residents of Canada. There are ten directors in all, of whom eight are residents of Canada. If there are any other questions I will be glad to do my best to answer them.
Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the hon. member, where is the sponsor of the bill?


Mr. Wahn:: I believe the sponsor of this bill, the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Asselin), is a member of the defence committee and is at present in Europe with that committee.


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

Mr. J. H. Addison (York North) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-44, respecting Adanac General Insurance Company of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Hollings Addison: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to give the Adanac General Insurance Company of Canada a French version of its name. Hon. members might be interested in the background of the company. In September 1962 the company entered into the writing of non-standard automobile liability insurance, such as under age, over age and for those with previous losses and/or convictions in Ontario. In February 1963 the program was extended to Alberta and Quebec. The Quebec branch employs four full time employees to service the independent insurance agents throughout the province of Quebec who write insurance on behalf of the company. The intentions of the company are to open subsidiary offices in the city of Quebec when the need arises.
Adanac General Insurance Company of Canada is a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta Acceptance Corporation Limited. Delta is a Canadian company with 25 per cent of the shareholders resident in Canada. Fifteen to 20 per cent are resident in Europe and the balance are resident in the United States. Two thirds of the directors of the Adanac General Insurance Company are Canadian citizens. I will be glad to try and answer any additional questions.

Private Bills


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

John Hollings Addison: the second reading of Bill S-40, to incorporate Triassic Products Transmission Company.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to allow Pacific Petroleums to incorporate Triassic Products Transmission in order to return to Westcoast Transmission Company Limited, Vancouver, a similar federal charter which Westcoast had given to Pacific so it could construct without undue delay an important new Canadian industrial project. This $33.5 million project, now nearly completed, includes the building of the world's largest natural gas treatment plant at Empress, Alberta, and a 577 mile, 6 inch diameter pipe line from there to Winnipeg. The plant will process raw natural gas for the Trans-Canada Pipe Line Company by removing by-products, including propane, butane and ether liquid hydrocarbons. This is a necessary procedure and it results in the production of pure pipe line gas, methane, which is then moved by Trans-Canada to markets across the prairies and eastern Canada, and liquids, which will be moved through the new 577 mile unit.
Definitive plans to proceed with the project followed an agreement in 1961 between Pacific Petroleums and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. Engineering and preliminary work proceeded at once and plans were made to appear before the national energy board for a permit to proceed. However, the company had to be incorporated to appear before the board and to incorporate an interprovincial pipe line required a federal charter. Due to pressure of business in the House of Commons during the session that began in September, the company decided that it would be difficult to obtain a charter in time to commence construction. Pacific, therefore, requested of Westcoast Transmission that it receive no payment other than expenses for the loan of the federal charter of Petroleum Transmission Company which had been incorporated by Westcoast in 1955. Westcoast agreed to the transfer of the charter on the understanding that as soon as Pacific was able, it would request incorporation of a similar company and return-the borrowed charter-back to Westcoast. Thereupon the company appeared before the energy board and subsequently received permission to build.
Westcoast considers the return of a charter to be important to its business, particularly today when oil and gas exploration is expanding northward. Within a short time it is evpected that a movement of oil or liquid hydrocarbons may be contemplated from the Yukon or Northwest Territories.
Without a liquids pipe line, oil and by-products may be wasted in the production of natural gas. If Westcoast did not have this charter it could possibly face delays similar to those which would have been experienced by Pacific.
Westcoast Transmission Company, Vancouver, was incorporated by a federal act in 1949. This company, Canada's first major international pipe line, which went into operation in 1957, moved natural gas from northern Alberta and northern British Columbia down through British Columbia to the lower mainland and the Pacific northwest states. Building and operation of this pipe line has resulted in the greatest development northern Canada has ever seen. It is also an important factor in the development of the west and an important source of United States funds for Canada.
Pacific Petroleums was incorporated in British Columbia in 1942. This company is today one of Canada's major independent oil companies. Pacific found and pioneered the natural gas fields of British Columbia and for many years staked its future on the development of the north. Pacific sponsored Westcoast Transmission to bring these large new reserves to market, and it saw Westcoast through nine years of hearings in Alberta, Ottawa and Washington, D.C. Today the two companies have been entirely split apart with different management and different fields of operation. Pacific still maintains a share interest in Westcoast.
Both Pacific Petroleums and Westcoast Transmission qualify as companies 25 per cent of whose shares are available for purchase by Canadians.
Both companies were founded by Canadians, and shares have been traded since they began in business on Canadian stock exchanges. In the case of Westcoast it is 63.12 per cent Canadian owned. Pacific Petroleums is today 46 per cent owned by Phillips Petroleum Company, the remainder of these shares are available to Canadian purchasers. As of the moment, more than three million shares, representing 10,650 shareholders, are held in Canada.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments with respect to this bill, not so much with regard to the principles underlying the measure itself but as to the purpose behind it to which the hon. member for York North (Mr. Addison) has referred.
My eye was caught by an item which appeared in the Globe and Mail on October 18 last with regard to the reference of this particular bill to a committee of the other place. I do not think I am entitled to go into detail,
[Mr. Addison.)

and I do not intend to do so. The headline in the newspaper said: "Swap of Pipe Line Charters Causes Flurry in Senate". Some indication is given in this article of what took place before that committee. I attempted to check the minutes but I found that, apparently, with regard to this particular matter there were no minutes of the proceedings in the other place. Consequently, it is impossible for any member who may be interested to follow what happened there, what was said and what reasons were advanced to support the request made in this particular measure.
I hope, therefore, that if and when this proposal goes before a committee there will be a full inquiry as to the purposes behind the incorporation which is sought in this instance. It may well be that in certain cases there is perfect justification for an exchange of charters, as seems to be the case in this instance, but I do think a heavy burden lies on those who seek the special privilege which is involved in the granting by parliament of a private charter of incorporation. If these charters are to become the subject of traffic, sale, or agreement made outside parliament we should be entitled to the fullest knowledge of the circumstances. As I say, there may be a good explanation, but I hope that when this matter goes before the committee there will be a thorough inquiry into the particular aspect I have raised, so that when the bill comes back to the house members who are interested may be able to make up their minds as to the disposition of this matter, based on the answers to questions which have been asked in the committee.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak only briefly about some of the provisions in the bill. First of all, I should like the house to know that the gas treatment plant referred to by the sponsor of the bill is located in my constituency and, of course, the beginning of the pipe line will also be there. As he pointed out, a great deal of work has been done on the construction of the plant. There is no doubt in my mind that it is an asset to Alberta and to Canada, particularly to that part of Canada because it has brought about a rather large increase in employment opportunities in the area, which will carry on for some time.
I am not quite sure whether I understood the hon. member correctly with regard to one point. I believe he said that both the natural gas treatment plant which will remove the by-products and the pipe line to be built from that site to Winnipeg will be owned by Tri-assic Products Transmission Company. As I understood his remarks, that is what he said but I should like him to clear up that point.
28902-5-3024
Private Bills
If this is not so, perhaps he might explain where ownership of the plant will lie.
Another point I am interested in is whether or not, if the bill passes, any of the shares of Triassic Products Transmission Company will be offered to the public. Furthermore, will there be any special effort to make them more available to Canadians than on the world market, if I may call it that? I bring up this matter because in Alberta we have had experience with regard to the Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company which was set up to gather and deliver natural gas to the border. As a matter of fact, the Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company will be delivering all of the gas from this plant and to the border. The act incorporating this company was a provincial statute, because the pipe line does not cross any provincial boundary. However, at the time of incorporation of the company there was an agreement that in the first instance all of the common shares would be offered to the residents of Alberta. If there was ever any doubt in the minds of Canadians that Canadians would invest in this kind of enterprise, that doubt was removed by what happened in this instance. The number of shares offered was oversubscribed about 15 times.
In the present case we have a somewhat similar situation, although the pipe line will not be confined to Alberta. It will start in Alberta and go across Saskatchewan into Manitoba. But I think it is fairly certain that this company is going to be what one might call a low risk investment and in some respects it could even be called a common carrier or a public utility. I contend that the shares of a company engaged in this kind of operation should certainly be offered to Canadians in the first instance.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) asked a question or two about the reason for the swap of charters. I think the reason this was done was to expedite the necessary construction. However, if we find in the committee that the swap of charters has already determined where ownership of the company is going to lie and has precluded Canadian ownership of the common stock in the first instance, then I think parliament will have to look at the situation very closely and perhaps make some changes in the regulations. I know that quite often when companies of this kind seek federal charters granting all of the powers necessary for the building of a pipe line some concession is made to them to allow them to expropriate land and so on. In view of the fact that we will be granting such concessions we would certainly be remiss in our duty if we did not also see to it that preferential treatment

Private Bills
is given to Canadians, so that through the purchase of stock they may gain ownership of the company.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put it on record, as this is a pipe line bill, that it has been a tradition of our party to take an acute interest in pipe line bills, and I also wish to say that we look forward to a close examination of all the details with respect to the bill when it comes before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. The only comment I should like to make is that it seems most unlikely that the bill will be dealt with this session, since that committee already has some matters before it and will shortly have others to consider.
I should like to suggest to the sponsor of the bill that in the interim it might speed things up if he would have the company prepare information with regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and also with regard to the questions that were brought up in the other place when the bill was discussed there. We certainly will not object to second reading, but the fact that we may approve of the bill in principle is no indication that we will not take a stand against the bill or certain parts of it in committee, and later if it is returned to the house.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words on the bill. Several hon. members have adverted to the fact that some publicity was given to the proceedings in the other place with relation to the bill involving the incorporation of this proposed company. As the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has said, it would not be appropriate or in order at this time to comment on this, but my understanding of the situation is that it was necessary to make an early start on construction and that it may well have been the political uncertainties that have dogged federal affairs in the last year and a half or two years which made it difficult for the particular group to come to parliament to obtain the necessary incorporation.
As hon. members are aware, the provisions with regard to the jurisdiction of the national energy board, and the procedure in that connection, make it essential that a special act of incorporation be passed by parliament so that the company may exercise the rights which the national energy board may grant to any particular company. Without purporting to have any expertise on this question, I simply suggest that perhaps this was the reason for the particular conduct engaged

in to which reference has been made. This indeed will be one of the questions which will be before the committee and upon which I am sure all hon. members will be interested in having some comment.
I should like to make a few remarks with regard to the general principles underlying the incorporation of companies of this kind, and their implications for the economy of Canada, and particularly for the economy of western Canada. Over the years hon. members have, I believe, noted with interest and with approval, the secondary implications of the growth of the oil industry in western Canada. I refer in particular to the utilization of those by-products which are produced in the process particularly of treating sour gas and the process of refining oil, which have resulted in the development of chemical components which it has been found possible to make available in a commercial way through industrial processes. With particular reference to the gas industry, I would refer in this connection to the development of a very substantial Canadian production of sulphur.
I believe I am right in saying that sulphur is one product which, no longer than a decade ago, was an essential Canadian import, a product which was in short supply in this country and which we had to import from abroad. As a result of the development of the Canadian oil industry, and particularly the development of secondary industry based on the oil industry, Canada has not only ceased to be a net importer of sulphur but has become a major exporter of this product. Under these circumstances, this particular product has been added to the list of products Canada sells abroad.
This, in turn, has had a particular importance for western Canada. Over the years, as hon. members know, western Canada has been dogged by the fact that the area is a single or limited product economy. The diversification which is being built into western Canada's economy by reason of the exploitation of by-products has not only increased employment but also lessened the effects of certain other economic vicissitudes, such as a decline in the market value of some grains, problems of drought in the agriculture industry, and so on. Those adverse factors will not have the same impact they would have had 25 or 30 years ago.
Some reference has been made to the question of foreign ownership, and particularly to the question of whether or not the common stock of this particular company will be made available to Canadians. I think this is a question to which the committee will be interested in having some answers. I should like to make reference to

the fact, as the hon. member for York North (Mr. Addison) has pointed out, that the company is being proposed for incorporation by Pacific Petroleums, a name that will be well known to many members of this house in connection with activities in the Canadian oil industry. The parent company, as the hon. member has pointed out, is one of the last of what unfortunately appears to be a diminishing breed in Canada, the independent oil company. So many of the major companies are now engaged in the business. However, it is a company in which there is a substantial proportion of stock available for acquisition by Canadian shareholders. The incorporation of this particular company, Mr. Speaker, will add another arrow to the quiver of possibilities available to the parent company, and therefore another area in which Canadians will have some opportunity to invest their funds. This is the kind of opportunity this government has been attempting to stimulate in Canada by various taxation measures. It is for this reason I feel this parliament should give serious consideration to the incorporation of this particular company, which would make possible the construction at an early date of the particular products pipe line in question, make it possible for the industries that will be dependant upon the pipe line to develop, make it possible for the products to be produced by those industries and for the pipe line itself to produce income, and particularly to produce Canadian dollars to ease the balance of payments situation which has become so pervasive in our discussions not only in recent years but since the war.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend to the house the approval of this particular measure, and I should like to commend to the hon. member for York North the suggestions made with regard to bringing items of information to the members of the committee, so that the committee may satisfy itself on these particular points and may report favourably upon this bill, which it seems to me will produce great economic benefits to all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I should advise the house that if the hon. member for York North speaks now, he will close the debate.


John Hollings Addison: In closing this debate, I should like to answer the questions posed by various members. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) raised a question about trafficking in pipe line charters. I should point out, as was pointed out in the other place, that Westcoast and Pacific Petroleums are both extremely substantial companies and have world-wide
Private Bills
reputations. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), whose constituency is fortunate enough to be the site of one of these companies, asked a question concerning the ownership of this particular plant. The charter, if the company is incorporated, will be returned to Westcoast Transmission Company.
A question was also asked as to what percentage of ownership will be available to Canadians. Since Triassic will be returned to Westcoast Transmission Company, which is owned 26 per cent by Phillips Petroleum, and as of March, 1963, 63 per cent of Westcoast Transmission Company was owned in Canada, the hon. member will be able to judge for himself. A question was also raised as to how much of the funds have already been spent. I can say that between 85 per cent and 90 per cent of the funds have been spent on this pipe line, which is an aggregate amount of over $30 million.
The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) raised the point that it may be difficult to bring this bill before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I sincerely hope that we will have an opportunity to do so in this session, but if not in this session then early in the new session, so that all the questions may be answered by the officers of this company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard) moved: the second reading of Bill S-41, to authorize the construction of a bridge and a causeway over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Pointe-aux-Trembles.
He said: The sole purpose of Bill S-41 is to authorize the petitioner, Developpement Central Ville de l'lsle Inc., which is a company incorporated under the Quebec companies act, to construct a bridge and causeway over the St. Lawrence river to connect two islands lying off the east end of the island of Montreal near the city of Pointe-aux-Trembles. The area of the islands is about 2,000 acres and about 90 per cent of the area is held under options by the company. It is intended to develop a residential community on the islands with a town to be established having the name of Ville de l'lsle.
The nearest island called Ile-aux-Asperges is about 500 feet off shore and the water between is navigable for very small river craft such as small motor boats. Ile-aux-Asperges will then be connected to Isle Ste-Therese by means of a short causeway crossing a very shallow stretch of water. Ordinarily, the only approval that would be required for a bridge

Private Bills
of this sort would be by way of an order in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Works. However, because the bridge is over part of the St. Lawrence river, the approval of parliament is required. The bill, however, contains the usual safeguards, namely that the governor in council must approve the plans and location, and that the company must observe such regulations for the security of navigation as may be prescribed by the governor in council. The usual time limits are placed on the commencement and completion of construction.
The officials of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport have already seen the plans, and the officials of those departments who were present before the Senate committee on transport and communications indicated that there was no objection in principle to the bill.
The bill in its original form provided for the construction of a toll bridge. However, when the bill was being considered by the Senate committee, the promoters suggested that all reference to a toll bridge be eliminated from the bill. It was felt that the matter of tolls was one for the provincial authorities who normally regulate such matters. The bill in its present form, therefore, merely gives authority for the construction of the bridge and provides the usual safeguards.
For the benefit of my hon. friend, the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) I would like to add that 100 per cent of the interest in the company is Canadian and French Canadian at that.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is allowed to pass, I should like to ask the sponsor a few questions. I should like to know the names and addresses of the directors of the corporation. Also, if it is a good thing for individuals, I think it would be more sensible for the federal government and the province of Quebec to undertake jointly the building of such a bridge over the St. Lawrence river in the east of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against private enterprise. On the contrary, I am in favour of it, but I think this is a public utility and it would be advisable for the federal and the provincial governments to build the bridge themselves.
In the past, the province of Quebec had several toll bridges. In fact, there is still one at Terrebonne which causes some inconvenience and jeopardizes the development of a part of the Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm constituency.

If this bridge is built by private enterprise, the day will come when the federal government will probably have to purchase it, and this will give rise to serious trouble.
Before I resume my seat, I ask the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) to give us, first of all, the names of the president and the directors of that corporation.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, as far as-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I should point out that if the hon. gentleman speaks now he will close the debate.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) for the explanations he was kind enough to give us in English. He has an excellent command of English; however, I would like to ask him a few questions in French, and I hope that he will feel free to answer in whatever language he chooses.
If I understood correctly, the hon. member told us there was a deadline for the building of the bridge. Would he tell us what is that deadline?
Besides, could he tell the house if it is supposed to be a toll bridge?
I have another question. Could the hon. member tell us whether there has been an agreement between the federal and provincial governments about the building of the causeway?
Mr. Speaker, I feel that these questions should be cleared up before we go on with the second reading of this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words on the second reading of this bill. I hope the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) will not feel I am rushing in with undue haste if I welcome him as a social democrat in view of what he said just a moment ago, but I am happy to agree with him that where we have moved in the direction of public ownership of construction under public authority we should not reverse ourselves.
It seems to me that the building of bridges over navigable rivers, and particularly over a river like the St. Lawrence, which come under federal jurisdiction, is something which should be done by public rather than private authority. I feel that the sponsor of the bill should deal adequately with this question before he expects the house to give it second reading. Perhaps there are others who may

wish to speak about the bill, and that will give the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) a chance to think about this and present his views with regard to it on another occasion.
We recognize the need for a bridge over this part of the St. Lawrence river. Obviously hon. members from that area are interested in it; but when an hon. member such as the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm wants to slow down a bit so that this can be done by public authority rather than by private authority, in a word that was used here yesterday I say "Amen".


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This is a rather unusual request, seeking permission for a private company to build a bridge over a navigable river. Other hon. members have asked many of the questions I wished to ask, but I still have one question. If this is a toll bridge, is there to be a toll paid only by the residents on the island, because I understood the sponsor to say that it was the intention to develop this island as a residential area? Will these people be given passes, or will they be in the position of prisoners who will have to pay tolls to get back and forth from their residences?


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I am slightly nonplussed by the questions asked a moment ago on the bill by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I do not see any relationship between the statement of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Because we would like to see public works done by public authority, the hon. member states that we are socialist fellow travellers. It seems to me that it is the socialist party which is getting closer to the Conservatives, for we are trying to draw back from socialism by creating new public services.
Mr. Speaker, we have a few relevant questions we would like the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) to answer. I feel that we should postpone the discussion on the bill, as that would give me a chance to get an answer to the questions I have in mind.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being six o'clock it is my duty to inform the house that the hour for private members' business has expired. As the business, pursuant to special order made on Thursday, October 17, to be considered at seven o'clock will be the estimates of the Department of
Supply-Health and Welfare National Health and Welfare, does the house agree to go into committee of supply now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

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


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.

Lucien Lamoureux: Order. House again in committee of supply, vote No. 1, Department of National Health and Welfare. Shall this item carry?
1. Departmental administration, $1,973,500.


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, in presenting to the committee the 1963-64 estimates for the Department of National Health and Welfare it should be remembered that this is a department which spends the second greatest amount of public money, being superseded only by the department of my good friend and colleague the Minister of National Defence. I believe that his expenditures represent some 24 per cent of the federal budget, as opposed to about 19 per cent for this department. I feel certain that the Minister of National Defence would be as happy as I to see the day when we can both offer this committee and the country a drastic cut-back in our estimates, if perhaps for somewhat different reasons. In the case of defence spending, I am sure all Canadians would be glad to see world tensions relax to a point where our military requirements would be less demanding, and I am equally sure we would all like to see Canada's economy boom once more to the point where the welfare needs of our people might also be diminished.
I think it will already be clear to all hon. members that these two objectives, the reduction of world tension and the expansion of our national economy, continue to hold the highest priority in the government's thinking and planning. As far as our nation's health is concerned, we will of course continue to spend whatever is necessary to assure Canadians the highest possible standards of health. May I assure the committee that there will be no skimping in this area. The

Supply-Health and Welfare blue book shows that the estimates for the Department of National Health and Welfare for the fiscal year 1963-64 amount to $1,204,910,550, or an increase over the last year of $104,908,300, or 9.5 per cent. This is roughly a normal annual increase due to the natural population growth and other reasonably constant factors. However, these figures do not include an additional amount of $3,500,000 made available to the department last year by way of supplementary estimate. That was mainly for the general health grants and hospital construction grants programs. The total amount that I have mentioned, this year as last year, excludes provision for payments under the Old Age Security Act. Until 1962-63 such payments were included within the department's estimates but were classified as a non-budgetary expenditure. As a result of the recommendation of the public accounts committee, however, the department was instructed to delete this item from the main estimates and has done so.
As usual, by far the largest part of the department's budget is earmarked for statutory outlays. These add up to approximately $1,105,700,000, or 91.8 per cent of the total vote. They include $542,900,000 for family allowances, $385,000,000 for federal contributions to hospital insurance, $110,000,000 for unemployment assistance, $38,700,000 for old age assistance-this, of course, is separate and apart from the old age security payments -$19,250,000 for disabled persons allowances, $5,000,000 for payments under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act, and $4,870,000 for blind persons allowances. The remaining 8.2 per cent, or approximately $99,200,000, represents items to be voted by parliament. It may be that hon. members would appreciate having a breakdown in general terms, and that $99,200,000 is to be spent in the following way: $31 million for payments to the provinces under the general health grants, $20 million for payments to the provinces under the hospital construction grants, $30,063,000 for medical services-which includes provision for Indian and northern health, quarantine, immigration medical, sick mariners, civil service health and civil aviation medicine programs-$2,890,000 for administration of the Family Allowances and Old Age Security Acts, $2,610,000 for our laboratory and advisory services, and $3,459,000 for administration of the Food and Drugs Act, the Proprietary or Patent Medicines Act and the Narcotic Control Act. I might point out here, Mr. Chairman, that the figure of $4,438,000 shown in the bue book as the increase in the voted items actually excludes the $3,500,000 made available as a supplementary

estimate late last year. That, of course, means that the real increase is only $938,000, instead of $4,438,000, in this year's estimates over those of last year.
Two significant items contribute to this increase. One is the provision for the food and drugs directorate of an additional $653,000, more than half of which is designed to cover the first phase of a three year program to strengthen and expand the directorate. The second is the fact that provision for the first full year's operation of the welfare grants program has been increased to $500,000 from $250,000.
The estimates show an increase of $100,470,000 in statutory expenditures, which relate largely to higher federal contributions under two specific programs. The first is an increase of $60 million in the hospital insurance and diagnostic services program, where rising hospital costs, the growing number of hospital beds and greater bed utilization have all inflated the costs. The second is in unemployment assistance, where the development of this program results in an increase of $21,750,000 in the printed estimates. The increase in the provision for old age assistance, blind persons allowances and disabled persons allowances programs, totalling $11,820,000, results mainly from the revision of these three acts. The increase in family allowance payments of $6,900,000 results from the normal growth in the population of those under 16 years of age.
The committee is aware, of course, Mr. Chairman, that a $10 increase was recently voted in our old age security payments. The present forecast of an increase of $71,200,000 in old age security payments comprises $56,700,000 resulting from this $10 increase, which began last month, and the remaining $14,500,000 from the normal increase in the population of people over 70 years of age.
These expenditures by no means represent the total effort and scope of operations of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Indeed, as many hon. members know, we have been stepping up our activities in a number of directions. Much preparation has already been carried out in connection with the Canada pension plan and, as the house is aware, it remains our firm intention to introduce the necessary legislation as soon as possible. When this measure becomes law, it will give this country one of the finest social welfare programs available anywhere in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I thank my hon. friend for his signal of approval.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a go ahead signal.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sure my hon. friend will let me go ahead with my speech, and I propose to do so. Discussions are now going on with regard to the Canada pension plan at the technical level with delegations from both the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario in order to see how the federal plan and the provincial plans may be meshed together. I might add that the Canada pension plan will be, as many hon. members already know, placed on the agenda of the forthcoming federal-provincial conference on November 25 and 26. As far as this department is concerned, Mr. Chairman, those will be a busy two days. Simultaneously with the federal-provincial conference we will be holding another conference on the reported connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
The hon. member for New Westminster sent me notice of a question about this earlier today, and I might inform the committee now that we are hoping this meeting will provide for an exchange of viewpoints between many of the groups concerned and will reveal those areas in which co-operative action might be taken to ensure a co-operative and effective program.
The participating departments or agencies will include provincial departments of health and, in some cases, provincial departments of education; also represented will be a number of professional and voluntary organizations, such as the Canadian Medical Association, Association des Medecins de Langue Francaise du Canada, Canadian Public Health Association, National Cancer Institute of Canada, Canadian Cancer Society, and the Canadian Heart Foundation.
Tobacco growers and industry will be represented by the Ontario flue cured tobacco growers marketing board, the burley tobacco marketing association of Ontario, office des producteurs de tabac jaune du Quebec, and the Canadian tobacco manufacturing industry. In addition to my own department we will have representatives from the Department of Agriculture. All told, we are counting on 60 delegates to the conference.
As many hon. members are aware-indeed, questions on the matter have been posed to me in the last few weeks-the government is also currently reviewing with the provinces the question of old age assistance payments, disability allowances and blind persons allowances. As hon. members already know, this will be an item on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference to be held in a week or so, and it will be discussed as part of the item with a number of cost-sharing programs.
In the area of food and drug control, Mr. Chairman, a matter which has received even 28902-5-303
Supply-Health and Welfare greater attention in the last year owing to the distressing thalidomide matter, we have already taken action to implement recommendations relating to the introduction of new drugs, and to the tightening of quality control by the manufacturer. New regulations covering these areas were put into effect quite recently, and the staff of the food and drug directorate has been strengthened accordingly.
One other program to which we are paying special attention in view of public interest is that of radiation protection. Authorization has recently been given for the establishment of an advisory committee drawn from universities and other private agencies to sit with our own experts and assist them in the supervision of our radiation protection program. I might add that the division concerned will be moving to a new and specially constructed building on February 1 next. My department is eagerly awaiting the report of the royal commission on health services. Our latest information is that it should be available toward the end of the year, and I am sure all hon. members look forward to an opportunity to peruse this study. All in all, with the funds available to the department as outlined in these estimates, I feel that we will be in a good position to achieve our one basic objective-to make Canada an even healthier, happier and more secure country in which to live.


Mrs. Casselman:: Mr. Chairman, may I begin by mentioning that the former minister of health and welfare, the hon. member for Perth, is unavoidably absent at this moment owing to a previous commitment; hence my beginning the debate on behalf of our party. However, he will be here within the hour.
May I at the outset express my personal good wishes on the floor of this house, although I have expressed them privately to the minister, for her very good health during her tenure of office. I will not elaborate on that, but I do wish her well and hope she has much personal satisfaction and a sense of achievement from her very heavy schedule. There is a general desire among the members of our party to facilitate the passing of estimates generally, particularly these estimates tonight. Therefore, I will endeavour to express only a broad interest in all aspects of the department's efforts, and also to avoid the very obvious controversial aspects of some of the problems facing us in the future. I will endeavour to keep my comments on the estimates for the year 1963-64 to a minimum and as concise as possible.
We in this country happily enjoy the second highest standard of living in the world, which brings with it peculiar and particular

Supply-Health and Welfare problems, problems peculiar to a country adjoining another country with ten times the population. The question is asked on all sides how our services are paid for. This places a very heavy responsibility of leadership upon any government, a very heavy responsibility on Canadian citizens in their requests and desire for services. The Minister of Finance has warned us that unless the national budget is moved toward balance Canada will find itself on the rocks. This is a comment which is well made, but it is easier made in opposition than in government. I wish to express my great sympathy for the Minister of Finance, considering the staggering job he has to do. Businessmen are constantly criticizing government, and I presume they will continue to do so for incurring expenditure which, they fear, will cripple the economy. We must pay regard to such criticism, if we are to maintain the respect of businessmen, who, after all, must face the problems of heavy world competition, and if we are to maintain the respect of the Canadian citizens whose money we are spending.
We must keep uppermost in our minds means by which measures necessary for our national health and welfare can be taken simply and economically. Such an approach has been adopted by many people over the years, particularly by the able staff of the department of health and welfare. When I was connected with the department I noticed how generously and unselfishly the staff worked to meet sudden and unexpected demands on their time and energies. I think it is up to members of this house to meet the social problems which confront us in the same spirit, when it comes to the working out of social policies. We know that the attention we give to health and welfare problems affects our daily lives and personal happiness to a large extent, since it is closely connected with social order and social harmony in our country. I am sure that no one inside or outside this house has any quarrel with the theory of hospital insurance. It is needed, useful and right. But the justice of its administration is something which must be watched carefully and constantly. According to the estimates of 1959-60 the cost of hospital insurance was about $150 million. This year's estimates show the cost to be $285 million, an increase over last year as the hon. lady has stated, of more than $60 million. We realize that to some extent the increase was inevitable due to an increase in the number of hospitals and in the number of people using and staffing the hospitals. In 1958 we almost doubled the amount of federal assistance given to hospital building, alterations and renovations. No one could quarrel with this step, having regard to the improvement in the health of Canadians

and in our society generally which has resulted; but from my own observations and from comments made by doctors it seems to me there is an area of outpatient assistance where the service might have been strengthened. One hears of many cases where patients, particularly chronic and elderly patients, go to hospital because their families for one reason or another cannot afford to keep them at home, though they would wish to do so if it were possible. It may be that a relatively slight increase in expenditure on public health nurses who could visit such cases would be helpful in meeting the needs of patients of this kind.
Undoubtedly, many ideas could be obtained as a result of concentrated efforts, working in co-operation with hospital boards, doctors and all groups interested in the care of the sick. I urge the minister to encourage a continuance of grants by which assistance is given to research into social problems, and to the training of essential workers in this field. It seems to me it would be penny wise and pound foolish to go on indefinitely increasing the already high cost of the care of the sick if we did not pay equal attention to research into cure of disease. Not only should we pay the closest attention to research in our own country but we should improve our communications with other countries and with organizations such as the World Health Organization, so as to be able to take the best advantage of all the work which is being done outside Canada in this field. I feel that in an age of greatly increased research this is one way in which we may be able to reap benefits and eventually avoid the skyrocketing costs of illnesses which we do not yet know how to cure. Along the same lines, I would urge the minister to continue to pay attention to the fitness and amateur sports program, in which I am personally much interested and which, I believe, has a direct relationship with what I have just said about the necessity of research into illnesses and diseases. Both lead towards the goal we should all like to see attained. Both constitute a definite and positive approach to health problems in Canada.
In an effort to avoid repetition I have tried not to deal with particular aspects of the work of the department which will be considered intelligently and constructively by other members of this party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this seems to be ladies' day in the House of Commons. The hon. member for Winnipeg South was the first member to get the floor when we met this afternoon and thus far tonight the ladies have had all the say.

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to take part once again in the debate on the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I noted the interesting remarks with which the minister began her speech. She pointed out that the Department of National Health and Welfare is the second largest department of government in terms of the amount of money provided for it. The hon. lady indicated that 19 per cent of the federal budget is appropriated to the Department of National Health and Welfare. I think it is profitable to reflect on this for a moment, and to remind ourselves that the word "health" did not appear even once in the British North America Act of 1867. The word "hospitalization" appeared a few times, but the word health not at all. The fact that we now have a Department of National Health and Welfare, with a budget the size of the one before us, indicates the degree of social change that has taken place in the century during which this country has been in existence, as it indicates the importance of the tasks which are the responsibility of the present minister.
I noted too the minister's expression of hope that the sums of money required by the two largest spending departments might in due course be pruned somewhat. She said that the reasons for seeking to cut down the expenditures of the Department of National Defence and the Department of National Health and Welfare were different. I agree with her that the moneys we are spending on defence we hope one day to be able to cut back, and I agree with her there are some kinds of expenditures that are appropriated for her department that we hope we can cut back, expenditures such as unemployment assistance which could be cut back if we had full employment, expenditures perchance on pensions for disabled and other conditions if by programs of positive medical research, such as those just referred to by the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas, we could improve the health of our people. But I think it would be both an illusion and a mistake to suggest that welfare payments generally should be pruned.
I suppose this is a matter of definition, a matter of semantics, and I am sure if the minister and I discussed it a little more fully we would find ourselves in agreement. If by welfare payments one means payments to overcome needs that should be avoided or corrected, yes, we hope the need for such payments can be reduced. But if by welfare payments one means such programs as old age security and the Canada pension plan, which I was glad to hear confirmed again tonight and applauded on the Liberal side of the house, if by welfare payments one 28902-5-303!
Supply-Health and Welfare means money spent on health care, hospitalization, medical research, let us not anticipate these expenditures being pruned. Let us accept it as a responsibility of our kind of society to do more of this kind of thing on a civilized, on a social, basis. In those terms I should like to amend the minister's statement by saying that I hope the estimates of the Department of National Defence can be pruned so that she, or rather her department, whoever the minister may be, can have more of that money in the not too distant future.
I think it is good that both the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas have drawn attention, even in their brief speeches tonight, to the broad range of interests and responsibilities of the minister's department. It not only has the responsibility for pension programs and for hospitalization and health insurance measures, on which I intend to spend most of my time, but it deals with such matters as the control over foods and drugs, research and so on. Another brand new item that not only was not thought about when the British North America Act was drafted but was not thought about not very many decades ago is the question of protection against radiation. These references that have been made both by the minister and by the previous speaker indicate, as I say, the broad range of responsibilities of this department, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare is quite justified in a feeling of pride that it is her honour to preside over such an important department.
So far as this party is concerned, though we share with other members a desire to deal with the estimates of all departments as expeditiously as we can, we do feel we are dealing again tonight with one of the most important services to our people provided by the government of Canada, in co-operation with the governments of the provinces and at other levels, and we think it is a constructive use of our time to have a thorough discussion of the various aspects of this department. The previous speaker indicated that other members of her party would be dealing with some of the specific subjects and the same is true for members of our party. Other members who will follow me will be dealing with matters of research, mental health and various other aspects concerning which we think there should be a tremendous increase of activity on the part of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
I should like to speak for a few moments now on the so-called welfare section of the work of the department. The department is, as we all know, divided into two general divisions with two deputy ministers, one a deputy minister of welfare and the other a

Supply-Health and Welfare deputy minister of health. The programs that come under the welfare branch of the department have already been alluded to tonight, old age security, old age assistance, the Blind Persons Act, the Disabled Persons Act, the Family Allowances Act, unemployment assistance and so on. These are programs, of course, that the fathers of confederation never dreamed of. Some people look at them in terms of their huge cost to the Canadian taxpayers. We think it is a mark of growth and a mark of maturity in a country like ours that we have reached the point where we do go in for these transfer payments, or whatever you may want to call them, where we do have this co-operative effort as a people to provide for the security and the needs of our people.
We think that one of the best jobs that the Canadian parliament has done for the Canadian people in the last few decades has been to develop programs of old age pensions, old age security, old age assistance and all the other programs we now have. But, Mr. Chairman, the fact that we have got these programs should not leave us feeling that there is nothing more to do. Every one of the programs now on the statute books, every one of the programs now in effect, needs improvement.
I am going to leave the question of old age security and its companion piece, the Canada pension plan, to the end of this group of programs about which I want to say a few words, and mention the others. Old age assistance, the program under which a pension of up to $65 a month with a means test is paid on a 50-50 basis by the provinces and the federal government, obviously needs improvement right away. I know the minister's answer will be that this is going to be discussed at the forthcoming two day federal-provincial conference, and it certainly is going to be a very busy two day period. Frankly, I think all the other departments should stay away from the conference. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare needs the whole two days herself with the provincial representatives, once she starts dealing with these things.
Take old age assistance, to begin with. Many people in Canada today, even though they are able to understand the federal nature of our government and the difference between provincial responsibilities and federal responsibilities, cannot understand why the pension is now $75 a month for those 70 years of age and over but only $65 a month for those between the ages of 65 and 69. I know that to make that change means that one has to make all the other changes as well. I know this puts an extra burden on the provinces, and that one has to consider all of the welfare responsibilities of the provinces; but I plead with

the minister to take all the time she can get out of those two days with the provinces, so that decisions can be made at the conference and so that progress can be made on these matters without interminable delay.
The same is true of the pension for the blind. It is still at the $65 figure. This pension, as we all know, is paid 75 per cent by Ottawa and 25 per cent by the provinces. Here again, those who are receiving the pension cannot understand why it has not been raised above the $65 figure the way it has for those 70 years of age and over. The same is true of those on the disabled persons allowance. In referring to it, I want to mention also that this is one of the programs which needs a particular review. I have in mind especially the definition of total disability and the list of requirements that are in the act and in the regulations in order to qualify for this pension.
There are a number of people, as all of us know, who by ordinary standards seem to be totally disabled, seem to be unable to work, but who are denied this pension. Sometimes it is because they can feed themselves, which is about all they can do. It is incredible that they should be denied the pension. I run into cases where the man of the family is disabled and unable to work. He still is a man; he still feels he would like to be doing something that would contribute towards the upbringing of his family. The wife has to go out to work because the disabled persons allowance, by itself, would not provide sufficient income. She makes enough that the means test comes into play and he cannot draw any portion of the disabled persons allowance. This cuts two ways. On the one hand, he does not get the money needed to help bring up the family and, on the other hand, he is also hurt in his spirit because he feels he is becoming nothing but a dependant on his wife.
I am raising problems here to which there may not be an immediate solution. But I suggest there are human angles to this legislation as well as financial angles, which call for the legislation to be reviewed. It was a good day in parliament, and I remember it very well, when after years of pressing for it we got a disabled persons act. It was a good day when we got all these other programs. However, let us not think that because we have them, because the administration is handling them in a routine way, all the problems are solved. All of these programs need to be reviewed. Later on in this debate tonight, other members will mention other programs.
Then, there is the family allowance program. I know that others who will take part in this debate will have plenty to say about

that. It is quite a long time since the amounts paid by way of family allowance were fixed, and they have never been changed in any real sense from the beginning in 1945. Today we have only two levels of payment rather than four, as was the case at the start. In any event, the maximum amount of the family allowance has not been changed since the act first came into effect on July 1, 1945. There have been many promises across the years to increase the amount of the family allowance. There have been many promises in recent years, particularly by the party now in power, to extend the family allowance beyond the age of 16 for those who are still in school. As yet, we have seen no sign of anything of this nature.
I trust I have said enough in respect of these various programs that come under the welfare branch of the department to substantiate my suggestion that they need to be reviewed. I recognize the state of federal-provincial relations in this country. I recognize the virtue of co-operative federalism to which the Minister of National Health and Welfare made reference the other day. This is an expression which I think, so far as political parties in this country are concerned, was first given currency by this party in the program we adopted at our founding convention in 1961. I am glad to see that it is now in such general use. But let us not allow the need to consult result in interminable delay. Consult not for two days but for two weeks, and keep at it. Let us get these various programs sorted out, so that some of the feelings of injustice, some of the sufferings our people are enduring, are overcome.
I have left to the last of the items coming under the welfare branch of the department the joint question of old age security and the Canada pension plan. From now on, there is no question but that these two items are companion pieces; these two programs go together. Our movement started supporting some years ago a two-stage pension plan. We called for an improving of the universal pension by bringing it to the higher amount it is now, $75, and building on top of that a contributory pension plan for all our people. I say quite frankly that we were delighted when the Liberals started talking in language similar to ours. We were pleased when the Liberal party made a promise to the electorate in 1962 and 1963 that a two-stage pension plan such as we had advocated would be brought into effect. I need not at this time repeat the remarks I made on October 29 during the grievance period at the end of a supply debate to which the minister responded. I simply remind the committee that we think we are reflecting the views of the country generally when we express our regret
Supply-Health and Welfare that the plan that was promised so specifically in the election campaign, promised so precisely in the speech from the throne, is to be delayed.
I call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare to work as hard as she possibly can to sell this plan to her own cabinet colleagues, to sell this plan to the provincial governments with whom she will be meeting on November 25 and 26. I call upon her to launch various programs of education, if she will, to sell the idea of the Canada pension plan. I think it can be sold to the Canadian people. I think it is disgraceful, and I might use a stronger word, the job against the Canada pension plan that has been done by the insurance companies and other vested interests. I noted what the minister said on October 29, that the government is not free to spend public money to try to answer that program. However, the government has 125, more or less, Liberals over there. They are not very busy in the House of Commons. I am sure they are looking for something to do. They support the Canada pension plan. Every time one calls for its inauguration, every time the minister says it is still coming in, they applaud. Why not give them material, give them information on the plan, and give them the job of selling to the country the virtues and values to all the Canadian people of the kind of pension arrangements that are envisaged in the Canada pension plan.
If the minister is prepared to accept suggestions from me, I suggest she might put something in the hands of all members of parliament. I think the Liberals would be glad to do this job. I think every member of parliament would. I am not too sure, when I hear the complaints about the Canada pension plan that have come from members to my right, where that group stands. However, I believe even they could be sold on the idea. If the minister wants a specific suggestion, I remind her that a long time ago, before she ever thought of coming to parliament-as a matter of fact on July 29, 1944-there was laid on the table of the House of Commons a draft bill respecting health insurance, public health, conservation of health and prevention of disease. I am going to refer to this when I get to the health section of my remarks, but I mention it now in relation to pensions. At that point the government of that day was promising it was going to do something about health insurance in the immediate post-war period. It found a way-the record shows it and I could explain it to the minister-to lay on the table of the house a draft bill with no resolution ahead of it, no first reading, and no debate at all.
The draft bill was tabled, printed and widely circulated. As a matter of fact Liberal

4752	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare candidates used it extensively during the 1945 election campaign as an indication of what they would do; but my point in raising this is that I think the minister could find a way to lay on the table of the house a draft bill of the Canada pension plan. There can be the safeguarding kind of note that makes it clear this is not the final form, that it is subject to change after consultation with the provinces and after reviewing various facts, but I think it would be a help to the job of education if she did so, or if some such piece of literature were made available.
The white paper that she tabled on July 18 was an excellent document, but I have run into people who do not see it that way. They do not think it explains things in detail. I am satisfied it does, but if in addition to the white paper we could have a draft bill or some such document for the public to see it would be an awfully good idea.
There are other things to be done. The minister's speech, or at least the speech made on her behalf on September 30 in Toronto, was an excellent reply to the critics of the Canada pension plan. This is something which is not only the possession of the Liberal party and the present government, but it is also the possession of the parliament of Canada and the Canadian people. Let us have the objections brought out in the open, and if changes need to be made let us make them. But let us not lose the plan. Let us not have it go down the drain for want of our people knowing or understanding it, while its opponents, who have a vested interest, have a heyday in their fight against it.
I suggest that the minister consider presenting a draft bill, or referring the subject matter to a committee. In fact I think a tremendous job could be done by hon. members in selling this idea, and to do this at this stage I suggest would be extremely valuable.
As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, the Department of National Health and Welfare has its two main branches. I have spent my time thus far talking about the welfare branch, but there are the two branches, each being presided over by a deputy minister. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who will be following me a little later, will speak about one particular aspect of the health branch, but the one point I want to emphasize now is that we think the time has come for health insurance or medicare in this country.
I know that the Liberals get a little tired of my reminding them that sickness insurance, which was the language used then, was promised in those two words, plain as could be, by the Liberals in 1919. In 1944 this draft bill I have been talking about was laid on

the table of the house, and it is included in the Journals of that session for July 29, 1944. There were also two or three reports about that time, huge documents, and all kinds of work was done on it.
The proposals were then laid before the federal-provincial conference of 1945, and across the years this idea has been held before the Canadian people. Meantime, of course, we get the propaganda of those interested in private insurance, that most people are covered. I thought Pierre Berton answered that very well in a recent article entitled "The Big Lie About Medicare Insurance", which made it clear that those who have some kind of medical insurance do not constitute 70 per cent of the total, as private insurance people claim, but that only 50 per cent have any kind of insurance, and something of the order of only 18 per cent have health insurance that is really worth anything in time of ill health or medical crisis of any kind.
These things add up to the urgent need in our time for a medicare or health insurance program, and there is no question but that the best way in which to have such a program in this country is similar to the hospital insurance legislation, for the federal government to pay a certain percentage of the cost-we think it should be a rather high percentage-leaving the administration of the program to the provinces.
If Quebec seeks some particular arrangement for itself, we think the government of Canada should be prepared to agree to that particular arrangement; but our plea is that the government not rest on its oars because it has got hospitalization on the statute books but that it move on in this very important field of medicare and health insurance. It took nearly 40 years from the first promise of sickness insurance in 1919 to get the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act on the statute books.
The Liberals got that act on the statute books, but it did not come into effect until they went out of office. I remember when they were in office and gave us this act we felt it suffered a deficiency in that it did not include tuberculosis and mental illness. Then the Liberals came across to this side of the house and tried to get the Tories, who succeeded them, to put into the act what they themselves did not want to put in it; and now they are back on the other side of the house again, but they are silent on these points.
This is another piece of legislation that needs to be improved. It all adds up to these two things, that the legislation we have in this field, whether it is on the welfare side or the health side, needs review and needs to

be improved. This goes lor all of the welfare programs and for the hospitalization and health programs. But, over and above the need for improving these things, we need early action on the Canada pension plan and medicare or national health insurance.
We know these things are costly and we know there are difficulties today, in the light of federal-provincial relations, in sorting these things out; but surely we Canadians are not people who are stalled in our tracks because things are difficult or costly. If they are worth while we can find a way; we can effect the necessary co-operation.
We think that these things that will bring a better day in terms of the security and the health of our people are worth while, and I call upon the minister and the government to give parliament and Canada a lead so that we can get on with these important programs.


Mr. Girouard:: Mr. Chairman, if there are estimates which are hard to criticize, it is truly those of the Department of National Health and Welfare. When the house is in supply, members of the opposition usually claim that the expenses are too high in certain fields and they try to make suggestions.
Since I have not yet heard such remarks, I would say that the opposition parties want the government to spend more in some respects. As far as I am concerned, if I had any suggestion to make, I would spontaneously mention family allowances, a topic which has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Now, I feel that the most important question the minister will have to consider is that of assistance to large families. Indeed, she probably would just have to spend a short while with the Minister of Finance to have part of the revenue from the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials transferred to the heads of families who are out of work because construction has slowed down in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I must say that I somewhat sympathize with the Minister of National Health and Welfare whose political impartiality is well known, since she is now at the head of a department where she has to keep nearly all her party's election promises and try to please everybody.
I believe that it is customary to make, on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the most attractive promises during the election campaign. I feel therefore sorry for the minister, Mr. Chairman.
This afternoon, I was looking at the British North America Act. I think the minister
Supply-Health and Welfare would do well to look up subsection 16 of section 29. She would find that her only responsibility, according to the constitution, would be as "Minister of the Quarantine", since at that time, this was about the only power allotted to the federal government in the field of national health and welfare. That would probably relieve the minister, and during her leisure hours she could go on with her studies of constitutional law, diplomacy section.
Mr. Chairman, I must direct my remarks also to the Minister of Finance since, although it is up to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to fulfil election promises, it is up to the Minister of Finance to foot the bill.
I think the problem we have to face is a harrowing one for both ministers. The best example we have in this respect is the pension plan, which has been promised, which we have been and are still waiting for and which we shall be waiting for, for a long time to come.
That is why I say to the minister that if she really wants to make her department a success, she should go back to the constitution and look after "quarantine", and this is just a preamble to my remarks on her estimates.
I considered the estimates which have been presented and I found that at least ten and even 12 joint programs are mentioned, plans for a federal contribution to certain provinces, including the province of Quebec and several other provinces, in the welfare field.
This gives me an opportunity to express my opinion on a word everyone uses now and which used to make the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre happy; he said it was coined by his party and marked the beginning of a new era, the era of a new federalism. All parties and all provinces talk of the new federalism.
The other day I was listening with some interest to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) when he dealt briefly with this aspect of the question. The hon. member for Three Rivers has been criticized in certain places and congratulated in others. But it is the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) who drew my attention to this, when he introduced a motion to censure the government's attitude concerning federal-provincial relations. And when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle blamed the federal government for bringing in measures that came under provincial jurisdiction without consulting the provinces, I must admit that he was right.
Because we heard again this evening accusations which are often levelled in the house at the Conservative party who, allegedly, has done nothing during the six

Supply-Health and Welfare years it was at the helm, I feel I must praise the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) and the Conservative party for their action in the fields of federal-provincial relations, of bilingualism, and biculturalism; they have certainly achieved more in six years for the province of Quebec than Louis St. Laurent when he was in power. I have to admit it. It is true that when the Conservative party was in power, it tried to complete the work left undone, while from various sides one heard cries of "too little and too late". It was not really too little or too late, though it might have seemed to be too little because patience was wearing thin.
Quebec had waited a long time for action. I must give its due credit to the Conservative party, who has really tried, and opened the door to the improvements that are brought in today by the party in power. Quebec was looking towards the Liberal party, and waiting hopefully for a solution. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle is quite right on that point.
Since it came to power, the present government has only brought down two or three pieces of legislation, and even so it has been compelled to beat a hasty retreat at the last moment. If Messrs. Daniel Johnson and Rene Levesque had not intervened, the newcomers of the Liberal party, set against any centralizing measure, would have been overcome by the old guard, who were hardened centralizers.
Does all this mean that on this matter, the present Prime Minister, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) are insincere? No, I do not think so. But after listening during several weeks to speeches in this house, after listening to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said recently, I thought to myself that what is wrong, is that the very concept of confederation is out of true. We got to a point where the Prime Minister only has to invite over a representative from each of the provinces of the country and tell them: "Now, I am going to interfere with your jurisdiction, if you see no objection." If those representatives say they have no objection, everything is legalized and becomes constitutional. And we are expected to believe that the principle is safe. When I hear Daniel Johnson say that there is no constitution-


Lucien Lamoureux: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but may I remind him that we are now discussing the estimates of the national health and welfare department? I should like him to relate his observations to the item now before the committee.
[Mr. GirouardJ


Gérard Girouard: Very well, Mr. Chairman. I expected that invitation and I have a reply all made out. I want to help the minister and, when I finish my remarks, to tell the hon. lady in what way it would be easier for her to award that part of taxation to the provinces, because I think that her burden is already excessive and she should reduce it.
When speaking of taxation as being a financial burden for the Minister of National Health and Welfare-I see, Mr. Chairman, that you will presently urge me to conclude my introductory remarks-I recall Mr. Daniel Johnson's saying that federal-provincial conferences were replacing the constitution. He was perfectly right.
Mr. Chairman, to come to the point which you want me to discuss, I would like to mention that when the government legislates in matters of defence, no province is consulted, the bill is introduced and either accepted or rejected.
Why? Because, at the time, the government feels that the matter is within its jurisdiction. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) seems to call me to order, because I am speaking of provincial autonomy. I hope that the Chair will forgive me.
When the government calls a federal-provincial conference to discuss a pension plan, it admits right from the start that it will have to legislate in a field which is not under its jurisdiction. To take all the trouble of gathering the representatives of the ten provinces around the conference table, just to ask for their permission to legislate. To my mind, that is the great weakness of our present system.
I did not want to engage in a discussion on confederation versus federation, but as the estimates before us give me a chance and as we have prominent professors of political science in the house who do not want to do so, I shall try to explain why those concepts are all wrong. I think that a true confederation is a union of ten independent provinces pursuing a common aim.
A federation, or the new federalism which is so much discussed, is a different thing. It means a group of states or provinces gathered around a central mandatory government.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me that his comments are in no way relevant to the item presently before the committee and I would invite him to speak more directly to the item presently before us.


Gérard Girouard: Very well, Mr. Chairman. To revert to the estimates, I shall take into my hands the blue book, at page 256. When I look at the various appropriations I see this:

Health services, including assistance to the provinces.
A few millions.
General public health grants, to assist the provinces.
A few millions.
Hospital construction grants to assist the provinces.
A few millions.
Contributions to provinces under agreements entered into pursuant to hospital insurance act.
A few millions.
Medical services.
A few millions.
These few votes I have mentioned have to do with provincial grants. This is the point I want to make. Now, if the present government, if the Minister of National Health and Welfare is able to bring up an estimate of the contribution which the central government may make to the provinces, it means those millions which are to be returned to the provinces must originate somewhere.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) stated that if we were to hand back to Quebec 25 or 50 per cent of her taxation rights, we would still have to levy taxes and go and get that money from the same place.
In my view, if the Minister of National Health and Welfare handed back to the provinces their responsibilities at the same time they got back their taxation rights, this share we have in the estimates would not constitute an obligation because, if the province of Quebec could tax up to 100 per cent, 80 per cent or 70 per cent as she wished, at the same time she could take over her own full share as regards old age pensions, family allowances and other social benefits.
I feel I have come fairly close to the matter now before us. At this point, may I say that when the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) told us the other day that, if the provinces were to become a bit too powerful, this could weaken Canada, I do not think he quite meant it that way. In any case, I disagree with him.
It seems to me that if instead of talking about a new federalism we really went back to the true spirit of confederation-for instance, in matters of aid to municipalities, family allowances or old age pensions-if we were to let the provinces have this field of taxation, the estimates at hand would perhaps be reduced by one fourth. Then it would be up to the provincial governments to talk about family allowances and every one would not be inclined to blame the federal government.
Supply-Health and Welfare
Mr. Chairman, I talked rather a long time about this matter-thanks to your patience I was able to explain why things are not going well in our federal system.
In my opinion, federal-provincial conferences, like the forthcoming one, can help just the same-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I think the hon. member is going to talk about the next federal-provincial conference. May I ask him to come back to the vote now under consideration?


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Chairman, I wish that the question of the portable pension scheme could be settled at the next conference, but it will be necessary to come back to the spirit of confederation if a Canadian entity is to be achieved.


Mr. Belanger:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the debate on the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare gives me the opportunity to discuss the social legislation in general that this department administers.
In the last 30 years, the house has agreed to pass various social measures to help those Canadians who found themselves in a less favourable situation than their fellow citizens as a whole.
In fact, legislation to help children, families, old people, the disabled and the blind was enacted. And although those measures were meant to help those people, when the time came to implement them, they were found to contain provisions that made it impossible to attain the objectives we had in mind. That is precisely the point on which I want to call the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh). She should certainly consider my suggestions if she wants to help the government set right certain injustices.
Our legislation concerning old age security and old age assistance are examples of this.
Under those two pieces of legislation, if the head of a family has reached the age where he is entitled to the old age pension but his wife has not reached that age, both he and his wife have to live on a pension which was established for one person only. This kind of situation is not normal and should be set right. In my opinion, the Minister of National Health and Welfare should bring in an amendment to enable both spouses to get a pension even if the wife is ten years younger than her husband.
Both the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act should be amended along those lines.
Let us move on to the Disabled Persons Act. A short while ago, the hon. member for

Supply-Health and Welfare Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated that, for the purpose of the act, the definition of total disability is very strict.
In fact, as mayor of the town of Beaupre, I was asked to study the case of certain disabled persons and to help them get a pension. That is how I came to realize that serious injustices were done because the definition of the word "disability" is much too strict. In that connection, allow me to speak of a man who had both legs and one hand amputated because they had been frostbitten. In fact, he had only three fingers left on the other hand. I tried to get a pension for that man and when I was turned down I had to tell them: Are you going to wait until he has his head cut off?
This is an anomaly that should be corrected at all costs in order to make this act more humane and to see that it serves the purpose for which it was enacted.
There is also another provision under this act that should not be applied. It is paragraph G-2, subsection 2, of section 3. This section provides that a disabled person is not entitled to a pension when husband and wife earn $1,980. It is utterly inhuman to oblige two persons to live on $1,980, more especially when one of them is disabled.
As far as the Blind Persons Act is concerned, the situation is somewhat different, in that two people are allowed to earn $2,460.
Now, what happens when a family head is disabled or blind? Because she wants to give a little more comfort to her family, to her children, in short, enable them to live as well or almost as well as their neighbours, the mother goes to work in order to earn a few dollars. When that happens, the officials of the department reduce the pension of the blind or disabled person, and that because these people have shown energy and courage in trying to improve their lot. They penalize them. They say to them: If you work too hard, if you earn too much money, we shall reduce your pension.
That is another anomaly which I suggest the minister should correct immediately.
Mr. Chairman, I come now to the Family Allowances Act.
During the last electoral campaign, supported in this by nearly all the other political parties, the Liberal party promised to increase family allowances and to extend them to age 18. As for us, we had asked that they be extended up to age 21.
Well, at the beginning of the present session, we suggested that family allowances should be increased and we even submitted a notice of motion to that effect. I should

like to say that the comments we have received on that score have been, on the whole, rather favourable.
On June 17, 1963, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) said, as can be seen on page 1251 of Hansard:
Our party is committed to extending family allowances to children at school to the age of 18 years. At the appropriate time, I am sure this legislation will be brought before this house to implement the commitment which was firmly made during the course of the election campaign. However, I presume one of the purposes of this measure would be to extend family allowances and make them the basis of a salary for students attending university.
The hon. member carried on for a little while, as if he were not satisfied that we would thus be reminded that we had brought pressure to bear on the government since the beginning of the session in order to obtain an increase in family allowances.
On July 3, when the house was still dealing with family allowances, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) said, as reported on page 1806 of Hansard for that day:
I conclude by saying that we have a policy on family allowances. We did mention it during the election campaign, and the program will be fully carried out but give us a chance to catch our breath. We must be given sufficient time to see what should he done. If that is not enough, do not forget that we did much more in 60 days-
Mr. Chairman, four months have gone by since the Minister of Justice asked us to give a breathing spell to the government. They must surely have caught their breath since then and they should be able today to increase family allowances, for if we fail to do so, we seriously wrong our Canadian families and our Canadian children. Since the beginning of this session, we have voted millions of dollars for large firms and municipalities, in short, we have voted millions for this and that.
I am in favour of these things, to improve markets, promote the economy. Our party supports all that.
But we also know that there are no better means of activating the economy than to increase the purchasing power of families all over Canada, because if it is distributed all over this country, it will promote the national economy and at the same time we shall solve a part of the unemployment problem by activating consumption which, in turn, will activate production.
I think it would be the most just and human means to activate the economy of this country.
Consequently, in view of the excellent steps taken by the government until now and in order to do justice to Canadian children, I move with the support of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):

That the Minister of National Health and Welfare should, in the opinion of this house, consider the advisability of increasing family allowances as soon as possible.


Mr. Choqueiie:: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: I am wondering whether any member has any comment to make in connection with the validity of the amendment now proposed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as I intimated when I made my observations a few moments ago, I favour an increase in the family allowance. I do not intend to develop that statement; I just want it to be clear that it is from this viewpoint that I rise to make a comment on this amendment, because I am also concerned about our procedure in the House of Commons.
We are now in committee of supply dealing with estimates. What is before us at the moment is a resolution in accordance with citation 238 of Beauchesne, fourth edition:
Resolved that a sum not exceeding... be granted to Her Majesty for... for the year ending 31st March, 1964.
That is the only resolution which is before us.


Mr. MacNaughi:: Could I ask a question? What was the number of that citation?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was reading from the end of citation 238 which appears on page 201 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. Now I would ask members to look at citation 242 on page 203. The first paragraph is a lengthy one. Let me read the last part of it:
Each resolution for a grant forms a distinct motion which can only be dealt with by being agreed to. reduced, negatived, superseded or withdrawn. The committee may reduce the amount of a grant by the omission or reduction of the items of expenditure of which the grant is composed. Here the power of the committee ceases.
Subparagraph 2 says:
The only motion allowed, when a resolution is under consideration in committee of supply, is that the amount be reduced or that the chairman leave the chair (either without making a report or to report progress on certain resolutions).
Subparagraph 3 states:
Each resolution can only be dealt with by being agreed to, reduced, negatived, superseded or, by leave, withdrawn, and the withdrawal can be made although the decision of the committee has been taken upon amendments proposed to the resolution.
Then, once again, follow the words:
Here, the power of the committee ceases.
Another sentence in the same paragraph states:
It is not allowable to attach a condition or an expression of opinion to a vote or to change the destination of a grant.
I think the point is quite clear, Mr. Chairman. I am all in favour of my friends in the
Supply-Health and Welfare corner trying to get the government to implement its promise to increase family allowances. I urge my friends to make all the speeches they want about the matter and to move their amendments at the proper time, but I plead with them to recognize the clearly established procedures in committee of supply. There are many other opportunities to move substantive amendments, but when we are in committee of supply we do not have the opportunity to move these expressions of opinion.
I make this as a contribution to the point of order debate, but I also make it as an appeal to my friends in the corner not to treat this as the kind of thing to appeal and to put the house in the ridiculous position of appearing to vote on the subject of family allowances, when we would not be doing that. What is before us now is the established and proper procedure of dealing with money votes, and the only thing we can do is vote for the item, vote against it or reduce it. We cannot change its destination; neither can we attach a condition to the vote. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear that the proposed amendment is out of order; but I hope that, even as you permitted me to speak on it, you will hear others who may wish to speak before you make your ruling.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. For the reasons given by the learned gentleman the amendment is out of order.


Mr. Monieith:: Mr. Chairman, if I may preface my remarks as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did, I too want to put our party on record as urging the government most strongly to fulfil its election promises concerning family allowances, but I do feel that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has expressed our viewpoint with regard to the amendment being out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could say a word for the attention of the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment. It seems to me that in doing so and in getting this expression of opinion from all parts of the house he has really accomplished what he is seeking to do, that is to say, to bring the matter forcibly to the attention of the committee. I think there is no question that the citations made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre are perfectly correct. This amendment is not the kind of amendment that, under the rules can be moved at this time, and if we are to make progress and have order in the house we do have to abide by the rules.
4758	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare
It seems to me it would serve very little additional purpose to press a matter of this kind, and have a ruling, and so on, which could only take one form. In the interest of getting on with the business of the house, now that the hon. gentleman and those associated with him have had the opportunity to bring this matter very forcibly before the committee, I wonder whether the hon. member would not agree to withdraw the amendment.
In saying that, I might also say that the government has every intention, as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has said in the house as well as elsewhere on more than one occasion, of carrying out the undertaking given to the electorate about family allowances at the earliest practical time. But we cannot introduce it into these particular estimates at this particular time. Therefore, now that hon. gentlemen have accomplished what they set out to do, to bring this matter forcibly to the attention of the committee and to get the matter on the record, I wonder whether they would consider expediting matters by withdrawing the amendment.


Mr. Leboe:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the amendment is out of order, I do not think there is any question of withdrawing something that is out of order.


David Réal Caouette: I thank the hon. member who has just spoken, but even if the proposed amendment is out of order I think it is up to the member who presented the amendment to withdraw it or to insist on a vote. According to my understanding of what the Secretary of State has said, in order to expedite the work of the house he is asking the hon. member for Charlevoix to withdraw the amendment. Personally I feel that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has given us enough information. It is true that we wanted to bring the matter before the House of Commons, and it is our hope that the Secretary of State and the government as a whole will take due notice of what we are asking for in the amendment. I would personally ask the hon. member for Charlevoix to withdraw the amendment.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, just before the hon. member for Charlevoix speaks I should like to remind the government that we urged the Minister of National Health and Welfare to study the possibility attentively, and not too long ago-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.

Would the hon. member for Megantic allow me to remind him that he cannot speak on the point of order now? If he intends to


make any remarks, he can wait, for he will have the opportunity to do so during the debate. I recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, having heard the expression of goodwill from all the parties in the house and being comforted by the promises which the Secretary of State has just made, I am pleased, in order to contribute to the progress of this debate, to withdraw the motion I have just moved.


Lucien Lamoureux: Has the hon. gentleman leave to withdraw the proposed amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, we have just been witnessing, a moment ago, another burst of demagogy-


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have just withdrawn my motion. Therefore, I submit that the hon. member for Lotbiniere has no right to say that I have acted in a demagogic fashion. Since I have withdrawn my motion, he has no right to debate it because it no longer exists.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order. I made no reference to that motion, and here the hon. member-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member understands that he must not make any reference to what has happened. He must limit himself to the discussion of the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I am always eager to comply with the decision of the Chair, in the conduct of the discussions in the house.
I do not understand the emotion of my colleague from Charlevoix. I merely said that we had been witnessing a burst of demagogy, and that without any reference to anything whatever. I do not intend to talk about-


An hon. Member:: You do not know what you are talking about when you say that.


Auguste Choquette: I do not intend to talk about the motion which has just been withdrawn. I merely want to make some remarks about the typically "oppositionist" speeches which we just heard.
It is obvious that the primary role of the opposition is to ask and to ask always more than it is possible to grant.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we are now studying the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare and not the function of the opposition. If the hon. member

wishes the opposition to withdraw, we are ready to do so in order to let him speak.


An hon. Member:: Don't try to be witty.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet spoken three sentences and I am plagued with points of order.


An hon. Member:: This is because you are not complying with standing orders.


Auguste Choquette: I am pleased to see that my hon. friends are afraid of the terrifying words I am about to say about the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare which we are studying tonight.
I am happy, as are all my colleagues, to see that the Liberal party has been a real pioneer in the field of social legislation.
We are indebted to the party now ruling the destinies of our country for the beneficial welfare legislation existing in our country because, in fact, the principle on which the government based itself is a very liberal doctrine which respects the dignity of the individual, recognizes the family as the basic unit of society, insures the security of the aged, protects those who are unemployed and provides the necessary care to the sick.
The Liberal party is responsible for all welfare legislation; knows how to administer it in accordance with our good parliamentary institutions.
We heard a moment ago some people asking for more from the government. I can say I believe, that we on this side of the house even more than the hon. members opposite, favour an increase in family allowances because in our estimation they are inadequate at the present time. And we are able to intercede for those who are in need just as well, if not better, than the obstructionists and the demagogues who sit across from us.
Mr. Chairman, there are members of the New Democratic party; at least they think. There are also the people-


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Is the hon. member allowed to call the members of the house demagogues? Is that a parliamentary word? As I lack experience since I am a new member I am asking you.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, be it parliamentary or not, I say again that they are demagogues.
Mr. Chairman, we have in this house members of the New Democratic party, who think; there are the Caouettistes, who talk; but there are on this side of the house people who think, talk and act. That is the difference between us and those who do nothing but make unreasonable demands, knowing quite well that it is impossible to comply with their requests.
Supply-Health and Welfare
Here I refer to Hansard of February 4, 1947. At that time, there was the hon. member for Villeneuve who is still sitting, but not for long. What did he promise? He promised at that time a dividend, and I quote his words literally-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Once more I take the liberty of reminding the hon. member that he must limit his remarks to the estimates now before the committee.


Auguste Choquette: Then, Mr. Chairman, to revert to the estimates-


David Réal Caouette: On the point of order, when the hon. member for Lotbiniere wants to speak of a national dividend, it seems to me that this would come within the purview of the department of national health and I submit that he should be allowed to go on and talk about this national dividend.


Auguste Choquette: I rise on a question of privilege. Since I have the honour of sitting in this house, every time I rise it is always the same group on the other side who makes noise and prevents me from delivering the speech I am entitled to. This is the question of privilege I am raising. Would it be possible to stop the row made by those who disregard the dignity of this great parliamentary institution?


Gilles Grégoire: On the question of privilege, I should like to point out, with regard to the remarks of the hon. member of Lotbiniere, that last year when he was not sitting in the house, there were no such demonstrations and rows. This is simply due to the example he has been setting since the beginning of the session.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. There is obviously no question of privilege in the point raised by the hon. member. I ask him therefore to co-operate with the Chair and with his colleagues in the house by reverting to the matter under discussion, that is, the estimates now before the committee.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, a moment ago I was pleased to see the Conservatives cheering with the Social Crediters. Birds of a feather flock together.
As for the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare-from which I have never departed-I must say that when we mention the Department of National Health and Welfare we are practically speaking of a Liberal institution and I wish to insist on that point, Mr. Chairman. If this department is now showing such consistency-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: It is due to the impetus-



Supply-Health and Welfare


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, each time I speak, always the same fruitless, shallow, useless and childish interruptions can be heard. I wish to state briefly and objectively my views in regard to the present Department of National Health and Welfare directed by a most intelligent and competent minister of whom we are proud.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the hon. member allow me a simple question? Does he feel that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is smart when she says that Quebec is a nazi province?


Mr. Caron:: She denied ever having said that.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Auguste Choquette: That is such a simple-minded question that I choose to ignore it.
Canada's social legislation compares favourably with that of any other civilized country and we have a right to be proud of the present system which was set up not by people who had the habit of making pompous promises which could not be carried out but by people who could conceive a workable system. Thus the predecessor of the present minister-


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Since the beginning, the hon. member for Lotbiniere was to limit himself to the estimates now before us. He talked about everything, except the estimates. A moment ago, he spoke on a point of order; then he spoke on a question of privilege; he spoke about demagogy, but he still has to utter a word on the estimates now before us.


Lucien Lamoureux: I understand that the hon. member for Lotbiniere wishes to lay down premises for the speech which he intends to deliver, and it is in that sense that I interpret his words. On the other hand, I agree with the hon. member for Megantic that this is not the time to make a statement on political principles.


Auguste Choquette: Do you have other questions to direct? Do you have other points of order to raise?


Gilles Grégoire: Stick to the estimates and everything will go along smoothly.


Auguste Choquette: If you have other objections, be kind enough to state them now.


Gilles Grégoire: No, just speak about the estimates.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member should address himself to the Chair.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, as I said, my remarks will be very short, because I only wish to underline-


Georges-J. Valade: All this makes no sense whatsoever.


Auguste Choquette: -the tremendous efficiency of the minister of health. I wish to point out the fact that public money and more particularly the moneys earmarked for that department have been spent very adequately according to our imperative needs. We should look after needy people, bring security to our senior citizens, think of families in want, help the unemployed, and adopt measures that would allow the sick to receive adequate and sufficient care. I maintain that such a program covers most of the citizens' needs. Having studied the estimates which are submitted to us tonight, I state without fear of being contradicted, that the program of the department cannot be bettered.
Mr. Chairman, there will always be room for progress and advancement. That, we are able to request. We, on this side of the house, and more particularly the members from the province of Quebec, also can exert some pressure on the government authorities in view of a wider public assistance being granted to those who are generally called the underprivileged.
Mr. Chairman, I shall conclude my remarks which will please my hon. friends; I see that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) did not like my motion yesterday.
Mr. Chairman, in order to finish my remarks, I shall say this: the federal-provincial conference-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago, you called to order an hon. member because he was speaking of the federal-provincial conference. Now, the hon. member for Lotbiniere also wants to deal with this matter. It seems to me that he too should be called to order.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, the federal-provincial conference is due to start in the near future.


Gilles Grégoire: Order.


Auguste Choquette: During that conference, the pension plan, which may be a controversial matter, will certainly be discussed.
We should expect much from that conference, as it is to be hoped that it will work in great harmony, because this government's policy which is obviously based on what we have henceforward agreed to call co-operative federalism, may certainly give us hope.
The pension plan is becoming a compelling necessity and, once again, it will be another

achievement of the Liberal government. Once again, we will be able to claim that the whole social legislation in Canada is the essential and vital work of the Liberal party.
Mr. Chairman, that is relevant to the matter before us tonight, since the Department of National Health and Welfare will have to incur additional expenditures for the administration of that plan. That is relevant to the estimates before us, with all due deference to my hon. friends.
Mr. Chairman, once again we will be able to contemplate that wonderful policy which is aimed at the welfare of all citizens.
In concluding, Mr. Chairman, I say that providing we give jobs to the unemployed, providing we give security to the underprivileged, providing we give our farmers an equitable income, the relations between our provinces, the relations between the two great racial groups in our country will become harmonious. That is the wish I make and which all of us are expressing from the bottom of our hearts.


Mr, Valade:: May I ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere a question?


Auguste Choquette: If the question is as simple as the one asked by the hon. member for J oliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm-


Georges-J. Valade: My question is as simple as the hon. member who just took his seat.
Did I understand the hon. member for Lotbiniere to say a while ago that the estimates brought down by the Minister of National Health and Welfare were the best estimates he had ever seen introduced in this house?


Auguste Choquette: No, never. I never said that.


Gilles Grégoire: He did not even talk about the estimates.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, once again I rise on a question of privilege, and I am putting it this way: lately, this parliament has been taken to task in certain newspaper articles for the childish manner in which its members have been behaving. Now, we have here the situation where an hon. member asks me a question and, before I can begin to answer, once again we have this shouting and hollering from the other side of the house.
I have a right to protest for the sake of the respect and dignity to be shown in this house, because ever since the "Caouettists" have been disgracing parliament and our race, we have been accused of making fools of ourselves.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Georges-J. Valade: Did the hon. member for Lotbiniere answer my question?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Springfield.


Mr. Slogan:: In the first instance, Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my best wishes to the minister and her parliamentary secretary on this auspicious occasion when they are presenting for the first time the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I am sure they will agree it is a very fine set of estimates, and they may thank the former minister for diligent work in that regard.
The hon. member for Grenville-Dundas said that we in this party were willing to shorten our speeches, and the number of them, and were prepared to see the whole of the estimates pass this evening. I am sure the minister now sees she is being hampered by her own party, by one of the most irrelevant, inconsistent-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Stupid.


Joseph Slogan: I could use many other adjectives about the speech of the last speaker. Certainly if anybody is making a farce out of parliament, it is the government members themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Slogan: I was very pleased to see the minister come into the house today her very affable and amiable self. I am glad she discarded that "bull in a china shop" attitude which she sometimes displays. I am particularly glad to see her with such a broad and handsome smile, displaying such a fine set of pearly teeth. I as a dentist commend her for that. I hope she will use those teeth and sink them into some of the suggestions I will make in my remarks, especially those regarding dentistry.
I think the hon. member for the Northwest Territories will deal in more detail with the northern health branch. I just want to say a few words in regard to the northern health services as they pertain to my constituency. In this regard I would like to commend the former government for bringing to the north a very fine and expanded health service. We in Springfield have two nursing stations, one at Little Grand Rapids and one at Berens River, serving the inaccessible areas of my constituency. Indeed, we have a veritable flying doctor service, and I might say that the people manning these stations are doing a wonderful job. I think that if they were given more staff and leeway this service

Supply-Health and Welfare could be further improved. The Glassco commission handed down a report which suggested, among other things, that Indian health services should wherever possible be integrated with normal community health and hospital services. We in Springfield are doing just that. A new hospital wing is being constructed at the Pine Falls general hospital, where the Indian health services and the community health services will be combined and integrated. I must compliment the people of that community for the very fine attitude they have taken to this step. This hospital wing is presently under construction. It is going to cost in excess of $500,000, and I am sure that when completed it will be a credit to the community and to the department.
In this regard I would caution the minister about the manner in which she answers questions that are put on the order paper. With regard to this hospital I asked three questions. One was No. 776. To this question I really did not receive any answer at all. Another question was No. 1,129, to which the minister replied that the federal grants amounted to $375,000 for this hospital. Then there was question 1,325, to which she replied that the grant amounted to $405,000. I think that if the minister and her colleagues would pay a little more attention to the manner in which they answer questions they would be more consistent in their replies than they were in this case.
While I compliment the northern health services and the expanded facilities in general, I must say that when it pertains to dentistry it is a different story. I think a great deal of improvement could be made in the dental health services in the north. I might give just one instance. There is a lack of dentists in a great many of these northern areas and it falls upon the R.C.M.P., the missionaries and other people in these areas to extract teeth in an emergency. I am thinking in particular of one missionary at the Hollow Water reserve whose father was a missionary before him. This man undertook this role and has performed it up to this time. Now the Department of National Health and Welfare has cut off the supply of local anaesthetic to this missionary. When dealing with this matter I may be treading on rather precarious professional ground, but I must implore the minister-and I wish she would listen when I am imploring her-to do something in this regard. I would tell the minister that it is not very much fun having teeth extracted without anaesthetic, and if I need to prove that assertion to her or any of her officials, I would be only too glad to do so. I would


implore her to reinstate the practice of supplying this missionary with local anaesthetic so that in the case of an emergency he may make an extraction and will not have to do so without anaesthetic.
Also in my riding we have the model town of Pinawa. A $600,000 hospital will be constructed there shortly. In this regard I might say that when the Conservative government came into power in 1958 we increased the federal health grant from $1,000 to $2,000 per bed. I think it is time the department reconsidered these grants, especially in view of the action taken by this government in imposing a tax on building materials, to see whether they should not be increased further. I think other speakers will have more to say about this matter. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas who said the increase in the cost of the hospitalization program is alarming. I think several things could be done by the department to perhaps curb this expenditure. I am not going into detail on this question because I am sure other hon. members will deal with it.
Previous speakers mentioned family allowances. I am wholeheartedly in favour of the principle of extending family allowances beyond the age of 16 years to those children attending school. I certainly hope the present government will not do what it did with the increase in the old age pension in 1957, when they implemented it just before an election and left the succeeding government to pay for it. I hope they will bring this about, and bring it about soon. I would like to say a few words about the old age assistance, and pensions to blind and disabled persons. I think the government is certainly not following the good example set by the former government, which increased the old age assistance and the pensions to blind and disabled persons simultaneously with the increase in the universal old age pension. I am at a loss to understand why the department has not taken similar action. We said we were willing to pay the increase if the provinces would agree to do their share and implement this program. We have been talking about federal-provincial conferences and everything else in this house as if this were some new principle that was being introduced. As far as I am concerned, the government is offering no leadership whatsoever in this regard. These are the very people who need this increase most, because they are being paid these pensions on the basis of need. I can only conclude that the government is trying to mark time and put this matter off as long as possible in order to reduce somewhat the record deficit which they are going to have.

These are a few suggestions on general matters that I wanted to place before the minister. Now, as a member of the dental profession, I would like to say something about the role dentistry plays in the community and what part the federal government should play in extending dental services more universally. The people of Canada spend about $125 million a year on dental services. This represents 8 per cent or 10 per cent of the amount of money spent by the Canadian public on health services. I think that is a quite significant fact. It will be more significant, I think, when I say that of the national health grants only 1 per cent is allocated to the field of dentistry and dental health. I think it is incumbent upon the government to at least raise this amount to the level of the percentage of money spent by the people on dental health services as compared to the health dollar in general. I think this percentage should be raised to 10 per cent. That is certainly not out of line. The niggardly amount of money that is being spent on dental research is illustrated when we see that only 15 cents is spent on dental research for every $100 that is spent on dental treatment. I know that a certain amount of money is being provided by the federal government to be spent through the national research council. I think the grant is something in the order of $200,000. This amount should be substantially increased. I am taking the liberty of quoting these figures to show the importance of dentistry to the community as a whole. I might say that I feel the staff in the dental division should be increased. I understood they have provision for three full-time dentists in the dental division. There is one vacancy there now. I hope that vacancy will soon be filled and that as soon as possible the staff is substantially increased. I am not criticizing the members of the dental division because X think they are dedicated, optimistic, and are trying to do a very good job with very limited financial support and encouragement from the department. But I think more and more emphasis must be placed on this field. As I say, that can be done through increased dental health grants toward dental research. I know the staff have on the boards a large number of very vital research projects, such as research into oral cancer and research into the etiology of periodontal disease. When we think that one out of every two teeth lost is lost because of periodontal involvement, then these developments are very important.
I place particular emphasis on research because dental diseases are almost universal. At the same time it is sad to think they are almost universal, because they are also
Supply-Health and Welfare largely preventive. It is in the interests of our economy that the federal government should encourage research and preventive and educational measures in order to cut down substantially on the incidence of dental disease and on the amount of money which needs to be spent by the public and by the government on dental treatment.
I think emphasis on dental education of the public has to be placed on proper oral hygiene and proper diet, because preventive measures can largely eradicate a large number of dental diseases which lead only to disastrous and expensive complications. When we consider that only one quarter of the population receive any regular dental treatment it is understandable that education will do a great deal to bring this number up.
One of the preventive measures we can encourage and emphasize is fluoridation. I mentioned fluoridation once before in the house and I got all sorts of letters from all sorts of people, and even all sorts of threats. However, this is a measure I commend to the people of Canada as a whole and to the government in particular. Studies across Canada show that five out of every ten of our four-year-old children and eight out of ten of our six-year-old children have suffered from dental decay, and that the average child when beginning school has five decayed teeth. This is quite a sad commentary on the state of dental health in Canada. In the town of Stratford, where they have natural fluoridation, the incidence of dental decay in the same age group is about one quarter of what it is in the population as a whole. I think this would show that fluoridation of community water supplies is a very important and economical preventive measure in dentistry.
Let me say that the cost of fluoridating a community water supply runs about 20 cents per capita per year. In other words, the cost of a single filling will fluoridate the water supply for a person for 20 to 30 years. All sorts of studies on millions of people have shown that fluoridation of water supplies will cut down the incidence of dental decay in children by two thirds, and this general dental health is carried on into adulthood. Surely we can see the millions of dollars which will be saved by the public in general if we adopt fluoridation more widely. It is being adopted more widely across this country now, but I hope it will be adopted even more widely when we compare the 20 cents which it might cost to fluoridate a community water supply per person per year with the average expenditure of over $20 per person on dental treatment.
I should also like to speak about health insurance in its relationship to the dental profession, and the attitude of this profession

Supply-Health and Welfare towards health insurance. I should also like to make some remarks with regard to the implementation of dental health insurance in conjunction with the universal form of contributory or other medical health insurance. I think the Canadian Dental Association should be commended for its very broadminded approach to this subject. They have come out in favour of a dental health insurance program. They have done a great deal to study the problem, but the problems which face dental health insurance are far more serious than those which face medical health insurance. A relatively predetermined amount of people every year have to undergo medical treatment. However, it is recognized that almost everyone has to undergo dental treatment, and it is therefore very difficult to apply general insurance principles to universal dental coverage.
The dental association is very cognizant of this fact and is very careful in laying down the ground rules under which dental health insurance can be brought forward. They say that they are willing to co-operate with the government but that there are certain principles which they would like to see recognized. For example, the principle of freedom of the patient to choose his dentist; the freedom of the dentist to choose his patient; a system of remuneration which is mutually acceptable and preferably based on a fee-for-service basis. There has to be co-operation between the patient, the dentist and the government. The people who are chosen to administer this program should be people who are approved by the profession, and the public, and they should not serve strictly a political function.
There are various methods of introducing a program of this sort. The first one is that the government must bear some responsibility before introducing such a program for doing something to provide assistance to educational institutions and to provide the personnel necessary to carry out this program. That is one of the first things the government must recognize.
This is, of course, largely a provincial matter. However, I think that if the federal government is going to impose a system of compulsory dental health care universally it must recognize that it has a role to play in educating the personnel. Second, it must recognize that through education of the public a large amount of dental treatment can be avoided. Therefore, a great deal of emphasis has to be placed on public dental health education, and a lot of it at the federal level. The third matter is that if a comprehensive dental health program is introduced there is obviously going to be the necessity for auxiliaries because of the shortage of dental manpower, and very careful steps must be taken


in this program to institute a training scheme for these auxiliaries.
There are two principles which could be brought to bear in the introduction of a dental health program. First of all, you might as well wipe out of your mind the idea that everyone can be covered at the beginning. There are only two ways in which a dental health program can be attached to a general health insurance program. The first of these would be by introducing the lower age levels or school age levels, and then advancing the plan to include the general public. Second, they could adopt some such plan as now exists in Manitoba. Here the service is provided for those who are indigent, in receipt of mothers' allowances, and so on. These all have medicare cards. They present them to their dentists and are entitled to free dentures and other services as required. The dental association itself administers this plan. It is paid a per capita fee by the provincial government to cover expenditures, but the administration, as I have said, is carried on by the association itself. We prefer this because it is less complicated than filling out endless forms in duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate as has to be done now in dealings with the Indian affairs branch, the Department of Veterans Affairs and so on. If we do not adopt one or the other of these approaches a situation will be created in which the best interests of dental health will not be served.
In Manitoba the dental association recognized its social responsibility by agreeing to accept a lower rate of remuneration for the work done for these indigent patients. It realizes that it must do something for those in the community who could not otherwise be looked after. I think the program in Manitoba works very well, and it may be one way of introducing a program on the national level. More idealistic people feel, of course, that eventually everyone should be covered. I agree with that view, and I think the dental association would agree with it. However, we must avoid the pitfalls. Let no one think it is possible to sit behind a desk and figure out that people will get dental coverage on the same basis as medical coverage, because the dental field defies insurance principles. If an attempt is made to cover all Canadians, premiums will be so high as to be prohibitive.
At the present time, dental associations are studying prepaid dental plans. Pilot projects are being instituted, but even on this basis they are running into all kinds of difficulties actuarially. For this reason I want to emphasize the need for proceeding with due regard for the difficulties of the situation. I believe the dental profession in Canada should

be complimented for its public spirited attitude towards the need to extend dental care services in Canada. I think they are trying to play a role commensurate with the ideal of rendering the best dental service possible to the people of Canada. I believe that with the co-operation of the government such a service could be extended universally. I look forward to that day and I can assure the government that it will get the wholehearted co-operation of the dental profession.
At the same time, I should like to see steps taken immediately in the fields of education and prevention to see that the groundwork is laid for the day when this plan can be realized. I hope it will not be brought about merely as a measure of political expediency as has happened recently in a province, causing turmoil and friction between the profession and the community. I hope we shall never see that happen in Canada at large, and that the experience in Saskatchewan will teach us that that was the wrong way to go about it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Any health service you have in Manitoba you got from Saskatchewan.


Joseph Slogan: I do not think the hon. member should complain too much, because he was run out of that province as a whole, for what he did in Saskatchewan.
I commend to the minister the suggestions I have made and I hope she will sink her teeth into them.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to these estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Springfield upon the constructive suggestions he has made. It was an interesting speech and I am sure it will be of benefit to the country as a whole. In the course of his remarks he made a comment to the same effect as one which the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas had made previously, namely that the expenditures under the heading of health and welfare were mounting so rapidly as to be worthy of careful scrutiny.
I wish to comment on this very theme, because the cost of health and welfare in this country is rising at such a rate as to place many of the provincial prepaid hospital schemes and medical plans in serious jeopardy. The cost of hospital care is rising like a meteor in the sky. In the estimates themselves it will be seen on page 264 that the statutory payments for hospital services, including assistance to the provinces under those agreements, in the current year ending March 31, 1964, have increased by $60 million from $325 million to $385 million. That is an increase of almost 20 per cent in one year.
When the prepaid hospital plan was first introduced it was announced in no uncertain
Supply-Health and Welfare terms that this was to be a three way partnership. We were told, and many of us believed it for some years, that it was to be a three way partnership between the provinces, the individual premium payers and the federal government. We were told that this partnership would work in harness like a troika, or three abreast. After a few years of interesting work in the field of health, I find the troika is still in harness but that it is operating as a tandem now, with the provincial department of health in the lead, the premium payer in the centre and the federal department of health and welfare bringing up the rear. The second and third partners in the team have to take the pace from the leader.
I am certain that many of the expenditures being made today by the provinces under the heading of health with the co-operation of the federal government could have a lot of the fat trimmed from them, and I should like to make two or three suggestions which I believe are worthy of consideration. Indeed, consideration must be given to them, since costs are mounting day by day. First of all, let me say I found it a pleasure to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Minister of National Health and Welfare in her work. She has her heart in her department and she gives it the closest of attention. She took part in the provincial election campaign in Ontario eight weeks ago, and I was happy to stand with her at that time on the questions of the day. The committee may recall that the hon. lady emphasized the fact that the Canada pension plan could be introduced without funding. That is a straight statement of fact: It can be done. It would not require funding because the government, having the power to tax, is in a position to keep the plan in operation without its being funded. But I draw attention to the situation in the province of Ontario, a situation which, no doubt, is being duplicated in the other nine provinces. It was only in January, 1960, that the hospitals of Ontario instituted a pension plan for their employees. Previously, individual hospitals had not been able to offer a pension plan because they could not afford its cost. Those who held employment in hospitals either had to look forward to working until they died or had to hope that the small insurance policy they were paying for 100 per cent themselves would carry them in their old age.
But on January 1, 1960, a pension plan was instituted among the hospitals of Ontario under the Ontario hospital services commission. There is an interesting thing to be found in the first two annual reports of the hospitals of Ontario pension plan. There have only been two annual reports so far. The first report covered a period of 18 months from January 1, 1960 to June 30, 1961 and the
476S

Supply-Health and Welfare second report covered the period of a year from July 1, 1961 to June 30, 1962.
The interesting thing about the reports is the fact that when the pension plan was introduced on January 1, 1960 a large number of employees of Ontario hospitals went on pension immediately, although there was no funding of the pension plan at that time. They had completed the necessary years of service and had attained such an age that they were eligible for pension. But in the second report for the year ended June 30, 1962, an amazing statement is made by the auditing firm that audits the pension plan. It is pointed out in the second annual report that the hospitals of Ontario are paying into the pension plan the astounding sum of $3,400,683 a year.
In an editorial last Friday with reference to the need for more nurses the Ottawa Citizen makes the statement that when the Ontario government introduced its hospital insurance plan it acquired a vested interest in the province's hospitals. That, of course, is a straight statement of fact. The hospitals have no individual autonomy today under the Ontario hospital services commission. As a hospital man from Port Arthur stated, individual hospitals are free to do anything they are told. I mention this so that hon. members will understand how much the government, through the department of health, dominates the work of the hospitals in the province.
When the hospitals of Ontario are paying $3,400,000 per year into the pension plan compared with a contribution by the employees of $2,255,000, then I put my finger on what I can only describe as an unnecessary expense. The pension plan of the hospitals is the responsibility of the Ontario government. The Ontario government through its department of health should collect from its hospital employees but it should not be paying $3,400,000 a year into that pension plan.
In a paragraph in the second report it is interesting to find a statement by the pension committee of the hospitals of Ontario pension plan, which committee, of course, is being advised by insurance executives and insurance agents. With respect to the year ended June 30, 1962, they say:
Past service costs of the plan were amortized over a 30 year period and this unfunded amount will require annual payments of $539,785 over the remaining 28 years.
There is no requirement whatsoever that this pension plan be funded. It is a government responsibility, and to state that we must have a funded pension plan when the government is behind it is ridiculous. If the government should go bankrupt, all pension plans in the provinces would fall by the wayside, and this extra expense is absolutely unjustified. That sum of over half a million

dollars a year for the next 28 years will amount to $15,113,980, and bear in mind that the federal government is paying approximately one third of the cost of this more than half a million dollars into a fund that is not required at all.
I also hold in my hand the annual statement issued by the hospitals of Ontario pensions plan to a hospital employee of some years standing. It is interesting to note that on the back it says:
The hospitals-
That means the government.
-pay the entire cost of past service pensions.
Under the Old Age Assistance Act, whose payments the public calls pensions but are properly described as old age assistance, there is no funded plan to make sure that the payments of $75 a month are made to the elderly, and if we have no great fund behind the old age assistance plan why do we have to go to the expense of building up a fund behind hospital pension plans throughout the Dominion of Canada?
I am very happy that the minister has brought in her estimates before the federal-provincial conference in two weeks time, because I do believe this is one subject that should be taken up with the provinces. It should be pointed out to them that some of the expenses should be carefully scrutinized, because some of them are unnecessary.
Another point to which I should like to refer has to do with a question I asked the government to advise how much money had been allocated year by year to hospitals throughout Canada by way of grants toward nursing. If hon. members will look at page 263 of the printed estimates they will find midway down the page a reference to the fact that the federal government pays $750 per bed for living quarters for nurses. I would point out that nursing is the only profession, the only career, the only form of employment in which the candidate for education has to be given residence accommodation. If a girl wishes to be a lawyer she has to look after her own residence accommodation. If a girl wishes to be an architect she has to look after her own residence accommodation. If she wants to be a veterinarian she looks after her own residence accommodation. If she wants to be an artist she looks after her own residence accommodation. But if she wants to be a nurse the provinces go into a tizzy and build palatial residences at a cost to the taxpayers that in my estimation is unnecessary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member is forgetting that while the nurse is taking her training

she also works about eight hours a day for nothing, or possibly $6 or $8 a month.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, that is a point I intended to mention this afternoon in discussing the resolution respecting technical and vocational training assistance and which I intend to refer to on Monday when the bill comes before the house. I believe that girls who decide to train as nurses should be paid by the hour for the work they do, and with the money in their purses they can then look after their own accommodation. I do not believe that in the year 1963 we should have indentured labour being paid on the basis of board, lodging and uniforms.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Your hospital costs would really go up then.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I was referring to the cost of residences for nurses. We have this great Department of National Health and Welfare, and I believe it was the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas who mentioned that it is the second largest spending department of the government. When one considers some of the demands that people make on it, he wonders how long it will be before the department becomes the largest spending department of the government unless there is careful scrutiny of the requests that are made.
I presume that in no place in all of Canada is there more uproar today over the shortage of hospital beds than in my own city of Toronto which now has a demand before the federal government for millions of dollars for necessary hospital construction. To my mind, to spend millions of dollars at this time on a calculated shortage of 2,360 hospital beds in Toronto when we have been having annual deficits nationally of between $500 million and $700 million a year would be ridiculous. At the present time there are in the city of Toronto 1,791 beds for student nurses scattered among 23 hospitals in the city. I can see no reason why the bed accommodation in these residences for nurses, who are young and most active and vigorous, should not be made available for hospital bed accommodation to meet the shortage of hospital beds in the area at this time. There is a calculated shortage of 2,360 beds, with 1,791 beds being used by active young nurses in training. These figures would indicate that the nurses are getting better treatment than the patients who are sick, injured and dying because we are told that hospitals are refusing entrance to patients since the hospitals claim there are no beds. The administration of the expenditures under the co-operative scheme between the provinces and the federal government, could certainly stand close scrutiny for the benefit of the taxpayers of the Dominion of Canada.
Supply-Health and Welfare
There is another angle to which I should like to draw the attention of the committee and the Department of National Health and Welfare, and that is connected with nursing education. Many hospitals operate schools of nursing. Why is this so? It is the only field of education that does not fall under the departments of education of the ten provinces. If doctors can be educated under the direction of the department of education, if dentists can be educated under the direction of the department of education, why cannot nurses be educated under the direction of the department of education? There is an expenditure involved in educating nurses. Most hospitals will tell you that there is a cost to them for educating student nurses, even when consideration is given to the services that they perform now for penurious remuneration. But if the education of nurses were to be placed under the department of education in all ten provinces, where it properly belongs, then the cost to the departments of health in the ten provinces would be reduced and the money that the federal department of health allocates to hospital work would not need to be squandered on nursing education under the guise of health grants. These payments could be diverted 100 per cent to health services.
The interesting feature here is the fact that only last Sunday the largest hospital in my riding, Humber Memorial Hospital, Weston, held open house for its new addition. It now has approximately 360 beds, and opened up four extra floors last Sunday with about 500 people going through the corridors examining this greatly improved institution. The hospital authorities gave the visitors small booklets describing the work of the hospital. One of the paragraphs in the booklet points out that the hospital is going to build a school for nurses, which will be the first school for nurses in Ontario not requiring residential accommodation. This morning I spoke to an unimpeachable source at Queen's Park, Toronto, by telephone and asked if the requirement that a hospital desiring to operate a school of nursing must have residential accommodation had been withdrawn. I was advised, no, the requirement has not yet been withdrawn from the hospital regulations of the province.
I was told, too, that Humber Memorial would not be the first to have a school for nurses without a residence because another hospital, which was not named, had made application to institute a system of training nurses without having hospital beds provided for them. This indicates that there are at least two hospitals in Ontario that realize it is not necessary to spend money on nurses' residences in order to educate nurses in our

Supply-Health and Welfare province to the degree of registered nurse. I believe that if the federal authorities would state they were going to withdraw this grant of $750 per bed for living quarters for nursing students, they would establish a precedent that would be followed all across the Dominion of Canada. We would find the present residential accommodation turned into hospital beds for the sick, and the young girls who wished to be nurses would seek their own residential accommodation the same as other students do.
Now, I am talking about the fat that can be removed from these expenses.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. A few minutes ago the hon. member for York-Humber made a statement about money being squandered on nursing education. I am sure that he really does not mean that. Could he please explain what he means by that statement?
Also, I should like to point out to him that the nursing profession is Canada's oldest profession. There is a plaque out in the hall honouring Jeanne Mance, a nurse, the first professional person to come to Canada in the seventeenth century, and I am sure the hon. member does not mean those words.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, if I used the word "squandered", I should have said "expended". I regret if I did use that word and I thank the hon. member for drawing it to my attention.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: A supplementary question, Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; I am sorry, but there could not be a supplementary question to a point of order.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have but one more point to make. When I first rose to make my remarks, I stated that I agreed 100 per cent with the hon. member for Springfield and the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas that there must be corners in which the expenditures made by the Department of National Health and Welfare could be reduced, if careful attention were paid to the money that is being spent. I should like to refer to one small matter, perhaps, but right now the hospitals in the province of Ontario are engaged in a study of insurance against malpractice suits. This insurance is taken out by all hospitals in order to protect them against any suits that may be instituted by patients, their relatives or friends, who may claim that the hospital technique was faulty and sue for malpractice. We have been investigating this question of malpractice insurance for the past 14 months, and within the next four or
[Mr. Cowan.l
five months I am sure a very interesting statement will be made by the Ontario hospital association on that matter. Let us stop to consider the question of expense.
In the November issue of the Canadian Doctor, there is a long article in which the author points out that, in his opinion, hospitals should increase the amount of malpractice insurance they carry. This makes me wonder why the hospitals should pay the premiums for malpractice insurance. As it is now, the hospitals are paying the premiums but the hospitals do not perform the operation. The doctors are not the employees of the hospitals; they are individual practitioners. This is an expense that is saddled on the hospitals today, and this is something that could be investigated to the profit of the taxpayers of Canada.
I should like to say that I only make these suggestions because I believe there is fat in the estimates that could be cut out. As I said before, we are running in tandem, we are not running in troika. I sincerely hope the minister will bring up these matters at the provincial conference in two weeks time for the benefit of every Canadian taxpayer from coast to coast.


Philip Bernard Rynard: 
Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, in these estimates the government proposes to spend almost $500 million for the health needs of the people of Canada. The major part of this amount of money is to be spent-and we in this group certainly have no objection to this -in the provision of grants to the provinces

Supply-Health and Welfare toward the hospital plans which have been enacted. Yet one would have to look at the estimates with a microscope to find the amount of money spent by the federal government in the field of mental health. This is, to say the least, an amazing fact when we realize that half the hospital beds in Canada are now occupied by people who are mentally or emotionally ill. More than 70,000 people are receiving treatment in Canadian hospitals for mental or emotional illnesses. Twenty five thousand new cases are admitted every year.
This government has failed to realize that one in every 16 Canadians born today will spend part of his or her life in a mental hospital. The government seems to have failed to realize that people in mental hospitals are not stupid; they are not defective; they have received the same education as the rest of us and until they became ill they were able to work and support themselves and their families. Of course, the minister will deny that the government has a defeatist attitude in this regard, but one has only to look at the expenditure for hospitals to realize this is a fact. We are today spending over $23 a day to keep a person in a general hospital, while we are spending $5.90 a day to keep a person in a mental hospital. Why this disparity? I suggest the main reason for this disparity is the decision of the former Liberal government when it instituted the hospital plan, continued by the Conservative government, and decided to keep mental hospitals out of that plan. The result is that we are spending this very small amount of money in mental hospitals.
What does this mean to the patient? I want to read a very few paragraphs from a report which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of May 28, 1960. This report is over three years old, but not much has happened in the province of Manitoba in the field of mental health since then. Indeed, not much has happened in any other province since then. I would remind members of the committee that the Winnipeg Tribune is a Conservative newspaper. It was describing the program in the province of Manitoba under a Conservative government. I did not think it intended to exaggerate; in fact I am certain it did not exaggerate. Yet what do they say:
Rigorous austerity, idleness and lack of rehabilitation facilities highlight the tragic conditions endured by some 3,000 mental patients in Manitoba.
These men and women of a forgotten cause are crowding the wards of six mental hospitals in this province-and get less recognition than criminals in the penitentiary.
Lord knows, that is bad enough. Then they say:

Unwanted and unknown, they wait in apathy for recognition that will bring their standard of treatment and accommodation at least level with those existing in federal prisons.
Further, they say:
Patients who could be rehabilitated if given proper treatment remain on in their drab wards indefinitely and usually develop a second mental disturbance called ''desocialization and degradation", a man-made condition resulting from loss of hope.
Of Manitoba's six mental hospitals, two are overcrowded, three are full and have waiting lists and only one operates with a slim margin of empty beds.
The article continues:
Brandon mental hospital has a total of 1,622 patients and a bed capacity for 1,317.
This hospital has a staff of two certified psychiatrists and one psychiatrist who is about to receive certification. It has no trained social workers and no rehabilitation facilities.
Selkirk mental hospital has been forced to stretch its facilities to the limit. It has a capacity for 1,005 patients and houses 1,245. It is also seriously handicapped by shortage of staff, old buildings, overcrowding and no adequate rehabilitation program.
It has a staff of three certified psychiatrists and one experienced psychiatrist. Like Brandon, it has no trained social workers.
It is no wonder that the people who become mentally ill and who are forced, because there are no better facilities, to enter one of the provincial mental hospitals, stay there for months and years longer than they ought, when you compare the program of activities and the rate of recovery in the provincial mental hospitals with the rate of recovery in the psychiatric wards, small as they are, in the general hospitals. There is a fantastic difference in this respect. But this is not surprising when you realize that the psychiatric wings in the general hospitals, which consist of 50, 60 or 20 beds, usually have as many as or more psychiatrists at work than there are in the provincial mental hospitals. This is not criticism of the provincial mental hospitals. In every province they have increased their expenditures in this regard at a great rate; but they are meeting the same kind of cost problems in this as in other fields. They have said, in fact that there is nothing more they can do at this time.
Tremendous progress has been made in this field. The vast majority of patients can get well. But they will not get well, or they certainly will not get well as quickly as they could, if we do not do more than we have done up to this time. The first step we ought to take is include mental hospital costs in the payment of hospital grants by the federal government, or at least the same share of mental hospital costs as we now pay in regard to other hospital services. I suggest that we will not meet the costs and problems of mental illness by building more hospital beds,

because that is what we have been doing essentially. We are not going to meet this problem until we are prepared to take the lead in getting more people, more psychiatrists, more psychologists, more psychiatric nurses and more of the other technical facilities and people needed to work in this field. We will not do that until the federal government is prepared to take the lead, in co-operation with the provinces, in extending the program of training psychiatrists.
The Canadian psychiatric association in its brief to the royal commission on health estimated that we need to double in the next ten years the number of psychiatrists we are training in our training institutions. In Canada in 1961 we had one psychiatrist for every
30.000	people, while in the United States they had in the same year one psychiatrist for every 14,000 people. In Soviet Russia they had one psychiatrist for every 12,000 people, and in Great Britain they had one psychiatrist for every 20,000 people. To reach by 1970 a ratio of one psychiatrist for every
15.000	people, which would still be less than these other countries had in 1961, we would have to double the number of specialists in psychiatry. The cost of training this number of psychiatrists has been estimated by the Canadian psychiatric association to be $4 million a year. To attain this end, of course, we will have to do more than just provide training grants; we will have to provide a much larger number of teachers at the university level and in the hospitals. The Canadian psychiatric association has estimated that this will cost $1 million a year for university training purposes. Similar expansion is needed in the field of clinical psychologists and psychiatric social workers, occupational therapists, and so on, and this only the federal government can do. I suggest that if the basic problem of mental illness is not tackled, costs will rise to an astronomical level and tens of millions of dollars in the coming year will be spent merely to keep people in hospital. These are people who could be out of hospital if we did the job which needs to be done.
One of our biggest lacks in recent years is in the field of research on mental illness. In 1961 the United States government spent $48 million on mental health research. In the same year in Canada we spent on a per capita basis 16 per cent of that spent by the United States. Last year we spent just over $700,000. It seems to me the height of foolishness to spend this piddling amount to deal with what is the greatest unsolved medical problem in the country. Yet the medical profession over the years has recommended that we get down to the problem.
In 1957 the former Conservative government appointed a committee to review the 28902-5-304
Supply-Health and Welfare question of support for medical research by the government of Canada. This committee made a report which was tabled on November 12, 1959. I will not deal with it in detail but I should like to read some of the conclusions leached by this expert committee. The minister will find this on page 32 of the report:
The present level of support falls far short of requirements. The most obvious inadequacies are as follows:-
(a)	Grants: Many important projects are not supported because of lack of funds and others are restricted to only a fraction of their full development.
(b)	Fellowships: Present stipends of research fellowships are too low. More fellowships are required.
(c)	Scientific personnel: The Canadian medical schools lack the funds to employ an adequate research staff.
(d)	Fluid research funds: There is a need for fluid research funds in the medical schools, to be administered by the deans.
(e)	Research facilities: Research space is inadequate in all medical schools; in many cases this is the most serious restriction on research development.
This report dealt with the conduct of more medical research, but the lack of research facilities is particularly noticeable in the field of mental health. Yesterday the Governor General opened a new research centre in the field of mental health in the city of Montreal. This is a tremendous institute and it was a great day for the Dominion of Canada. But I point out to hon. members that this is the only research institute in the field of mental health of its kind in the country. If we are to get the people to work in this field and begin to attack the problem at its roots, then we will have to do much more than we have.
Mention has been made of the cost of mental health to the people of the country. The direct cost has been estimated by the Canadian psychiatric association for the year 1960 at $239 million: $149 million has been spent by the provincial governments in their mental institutions; $10.5 million by the federal government in grants in aid to the Department of Veterans Affairs and other departments, such as justice; $14 million in psychiatric beds in general hospitals; $2.5 roughly in psychiatric beds in private hospitals; and $63 million in medical care paid to medical practitioners and for medication. But the Canadian psychiatric association has calculated that the indirect cost of mental illness in 1960 was $626 million: $100 million for the loss of average manpower earnings by resident patients in hospitals, and $526 million for the loss of earnings of patients in industry due to mental illness and emotional disturbance. So, Mr. Chairman, we can see what a tremendous and fantastic problem we have to face. I should like to think that in the next ten years the federal government will do ten times as much as it has in the last ten, because even with

Supply-Health and Welfare that amount of money we would only begin to touch the fringes of the problem.
Comment has been made about spending too much money. We are spending a great deal of money every day and every week in the field of health and welfare, but no money could be better spent because we are losing fantastic amounts of money in private treatment, and by people who can ill afford it, because the governments of Canada, both federal and provincial, have not really faced up to their responsibility.
In my constituency a few years ago, before the institution of a national hospital plan, one man was in the position where his wife was ill and he was advised to send her to another province for the particular kind of assistance she required. The cost of keeping her in hospital ran to some $200 a week and she was in hospital for four months. When this man added the cost of the medical bill of the doctor, which was not exorbitant if one thinks in terms of his experience and training, the only way he was able to meet the cost of this particular case of mental illness in his family was to sell the one asset he had, his house.
Another constituent of mine whose wife was ill was a member of the Manitoba medical services, which the doctors of Manitoba, and I think rightly, feel is the best plan of its kind in the Dominion of Canada. Unfortunately, the group to which he belonged was disbanded because it was too small. He was therefore not eligible, because of the decision of the Manitoba medical services, to join as an individual member, so he had to meet the cost himself. His wife was going to a psychiatrist once a week and paying a fair fee, from the point of view of the psychiatrist, of $15 for a one-hour visit. This meant that this man was paying $60 to $70 a month to enable his wife to see the psychiatrist. He had three children in the family and the normal cost of medical service for those three children ran in the neighbourhood of $10 to $15 a month; so you can see from that, Mr. Chairman, that his medical bill ran to around $1,000 a year.
Very few of us can afford that kind of bill. I am not being critical of the doctors; I am simply pointing out the kind of expenses people are forced to pay in the field of mental illness simply because we have not devised a plan which will meet their needs. People plagued with mental illness are able to offset their medical costs by deducting them from their income tax, and this is a step in the right direction. But we have made no provision for a situation where a husband has to hire a housekeeper as the only means of keeping his home going. So the cost of mental

illness in Canada amounts to an astronomic figure. This would be largely unnecessary if Canada were to establish a system of the kind which has been established in some other countries and in certain states of the United States. I disagree completely with hon. members who have said tonight that hospital costs could be reduced. Hospital costs will have to be substantially increased if the federal government is to accept its full share of responsibility and include the same percentage of grants to provinces in respect of mental hospitals as they do now with respect to general hospitals.
I hope the minister will come to the house next year with proposals which will help improve the position of people who are suffering greatly in this field.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Chairman, first I want to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) who was piloting her department's estimates in the house for the first time. I am convinced that she will administer that department well, her love for work and her devotion to duty being well known.
Since there is very little time left, I would like to point out a few facts.
I am happy to note that a very important correction has been made with regard to the province of Quebec in the estimates for the current fiscal year. At page 263 of the estimates, I find that in the field of grants for the building of hospitals, Quebec will get 23 per cent of the total amount this year, compared with 13 per cent in 1962, which means that if there was an injustice in 1962, a timely correction is brought at this time.
Second, I want to point out that the Department of National Health and Welfare is a very important one and the party to which I belong, has always been interested in the activities of that department.
During this session, we have made some improvements within that department. I wish to point out here that we have followed our program and even though some are accusing us of not having implemented it in full, we have already carried out part of it. We have increased by $10 a month, the old age pensions.
In my opinion, it is reasonable to assume that we cannot implement, in one session only, the whole program which we have laid down for the administration of our country, for a period of four years. We intend to carry out the program we outlined to the electorate. We will implement it because we will be in power long enough to do so.

I take this opportunity to ask the minister to give special consideration to the program of allowances for young people of 16 to 18 years of age.
In my opinion, it is increasingly important to introduce such legislation because more and more parents provide an education for their children.
We must help families give a proper education to their children. This piece of social legislation should be introduced as soon as possible to promote education in all the provinces.
I should also like to say a word about amateur sport. I notice that this comes under the minister and that some items of our platform deal with that topic.
I feel that physical education is unsatisfactory at present in Canada. We should have a better physical education program so that our young people would be physically fit for the tasks they will have to face in life.
I submit that the minister should attach particular importance to amateur sport. Although we often spend millions of dollars in other departments, to increase the prestige of our country, we unfortunately find that all amateur sport bodies, at the present time, complain they do not receive enough assistance to develop athletes able to adequately represent our country in the various international competitions. I think a healthy national pride is involved and I consider that the minister should give this point a very special attention.
Frequent reference was made to research during the few contributions to the debates of the house today. I submit to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that research is a very important field since, at the present time, solutions to certain diseases which are constantly spreading should be found. And I believe that should we improve the research situation in that field in granting more credits to research, we could thereby cut down the sums we are presently appropriating for hospitals. I feel that the present department should conduct more thorough studies in that respect.
I would also like to touch on another very important point, which is of tremendous interest to the members of the province of Quebec. It is the pension plan that was submitted to the house and was deferred until a later session. It is essential for the country to establish a pension plan equally favourable to everyone. We must take into account, however, the present requirements in the country. On the other hand, we know that under the British North America Act, social security comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. But through some amendments, it was possible at a certain time to allow the 28902-5-3041
Business of the House
federal government to intervene in that field. I am convinced that the present government acted very wisely in establishing this plan, thus showing to the house that we really intend to carry out our program.
While negotiating with the provinces, we have realized that certain difficulties had arisen, but I am convinced that through negotiations and discussions, we will find an acceptable solution, so that each worker in our country may take advantage of a satisfactory pension plan.
Mr. Chairman, it is now ten thirty. [Text]
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Jay Waldo Monteith: I wonder whether the leader of the house could outline the business for tomorrow, and maybe, for the first part of next week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to give as complete a picture as possible. I hope there is-and I am inclined to think that there is likely to be-an understanding that, by unanimous consent, on motions tomorrow I would move a motion, for the drafting of which I am indebted to the hon. member for Peace River, which would have the effect of bringing the subjects related to the two bills on the territories before the mines, forests and waters committee next week. I understand this might be agreed to without debate and the two bills would be left on the order paper for consideration after the committee's deliberations have been concluded. I have discussed this with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who is agreeable to having this course taken if there is an understanding that it could be done as a most exceptional and unusual arrangement, really in exception to all rules and only by unanimous consent and only if everyone is genuinely agreed that this is the right way to make progress and that we will do it without debate. It is an exceptional course, but I think everyone feels we have got into a situation that we want to find a way out of. I am not asking for unanimous consent now. I will ask for it tomorrow on motions and if I do not get it we will not be able to do it, of course. I thought it only fair to give notice of it. I have talked to hon. members of all parties and groups opposite but I thought I ought to let everybody know.
When we reach orders of the day tomorrow we will go on from where we left off with the vocational training resolution, which I gather we have practically disposed of. If we can get first reading of that bill we will then

Business of the House
take the bill itself as the first item of business on Monday. If we dispose of this matter the next item tomorrow will be the motion to set up the special railway committee, to be followed by the resolution, No. 14 on today's order paper, regarding the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act. We would hope to dispose of the resolution stage and first reading of the bill. I believe the hon. member for Kingston has had some conversations with hon. gentlemen opposite and there is an understanding that rapid progress could be made with that bill. We would hope it would also be available for Monday after the vocational training bill has been disposed of.
There are some other resolutions we would like to get on with if we could. It will be a long day. These resolutions, of course, are just preceding bills and it is generally better to debate the bills when we at least know what we are talking about. There is No. 15 on today's order paper, the resolution respecting the National Centennial Act which we would like to get through if we could, so that we could have that bill available for the beginning of next week. Then there is a very small matter, No. 19 on today's order paper, an amendment to the Admiralty Act which the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice is prepared to take tomorrow.
Then there are a number of resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of Transport, order No. 16, regarding grade crossings, order No. 17, regarding the St. Lawrence seaway authority and order No. 20 regarding the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation. We would be glad to take any of these we could tomorrow. I may say that
these items would not be called on Monday because the Minister of Transport will not be available, but we would hope to have any of them that are not disposed of tomorrow available again on Tuesday.
On Monday, in addition to the vocational training bill and, I hope, the currency, mint and exchange fund bill and any of these other measures that have advanced sufficiently to be dealt with, if we should run out of business by any chance I believe the Minister of Justice is prepared to have his parliamentary secretary proceed with the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. Quite frankly, I am not quite optimistic enough to think that it will be reached, but I do not believe any of these matters I have mentioned are contentious at all and it would be quite a display of businesslike activity if we could dispose of all of them. I can assure hon. members that if that should happen before Monday evening there are one or two items on the order paper that could be called to keep the house busy until ten o'clock. The same program would be carried on on Tuesday for all items that have not been finished.


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I ask about the estimates for tomorrow evening?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I announced last night, we hope to open the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the government would be very happy if it could be concluded. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will be available to conclude his department as well.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty two minutes before eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 15, 1963