1963-11-21

Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated yesterday that on my return from the organization for economic co-operation and development meeting held in Paris on Tuesday and Wednesday I would make a brief statement on the results of this conference, which was presided over by the foreign minister of Norway, Mr. Lange. I wish to table the communique issued at the conclusion of this meeting, and with the permission of the house perhaps it might be printed as an appendix to Hansard of today, as was done in other years.
The organization for economic co-operation and development provides an important bridge between the European and North American parts of the Atlantic community. It is expected shortly to be broadened by the inclusion of Japan when the parliamentary procedures in that country have been completed. These links among such key countries make this organization extremely important in Canada's general foreign relations. The O.E.C.D. provides a forum for consultation among representatives of the principal industrial nations of the west.
The most important feature of this particular meeting was the discussion of assistance by member countries to the less developed nations of the world. I emphasized the importance which the Canadian government attaches to the efforts of the O.E.C.D. to improve the co-ordination of aid. I indicated that the statistics frequently referred to comparing aid programs of Canada and other countries were often misleading and needed to be interpreted with great care. There are problems of definition and content which must be examined critically. Moreover, as the organization has recognized in the past, there are qualitative as well as quantitative factors which must be introduced for a meaningful comparison.
I am happy to report that representatives of other member governments warmly received the details of the increase in our own aid program which were announced in this
house last Thursday. The meeting also considered the trade relations of member countries with the less developed countries and agreed on the importance of approaching the United Nations conference on trade and development with the intention of making a positive contribution to the necessary efforts to expand the trade of these developing countries. The occasion of this O.E.C.D. meeting provided an opportunity for the ministers from the NATO countries to take part in an informal NATO discussion on east-west economic and other relations. This is, of course, a subject under continuing study by the organization, and we had a frank and useful discussion of the significance of recent developments.
In making this statement I have taken note of the questions asked of the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition yesterday and the day before. In particular the council considered the role of government credit and government guarantees of private credit in trade with the communist countries. No attempt was made to reach an agreed view, as this was not the object of the discussion. I made it clear that Canada favoured east-west trade in non-strategic goods on a mutually advantageous basis.
Regarding government to government credit, I reported that Canada like most other NATO countries has not extended such credits to any communist country. In connection with the question of credit guarantees, I stated that Canadian policy is generally to follow the criteria established for members of the Berne Union; that is, normally to limit government guarantees of private credit to five years. This policy is maintained with respect to all countries on a non-discriminatory basis, and of course applies to guarantees of private credits for Canadian sales to communist countries.
I may say in conclusion that the reports which I have seen on my return this morning indicating that Canada had taken a position other than that of the government of the United Kingdom are not founded in fact.
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): The house will welcome the presence of the genial Secretary of State for External Affairs. We saw him pictured in various poses during his visit to Paris. His look of suspicion has no basis in fact.

Paris Meeting of O.E.C.D.
Naturally, we give our support to the O.E.C.D., and I am very glad to hear that Japan is about to join. We endeavoured, during the days of the Conservative administration, to encourage the adherence of Japan; we gave it our full support.
However, I should like to refer particularly to the credit arrangements which were discussed. According to the various press items there was in fact an endeavour on the part of the United States to bring about an end to all credit or credit guarantees to communist countries.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not
accurate.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I am just mentioning what the press had stated. The minister has said, as I took from his remarks, that we believe there should be a restriction to five years. Personally, on the basis of recent experience, I believe that period will have to be increased. I found a situation outside the communist countries in the Middle East demanding that there must be an increase in the period during which credit is given. I hope consideration will be given by the government to this very important question outside the communist countries. I know that in Israel I found that Canada could considerably extend its trade were it able to give the same kind of extended credit facilities that are available elsewhere. There is one particular, large order for railway supplies, ties and the like. Canada is in the position where credit could be extended for only a few years. One particular country has offered credit running over a period of, I think, 20 years with interest rates lower than those that we in Canada are able to give. In other words, countries are becoming strongly competitive.
I think the government of Canada will have to move forward with the times. We did our part when in office to provide credit, to expand and extend trade, but I feel that what we did will have to be extended in order to meet the stronger and ever increasing competition of other countries for world business.
I should also like to say to the minister that he might clarify the announcement he made just prior to his departure relating to increased assistance to underdeveloped countries. I have examined his statement, and the more that I examine it the more it seems to be an economic conundrum. It is difficult to understand what he meant and what is the amount of the increase. It has been stated in the press that in Paris he spoke of an increase of $170 million in Canada's aid overseas. I am sure he did not say that, but that was in the press. I hope that at the earliest possible date, with the perspicacity and
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
ability in language that he possesses, he will translate the as yet untranslatable. As one looks at the picture and reads the statement one asks oneself, how much is Canada going to advance additional to that provided in the past. The minister may have been able to make that clear to the O.E.C.D. so they would understand it, but I should like him to make it possible for Canadians to appreciate it as well.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure members in all parts of the house welcome back the Secretary of State for External Affairs from his meeting with the O.E.C.D. in Paris. We are glad he has avoided some of the pitfalls which have sometimes enticed members who visit that playful city. Certainly on behalf of the members of this group we welcome any steps which are taken to bring Japan into the O.E.C.D.
I am glad to hear the minister say that a good deal of time was spent on the matter of additional aid to underdeveloped countries. I think one of the great disappointments for those who supported the idea of NATO has been that so little is done under article 2 of the NATO charter. It was hoped that the O.E.C.D. would be the instrument through which the western democracies would use some of their vast resources to assist the underdeveloped countries. It was hoped that the trend might be away from concentration upon military expenditures toward greater investment in the development of these emerging countries. I think most of us are disappointed that these expectations have not been fulfilled.
I am glad the minister clarified the situation for those attending the O.E.C.D. meetings. I still think it requires clarification in Canada. The hon. gentleman announced the other day a $70 million increase in Canada's contribution. If one examines the statement carefully, however, one finds that $50 million of this sum really consists of loans, which means that our cash outlay in terms of outright assistance is small indeed. I think the minister should know that we in this party, and I believe members in all parties in the house, would be prepared to give the government wholehearted support if he and his colleagues were to embark on a bold and imaginative program of aid to underdeveloped countries.
I was glad to hear the hon. gentleman make mention of long term credits. We have no way of knowing exactly what transpired at the meetings, but the press reports indicated that the United States representatives were urging that credit extended to communist countries should be limited to a maximum of five years. It was also reported that the

United Kingdom representatives had opposed this suggestion, and I am glad to learn that Canada joined with Britain in this regard.
It is important for Canada to extend her trade irrespective of whether the countries with which we trade are communist or not. Good trading relations are the basis of good international relations. We think that countries become better friends, and have a better understanding of each other if their trade relations are expanded. I hope the government will continue to oppose any restrictions as to time in connection with these credits, and that it will be prepared to consider advancing long term credit not only to communist countries but to any others which may wish to enter into trade agreements with Canada on this basis.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I join with the previous speakers in expressing our pleasure at the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is back in our midst again, and that he had a successful meeting with representatives of other member nations of O.E.C.D.
I think it is good that we should realize that the basic intent of the Atlantic community was not merely military in character. I believe as we move forward, away from the circumstances which developed in Europe at the end of the second world war, we should increasingly recognize the importance which is attached to the economic aspect of the work of the north Atlantic community. I am thinking in particular in terms of trade. However, the objectives of the economic policies of the north Atlantic community should run parallel to those objectives with which the military aspect of the alliance was originally concerned, that is to strengthen and protect the nations and their economies forming the alliance.
In my opinion it is an excellent thing that Japan should be moving closer to membership, and no doubt there are other countries which could be included in the same category as Japan. They too should be welcomed as members. It is most important that the underdeveloped nations of the world should be considered. I would have been much more pleased to read reports that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had given leadership in the direction of developing trade with the underdeveloped countries to a far greater extent, on the basis not only of a completely new approach to some of the economic problems involved but also of new policies with regard to aid. As has been suggested, we should be extending greater credit arrangements on a new basis if necessary so as to reach out to those nations which are now emerging and which would like to stand with the free world. There would be no shortage
Paris Meeting of O.E.C.D. of markets in the world if only the people who are today suffering from hunger had the dollars with which to buy the goods we can produce.
In the over-all picture leadership to this end would be an excellent thing. I do emphasize again to the Secretary of State for External Affairs the need of standing with those who are our friends, and doing so in such a way that we can strengthen them having regard to the situation that continues to exist in the world today.


Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to hear that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) had a pleasant stay in Paris and that he met with the representatives of various European and North American countries.
Next time the Secretary of State for External Affairs goes to Paris, I hope that he will invite me to accompany him so that I may see for myself what happens with regard to agreement.
The result of that conference which was held in Paris seems to be a greater economic co-operation between Europe and North America, which will contribute to improve considerably our trade relations with various European countries.
I also understand that this conference will result in a larger contribution to the assistance given various underdeveloped countries in the world.
We encourage the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as well as the government, to pursue a policy which will prevent the free countries in the world from being influenced by subversive philosophies. I think that with regard to this matter, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as well as the government, could show leadership and even set an example to the whole world, and that, while improving our relations with some communist countries.
Some people seem to be shocked at Canada's dealings with certain communist countries. Yet the latter do not hesitate to deal with or to try and influence the western countries, or the free countries, of which we are one. But we should not be afraid to take some action or measures to prevent communism from progressing in the world, as is now the case.
On behalf of our group, I commend the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I urge him to show the way to a durable peace in this world.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the printing in Hansard of the O.E.C.D. press release dated November 20, in English

Committees of the House and in French, as requested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


John George Diefenbaker: It is a communique.


Mr. Speaker:: The communique. Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of document referred to above, see appendix.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Maurice Rinfret (SI. James) moved:: That the names of Messrs. Francis and Rondeau be substituted for those of Messrs. Rideout and Gregoire on the standing committee on privileges and elections.
That the name of Mr. Francis be substituted for that of Mr. Pennell on the special committee on food and drugs.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, this is a shameful motion, in that it seeks to take off the committee on privileges and elections two members who had the courage to give their own opinions objectively. That is what is being done in this particular motion.


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


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, on this particular motion I wish to say I was a member of both these committees before becoming a delegate of Canada to the commonwealth parliamentary association conference in Malaysia. During the period of my absence from Canada there was an understanding that I would be temporarily replaced on these committees but that on my return I would be permitted the privilege, with the consent of the house, of resuming my seat on the committees in which I am interested and to which I was originally assigned. The intent of this resolution is purely and simply to permit me to resume the positions which I originally had on the committees, and I am sure there is no other implication whatsoever.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Pickersgill:: There is no privilege.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On the point of privilege that was raised surely I can reply, because I meant no offence whatever to the hon. member who has spoken. He is only one hon. member who is going on the privileges and elections committee. My objection is that the two hon. members who are being taken off the privileges and elections committee are the identical two members who did not vote with the

government to back up the cabinet decision on a particular matter. This is my objection. I am not raising any objection to the hon. member for Carleton, who is only one of the members nominated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The house has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure-


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: On a
point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am one of the people affected by this change. To the best of my knowledge there was no cabinet decision on this matter. Any decision made was made by the individual member as he saw fit, and we were put on there to replace people who were away. It was my understanding that I was placed on the committee to replace the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown), who is away. Whether he has come back I am not sure, but I want to stress that there was no cabinet decision.


Mr. Pigeon:: How do you know?


John James Greene: Again on the point of privilege, there was no direction, and if there was I certainly did not know anything about it.


Mr. Bell:: That is the point.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if the hon. member for Carleton was a member of the committee at its session this morning. He sat in the quorum and took part in the meeting, and it now appears that he was not a member of that committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a well established rule of the house that until a committee has reported, its proceedings are not debatable in the house. It seems to me the time of the house is being wasted in a way that is wholly irregular and contrary to the rules, and we should proceed in the proper way and abide by the rules of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not inject myself into this discussion if we had not had this gratuitous insult from the Secretary of State. What is being done is not against the rules of the house. The action taken by the government is an obvious endeavour on its part to prevent members of the committee carrying out their individual wishes for the benefit of the house as a whole.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege, I am claiming no special privilege as house leader, but as a member of the house I have the same right as any other member to raise a point of order without having to endure the gratuitous, uncalled for, and injurious insults of the right hon. gentleman who, every time he rises on a

matter of procedure, demonstrates anew his complete lack of knowledge of the rules of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may interrupt-


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: On a
point of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member please take his seat? If I may-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may inject just at this time, I wish to say that in a situation like this a reasonable amount of pointed questioning, and even remarks, should be permitted, but I hope we will not descend into a long range debate on the question at issue.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is not my intention to go into a long range debate, but I do rise on a point of privilege that I think affects all hon. members. On a point of privilege I would like to ask why this committee is sitting three times a day. We have other responsibilities in the House of Commons than to attend on committees. One would assume, after the recent speech of Mr. Davey, that they were rushing through this type of legislation without proper care and without giving it proper scrutiny because they want to rush Canada into another election. I well recall the Secretary of State, who is always so courteous, on several occasions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Between 1958 and 1961-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is entering into a complete debate, and I wonder if the hon. member has a point of privilege. I have not seen any prima facie case of privilege yet. Generally speaking, matters affecting a committee should be decided in the committee without wasting the time of the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Surely there is a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. We all have certain responsibilities to the house, to our work in committees, and other responsibilities. As I say, I well recall the Secretary of State crying in this house because the committees were sitting once a day when the house was sitting. Now he wants this committee to sit all day when the house is sitting. When the shoe is on the government foot it is a different tune, and that is my point.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, to get back to the point of order raised by the Secretary of State which, as I understood it, was that there was no right to debate a motion of this kind to change the members of a committee-
Committees of the House


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, no.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think this should be made quite definite. I have always understood, in all the time I have been here, that there was a right of debate on a motion of this kind. I do not think it should be established by the statement of the Secretary of State that there is no right to debate a motion of this kind to change the members of a committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Calgary North would not want to misrepresent what I said. It is quite possible that I did not make myself clear.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is not the first time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would not be the first time I had not made myself clear to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon); but the point I raised, and it is a very serious point, was not that this motion was not debatable but that it was against the rules of the house to debate the proceedings in a committee-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: We are not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -until the report of the committee had been received. Several hon. gentlemen, starting with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka began discussing things that had gone on in the committee at a time when, on my submission, sir, on a proper interpretation of the rules there was no report from the committee, and therefore there was nothing before the house about the proceedings of the committee.
If the hon. gentleman had merely wished to move that somebody else be put on the committee instead of my hon. friend from Carleton, I can say I have seen that happen before. It would have been in order, but to use this as an excuse to debate what is going on-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking, sir, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Secretary of State is on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I almost regret that 1 raised the question, because it seems whenever we seek to carry out the rules of the house we simply take more time than if we disregarded them altogether, but I suggest it is really quite serious when the right of any hon. member to raise a point of order, and to suggest that the rules should be observed, is questioned by a paid officer of the house, the Leader of the Opposition.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word on the point of order raised by the

Committees oj the House hon. Secretary of State. He has now injected into this debate some of his usual accusations and innuendoes. He is constantly throwing out the suggestion that the rules are not being obeyed. No greater breaker of the rules exists in this house than the Secretary of State.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then he ends with his customary slurring remark with regard to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. This is typical of the attitude of the Secretary of State to parliament. We are those who have maintained the rules of this house and set an example to hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On this particular question, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State, in his usual fashion, rises to lecture the house. This matter could have been finished long ago if he had listened to other people. But no, he must rise and lecture the house and tell us what he thinks we should do. If he would set a proper example there would be no trouble here whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the substance of the motion, if I could, and support it. While I do not think it is formally institutionalized by the rules, it seems to me it is a custom here that the parties determine what members among their ranks shall sit on committees. If we entered into a debate in contradiction of this custom and, say, pushed this to the stage where we would have the house voting upon the matter, we would be interfering not only with what is a party custom but with the individual rights, it seems to me, of members of parliament. I have heard no objections in this discussion from the members affected by the motion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They are scared.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have just heard an interjection that they are scared. I think the hon. member for Bow River has to admit that he is exaggerating. I have been in this committee and have not been able to figure out the voting pattern at all, because we have had Social Credit-New Democrat-Liberal-Tory coalitions, if you want, as far as voting is concerned. It seems to me that the implication is nonsensical.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I deliberately allowed a short discussion on this matter because it seemed to me there perhaps might have been a ground for complaint. But as to the substance referred to by the hon. member for Port Arthur, I propose to now put the
(Mr. Churchill.]
motion. The house has heard the motion; is the house ready to adopt it? Is the motion, as put by myself a short time ago, adopted?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, would you call for the yeas and nays.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.


Maurice Rinfret: That the name of Mr. Otto be substituted for that of Mr. Moreau on the standing committee on veterans affairs.
That the name of Mr. Scott be substituted for that of Mr. Fisher on the standing committee on privileges and elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. Watson MacNaught (Solicitor General) moved:: That the members of the House of Commons on the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to inquire into and report upon the problem of consumer credit, approved November 8, 1963, be: Messrs. Bell, Cashin, Chretien, Coates, Cote (Longueuil), Crossman, Deachman, Drouin, Gauthier, Greene, Gundlock, Irvine, Miss Jewett, Messrs. Kindt, Macdonald, Marcoux, Matte, Nasser-den, Orlikow, Pennell, Pugh, Ryan, Scott, Vincent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['I hope it will be a good will visit.']
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table two copies, in English and French, of the long term wheat agreement between Canada and Poland signed at Ottawa on November 5, 1963.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the seriousness of the prospective

trial in Cuba and the fact that sentences of death are generally carried out with very little delay, he would now consider making an appeal directly to Fidel Castro in this regard. I point out the example that took place within the last two weeks in the U.S.S.R., where a university professor was arrested, held incommunicado and, following direct representation, was released.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish-and I am sure my right hon. friend would agree-to do anything which will prejudice rather than help the position of these two Canadians in Cuba. I will be glad to take his particular suggestion under advisement. I should add that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has seen the Cuban ambassador again, and our ambassador in Havana has seen the foreign minister of Cuba on this particular point within the last 24 hours.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to do anything either to embarrass the government acting for all Canadians in this matter, or to endanger those who are under arrest, but I stress once more that I believe the Prime Minister communicating directly could do a great deal that ordinary diplomatic communication cannot achieve.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of a statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Paris. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received an invitation from France to visit that country in the near future. If so, what are the dates of that visit by the Prime Minister to France?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the dates and the details have not yet been worked out. All I can say is that it will be some time in January.


Douglas Scott Harkness: supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister inform the house what is the purpose of this projected visit to France?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope it will be a good will visit.



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the right hon. gentleman yet been able to ascertain whether
Inquiries of the Ministry there is correspondence between the government and the Canadian Jewish Congress on the matter he spoke about yesterday? If so, will this correspondence be tabled by him in pursuit of the exchanges we have had, or will it be necessary for me to put a motion on the order paper?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No. I am investigating my own files. There may be correspondence with other members of the government. I want to make sure I have it all, and then I will be in a position to put the correspondence on record.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO REVISION OF TAX RENTAL AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the federal-provincial conference will be held next week, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would care to take the house into his confidence and indicate whether the government is going to offer to the provinces a revision of the tax rental agreements, and whether he is willing to extend to the provinces a larger share of the income and corporation tax fields up to the 25 per cent which has been asked for by one of the provincial premiers.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has been a member of this house for many years and has been the head of a provincial government. I am sure he would not expect me to state publicly at this moment, on the eve of the conference, any offer that might be made by the government to the provinces in this or any other matter. He talked about the tax rental agreements. The tax rental agreements, of course, do not exist at present. Fiscal relations are on the agenda, and we propose to discuss this matter in all its aspects. I do not think it would facilitate the kind of agreement which we hope will be arrived at if on the eve of the conference, representatives of the federal government were to state what the case of the government will be in this matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary, question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister not think that in view of the fact that any decision which is reached will have to be ratified by this house, it might create a good atmosphere at the federal-provincial conference if the Prime Minister gave some indication as to what offers will be made, particularly with reference to an offer of the federal government to pay its share of the increase in the old age assistance pension,

Inquiries of the Ministry the blind pension and the disabled persons allowance, effective October 1? I think this would be of great interest to the people of the country, and I thought the Prime Minister might want to give some indication to the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not mean to be difficult in this matter, but I think it would be most unwise from every point of view if I gave the impression that the government is going to make offers on these matters. There is going to be an exchange of views, and the agreement which I hope will be reached will result from an exchange of views. We would not want to make public before the conference, on either level of government, offers which would be interpreted on the other side as offers for bargaining purposes.



SUGGESTED CONSIDERATION OF ELECTION ACT AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: In view of the fact that the government, according to the Prime Minister, is considering the introduction of legislation to lower the voting age to 18, and in view of the fact this has already been done or is contemplated by a number of the provinces, will the Prime Minister bring this matter before the federal-provincial conference next week so that a uniform voting age could be agreed upon and established throughout Canada? In addition, if an age of less than 21 is agreed upon by the provinces, will consideration be given to removing the legal disabilities of persons of that age; and by legal disability I refer, of course, to their inability to enter into contracts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I agree that this matter, which is important, should be discussed with the provinces, but it is not on the agenda for next week. If an opportunity arises for that kind of discussion I will be glad to take advantage of it.



PROTEST AGAINST PROBABLE PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house whether he has received a letter from the Quebec professional bakers' association protesting against a possible increase in the price of bread following Canada's large export of wheat? What does he intend to do in that regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not recall having received such a letter, but I will be glad to look into it as soon as I get back to my office.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PERIOD UNDER EXPORT CREDITS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of what was said earlier this afternoon. I should like to ask him if the government will give consideration to extending the period for which credit is granted under the export credits act, in order to assist Canadian exporters in world markets. I am thinking particularly of possible sales of rolling stock to Israel and other countries which would assist areas such as my own in so far as employment is concerned.


Mitchell William Sharp: These requests for credit go before the Export Credits Insurance Corporation regularly and before the government through me from time to time. We do everything possible to grant terms of credit that will enable us to get the business. So far as I am aware we are not losing any business at the moment because of a lack of credit.


Mr. G. L. Chatierton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of his reply to the hon. member for Pictou. May I take it that the government, and E.C.I.C., will abandon the policy of not making loans under section 21A of the Export Credits Insurance Act unless the amount is $2 million or more? Will the minister now consider the making of small loans under this legislation so as to encourage exports and manufacturing, particularly in the shipbuilding industry?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is a technical question. I should like to take it as notice and answer it tomorrow.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the unfortunate impression created on some 60 international air line passengers

during their stopover in Winnipeg a few days ago, will the minister endeavour to find a way to enable such in transit passengers in the future to see not just a basement room, but to enjoy the spacious grandeur of the new Winnipeg airport, reflecting as it does the friendly hospitality of the city and people of Winnipeg?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members here share the hon. gentleman's view about the friendly hospitality of the people of Winnipeg. I read the newspaper item on which the question is based, and apparently it has to do with what are called holding rooms at the new international airport for certain in transit passengers who are not staying in Canada and who have not been cleared through customs or immigration. Whether the difficulty was due to the fact that the airport had only been opened for three days and arrangements were not completed, or whether it is due to something deeper than that I do not know, but I will immediately have the whole subject matter looked into.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister of Transport take immediate action with regard to this important problem? Having read the newspaper article, surely he could pick up the telephone and discover what is happening. This may result from inadvertence on the part of the management of the airport, but it certainly is not complimentary to Canada to have international travellers dealt with as they were at the airport in Winnipeg just the other day. There will be other international travellers landing within a few days under similar circumstances.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will have the matter looked into immediately. As the hon. member knows, coming from Winnipeg, the airport terminal building was just opened last week, and this happened on Friday. I am immediately having the whole subject matter looked into, in all its implications.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is Thursday. I was there Monday, and I knew all about it then.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister 28902-5-318
Inquiries of the Ministry reconsider her recent refusal to provide adequate accommodation for the conference on tobacco meeting on Monday, particularly cigarettes and their relation to cancer of the lung and other diseases, so that the press and public, including interested members of the house and the Senate, may be able to attend and hear the representations that will be made? I ask this question in view of the intense and widespread interest shown in this serious and urgent medical problem.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I will be glad to reconsider it. My hon. friend must realize this meeting takes place at the same time as the dominion-provincial conference. The facilities here on the hill are sharply limited, particularly in respect of the availability of translators and the equipment which we use in order that one may have a bilingual meeting. I have been reconsidering this since several of my colleagues in the house have asked permission to attend.
The concept of the meeting originally was one which would be in camera and which would permit a very free expression of opinion from those who may be interested in the growing and manufacture of tobacco and those interested in the health aspect. While I shall be glad to reconsider, I must advise my hon. friend that I have already given considerable thought to the matter and it is my present belief I would not lightly change the decision.


Philip Bernard Rynard: May I ask a supplementary question. It is my opinion and the opinion of this house that a conference that concerns the health of every individual in Canada should not be held in camera. The Canadian Medical Association, when it brought in its report, brought it in publicly with the press in attendance. I say to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Philip Bernard Rynard: -if there is no room here, then let us get a room at the Chateau Laurier.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the minister to invite the tobacco growers to this meeting?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There has been a press release on this, but I cannot remember the exact title of the organizations. There is one for yellow tobacco from Quebec and there are two tobacco growing organizations from Ontario that have been invited, as well as the cigarette manufacturers. Most of these people have presented written material which has already been distributed.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wonder if I interpret the minister's previous statement correctly, that the press will be
4996	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry excluded from covering this important conference on the smoking situation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Subject to the agreement of those who will be in attendance, it is proposed that the press will be admitted for the opening 15 minutes. There will be statements issued at the conclusion of the meeting. Those who come to the meeting will be certainly free to say anything they wish to the press following the meetings, but the meetings themselves will be held in camera.



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 Minister of Agriculture. In consideration of the fact that this afternoon we have had 185 4-H club members representing 72,000 other 4-H club members present in the galleries, and in view of the fact that the Postmaster General has assured the house that he will reconsider his refusal to have a stamp issued commemorating the birth of the 4-H club movement at Roland, Manitoba, in 1913, would the minister use his influence with his colleague to further this project?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the 4-H clubs. There were 14 members from each of the ten provinces in Canada present, and just before orders of the day I think they left the house in disgust and are not here at the moment.


An hon. Member:: Whom were they disgusted with?


Harry William Hays: They did not seem very happy, but I will be glad to take this suggestion under consideration.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES MANUFACTURE IN TORONTO OF PARTS FOR DC-9 PLANES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Could the minister confirm that the de Havilland company in Toronto have been manufacturing certain parts of the DC-9 since last July for Air Canada?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, a statement will be made on this whole subject tomorrow, and perhaps I can deal with the question then.



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING PURCHASE OF NEW PLANES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, my question is really related to the one just asked by the previous questioner of the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask the minister whether it is too late for members or other associations, such as trade unions, etc., to make representations regarding the choice of the short range jet for Trans-Canada Air Lines.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, such recommendations should be made to Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport?
Does the minister intend to call an early meeting of the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping so that its members may have the opportunity of making representations to the president of T.C.A. before a final decision is taken concerning the purchase of the Caravelle or DC-9 aircraft? [Text]


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the calling of a committee is not the responsibility of the minister.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, could I put my question to the Secretary of State?


Mr. Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member. I believe this question has already been asked, either this week or last week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yesterday.


Gilles Grégoire: No answer.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has he considered providing Trans-Canada Air Lines with statistics as to unemployment in various areas of this country, in case such information could help this corporation choose between the Caravelle and DC-9 aircraft?


Some hon. Members:: No answer.



LABOUR RELATIONS BOYCOTT OF CANADIAN SHIPS    STATEMENT BY U.S. OFFICIAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is now prepared to answer my question of November 13 last, in which I asked for clarification of the discrepancy between the statements made by himself and by Mr. John W. Leslie, the United States deputy assistant secretary of labour.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had already dealt with this question. I regret if I have not, and apologize to the hon. gentleman. I may say I have examined the situation. I believe in the light of the events of that day my statement does not need to be clarified.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question. Does the minister not think that the opposite viewpoint and the statement made by Mr. Leslie, which was directly the reverse of his own' need clarification?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not responsible, of course, for what someone else says. In respect of statements made by someone in the Canadian government and someone in the government of another country, I believe that situation should not be a cause of provocation.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice?
Did the minister receive requests for an investigation from small investors who had invested money in the national holding company which recently declared a $1.2 million bankruptcy involving a complete loss of $800,000 for those small investors?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
In view of the fact that the shareholders' protection emergency committee pretended and officially stated that the directors of that company rather than its structure are responsible for the bitter failure affecting thousands of small investors, does the minister intend to hold an investigation?
28902-5-318J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: According to what I heard from the hon. member and what I saw in the press, it seems that this matter comes exclusively under provincial jurisdiction, but in any case, in view of the concern of the hon. member I shall investigate.



REPORTED STATEMENT ON BUDGET SECRECY BY PRIVY COUNCIL ADVISER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I wonder if the minister would affirm the correctness of a statement made by Mr. Kenneth Taylor, adviser of the privy council, to the effect that budget secrecy may be further relaxed to permit advance knowledge of budget objectives to be gained?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: The hon. member was good enough to send me notice of his question. I believe there is a misunderstanding. I think what Dr. Taylor said was that Canada should not adopt a system which would enable interested persons to profit from information obtained in advance. I may say that Dr. Taylor was kind enough to send me an advance copy of the paper which he read in Vancouver the other day on the whole process of budget making. It is one of the best papers on the subject I have seen, and if any member would like a copy I would be glad to supply it.



NATIONAL ANTHEM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, could I direct a question to the Prime Minister?
Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to suggest that "O Canada" be adopted as the national anthem of Canadians, when he introduces his bill to give Canada a truly Canadian national flag?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper, although I recognize the importance of it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I believe that we have here all the same an important question which concerns all Canadians and which can easily be asked on orders of the day rather than be put on the order paper, since it entails but a simple answer from the Prime Minister.

Inquiries of the Ministry
For that reason, I submit that this question is absolutely in order.


Mr. Speaker:: There were two reasons for making my last suggestion. One was that I could not see the urgency of the question, and questions on orders of the day are at the very least supposed to be urgent. The other point is that this question has already been asked, if I am not mistaken, three or four times this session.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right. After twenty years of waiting,
I believe the answer is not yet urgent.



SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF POWERS OF WHEAT BOARD TO EASTERN PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister care to inform the house whether it is the intention of this government to extend the powers of the Canadian wheat board so that it may have jurisdiction over the sale of western grain in the eastern provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this would, of
course, require amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and notice of any intention of the government to change the act would be given in the usual way.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question. Can the minister at least give us a little bit of hope that this might come up next session?



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cole (Chicoulimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Could he inform the house of the reasons which prompted Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to abolish direct loans to builders, whereas it was understood that loans would be granted to them up to December 31, 1963?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest of this subject perhaps the house would permit me to make a short statement by way of explanation.

To encourage a high level of house building activity during the winter months, the government on September 23 authorized Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to extend its lending program to builders. Previously, direct government loans were available to builders only if they found buyers in advance of building. In September this restriction was temporarily removed.
I am happy to report that the new lending policy has been highly successful. Up to November 15 the corporation received loan applications for 13,147 houses. Nearly 4,000 of these applications were made in the last two weeks. This is not only the largest fortnightly total since the start of this particular program, but it represents the largest volume of direct mortgage lending ever undertaken by the corporation during a comparable period of the year. It creates a loan potential of close to $160 million.
This lending potential ensures the success of the $500 winter incentive program of my colleague the Minister of Labour. It also guarantees a much higher volume of building this winter than ever before in our history. I would be surprised if we went into the new year with less than 90,000 new houses under construction. Indeed, the figure could be higher. By contrast, last year there were 76,000 houses under construction at year end.
These two government programs have provided a tremendous impetus to employment in the building trades and other associated industries. So much so, in fact, that it is now debatable whether the industry is capable of undertaking a larger building program than that already being financed. If more direct loans were made, some builders might find that shortages of skilled labour would prevent thpm completing their housing in time to qualify for the $500 winter building incentive.
Because of this situation, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has instructed its offices not to accept further applications for speculative loans after close of business November 15. I should like to stress this point; builders, of course, can still obtain N.H.A. financing from approved lenders, and they will continue to be eligible for direct loans for houses sold in advance of construction. The corporation will also make loans to home owners. In effect C.M.H.C., having achieved the government's objectives, has simply reverted to the policy which existed prior to September 23.
I think the house will agree that this special winter lending program has been an unqualified success.


George Louis Chatterton: Could the minister indicate to what extent this large increase in the number of applications-an increase which is the result of the policies of the previous government-was caused by the fear of the tax increase to 3 per cent coming up next March?


John Richard Garland: I think the statement I have made speaks for itself.


Mr. Pugh:: So will the 11 per cent tax.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can he give the house a breakdown by provinces of those applications to which he referred?


John Richard Garland: No, Mr. Speaker.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Will the minister get it?



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry. Is the minister now in a position to enlarge on his remarks of Tuesday regarding the calling of tenders and the location of a heavy water plant in Canada?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Carman Coates: How long may we expect to have to wait?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As soon as possible.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Do Cuban aircraft and aircraft from iron curtain countries en route to and from Cuba still land and refuel at our bases in Canada?


George James McIlraith: I should like to take the question as notice.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the
Inquiries of the Ministry house whether he still intends to appoint a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is at most one for the order paper, if it is in order at all. I believe it has been asked before.



CONGRATULATIONS ON INCOME OF WESTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter F. Foy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce for enabling western farmers to enjoy the largest average income they have ever had.



INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: May I take this opportunity to answer a question directed to the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam on the subject of negotiations with the commonwealth countries on the sugar question. I am sorry I was not here yesterday. I was enjoying the warm hospitality of the people of Winnipeg or, more correctly, the people of the city of St. James where, as all hon. members should know, the beautiful new airport building is located.
As indicated to the house on November 12, I have informed both the commonwealth exporters' group and the Rhodesian producers that we would be interested in considering with them any proposals they might wish to lay before us. Since that time we have had further communications not only from the commonwealth exporters but also from South Africa and Cuba, and we are awaiting their proposals.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Considering the difficulties which are being encountered by the unemployed of our country in their dealings with the unemployment insurance commission at this time, is it the intention of the minister to apply some of the recommendations of the Gill report as soon as it is possible to do so?
5000	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
Righi Hon, L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister): way, shape or form in the action taken by As my colleague the Minister of Labour is the Liberal members on this committee, temporarily out of the house, may I say that Mr>
Aiken; May j ask a supplementary it is our intention to deal with this report question; Mr. speaker. To the knowledge of as soon as possible.	the Prime Minister was there anything which
brought about the replacement of the two CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS members on the committee?



PROTESTS RESPECTING CLOSING OF STATIONS IN WEST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-
Camrose): I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Last Friday I referred to the master agency plan which was being forced upon the residents of the Edmonton area by the Canadian National Railways, and I drew the attention of the minister to the fact that the C.N.R. has closed stations on main lines without obtaining the permission of the board of transport commissioners. I now ask the minister if he has looked into this situation.
George James McIlraith: Yes, I would be glad to look into this.


Mr. Smallwood:: I asked if the minister had looked into it.


George James McIlraith: I am sorry; I did not hear the hon. member clearly. No, I have not looked into it.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Then I want to ask a supplementary question. Because of the inconvenience that the closing of these stations is causing the residents of these areas, and in view of the fact that the C.N.R. has not obtained the permission of the board of transport commissioners, will the minister do this immediately and see that these stations are reopened?


George James McIlraith: Yes, I will have it looked into tomorrow.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and it relates to the motion this afternoon replacing two Liberal members on the committee on privileges and elections. Was this motion made with his knowledge and consent?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This motion was made in the usual way, Mr. Speaker, and the question gives me the opportunity of denying the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition that there was any intervention of the government in any


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is definitely out of order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue in whose name resolution No. 14 appears. Does the minister intend to introduce his legislation before the Christmas recess?


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I did
not hear the question.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: I would like to know whether the Minister of National Revenue intends to introduce resolution No. 14 before the Christmas recess?


John Richard Garland: I can only refer the hon. gentleman to what the Prime Minister said in regard to this matter in the light of the over-all progress.



ADMIRALTY ACT


Lionel Chevrier: the third reading of Bill No. C-108, to amend the Admiralty Act.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to supplement the answer I gave the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka in committee on the bill yesterday. The answer I gave may be found at page 4985 of English Hansard. I pointed out to the hon. member that the immediate purpose of the amendment was to provide for the situation in the province of Ontario. As I pointed out earlier, in Ontario we have the only surrogate judge under the Admiralty Act, and it was the situation in the province of Ontario that provided the immediate stimulation for this amendment.

I should also like to deal with another question which the hon. member asked at that time. He raised the question whether the amendment would have general application. I have drawn his question to the attention of the law officers of the crown, and they have advised me that their interpretation of Bill No. C-108 is that it is the intention of the bill and of the resolution which preceded it to cover not only the situation in the province of Ontario but to cover as well each of the other admiralty districts in which it may be desired to make the arrangement. In particular, in advising me of their opinion the law officers of the crown made reference to section 31(l)(j) of the Interpretation Act, and pointed out that in a proper case a singular word may import a plural meaning. They indicated that in their opinion that was so in this case.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was good enough to advise me this morning of the statement he has just made, and I am very glad this matter has been cleared up so there will be no misunderstanding on the record. I think this does point up the advisability of holding over for third reading any bill which had gone through all other stages on the same day.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL CENTENNIAL ACT


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (for Ihe Prime Minisler) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-107, to amend the National Centennial Act.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonion-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very much time of the house on this measure, but I do think it provides an opportunity to say a few words that in my opinion have become necessary because of what I consider to be the rather narrow attitude taken toward the bill and perhaps toward confederation in general. Certainly the co-operation of the provinces is going to be essential in planning the centennial celebration. I think what should be borne in mind by the commission is the fact that the consideration should be stressed that Canada is made up of an amalgamation or working union of provinces rather than a single unit such as Great Britain.
I am not one of those who becomes alarmed when we have differences of opinion as to how Canada should be reflected or what is Canada's national image, etc. I only become
National Centennial Act alarmed when I find such violent opinions being held by some who apparently feel that no other view but their own should prevail. I certainly hope that by Canada's centenary our present flurry of excitement over where we are going, the possibilities of separatism, etc., will have been smoothed out or at least minimized to such an extent that these problems will be put in proportion.
In my section of the country the city of Edmonton is a very cosmopolitan area. We have a good percentage of German, Ukrainian and Polish nationals. I happen to have one area of French speaking people. I assure the house that in so far as the background of these people is concerned and the question of what is a Canadian, we do not appear to have the problems that sometimes seem to rise in the house as to what is a Canadian. Frankly I am totally unable to understand the almost rabid excitement sometimes shown by members on the far left and their sensitivity about the problems of Quebec.
Certainly it would be a very bad thing if we were to lose the advantages of the cultural background and heritage of the French speaking people, but I can assure the house that the French speaking people of my area have been very successful in preserving their language, their culture and their religion. In their own community and in their own homes French is the first language spoken. They are able to have teaching in French. We are now establishing a college, I believe, to train French speaking teachers. Numerically these people are very much inferior to the English speaking people, but I do think it is worthy of note that the mere fact they are so small in numbers and so completely surrounded by people who find it necessary or expedient or advantageous to speak English first has not caused them to lose any of their own language.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but it seems to me what he is saying now has no connection whatsoever with the bill we are considering at this stage.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I think I will be able to satisfy the minister by my next few remarks relating more directly to the bill. I note the increase in the number of representatives on the commission, and the bill contains reference to the number of members to be appointed from each of the provinces. I can also satisfy him by explaining to the house the situation in my province; what the state of Canada is, shall I say, in that area where there are people of different backgrounds. We are going to get a lot of benefit from the persons who are appointed from these various areas.
As I understand it, the province of Alberta is to appoint two members. Each province will

National Centennial Act be appointing two, and of course the federal government is going to appoint twice as many. I trust its appointments will be made from across Canada, so that in the planning of the celebration of our centennial we will have a fair representation from the province of Alberta which will be able to bring to the deliberations of the committee experience of how things are there, and will adequately reflect the picture of Canada today, how confederation is working and how people of various cultural and ethnic backgrounds are getting along together.
As I understand it, one of the ways in which we can celebrate our centenary is to give a picture of Canada, to allow all Canadians to know and appreciate the state of the country, and where we are in so many ways, not just economically but culturally as well. I think when this commission starts to sit, bringing people together who are experienced in such matters, these problems which may beset one part, or which may be taken much too rabidly by one part of the country, can be brought into in proportion, so it will be seen that they are not really as serious as they are notorious.
I am sure the commission in its deliberations will have considerable pressure put on it, stressing that there must be some more solid symbol, something a Canadian can point to and say "This is a Canadian", as they can with the Americans. They have a definite type of nationalism. It is a melting pot type of country with a melting pot type atmosphere, and they conform to a norm which is very identifiable. I suggest what we are really proud of in Canada, why we are different from the Americans-and I personally am very happy we are-is that we are not and do not pretend to be a melting pot. Canada is made up of people of different backgrounds, people who treasure different types of heritages, people who want to live in different ways, and who treasure most of all that ability to live the way they want, the prime restriction being only that they respect their neighbour's right to live differently should he so wish. This is a point overlooked and sometimes not appreciated enough by Canadians.
The essence of democracy is supposed to be the freedom of the individual. I suggest that Canadian democracy, Canadian confederation, and the fact we do not have that melting pot, really give the ordinary Canadian more freedom than his counterpart in the United States, because he does not have the pressures of conformity to anywhere like the same extent.
Another matter I would like to mention deals with paying special attention to the province of Quebec. I do not pretend to be an

expert on that province or its problems, but I have had the pleasure of visiting there, and I must say I was very encouraged, from gaining a little knowledge of the residents of Quebec, to find them more like western Canadians than I had imagined they could be. Other than the language barrier I could imagine myself at home, and most certainly at home in the part of my riding where the people speak French.
I think certain groups in this house from Quebec pay too much attention to the imagined slights that some people feel. There is always a tendency for some people to point the finger, to take advantage of any worry of one group, to turn it to political advantage and say "I will champion this cause or that cause for you." Certainly sometimes the feeling in Quebec that they are not putting a strong enough hand on the top of industry, on the top of the civil service, and that they do not own enough of the industries their people are employed in, has a very familiar ring. We do not hear it now so much in the west as we used to; but during the tough times in the thirties-and I am referring to all the thirties and even into the forties-when times were a little tough and it was hard to get a job, we found exactly that sort of feeling and expression on the prairies; "They control us; they have got all the money and all the big jobs."
Usually the prairies were looking with suspicion on Bay street, or else on United States control and interests. Whenever you have tough times you want to blame somebody. In the west we used to blame Toronto and American capitalists from the eastern states. The pattern is not much different, and I can readily imagine with the same complaints in Quebec that the direction of complaint would have been toward Toronto and toward American capital, and there would not have been any left as between eastern Canada and western Canada, English speaking Canadians and French speaking Canadians, were it not advantageous for some to say "Since those complaints are there let us point the finger at the real culprits, those English speaking people who want to swallow us up. We will champion the French people and get some political advantage out of it."
That has been responsible for much of the fuss. It is responsible for the attitude taken by some hon. members of the house, which I think has expressed itself in almost ridiculous form in the extent to which they have gone to protect their pride or tender feelings, and to show how well they are championing these causes.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the President of the Privy Council pointed out a while ago that it was not permitted at this stage of the study of the bill to embark on a digression or even to speak along the lines taken now by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent). In my opinion, if such digressions were permitted, we should be allowed to answer certain allusions.
[Text1


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is quite right, and I am sure the hon. member who has the floor realizes that what we are now discussing is an amending bill. We should consider the principle of the amending bill, and not the principle of the bill being amended. I am sure he will take this into account in the course of his remarks.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I regret that the way in which I have put my remarks may have made it seem to the hon. member that this was not exactly pertinent. The point I made earlier is that the expansion of the number of members makes it possible to get a different and broader viewpoint of the confederation of Canada as it is. What I was trying to stress here was the point that there are not those real troubles that sometimes appear from the surface; that a basic understanding of the nature of the complaints, heard not only from Quebec but from time to time through various parts of the country, can be put in proper perspective when the members of this commission are properly chosen, when there is an expansion in the number of members, and that a careful choice from the provinces will give a much better chance to see that this is what is done.
I cannot understand the justification for increasing the number of members of a commission from any other point of view. I see the President of the Privy Council shaking his head, indicating that what I am saying is wrong. However, if he is going to expand the number of commissioners he must be going to add something to the commission other than political appointees. If the minister wants to ask me a question I shall be glad to entertain it.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question? I am under the impression that the hon. member is confusing two quite different agencies, namely the national centennial administration, about which we are now talking, and the national conference on the centennial, which was set up last October. Am I not correct in my impression?
28902-5-319
National Centennial Act


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I was of course referring to both bodies in the nature of the problem facing them and the need for understanding by each. But I thought the minister was objecting to my remarks about the expansion of the commission itself. I can only hope that the reason for expanding the administration is to give it a broader base and not just for political representation. That is the only point I wish to make.
I said at the outset that I was going to be very brief, but I did want to point out that the number of people on this advisory committee, drawn from across the provinces should be fully representative; and even though only two are appointed by each of the provinces I hope the other 40 will be in proportion from all the provinces so we will get a balanced picture. I also hope the points I have made may be of some use in understanding that while sometimes certain groups in this house are very vocal and very loud and sometimes, I think, rather silly, the problem looked at in proportion is not that serious; it does not accurately reflect Canada's real troubles; and perhaps we will teach them to speak with more moderation by 1967, as more understanding develops across the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the house has spent the best part of two days on this piece of legislation. Therefore we do not feel it is necessary to have an extended debate today. My remarks at this second reading stage will therefore be very brief.
I should like at the outset to refer in just a word or two to the small amendment the house accepted yesterday when we were at the resolution stage. I refer to my amendment which inserted the word "Canadian" in the short title. To make a one word amendment does not seem very much, but I dare to hope that what happened yesterday is a symptom of what we can do when we celebrate our centennial. We were apparently badly divided in the house up to a point yesterday. There were those who felt that the word "national" should be taken out of the short title; there were others who did not like the idea of the word "national" being deleted. But when it was suggested that the word "Canadian" be put in, without any debate this was accepted unanimously.
I dare to hope this suggests there are things that unite us in this country. I dare to hope that this gives promise that the celebration of the centennial itself will not have the effect of dividing us, as has sometimes appeared to be the case from the kind of discussions that have taken place, but rather that the celebration of the centennial will be an event

National Centennial Act that will unite us in this country and launch us into a second century that will be even greater than the first century since our confederation in 1867.
I do not think it was out of place to have the kind of discussion that we had during the last two days. It is good for people to get things off their chest. Indeed, I think the relative calm that has settled over the chamber today suggests that this purpose has been served and I hope this piece of legislation will now have the endorsation of the house, and that we will thus be in a position to ask the commission and those responsible for planning the centennial celebration to get on with the job.
It had been my intention earlier to ask the President of the Privy Council at some stage in connection with this legislation to give us a report on the projects lined up or being undertaken. But I will be satisfied if he will give us the commitment that he will make such a report in some detail on the estimates that relate to this matter. Surely bringing those estimates before the house cannot be long delayed. I do think we are entitled to have a report on what has happened up to the present time and what is being done.
As I said a couple of days ago when I spoke in the debate at the resolution stage, I am concerned, and I think many Canadians are concerned, at the precious time that has been lost. I hope it will not be possible for a writer like I. Norman Smith, in 1968, to say of our centennial that we made a botch of it, as he said Ottawa did of its 100th birthday. This depends upon all of us. It depends not just on the commission, not just on the government, but on all of us in this house and the people of Canada generally. I believe we would like to have a worthwhile celebration. Let us get on with the job in the three years or so that remain between now and then.
I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare in her place, as well as the President of the Privy Council. I would like to make just one more concrete, practical suggestion as to a way in which I think we could effectively celebrate the 100th birthday of this nation in a manner in which it would be long remembered. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare could have something to do with this, she too would be long remembered. What about planning now to increase old age security by stages of $5 a month; once in 1964, twice in 1965 and twice in 1966. Thus on entering 1967, our 100th year of confederation, the basic old age security payment would be $100 a month.
One hundred dollars a month, in the 100th year of confederation, would be a monument much better than any monument of stone;

it would speak much louder than speeches; it would last much longer than fireworks. I suggest this as a very practical proposal and something that might well be planned with a view to making our 100th anniversary one really to be remembered.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to participate in this debate heretofore, and I do not now intend to prolong it; but there are a few things I would like to say in relation to the bill before us.
Changing the short title of a bill is something of importance, not because the short title means very much in itself but because the addition or deletion of words can be construed as a change of policy or attitude on a subject which means a great deal to us and which I trust will continue to mean more, because it is so vitally concerned with the continuation of our nation, Canada.
The change that relates to the increase in the number of commissioners is good if it means a wider representation across Canada and a greater degree of participation by Canadians as we approach the centennial through these preparations.
Now, the basic change, the elimination of the word "national" and the substitution of the words "of Canadian confederation", which includes the amendment made yesterday, is what I regard as the most important and significant part of this bill. I personally wish to go on record as favouring this change. I do so for two basic reasons which I should like to state. The first is the obvious one that it makes the short title of the bill conform to its existing long title, "An act respecting the observance of the centennial of confederation in Canada." Therefore the amendment which was added yesterday follows along this line of thought.
The second reason is the fact that the use of the word "national" in the short title prior to this amendment leads to confusion and misunderstanding in the French translation. I do not contend I am a master of the French language. Certainly, however, I regard the meaning that is brought out in the French translation of the title, "le centenaire de la nation" as something completely different from the meaning given by the English title. A lot of this confusion could have been avoided if there had been more care used in the translation of the title of the original bill. As I understand the meaning of the word "nation" in French, it conveys shades of meaning that are certainly not conveyed by the English word at all. I believe this is one of the reasons so much time has been consumed in the house; that is, simply that a French speaking person who reads the

title gets a completely different meaning from the English speaking person who reads the title.
At the same time I should like to place firmly on the record, particularly for the benefit of our friends whose mother tongue is French, that in the English sense of the word Canada did become a nation by the process of confederation. This process was an event of historic importance and significance, well worthy of the commemoration celebrations we are now planning for 1967. The year 1867 marks the time a number of independently governed British colonies on the North American continent were constituted into a new nation to be known as Canada. At the same time the old province of Canada was divided into the present province of Quebec and Ontario. This was the time the effective government of Canada was transferred from London, England to Ottawa, to a federal parliament elected by Canadians. This, then, becomes the birthday of our country, Canada, using the English meaning of the word "nation", as a politically autonomous group of people inhabiting a recognized territory and bound together by common bonds of allegiance, citizenship and governmental organization. This is the meaning that is carried to English speaking people who fully understand the meaning of those words.
I cannot help the feeling that many of my friends in the province of Quebec do not recognize the importance of this constitutional step which was taken in 1867, nearly 100 years ago. It seems to me that an impression still remains, often enough fostered by politicians who should know better, that the federal government is not their government, and that it is not in any way essentially different from the colonial government which existed prior to 1867.
It is remarkable that this attitude should persist, when in fact Quebec province has provided Canada with two of its most capable and respected prime ministers, namely Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Louis St. Laurent. Under their leadership Canada passed one quarter of its almost a century of political life. I am thinking now of the country of Canada. Quebec also has been traditionally the backbone of the Liberal party, which has spent more years in office than any other Canadian political party since 1867. If any province has had a chance to say what it wanted by way of federal government policy in the past 100 years, that province has been Quebec.
I am supporting the change of name proposed here because I believe the change is necessary to avoid any undue misunderstanding on the part of Canadians who come from Quebec. All the same, I would appeal to those who are of French Canadian background to 28902-5-319J
National Centennial Act endeavour to understand precisely what the word "nation" means in the English language. Probably we are talking about the same thing, and we are far closer to mutual understanding than technical interpretation and meanings of words would apparently convey. If one talks in English about a national centennial, one is not denying that French Canadian culture existed before 1867. When one talks in English about Canada as one nation, certainly one is not denying the existence of a French Canadian language nor its right to continue its important place in Canadian culture. Personally I wish every French Canadian inhabitant in Canada to have the fullest chance to preserve and develop their culture. Confederation, united under a common form of government, brought together men and women of different cultures who wanted to become citizens of the new and great Canadian nation. It has, of course, attracted many others who have since come to live here, who are neither French nor English but who also wanted to live under this government of Canada.
It is this founding agreement which made Canada an independent and which has led to sovereign political entity that we propose to commemorate in the year 1967. I hope that those who live in the province of Quebec will realize that this is something entirely different from the original discovery, settlement and development of our land, whether by our French or English pioneers. It is an event that we should celebrate because this is what we look forward to as a nation.
It is my hope that all Canadians will stop long enough to consider the intention of the original fathers of confederation when they brought confederation into being nearly 100 years ago. This was to make Canada a new, autonomous country which later became part of the commonwealth, but still a nation to have its own citizenship and its own government. Let us make sure that not only do we celebrate the centennial but that we have a Canada in which to celebrate it. Let us stand together to make sure that this original purpose of the fathers of confederation is continued and strengthened. Surely if the changing of a word or two in the title of this act helps us to understand the real purpose which we should be looking for today, then we should all be for it.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have but a few very brief comments to make on the bill now before the house.
There was quite a bit of discussion yesterday, at the resolution stage, and we heard some very pleasant observations, especially from the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
National Centennial Act Gregoire), to whom I am glad to pay this tribute, because his rejoinders were most appropriate at times.
I feel it would also be quite in order for me to congratulate the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) for his very clear and most objective statement.
Mr. Speaker, the main features of the measure we are discussing concern the changing of the short title of the act from "the National Centennial Act" to "the Centennial of Confederation Act".
The bill aims also at granting extended power to the centennial commission and increasing from 8 to 12 the number of directors, if it is passed, needless to say.
That proposal is meant obviously to promote administrative efficiency within the centennial commission, which will be able to make expenditures up to $25,000 without getting beforehand the authorization of the governor in council. The commission will also be able to acquire property up to the said amount, without having to obtain the authorization of the governor in council, which is surely one more step towards administrative efficiency.
But the most important change, in my opinion, is the new name that is proposed. Instead of celebrating the centennial of the nation, we are going to celebrate the centennial of confederation. Of course that implies rather different circumstances, because we are ready to celebrate the Canadian nation at any time, but to celebrate the centennial of confederation, that is not exactly the same thing.
As a matter of fact, if we refer to the words of the former government member for Rober-val, perhaps we can understand why those who drafted the present act preferred the name "centenary of the nation", because, if my memory is good, the former member for Roberval used to say that confederation was a dupe's bargain. Of course he was giving his personal opinion, and perhaps this explains why it would be preferred not to celebrate the centennial of confederation, but rather the centennial of the nation.
Mr. Speaker, if I may give a personal opinion, I would say that in order to celebrate the centennial of an event, that event must reflect something happy which was beneficial to the two great races of the country.
Well, if we want to celebrate confederation, it must be recognized that it brought about some benefits, otherwise there would be no reason for such a celebration. And here I would like to refer to the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), who claimed that the statement I made two weeks ago at the young
[Mr. Choquette.l
Liberals' convention was prejudicial, because it was not likely to lead to unity.
Mr. Speaker, I am justified to say, I think, that I do not see how my remarks might be prejudicial to national unity.
I simply expressed the wish that by 1967 Canada would have her complete national sovereignty, because I am convinced-this also may be a very personal opinion-that at the present time the great majority of public opinion is ready to Canadianize Canada in all her aspects and symbols.
We want to be Canadians, Mr. Speaker, and I resent at times too many references to French and English Canadians. I am proud of being a Canadian and also a Frenchspeaking Canadian, and I believe that the best way to unite the two great races which make up our country and to bring them closer together, is to create a truly Canadian ideal.
When a great parliamentarian stated in 1848: "We have government responsibility", there was cause to rejoice because it meant breaking with the bonds of colonialism.
When in 1931, the Statute of Westminster recognized Canada's independence, there was cause to rejoice, because it meant breaking with all bonds of colonialism.
In 1963, four years before the centennial celebrations, it is advisable, in my opinion, to see to it that every symbol of bondage and subservience is removed.
Canada is an economic power; it has the right to transact business freely with other countries. It declared war in 1939-which is a sign of total independence-and since 1945, it has its own representative at the United Nations. Why should it still be subject to bonds of colonialism?
Here is the nonsensical situation in which Canada finds itself in 1963: without a flag, without a national anthem, unable to amend its own constitution in some cases and a foreign sovereign is the symbol of its supreme authority.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I trust that for 1967, we shall have all the symbols of absolute sovereignty in Canada in order that we may be true Canadians in this our great country of which I am proud.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I wish, in the first place, to congratulate the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) who has recalled some fine feats of arms and certain past periods, from colonial days to a sovereign and responsible government.
In connection with this Bill C-107, I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for the short amendment which he moved last evening. In my opinion, there is some truth in this brief amendment.

We are all Canadians of goodwill, and regardless of our racial origin, we hope that the confederation centennial will really be something to rejoice about for the various elements throughout the country.
I note that the amendment introduced provides that the number of directors of this centennial commission is to be increased from 8 to 12.
Considering the nature of the speeches which we have heard during these past few days, it is essential that we should bear in mind that our Canadian people is made up of French Canadians, English Canadians and new Canadians.
I trust-I hope that 1 am right in this- that these appointments will not be purely political appointments but will really take into account the real splendour and magnificence which should characterize the celebration of the confederation centennial. I suggest that the number of directors increased from 8 to 12, should effectively represent our various ethnic groups, that is four French-Canadian, four English-Canadian and also four new-Canadian representatives. I think that the beauty of flowers lies in the variety of colours and we should not forget that almost a third of our people-at least five million out of the 18 million inhabitants of Canada-brought us their own native culture, which we are sometimes glad to see in their patriotic celebrations within their own groups.
I think we might multiply the colourful diversity of those who will take part in celebrating the centennial of the Canadian confederation, and that is why I believe that it is time to try the experiment by introducing the other ethnical groups in that commission. Thus, everybody would take part in the celebration of the confederation centennial as a flourishing nation with great hopes for the future, which wants to progress in that direction.
I shall quote clause 17 of Bill C-107 which says:
There shall be a national conference on the centennial of confederation consisting of the minister and not more than sixty members, each of whom shall be appointed by the minister, including at least two members from each of the ten provinces who shall be appointed by the minister on the recommendation of the governments of each of the provinces.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) is a little bit confused, as was another hon. member a little while ago. The centennial conference, with 60 members, has already been formed; the names of those members were announced early in October. This bill does not in any way propose to increase the representation on that conference.
National Centennial Act


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I was not alluding to the increase of the membership, but I wanted simply to suggest that the ten provinces be also considered when proceeding with appointments to this national conference.


Mr. Speaker:: I must tell the hon. member that he is getting away from the bill before us when he speaks of appointments, as he did just now.


Gérard Perron: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having probably been absent when the house was informed of those appointments having been made.
Yet, at the same time as the increase in the number of commissioners from 8 to 12, I think we should not only prepare the adoption of a national flag but also of a national anthem. I think the idea should be considered so that the celebration of the centennial of the Canadian confederation would really be a great day for all Canadians.


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: shall take only a few moments. I did not intend to enter into this debate. However, I was somewhat shocked at certain aspects of the discussion which has taken place in the last two days on such a simple amendment as is now proposed. I was certainly taken aback when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), ranging far and wide, opened this debate in such a critical vein and allowed it to take the course it has taken.
I have looked at some of the words used by the right hon. gentleman. He stated, among other things, as will be found reported at page 4916 of Hansard for November 19:
The word "dominion" has disappeared. During the days of Mr. St. Laurent it became an ugly word and was removed even from the telephone books. Now the word "national" is to be removed. I cannot understand the need for that change. This is a national undertaking. It is said it is objected to by the premier of Quebec.
Later on, he stated:
Why remove a word which refers to all of the people of this nation, not only the two founding races but all the races of our country?
Others of the right hon. gentleman's party spoke in the same vein, including the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk), the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) and others. However, it is interesting to note that in the same debate the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) stated as reported on page 4937 of Hansard for the same day:
I was also pleased to note that other amendments had been made, because without Quebec's contribution to the centennial celebrations it would have been impossible to take advantage of this bill and to vote the amounts of money in co-operation with the provinces. It is indeed the centennial of confederation and not of Canada which we are

National Centennial Act going to celebrate, since Canada existed long before 1867.
He went on to say-and this surprised me:
I also remember that at the last Conservative convention, for instance, a resolution was moved to change the constitution so that the word "dominion" be deleted. It was put to a vote and a majority of delegates voted to have the word "dominion" suppressed.
These words give a somewhat different impression to that given by the hon. member's leader. The hon. member for Marquette made what I consider to be a fine speech, a fine contribution. He, too, ranged far and wide. I find I must agree with many of the things he said. As reported on page 4942, he stated:
Other peoples came into this country after 1867- They came here, not as hewers of wood or drawers of water. They felt they were coming in as equals, as partners in the building of this nation and they so feel today.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I agree. Then the hon. member went on to say:
These people who came were prepared to make maximum contributions to the development of one over-all Canadian culture. They are making those contributions today to a national culture embracing the best of all cultures.
These are not words with which one can argue. I agree with them. He went on to say:
These people pray, and I believe I have a right to ask on their behalf, that they be not left behind in celebrating the 100th anniversary of this great nation of ours. They wish to celebrate. They wish to take stock of what they have achieved and what they have contributed to this nation. They hope that the two founding races appreciate their contributions and they are not asking for anything else__They ask for the privilege of full participation__I am proud of my racial origin and I am
proud of being a Canadian.
Like many other members of this house, I, too, am a Canadian who descends from an ancestry which is other than French or English. I am proud of my Italian ancestry, just as the hon. member for Marquette is proud of his Ukrainian ancestry. But, Mr. Speaker, when he implies in his speech that people who have come to this country from the European nations may be looked upon as second class citizens because of an amendment to this act, then I say he is not speaking with sincerity but is speaking strictly for purposes of public propaganda. I take objection to his remarks when he says, as found on page 4943 of Hansard:
If we are a nation, this is a national celebration and the purposes of this act would remain the same if it were called the National Centennial Act.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) does not agree with that. We have not heard from the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) or the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade). I am wondering what they are thinking. But this
[Mr. Macaluso.l
is not important. We all know that the right hon. gentlemen at one time in the history of the country tried-


Mr. Valade:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted to hear the hon. member but I think he is completely out of order. He has been reading from speeches by different members of the house and saying, "I agree with this" or "I do not agree with that". We would like him to tell us his own opinion and come back to the main purport of the bill. I do not mind hearing his comments but I should like him not to read the speeches of others. I hope he can make a speech of his own.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, this just shows that the hon. member does not know whereof he speaks. I am quoting from certain speeches made by members of his party, and if they were in order when they made them I am in order when I quote from them to show how inconsistent they are.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We are on second reading.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I still intend to quote certain remarks made by members of the party to which the hon. gentleman belongs. With regard to the changing of the short title of National Centennial Act, at first I wondered why it should be changed. But I was not aware then that the premier of the province of Quebec had written to the Leader of the Opposition when he was prime minister setting out the reasons why he recommended this change. I was not aware until it was explained by the President of the Privy Council in the house why Canadians of French origin object strenuously to the wording of the short title. This only goes to bear out what I have always considered and still consider to be a lack of interest on the part of the right hon. gentleman in many things with regard to which he states that he was or is the great defender. We would not have wasted three days in the house-


Gordon Minto Churchill: What are you doing?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: -if the plea of the premier of the province of Quebec had been listened to at that time and if a proper translation had been made at that time. I am quite concerned about the people who have come to this country from the European nations. As the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) stated, they came to this country to be Canadians, they are Canadians and, as I said the other night during the speech of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), they are making a contribution.
But I would say that each and every one of us has a responsibility to see that the

celebration of the centennial of confederation in 1967 is a most happy occasion. 1 do not mean happy only in the sense that we should be able to go out and have fun socially at the events that will be going on, but that we should be happy with regard to the 100th anniversary of the founding of this nation which was brought about by the joining together of Lower Canada, Upper Canada and the maritime provinces at the conferences in Charlottetown and Quebec city resulting in confederation in 1867. I know that in 1967 all Canadians, no matter what their origin, will take part in the celebration feeling that they are Canadians and none of them, as the hon. member for Marquette seemed to imply, will enter into the celebrations as second class citizens just because the name of this act has been changed. I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) also wants to speak so I will now conclude.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thanks for giving me two minutes.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would meet with the approval of the house if the time devoted to private members' business this day were to extend only from 5.20 to six o'clock so that we may finish this bill, because it is urgent that it be disposed of today. The President of the Privy Council cannot be here next week, and I think it would meet with the approval of all hon. members if we continued a little longer and tried to dispose of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree that we try.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We agree that we try; but it is pretty shocking procedure that two members on the government side should occupy the time of the house in the last 40 minutes making speeches which were inflammatory, to say the least, and that we should then be asked to agree to a limitation of debate. Another 20 minutes might not suffice to answer these hon. gentlemen.


Gilles Grégoire: We agree, Mr. Speaker. [Text]


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? First of all, is it agreed that we will proceed as suggested by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the passing of this measure. If the hon. member who has just resumed his seat had confined his remarks
National Centennial Act to the principle of the bill now before us, I feel I might have had an extra 15 minutes, and that, without impeding the work of this house.
We are studying an amendment to legislation enacted by the former government. The purpose of this amendment is to change the title of a federal agency which is entrusted with a public celebration and with throwing into light, at the occasion of the centennial of confederation, those historical facts which have surrounded the birth and the expansion of this country of ours, Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we wasted a lot of time in finding a formula to change the title of that act. It would have been so much more simple to call the bill the "Canada centennial act", and in French "Loi du cen-tenaire du Canada". That title would have been quite simple and would certainly have expressed the proposed objective. This makes us wonder whether the real aim of the bill is not to play at politics rather than to safeguard a principle, as the government would have us believe.
When we examine the main amendments concealed behind this change of title, we find various clauses which not only make us suspect the reasons given by the President of the Privy Council, but tend to depreciate the aim of the legislation introduced by the former government.
Indeed, there is not a single paragraph in the amendment of the former act which does not imply some sort of political patronage. The present legislation being so important, it is unfortunate that the government did not consider the grounds for introducing this legislation more seriously and should rather under the pretence of changing the title, have opened the door to a patronage which seems so much to its liking.
If we read paragraph 3 of Bill C-107, we find that, instead of maintaining the status of the general commissioner in charge, he has been given an associate commissioner, which results in a sharing of authority and the splitting of the administrative structure of that organization, a fact which might very well make it helpless or at least ineffective.
I wonder why the minister saw fit to appoint an associate commissioner to such an organization. If it was not for political reasons, I would like very much to know the real reasons which prompted him to make this change in the legislation.
If we examine the legislation a little further, we find in subsection 5 that the commission may undertake a program or distribute donations for any amount not exceeding $25,000. Here again, this amendment is quite close to the new spirit that seems to

National Centennial Act prevail since the Liberal party came into power in the province of Quebec, in that every means is used to evade the law in order to protect the supporters of the regime, in spite of the fact that the present government blamed the previous administration in the province of Quebec for having dispensed patronage.
In my opinion, the danger entailed by those amendments intended to emphasize the advantages of confederation, is that they open a door to patronage. It seems to me that the minister could have been much more cautious and stood clear of crypto-separatism, which he has so often exposed by removing such an amendment from this legislation.
I should not want either to leave unchallenged the statements made by the minister in the last few weeks about the respect of confederation, but I wonder why he has made this change in the act in order to increase the membership of the commission from 8 to 12.
Obviously, it is not to give a job to a few unemployed.


Maurice Lamontagne: It is to provide representation for all provinces.


Georges-J. Valade: This is the reason given, to provide representation for all provinces, but the same excuse was given when at the beginning of the session, the Atlantic Development Board Act was amended. The same excuse was given when the present government proposed to amend the Canadian World Fair Act. The other day, the Prime Minister gave the assurance that he would consider amending the Canadian World Fair Act to increase the number of directors. Probably once again this is to open the door to patronage.
In all the measures introduced by the government, the basic principles are altered by amendments opening the door to patronage. This bill should be free of all political influence and all the measures introduced by this government should be safe from such political influence.


Maurice Lamontagne: Would the hon. member allow me a question? Does the hon. member agree that we should try to appoint representatives from all provinces within the centennial commission?


Georges-J. Valade: I agree completely with the minister about representation of the provinces within that commission, but, in my opinion, there are several ways to achieve this. And I think the minister must realize there are other ways to solve the problem.
I appreciate that the number could have been increased to 16, 24 or 48. I do not know the maximum number the minister could set


but, by increasing by one third or one half the existing number, he saw to it that he would get the majority when decisions are reached with regard to grants amounting to less than $25,000. The act states clearly that the commission has the right to undertake a distribution program for gifts, grants of less than $25,000.
So, the amendment concerning the appointment of other members to the commission opens the way to such an implication. I am not raising an accusation.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, we ask to be authorized to increase the number of the directors of the commission from 8 to 12, and I said to the Leader of the Opposition the other day that our intention was not to replace the eight directors already appointed by the former government, so that we would not have the majority when decisions are taken.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister for this statement because the appointments made by us were not political appointments. That is where lies the difference between the present government's attitude and that of the former government.
In the list submitted to the house by the minister on November 20 as recorded on page 4978 of Hansard, I see the name of Mr. Jean Brillant, one of the Liberal party's financial backers.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the hon. member that that concerns the national conference that has already been set up, and which is not at all the same thing as the centennial commission. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to read the act and restrict himself to the question under study.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind the hon. member for St. Mary that in this debate I called to order some members who seemed to confuse the two agencies.


Auguste Choquette: The Duplessis manner.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lotbiniere has just said words that may be dangerous for him, since nationalistic and crypto-separatist statements were not made by Mr. Duplessis, but rather by his friends Messrs. Levesque and Lesage.
Moreover, I think that many statements on the part of some of his friends in the province of Quebec have contributed more to disunion in Canada than any statement made by the former premier of that province.
I also think that the hon. member for Lotbiniere should think again, for he has made another statement where he gave a detailed account of the Liberal party's great

contribution to confederation and its understanding of this problem. Now, if my hon. friend would go back to the days when Mr. St. Laurent was prime minister of Canada, he would recall that during a similar debate, the former prime minister had stated that the French language could be done away with, as an official language by a majority vote in the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt once more the hon. member for St. Mary, but I suggest that he limits his remarks to the legislation now before us.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I had to answer the hon. member for Lotbi-niere who made quite an irregular interruption, and if he wishes to start a debate on that matter, I am ready to take part in it.
I believe that the President of the Privy Council would have been well advised to keep political considerations out of the amendment he introduces to the legislation enacted by the former Conservative government.
To come back to the argument which I brought up a moment ago, I wish to tell him that I do not question the objectiveness and the honesty of those who will be appointed to that commission, but I believe that the risk which the government runs by proceeding in that manner can easily cast doubts on the honesty not only of the commission itself, but also of those who comprise it.
The commission will play a vital part in the success of Canada's centennial celebrations. That is why the minister should have taken all necessary precautions to ensure that nobody would have any misgivings about the commissioners' impartiality, and especially about political pressures or patronage within that commission.
Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I must say that as a French Canadian, I will be most happy to celebrate Canada's centennial with my English speaking fellow citizens. However, as the present premier of the province of Quebec said on several occasions, the future of confederation will be very doubtful indeed if the two groups who wrote the British North America Act do not make an objective effort to understand each other.
In fact, the decisions we take should work in favour of national unity instead of against it.
I should like to remind the house that the soundest basis of confederation was laid by Conservatives, men like Cartier and Macdonald. History is there to prove it. I have the feeling that it is the Conservative party which will once again save confederation, especially if certain Liberals who hold important positions, like the Quebec premier and his minister of natural resources, keep
National Centennial Act on making vociferous statements in favour of nationalism and separatism. In my opinion, we will have then a basis for closer agreement between the two great races of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, nationalism and separatism are not to be found only in the province of Quebec.
There exists, in other parts of Canada, groups which manifest ideas of separatism in their own area.
In fact, it is recognized that hon. members often, and quite regrettably, receive periodicals which are not such as to consolidate the basis of understanding between French speaking and English speaking Canadians.
I have in hand one of those periodicals. I shall quote some extracts, simply in order to call the attention of responsible men, in all fields of public activity, on publications of that type, which, instead of helping us build a strong nation, endeavour to divide us by the wrong interpretation of the very principles which inspired the confederative pact. And, at this stage, I suggest it is a pact and not an act, as Mr. St. Laurent alleged.
Mr. Speaker, those periodicals are prejudicial to the country's unity. As a matter of fact, in its November 1963 issue, the Sentinel wrote:

They are pleading now for an equality which, if granted, would soon develop into applied superiority through the pressure their unified control and persistent needling can exert upon the political leaders of all parties. That, to our mind, is the issue that lies ahead for Canada. It is in the shaping today, and all the calls seem to be coming from militant French Canadians in all stratas of Quebec life.

Mr. Speaker, I point out that situation, which, I know, distresses all hon. members; but we are confronted here with precisely the type of publication that can only be prejudicial to the success of the celebration of the centennial.
The President of the Privy Council should have suppressed from these amendments the last appearance of patronage, so that this bill would not be a piece of legislation tainted with politics but a measure which might inspire truly noble feelings, unite all Canadians, and make of the year 1967, the year of Canada's centennial, a year of which we might all be proud as Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, could I direct a question to the hon. member?



National Centennial Act


Georges-J. Valade: Certainly.


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has just suggested that the title of the act be changed to the "Canada centennial act". Does he not feel that in 1967 we shall be celebrating the 443rd anniversary of Canada?


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I did not understand the question of the hon. member.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has suggested that the act be known as the "Canada centennial act". Does he not feel that in 1967 we shall actually be celebrating the 443rd anniversary of Canada?


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question affords me the opportunity to clear up a point.
When I speak of Canada's centennial, I want to emphasize that, in 1867, confederation enabled the two ethnic groups to unite. As a matter of fact, my friend knows quite well that there was no Canada as such in 1867, but that there was instead what they called "Lower Canada" and "Upper Canada"-


David Réal Caouette: "Haut-Canada" and "Bas-Canada".


Georges-J. Valade: I used the English expressions for the sake of bilingualism and to show clearly what the situation was then.
And thus with confederation, the wish of both French speaking and English speaking Canadians to unite and to respect each other came true. It is this respect for their essential rights that is laid down in the British North America Act, in sections 92 and 133, to be exact, and many others of which hon. members are aware.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Longueuil should not make me say what I did not say and, especially, that I believe Canada began in 1867. On the other hand, I know that our country began to head towards a certain unity of mind in 1867, and our goal now must be to try and create, for 1967, a unity of mind in mutual respect for the rights of each province which is the true spirit of confederation, and not a melting pot.


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put another question to the hon. member. Is he not of the opinion that there was a Canada before Upper and Lower Canada came into being?


Georges-J. Valade: I think there were also Indians even before my friend's time, here, in Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my
[Mr. Cote (Longueuil) .1
objections to this bill. It is another indication of fumbling and bumbling on the part of this government. I have had occasion during the last two or three days to run over in my mind the accomplishments of the government during this session, and I find that all they are doing is taking acts which are already on the statute books and changing names, enlarging the number of directors or the number of people mentioned in those acts, and things of that nature.
Here we have another example. The National Centennial Act was set up, people were appointed and the job was under way. This government has to now tinker with this operation. When the present government was in opposition was the time for them to suggest the changes that they are now trying to bring into effect, if they thought them worth while at that time-which they did not. We have heard hon. members suggest today-


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but I rise on a point of order. I believe it was understood that at 5.20 we would move to the private members' hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The understanding of the Chair was that we would go to twenty minutes after five o'clock, and unless there is unanimous consent to continuing this debate, the Chair will have to call the private members' hour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is absolutely the last speaker, and if he could conclude his remarks in a couple of minutes-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -perhaps the house would consent to that course being followed. But if we are going on with a debate on semantics- and the debate on this bill has already gone on for three days-I think we should follow the course that was agreed upon earlier.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is precisely the reason I intend to debate this measure, because of accusations like this. One of the other members said we were wasting the time of the house and the hon. member has referred to semantics, and so on. I have every intention of exerting my rights as a member of this house to be heard on this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni also has rights.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre might want to adjourn the debate because I understand we are going into committee of supply at seven o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the cabinet minute or other official document which authorized the Secretary of State for External Affairs to notify the executive director, the international north Pacific fisheries commission, by telegram under date of May 10, 1963, that the commission's recommendations for the removal of the halibut stocks in the eastern Bering sea and the herring stocks west of the Queen Charlotte islands from the annex to the convention had been accepted by the government of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion has been standing in my name for some time. It was transferred for debate on October 16, and in order to set the matter in perspective I might perhaps just quote the remarks made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) on that occasion. He said, as reported on page 3625 of Hansard for October 16, 1963:
The government, as my hon. friend knows, approved the three recommendations of the international north Pacific fisheries commission concerning the removal of halibut stock in the eastern Bering sea and herring stock west of the Queen Charlotte islands from the annex of the north Pacific fisheries convention. This decision was communicated to the executive director of the commission on May 10. Action was taken on the authority of this cabinet decision and no other official document exists.
With regard to the production of the actual cabinet minute, as my hon. friend I am sure well knows, it is a well established rule in Canadian parliamentary practice that the texts of cabinet minutes are not made public. I regret, therefore, I cannot agree to the motion and I ask my hon. friend to be good enough to withdraw it.
My reply was as follows:
I would not quarrel with the general principle enunciated by the minister in respect of cabinet minutes, but it does seem to me there are some particular circumstances surrounding the situation which the minister has outlined in connection with this matter. It is apparent from what he has said that there are no other official documents in connection with the action taken by the government.
It seems to me there are some special circumstances attached to this kind of situation. I should like to ask, therefore, following the good example of the present minister in the previous parliament, to have this motion transferred to a place on the order paper where it would become a debatable motion.
The terms of my motion which you have read to the house, Mr. Speaker, make it clear that I was not directly asking for the production of a cabinet minute. My motion does say "cabinet minute or other official document".
Fisheries Commission Recommendation At the time I drafted this motion I had been led to believe that there perhaps was no other official document, but I was hopeful that there might be one which I had not been able to discover. I should like to make it clear that I had no intention of asking the government directly to produce a cabinet minute as such.
The reason I felt this motion should be debated was that if there were no other documents than the cabinet minute, a rather peculiar and regrettable state of affairs, then the cabinet minute being the only official record of the action taken by the Canadian government to amend an international treaty, that should become public property. If the situation is as indicated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his earlier reply to me, then the public of Canada and the members of this house have never had any official notification that the annex to this treaty has been amended.
As the house will recall, a rather important and controversial matter is involved. I realize fully that it is not within the rules on this occasion to debate the merits or demerits of the action the government took. However, in order to put this matter in perspective, I feel I should be permitted to point out that when the original proposals of the international commission came to the attention of the house during the last parliament, this was obviously quite a controversial matter. It was considered to be of grave importance by hon. members, particularly those who came from British Columbia whose fisheries were most directly affected by this north Pacific convention.
I should remind the house that this concern was shared by most of the other members from British Columbia and by the Liberal members of this house who represented British Columbia, including the present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing). I recall that on one occasion he asked the then minister of fisheries about this matter and suggested it should go before the marine and fisheries committee prior to a decision being taken by the government. He suggested that this could possibly have disastrous consequences. Those are his words, as I recall them. I found it difficult to understand, therefore, when the present government acted precipitately on this matter and apparently tried to shove it under the rug, so that parliament and the people of Canada would not be aware of what has taken place. Quite frankly, this is the only interpretation I can place upon the fact that the only official record of the action taken by the government of Canada in this connection is some cabinet minute.
This matter goes back, of course, for some time. I suppose the members of the present administration could argue that this was a
5014	HOUSE OF
Fisheries Commission Recommendation matter which should have been brought to a conclusion by the previous administration. I would not quarrel with them too much if they were to suggest that there was some unnecessary delay under the previous government. I asked for the production of papers earlier, including the correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and the international north Pacific fisheries commission on this subject. A return was made on July 5, 1963 and it is sessional paper No. 64A.
The file on this subject begins with a letter dated November 23, 1962 addressed to the then secretary of state for external affairs, the Hon. Howard C. Green, wherein the government is notified by the executive director of the international north Pacific fisheries commission that certain recommendations of the commission to change the annex to the treaty had been made. The correspondence has some rather wide gaps in it, and I will not attempt to put it all on the record because I do not think it is particularly relevant to this discussion. However, I would follow through to the fact that on April 4, 1963, a letter was addressed to Mr. Jackson, the executive director, from the under secretary of state for external affairs acknowledging the fact that they had been notified by the international commission of the acceptance by the government of the United States of the amendments to the annex to the convention.
Then there is a lapse of some period of time, the next letter on file being dated May 8, 1963, addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) from Mr. Jackson, the executive director of the commission. In the fourth paragraph of the letter Mr. Jackson has this to say:
The commission has now been advised that the government of Canada has accepted the recommendations to amend the annex of the convention in respect of the stocks referred to in the letters cited above. Advice from the government of Canada to this effect was received by the commission on May 8, 1983. In accordance with the provisions of article VII, paragraph 2, of the convention I am herewith notifying each contracting party of the date of receipt of the Canadian notification of acceptance of the amendments to the annex of the convention.
Since all three contracting parties have now signified their approval of the commission's recommendations of the amendment of the annex, it is considered amended from May 8, 1963 in accordance with the provisions of article VII, paragraph 1, of the convention.
In light of that particular letter, and in light of the fact that the effective date of the amendments to the treaty is May 8, 1963, I find the next document on file to be quite interesting. It is dated May 10, 1963 and is from the Secretary of State for External


Affairs to the executive director of the convention. This document is a telegram and it reads as follows:
With further reference to your letters of November 26, 1962, January 25, 1963 and February 19, 1963, I am pleased to inform you that the commission's recommendation for the removal of the halibut stocks in the eastern Bering sea and the herring stocks west of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I am listening with some care to the line of argument the hon. member is adopting. In his previous remarks the hon. member indicated that he has knowledge of the narrow limits between which a debate of this kind is confined. He is now requesting the production of papers, and the only matter before this house at the moment is not the operation of the commission but whether or not the documents referred to should or should not be tabled. I recognize that in this chamber there has not been a long history of this particular type of procedure, but in every case since this rule was adopted on September 27, 1963 I think every Speaker has warned the house of the narrow limits of this debate. While I can understand that the hon. member would want to preface his remarks with some information, I would advise him that the real question before the house is whether or not the documents should be tabled. I would hope that he would keep within these limits as far as possible. I say this to the hon. member because I would not want him to range far afield and then this practice be used as a precedent for succeeding debates.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your concern in this connection. I stated at the outset that I would carefully try to avoid arguing the merits or demerits of the case. I am about to conclude my reference to documents which, in my opinion, are in fact the basis of my contention that this house should request the government to produce a cabinet minute, which I am willing to concede is not a usual request. It is because of the actual documents and the factual statements which I am attempting to put on the record that I feel I have a logical argument. If you will bear with me for another minute or two, Mr. Speaker, I think I can proceed immediately to relate what I am quoting to my request for the production of the documents. I feel these questions are very pertinent to my case. I realize that they are rather wordy because they go into the details, but I felt I should be careful in placing the exact text of these documents on the record so that there could be no question as to the accuracy of the arguments I am going to advance.

I think I had read the telegram from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the point where I had made it clear that he had notified the executive director of the commission of the acceptance by the government of Canada of these amendments to the annex to the treaty, as proposed by the commission. The rest of the telegram deals with the matter of an appointment to the commission to succeed the late Mr. G. R. Clark, and I need not quote that part of it.
The particular point which I think bolsters my argument that the government treated this matter very lightly is this. I am trying to bring home the fact that in the light of the letter and the telegram to which I have referred, according to the executive director the treaty amendment came into effect on May 8; yet the commission had no notification from the government of Canada, according to this file, until two days later, May 10. I think I could argue that that in itself is a rather strange state of affairs. I could also point out that the letter from the executive director dated May 13, which acknowledges receipt of the telegram from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, does throw light on this rather peculiar situation-at least, the situation strikes me as being peculiar. I say that because in the last paragraph of his letter he says:
As we stated in our letter to you of May 8, we were informed orally of the decision of the Canadian government by the deputy minister of fisheries.... For that reason the effective date of the amendment of the annex to the convention has been announced as May 8.
I do not know how this situation strikes other hon. members but I was rather shocked when I read through this file. I felt that here we had an international convention, which was ratified by act of this parliament, amended as a result of an oral communication from one of our civil servants. That, in my opinion, is not the proper way in which to conduct Canada's international business. I wish the Secretary of State for External Affairs were here this afternoon, because I feel this is really his responsibility. I should like to point out that under the terms of the north Pacific fisheries convention as ratified by the statute which appears as chaper 44 of the statutes of 1952-53, article V of the treaty reads:
The annex attached hereto forms an integral part of this convention. All references to "convention" shall be understood as including the said annex either in its present terms or as amended in accordance with the provisions of article VII.
I confess I am no authority on these matters, but while it is legal and proper for the governor in council to agree to amendments to the annex without formal ratification by parliament being required, it does seem to me
Fisheries Commission Recommendation that when it comes to amending an annex which is an integral part of an international treaty between Canada and two other nations-a treaty which required ratification by this parliament-the government should at least have a responsibility for tabling an official document in this house so as to inform members that an international convention has been changed.
As far as I can find out, this has not been done. According to the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, no such document exists. I think this is particularly ironic because, as I understand the situation arising out of amendments to this treaty, certain consequential amendments affecting the halibut fishery regulations were involved, and these regulations were gazetted in the Canada Gazette. It seems strange to me that in connection with a relatively minor matter, the amending of certain halibut fishing regulations, the government should be required to record its actions in the Canada Gazette, although it is considered right and proper that the amending of a treaty can be done by a secret minute of the cabinet.
These are the reasons which have led me to feel that the only proper course for the government to take in these circumstances, in the absence of any other documentary evidence of the amending of this treaty, is to lay on the table of the house the cabinet minute referred to in my notice of motion for the production of papers. I do not think I wish to say anything more. As I have made clear, I do not consider myself to be an authority on international law and if a spokesman for the government can tell me why the course of action followed by the government is in line with normal constitutional practice I will be glad to listen to him. But since the ordinary practice is that acts of a public nature carried out by the governor in council must be gazetted in the Canada Gazette or laid on the table of the house, it does not seem right that the government should be able to amend a treaty without anyone in the house having official knowledge that such a thing has been done.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: The hon. member prefaced his remarks by making certain observations and I hope I shall be permitted to reply to them. In his motion, which has been transferred for debate, the hon. member asks:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the cabinet minute or other official document which authorized the Secretary of State for External Affairs to notify the executive director, the international north Pacific fisheries commission, by telegram under date of May 10, 1983, that the commission's recommendations for the removal of the halibut stocks in the eastern Bering sea and the herring stocks west
5016	HOUSE OF
Fisheries Commission Recommendation of the Queen Charlotte islands from the annex to the convention had been accepted by the government of Canada.
In opposing this motion I should like to deal briefly with the background, referred to by the hon. member, the north Pacific fisheries commission, and show that the government has acted under authority which had been granted to it by this parliament. The international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean was signed in Tokyo on May 9, 1952, by the Canadian representative pursuant to order in council 2282 dated April 17, 1952. The convention was tabled in the house on March 27, 1953. Implementing legislation was then brought before this chamber and approved on April 2, 1953. It appears as chapter 44 of the 1952-53 statutes. On June 12, 1953, the Canadian instrument of ratification was deposited with the Japanese government pursuant to order in council 1953/696, dated May 7, 1953.
Under the convention, Japan agreed to abstain from fishing salmon, halibut and herring of north American origin. The convention provides that after a five-year period, the north Pacific fisheries commission, established pursuant to the convention, will annually determine, on the basis of scientific evidence, whether these stocks of fish continue to qualify for abstention within the terms of the convention. This week, at this very moment, the convention is holding its tenth annual meeting in Vancouver.
As the house knows, the commission has so far made four recommendations with respect to the removal of stocks of fish from the abstention list. The first was made in 1959 when the commission recommended that herring off the coast of Alaska be removed from the list. The second was made in 1961 when the commission decided that herring off the coast of the mainland United States no longer qualified for abstention. Both these recommendations were approved by the three governments concerned and the annex to the convention was amended accordingly. As a result of an exhaustive study of the scientific evidence, the commission determined at its annual meeting in Seattle in 1962 that the stock of halibut in the eastern Bering sea and the stock of herring off the west coast of the Queen Charlotte islands no longer met the qualifications for continued abstention. It accordingly recommended to the three governments concerned that these stocks of fish be removed from the abstention annex of the convention.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the minister permit a question? If I understood him correctly, he just said the authority was granted under the terms of chapter 44 of the revised statutes of that year. I wonder if he could be a little


more specific. Just where and how, in this particular act, is that authority granted?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: As will be seen at page 310 of the 1952-53 statutes, chapter 44, entitled An Act to implement the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean, section 4 reads as follows:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying out and giving effect to the provisions of the convention and any recommendations of the commission, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations-
Then the act specifies the regulations that can be made. The hon. member stated in the course of his remarks that no documents were produced by the government and that the only documents available were cabinet minutes. I stated in the house in reply to a question by the hon. member for Queens on May 28, 1963, as reported on page 352 of Hansard:
The government has accepted the commission's recommendations and has advised the commission accordingly. It has also approved by order in council the amendment to the northern Pacific halibut fisheries regulations as recommended by the commission. The decision was taken on May 7 and the order in council was passed on May 23.
I have here a copy of the order in council which reads as follows:
Northern Pacific Halibut Fishery Convention Act International Pacific Halibut Fishery Regulations P.C. 1963-772
At the Government House at Ottawa
Thursday, the 23rd day of May, 1963.
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries, pursuant to the provision of section 2 of article II of the convention between Canada and the United States of America for the preservation of the halibut fishery of the northern Pacific ocean and Bering sea, is pleased hereby to approve the annexed regulations made by the international Pacific halibut commission.
The hon. member made reference to a telegram which was sent by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) under date of May 10 stating-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Before the minister proceeds to deal with that telegram, I wonder whether he would permit another question.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Certainly.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: He referred to an order in council which I understand was made under the terms of the act in respect of the northern Pacific halibut convention. I understand that what is involved in the question is the north Pacific fisheries convention. Arising out of section 4 of the act which he quoted and which as he said gives the governor in council the authority to make regulations in respect of the north Pacific fisheries convention, I should like to know where the regulations are in respect of the subject matter of my

motion concerning the north Pacific fisheries commission. I am quite aware of the order in council about the halibut fishery.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In reply to the hon.
member I wish to repeat what I have said before in the house. The only document available outside of the cabinet minutes is the order in council which amended the North Pacific Halibut Fishery Convention Act. As the hon. member well knows, this act is annexed to the treaty and this is where the amendment was made. The amendment was made to the regulations under the authority granted to the government which I have cited, chapter 44 of the statutes of 1952-53, section 4, which provides that the governor in council may make such regulations as are deemed advisable to carry out and give effect to the provisions of the convention and any recommendations of the commission. So it is clear that the government has acted under authority which was granted to it by parliament.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Surely I did not hear the minister correctly. I understood him to say that the north Pacific halibut fishery convention is annexed to the treaty which is part of chapter 44 which ratified the north Pacific fisheries convention.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Would the hon. member put his question again so I can get it straight?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: My question is based on my understanding that the minister read from an order in council which was passed pursuant to authority given by the northern Pacific halibut fishery convention.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Right.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I understand that is chapter 43 of the same volume of the statutes as the north Pacific fisheries convention. My question arises out of my understanding of what he said, namely that the northern Pacific halibut convention was annexed to or was a part of chapter 44. I suggest that the two things are separate and apart. By way of explanation may I say that in my remarks I indicated I knew that arising out of the amendment to the north Pacific fisheries convention an order in council had been passed amending the north Pacific halibut regulations, but I would suggest they are two entirely separate questions.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: If the hon. member will read the north Pacific halibut convention, chapter 43, and the north Pacific fisheries convention, chapter 44, he will find that the matter referred to in his motion has to do with both acts. In the case of the recommendation referred to concerning halibut in
Supply-Health and Welfare the eastern Bering sea, which required implementation, I might state that this was done by amending the international Pacific halibut fishery regulations which are promulgated under the Northern Pacific Halibut Fishery Convention Act, chapter 43, to which he has referred. It may be I was wrong in stating that the order in council I referred to was passed under chapter 44. I find that it was passed under chapter 43 of the statutes of 1952-53. That is the one I referred to in my reply to the hon. member for Queens, as reported on page 352 of Hansard.
In connection with the production of cabinet minutes I think the hon. member is well aware that a decision of the house in that regard was taken on June 20, 1951. On that occasion the prime minister of the day referred to the oath of privy councillors and stated it would not be proper to establish precedents which would in any way depart from the constitutional tradition that matters treated, debated and resolved in the privy council cannot be published to any who are not of the privy council. That can be found on page 4346 of Hansard, June 20, 1951. May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being six o'clock it is my duty to inform the house that the hour for consideration of private members' business has expired. As the business to be considered at seven o'clock, pursuant to special order made on Thursday, October 17, 1963, will be the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, does the house agree now to go into committee of supply?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in 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, estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, vote No. 1. Shall this item carry?
1. Departmental administration, $1,973,500.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, there are a few matters to which I should like to direct a little special attention. We must not lose

Supply-Health and Welfare sight of the necessity and urgency for doing something about blind pensions. The minister has mentioned this, and I know she has some problems in working out a solution in conjunction with the provinces. However, I believe she has enough drive to bring it to a head and do something more for the benefit of blind people, as has been already done on old age security.
I also want to speak for a few minutes on the question of disability pensions. For far too long the definition of a disabled person has been much too strict. Actually this philosophy of a disabled person having to be in a wheelchair or lying in bed is ridiculous in this day and age. It should be related to his ability to have or to get any type of employment.
In this connection there is another point which we encounter in practice over and over again. Quite often a disabled person is a married man, and his wife goes out to work because the disability allowance is quite insufficient to keep the household. However, once she earns more than $1,980 a year, or $165 a month, she is in trouble. That is ridiculous, because quite often she has to pay carfare or drive a motorcar to get to her place of work. She has to buy food, clothes, pay for rent and fuel, and look after the furnishings in the house. It is ridiculous for officials to penalize people simply because they are showing thrift.
When I was home last week end a case was drawn to my attention of a mother who had two children going to high school. These two were over 16 years of age, and she had a third child coming into that age bracket. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister of health that the promise of the Liberal party to continue family allowances as long as children are at school should be implemented at once. I think there is general agreement that they said they would extend it to the age of 18 years, and as a matter of fact the Minister of Justice stated in the house that the government had a plan, which he thought was a pretty thorough going one, and that it would be introduced in due course.
There is a little urgency about this in view of the fact that the cost of living has increased. It should be remembered that boys and girls are being kept longer at school not only upon the insistence of the parents and the department of education which exhorts the parents to keep them there, but also on the advice of the federal government which says the young people should continue at school to learn the necessary skills so that they will not be unemployed. Surely we cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to dwell for a little while on the question of the conference


that is being held here next Monday. I know and appreciate that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has taken a very sympathetic attitude toward this matter, but I wonder whether she or the ordinary person realizes the great importance of this conference. I recall that when I went to medical school 35 years ago, cancer of the lung did not have to be considered at all and was not looked for. We were looking for tuberculosis and other things on the X-ray plates. When a radiologist looks at an X-ray plate today, he looks at it very carefully to see if there is any evidence of cancer. From 1899 to 1919, if my memory is correct about these years, in the University of Minnesota they reported only three cases of cancer of the lung. In the year 1919, at that same university hospital, they reported only one case. In the years 1949 to 1952 they reported over 264 cases. We must bear in mind in this connection, Mr. Chairman, that generally speaking very few cigarettes were smoked prior to the first great war. Since that war there has been a gradual step-up year by year in the number of cases of lung cancer which have occurred in the United States. The increase in the number of cases of cancer of the lung has been paralleled by the increase in the consumption of cigarettes, and in the year 1960 there were 37,000 people who died of cancer of the lung in the United States.
It is true that in proportion to men, not many women have died of cancer of the lung, but I hope this does not start the minister back on the road to destruction, because there has been a marked increase over the years in the number of women who have developed this disease. To demonstrate the seriousness of this situation I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that out of every 100 of these cases of lung cancer that are diagnosed, within five years 95 of them are dead, regardless of the type of treatment carried out. Therefore it follows that there is only one form of treatment, and that is prevention. When we look at the record and all the surveys that have been made, we realize that to all intents and purposes those who do not smoke do not contract cancer of the lung. I want to go a little further, Mr. Chairman, and say that we can consider a religious group, the Seventh Day Adventists, who do not smoke or drink, and we find that to all intents and purposes they never contract the disease of cancer of the lung.
I have illustrated that there is no cure for this disease, and in Canada today more people are dying of cancer of the lung-and this is leaving out coronary diseases and all the other things; and there are about double the number of deaths in the coronary field-from

among those who smoke than is the case with non-smokers. Today more people are dying in Canada every year of cancer of the lung than from traffic accidents, bad as they are. Therefore the conclusion one must reach is that the cigarette plays a very definite part in causing cancer of the lung. I have emphasized to you, Mr. Chairman, that the only treatment for this disease is prevention. This prevention must go back to the boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 17 in our high schools today, because I think it has been fairly well proven over and over again that if a boy or girl has been smoking for two years, they have acquired the habit. To illustrate the seriousness of this problem I would point out that it is estimated that over 400 boys and girls start smoking cigarettes every day in Canada.
I know the minister is very well aware of most of these facts, but I want to impress upon her that to carry out a policy of prevention in this regard you must have the good will and the support of everybody across this nation. There is no question as to what the findings will be, because they have been proven over and over again; but to get that good will and support you must have the backing of the men and women across this country. You must have the support of the press, of members of parliament, and of all the people generally. So I ask the minister- and I know all the difficulties, and I know that if it were easily done she would have agreed to do it long ago-to very carefully consider obtaining a larger room, if it is at all possible, so that the press, the members of this house and the Senate, and other interested people may come into this meeting and hear first hand the story of tobacco, cigarette smoking and cancer of the lung. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to give this question most careful consideration.


Mr. Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to see if I can raise this debate to a scale that is a little less depressing than that achieved by the hon. member who has just spoken. I do not mean that I disagree with what he said, but there are other things that we must consider. I would like to see if I can imbue the Minister of National Health and Welfare with some common sense thinking about a national health plan. Realizing that the Liberals have been promising this since 1919, I am going to try to give them some reasons for implementing it now.
I like to feel that in our modem society the blessings of good health and the advantages of many new discoveries and developments are not only for those who can financially afford them. I like to feel that when a new
Supply-Health and Welfare discovery comes about, it will be available to anyone who is in need of it and not just to anyone who can afford it. The development of a national health plan is so that this may come about. Popularly, Mr. Chairman, today this is known as medicare. It has been said that everyone is adequately cared for by our present system. I do not even consider this is a system, much less that it is adequate. I admit that a great many people are cared for in one way or another, but certainly not properly, by present standards. It is my considered opinion that there is a large group of people who are medically indigent. I am not referring to those people who are now receiving charity, but those whose budgets do not allow them to receive adequate care and, in many instances, no care at all. These people will let things go until they reach serious proportions, rather than run up a medical bill. These same people, when they do come to the office, are often inadequately treated either because they do not get the required prescription, for financial reasons, or the doctor substitutes something cheaper than the best treatment, something they can afford to buy.
These are the ways in which I consider that people receive inadequate care. We cannot change the ways of people who are incapable of budgeting for an illness. I do not believe that people are asking for charity, nor do I believe in the degradation that a person must suffer in order to receive some sort of medical care in the event of illness. There are some who would forgo medical treatment rather than receive it under these circumstances. A properly planned comprehensive national health plan would remove this barrier of having to receive charity in order to obtain medical care because everyone would be paying for this in accordance with his ability to pay and consequently would be financially responsible. To this extent, the stigma of charity would no longer exist. As a practising doctor, I feel an important barrier would be removed. Our medical freedom to treat patients is limited by financial considerations which are, medically speaking, entirely irrelevant.
Another financial barrier is that of indebtedness of the patient to the doctor. It provides a tremendous psychological barrier between doctor and patient. Certainly, a doctor's judgment is hampered by the realism of the debt that exists between them. When I refer to a national health plan, I am referring to an all-inclusive completely comprehensive national medical insurance plan. This is one that not only covers doctors' services but includes dental care, medication, eye glasses and appliances. Anything less than this in a

Supply-Health and Welfare national plan is inadequate. Private insurance plans are never this comprehensive. None of them include dentistry and only a few of them include partial drug payments. All of them are covered with exclusion riders, waiting periods, exceptions, omissions and fine print. It often takes a lawyer to interpret them and one often feels that to collect from them is committing a felony.
I cannot see how a national plan would cause an increase in expenses. Medical care is now costing X number of dollars, and the only increase would be the cost of administration and the proper care of those inadequately cared for now. Part of the cost of administration would be offset by the removal of profits now enjoyed by the private insurance companies In other words, a national insurance plan would simply level expenses, as does any insurance plan.
I turn now to the opposition to medicare. The main opposition to medicare is purported to be the doctors. The doctors have stated that the people would abuse the plan. In my opinion, this only proves that people are being inadequately treated now because they do not want to burden themselves with financial expenses they cannot afford. Must we use financial inadequacy as a deterrent to medical care? Doctors are represented as being dedicated people, dedicated to the care of others, and yet all their arguments against medicare have to do with their own, private feelings. I should like to quote from an article in the Globe and Mail of May 21, 1963. This is a short joke which reads as follows:
Fred: What did your doctor tell you?
Al: He told me to cut down on my smoking, try to walk a mile a day, and to be sure to write a letter to my member of parliament against medicare.
Doctors belong to many associations such as the Ontario Medical Association, the Canadian Medical Association, and their colleges of physicians and surgeons in the various provinces who are their licensing bodies. These bodies lay down the rules and laws that govern the ethics, behaviour and economics of the medical profession. Doctors who do believe in a government sponsored compulsory medical health plan are afraid to go against this norm that is set down by the association to which they belong, and say what they truly believe. Is this the true purpose of an elected body that is supposed to portray the wishes of all its members?
I have seen letters from doctors in Saskatchewan, and after reading them I was actually ashamed to admit I was a member of this profession. Am I idealistic when I state that I always thought doctors belonged to a profession that served sick people and

that this was their prime function? I realize that economic problems and factors are important and that doctors must live, but must they appear to be interested in the welfare of people and yet, at a time of crisis, show a selfish interest in their own welfare? Medicare eliminates a doctor's economic problems. I do not believe the associations that represent the medical profession truly express the feelings of the members, but rather their own feelings. The impression that is given to the public is that these bodies do truly express all the doctors' views, and I feel that this is a false impression. It is not my intention to deprecate the medical profession, especially since I am a member myself, but I do feel that the misrepresentation should be known.
There would be no harm in this if it did not involve the health of the working man and his family. Health is a necessity for making a living and the responsibility for this lies with the medical profession. These doctors are hard working and most are truly devoted to their duties, but in many instances are misrepresented by their own elected governing bodies. Is it fear of these bodies that prevents us having a properly run, government sponsored all-inclusive medical health plan? There are no private plans that are adequate, as was proven by work done in Hamilton at the Steel Company of Canada. The Ontario Medical Association is stating that up to 70 per cent of the people have adequate medical care. This is truly deceptive because only 47.2 per cent of people have some form of health insurance. It now only remains to show the inadequacy of present plans.
P.S.I. is considered to be the best of the private plans, and it covers 18 per cent of the population. An exhaustive survey was conducted in Hamilton by the department of political economy of the University of Toronto with the help of the steelworkers union. By comparing P.S.I. with a profitmaking plan, P.S.I. was found to be the best, and yet P.S.I. paid only 23.5 per cent of the average total health costs of the families who subscribed to it. The people who have P.S.I. are better off than others who have one of many profit-making plans that cover only 12.9 per cent of the average family's total health cost. These plans are riddled with escape hatches for the insurance companies in the event they are paying out too much to any one person. These policies may be cancelled at the whim of the company by refunding premiums, or exclusion riders may be attached after an illness in order to exclude the system involved or any future diseases which may develop. What kind of protection is this for anyone? What kind of

protection is this for a man who must earn a living for himself and his whole family? Surely, his illnesses are not self-inflicted so that he must be punished for them and then expected to go through the degradation of receiving charity.
Only 18 per cent of all Canadians enjoy the best kind of private plan available, and even these plans pay less than one quarter of the family's total annual health cost. The reason for this low figure is that none of them include dental care, eye glasses, appliances or drugs. The statistics are rather shattering when one listens to the propaganda of the Ontario Medical Association, the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who are the enemies of any national health scheme. These people tell us that it is a person's individual right to choose his own plan. Really, he has no choice except to select an inadequate private plan, to join the army or be admitted to a mental home, if he wishes to receive adequate care.
If the representative bodies of the medical profession can come up with a privately administered plan that gives the kind of coverage the British people enjoy, well and good. If they cannot, then we should get on with the business of a government sponsored compulsory health plan. You cannot manipulate statistics forever. Let the doctors and their associations either produce or keep the status quo, but let them stop hoodwinking the public. People are afraid they will not be able to choose their own doctor under a national health plan. This is not so. Actually, conditions would be the same as they are now without the financial barriers between doctor and patient. Doctors would be paid for services rendered only, thereby maintaining the doctor's incentive to treat his patient. This fear or ignorance, and it must be realized that ignorance produces fear, prompted the Ontario Medical Association to produce a small booklet entitled, "Doctor, What About Medicare?" This booklet was circulated to every doctor in Ontario and is full of propaganda against government sponsored plans. Again, I ask, is this truly the feeling of the medical profession? This book was available at a slight cost for putting into doctors' waiting rooms for distribution to patients, so that this propaganda would spread even farther.
I should like to quote also from an editorial in the Star Weekly of a few months ago. This editorial deals with the fear the doctors have about a government medical insurance plan. If the doctor's fear is that he does not want a layman dictating treatment for his patient, or want anyone to tell him the type of drug a patient needs, or the number of X-ray
Supply-Health and Welfare plates it is necessary to take, it is well realized that these are medical decisions and can only be made by qualified personnel. This editorial is summed up in this manner:
What Canadians want is a system that will provide all of them, rich and poor, with the medical care they request. They do not want to bilk the doctors. They merely want to make sure that every citizen gets medical attention when he needs it. not as a matter of charity, but as a matter of right. This, we think, is a principle with which most doctors would agree.
I should now like to go into the success which other countries have enjoyed in this direction. We happen to be distinctive in that with the United States we are the only two countries in the world which have no government sponsored medical health plan. Great Britain has put in some of the most successful government sponsored health plans at a time of Great Britain's greatest austerity. It was, of course, the British Labour party that did this, at a time when it seemed almost impossible. Since 1953 Great Britain has had a Tory government, and yet no attempt has been made to remove this plan. As a matter of fact, recently the British Tory government instituted methods of improving some of the parts of the system.
A few months ago there was a panel consisting of general practitioners, specialists, and politicians who came over from Great Britain to the United States, and this panel was heard and seen over a nation-wide television network. The general concensus of all the panel was a complete satisfaction with their system, and the only thing they feared was the misrepresentation which the press have given us over here.
There are only two countries left in the world today that do not have some form of government medical plan-Canada and the United States. The ability of a country to provide these necessities to everyone is a reflection of the political and cultural status of a country. Our status cannot remain one of the status quo; we must advance and we must do so in a completely democratic way.
It has also been said that the quality of medicine would be lowered because of the increase in quantity. Even this is not so, as evidenced by a study on the Norwegian health plan. Two of the most universally accepted measurements of the merits of a given medical system are the infant mortality rates and the life expectancy at birth. The infant mortality rate in Norway is 20.5 per thousand births and in the United States it is 26.4. Norway ranks fourth in the world and the U.S. ninth. In the life expectancy figures Norway ranks best in the world with 71 years for men as against 66 for men in the U.S. Medical

Supply-Health and Welfare education in Norway is free, thereby producing opportunity for everyone with ability. The figures just given are not because there are more doctors per capita. In 1953 Norway had one physician for every 900 population, whereas the U.S. had one for every 760 population.
Other parties in Canada have made rather futile attempts to establish provincial health plans. The only one that has been established successfully and which is operating successfully at the moment is in Saskatchewan, where they have a partial medical health plan; they have provided doctors' care. Everyone knows there was a rather bitter battle over this scheme at the time of its inception, but even those doctors who were so stubborn and obstinate at that time are today of different mind. There was an article in last night's Ottawa Journal headed: "Battle lines on medicare blurring in Saskatchewan". I should like to read a small part of this article:
The battle lines drawn by Saskatchewan doctors and the C.C.F. government over the compulsory medical care insurance plan put into operation 16 months ago are blurring.
The tempered attitude of doctors, who once said they were unalterably opposed to compulsory medical care insurance in any form, is reflected in comments of Dr. E. W. Barootes of Regina, vice president of the Saskatchewan college of physicians and surgeons, who last year was an outspoken critic of the socialist government's plan.
"The profession hopes that these differences of view that exist can be ironed out and modifications made so that the plan will be acceptable," he said in an interview. "There are some pretty deep philosophical differences but we don't want to pick a quarrel".
I think that is a pretty good statement, coming from a doctor who opposed the plan so adamantly only a year and a half ago. The editorial continues:
Provincial health minister A. E. Blakeney says the possibility of changes in the plan is not excluded by the government.
"It is the government's view that the plan is operating successfully and will continue to operate successfully. It is obtaining a wide measure of public support and is beginning to gain acceptance among the medical profession," Mr. Blakeney said.
They also mention this, although it happened about two months ago:
In September, the government announced a 50 per cent reduction in one of the four levies that finance the $20,000,000 a year plan. Personal premiums were reduced from $24 a year to $12 for families and from $12 to $6 for individuals.
So as I say, despite objections at the time of its conception this plan is proving to be one of the most successful yet advanced. It makes me proud to be a member of the political party which was capable of putting forward the first successful plan on the North American continent.


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the estimates of the

Department of National Health and Welfare. I well recognize that this department could be one of the most important departments of government. Throughout the years I have been very interested in the welfare and health of our senior citizens and youth, and for that reason my remarks will be confined to this subject.
First may I dwell on the welfare and health of our senior citizens, as we well realize that these people, along with the pioneers of our nation, have established and upheld many fine traditions in this great country of ours. When listening to the minister's speech on July 18, 1963 respecting the Canada pension plan, my first disappointment was that the government's promise during the last election of $75 a month to our senior citizens who meet the residence requirements of the old age security act would not come into effect at once. I can assure you that when talking to these senior citizens, such a delay was a real disappointment. With the higher cost of living they would have to be content to do without most of the necessities of life. As a director of Waterloo county's apartments for elderly persons, which are sponsored by the Royal Canadian Legion, branch No. 50, Kitchener, I well realize the necessity of such an increase. Our constant interest in and consideration of their welfare makes them feel that they are wanted citizens and not just a burden on mankind. Many of these people are first war veterans who, owing to their disabilities, have not been able to prepare for the future and are therefore unable to compete with other citizens who have the normal advantages. Such an increase, which should have been forthcoming some time ago, will give them greater security and an independent feeling in life.
Another situation we might well consider at this time is where a couple may be in receipt of old age pension, and death strikes leaving a burden on the survivor for debts incurred. Perhaps such pension of the deceased might be extended for a certain period to help the survivor to defray such expenses.
When speaking to our senior citizens I found much discontent over the price of drugs and medical prescriptions which generally appear too high for pensioners, especially those of low income. Surely some system could be devised where these necessities could be made available free to those below income tax level. In bringing forward this raise we also have an obligation to those citizens who are receiving old age assistance, blind and disabled allowances. Their future lives are in our hands. Humanitarian service extended to these people should be sincere and of most importance.

As I previously mentioned in this house on June 24, 1961 it is desirable that we give further consideration to those of our citizens reaching the retiring age of 65 years. These folk in many cases have not had the opportunity of providing for their future through superannuation or pension plans. Many of these people are on the unemployment list or were unable to have retirement postponed, and therefore are in financial difficulty at an age when they should be able to have some security other than just owning their own homes and a few belongings. It is an acknowledged fact that these citizens have played a prominent part in developing the economy of our country. I am sure that we, as hon. members of the house, along with the Department of National Health and Welfare, can devise some system to look after their financial needs at the retiring age.
Owing to improvements in medical care and otherwise, we have a greater population of people in the age group 70 or over, as well as those in the 65 to 70 year age group. These circumstances make our obligations much greater. Many fine improvements have been made in the Old Age Pensions Act. The previous government made the most beneficial improvement when they lowered the residence requirement from 20 to 10 years in regard to old age pensions. Another splendid move was that recipients are now permitted to take their pensions with them when leaving Canada on a permanent basis. I am sure that our senior citizens living outside of Canada or contemplating doing so for various reasons, are appreciative of such legislation.
My second thought concerns the fine youth of our country, but before expressing my observations on fitness and amateur sports, may I suggest that we who are parents should take a good look at our daily obligations with regard to assistance and guidance extended to them in their responsibilities as future citizens of Canada. Like all proud parents, we expect a lot of our younger folk, and we must do so if our young country is to fulfil its ambitions. However, we must not forget that they will only be able to shoulder their responsibilities in a manner consistent with the teachings and with the example which they will have received from us. To my mind, however, education in such a way is not related only to the three R's. It covers a much wider field. For one thing, good citizenship is required of all the individuals making up a nation, if that nation is to be strong and healthy. I am sure hon. members will agree with me that such education means developing in our children a strong sense of responsibility as individuals. But responsibility means work, and unfortunately too many of us have the natural tendency to leave it to
Supply-Health and Welfare the other fellow to do the job. The pass-the-buck or let-George-do-it policy has never been known to lead to great achievements. So, as I said before, let us teach by setting a good example first, and then by giving young people plenty of opportunities to assume responsibilities. They will make mistakes, as we have done, but they will learn, and in the process they will realize that they too have an important role to play in the aspirations of our nation.
With regard to fitness and amateur sports, I was interested in the remarks made by the Royal Canadian Legion's "Coaching Review" of June 1963, which had this to say:
A fresh mind is quickening the pulse of Canadian amateur sport these days, giving it new initiative, leading, eventually to its expansion and development in the light of current needs and standards.
As part of that initiative the Royal Canadian Legion has launched its sports training program, with particular emphasis on improving the coaching and performance of track and field athletics. For some years the Royal Canadian Legion of Waterloo, Ontario has made a great success of promoting the eastern Canada track and field events, along with events in other places across Canada, and some time ago I had the great pleasure of taking part in the opening of the Kitchener public schools track and field event where
6.000	children were in attendance and over
1.000	competitors took part. Much credit is due to this committee for its outstanding success. Such events mean healthier boys and girls. Members of the Legion, like other sports-minded citizens, believe that track and field, and indeed, all sports, should be enjoyed at the bottom level as well as the top level.
For years the Royal Canadian Legion has made tremendous contributions to the welfare of our youth in various ways, and recently acquired one of the world's greatest coaches, Mr. Geoffrey Dyson of England, to carry out their sports training program. I had the pleasure, last year, of attending this program in Guelph, Ontario, and recently I attended the clinic sponsored by the Kitchener recreational council at which time this gentleman was in charge and later was guest speaker at the luncheon. To hear this man and to see him in action is a real treat, and inspired over 100 men attending this event. No doubt, such action by the Legion in securing the services of such a distinguished gentleman can be attributed in no small way to the $5 million fitness and amateur sports program brought forward by the previous government and passed by parliament and the other place. I sincerely believe that the national advisory council, made up of outstanding sportsmen and representatives of every province, along
5024	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare with the superb coaching ability of Mr. Dyson, and men of similar ability will in five years or so put Canada in its rightful place in world sports activities, and more important, will develop generation after generation of young Canadians with healthy bodies and healthy minds.
I am pleased to see the minister take an interest in this sports effort, and I hope her future assistance may continue so that this fine program will expand to the point where our athletes may compete with the best in the world, and more important, where every Canadian youth may take part in order to develop a greater standard of fitness and a wider knowledge of sportsmanship, fellowship and friendship. I spoke a moment ago of Mr. Dyson. This great coach, who played a major role in developing in England a coaching elite second to no other country, and whose presence will have a profound beneficial effect upon Canadian coaches and athletes, mentioned that communities are interested in fitness for different reasons'- such as health, military efficiency, national regeneration, racial and personal self-esteem, social accomplishment, character building and aiding mental activity. No doubt all these reasons have been and are being presented in support of programs of physical activity.
Speaking of military efficiency, it is obvious that governments which use armed force as an instrument of foreign policy cannot allow fitness standards to fall beneath a certain level. Pushbutton warfare has certainly not eliminated the need of physically fit troops, and military standards are still higher than civilian standards. In some countries the fall in fitness reached a critical point. For example, in the 1959 Berlin crisis, the United States government had to reject 428 men out of every 1,000 called up, for lack of physical efficiency. This was almost double the rate of the second world war. It is well known that fitness has both political and international implications. Politically, national fitness and sports campaigns can help weld nations together, particularly the United States, Canada and other comparatively young countries where people have come together from different backgrounds. This is very noticeable in my riding of Waterloo North where we have one of the largest cosmopolitan centres in Canada. This district has turned out some of the finest hockey players, golfers, football players, etc., and is certainly interested in fitness and amateur sports.
The former minister of national health and welfare, speaking in 1962, mentioned a growing spirit of nationhood. We find many countries in the world bringing forward huge expenditures for sports and fitness. France


is one of these, and her aim is to check the flow of youth from country to town. Communist countries in particular have long recognized the political importance of sporting success. This is also true in England where in 1954, the British foreign office sent Roger Bannister to the United States immediately after his first four-minute mile.
We realize that today the best performers in sport are new ambassadors in a political sense, particularly with regard to sport, for sport is international and inter-racial. We realize that sports can also be used as an outlet for the natural tendency and desire, so deep in human nature, to prove superiority, but we must remember that superiority can be won at too high a price.
Having followed the program of fitness and amateur sport since its inception, I want to congratulate the former minister of national health and welfare, his staff and the members of the national advisory council for the splendid efforts accomplished in these few short years. I realize that many Canadians expected this program to produce wonders in a very short time and I might tell the minister that I am sure many people may well think it should do the same in the next few years, but it is going to take ten or 12 years to bring the program up to the mark. Let us work together so that the program may achieve the desired success.
As we know, many grants have been made to deserving organizations. However, if the federal government is going to assist the great majority of our youth in Canada with regard to fitness and amateur sport, and if the opportunity for gifted athletes is to be increased, these things cannot be done merely by grants to national agencies interested in national and international sports competition. The framework through which better coaching as well as fitness can be encouraged by the federal government will depend upon provincial and municipal programs as well as the contributions of sports bodies. This is of the utmost importance.
Under such a program we need the cooperation of provincial and municipal departments of health, education, welfare, municipal affairs and others and through provincial governments we need the cooperation of municipal recreation departments such as we have at the present time in my constituency of Waterloo North where such co-operation has developed a combination of coaching and training to strengthen and extend fitness and sports programs for all our young people, which I hope will be exemplified in every part of Canada.
In my speech on September 22, 1961, I suggested that our three realms of activity could be:

1.	The provision of sports facilities, adequate playing fields, stadia, swimming pools, gymnasiums, tennis courts, and other training and competitive areas. These facilities would mean fitness for our youth.
2.	The provision of competent coaches, something that is invaluable to our youth.
3.	Direct financial aid to national organizations and teams representing Canada in international events.
The Legion has made a move in the right direction in the provision of coaches with their appointment of Mr. Dyson. The national advisory council, through the former minister of national health and welfare, has provided direct financial assistance to many worthwhile national organizations. Such a move has proven its worth, and from time to time I hope more grants will be made to associations which in turn will help their affiliates. I commend the minister for her recent grant to the Royal Canadian Legion and also to Father Bauer and his team from British Columbia, because it is of interest to me, as Father Bauer was born in my riding.
It has been suggested by well known sportsmen that at the present time we lack proper sports facilities such as playing fields, stadia, etc. Our future aim should be to improve such facilities so that our coaches in all sports will have modern buildings and playing fields strategically located in every province, where each province will have the opportunity of sharing in the cost of same.
For our physical fitness program many auditoriums could be used in our universities, colleges, schools, Y.M.C.A.'s, churches, etc..
These are some of my suggestions and thoughts, Mr. Speaker, with respect to a fitness and amateur sports program. I sincerely hope that the minister, along with her staff and the advisory council, will continue the splendid work undertaken by the former minister and those who assisted him. In this way we can look forward to a brighter future in fitness and amateur sports in Canada. As previously mentioned, we can put Canada in its rightful place in world sports activities and, more important, develop generation after generation of young Canadians with healthy bodies and healthy minds and a true understanding of sportsmanship, fellowship and friendship.


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Chairman, I should like, through you, to extend my congratulations to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) for having been entrusted with such an interesting department. I hope that she will enjoy good health and have the courage to overcome the criticisms that are inevitably directed to the incumbent of an office entailing so many responsibilities.
Supply[DOT]-Health and Welfare
I note that during the discussion of the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, there is a great deal of talk about health insurance and that many members like to say over and over again that we should now have a health insurance plan, since this idea was advocated as early as 1919 in the program of the Liberal party. In this connection, I hope that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) will be able to follow me and to understand the situation-


Gilles Grégoire: I am not a follower.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: He has just replied that he is not a follower. I know that he is not a follower, but I think that he would sometimes profit by following good ideas rather than ignoring them so often.
As for health insurance, we should take into account the fact that the Liberal government had advocated a hospital insurance plan and that during the years which followed, many difficulties had to be overcome with the provinces as well as with the hospitals throughout Canada.
One may think that such plans can be put into effect overnight but with due reflection, we realize that it is better to take all necessary steps and understand the situation before carrying out such plans.


Gilles Grégoire: Since 1919, that makes 44 years.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: If the hon. member for Lapointe wants to be a bit patient, I intend to go back to 1919 and show him that, as opposed to certain members, who have their rights as I have mine, I chose to remain in the Liberal party rather than try to form a new one which would never get anywhere.
Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the problems we have been up against in trying to set up a hospital insurance scheme. First, there was the matter of hospital beds, then the agreement to be reached with the provinces, not to mention the number of nurses. We must realize that the hospital accommodation necessary to meet a situation such as the one created by the acceptance of a hospital insurance scheme required some preparation.
I can say, without running any risk, that the former minister of national health and welfare, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, found a way, in 1945, to get the cabinet to agree to a general plan to expedite payment of the grant to the provinces and hospitals that wanted to expand in order to be ready for the day when the hospital insurance scheme would be implemented.
For the information of the hon. member for Lapointe, I will point out that it was a five-year plan. In 1950, the plan was renewed.

Supply-Health and Welfare Several hospitals in nine provinces took advantage of it and increased their facilities to be able to cope with the hospital insurance scheme.
Mr. Chairman, I should say in passing that in 1945-I was at that time a member of the provincial legislature-during the election campaign preceding the provincial election in Ontario, our leader advocated an insurance program. I myself campaigned in favour of an insurance plan with a nominal rate for each family.
However, the Conservative party in office at that time in Ontario opposed such a plan.
I do not blame them, and I do not say that they did wrong. The Conservative party was not ready yet to accept the idea of health insurance and throughout its election campaign it fought against the program advocated by the Liberal party.
Since the Conservative party had more members elected, it remained in power, of course, and did not establish any health insurance plan.
Therefore, from that year until 1957, the province of Ontario still refused to accept hospital insurance. It is only in 1957 that this province finally agreed to a hospital insurance plan. This goes to show, Mr. Chairman-I shall perhaps repeat myself in order to be better understood-that it might be argued that such things can be accomplished overnight but, all the same, they require years of preparation, because the government must take into account the expenses incurred through the establishment of those plans.
That is why I feel at ease to declare that those who readily repeat that the health insurance plan was part of the 1929 Liberal platform, forget to mention what the Liberal party has done-


Gilles Grégoire: War and taxes.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: -while it was in power to prepare the country to put such plans into effect.
I just heard one of the members opposite saying "war".


Gilles Grégoire: And taxes.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: The war, hon. member, was started by Hitler, the man who is admired by your leader, and not by the Canadian government.


Gilles Grégoire: I am speaking of taxes.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I can assure you of that.
Mr. Chairman, since 1927 the Liberal government managed to insert in the statutes of this country the pension with means test for needy people aged 70 and over. In 1940-I may be told that it is not health legislation- but it certainly has some effect on public health-in 1940, as I said, the Liberal party

enacted unemployment insurance. In 1944, family allowances were introduced. In 1945, there was the first phase of the national health scheme subsidizing hospitals desirous of enlarging their premises, in order to be ready for the day when the provinces would accept hospitalization insurance.
In 1950, came the second stage; the department of national health offered a program of grants to any hospital willing to avail itself of it.
In 1951, the Liberal government introduced the old age security pension without means test, for anyone having reached the age of 70 and over.
In 1951, a pension with means test was granted to needy people in the 65 to 70 age bracket.
In 1951, there was the pension for the blind.
In 1954, we had the pension for disabled persons.
In 1956-and there is another thing which you might say is not directly connected with health insurance or with the Department of National Health, but which certainly has some effect on the health of the unemployed-there was the contribution of 50 per cent to the provinces to assist unemployed people who were not protected by unemployment insurance.
In 1957, we had the hospitalization insurance act which was passed and entered into the statutes of this country though I admit, that it was later enacted by the government elected in June.
Now, we must keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, that when the pensions act was introduced, it only provided for $20 a month. Under the following Liberal governments, and keeping pace with this country's development, as well as with the needs of the beneficiaries, those pensions were gradually increased to $46 per month.
I shall give credit to the Conservative government for having granted two consecutive increases; but-and this was quite remarkable-always on the eve of some election.
As far as we are concerned, we just granted another $10 increase-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: But we do not tax people.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Immediately after the election, we granted another increase of $10.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Ours were granted without taxation.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: As far as family allowances are concerned, Mr. Chairman, may I point out that in order to get the act adopted by this house, the then prime minister, probably after having consulted the members of

his cabinet, had decided to grant these allowances only up to the seventh child. In that way, he got the House of Commons to pass the act. Later, when the usefulness of the family allowances was well established, the same government brought about the necessary changes, in order to give to the parents family allowances for every one of their children, whatever their number. This proves once more that in that field, things must be brought about progressively, when the time is ripe for their general acceptance.


Gilles Grégoire: Slowly.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Slowly but surely, which is much more than anything you could do.
However, Mr. Chairman, that is why I feel that the day is not too distant when in the field of family allowances, the government will see fit to extend them to children who are at school, at least up to the age of 18, or even beyond.
As for the amount of the allowances, I believe that a readjustment would be in order.


Gilles Grégoire: That is very good.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: But that adjustment must take into consideration the economic situation of Canada, and not the political fancies of parties without real responsibilities to shoulder.


Gilles Grégoire: As for us, we are fully aware of the true needs of the country.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I am amused by the "buzz, buzz, buzzing" of my hon. friends opposite. This brings me back in thought to the time when I was working on the farm, was cutting grain or hay with a sickle; I had to be very careful not to get stung by bees-


Gilles Grégoire: Or rather by "Habelles".


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: By bees which buzz in our ears, just as our hon. friends opposite.


Henry P. Latulippe: You did not have today's equipment.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Chairman, I am told that we were not well equipped, that times have changed. Most certainly they have changed; at the time I am speaking about, the father of the hon. friend who has just interrupted me also worked on a farm, with equipment similar to mine. In my youth, however, people were not up to their necks in business, as my hon. friend is today.
Today, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make reference to the pensions for disabled persons. I am of those who believe that the regulations under which a person is judged eligible for the pension for disabled persons should be considered seriously by the provincial governments in order to remedy the 28902-5-320
Supply-Health and Welfare present situation that a person has to be practically or completely helpless to fulfil the requirements.
For instance, I have in mind the case of epileptics. It is also recognized that some other ailments represent a continuous danger for the employer and the employee. But those people have a right to live like anybody else and, indeed, it is enough to be affected by an ailment or a handicap without also being deprived of the benefits of the disabled persons pensions act.
Therefore, I urge the minister to take advantage of the conference soon to be held to conclude an agreement with the provinces so that those requirements may be mitigated and so that the granting of pensions under the Disabled Persons Act for those people who cannot work but who certainly have a right to live may be facilitated.
Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, I hope that this government will find a way to correct the situation I just mentioned in order to mitigate the requirements in regard to the disabled persons pensions. I am also convinced that this government will find a way, in due time, to extend family allowances to the age of 18, if not further, in the case of children still going to school and, providing the economy of the country permits, to give back to family allowances the purpose for which they were set up in 1945 by a Liberal government.
[Textl


Mr. Willoughby:: Mr. Chairman, I know we are all anxious to pass these estimates this evening if at all possible, and I can promise at the outset that I am not going to take up very much time in what I have to say tonight. I do wish, however, to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on her appointment. While she may not have the most spectacular portfolio in the cabinet, or may not be dealing in astronomical figures which add up to billion dollar deficits, or may not be dealing with fantastic nuclear weapons or intercontinental missiles, she is dealing with the health of every man, every woman and every child in this country, and in my opinion she has one of the most remarkable portfolios in the cabinet. In addition to that, I must not overlook the fact that she is dealing with the finest profession in the world, the medical profession. I have every confidence that with her personality and great propensity for the truth she will not only carry on the work of this department but will add to and advance the great work it has carried out in the past and in recent years.
There have been great developments in this department in recent years, but we must

Supply-Health and Welfare realize that it also has problems. There are big problems in the department; there are big financial problems and there will be greater financial problems. The outlay of the department does not reap any obvious dividends in financial returns, but it results in dividends in the health, happiness and welfare of the people of our country. These dividends cannot be estimated in simple financial returns. There is the problem of great scientific developments, which must be given careful consideration in every way by the department. This is no time for smugness because of the fact that this department has operated so well; and I hope and am sure that it will continue to operate well in the future. This is the time for us to look for greater progress and greater developments in this wonderful department.
As we all know, Mr. Chairman, there are two definite aspects of this department. There is the welfare department and there is the health department. It is difficult to know just where one stops and the other begins because they are so completely in the same field, that of the welfare of our people. I will not spend much time dealing with the department of welfare because it has been adequately dealt with by other speakers. However, I do want to say that in general I endorse all the welfare programs that are carried on at the present time, and I know there will be more that I will be able to endorse in the future. I recognize, however-as I think everyone in this house recognizes-that there are still many deficiencies in the department of welfare; there are many abuses of the privileges offered by this department. We must also recognize the fact that there must be improvements and adjustments as far as possible to overcome some of these deficiencies.
In regard to the health aspect of the department, Mr. Chairman, I know the question of hospital insurance was adequately dealt with by the previous government. This program was in operation for many years in at least two provinces before the present federal government saw fit to introduce it on a national scale. I congratulate the previous government for introducing this scheme, which I know has been of great benefit to the provinces in the institution of hospital programs throughout Canada. Hospital care is, without question, a most demanding field. I wish to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that with advancing treatments and methods the need for hospital subsidization in the future will increase, and increase rapidly. I see no hope of avoiding increasing expenditure in the field of hospital care. Scientific developments, advanced treatments and every field of medicine have meant that hospital 

treatment is becoming the only efficient treatment, and home care is rapidly becoming less and less. This trend will continue. The patient is recovering much more quickly because he is receiving better treatment, and I think it should also be emphasized that in hospital the patient develops a psychological attitude that is a wonderful asset in his treatment and recovery. This attitude results from the fact that patients do not face the fear of a large hospital bill at the end of their treatment. In the field of health we face the problem of an increase in life expectancy. I think the minister should consider very seriously this increase in life expectancy. This has resulted from better sanitation, better preventive medicine and better medical care. I have not the figures before me but I think I am giving a conservative estimate when I say that in the last generation our life expectancy has increased by about ten years. This means that we are entering the field of geriatrics, and the Department of National Health and Welfare will be faced with the problem of providing increased subsidies for the treatment of the aged. We must have more care for those who will be confined to homes for the aged. We must have increased subsidies for those who are going to be confined to nursing homes. At the present time I think that the subsidy provided for nursing homes by both the provincial and federal governments is much too low.
Now, what can we expect in the future, Mr. Chairman? I know the question of health insurance has been mentioned briefly here tonight. During the last election campaign this government promised that we would have an insurance plan as soon as they took office. However, I noticed this item was lacking from the speech from the throne. I realize this program is not something one should rush into as the government has rushed into some of the ill-conceived programs presented this session. I hope that this measure will receive considerable study before anything further is advanced.
I should like to try to dispel right here, once and for all, the idea that the so-called orthodox medical men, to whom reference has been made this evening, are against such a program. We accept the principle that health insurance is a good thing for the country and a good thing for the people, if it is a proper health plan. Now, what do we mean by a health insurance scheme? I know that in so far as the people of British Columbia are concerned, about 80 per cent are covered by a satisfactory private health scheme. Then, there are the people who are on social welfare who are covered; but there are about 20 per cent who have no coverage. This is the group that needs coverage. This 20 per cent, probably because they are not indigent and

therefore not on welfare, are not able to pay for proper medical services. I do not consider for one minute that it is necessary for the government to undertake complete medical coverage as long as the private schemes are satisfactory. I do feel there is a group in our population that requires government assistance. I know the medical profession is in favour of that.
I believe that at the present time the majority of people are satisfied with their private schemes. We must remember that there must be no compulsion on anyone to enter a medical scheme. There are people who, for different personal reasons, religious reasons or other reasons should not be asked to contribute to a medical scheme if they do not want to come under it. We have to give a certain amount of leeway to these people, and we should devise a scheme that will be satisfactory to them. We must have a scheme that is going to be satisfactory not only to the medical profession but to the people who will be covered by it. The people must have a free choice of doctor. The doctors must be paid for services rendered and, except in the case of those working for institutions, they should not be put on a salary basis. There must be no directives to hospitals, except in the case of hospitals financed by the government.
I come now to what I consider to be the most important part of my remarks-and I do not believe this point has been mentioned by previous speakers. I refer to the necessity for research. Never in the history of our country has it been so important for us to consider seriously the matter of research. Research is a great benefit to everyone; it is of benefit to the people who are affected and to the medical profession. It is important to the economic welfare of our country. Canadians are recognized everywhere in the world for their high professional standards. They are considered to be industrious people who work well wherever they may go. The result is that Canadian scientists are very much in demand throughout the world. I do not mean to indicate we should in any way discourage our people from going to other countries to study and get new ideas; I believe this should be encouraged in every way possible. However, we must make it worth while for these same people to come back to our country.
Over the last 15 years or so this country has been losing medical men at the rate of about 250 per year. This means that about five medical men per week are going to the United States alone. In so far as the nursing profession is concerned, the statistics present an even worse picture. Fortunately, however, 28902-5-320J
Supply-Health and Welfare some of these people return to Canada. There is a loyalty to their country that brings them back. When they do come back they bring increased knowledge and increased training to this country, which has cost Canada nothing. However, we must make it worth their while to return to Canada. It is for this reason I say research is important. Some of these people stay in the United States for personal reasons, some of them like the climate and some of them like to make 50 per cent to 100 per cent more than they would in this country. The most important thing is that there are better job opportunities in the United States, better research facilities and they have better working conditions. These scientists are more appreciated in the United States than they are in Canada. We have to make it more worth their while to come back to this country.
We have had good research performed in this country, some of it under very unfortunate circumstances. I had the privilege of personal acquaintanceship with Dr. Fred Banting and Dr. Best and I know that the conditions under which they worked in making that important discovery of insulin were a disgrace to our country. Of course, the situation has improved since then, but we have a long way to go yet, Mr. Chairman. I must congratulate the department for its recognition in the last few years of the need for more research. The figures I received today indicated that in 1956-57 the department was appropriating $1,729,700 for medical research in Canada. I am glad to say that last year this amount was doubled, and I ask the minister to see that this branch receives more encouragement. We have the men and women in this country. We have the facilities; so by increasing our subsidies we can do much work in Canada and we can make Canada one of the greatest medical centres in the world.
In spite of the problems we have at the present time in the field of scientific research we have put up a very creditable performance in some of our hospitals and laboratories. Let us find a way to increase this research, to discover the mysterious diseases with which some of us are afflicted today. Let us show the minister why cancer of the lung may develop when we smoke too much. I am sure that every one of us is interested in research, and I know we can do more in this field in Canada. There has never before been a time when we faced so many problems in research as we do today, and I feel this is the place where more can be done than it can anywhere else. By this research we can prevent illness, save suffering and cut down on hospitalization. This has been reduced considerably.
5030	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare
One of the most important developments due to research work has been in the treatment of tuberculosis. Many tuberculosis institutions have been closed up now, and this has saved money for the country. This illustrates that we can save money by spending it in the proper way in the research branch of our national health and welfare department of the government. I urge the government at this time to advance further this most important department. The rewards will be great, not only for the welfare of our country but for our economy as well.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, following the example of the previous speaker, I do not intend to take much of the time of the house to deal with the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
By the way, I wish to congratulate the minister (Miss LaMarsh) for her appointment as head of one of the most important departments. In fact, last week, at the time of the introduction of the said estimates, it was repeated again and again that this department was second in importance. However, if you study the budget for the financial year ending March 31, 1964, you will find there is a correction to be made, for the estimates of the Department of National Defence for the financial year ending March 31, 1964 amount, approximately, to $1,619 million and those of the Department of Finance, to $1,302 million. Now, as the estimates for the Department of National Health and Welfare amount to $1,204 million, it comes third, and I believe it is normal to make that correction.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion it is very important to recognize the great principle that tomorrow's economy should be more and more distributive, since we live in a world that improves constantly in the field of science. In fact, the various discoveries give today easier access to material things, at least to the production of material things which meet the needs of the human race.
If we take into account the fact that 23 per cent of the budget for the financial year ending March 31, 1964 is devoted to the Department of National Health and Welfare, it must be recognized that this is very encouraging for the future, since health and sanitation are no doubt the things that should have priority.
Mr. Chairman, reference was made, a moment ago, to the fact that in today's world, it is high time that society, and more particularly labour classes, venture more and more into the field of social legislation.
In fact, we notice nowadays that upon reaching the age of 45, 48, 50 or 55, a man who has worked many years in a plant finds himself dismissed. Automation is taking over


from him and he is often unable to find work that would suit his physical capacities or his insufficient training. Thus, he finds himself in a most difficult position.
We also notice that a great number of our fellow citizens are still too young to benefit from old age pension and on the other hand, too old to receive family allowances. Nevertheless, they are left with heavy responsibilities with regard to the education of their children who have started rather advanced studies.
That is why I am of the opinion that it is most important to go farther in the field of social security, from the standpoint of hospital and health insurance, family allowances and old age pensions.
During the discussion of the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, we heard a lot about health insurance and hospital insurance.
According to the budget estimates, federal grants for hospital insurance and general health amount to $436 million. That is the share of the federal government for its contribution to various health or hospital insurance plans, in co-operation with the provinces that already have their health or hospital insurance schemes, some of which include medical costs.
If we analyse carefully this amount of $436 million, we find that the federal government spends about $75 a year per family as its share in hospital insurance plans, while the provinces who have such a plan have to contribute the same amount.
That means that between $125 and $150 for each Canadian family are spent on health insurance and hospital insurance in some provinces.
Now, I believe that if the same amount could be given out to family heads, to single people or to the older people who do not live with their families any more, each one of our Canadian families could get from companies operating in that field an insurance policy in case of illness and another one which would guarantee the payment of a salary during the stay in hospital of the family breadwinner; and that could be done for premiums of $125 or $150 a year.
We now have a hospital insurance scheme for the workers which guarantees, upon payment of approximately $10 a month, the protection of the worker and his family; if one member of the family falls ill, he can be admitted to the hospital free of charge and chirurgical expenses and visits by the physician are reimbursed.
I feel we should study the possibility of setting up for Canada a similar health insurance plan.

Of course some might say: Those amounts will be spent for things other than those they should be used for.
I will reply that the Department of National Health and Welfare could distribute to heads of family cheques for an amount equivalent to the actual cost of hospital insurance, which could be cashed only by companies or organizations specialized in the field of protection and for nothing but hospital insurance. I think that would cost less and families would get better coverage. Moreover, in many cases, it would enable them to get the physician they want, because you know what usually happens with regard to hospital insurance: to be admitted to a hospital, you must first prove to some official that you are ill enough to deserve a reservation for a hospital bed.
Therefore, I believe that the future health insurance plan should be studied from that angle to see if it would not be advisable to change the scheme which is already in the planning stage and taking form in our own province in the field of health insurance.
There is another very important side to the activities of the Department of National Health and Welfare, that of family allowances.
I believe everyone knows that it was one of the Liberal party's great promises; on the other hand, during the recent election campaigns, all parties stressed the need to review and amend that legislation so that it would better suit today's needs.
A while ago, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) gave us the impression he wanted to look back upon the past, and he went back as far as 1919 to remind us how this house had voted the Family Allowances Act.
At that time, the cost of living was much lower than nowadays, Canada was enjoying prosperity thanks to wartime activities, a very large number of family heads were able to earn their livelihood easily and properly by holding a position of some kind in our country, which was in full development in 1945.
If we consider the situation in the last five or six years, we realize that everything justifies a revision as soon as possible of this highly social legislation we have in the Family Allowances Act.
Mr. Chairman, as I said a while ago, it is sometimes sad for a family head to know that he is too young to receive a pension and too old to take advantage of family allowances. The father of a son aged 18, 19 or 20, who sometimes had to make great sacrifices to enable him to continue his education, is often unable, because he has lost his job, to keep his son in college or technical school, where he would graduate in two or three years.
Supply-Health and Welfare
We must amend the Family Allowances Act in order to extend the period of eligibility, perhaps until the child has completed his studies.
I hope that these suggestions will receive careful consideration; moreover they are consistent with a policy accepted and advocated by all the candidates during the last two election campaigns, for the problem of social security, pensions and family allowances was made much of at that time.
We also find under item "unemployment assistance" a federal government contribution of $110 million for social assistance to the unemployed, the disabled recognized as such, and those unable to provide for their own needs. One hundred and ten million dollars for the federal contribution. If we add to that the contribution of the different provinces, we get a very impressive amount.
But if we scrutinize the implementation of that legislation, we find that it is done with stinginess and even with discrimination.
Recently some of my constituents made certain representations to me concerning one of their fellow citizens who had benefited for nine years from the legislation for the blind and who, owing to obscure circumstances, after the last two elections, completely lost his claim to that pension in September 1963. In spite of representations which were made by both he and the head of his parish, the officials concerned seem to think that blindness is no longer a problem for him and that his eyesight is perfect. Yet, an optician who examined him told me personally: "That man will never recover sufficient eyesight to hold any kind of a job in industry or elsewhere." That is only one case out of hundreds.
I wonder if we should not also take a new approach to the distribution of purchasing power.
Last week the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) seemed to refer to a speech made by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) in 1947. I feel we should have allowed him to continue his remarks because, in 1947, there was some talk about the national dividend and the distribution of our country's great wealth under the form of purchasing power. In my opinion, if that suggestion had been accepted, we would have fairly ridden Canada of all such cases of stinginess and discrimination.
In the field of national health, Mr. Chairman, we must concern ourselves mostly with the welfare of those who need not only medical care but also a sufficient quantity of calorie-rich food to sustain them so that they may not need medical attention too soon.
Let us think of the 500,000 to 600,00 Canadians who, over the past 26 years, have
5C32

Supply-Health and Welfare known the hardship which comes with unemployment. We could have increased consumption through a better distribution of the purchasing power, through increases in family allowances and old age pensions, and also by reducing the eligible age.
This would have been a real step towards social security which the people need more and more, like all human beings living in developed countries where scientific progress has taken place in the last 50 years.
I think that it is only natural that people are eager for security.
For the people in lower income groups who do not always get a hard-earned salary, because of unemployment, all this is very important.
I believe that all fields of social security should be examined during the discussion of the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare and that higher family allowances and for older children should be considered.
There is another field which, in my opinion, should be considered by the Department of National Health and Welfare, in co-operation with other departments if necessary, especially with provincial representatives, I mean amateur sport in the country.
We have in our province as well as in the others, various organizations, interested for example, in playgrounds and parish halls. I think that we should devote over $5 million to amateur sport. This higher grant should not solely be used to finance advanced studies, but should also be used for the improvement of instructors or other persons assigned to the organization of sport.
I think consideration should also be given to the advisability of a more active participation by the federal government and its closer co-operation with the provincial departments Of welfare and youth in order to grant subsidies to already existing bodies.
I gave as an example the playgrounds association, the O.T.J. of the province of Quebec. I know that there are in the other provinces across Canada similar organizations interested in athletics but what I have in mind, is a training program in physical fitness to give our youth a sound mind in a sound body. Our older citizens must facilitate the access to organized games and promote the physical development of our youngsters who represent the future of our nation.
That is why I think that in the field of amateur sport, the Minister of National Health and Welfare could certainly make a contribution to the development of a brighter future for our youth in terms of national health. We must not forget that national health is a
(Mr. Perron.]
matter of prime importance in modern societies and that the future belongs to the fighting man who has faith in the future.
It is our duty to anticipate what tomorrow will be and to do that, we must give today to our youth the best of health because insecurity holds nothing good in the heart of the underprivileged and insecurity is too often the lot of our large families either in the farming or working class.
In my constituency, hundreds of families live on farms with an income utterly inadequate which does not even allow them to get the bare necessities of life.
In fact, it was proven that 97,000 farms in eastern Canada have an annual income of less than $1,200 a year.
I think that the Minister of National Health and Welfare should take under serious consideration a way to supplement those completely inadequate incomes by increasing family allowances, if we wish to avoid the worst for those for whom the future holds in store nothing but misery for them and their dependents. I can assure you that it is sometimes very difficult to prevent people from considering that the wealthy should share their possessions with them.
We all want to take steps to make sure that in this country, the homes of those who are afflicted with illness and social insecurity will at last find happiness of some kind.
I think that it is up to the Department of National Health and Welfare to take up the challenge in connection with our future and to devise a program capable of ensuring security for the majority of our citizens, for in a country endowed with enormous riches of all kinds, we must assume the responsibility of solving this problem by pushing back as far as possible the frontiers of destitution and disease.
I believe that we live in a providentially privileged country in this regard. We have well organized political structures and, in my opinion, with the co-operation of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be able to find a way to get all the money needed to accelerate the increase in family allowances and the improvement of the old age pension scheme by lowering the age limit at which they become payable. Thus, a more prosperous and a more promising future will be in store for us.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few observations on these very important estimates which provide for the expenditure of over $1,200 million. I am one who believes that federal-provincial conferences that will deal particularly with problems relating to our human and natural

resources will be the foundation upon which we will build national unity in this country. I am convinced that the discussion of these practical things relating to human beings and the development of our natural resources in these conferences will bring about a great deal of understanding, and I think that has already been demonstrated to some extent by the conference of ministers on resources. I trust that all involved in the coming federal-provincial conference will reach agreement and come to conclusions that will be to the advantage of all the Canadian people, regardless of the province in which they live.
I want to extend my sincere congratulations to the minister on her appointment. I remember when she first came to the house as a neophyte, shall I say, on the opposition benches. It was not very long before she demonstrated by her debating ability, her vigour and her activity that she had a contribution to make to the house. In addition, she was the first lady member of the standing committee on veterans affairs. I do not know what some of the old boys I served with in the first world war would have said if they had known that veterans would wear petticoats in years to come. Anyway, it is a sign of the times, and she was very interested in veterans affairs. I wish her every success in the administration of her department and all she undertakes to the advantage of the people of Canada. I am sure she will not be content to be the ornamental apex of the broadly based department she administers.
I also wish to pay my tribute to the staff of the department both in Ottawa and in other places. I have had occasion to inquire about problems relating to senior citizens, medical questions and things of that sort, and so far as I am concerned I must say that the officials have taken every trouble to provide the information, although sometimes it is not easy to collate all the information some people seek. I have been here a good number of years, Mr. Chairman, and I cannot let the estimates of this department pass without making reference to the contribution to the department and to the Canadian people that the lady secretary of the department has made throughout the years.
I am not going to waste the time of the house by repetition, but in a sentence or two I do want to support the pleas made by previous speakers for the establishment of a national health insurance plan, something that this party has been urging for years. We hope that the developments that will occur in connection with the pension plan, and the developments that have occurred in some of the provinces in this connection, will spur the government on to take the bull by the horns,
Supply-Health and Welfare as it were, and give some leadership in connection with a national health insurance plan.
I want to say a word or two about welfare before going on with my other remarks. I remember the welfare that existed when I was a boy. It was known as parish relief. If you were down and out and almost starving you could go to the workhouse. If you were able-bodied you worked on a pile of stones splitting flints that were crushed into the macadam roads of Great Britain. This was the way welfare was administered, and the situation was very similar in this country in the early days as far as the meagreness of welfare is concerned.
We have come a long way since then. Now we are in most unusual circumstances compared with years ago. We find that the majority of people in Canada, including the rich and the poor, now support the welfare state. But these people support the welfare state from two different motives. I have talked to prominent industrialists who expressed their support for all types of welfare legislation. You will find them acting as officers of welfare concerns, local committees, and so on. While in some cases there is a touch of hu-manitarianism in this, I have talked to some of these people who considered it was good business. They can pay welfare benefits today that they could not years ago, and all because of increased production. They consider it is really good insurance against social revolution, and also for the maintenance of the capitalist system.
In that connection I want to quote briefly from Maclean's magazine, October 6, 1942, which had a very interesting article dealing with developments with respect to the former government. On page 76 I read this:
Nothing in this classically competitive business history would lead you to suppose that some of McCutcheon's ideas might alarm a dogmatic capitalist, but such is the surprising case. A caption in the Toronto Star of September 30, 1957, read: "Praises Canada's drift toward welfare state.''
Just imagine a multi-millionaire making a statement like that 25 or 30 years ago. He would have been kicked out of the establishment.
The account of a speech McCutcheon had made to the Canadian club followed. "Relating.. .the vast expansion of government and voluntary health and welfare programs, (McCutcheon) said. 'You might expect me as a businessman to denounce this whole movement.. .as a dangerous if not to say pernicious thing. On the contrary. I regard it not only as one of the greatest achievements of private enterprise and a modern industrial society. I consider it necessary to the continued existence of both.' "
That is the point of view of many of the wealthier people who support welfare at this time. Mr. Chairman, my colleague says I mentioned 1942. I misread the date; it is 1962. Of course my colleague is very fond of exactitude in small matters.
5034	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare
Now, Mr. Chairman, that is not our point of view. We look upon the welfare state as paving the highway to social justice for everyone, and not as causing some people to suffer in perpetuity human indignity by being kept on welfare in the sense of the persons I have mentioned. We mean that the welfare state should provide for every child in the country, regardless of place of birth or economic circumstances of the parents. We believe that all able-bodied men should be provided with employment at decent wages and in proper working conditions. We believe that all Canadians are entitled to decent housing, and to protection by national welfare against the hazards of ill health. We believe that our aging citizens are entitled to retire in comfort with a measure of security. We do not look upon this as subsidizing human beings to stay on the shelf because they are no longer of use in the society in which we live. We believe in human dignity and opportunities for all according to their physical and intellectual development.
I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member who represents Kamloops. He is a member of the medical profession, and I heard with particular interest his references to the need for greater research in many aspects of health and welfare. I heartily support those remarks. I do not intend to repeat them but I have had this brought to my attention by persons in my own constituency, by local groups interested in the problem of rehabilitation, particularly of children and juveniles, and I support their pleas for wider, more expanded research into all aspects and all problems relating to the development of a sound policy within this department.
I now want to say a few words about the pension plan. Our hopes were raised very high during the election period, and we came here with great expectations and anticipations. Because of circumstances that have developed this delay has occurred; however, as a result of this forthcoming conference I hope this will provide an opportunity to develop a sound plan related to the circumstances of the times.
I fully appreciate the opposition the government has received from some quarters to a national contributory pension plan. I am not sure whether I should have said that, or whether I should have said a confederation contributory pension plan. Anyway, you know what 1 mean. Mr. Chairman, my colleague is again correcting me in matters of minutiae: It is the Canada pension plan. There is nothing like having a prompter behind the wings. He should have been on the stage, or behind the back door but out of sight.
[Mr. Herridge.l

Anyway, we all know there has been strong opposition, and I want to give credit to the minister for the stand she is taking in placing the broad outline before the house in the form of a resolution, and not backing down one iota. She is not given to easily changing direction because of the zephyrs slight political winds and things of that sort, and we wish her well in standing her ground.
In that connection I would like to quote a cutting sent to me by some of my constituents who are interested in this question. It is an editorial from the Star Weekly of recent issue. It is well worth reading into the record, because in my opinion the person who wrote the editorial sized the situation up very well indeed. It is headed, "Big finance fights pensions"-we all agree with that-and states:
Powerful interests have begun a mighty lobbying campaign against the Canada pension plan now before parliament. They are the insurance and trust companies which control the huge funds built up under private pension plans.
The Canada pension plan offers more, to more Canadians, than any private plan or any combination of private plans can give them. It will cover almost every employed worker in Canada unless he lives in a province that stays out, as Quebec will.
According to this editorial.
After it has been in effect 10 years it will pay a man aged 70, who has been earning $77 a week, a pension of $175 a month. This is a far quicker build-up to maximum than private plans, which might take 40 years to reach this point.
Some of what the insurance interests are saying is plain hogwash.
That is a rather plain word.
"Canada is looking into the jaws of an economic catastrophe," says one document. Others use more skilful arguments and figures. Among the main points the insurance men attack are:
The cost. Contributions from worker and employer will not exceed 2 per cent of wages (up to $77 a week) for the first 10 years, then will increase. Government actuaries have worked this out extremely carefully, allowing for the proportion of old people there may be in the population.
Very fairly they give both a high cost and a low cost. In the year 2050, for instance, they reckon that, on optimistic assumptions, the plan will cost only 4.38 per cent of wages. But on a pessimistic basis they say it might cost 8.84 per cent.
Opponents have immediately seized on the highest figure and some even say, without giving any facts, that the cost will really be much higher.
How much pension? Insurance men say the plan "overpensions" people.
Isn't that a frightful cry-they actually overpay pensioned people. To talk of giving our older citizens some measure of comfort is absolutely atrocious in their point of view.
Even with an extra $75 of old age pension for a wife, a couple will have only $250 a month at most. Many will have less if they retire early or don't earn as much as $77 a week when working. Is this too much pension?
Pay as you go. The argument against this part of the plan is that because it pays pensions out of contributions as it receives them, it is destroying an important part of our savings system.

That is an insurance company's point of view. They have been collecting the savings, keeping the profits and investing them wherever they saw fit, without any thought being given to the best advantage of the development of this country, and in some cases investing them in foreign companies to quite an extent.
The building up of funds under private plans provides money for businesses to expand and helps the country to grow, this argument goes.
What the Canada pension plan's opponents do not say is that the United States has had a similar pension scheme since 1937 and that there private pension plans have gone on growing alongside it and providing billions of dollars for investment. There's no reason why this shouldn't happen here too.
Then, as a clincher, the insurance men ask that the plan be delayed so there can be full discussion on it. We believe that its details should be carefully checked, possibly by the House of Commons banking committee. Now that it is proposed to bring the present $65 old age pension up to $75 without waiting for the Canada pension plan, an extra two months' delay won't do any harm, and a lot of improvements may be made in that time.
What the big financial interests fighting the plan want is not just delay. They hope to kill it dead. In the interests of security and decent comfort for our old people at the end of their working days, parliament must thwart their design and establish the Canada pension plan.
I give full credit to the editorial writer of the Star Weekly who wrote that article. He has done a service to Canada to state the situation in such clearcut language. As I said before, I trust that the coming conference will bear good fruit in respect to this pension plan, and once again I wish the minister, the other members of the cabinet and the officials attending the conference every success in their negotiations in this respect.
Now I want to say a few words about the Disabled Persons Act. I am trying to be as brief as possible, Mr. Chairman, but it is very difficult for me to get the floor on some occasions. In the first place, I am a modest person-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and I often get outbidded, and that sort of thing. I do get it on Thursday and Friday nights occasionally. First of all, I trust that agreement will be reached on this matter so that these persons will soon receive the extra $10 that is being paid to those under old age security. I mention this because I have had quite a bit of experience with persons in my own constituency who have made application for disabled persons allowances. I am convinced, as the result of my experience, as the result of talking to the board in Vancouver and talking to half a dozen doctors who are very interested, that many of these persons have been denied these allowances as not being unemployable, when 28902-5-321
Supply-Health and Welfare they are completely unable to earn a living. I know two or three cases where they are completely unable to earn a living, and I simply cannot understand why the legislation permits this sort of thing. I have talked this over with the board in Vancouver which administers the allowances. They showed me a huge volume of regulations. Without a doubt their hands are tied by the present regulations, which I presume were drafted as a result of negotiation between the federal and provincial governments. I have talked to a number of doctors who were simply amazed that many applicants have been denied the disabled persons allowances, and I have talked to the persons directly affected and their neighbours.
In the opinion of this group, Mr. Chairman, the disabled persons allowance act needs amending at the earliest possible date, and the regulations to it, in order to give effect to the principles, of the act as we understood them when they were passed in this House of Commons some years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very pleased to see that I am drawing applause from Progressive Conservative benches and-is it the Social Credit rally or the Social Credit party? Anyway, I am drawing applause from both of them and I think I am doing very well. In concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about fitness and amateur sports grants. I give credit to the former government for this program. This was an excellent piece of legislation and is a very worth-while project indeed. I have had some experience with this program throughout the constituency. I live in a riding in which the Royal Canadian Legion has some 12 branches and many of them are quite strong in their membership. Throughout the whole district there is intense interest in physical fitness, in field and track sports, team sports, and so on.
The Royal Canadian Legion in Kootenay West has worked very hard in the last five years. They have a coach who is a former Olympic champion-this man is resident in Rossland-to build up interest. There has been a great deal of interest built up in the schools, among the parents and particularly among the children who are directly interested and participate. Already we have developed two or three track and field athletes of national calibre and we expect some of them to be competing in the next Olympic games. This program is of great assistance in this respect. I wish to compliment the minister and the government for the grant made to the Royal Canadian Legion. It is a step in the right direction. I am sure

Supply-Health and Welfare that because of the results, knowing she has a warm heart, next year the minister will increase this grant. This provides an opportunity for co-operation between the federal and provincial governments and between particular organizations throughout Canada, both at the national and local level, to do something worth while, to develop physical fitness among our young people, develop amateur sports and so build for the future of Canada a healthier, a stronger and, I trust, a wiser generation.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity of speaking a second time on the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare as I have two thoughts that I would like to advance, both of which I think are for the national good, under the headings of health and welfare. First I should emphasize that I am a nonsmoker. I have not indulged in the habit since corn tassels and toilet paper went out of style. When I say toilet paper, that was in the days before Facelle toilet tissues were made in my riding of York-Humber-and I mean toilet paper. I thought the habit rather disgusting at that time and have never taken it up. As a non-smoker I would like to urge that this conference on Monday and Tuesday be thrown open to the public and the press. I sincerely believe that the more publicity there is given to this conference, the more effect it will have on the young people of the nation and it will influence many of them to not take up the habit.
I have been 40 years in the newspaper business and I know how much attention is paid by newspapers and periodicals to a mere press hand-out from a conference held behind closed doors. If the conference is in the open, the press, radio, and possibly television, will give it wide coverage and the import of the deliberations will be broadcast from coast to coast. I would like to see the conference given as widespread publicity as possible.
Having incurred the askance looks of my hon. friends from Norfolk and Durham, where tobacco is grown in large quantity, because I favour publicity that may retard this habit, I would point out that I have a large number of variety stores in the riding of York-Humber which could take offence at my remarks, and I would now like to make an effort to placate them. I am a non-smoker and I am in this House of Commons a great deal for the simple reason that I do not find it necessary to go behind the curtains from time to time or go into the members' lobby, nor do I walk around the parliament buildings, in order to indulge in the habit of courting lady nicotine. We have certain members of the press gallery who are here a minimum of time, possibly 30 [Mr. Herridge.l
minutes a day, who retreat to their warrens on the third floor and write lengthy articles pointing out the terrible attendance of the members of the House of Commons. But they do not point out when they are writing those articles that they themselves are not in the House of Commons, and they do not give the members of the house credit for leaving the chamber for the same reason they leave the press gallery, namely to work in their offices or to smoke in various places and various postures.
I would point out that when I came into this chamber this evening I counted the number of Liberals sitting in the members' lobby and I would report to you, not with any great degree of pleasure, that there were almost as many members in the members' lobby or behind the curtains enjoying themselves, under the heading of "welfare", as there were in this chamber. This is a small item of news for the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, if he wishes to know where we are most of the time.
I should like to make this suggestion in all seriousness, bearing in mind the fact that I personally am not addicted to this habit of smoking, that you would have double the attendance in this chamber after orders of the day if smoking were permitted here. Some newspapers are keeping box scores relating to members' attendance in the house. I have a better than average figure because I do not smoke and I am in the house a great deal. Many members go out to smoke. I do have a tremendous number of friends who indulge in the filthy habit and I do not think any worse of them than I do of my friends, like the hon. member for Niagara Falls or the hon. member for York West, who set a non-smoking example which all members do not always follow. We would like to have smoking allowed in the House of Commons so that a large number of members would come in here and see the example set by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the hon. member for York West and the hon. member for York-Humber, and then they might come to the conclusion they must give up smoking following the realization that lung cancer is staring them in the face.


Mr. Enns:: Having heard this rather humorous dissertation, Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if my somewhat sober remarks will be listened to at all. Actually, after the comments made by these speakers this evening, I would think the minister, as head of the department, would realize that her estimates could not be reduced because each speaker has advocated an increase in the various programs that have been discussed. I am thinking of disabled persons allowances, and

so on, which it has been advocated should be increased. Actually, I can support this myself.
Various references have been made to the health insurance plan. It was rather a curious experience to hear an hon. member opposite- I cannot recall his constituency-speak in favour of health insurance and speak also in favour of proceeding slowly. During the election campaign, this was one of the things that was promised immediately. We were told we would have this plan as soon as the Liberals took power. It is not necessary for me to remind the committee that our party is not opposed to medical insurance. In fact, it was our party that initiated the commission, under Dr. Hall, to study the whole question of health services. This would be the basis for an adequate study of any program of insurance. I think this is certainly a very sensible approach to this vast problem.
In introducing the estimates the minister stated that better than 19 per cent of the federal budget is required for health and welfare. I think translated into other terms this statement speaks of the high quality of services the Canadian people receive from this significant department. When I recall that this department has not yet existed for 20 years and has already reached the point of requiring such a share of the total expenditure, I must compliment the minister on accomplishing this degree of service to Canadians.
I noticed in the estimates provision has been made for an increase in welfare grants. I was interested in the cumulative spending for research, welfare grants and health grants. The whole grants program of this department is a great thing. While the amount in the estimates has been increased from $250,000 to $500,000, I think in this present day and age, when it can be said that 90 per cent of the scientists who ever lived are still alive, and when the statement is made that knowledge doubles itself almost every ten years, the government needs to recognize that there has to be some impetus, some encouragement given to the development of better trained personnel. This is especially true at a time when the cost of higher education seems to be increasing as well. I would admonish the minister to give thought to an even greater increase in the grants program.
Mention has been made of the pension plan. It is a source of some sadness to me that the plan had to be introduced in such great haste and therefore has now had to be shelved, at least temporarily. I, personally, and I think most members of the house, are in favour of a pension plan that has been solidly conceived and one that will be workable, because there are many individuals who are not 28902-5-321J
Supply-Health and Welfare covered by private programs about which we hear so much. There is one theory advanced that would solve our whole problem in this area, and that is that as long as the economy increases at the rate it has, and the productivity keeps increasing at the present rate, the standard of living of Canadians will be doubled in one generaion, or 30 years. In this way, the problem of welfare would more or less resolve itself. If this were so, it would lead to the rather tempting solution of simply sitting and waiting until the economy of the country reached this point.
Of course, this is not possible, nor could it be. I was, therefore, reassured when the minister said in introducing these estimates that we would, of course, have to spend whatever is necessary to assure Canadians of the highest possible standard of health. She assured the committee that there would be no skimping in this area. I am reassured by this kind of statement because I feel in the years to come the department will really enlarge its expenditures as it will its services. All studies indicate that the theoretical possibility of the poor disappearing, through this formula I just mentioned of the standard of living doubling, does not work. If you do some reading in this field, I would refer you to studies made in the United States, a country which claims the average level of income per family is something like $7,000 per year. In spite of this rather high level of income, it is still possible to speak of the mass phenomena of the poor in that country. There have been many books written on this subject, but I would like to refer to the book written by Mr. Michael Harrington which he calls, "The Other America; Poverty in the United States". This certainly points up that this faceless group has no real representative in our society.
Just where to draw the poverty line in Canada is something I would not want to undertake at this time because so many things have to be considered. According to a recent census, over half of our single persons earn less than $2,000 per year. If you want to apply this to families, I think the figures show that something like 40 per cent of the families earn less than $4,000 per year. Now, whether we can consider this to be the poverty line or not, I am not too sure. I put it to the members of the house to try to establish just where we would be in attempting to provide the many needs of our families if we had only $4,000 to buy education, to buy clothing, shelter and the many other things a family requires. I say, therefore, that a great awakening of the public conscience is necessary to the fact that we are far from

Supply-Health and Welfare an affluent society, in spite of the fact we enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world.
If we live in the suburbs, I believe it is quite easy to be convinced that we do, in fact, live in an affluent society because the poor have a way of disappearing. They are confined in crowded, miserable housing in the centre of town and many of us hardly even notice them.
Another reason they are becoming invisible Is because many of them are at an age where they are quite isolated from the rest. Some are over 65 years of age and the dependants of those families with limited incomes to which I referred are under 18 years of age. These groups are not very vocal in our society, yet most of the services of the department are directed at them. The book to which I referred, "The Other America" by Michael Harrington, has this comment:
And finally the poor are politically invisible... They are without lobbies of their own; they put forward no legislative program. As a group they are atomized; they have no face, they have no voice.
One of the biggest causes of poverty, I suggest, is unemployment. We know that much of the complexity of this problem of unemployment cannot be blamed entirely on the lack of government programs, although the government shoulders a heavy responsibility to provide increasing opportunities for employment. But it seems that the human race no longer fits society. Here I should like to quote from the September 1962 issue of Harper's magazine, an article entitled "The Stupidity Problem"-an odd term-by Mr. John Fischer:
The human race-or anyhow that sample of it located in North America-no longer fits the kind of society it has to live in. Our society just does not have any jobs for certain people. If it continues to develop along its present course, the numbers of such unemployables seem likely to grow rather rapidly.
Then he goes on to outline the difficulty of finding employment for all, especially those less adequately suited for the complex jobs of today. Then he concludes with this comment:
For we have apparently built ourselves unintentionally, and without realizing it, a society which calls for a distribution of intelligence entirely different from that which God provided. It remains to be seen whether we can make it work.
Indeed, all the resources of health and welfare, of housing, education and employment, will have to be applied to see whether we can really make our society work.
Why do I show concern in this area? How well have we done up to now? I should like to use educational achievements as some sort of measure. If it is said that this is not really a proper yardstick to use when discussing
[Mr. Enns.l
the estimates of the department of health and welfare, I suggest that education is very much tied in with health and welfare. For example, how many of us know that more than 200,000 adults in Canada have never gone to school? Do we realize, Mr. Chairman, the employment problems facing this group? Some 870,000 Canadians did not get past grade four. There are other figures to show that 70 per cent of unemployed men at the present time have no more than grade eight education. The national employment service tells us that if you have not at least grade eight education you are ineligible for more than 70 per cent of the jobs available. Finally, there are something over 7 million Canadians who have never completed high school. When we look at the various qualifications now expected even of office boys, where it seems matriculation is mandatory, we can see the complexity of the problem which faces anyone who attempts to find a solution to the unemployment question.
Obviously we have failed somewhere along the line. One of the chief reasons is that we look too closely and too critically at the cost of health services, at the cost of welfare services, and at the cost of education, while ignoring the fact that the cost of failing to spend money to provide adequate health, welfare and education services is much greater. What is the cost of unemployment, for example? What of the frustration of the people who cannot find work? What about the enforced idleness, the loss of purpose and selfrespect, or even the loss of hope and faith? There are even more tangible indicators of the effects of unemployment, such as the loss of homes through mortgage foreclosures, development of delinquency, and I can name many others. In comparison the provision of welfare services, work projects and other measures to stimulate the economy is clearly a lesser price to pay. What about the cost of sickness, pain, suffering, chronic incapacity and loss of income owing to inadequate medical and health services? Society as a whole, as well as the individual who is ill, pays an enormous price for the burden of illness. Beside these costs the price of adequate health services is surely small. What about the cost of ignorance, of reduced job opportunities, frustration, long hours of drudgery, perhaps even unemployment, and even more important, failure in the fulfilment of life? If we are wise we will pay for health and welfare and adequate educational measures simply because we cannot afford ignorance, sickness and personal misery.
This leads me to three specific proposals I should like to put forward. One is in the area of health, and this is not a proposal which has not already been discussed. It advocates

the implementation of a properly thought out health insurance scheme. I read the report of the department for 1962-63 and was interested to see that something like 98.7 per cent of all Canadians are covered by hospitalization schemes. What a difference that is when compared with the less than 50 per cent who receive coverage through a medical insurance scheme at the present time. I say there is great need for a health insurance scheme which will be acceptable to the medical profession. It must be a scheme that will still be locally and regionally controlled, and various methods of financing must be well considered before it is put forward. I am looking to provinces like Saskatchewan, and Ontario which is contemplating a scheme, and also Alberta. I am hopeful that Canada will before long develop, in the same way it developed a workable hospitalization scheme, a health insurance scheme. I think it is unfair that medically indigent people are dependant on the charitable inclinations of the medical profession to provide adequate health services. In the area of welfare I look with some alarm at the complexity and diversity of the numerous schemes at the present time serving the people. For example, I think of the workmen's compensation act, veterans pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowances, mothers' allowances, disability allowance, allowances for the blind and disabled, and the various old age security pensions, veterans allowances and general assistance. Surely there must be a way of simplifying this maze of different programs jointly financed by federal money, provincial money, municipal money and voluntary schemes.
This leads me to advocate a social security plan which will funnel these individual programs into one scheme. The saving in administrative duplication would be considerable and the service to the entitled recipients would certainly be enhanced. I am hopeful that some of the recommendations of the Gill commission can be considered in the wider application and development of a social security program. So any social security program should be preceded by careful study of the conditions which exist under present provisions, before its implementation.
The third and last suggestion I wish to make has to do with education. I make it with reluctance because I do not wish to lay upon an active minister and upon a department which already has many diverse functions, yet another burden. Yet I feel there has to be a branch responsible for the field of education at a national level. We hear much talk about the need for granting scholarships, about increasing demands for university grants and the requirements of the vocational and
Supply-Health and Welfare technical training program. All this has to do with education. There is another problem which confronts many families, including particularly the families of service men and others in our society who are becoming less and less rooted. In many cases their children encounter setbacks, not because they lack ability but because they suddenly encounter a school curriculum or program which is completely different from anything they had been undertaking previously. For this reason I think a branch should be set up to deal with this aspect of the educational field and that the department should be renamed the department of health, welfare and education.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I did have a lengthy speech prepared on a number of topics but in view of the hour, and in an effort to co-operate with the minister, I will shorten my remarks as much as possible. The first thing I should like to bring to the hon. lady's attention is the question of blind pensions, disabled persons allowances and old age security payments. As a number of other members have mentioned, we hope that all those people in receipt of these payments will soon get the $10 increase. I hope the government will bring in legislation accordingly at an early date because these people badly need the extra allowance.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. I know it has been discussed over the years in this chamber. I know it was being discussed ten years ago. It is the question of removing the means test as a condition of payment of pensions to the blind, and I think the minister should give careful attention to this principle not only as it applies to the blind but as it applies to disabled persons allowances. The application of the means test necessitates certain administrative expenditure and, in addition, it is embarrassing to a number of the applicants. People who are blind are deprived of a valuable physical asset when it comes to earning a living. Through no fault of their own they have probably not been able to make a living as well as the rest of us, and for this reason we should help them out by compensating them in some small way for the loss of a valuable physical asset. It is true a number of blind persons may be able to make a living, but they are not able to do so as well as if they had not lost their sight.
I feel that in all these cases an allowance should be granted without a means test being applied. I know there may be some who have lost their sight and who do not really need the allowance, but the same could be said in this particular respect of some of those in receipt of old age security benefits. The great majority do, and if payments are made to a

Supply-Health and Welfare few people who are affluent, it must be remembered that the money usually goes back in taxes, anyway. I understand that most blind persons in this country lost their sight at a very early period in their lives.
As far as the payment of disabled persons allowances is concerned, the same principle should apply, though we should perhaps bear in mind that these people may have become physically handicapped later in life and would therefore have had a better opportunity to earn a living than most blind persons. Perhaps, in these circumstances, a regulation could be made specifying that if the handicaps had occurred prior to the age of 35 the payment should be granted without a means test. In cases where the handicap was sustained beyond that age, the means test would continue to apply.
With regard to the disabled persons allowance, the hon. member for Kootenay West brought certain complaints to the attention of the minister and I want to re-emphasize what he had to say. Most members of this house have had case after case brought to their attention involving persons who are very ill, who cannot work, and who, in all probability, will never be able to work again. But when they apply for the allowance their applications are turned down because they are not considered to be totally and permanently disabled. Apparently, under the regulations as they now apply, if there is the remotest possibility that a person may be able to move again he is denied this type of allowance. I am sure this was never the intention when the legislation was passed. Possibly the situation has come about because of the way in which the regulations are enforced by the federal and provincial authorities concerned.
I hope the minister will give this situation a careful second look. I could mention dozens of cases of this kind which have come to my attention. These people are totally disabled, but they are told that because 15 years later they may possibly be able to walk again, the allowance cannot be granted. Then there are those who are permanently, but not totally disabled. A man might be able to work with his left hand. This is a kind of argument I have had brought to my notice time after time. The officials say: We would like to do something, but the regulations do not permit us. Once again, I suggest the minister give this situation her close attention.
I should like to turn briefly to consider what might be done with regard to a new type of food poisoning which has been in the news of late, an extremely rare type of poisoning known as botulism. There have been several instances of it lately and I hope the minister will consider advising the food and drugs division of her department to see

that warnings are passed to those who are processing food and to make sure a plentiful supply of antidote is available for the treatment of those who do contract this illness. The cause of this illness is a type of bacteria which occurs, I am told, in non-acid foods only, in the absence of oxygen, as, for example, when smoked fish is wrapped in cellophane and left for some time in storage. The unfortunate thing is that this type of food poisoning is not easy to avoid because the food affected is unchanged as to taste, odour and colour. People have no warning that they are eating contaminated food. I hope the department will do everything it can through education and publicity to make the public and others concerned aware of this problem. I hope, too, that it will keep a careful check on food processing plants, particularly those handling foods which are wrapped in cellophane and which may be stored for a while before they are used.
To turn to another subject, I wish the minister could give us a brief report, when she replies, as to the present situation with respect to the analysis of samples of radioactive materials which have been collected in Canada and around the world. I am sure she knows that a few years ago the United Nations was interested in a project of this sort. It still is, as I gathered when I was in attendance there not long ago. Samples of air, soil, water and food were collected by various countries. Canada offered to analyse these samples for countries which do not have facilities for doing so. Ghana, Burma, Pakistan and one or two other countries have sent samples to Canada to be analysed. The information is collated and sent to the United Nations so that we can keep track of radioactive fall-out in Canada and in other parts of the world. Maybe people think they know how long this material stays aloft after these explosions but we have all read reports of live material falling in large quantities in northern Canada and perhaps elsewhere, and we do not know how long it stays up. There have been a good many guesses but I understand nobody really knows how long it stays aloft, what happens to it when it comes down and in what concentration it does come down.
It is true there is a nuclear test ban treaty at the moment but one can never tell when the treaty might be broken. We hope it never will be. In any event, from previous tests in the atmosphere we know that this material is still coming down and we would like to know to what extent. I know we are supposed to be analysing samples from these other countries and I hope the minister can give us some information.

Finally, on the subject of tobacco I understand the minister is helping to convene a conference in Ottawa next week on cigarette smoking and the allegedly attendant evils. From all the information we have available it seems pretty clear that cigarette smoking does do some harm to people by causing some varieties of heart disease and arterial disease, and apparently it is a contributing factor in certain forms of lung cancer. I draw the minister's attention, as I am sure some of her colleagues already have, to the fact that the tobacco growing industry in Canada is a $100 million a year business. If basic research is not going on already in the laboratories that come under the minister's jurisdiction, I hope that some will be carried on to try to find what the agent is in cigarettes that may produce cancer, and if that agent can be found to exist then I hope some way of removing it can be devised. The industry is far too big a one to toss overboard without making some effort to save it. If there is some substance in cigarettes that causes cancer, let us try to find out what it is and try to find some way of removing it. I am sorry to take so much time but there were a number of points I wanted to bring to the minister's attention.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Monieiih:: Just before the item carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to have the privilege of saying a very few words. I have not participated in the debate on the estimates of the department before and I will be very brief. I should like to repeat the statement I made when I first asked a question of the minister at which time I congratulated her on heading the best department in the government. I repeat that statement and as this is the first opportunity I have had since leaving the department I should also like to express my appreciation to the officials of the department who have been very helpful to all ministers who have had the opportunity and privilege of heading it.
Having followed the speeches that have been made since the opening remarks of the minister, and the reply thereto of the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas, may I say that some very worth-while speeches have been made during the debate on these estimates. I wish to single out two that have been made tonight, the speech of the hon. member for Kamloops and that of the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa. The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa made a suggestion respecting welfare grants and, while I do not intend to hold up the first or any other item, when we get to that item in the estimates I should like to ask the minister one or two questions
Supply-Health and Welfare concerning the fitness and amateur sports grants and the welfare grants.
I must insist that the minister has not followed the right course in not increasing old age assistance payments and disability and blindness allowances at the same time as she increased old age security payments. Naturally we are all most interested in the report to be made by the health commission. I wish the hon. member for York-Humber were in the house at this time because I should like to finish by saying that the contribution made by the hon. member suggests he should go back to using the ingredients he mentioned earlier in his speech.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister of health and welfare a question concerning item 1.
According to the 1963-64 estimates, the departmental administration includes 379 employees. Could the minister tell us how many of those officials are bilingual?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell the hon. member that.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question. Has an inquiry been made in the Department of National Health and Welfare in line with the announcement made by the Secretary of State on many occasions in the past, that inquiries would be made to delimit how many bilingual people there are in each department? Has such an inquiry been made in her own department?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed that about a quarter of the headquarter's staff is bilingual. The difficulty arises, of course, through using this word loosely in deciding who is bilingual. We have people who speak many languages. We have others who speak English, and speak French only slightly. We have people who speak German, Spanish, Italian or perhaps even Indian. We have a lot of these people. If my hon. friend means French and English he will have to define the degree. Even then this would waste a great deal of time and public money, and to what useful avail I am not sure. We have the best people we can get to do the job, and this is the only criterion on which we employ people in this department.


Gilles Grégoire: I see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration beside the Minister of National Health and Welfare and he must have been as shocked as I was when she asked what we mean by bilingual, German or Ukrainian or Italian? I think the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration must have had the same reaction as I had. When we

Supply-Health and Welfare speak about bilingualism I think it is understood we mean French and English. I should not like to question the competency of the personnel. That is not why I raise the problem. I am sure the minister has tried to choose the most competent people. For example, I see there are 138 stenographers, and I think it would be in bad taste to raise the question of the competency of all these employees.
I referred to bilingual employees and I should also like to point out that the minister asked me to what degree I meant that they should be bilingual. I simply state that it is sufficient if somebody who is in contact with the public can understand and be understood in both official languages. That is why I asked the question whether an inquiry has been made in the Department of National Health and Welfare. The minister referred to 25 per cent, and that is what I should like to know from the minister.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Gilles Grégoire: I have asked a question.


Mr. Peters:: Supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Lapointe, I should like to inquire whether a training program is under way in the Department of National Health and Welfare to bring about a degree of competency with regard to bilingualism on the part of the staff.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: A number of officers of the department who have been able to speak only one language have been taking special language courses, and they have obtained permission to take time off for this purpose. When the government sets up the civil service language program now being arranged, those who wish to do so will be able to take extra training.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the minister would indicate to the committee what plans she may have for answering the various statements that have been made and the questions that have been put to her in the several hours of debate there have been on item 1. I do not ask that she do it on the first item, if she will undertake to do it on some other item, but we would like the minister's comments on statements that have been made.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In at least two cases I have already written those who spoke last week on the estimates to give them the answers. One general question which has kept coming up concerns disability allowances and the test for them. It is perfectly true that the test is permanent disability. There are a great many

people who do not fall within this classification and therefore do not obtain an allowance. The regulations have been drawn as a result of consultation between the two levels of government.
However, I am informed that within the last few years many people who do not qualify as being completely and permanently disabled, qualify under unemployment assistance programs. They are not employable and therefore they receive some assistance.
As all hon. members know, there have been a number of questions asked within the last few weeks regarding the basic categorical programs. I have indicated, as has the Prime Minister, that because of the fact that this topic has been requested by the provinces as a matter for insertion in the agenda of the federal-provincial conference to commence on Monday, no action was being taken in concert with the old age security increases. This, of course, is still my position, that until a full discussion has been held at that conference any other discussion may be premature at this time.
The hon. member for Oxford raised a question with respect to collections of samples in various countries to count radioactive fallout as a result of United Nations resolution 1379, passed in 1959. I have very little information with me with respect to this, but I am informed some four countries negotiated with Canada in order that details of samples, types, procedures and frequencies might be developed. As a result, we are receiving regularly from Pakistan samples of milk and food products, and samples of soil from Burma. I have not got any other information available at the moment, but I will be glad to obtain it and supply it to my hon. friend.
With respect to the topic of a number of speeches, the family allowance increase, my hon. friends have also placed questions on the order paper and have been informed by myself and the Prime Minister that this is indeed a part of the program of the government, a program for parliament, and that in the priorities which were given by the government, this did not obtain the highest priority.
All hon. members have been aware of this since the opening of the session when they heard the speech from the throne, and they have had no reason to believe it would be included in the legislative program for this session, since it was not mentioned in the speech from the throne.
A number of speakers also dealt with the question of medical care, which quite obviously is not a part of the legislative program of the government for this session. Indeed, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Oxford,

the report of the Hall commission is expected within a few months, and I should expect that taking any action without having that com-misison report before us would be precipitate.
If there were other specific points raised I am sorry, but I thought they were being answered as argument developed, or I may have written answers to them. If not, I shall be very happy to give personal answers to hon. members.


Auguste Choquette: There is one question which is urgent and which I hear a lot about in my riding. Is it the intention of the government to raise the family allowance in the near future, and to extend it to students attending secondary schools?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would like to refer my hon. friend to the literature of the party which we both support.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Get together.


Auguste Choquette: Does that mean yes?


Gilles Grégoire: As I have not read the publications of the Liberal party, may we know what is the program it is supporting on the point raised by the hon. member for Lotbi-niere?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The legislative program of the government is set out each year in the speech from the throne, and I refer my hon. friend to it.


Gilles Grégoire: I thought the program was set out during the last election, and was referred to in a booklet of the Liberal party. I would like to know-


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member seems to be straying from the item under consideration.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I would like to ask the minister a question again. I think she answered it but it was rather difficult to hear her because of conversations going on in the chamber. I asked her at one point if she would care to comment on checking up on the rules and regulations which determine whether disabled persons allowances would be granted or not. I thought she answered, but would she mind repeating the answer?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I did, and I simply answered what my hon. friend knows, that this is a categorical program with a definition which was inserted, and which is very clear. There has to be complete disability and permanent disability in order to qualify. A great many people who cannot qualify in that rather
Supply-Health and Welfare rigid category are now qualifying under unemployment assistance programs where they are disabled, but not completely so and not permanently so.
This latter program is being used more and more by all of the provinces to fill in the cracks around this rigid program, and that is one of the reasons why this categorical program, and others, are to be discussed in depth at the conference on Monday, in order that better welfare programs can be developed for the whole of Canada.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am glad this matter is being gone into and I hope it has practical results.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I read under this item: "Educational and informational publications, $45,000.00", a subheading which comes back under practically all items. Could the minister tell us whether those publications are in both languages? If not, what is the percentage of publications in both languages?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed that all literature published by the department is published in both languages.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
S. Administration, 467,800.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall vote No. 5 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are grateful to the minister for the remarks she made on the first item, as I am sure she is grateful that the item has passed. We are now on the first item under the health branch and I wonder if the minister could give us a little more of a look into the future so far as health insurance is concerned. Included in the items under the heading of the health branch are amounts of money for three programs, which are excellent steps in this field-the general health grants program, the hospital construction grants, and the contributions under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. I am sure the minister will agree that, excellent though these programs are, they are not the end of the story. I know-and she has confirmed it-that questions relating to medical services are on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference to be held next week. I know it is easy for her to ask us to wait for the report of the Hall commission, but surely, after all the years we have been waiting, we could be told by the minister of this department whether within the department there are plans for a health insurance program which could be implemented if the party in power were prepared to take the step.
5044	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare
I can think back to as recent a year as 1948, when the Liberal government of that day announced the health grants program. We were told then that this was the first step looking toward medical care, or a health insurance program. Well, 15 years have gone by since then, not to mention the years since the Liberal party's declaration of 1919. I know the minister will say that these matters should now at least wait until after the conference of next week and that we should wait for the report of the Hall commission. Incidentally, it always seems that that report is a month or two off. But surely after all these years and the times we have been told to wait, we could be told whether thorough studies are taking place within the department, and whether plans are being drawn so that if the government were prepared to make the decision we could start with a national health insurance program.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, the Department of National Health and Welfare has for a number of years been amassing and collating information and statistics with respect to medical plans in other jurisdictions. This information is there, ready for the department to use as the first step. There is background material in the form of study papers, and so on, for the minister. I am not able to say that a plan for medical care is in the department ready to be brought forward. During the six months I have been minister, as my hon. friend must realize, my main legislative concern has been in the welfare field. Surely my hon. friend would not expect, nor would the public expect, action to be taken, because the Hall commission report has not come down and so much time and effort has been spent in undertaking that study.
When this report is received by the government and a thorough study has been undertaken in regard to it, we will then be in a position to move forward in the commitment which the government has, the commitment very well known to my hon. friend, in the field of medical health.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for the statement she has has just made. I freely admit that she has given-and I approve of it-priority, in the months she has held this office, to the welfare side of the program. I know the job she has on her hands trying to sell the Canada pension plan. She knows that she gets help from us on that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: On everything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But I do hope that what the minister has said this evening will be recognized as being in the nature of a commitment and just as soon as she gets the welfare program moving along, and as soon as she gets
tMr. Knowles.]

the Hall commission report, she will go to work on implementing, while we still live, the commitments of the Liberals of 1919 and every election over the decades since that time.
The minister said a good deal of work is going on in the department. Of this I am quite confident. I wonder whether anything has ever been undertaken comparable to the draft bill that the late Ian Mackenzie prepared when he was minister of the department of pensions and national health back in 1944. The minister may recall that last Thursday night when I was speaking on these estimates I produced from my musty files a copy of that draft bill. I would not suggest that the very same bill be introduced today, because a great many changes have taken place since then. But I wonder whether it has been updated, whether that bill has been studied and revised so that we could move in this direction if the minister were in a position to do so.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I first heard of this bill when my hon. friend mentioned it last week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That proves that the minister must have been very busy with other things, Mr. Chairman, because I am sure her department is much more efficient than that. I am sure her officials should have drawn to her attention, before this, that important document that was prepared in 1944. I hope there will soon be another one, and that next time it will not be just a draft bill produced a few months before an election, but a bill that parliament will have a chance to enact.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
25. To authorize hospital construction grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $26,596,275, $20,000,000.
Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question. Perhaps her officials have before them, in order to save time, the 1962-67 health services plan for the Yukon territory, as revised. If they have that plan before them, the minister may be able to advise me how the plans are coming along for the accomplishment of the 196263 objectives for the various centres in the Yukon, as listed in the report commencing at page 17. Has the minister that plan in front of her?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Chairman. I will have to look it up and send the information to the hon. member.


Erik Nielsen: Then perhaps I could ask the minister, in order to save time-I have not spoken on the main item and I certainly do not want to delay this one-whether she would undertake to write me comprehensively as to whether the targets that are set forth on pages 17, 18, 19 and 20 of this health services plan for 1962-63 have yet been met; and if they have not been met, why not? Also, have any of the 1963-64 plans been proceeded with in advance of their schedule?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will be glad to undertake to do that.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I see that under items 20 and 25, there is a listing of the grants given to each province in that field. As it is one of the joint programs in which both federal and the provincial governments are taking part, does the minister intend to follow the idea of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. La-montagne) and give back to the provinces the jurisdiction in the field of public health, with equivalent sources of income?
[Tecctl


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but it is extremely difficult on occasion to hear what my hon. friend is saying when I am listening to the translation, and I asked my colleague to tell me exactly what the hon. member asked.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, is the minister prepared to give back the responsibilities under these joint programs between the federal and provincial governments, including the return to the provinces of income tax equivalent to the amounts given to the provinces as subventions?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. friend will have to rely for an answer to that question upon the responses made by the Prime Minister from time to time to similar questions put to him in the house. The proposals which will be discussed at the conference we hope will result in co-opera-ation between the two levels of government with respect to these programs, as well as with respect to fiscal matters. I can say little more, with the conference starting in only two or three days. I would suggest to my hon. friend that pressing me on this matter is not in the public interest. It would not be something conducive to improving the spirit of co-operation between each of the governments concerned.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to address a question to the minister on the same subject, but in a somewhat different direction. I should like to know from her specifically whether the hospital construction grants have been put on the agenda for the forthcoming conference? I do not believe I need to elaborate, in posing my question, on the fact that the cost of construction in relation to the grants has altered very rapidly from the time when the present arrangements were made.
I did have a little chance as a member of a local hospital board, during what I sometimes refer to as my four-year holiday from this place, to wrestle with some of the problems involved in hospital improvement and construction. Certainly, the falling value of the hospital construction grants is one of the problems facing all local hospital administrators at this time. I am wondering whether the minister can indicate the intention of her department in respect of seeing that this matter gets a thorough discussion at the federal-provincial conference.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, Mr. Chairman, the dominion-provincial conference agenda is largely the result of requests from the provinces. I am not sure that I am the minister who should be reporting for the conference itself. The shared programs is an item on the agenda, and I am sure the hon. member knows that hospital grants are matching grants. In some of the provinces construction grants are somewhat larger now from the provinces than from the federal field. It is not my recollection that hospital grants specifically are on the agenda, but the whole problem of shared costs certainly is.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I know that on two or three occasions the population of Joliette has requested the Quebec government for the construction of a new hospital. I should like to ask the minister if she has received a request from the provincial government to build a new hospital, because I know that the federal government shares the cost of this construction.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. friend an answer. I have no idea what individual applications may have been received by the department through the provincial agencies. I would be happy to attempt to find out and let the hon. member know, if I can.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National health branch-
35. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including payments to hospitals and other institutions which care for Indians and Eskimos as contributions towards the construction of hospitals and related facilities, $2,274,900.
5046	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare Mr. Nielsen: I wonder if the minister would give me the same undertaking in respect of item 35 in connection with the Yukon Territory as she did on the other item in connection with this 1962-1967 survey by her department?
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I thought we were coming to item 30; that is why I skipped a question. Am I allowed now to ask only one question about item 30?


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the house give its unanimous consent? Are the hon. members in favour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, here is my question. Out of the $385 million provided for the hospital insurance act, what is the amount spent in the province of Quebec?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Are you quite sure that amount is listed under item 30?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is the wrong item, Mr. Chairman. It was a statutory item to which he was referring.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On October 10 last the annual report of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was tabled in both English and French. I refer my friend to table C on page 16, which shows the total payments to Quebec were $88,713,635.41 last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare branch-
55. Family allowances and old age security-administration, $2,890,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the minister is doing very well, but like ministers who do well she needs to be reminded of what is still to be done. I was interested in her comment a while ago when she said that improvements in family allowances were part of this government's commitment for this parliament. She seemed to be picking her words very carefully. She said it was a commitment but it did not have the highest priority. I draw her attention to the fact, if that is her excuse for not acting soon in respect of family allowances, that by the same reasoning she must act as soon as she possibly can with respect to the Canada pension plan, because that certainly was given the highest possible priority during the election campaign, in the speech from the throne and in the first speeches that were made in the house at this session by members of the government.
We have been over this a good many times.
I know the arguments. I know that there is


a federal-provincial conference coming next week. I know the educational job that needs to be done in the various sectors of our society. But I remind her of what she said tonight in respect of family allowances, although I do not accept the delay in that matter; but on this matter of improving the old age situation, particularly bringing in the Canada pension plan, the commitment by this government to the Canadian people had the highest priority. I still call upon her and upon the government to act upon it as quickly as possible.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think it might well be pointed out also that while the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has put the highest priority on the Canada pension plan rather than family allowances, there was certainly an implication during the last election campaign that by at least last September, the start of the school year, family allowances would be paid to those between the ages of 16 and 18 who were attending school. This was definitely the understanding and appeared to be a commitment on the part of the government during the campaign.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since we are considering item 55 which concerns family allowances, is the minister now in a position to answer the questions we asked a while ago with respect to a possible increase in family allowances in the near future?


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Gilles Grégoire: I did not have any answer. [Translation]
Mr. Chairman, we have not yet received an answer to the question we just asked. [Text]


Auguste Choquette: I asked the question and I got an answer.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I was recognized. I asked my question and I have received no answer yet.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps the minister wants to answer all questions asked by various members of the house at the same time.


Gilles Grégoire: I see.

[Textl


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Has the minister's department calculated how much it will cost annually to pay family allowances to children between 16 and 18 who are still attending school, within the confines of those matters promised by the Liberal party?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes we have estimated the cost.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Can I have the estimate?


Some hon. Members:: Ten thirty.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are prepared to go on for a few minutes. There are only six items left and the session is drawing to a close. There will only be about eight days remaining to complete the other estimates, so I think we should go on for another few minutes and complete this department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There may be only six or eight items left in this department, but they are very important ones. As a matter of fact, I imagine my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre and others of his party might like to discuss some of these items after next week's federal-provincial conference is over. I think we have done a good night's work, as I believe the minister will agree, and I would suggest that it is 10.30.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the acting house leader if the forecast of business for tomorrow stands, and whether he could let us know anything about the business for Monday.


John Watson MacNaught: The forecast of business for tomorrow as outlined by the leader of the house last night stands. I regret at this time I am unable to make any statement about Monday, but negotiations will be carried on tomorrow morning through regular channels to arrange the program for next week.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty five minutes before eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
Supply-Items Passed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $1,973,500. National health branch-
Health services, including assistance to the provinces-
5. Administration. $467,800.
10. Consultant and advisory services, $756,800.
15. Laboratory and advisory services, $2,610,300.
20. To authorize general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $38,910,391, $31,000,000.
20a. Health services, including assistance to the provinces-general health grants-details relating to vote 20 of the main estimates for the year 196364 are replaced by the details in these estimates, $125. To authorize hospital construciton grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $26,596,275, $20,000,000.
Medical services-
30. Operation and maintenance including a grant of $300,000 to the province of Newfoundland towards the cost of construction of a hospital at Gander and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the total of all amounts to be paid by the governments of provinces and territories under agreements to be entered on terms approved by the governor in council with such governments in respect of health assistance to non-Indians residing on Indian reserves and to non-Indian and nonEskimo residents of the territories, $27,788,700.
35. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including payments, to hospitals and other institutions which care for Indians and Eskimos as contributions towards the construction of hospitals and related facilities, $2,274,900.
45. Administration of the food and drugs and the proprietary or patent medicine acts, $3,008,900.
50. Administration of the Narcotic Control Act and part 3 of the Food and Drugs Act, $450,100.


[Stage Direction]
1.	The ministerial council of the O.E.C.D. held its annual meeting in Paris on 19th and 20th November, 1963, under the chairmanship of the Hon. Halvard Lange, minister for foreign affairs of Norway, and reviewed the economic prospects for its twenty member countries and their economic relations with the rest of the world.
2.	The prospects for economic growth in member countries are on the whole better than last year. The United States, the United Kingdom and Canada are now progressing at a faster rate. In other member countries expansion continues. In the expectation that this growth will be supported by suitable measures in the United States and other countries, the increase of the gross national product of the O.E.C.D. area as a whole for the years 1960-64 will probably correspond to the growth target of 50 per cent set for the decade of the 1960's by the first ministerial council in 1961.
The importance of internal stability for balanced economic growth was stressed. Costs and prices in a few European countries are rising rapidly. A stabilization plan is being put into effect in France. Measures have been taken in Italy; further steps must be envisaged.
3.	As regards international payments, measures undertaken by member countries, and the recent trends of trade among them, have begun and should continue progressively to create better equilibrium between the deficit and surplus countries. It is important that measures adopted by all member countries to deal with their internal economic situations should continue to take into account their effects on the general equilibrium of international payments.
4.	In member countries in the process of development, economic growth in recent years has generally been somewhat faster than in the O.E.C.D. area as a whole. However, it can hardly be said that the desirable narrowing of the gap between these and other member countries has really begun; much remains to be done.
The ministers considered it desirable, therefore, that the organization and its more developed members should continue to devote their attention and co-operation to the development problems of the less developed member countries.
Ministers noted with satisfaction that a new Spanish development program will be
inaugurated in 1964. The ministers also reviewed the situation of the consortia for aid to Greece and Turkey and reaffirmed the importance which they attached to the efforts of member countries in support of the development of these two countries, particularly by the provision of long term development capital on favourable terms.
5.	Ministers reviewed the work of the organization in the fields of agriculture, industry and manpower, and agreed that this work should increasingly be directed to the problems of adaptation arising from changes in the economics of member countries. They considered in particular that the organization should pursue its work on an active manpower policy, and on the retraining of manpower as well as on mobility of manpower and industry.
6.	Ministers noted with satisfaction the results of the ministerial meeting on policies for science and technology on 3rd and 4th October, 1963.
7.	The ministers noted that development aid has been maintained at a high level and on improved terms, although the earlier rate of increase has not continued. The needs of the developing countries are, however, increasing, and great problems lie ahead. Past results have depended largely on public support in member countries. The provision of aid to meet the expanding needs of the less developed countries will depend even more on such support in the future and will be related increasingly to measures of self help in the recipient countries.
The ministers emphasized the value of the confrontations of national aid programs through the organization, and asked members further to co-ordinate their efforts with a view to making aid more effective in response to priority needs in the less developed countries. They also welcomed the intention expressed by the members of the D.A.C. of relating more nearly the terms of aid to debt servicing capacities of recipients. Important steps had been taken by some members in this connection during the past year. Ministers noted the decline in private capital movements from the industrialised countries to the less developed countries and asked the organization to consider further what steps might be taken by industrialised and less developed countries to increase the flow.
The ministers welcomed the establishment of the O.E.C.D. development centre.

8.	Since last year's ministerial meeting, the organization has devoted a great deal of attention to the ways and means to increase the export earnings of less developed countries, member and non-member.
The bulk of the exports of the less developed countries still consists of primary products of which O.E.C.D. countries are the main importers. Various methods for stabilizing and increasing the export earnings from these commodities are now being studied. Ministers stressed the importance of this work. Member countries should join in efforts to improve the market conditions for primary products.
Increasingly, however, the less developed member and non-member countries need to diversify their economies and encourage the
production of manufactured articles for their own markets and for exports. The industrialised countries of the O.E.C.D. should facilitate this development by providing enlarged access to their markets for these products. The ministers noted with approval that full reciprocity from less developed countries was not being demanded for the tariff reductions expected from the forthcoming round of GATT tariff negotiations.
Ministers instructed the organization to continue work and consultations concerning the trade problems of the less developed countries.
They voiced the determination of their governments to prepare for the United Nations conference on trade and development in a constructive spirit.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 22, 1963