1964-09-10

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the house may be interested if I make a brief report on a meeting which was held in my office this morning of the leaders of four parties. There was one party leader missing, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), and he had indicated previously that he would not be at the meeting this morning.
Mr. Speaker, we met this morning, I think I can say for us all, very conscious of our responsibilities and very anxious to reach agreement on a way out of what I think I can call a parliamentary impasse on the flag debate, an agreement which could be conducive to a decision being reached without long delay on this matter, and with a maximum of agreement. To adapt the analogy of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, at the very friendly meeting this morning there were no bulls and no toreadors. There were not even any picadors.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Like all the best witticisms, Mr. Speaker, that one was entirely unintended.
At the meeting we discussed, as I said, a way out of our difficulty. As the house knows, agreement in principle was reached some time ago about the reference of this question to a committee; the difficulty was in reaching agreement on how the committee would operate and what would happen when its report was submitted to the house. These difficulties, Mr. Speaker, were cleared off this morning when we agreed on the following procedure.
The current flag debate should be suspended and the matter referred to a committee by a resolution which in agreed terms should be put on the order paper as soon as possible. The house leader would be willing, indeed anxious, to consult house leaders of the other
parties later this afternoon on the terms of a resolution of this kind, and if agreement could be reached on those terms this afternoon and if the house were willing to give unanimous agreement later in the day, then that resolution could be disposed of by unanimous agreement with a minimum of delay and the committee could be set up and put to work at once.
The committee, as we agreed this morning, will consist of 15 members; 7 Liberals, 5 Conservatives, 1 New Democrat, 1 Social Crediter and 1 Creditiste. It was agreed that the committee would report back to the house in the normal way within six weeks.
The committee will meet-and I should emphasize this-after there has already been an exhaustive consideration of all sides of the question in the house. Perhaps it should also be pointed out that this consideration was given by the house during the time when normally there would have been a parliamentary recess. While the committee would, of course, determine its own procedure, we felt-and I think I can speak for the other leaders on this point-that there would be a better chance of reaching an agreed solution, and that is our objective, if those meetings or at least most of them could be confidential. I think that would be conducive to the most constructive kind of consideration and discussion.
When the committee's report was ready there would be another meeting of the party leaders to determine the length of time that should be devoted in the house to a discussion of that report. If the report were unanimous or virtually unanimous, as I sincerely hope it will be, then there would be no problem because the subsequent debate would, I am sure, be a very short one. If there were a strong division of opinion in the committee and a substantial and strongly held minority view, then of course there would be a problem.
So far as the government are concerned, and having regard to the long debate we have already had, we maintain both the view that a reasonable time limit would then be essential and also the hope that it could be obtained by agreement. However, Mr. Speaker, a decision on this matter is to be

Canadian Flag
deferred and perhaps, as 1 have said, the work of the committee will make that decision not a difficult one.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, the proposed committee will be successful in its work. It begins that work, I know, with the good will of all members on all sides of the house. We have had our strong differences of opinion on this flag issue. They have been sincerely held and vigorously expressed, and this is not the first time in Canadian history that differences have been strongly held and vigorously expressed over a considerable period of time. While we may have these differences, and while we may express these differences very strongly, I know, Mr. Speaker, we have no differences in our devotion and loyalty to a strong and united Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If we are honest in our differences, as I believe we are, we have only one thought in the discussion of these differences; the unity of our country, pride in its progress and faith in its destiny.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spoke well and effectively when he stated that strong differences of opinion make for the expression of strong opinions in parliament; and strong opinions in parliament, held conscientiously and honestly, should always receive the attention of this chamber and always will.
The Prime Minister mentioned that this is not the first time there have been lengthy debates. I think of the debates of 1910 and 1911, and again in 1912, when for weeks and months on end parliament debated. Indeed, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen received from Sir Wilfrid Laurier the highest tribute that could come from one great parliamentarian to another. Sir Wilfrid on more than one occasion spoke for Liberalism and what it stood for. He held that men should express themselves forcefully and at length. Indeed, he pointed out that the opposition in 1885, in 1896, and again in 1910, 1911 and 1912, on each and every occasion had stood firm for what it believed represented the opinion of many Canadians, and ultimately brought about in the crucible of discussion either an alternative being offered by the government, or on two occasions, election campaigns which entirely supported the opposition and

the stand that it took for a long period of time.
We are not here to decide, and I hope we never will have to decide, the question on a national flag for Canada in a grand assize of the people. We took our stand. The Prime Minister has set out the agreement arrived at today. I was one who from the beginning felt-I say this in no partisan sense, having before me at all times, as has the Prime Minister, the need of preserving, maintaining and conserving unity in the country- that this was a matter that might well have come before a committee as was the case in 1945 and 1946.
I think the first hon. member to suggest a committee was the hon. member for London, on July 2. On July 22 in the course of a television appearance on "The Nation's Business" I asked the question why there should not be a committee. At that time I suggested a committee of both houses of parliament such as had been set up by Mr. King, so that in calmness and with no political bias a recommendation for a flag could be made.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle dealt with this matter at length, and I personally brought before the leaders on the 18th day of August, the suggestion of a committee. I am not going to burden the house with my notes in that regard, but on August 20 I made the suggestion of 15 members, representative of the various parties in accordance with the formula placed before the house by the Prime Minister.
But as the Prime Minister has stated, the meetings among the party leaders did not bring a solution to this problem, in that some felt that whatever recommendation was reached by such a committee should be accepted by the house with a mere token debate or, one might say, with a merely formal and controlled discussion. Our view has been consistent that such a committee should be set up. I would hope that what the Prime Minister has said will be achieved, namely that the committee will produce a recommendation for a flag on the basis of a virtually unanimous decision. After all, flags cannot be imposed.
While fighting strongly throughout for what I believe to be right, in the interests of our country my foremost consideration at all times has been to conciliate, and in what we have achieved here there has been a measure of agreement that I am sure will cause members of the house as a whole to

congratulate themselves on belonging to a chamber that could bring about so complete an agreement.
I was one who believed that the committee would have to meet for some three months of discussion, because this is not something that can be brought about simply by putting a slug in a slot machine and turning out a flag or, in other words, giving a direction to a committee and achieving an instant flag.
I want to make myself perfectly clear, that so far as the Conservative members are concerned they are going into that committee entirely free to come to that conclusion which in their individual opinion is for the benefit of Canada, our first consideration. I do not like in camera meetings in general. However, in this case I am in agreement. If we have an open meeting no one can change his opinion without receiving honourable mention both in the press and over the radio. In other words, whatever position is taken by a member at the first meeting or the first time he speaks becomes a question of history and the record will speak, while you can sit down and exchange opinions, moved by patriotic purpose. I am sure that sitting together for six weeks an agreement should be reached.
Now, I want to say this. While no limitation will be placed on the committee in advance, we in this party are unchanged in our view that unless 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the committee are in agreement we could not, consistent with our consciences and our responsibilities as members, agree to accept a recommendation from the committee without full and untrammelled debate in this house. The Prime Minister said that after the committee has made its recommendation the leaders will endeavour to determine the length of time to be allotted to the debate following that recommendation. I put in this proviso, and I make this very clear, not for the purpose of holding this up in any way. Our view is that the report of a committee of parliament which does not represent virtual unanimity cannot be accepted by the opposition as the appropriate occasion to bring about a diminution, reduction or curtailment of debate.
Now, sir, the Prime Minister has stated that there was a large amount of agreement. There has been very little between us for some time except on the question of what should take place after the committee reported. We were able to resolve that and agree in principle. Mention was made of the fact that a resolution will be placed on the order paper.
Canadian Flag
I have not consulted with my party in this regard, although I did consult fully in respect of the questions that were discussed at the leaders' meeting this morning, but I think I speak for them when I say that after the resolution has been prepared-and it is not a difficult resolution to prepare-I see no reason why we would not immediately give our consent to the order to set up the committee without waiting for the period set out in the rules, so the committee might be appointed at an early date.
The next question concerns what the committee might do. I feel there are many Canadians, organized groups and interested people, who would like to make representations, and 1 would hope that the committee, in order to operate effectively, might permit, within a set time, any organization or individual to put forward its or his views. In addition, the committee might consider whatever designs may have a general appeal as an alternative to the one presented by the government. Indeed, I think this committee, though of course it would be for the committee itself to decide, might well build on the committee reports of 1945 and 1946. There is a tremendous volume of material to be found in the records of that committee. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was a member of that committee as was the hon. member for Kootenay West, and they would be able to corroborate what I say, namely that that committee did a great amount of ground work and research which would be available to the committee we are now about to set up if there is general agreement in the house.
Personally I am very pleased at the giant step forward we have made today. I say to the Prime Minister that I was glad to hear his words when he said that a parliament in which arguments are advanced at length should not be subject to the condemnation which, too frequently and without a reading of history, has been heaped on this parliament in recent weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Parliament represents the voice of the people. No one is obstructing parliament who is speaking for a large number of Canadians who would otherwise be voiceless. No political party, however strong it is, can carry on a fight unless what it stands for is straightforward, honest and touches the heartstrings of the people. We have carried on that fight. Now we have come together on a suggestion which we on this side advanced long since. We have had

Canadian Flag
our disagreements on this matter, and they were strongly felt. Now I hope all of us will close ranks and, in that committee, do honour to parliament, do honour to the members composing it, and show those who criticize us that parliament knows what its responsibilities are and that it epitomizes the finest in parliamentary government, and always will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, there will be general relief in Canada that some working agreement has been reached by the party leaders at the meeting held in the Prime Minister's office this morning. I agree with the Prime Minister that there were no bulls present. This was a steering committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Six weeks of almost continuous debate has an enervating effect upon even the most vigorous male members of the bovine species.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will give general approval to the compromise arrangement which has been worked out and which has been placed before us by the Prime Minister. I hope it will not be spoiled by anyone trying to take credit for it, because this proposal came from many members in different parts of the house at different times, and that it will not be damaged by accusations that any party has made a retreat. I have never felt that stubbornness was a civic virtue. In any public issue a measure of compromise is necessary. Some have to make more concessions than others, and I think the greater the concession the greater the credit to those who are willing to make those concessions. Therefore I make a special appeal to the press of this country that there shall be no suggestion that any party has caved in or that anyone has beaten a retreat. Rather let it be said that all the political parties in this house have sought to find a solution in a most difficult situation, and that instead of demonstrating timidity a measure of statesmanship has been shown in reaching this agreement.
I hope the house realizes, as I am sure it does, that we are not out of the woods yet. We are in the position of a man who has signed a note for his debts, a note which will become due in six weeks' time. At that time we shall still have to face the problem which is now before us. I hope the committee will be able to find an answer. We are

placing a great responsibility upon its members, because if after debating this matter off and on for some two and a half months we have not found a solution, it is evident that the committee has a formidable task ahead of it. Yet I feel confident that if they approach this task in a spirit of co-operation and with a flexibility of mind and attitude, they will find a solution. If they cannot we will still face the problem we face now. I am one of those who has suggested all along that there ought to be a limit on the debate if there is not virtually a unanimous decision, but I do not think there is any value in arguing about that at the present time, as such arguments may be totally unnecessary if the committee produces a virtually unanimous decision.
I think all of us would want to wish the committee and those appointed to it every success in their endeavours, and to assure them that when they bring back their report they will have our grateful thanks for the work they have done. I trust that the committee and the House of Commons will be able to give Canada something no other parliament has been able to give it, a national flag approved by the parliament of Canada; and I trust when that flag has been approved it will fly over a country where the people are united and strong and have a sense of national pride and national purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that not only the members of this house but the people of Canada will be grateful for the decision that was reached at the leaders' meeting this morning and which has now been announced to us. I am sure likewise that this assignment that we are giving to a committee yet to be appointed is a most grave and important responsibility so far as our nation and this parliament are concerned.
I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his concise, non-partisan, honourable statement regarding that which we had agreed upon earlier today. I think it is that spirit which he evidenced in his remarks that assures us this committee is going to be able to meet its responsibility and bring forth, not a compromise-I do not think that is really the word that should be used-but an answer to the problem which we are concerned with and which the nation expects us to solve.
Certainly we have proved today, as it has been proved many times in the history of our

country, that our politicians, our men responsible for government, have been able to agree in a responsible way on a responsible decision for the good of the country. It is well that we should remind ourselves that no emblem, no flag whatever it is, will in itself establish the meaning and loyalties which a flag should carry to a nation and its people. It is only as those things which people themselves represent and stand for are known and respected, not only to their friends but to themselves, that the emblems and flag of a nation can be held in the regard and esteem that they should be. In other words it is not a flag that makes a nation; it is a nation that makes a flag, and this likewise applies to parliament. It is actions, not words, that truly prove what a nation is, and likewise this is true of its people.
We have placed a great responsibility on this committee, not only to decide what the future flag of Canada should be but also to redeem some of the public's respect that this institution has lost during the last few weeks of this debate. I do not think at this point it is necessary to remark further upon the decisions or underline our interpretations of what those decisions mean. Suffice it to say that we in this party will co-operate in every way possible to make the work of the committee constructive and responsible. We look forward with optimism to substantial agreement in the committee, and this in such a way that when its report comes back to parliament it will require only a minimum of debate. In that way we will prove that parliament can act and fulfil its responsibilities as those who elected its members expect it to act.


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, it is with real pleasure that I heard the Prime Minister announce, awhile ago, that at last they had been able to agree on certain points this morning. It may be that my absence was beneficial to that meeting but my reason was already known since I stated, following the last meeting of the five party leaders, that I would no longer attend such meetings. It is not that we wanted to block the adoption of a flag; far from it. The stand taken by the Ralliement Creditiste is very well known to the Prime Minister, to the Leader of the Opposition and to the other party leaders. Our position is that we will not oppose the adoption of a distinctive national flag. That is our stand.
Canadian Flag
Mr. Speaker, day before yesterday my colleague from Megantic (Mr. Langlois) suggested, in his speech, the setting-up of a 15 member committee, exactly what was proposed, a moment ago, by the leader of the official opposition.
We also asked that this committee consider the question for 60 days. This morning there was agreement on six weeks. It is even better.
This committee will be made up of seven Liberals, five Conservatives, one member of the New Democratic party, one Social Credit member and one member of the Ralliement Creditiste. I trust that each member of this parliamentary committee that we are going to establish will have at heart not the past, but the future of Canada. Consequently I would suggest that all parties avoid appointing old fogies to the committee. Let us choose young men, people who have their whole lives before them and who can contribute to the building of our country in the years to come. Thus it would be possible to get the unanimity that the Leader of the Opposition insists upon; considering all that has been said here during the past six weeks, it is obvious that there are still old-fashioned people in Canada. Unfortunately, there are people who turn their eyes to the past instead of looking toward the future.
That is why I would suggest that as many young people as possible be appointed to the committee:	young Liberals, young Conservatives, a young New Democrat, a young Social Crediter and a young member of the Ralliement Creditiste. As far as our party is concerned, there is no problem; it is entirely made up of young people, and that is why we can confidently think of Canada's future.
The Leader of the Opposition said that parliament represented the voice of the people. That is precisely what we have been trying to make clear to the whole house for several weeks:	parliament represents the
voice of the people.
That is why when the Prime Minister decided on a free vote we stated that a free majority vote would necessarily represent the majority opinion of the Canadian people right here in parliament. Why has a free vote not been accepted? In order to prevent the majority from thrusting its opinion on the minority, but we are told, nevertheless, that parliament represents the voice of the people. Then a retreat is sounded and it is suggested once again in parliament that a committee be established. We are told: We shall see in

Canadian Flag
six weeks; another meeting of party leaders will be held to decide whether the debate will be restricted or not. Then, we might find ourselves at our starting point, but I hope not.
That is why I express, once again, the wish that this committee be made up of young members who look to Canada's future, not in terms of a province or a feeling, but of a sovereign country, able to decide by itself what it must do in order to develop and to fulfil itself.


An hon. Member:: That is when you are at your best.


Mr, Caouette:: I understand that my hon. friend can say that I am at my best, and it is true.
Mr. Speaker, we hope that this very important issue of the national flag will be solved as soon as possible. I think that we will thus show the people as a whole that we are thinking of them and not only of quarrelling as we have been doing for several weeks in this house.
Mr. Speaker, the Ralliement Creditiste will not object to the choice of a distinctive national flag. We will support the report of the committee which will recommend a distinctive national flag, because as Canadians we want to be recognized throughout the world as Canadians with our own symbols.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table certain correspondence, but before doing so perhaps I might be permitted to state that the house leader will get in touch with the house leaders of the other parties with a view to holding a meeting this afternoon to work on the resolution. I think I should point out at once, however, that with regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Villeneuve, out of deference to my elderly colleagues our representative will have no authority to discuss an age limit or a time limit.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS TABLING OF LETTERS TO PROVINCES RESPECTING CONTRACTING-OUT ARRANGEMENTS

Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of letters which I wrote to the heads of the governments of the provinces on August 15, 1964 on the subject of contracting-out arrangements for conditional grants and shared cost programs. The letters submit to the provinces for their consideration proposals
[Mr. Caouette.j
which emerged as a result of discussions which took place in Ottawa in June of this year pursuant to a decision of the federal-provincial conference held in Quebec city last spring.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, would it not be a good idea to have those letters made an appendix to today's Hansard1


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no objection at all to that, Mr. Speaker. These letters would have been tabled earlier but I was hoping that in tabling them I would be able to table the replies as well. However, I have not received all the replies, so I think only the letters themselves should be tabled. They could be made an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of letters referred to above see Appendix.1



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the indulgence of the house on a point of personal privilege. In a story in last night's Toronto Star headed "Nine Toronto M.P.'s miss flag vote" I am listed among the group of Toronto M.P.'s who were absent on Tuesday night for the vote on the motion to adjourn the flag debate. I have in my hand Hansard for Tuesday, September 8 and on page 7736 the record shows that I was present and voted in favour of adjourning the debate.
I am quite prepared to accept responsibility in my constituency for any votes for which I am absent, but I do object to being reported absent when I am in fact in attendance in the chamber. I am satisfied that this was an inadvertent mistake by the reporter. At the same time such mistakes are damaging; and although retractions can never catch up to the original statement, I trust the newspaper in question will take some action to correct the error and the impression it conveyed to its many readers in Danforth riding.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like

to direct a question to the Minister of Justice having to do with some letters I sent him which contained hate literature which is being sent out rather widely to people of the Jewish faith. The letter contains the threat of what would happen to Jewish people and altogether is a most scurrilous form of attempted blackmail.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that this matter which has been raised by the right hon. gentleman was also raised with me this morning by other members of the house, all of whom I am sure were greatly concerned. I undertake to look into this literature and material which has been referred to me, and I shall give an answer to the house as early as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this question of hate literature and the action to be taken under the Criminal Code has been under consideration by the government for months, would the minister consider setting up a special committee of the house to look into the whole problem, to hear the law officers of the crown, and to ascertain whether action has been taken in other parts of the world without interference with freedom, to the end that the house might favour the recommendation of amendments to the Criminal Code making punishable this kind of activity which apparently is flourishing quite widely? If my information is correct, under the law as it now stands the law officers believe there is no way in which prosecution can be successfully launched against such activity.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, this is a suggestion which I should make it my duty to consider further and to discuss fully with my colleagues.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. May I ask him whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that under the new group B salary increases in the Department of National Revenue, customs appraisers grade 1, collectors grade 2, customs, excise, excise tax officers grade 1, individuals who require some ten or 15 years' training, a recent analysis has shown that in the city of Vancouver
Inquiries of the Ministry these salaries are exactly the same as those paid by the city to its garbage collectors and ditch diggers. I should like to ask the minister whether the treasury board is prepared to make some comparison of these salary ranges with those of other people doing comparable work outside the government, and then review these salaries in light of that investigation.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has not been drawn to my attention before. I will look into all the points raised by the hon. member in his statement.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question. Has the minister not received a communication from A. T. Greig, president of the Vancouver branch of the customs and excise officers' association, in this connection; and does he agree with the suggestion therein that as a result of what has been pointed out about low levels of salaries for those in such exalted positions as customs appraiser 1, collector 2, customs, excise, excise tax officer 1, the morale of the civil service has hit a new low and will deteriorate further unless action is taken?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have received such a letter. However, I will have the records checked to see whether one has been received.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister at the same time check into the matter of the increase in salaries for House of Commons staff, and will he also assure us that when these increases are granted they will be commensurate with the increased work that the staff is doing?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, this question was dealt with in an answer I gave some days ago, and if the hon. member will refer to that answer he will find an answer to his question.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement of the secretary general of the United Nations, Mr. U Thant, that the financial crisis as far as the peace keeping forces

Inquiries of the Ministry of the UN are concerned, is rapidly coming to a critical point, and as this relates also to the peace keeping forces in Cyprus, can the minister give us some information in respect of the first question about the over-all picture, and more specifically about what is happening in relation to the Cyprus peace keeping force?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that the secretary general is to make a report to the security council with his proposals for the United Nations peace force in Cyprus within the course of the next few days. Until that report is made I am not in a position to comment as to future intentions.
With regard to the financial situation, I fully concur in the statement made by the secretary general yesterday, speaking to the 21 member working group set up to deal with the financing of the United Nations. Canada is a member of that committee, and the government has instructed its spokesmen on that committee to take every step they can to bring about a solution. The government believes that article 19 of the charter is automatic, and that the failure of a country to extricate itself from the application of that article means that it would lose its vote at the general assembly.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Last Thursday I asked the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whether any other nations other than the United Kingdom had undertaken to provide any part of the $2 million that the secretary general has indicated is the minimum requirement to maintain the peace keeping force in Cyprus. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs can tell us now if any other nation has undertaken to provide some of this $2 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There has been no formal announcement, but I believe one other nation is prepared to put up a portion. I am not at liberty at this moment to give the name of the country.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister?

In view of the fact that the Liberal government of the province of Quebec has just borrowed $100 million from the Social Credit government of British Columbia, would the Prime Minister seriously consider borrowing from Social Credit British Columbia, in order to finance the federal budget deficit?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I had not thought of it up to this moment, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister given any consideration to introducing legislation which would limit the daily kill of pothead whales?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has received the attention of my department. However, no consideration has been given at this time to introducing legislation which would limit the daily kill of pothead whales.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to-the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister accepted an invitation from the President of the United States to take part in a joint celebration of the ratification of the Columbia river treaty at Blaine, Washington, in the near future?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, an announcement was made on this matter yesterday evening in Washington and in Ottawa.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is the answer yes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is the answer yes? I did not hear the Prime Minister very clearly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oui.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a. supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister think it appropriate to attend this joint, celebration in view of the fact that this can

be considered an indirect participation by the Prime Minister in the United States election, and in view of the fact that a large number of Canadians do not consider the ratification of this treaty as an occasion for celebration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do indeed consider ratification of this treaty as an occasion for celebration; and as the two governments concerned are those of the United States and Canada I think it highly appropriate that the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the government of Canada should celebrate it jointly.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister which arises from the forthcoming meeting with President Johnson of the United States. May I ask the Prime Minister if it is correct that he is going to offer the services of Mr. Keith Davey to the President for the period of the next two months?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, we cannot spare him.



MALAYSIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the
Secretary of State for External Affairs a question with regard to assistance to Malaysia. His answer yesterday lacked his customary clarity and lucidity, and he cast some doubt on an article appearing in the Globe and Mail, normally a reliable paper. Would the minister answer the third part of my question yesterday? What aid is being given to Malaysia by other commonwealth countries? Inadvertently he omitted to answer that question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend that the Globe and Mail observes excellent standards of journalism and accuracy in its reporting. I thought I had answered my hon. friend's last question. Perhaps he will allow me to look at it to make sure.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and I
Inquiries of the Ministry direct it to him rather than having to rise two or three times to ask questions of some of the ministers around him. In view of the fact that parliament will now be able to deal with other business, will some of that other business be put on the order paper right away; and I refer specifically to the latest version of the Canada pension plan and to the proposed national labour code?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. There is a good deal of business, and important business, already on the order paper. Now that it seems probable that we will be proceeding very shortly to other items of business I think it would be desirable for me to make a statement in relation to the order of such business in the few weeks ahead, and I will be glad to do that within a day or so.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Prime Minister is yet in a position to advise what his suggestion will be to the house; whether he intends to go ahead with the urgent business that has been referred to as such or, on the other hand, does he intend to suggest a vacation, if I may call it that, for a couple of weeks, after having brought on one or two of the very important matters that we are all anxious to get cleared away?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we ought to see how we get along with our business next week, and in the light of the progress we are able to make we can then decide whether we deserve a holiday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is very clear and would almost do honour to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I ask the Prime Minister whether he has in mind at all moving a motion to provide for a couple of weeks' vacation so we can get back to our constituencies, after this important legislation to which he alludes has received the attention of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter certainly is in the back of my mind and has been for some time-


An hon. Member:: How far back?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -but before it is moved to the front of my mind I think I ought to have and I will have discussions with my colleagues and with the representatives of the other parties.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If any consideration is given

Inquiries of the Ministry to a recess-and by "if" I mean I do not think we should have one-will the Prime Minister undertake that the Canada pension plan will at least be advanced to the point where it is referred to a committee before there is a break of any kind in our work?


An hon. Member:: You have got your halo on again today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will certainly give consideration to that matter, and it will be dealt with in the statement I have promised to make.



INQUIRY AS TO BUSINESS FOR TODAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the house leader, in view of the incorrect assumption made by the hon. member for Ontario last night with regard to the work that might be undertaken today, if he would record now for Hansard what we are to do immediately orders of the day are called?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the hon. member for Ontario is just as happy as I am, and as all members are, over the incorrectness of his assumption last night that we might not be dealing with estimates today. In view of the most commendable arrangement or agreement reached by the leaders of the various parties, we will be calling the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare immediately after this question period, so the house will go into committee of supply right away. The order in which estimates will be discussed will be as announced last night, national health and welfare, mines and technical surveys and citizenship and immigration.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Would the minister inform the house how soon the increases and adjustments in veterans allowances will be announced?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question last week. I have nothing further to add at this time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-
Tisdale): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is anything going to be done so far as turkey prices are concerned to prevent prices from going down farther or, better still, is anything going to be done to restore prices to an acceptable level?
Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, turkey prices are consistent with what they have been in the last four years. As a matter of fact they are a little higher. In the last two weeks there have been no importations of turkeys from the United States, and turkey prices are fairly firm. I will be discussing all the problems of the turkey producers with them at the Fort Garry hotel on Monday next.



NORTHERN ALBERTA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the government taken steps to alleviate the situation in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan resulting from severe rain damage to crops in addition to very low yields?


Harry William Hays: This comes under the provincial governments. If and when they make representations to the federal government, we then consider the problem.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has any overture been made by the province of Alberta in this regard?


Harry William Hays: No, Mr. Speaker.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the
Associate Minister of National Defence a question, in order to clear up an answer he gave yesterday, when he said that the first thing to do, in case of an air raid warning,

was to turn on the radio. Inasmuch as following last Saturday's false alarm no radio station had received any information, and local stations could get no information from any source, can the minister throw some additional light on the question and tell us what exactly should be done in case of an air raid warning?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in the pamphlet distributed by the department it is set out that when the sirens are sounded, the first thing to do is to turn on the radio. If there is absolutely nothing abnormal in the programs of the radio station, it can reasonably be concluded that the sirens were activated by a short circuit or something of that nature, and that there is really no attack.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell us why this information was not immediately communicated to the radio stations?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge the official who was in charge of the station made representations to the Bell Telephone Company.



PAYMENT OF INDEMNITY OF LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council; 1 gave him notice of this question. Has the salary increase to members of parliament, passed by parliament in 1963 and referred to by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) on September 1, 1964, as reported on page 7538 of Hansard, been held back on the cheque of the Leader of the Opposition?
If so, on what authority can that increase be held back from the salary of the Leader of the Opposition?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I would advise him that the additional part of the sessional allowance payable to the Leader of the Opposition is not being withheld. Cheques for the full sessional
Inquiries of the Ministry allowance have been sent to him. However, these cheques have not been cashed, nor have they been returned to the department.


Guy Marcoux: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have some other hon. members followed the same policy as the Leader of the Opposition?


George James McIlraith: Not so far as I know. NATIONAL DEFENCE



INQUIRY AS TO PROVISION OF NEW ANTI-SUBMARINE VESSELS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence arising out of the answer he gave yesterday regarding the possible modernization of our present antisubmarine vessels. Can the minister give the house any idea when the government may be expected to make a decision on the matter of new anti-submarine vessels, following the report which was made to the minister a short time ago?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows the department has been studying this matter for some time, and has received an anti-submarine warfare report, but I would not care to name the date when a decision can be made.


Howard Russell MacEwan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I recall the Minister of National Defence stating that he hoped it would be late this fall. Would the minister concur in that statement?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I would agree with the minister's statement, but just what he means by "late this fall" is open to question.



LA MACAZA, QUE.  TREATMENT OF PEACE DEMONSTRATORS BY R.C.A.F. POLICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position to confirm or deny reports of brutal treatment of the peace demonstrators at La Macaza, Quebec, at the hands of the R.C.A.F. police?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I would prefer to take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry
drugs	dominion-provincial relations



PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATION ON BODIES CONSIDERING PROFESSIONAL MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to answer the question I asked him on Tuesday last respecting the appointment of representatives of the Canadian pharmaceutical association on committees, boards or commissions set up to consider matters directly or indirectly affecting the profession and/or the distribution of drugs to the people of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my hon. friend. I had an answer to that question yesterday. I have not got my book with me today, but I promise to bring forward the answer tomorrow morning.



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it the policy of the national harbours board to sell their grain handling facilities in Vancouver and, if so, how will this aid in the development of further grain handling facilities in that port?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think I heard every word of the hon. gentleman's question except the word that really mattered.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is it the policy of the national harbours board to sell their grain handling facilities in the port of Vancouver, and how will this aid in the development of the port and the stepping up of the development of grain handling facilities there?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of any policy involved. There have been some discussions about the possible sale of one grain elevator, but since the size of the elevator will not be changed by its sale I would not think that would have any effect on the amount of grain handled.



SPEECH BY SECRETARY OF STATE RESPECTING DECENTRALIZATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State arising out of a news report in this morning's Gazette of a speech the minister made at the Richelieu club in Quebec city, in which he is quoted as saying that co-operative federalism "must be associated with the idea of decentralization," both fiscal and legislative. How far does the minister consider fiscal decentralization can go beyond its present stage without endangering the stability of confederation?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I did not advocate any further decentralization in that field, and I will be very glad indeed to send a copy of my speech to the hon. member.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he can inform the house about the allocation of free political time by the C.B.C. to the various parties on those programs called "The Nation's Business" or "Les Affaires d'Etat". A decision has been taken in this respect, and I should like him to give, if he can, information as to how this allocation was made.


Maurice Lamontagne: I have not been informed that a recent decision has been taken. It may be that it has. I will look into it and have an answer next week.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: While the minister is looking into this matter, will he also provide the house with a copy of the formula that was used in establishing this allocation?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce

which arises out of a speech by Edward Heath in Great Britain, in which he called on Canada to mitigate its anti-dumping laws against imports from the United Kingdom. Has the government given consideration to this suggestion? If it has made a decision, can he indicate that decision to the house?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The government has been considering this question for some time, and both the Minister of Finance and I have made brief statements on the question. I would be very happy to obtain these for the hon. member.



INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In view of the fact that for the last 20 years members of this party have been advocating that the government establish a national coal policy, is it the government's intention to announce a national coal policy before the end of this year?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, my estimates will be called either later today or tomorrow, and I believe that would be the appropriate time to reply to the hon. member.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY COMPLAINTS RESPECTING PAYMENT FOR PROPERTY PURCHASED OR EXPROPRIATED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West asked whether the government accepted any responsibility arising out of the purchase or expropriation of land under the Trans-Canada Highway Act. The answer is no. May I say that under the trans-Canada highway agreement the title to the right of way is held by the provinces. The costs of acquisition of the right of way are not shared by the federal government; therefore we cannot accept responsibility for the dealings between the provinces and the owners.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Supply-Health and Welfare



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $2,099,000.
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Chairman, the Department of National Health and Welfare is asking parliament to approve expenditures of more than $1-1- billion for the year 1964-65. This represents an increase of 4.9 per cent over our budget for last year, and I think this might be an appropriate time to review some of the department's activities, past, present and future, notwithstanding the fact that for more than two days now hon. members have had an opportunity to go over some of the department's estimates while dealing with interim supply.
Before doing so, however, I should perhaps remind hon. members that as usual the total shown in the estimates does not include an appropriation for payments under the Old Age Security Act. It will be noted that the blue book shows on page 5 anticipated expenditures of another $882 million from the old age security fund. This means that altogether my department expects to spend something more than $2 billion in the current year. It means also, Mr. Chairman, that the department is busier than it has ever been in the 20 years since it was reconstituted from the old pensions and national health department.


The Chairman:: Order, please; it is very difficult to hear the minister who has the floor now, particularly in view of the fact that the two ministers in front of her are speaking into the same microphone.


Guy Favreau: I think we both should make public apologies to the minister.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In both its main branches, health and welfare, important strides are being taken to ensure to all Canadians the highest standards of health throughout their lives, as well as adequate protection for the years during which, for reasons of age or infirmity, they are no longer able to work.
In all our efforts to date, Mr. Chairman, we have maintained an ever closer liaison with our counterparts in the provincial government, and I am sure this co-operation will continue to grow as time goes on. This coordination of effort with the provinces has been aptly called "co-operative federalism" and nowhere has it been more in evidence than in the fields of health and welfare. So far during my term as minister we have had

Supply-Health and Welfare no fewer than seven meetings with provincial ministers holding one or other of these portfolios.
These conferences started with the one which was held on July 25 and July 26, 1963, at which the Canada pension plan proposals and the municipal loans legislation were studied. A further conference on September 9 and 10 of last year was called to deal with the Canada pension plan. From November 26 to November 29 a federal-provincial meeting of premiers was held at which various matters in both the health and welfare fields were discussed. Almost concurrently with these meetings we held our first conference on smoking and health.
Hon. members will also recall the Quebec meetings held at the end of March and beginning of April of this year, at which the various cost sharing programs came under close scrutiny. On May 28 and 29 another fruitful conference of ministers of welfare was held, at which careful study was given to the various public assistance programs. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I met with my provincial counterparts on the health side on July 20 and 21, and I have recently reported to the house on this.
I would not pretend for a minute, sir, that there has always been complete agreement or that the road has not had its bumps. Hon. members are well aware that the federal government has not always been able to do precisely what it originally set out to do or precisely when it intended to do it. We have sought the views of the provinces in areas of mutual concern and jurisdiction, and they have sought ours. But if there have been differences as to approach or method, there has been no difference in the ultimate objective- the highest possible standards of health and welfare for all Canadians. That will continue to be the goal; and if the same spirit of give and take which has marked our endeavours so far continues to prevail as I am sure it will, then we can all look forward to even greater accomplishments in the future.
Mr. Chairman, these 1964-65 estimates do not include provision for expenditures related to the implementation of the Canada pension plan nor to any matter arising from the tabling of the first volume of the report of the royal commission on health services. As hon. members are aware, we expect to have legislation respecting the former before the house during this present session. It remains our intention to have the plan in operation on January 1, 1966.

A national health plan, of course, is another story. Before any legislative proposals can be made in this respect, long and careful study must be given to the report of the Hall commission. At this moment, in fact, some 14 committees in my department are engaged in a most comprehensive examination of the commission's proposals contained in the first volume.
It is expected that our own analysis should be completed in time to present the general position of the federal government to a federal-provincial conference by early next year. I intend to keep the house informed on this subject, as the proposals provide a comprehensive review of the health field, with a basic objective of providing the best possible health care for all Canadians.
I might mention in passing, sir, that in this matter, as in others involving my department in the past, we have been accused by some of moving too fast; by others, of moving too slowly. I suppose this is to be expected and I would simply like to assure hon. members that the government intends to push ahead with the greatest dispatch consistent with sound planning. Our progress may also depend on other factors, including co-operation from all hon. members on both sides of this house.
There are many other important health matters which I am sure will be raised in the discussion of the estimates of my department. For example, I place a great deal of importance on the forthcoming federal-provincial conference on mental retardation. A steering committee has just about completed arrangements for the conference, and the provinces are all co-operating most enthusiastically. It should provide an opportunity for a thorough discussion and assessment of programs for dealing with mental retardation in Canada, with suitable recommendations for future action. In particular, responsibilities of the various agencies in this field will be considered with a view to the co-ordination and integration of effective arrangements for the retarded.
The meeting will be held October 19 to 22, and it is expected that it will bring together 150 persons very closely identified with services for the retarded. These will include representatives from several agencies of the federal government, provincial departments such as health, welfare, education and labour, and representatives from various professional and voluntary associations with special interests and competence in the field. I would hope the conference would lead to greatly improved

provisions for the retarded in Canada, and that future programs would develop on a coordinated and planned basis. Our intentions in this area, incidentally, constitute an interesting parallel with similar programs in the United States, so notably stimulated and encouraged by the late President Kennedy.
Another health program which I would like to mention and which is indicative of important developments in the health fields supported by my department is the one concerning the health hazards of cigarette smoking. Hon. members will recall that at the first Canadian conference on smoking and health, last November, interested federal and provincial health departments and professional and voluntary health organizations agreed that a nation-wide program was necessary to discourage the cigarette smoking habit in Canada, particularly among young people. Federal funds were allotted in the amount of $600,000 to be spread over five years, $400,000 for health education and $200,000 for research.
The Department of National Health and Welfare is endeavouring to provide leadership by assisting in the co-ordination of activities of the various government and nongovernment agencies, by producing basic educational materials for use across the country, and by promoting research into the extent and nature of the smoking habit in Canada and the motivational aspects of smoking.
Two technical advisory committees have been established, one on health education and the other on research. A reference book and an information kit have recently been prepared and distributed. The program of support for research has attracted 19 inquiries from universities in seven provinces, and four projects have already been approved. Also we plan to assist in the distribution of a number of interesting films on the subject. I might add here that the results we have seen so far do not point to any dramatic advance. Our statistics follow rather an erratic pattern, but I am happy to report that the net result is one of slow but steady progress.
The co-operation of the various interested groups has been splendid. An expanded meeting of the technical advisory committee on health education this month will facilitate even wider participation in this program by health workers and educators.
In the field of food and drug control, hon. members will recall that our food and drug regulations have been strengthened during the past year by the promulgation of new control measures. These deal with such matters as the introduction, control and assessment of
Supply-Health and Welfare new drugs; establishment of minimum standards for milk to be used for manufacturing purposes; the addition of several drugs to the list of those which may be sold only on prescription; minimum processing requirements for fish products in hermetically sealed containers to reduce the dangers of botuline poisoning; minimum standards for manufacturing facilities and analytical controls and records required for the manufacture of drugs; standards for live, oral polio virus vaccine; and the distribution of samples of drugs to the medical, dental, veterinary and pharmaceutical professions.
The funds proposed will provide for the inspection, analytical, research and administrative services required to administer this legislation and provide a reasonable degree of protection to Canadian consumers.
This requires that the number of personnel engaged in this work and other facilities be increased to keep pace with the steadily increasing volume and complexity of new processes and new products.
Hon. members will recall that we recently set up an advisory council of consumers which will advise me and my department on subjects related to our food and drug regulations. The committee will hold its first meeting here on October 13 and 14.
If I can turn now, Mr. Chairman, to the activities of our welfare branch, I think this is an opportune time to give members a progress report on the implementation of our new youth allowances program which was passed by the house in July of this year. This particular legislation, which features a somewhat different approach than family allowances, provides for the payment to parents of an allowance of $10 per month for a dependant child aged 16 or 17 who is either in full time attendance at school or university or who is unable to attend school because of a physical or mental infirmity.
The youth allowances act is being administered by the family allowances and old age security division of my department. Since its passage the department has been busy forwarding youth allowances application forms to all parents in Canada who have children aged 16 or 17. It was possible to locate the names of the families concerned from our family allowance records. Some half million application forms were sent out to parents across Canada for September 1. These have already started to flow back into our regional offices in the capital cities of the provinces. As of today I am advised that very few problems are being encountered, so

Supply-Health and Welfare there appears to be every expectation that youth allowances cheques will go forward to eligible parents at the end of this month.
In a situation where a child is unable to attend school because of a mental or physical disability, the parent in question will be sent a certificate which must be completed by a doctor, attesting to the fact that the child is incapable of attending school.
There will be a number of cases where the application form will not reach the parent due to a change of address having taken place since the parent stopped receiving family allowances for the child. Through the use of newspaper advertisements and radio spot announcements, parents who did not receive application forms have been requested to write to their regional director for these forms. All the periodical press of the country, including the ethnic press, has been used for this purpose. Parents whose applications are late because of having to obtain medical certificates, or due to the form not having been received by September 1, will not be penalized by any loss of allowance because of the retroactive provision in the legislation.
Due to the requirement that the youth must be in full time attendance at school, we obviously need the co-operation of the provincial education authorities involved. I am happy to report that I wrote to all the provincial ministers of education, and that the response we have received so far has been most encouraging.
The province of Quebec is continuing its own program, which was initiated in 1960, and will receive from the federal government a fiscal equivalent provided for in the federal-provincial revision act.
It is anticipated that 375,000 children will be registered for the allowance. This will cost some $27 million for the remainder of the current fiscal year. In the full year it is expected the cost will be in the order of $45 million.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word about our public assistance programs. The department has been giving close attention to the four federal-provincial public assistance programs; that is, the three so-called categorical programs of old age assistance, blind persons allowances and disabled persons allowances, and general assistance provided under the Unemployment Assistance Act. Together, these four programs involve an annual federal expenditure of nearly $190 million, and provide basic or supplementary assistance for some 800,000 persons. While these programs are of incalculable


value in providing the essentials of life to those covered by them, questions have been raised for some time about methods of arriving at a better integrated and more flexible public assistance program.
At the federal-provincial conference of premiers last November there was a unanimous agreement that efforts should be made with this objective in view. Accordingly a working group of federal-provincial officials met in February, and the ministers of welfare met with me in May to discuss means of achieving this goal. A further meeting of ministers is planned for later this fall. This sort of action is slow, since it involves the co-operation of the provinces, territories and the federal government and we are all working at different paces, but we are moving forward as quickly as possible.
Among the points brought out in the discussions with the provinces was the fact that the approach taken in the Unemployment Insurance Act, through which the provinces set the rates and determine the conditions under which assistance is granted, should form the basis of any broader public assistance programs that may be developed. Emphasis was also placed on the development of an assistance program designed to encourage self support and the reduction of dependency. The welfare grants program has a role to play in promoting the development and sharing in the costs of social services needed to give this positive emphasis to the public assistance programs.
While much of the discussion with the provinces was concerned with the development of a broader public assistance program, the need for the retention of the present categorical assistance programs on an optional basis by the provinces was emphasized. Accordingly, improvements in these individual programs must also be considered. In particular the program of allowances for people who are permanently and totally disabled needs to be reviewed in the light of the views expressed by many members of this house, as well as in the light of the provisions for disability benefits which are proposed under the Canada pension plan.
It is to be hoped that the federal and provincial governments can work out a mutually satisfactory approach to public assistance, and that the social insurance provisions of the Canada pension plan will be paralleled by an integrated and improved social assistance program.
I might add here, Mr. Chairman, that the welfare grants program continues its planned

expansion as a means of assisting in the development and strengthening of welfare services in Canada. This year $1 million has been allocated to the program, compared with $500,000 in the fiscal year 1963-64. Present plans call for an annual increase of $500,000 until a yearly total of $2J- million is reached.
The program achieves its purpose in a broad and flexible way, partly through directly administered provisions and partly through sharing arrangements with the provinces. Efforts are focused in three main areas; the improvement of the quality and quantity of welfare staff, the expansion of welfare services, and research which holds promise of great improvement in welfare services.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, a word about a program which is small in cost but great in public interest; that is, fitness and amateur sport. The amount made available to us was raised this year to $3 million. Although it is too soon to make any final evaluation of the impact the program is having on fitness and amateur sport in Canada, there is a mounting volume of evidence that considerable progress is being made in a number of the important parts of the program. More than $1 million was allocated in grants to 43 national sports governing bodies and fitness agencies, and 56 per cent of this amount was for training of coaches and participants. About 25 per cent went for assistance to national competition and 15 per cent to international competition.
A sum of $1 million was allocated to the provinces to assist them in developing the services at the local community level which are the lifeblood of the program. Grants are made on a basis whereby the federal government pays 60 per cent and the provinces 40 per cent, except in the case of undergraduate scholarships and bursaries where the federal government pays the full amount. We have been able within the past month or two to offer to the provinces new three year agreements, and we are now negotiating with the provinces on this basis. Up to this time the agreements have been for one year only, and there have been many complaints by the provinces that it was impossible to plan ahead on such a short term basis.
The remaining funds were used for a postgraduate scholarship program through which assistance was given to the training of highly qualified teaching personnel, to fitness research where the co-operation of the universities is being received in the build up of a program that will help to tell us more about the nature of fitness, and to a technical information services program which includes
Supply-Health and Welfare films, manuals of instruction and other techniques for raising sporting skills. The program has not been used to assist capital development because the sums involved are far too great for a $3 million appropriation. However, the department does maintain liaison with the Department of Labour, and through the municipal winter works incentive program the department provides aid for the construction of local sports and recreational facilities.
I have only touched, Mr. Chairman, on some of the highlights of the activities of the Department of National Health and Welfare. There are all told some 29 divisions in the department, and it would take a very long time indeed to give the committee a detailed report on each and every one of them. I have been minister of the department for about 15 months, and daily I encounter a new twist or quirk, a new office or some personnel under my responsibility. I have enjoyed my work. I have enjoyed the people with whom I work.
In concluding I should particularly like to mention the departmental secretary, Miss Olive Waters, who is seated on the floor of the house at the moment, who is the first woman to appear on the floor on the occasion of my estimates to advise me and who, I am sorry to say, is concluding her last year with the department. I should also like to thank the house for the courteous treatment they have given me-except for the first 30 seconds-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't blame all of us for that.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: -and have shown my department in the past, and for the expeditious consideration which I hope hon. members will give the present estimates which are outlined in the blue book.


Mr. Monteiih:: Mr. Chairman, the minister has requested the expeditious passage of her estimates, and I am sure she can count on this. As will be recalled, on July 28 last at the time of our consideration of interim supply we spent a full day discussing the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Many of the members of the party to which I have the honour to belong spoke at that time; and subsequently, under some pressure, the minister did reply on August 5 to some of the questions which were asked. As a consequence we feel that these estimates have been discussed already to some degree. While there will be a few things that my colleagues, and others in other parties, will no doubt wish to comment upon, I

Supply-Health and Welfare do not anticipate any lengthy debate at this stage as far as we are concerned.
The minister, as she put it, touched on the highlights in the department and mentioned that she was meeting new problems every day. I well recall asking a former deputy minister of the department, after having been minister myself for some few weeks, when a person would ever get to feel as though he really might know something about this department. His rather glib reply to me was "Oh, about three years". So I can assure the minister that she has some little time to go, according to this former deputy minister, before she should have everything at her fingertips.
The minister has mentioned the amount Which is being spent. I think something over $2 billion has been devoted to the department including old age security. Eight years ago, if I recall correctly, in 1956-57 the total expenditures including old age security were something in the neighbourhood of $880 million. So the expenditure this year represents more than a 100 per cent increase, 110 per cent to 115 per cent. I know it is money well spent in, as the minister said, an endeavour to provide higher standards of health and life for the citizens of Canada.
At some time when the minister is replying I hope she will give us some indication of just what is happening with regard to the cost sharing programs with the provinces. The Prime Minister tabled letters in this respect today. I have not seen them as yet, and perhaps they will set out the proposals in some detail.
The minister mentioned that she has been having a very busy time with seven dominion-provincial meetings. I feel she would probably have to agree that a couple of those meetings were pretty useless when you look back on them. I am thinking of the July, 1963 meeting and the December, 1963 meeting dealing with the Canada pension plan, which has undergone so many changes.
I do want to commend the minister for the steps she has been taking concerning mental retardation. The forthcoming conference cannot help but be of assistance in this respect, as this illness is a serious matter affecting many people in Canada.
The minister also mentioned the food and drug regulations have been strengthened and which is a good thing. With regard to the advisory council of consumers, we will have to wait and see what comes out of it.
The youth allowances program, as she mentioned, while a little late appears to be


getting under way at this stage, and I am pleased to note that she suggested there were few problems encountered thus far.
With regard to the public assistance program I wonder whether the minister at some stage would indicate whether she has had any suggestions, particularly from the province of Saskatchewan. It occurs to me there is a move afoot out there to suggest that unemployment assistance only be paid in return for work, or perhaps I should say that work should be done in return for public assistance. I wonder whether the minister has any comments on that point.
I should also like to ask her what is the state of the present welfare council, or the welfare council authorized by the previous government. She mentioned the grants being advanced amounting to $500,000, which I recall was the plan devised and which has been followed. This amount is being increased by $500,000 a year until $2.5 million is reached.
The fitness and amateur sport program, which carries the statutory figure of $5 million, is being increased by actual expenditures from $2 million to $3 million this year. I realize that this program cannot be hurried into because the department must make sure that the expenditures are worthy and meet the requirements intended for them. The expenditures have to be studied very carefully, and as a consequence the department cannot leap into a program like this too hurriedly. In other words it must feel its way.
I do not propose to say anything more at this stage, Mr. Chairman. Possibly there will be further questions when we get into the items. However, if I might be permitted one word of commendation to Miss Waters, I should like to join in the minister's words in this respect and wish her well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I hope it is a good omen that we are dealing with the estimates of this department sooner than we expected. Granted, this is only a matter of 24 hours, but it is a welcome change from the long delays we are experiencing in respect of some of the important legislative items that the Minister of National Health and Welfare should be bringing before us.
I want to say also that we think it is not inappropriate for the minister to refer to the total amount of money which is provided by parliament for expenditure by or through her department, because this does indicate not only the importance of the work of the department but the tremendous importance

of the subjects covered and the efforts that are made under the aegis of this department to cope with the very real needs of the Canadian people. The minister used the round figure of something over $2 billion as the total amount spent by this department. If my arithmetic is a little more accurate than it was the other day, when I asked her a question about a minor point, that is nearly 30 per cent of the total money spent in a year by the federal government. This indicates that Canadians regard the health, social security and general welfare of our people as one of the most important functions of government.
I should like to make one slight correction in the wording used by the minister, and I do so not to quarrel with her over a technicality, but rather to make a point. If I heard her correctly she said that her department was asking parliament to approve of the expenditure of approximately $1,250 million. Then she went on to refer to the $800 million that came out of the old age security fund, making a total of over $2 billion. I am sure she knows what I am referring to. Actually she comes before parliament asking for approval in respect of only $104 million, for something over $1 billion does not have to be approved by parliament from year to year, because this has been made statutory in the various enactments such as the Old Age Security Act, the Family Allowances Act, and other measures. As I have said, I mention this fact not to quarrel over a technicality with the minister, but rather to make the point that parliament is very sure of itself in this field. It has made permanent enactments which make it clear that we regard social security, social welfare and the health of our people as of major importance in the whole scheme of government as we know it in this country.
We were pleased to hear the report of the minister in respect of the wide range of work that is being done by this department. We were pleased to hear of the extent of cooperation that she and her department experience with the governments and corresponding departments of the provinces of Canada. We were also pleased to learn of the work that is going on inside her department, particularly that being conducted by a number of committees.
I suppose, since I am commenting on some of the things the minister has said, I had better not overlook one point or it might be noticed. I do say very genuinely, at any rate, that I should like to join with the minister
Supply-Health and Welfare and the former minister in complimenting the department for having the services of Miss Waters. Perhaps Miss Waters would not mind if the two deputy ministers who are sitting at the table in front of the minister might also be mentioned as contributing very effectively to the work of this department.
Mr. Chairman, it was good to hear the minister say today that it is still the intention of the government that the Canada pension plan will be brought into effect and be operative by January, 1966. I do not want to sound cynical or lacking in faith; I do not want to sound as though I had not paid heed to the advice of the minister that I possess my soul in patience, or whatever the advice has been from the minister. But, I do express concern as a result of all the delays we have experienced as to whether or not we are going to get this important legislation.
In the short period of time I had earlier today, because word did get around that we might have health and welfare estimates before us this afternoon, I looked over some of the debates of the past, earlier this year and last year, and I found it almost embarrassing to read some of the things that I said as long ago as July, 1963. The things I said then in respect of the Canada pension plan would make one think that the millennium was just around the corner. In the meantime we have had so many delays that one wonders whether that millennium is going to be a millennium in coming. I plead with the minister not to feel that she can put us off from day to day with statements such as, "a statement will be made soon" or "everybody is working on this matter as fast as possible".
Earlier today, when we were on orders of the day, I was quite serious when I made the point that the business of this house, now that we have got over the flag impasse for six weeks, should be organized so that we can get on with the Canada pension plan right away. In my view we should be at it not later than next week. One of the reasons I expressed myself earlier today as opposed to the House of Commons taking a recess at this time is because of the importance of the Canada pension plan itself. I favour a recess for our staff, and I think that it can be worked out, indeed, we must work it out; but we have been telling the country for a long time that we have felt there was important business for us to get at, and for that reason we wanted some agreement made about the flag debate. Let us not spoil all that by asking now for a holiday, when there is this important question of the Canada pension plan, as well as other important business to be dealt with at this time.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question on this subject?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Paul Raymond Martineau: He said he did not think we should ask for a holiday at this time. Has he considered the situation of the staff which has been working here overtime?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I suggest to the hon. members of this committee that we are getting away from the subject matter of this resolution if we begin to consider matters such as the one raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not need to be out of order to answer that question, because I answered it by what I said about 90 seconds ago.
So far as the Canada pension plan is concerned, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the responsibilities of this department, and one of the items to which the minister herself referred in her opening statement. I suggest to her that it is not sufficient for us to be willing to stay here to deal with it, but what has to be done is to have the legislation brought before us. We are glad that we were given the white paper some time ago-on August 10 I believe it was. It is an excellent document which probably tells us more than the members generally will be able to comprehend when they receive the bill itself, because I expect the bill will be so complicated we will all readily agree to give it second reading and refer it to a committee. I do not think we will be able to discuss it here, because of its tremendous complications.
Mr. Chairman, the minister's responsibility is to get that piece of legislation before us. I ask her to consider what is happening to the calendar. We are well into the month of September and if I can count months it is only a little over three months until Christmas. It is not impossible, even with the kind of accord and agreement we have reached in parliament today, for other roadblocks to occur, for other matters to be debated at length and for this important piece of legislation to be put off again and again. It is not impossible for other difficulties to arise in discussions with the provinces. It is not impossible for difficulties to arise when the matter goes before a special joint committee. These various difficulties could add up to the postponing of this legislation into 1965, and if that happens it is quite possible that the intention the minister stated today could fail to be realized.

This is an important matter not just to the Liberal party which campaigned so heavily on it in the last two elections. It is also an important matter to parliament and it is an extremely important matter to the people of Canada. Judging from the white paper and from all we have heard and read about the matter, it strikes me that a great many people have put much thought into this plan. We will probably find some flaws in it, some things that we want to improve, but generally it strikes me as a good piece of social legislation, and what is now needed is that we get it on the statute books. Before we know it other parliamentary crises could arise. There could even be an election next year or the year following. By this sort of thing these benefits could be denied to many people who are waiting for them and who are entitled to them.
So I urge the minister to get the resolution respecting the Canada pension plan on the order paper next week, and I offer her this bit of co-operation. I am one of those persons who attend meetings of the house leaders where we try to organize the business of the house, and I tell her, though she knows it very well, that the minute the resolution preceding the Canada pension plan is on the order paper I will be pleading with her house leader and the other house leaders that we give it the very highest priority. We cannot do that at the meetings of house leaders if the legislation is not on the order paper.
Because we have got the white paper on the Canada pension plan one could go into some of its details, but I will resist that temptation. I will wait hopefully for that debate next week. But there is one thing in the pension field with regard to older people which I feel I must press upon the minister. I asked her a question the other day arising out of a resolution passed by the united senior citizens of Ontario. She took the question seriously and it was a serious question, but a colleague in the party to my right referred to it as though it was a question asked in jest. It certainly was not asked in such a vein.
My question had to do with the request that many people now over 70 and now receiving old age security of $75 a month are asking for an increase in that pension and the figure they are now suggesting is $100 a month, which I support. I know it is very easy to say there was an increase last year and also the year before and that we have done pretty well in the few years since the amount was $40 a month. I know it is easy to say that

we are going to be coping with the whole problem of old age security on the broader basis that is involved in the Canada pension plan, but the fact still remains that there are still many Canadians over 70 and many more who will become 70 before the Canada pension plan comes into effect who have no prospect of anything other than old age security as we now know it. We feel it is not good enough just to make provision to take care of needs in the years that lie ahead. We think we have to consider the needs of our people here and now.
There is no question in my mind that when the Canada pension plan comes into effect and we have this two stage program, old age security and the Canada pension plan, the amount paid under old age security will have to be increased in the course of time and that if the kind of pension we envisage is going to be available a decade or two or three from now the amounts paid under both the Canada pension plan and old age security will have to be increased. Since this is coming anyway, I ask the house to get over the notion that we have seen the end of increases in old age security itself. If we are going to make these increases let us have in mind the older people of the present time, who will rejoice in the knowledge that other people are going to do better as they become older, and let us see to it that we increase old age security now and make things better for them as well while they are still with us.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I welcome very strongly the minister's statement today that it is still the government's intention to have the Canada pension plan in operation by January, 1966. I welcomed in July the statement of the Minister of Justice that so far as the government was concerned the Canada pension plan would be enacted at this session of parliament. But we have had promises of this kind before over the years. My plea today is that these promises be kept at this session. We promise our full co-operation to get this done and we ask the minister and the government to do their part so far as this whole matter is concerned.
We welcome also the brief review the minister gave of the various other programs in the social welfare field, the categorical programs and the other forms of assistance and social welfare. We are glad to know these programs are constantly being reviewed by the federal government and the provinces. I know that in speaking to the minister I am speaking to one of the converted. I am sure she is even more converted now than 20220-495
Supply-Health and Welfare she was a year ago, having got to know more about the work of her department; but I plead that she press on with the idea of integrating these programs and overcoming the patchwork approach to social security which has been inevitable because of the way the whole matter has grown up.
I also ask that the government realize that social security is not just a form of charity for people who are in need. It is a part of our whole approach to our kind of society in which we believe there is a case for the redistribution of wealth so that people will be enabled to live according to their needs and be able to live according to what society is able to produce. Other departments than the minister's, the Department of Labour in particular, are concerned with the problem of automation.
I listened to a part of the speech the Minister of Labour made in Toronto the other day on this question and since then he has supplied all of us with copies of this speech. It is not surprising to learn that he is concerned about what automation is doing to the processes of collective bargaining and to the employment picture. We are all concerned. This sort of thing hastens the day when governments will have to be concerned not just with providing social security payments of the order we now envisage, but when governments in the name of society will have to be concerned about the distribution of the mass of income that we produce according to the needs of our people rather than in accordance with the industrial or other work they are able to perform. Many a modern economist and sociologist is recognizing the fact that the day may not be far off when we will have to pay people who do not work at all, not through some form of relief but actually pay them to enable them to live and make it possible for them to engage in creative and constructive pursuits. I suggest that this problem concerns not only the Department of Labour but will concern this minister's department because this is the department where we have laid the groundwork for finding ways in which to distribute the wealth we produce among our people.
A few decades ago social legislation was only for the poor. Not very long ago I heard Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King-I think he was sitting in the very seat in which the minister is sitting now-stand up in this house and talk about the needy poor. Even when he used that phrase 20 years ago there were those in this house who castigated him for it. They said, surely we had moved on from that time. Of course Mr. HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare King belonged to an earlier generation and that was reflected in his thinking. This was what social welfare was, simply picking up the pieces, helping to provide an ambulance to pick up those who had suffered in the processes of our society and of our economy. We have moved on from that point and we realize that the maintenance of an adequate standard of living, not just keeping people alive, but enabling them to enjoy the benefits of our age, enabling them to live a constructive life, is one of the goals of our society.
We are going to have to move a great deal farther in that direction in the next decade. There is already co-operation between the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Labour on a number of matters. I think there should be a great deal of study of this whole question of how we can expand the pension, social welfare and assistance programs we have so that our people can live and perform as they ought to, and not suffer from the processes of automation.
There is one other main branch of the minister's department with which I shall deal, and some of my colleagues will be speaking about this is greater detail. I want to say just a few words about it at this point. I refer to the whole question of health which has again been brought into sharp focus by a report. I refer, of course, to the report of the Hall royal commission. We have had many reports and documents in this field in the years that have gone by. The minister recalls that when I was speaking on her estimates last year I drew to her attention a draft bill for a national health program which had been tabled in this House of Commons by one of her predecessors, Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie, back in 1944. I found it a matter of some interest that the minister admitted to me, either publicly or privately and I am sure it does not matter which, that she had not heard of that particular draft bill until I drew it to her attention. This was one of a great many documents. There was the Marsh report and several other huge volumes during the years I have been here, and even before that.
The Hall report is another one and it has brought the whole question of the community's responsibility for the health of our people into sharp focus. We agree that it is an excellent report. Like most reports, it contains one or two things with which we do not entirely agree. But the general call for a health charter for Canadians is one that


all of us welcome most heartily. When one reads this report even sketchily he gets the impression that the members of the commission, who were not New Democratic appointees to start with and who were not socialistic in their thinking, became convinced as they studied the matter that the only answer to the health problem of Canada was a health charter for Canada somewhat along the lines of that spelled out in the report. We hope however this is not going to be just another massive and valuable document that will decorate the shelves of the library and be referred to for years to come.
I welcome the minister's statement that there are 14 committees in her department studying the various aspects of this report. I welcome her statement that it is hoped that this study will have proceeded sufficiently to enable the government to present a position to a federal-provincial meeting some time in 1965. However I strongly express the hope that is not just for the purpose of entertaining those who attend the meeting, but rather that this will be a step in the direction of urging that this legislation be brought into effect. I know that this government has had a rather rough time of it since it got elected. It promised action in 60 days and that 60 day slogan became almost a millstone around its neck. Then the government had trouble with the first Gordon budget. Then there was the Canada pension plan which we were going to get right away, but which we are still hoping to get. Health care was part of the Liberal party's platform in the last election. I believe the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was faced with a Liberal candidate who put the health program so high on the list it was going to be enacted in a matter of months.


Mr. Pugh:: Do not forget the scholarships.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Scholarships was another of the government's promises. I believe there was a promise about a flag, and they have had a bit of trouble with that as well. I urge the government not to be discouraged because it has had this kind of trouble, not to be discouraged to the point of putting the health plan too far down the list. It is perhaps even more important than the Canada pension plan and the minister knows how important we feel that is. If this government or the minister in charge of this department really want to do something for Canada, I suggest they should make a serious effort to get a health charter for Canadians

on the statute books during the life of this parliament.
The impression we get, and I am sure the impression the press men have, including those who are friendly to the Liberal party, is that the most the government plans in this field is to get the pension plan on the books, perhaps the national labour code, and then be able to use that in an election campaign. They would say, you have this and we will go on with a health plan if you reelect us. This is not good enough. This is not acting in a responsible manner. Now that we have the Hall report and this government committeed to act in the health field, I urge that there should be no thought of the health plan being put off for the next parliament, but rather plans should be made to get this legislation before this house during the life of the present parliament. It is a tenuous life this parliament leads. You never know when it is going to fall on some major issue, some minor issue or even some procedural issue. I think the thing for the government to do is to assume it still has life, and while it has that life it should act on these important matters.
There are other things I should like to discuss, but quite frankly I would be repeating what I have said on other occasions about improvements that might be made in the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act, unemployment assistance and some of these other things. Some of the programs to which the minister has referred deserve comment. This comment can be made by other members as the debate proceeds. As the minister expected I would, however, I want at this time to urge that she get moving with something more than a Liberal pace, that she get moving with some real speed on these two important matters, the Canada pension plan and a health charter for the people of this country.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, while I do not want to delay the discussion unnecessarily, I would like to make a few remarks on the National Health and Welfare estimates, to call the attention of the house on the fact that at first sight, no extraordinary changes appear in the departmental estimates. Several items have remained the same, whereas some others show a slight increase like, for instance, the contribution to the provinces, following arrangements made between them and the federal government. We also note an increase in medical services. The largest increase con-20220-4954
Supply-Health and Welfare cerns the new estimates for the old age pension plan.
This pension plan will not directly concern the province of Quebec, as Quebec citizens will have their own pension plan, but I may say that even that plan does not inspire much confidence as far as I am concerned, because I consider it simply as a product of capitalism.
When we look at this pension plan, we wonder whether the government really wanted to help old people in need, or come to the rescue of government finance, because under that plan the small wage earner who gets from $1,000 to $6,000 will be taxed again, whereas those in higher brackets will not be affected.
Now, it is precisely the small wage earners who have to raise a family on $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 a year, who are of concern to us, because they will have to shoulder another tax to be eligible for a pension 25, 30 or 40 years hence.
Mr. Chairman, after having studied every program and every bill which was enacted by the house, I wonder whether there is a true and honest concern for individual welfare. I am asking this question seriously, because since my arrival in this house, it seems to me that all the acts I have studied have been drawn up not in the interest of the individual, but with finance in mind.
I feel that, in setting up the present scheme, the government's chief purpose is to create a tremendous fund where it can dig at will, while luring the people with a pension they could hope to receive when they reach the age of 70.
Mr. Chairman, if the government were really sincere and truly wanted to protect people and our older citizens, it could use a much less complicated means than the pension plan it is now proposing. In fact, we are now paying our old people a pension of $75 a month from the age of 70.
We want our old people to receive a pension of $100 a month, for that is exactly what the new plan proposes, $100 and less-I say "and less", because I find that, under that scheme, the aged person will have to prove that, all his life, he earned a salary of $6,000 a year. Therefore, the person who will establish that he earned only $3,000 a year will receive only $50 per month as stipulated in the proposed plan, and so on. Those who earn only between $3,000 and $4,000 a year will receive a pension in keeping with their salary.
During all that time, the Canadian citizen will have been deprived of the necessities of life in order to have a guaranteed pension of $100. Because the most needy people will not.
7840	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare be able to reach the maximum fixed by the government, their pension will be limited to $60, $50 and maybe even to $40 per month. And that is what this government calls equity.
Instead of all that camouflage, the government could have raised the present pension from $75 to $100 per month and pay it out of the surplus income of the wealthy without overtaxing the little people.
Those earning $6,000 and over could have been taxed in order to pay for that additional pension of $25 a month. Thus, I think the government would have been much more logical and would have proven that they were working to improve the situation of small wage earners while securing a $100 pension for everybody, including those who have millions of dollars. I think that is a principle of social distribution which is fair and equitable for everybody.
But we have chosen once more to take billions of dollars out of the pockets of the small wage earner to give him a few crumbs when he reaches 70 years of age.
I say that if today with the pension-I see somebody opposite who laughs at the low income people; he should not laugh at them because the father of ten or 12 children earning less than $5,000 a year will be burdened even more as a result of this famous pension plan. Let us not laugh at our small wage earners; instead let us consider their plight more seriously and let us help them by providing them with a more adequate social pension.
If the Minister of National Health and Welfare wishes to bring about some improvements, we could even today pay without a means test a pension to those who have reached 65 years of age, instead of waiting until they are 70.
We could do away with this army of small inspectors, all these branch offices which cost millions of dollars to this department, and with the savings realized by eliminating these petty inspectors-I was about to say those small patronage dispensers-who study the cases of persons 65 to 70 years of age in order to find a way to get out of paying pensions to them, we could pay, without a means test, part of the statutory pension to persons 65 to 70 years of age.
Mr. Chairman, an item which impressed me especially is that of family allowances.
The government provided family allowances several years ago, and I wonder whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare has ever thought of revising them in keeping with the rise in the cost of living.


There is some talk of increasing family allowances; requests are made, large families especially write to the government. But the government pretends not to hear those requests and remains silent when questions are directed to its members in the house concerning the problem of family allowances.
All salaries are increased nowadays, the administration costs have increased; the only item which is left untouched is that of family allowances.
It is precisely the only way to help large families and set a fairer salary balance.
If two family heads receive the same salary, but one has two or three children while the other has ten or more, the only way to balance their salaries is precisely through family allowances.
Again, I wonder if the Minister of National Health and Welfare thought of this. In the estimates, I see only a small increase, which I gather is merely the result of the population increase. But, in fact, there are no changes whatsoever as far as family allowances are concerned. And no changes are announced either, and sometimes I wonder if the minister does not intend to reduce them instead of increasing them.
Mr. Chairman, there are very interesting items in the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the most interesting of them all, even more interesting than old age pensions, is family allowances.
It is really a shame today to see that a country like Canada is unable to make an effort to help large families balance their budgets through proportionate family allowances, so that they might live like other workers who have little or no family.
I feel that this question must be considered, and I ask the minister to consider it seriously and introduce a few amendments so that we might hope for at least a 100 per cent increase in family allowances. The cost of living has actually more than doubled during the last decade. I feel the time has come to be logical.
If the minister acts along those lines, I think that she will make a useful contribution to Canada's future.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, we were all taken by surprise, this afternoon, when the party leaders' decision to set up a committee to study the flag question left us free to discuss the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. However, since I am sure that those estimates will be approved sometime today and probably early this evening, I should like to say a few

words just to show that we have always been highly interested in that department and that we are always glad to offer a few suggestions to the minister.
In my opinion, the Department of National Health and Welfare, as organized at the present time, is surely the one whose activities do the most to prepare a general election.
I always deplored the fact that both health and social welfare come under the same department. In my opinion, the government should seriously consider dividing that department in two so that health, a matter of the utmost importance for the whole country, will be kept completely apart from another one just as important, social welfare.
Social welfare is indeed very important, although the needs in that field are recognized in general at election time only.
That was obvious several times, when family allowances were granted for the first time and later when various adjustments were made. We know that had been done arbitrarily and at the very last minute, just before an election, because it was realized that the results of that election could depend on votes cast by parents.
Also, it was realized that an increase in old age pensions was granted almost at the same time, in order to profit from the vote of Canada's senior citizens.
Therefore, I think that if this department was split in two, the health of the Canadian citizens would not at all be impaired and the question of social welfare would be studied rationally, systematically and progressively, not only in keeping with the cost of living, but also with the social evolution of the population, and not because of the political implications which such an increase in allowances might have among the Canadian population.
It is noteworthy that little by little various pressures, sometimes very subtle, are exerted by followers of certain political doctrines and also by some newspapermen in their editorials. Thus, our democratic system seems to evolve slowly towards a system against which we fought bitterly in wartime.
We should not deceive ourselves nor think that things which were bad before are now better; because more and more people are hoping for the social welfare state and for the government to play an ever increasing role, we should not think that they are right when they were wrong a few years ago.
It is not because the number of thieves in the country is increasing that the legislation against theft should be amended. The govern-
Supply-Health and Welfare ment should not come to believe that theft is a good thing simply because more thieves are committed. We should not do like certain political partisans who approve of theft when it is in favour of their party but reject it when it is in favour of other groups.
I believe that while it is in order to greet with some hope the establishment of a pension plan or fund for the Canadian people, while it is in order to rejoice at the fact that individuals who benefit from social assistance will perhaps have their day because there will be an election at a given time, I think that we must be very sparing in praising the government.
It must be realized that we are on very slippery ground, that we are implementing schemes which have been tried out in other countries where it has been shown that those so-called liberating plans always bring us back, sooner or later, to systems that become centralizing, dictatorial and detrimental to the people, although they had supposedly been established to help them.
As an example, I will refer only to Great Britain, where a system was established supposedly to satisfy all the needs of the British people-since it is a step forward as regards the existing hospital insurance legislation-* where the health insurance system was to solve all problems; nevertheless, a short time after the implementation of that system, it was realized that the amounts of money invested were getting phenomenal and extravagant, that the operating cost of the system was such that medical care began to decrease, that medical research was practically nonexistent and that hospitalization costs were becoming unbearable to the taxpayer, because, after all, the revenues needed for the maintenance of that whole system are always derived from taxes, in short, the taxpayer has to pay for it.
This means that far from freeing the British people from expenditures incurred through illness, this scheme has made them extraordinarily vulnerable, because the treatments which were supposed to be given at a minimum cost have now reached astronomical figures.
I think that from time to time, committees should be set up, such as the one which will consider the flag issue, in order to ascertain the views of the various parties which, after all, reflect the views of the Canadian people, before launching an ill-considered scheme that we know nothing about. Before being compelled to back down, we might be better advised to consult people

Supply-Health and Welfare and to do more research in this field. Before assuming that exceptionally good results will be achieved, it might be better to follow the example of countries that have used the different systems.
I feel the Canadian people would become more cautious and have second thoughts before insisting on the ill-considered intrusion of the state in the fields of health, welfare and social security.
If I remember correctly certain notions of social science I may have learned, it seems to me that state intervention, no matter how intensive or far reaching should be meant to establish some happy medium among the people and to provide the majority with the basic necessities.
I do not believe that it is by increasing the cost of government services, while decreasing the number of services, that the people can be served.
Therefore, I caution the government, as well as hon. members, not to think that pension plans, health insurance plans and hospital insurance plans will be cure-alls for all our present ills.
It is not because the capitalist system is defective in itself but simply because, in its present application, this system does not take into account hard facts nor its own weaknesses. For fear of having to relinquish some prerogatives, we are unwillingly getting into another plan for which the government is not anxious, against which it once fought, but in which it cannot help but flounder.
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to speak at length. In addition to her statement on the Canada pension plan, the minister referred to the research made or co-ordinated by her department with regard to cigarette smoking which is related to metabolic disturbances causing heart trouble and blamed also for its effects on lung cancer.
I feel that the government is to be commended for having accepted its responsibilities in this field. I do not believe, however, that in this respect as in others, the government should give strict orders to all the people, because studies made up to now have failed to show the actual cause or any close relationship between the use of tobacco and lung cancer or cardiovascular diseases.
I also take this opportunity to say a few words on fluoridation. That is another controversial matter which has been considered and discussed without having been unanimously settled.
I do not see how the government could give any directives or definite opinions in

this field, when ideas all over the world differ on the matter.
We should keep in mind that, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare places her authority behind a statement, a medical report or an investigation on a given subject, it has great influence on the public.
I believe that the Department of National Health and Welfare, while supporting the national health league and various other organizations which advocate water fluoridation should limit its activities. It should not increase the various subsidies and more particularly take no decision before the government thoroughly and satisfactorily studies the question. Moreover, the government should note the views expressed by the various scientists of our own national research council.
Mr. Chairman, I would have liked to end my remarks immediately, but since I still have a few comments to make, may I call it five o'clock?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. In order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 it is my duty to leave the chair.
Progress reported.


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



CANADIAN FLAG

[Stage Direction]
ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE [Translation]
Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, may I have the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions in order to present a motion in accordance with the statement made this morning?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister has consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill):
That a special committee of this house consisting of 15 members, to be designated later by the house, be appointed to consider and report upon the flag question: that the said committee be empowered to report from time to time and that its final report be submitted not later than six

weeks from the date of its first sitting; and that the appointment of this committee, its power to report and the capacity of this house to act upon the report be not restricted by any motions now on the order paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By consent, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, August 27, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-27, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Brown-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Number of directors.
Mr. Brown:: Mr. Chairman, as sponsor of Bill No. S-27, I should like to take this opportunity of answering one or two questions which were asked by the hon. member for Greenwood, the hon. member for Timiskaming and others.
I should like to repeat, Mr. Chairman, what I have already said in the course of this debate, that it is the wish of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, through this bill, to increase the number of its directors in order to deal more effectively with the growth and complexity of the diverse problems that confront it in the operation of its business during these times. The committee and the house have already been made aware of the general growth and development of this company since its charter was issued, and particularly since the year 1927 when it began to make use of its full quota of directors. It is the view of the company that the complexity and diversity of matters and problems coming before its board make it desirable at this time to request parliament to grant it an increase in the permissible size of its board of directors, and there is no other reason. I might say there is no other hidden reason behind the company's request to parliament at this time. Nor is there any change in the policies or plans envisaged which might be facilitated by an increase in the size of its board of directors. I wish to state emphatically that it is not the intention of the company to use any additional directors allowed for the purpose of amalgamation or merger with any other company.
The hon. member for Greenwood referred to an application of Industrial Wire and Cable
Private Bills
Company to the board of transport commissioners respecting the relationship between the Bell Telephone Company and the Northern Electric Company, in respect of which a ruling was given that the Bell Telephone Company was legally entitled to own shares in the Northern Electric Company. As hon. members know, the Bell Telephone Company now owns 100 per cent of the shares of the Northern Electric Company.
It was pointed out to the committee that a further question before the board of transport commissioners in this application was never dealt with, namely whether the board was entitled to review the financial affairs of the Northern Electric Company. I believe I have been asked why this question was never considered. I cannot give the answer to that question because this is a matter for the board of transport commissioners. The applicant, namely Industrial Wire and Cable Company, has never asked the board for a hearing on this question. There is nothing to prevent the applicant from asking the board for a hearing at this time, and I am assured that there is no objection from the Bell Telephone Company to its doing so.
With respect to the annual report of the Northern Electric Company, I might state that this annual report is available to any hon. member, at any time, for inspection and can be obtained upon request. It has already been supplied to a number of hon. members who have requested it.
I was further asked whether the Bell Telephone Company would permit some, or one, of the directors to be appointed by the parliament of Canada. It is pointless for me to answer this question. The directors are appointed by the shareholders of the company at the annual meetings of the company. The board of transport commissioners is the institution which has been charged by parliament to protect the public.
Mr. Chairman, I have endeavoured to answer the questions which have been raised in regard to these very important matters as carefully as possible.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I think during the consideration of this bill it would be well for us to review the position of this company and its operations over the last number of years so that we may have a clear idea of what sort of a corporate body we are considering.
The company was incorporated in 1880 under special act of the dominion government as a result of the consolidation of a

Private Bills
number of smaller companies at that time. From then on it began to absorb a number of other companies. In 1954 it merged the former subsidiaries, Eastern Townships Telephone Company and the Chapleau Telephone System. Also in 1954 it absorbed the Welland County Telephone Company. The following year it absorbed the Saguenay-Quebec Telephone Company, and the Charlevoix Telephone Company. In 1956 it merged the Kamaraska Telephone Company, and in 1957 it acquired the Mount Albert Telephone Company. In 1957 it also acquired 272,000 common shares of Northern Electric Company, increased its holdings in this company in 1962, and my latest information is that it is still holding 99 per cent of the common shares. However, there is very little difference between 99 per cent and 100 per cent. In 1959 it merged the Yamaska Telephone Company and in the following year it acquired the Madawaska Telephone Company. In 1962 it acquired control of the Avalon Telephone Company.
I am reciting these facts, Mr. Chairman, not in criticism of the actions of this company, because I think that is the logical method by which a public utility such as a telephone company must operate, because there is no room for competition in this particular field, but to underline the fact that this company has, since 1880, virtually taken over the whole of the telephone business in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. In fact, Moody's Annual states that this company owns and operates the most important telephone system in Quebec and Ontario over an area of 887,000 square miles, serving a population of 11,700,000.
This is a very large proportion of the total population of Canada. I think it is important we should realize this because we can then realize the vital importance of this company and its operations to the people of central Canada. The operations of the company affect the private lives of all individuals who have to have telephones for their own domestic purposes and every business in central Canada is utterly dependant on this company for the efficient communication system it requires. As I say, I am not complaining for the moment about the monopoly position of this company but I want to underline the fact that it is a monopoly and that by the very nature of its business it has been a monopoly.
There have been questions raised with regard to the transactions that take place between the Bell Telephone Company and its almost wholly owned subsidiary, the Northern
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1
Electric Company. These questions have had to do with whether or not this may be one method by which the parent company can salt away a large part of its earnings and come within the terms of the rate structure set by the board of transport commissioners. I have no conclusive evidence in this regard but I do have here the annual report of Northern Electric for 1962 which sets out some rather interesting figures. For instance, it tells us that in 1962 this company's cash on hand and in banks was almost 50 per cent higher than it had been in 1961. In 1961 the amount was just over $2 million and in 1962 it was just over $3J million.
But here is the real milk in the coconut. In 1961 short term investments of the Northern Electric Company amounted to only $2,624,000 but by the following year they had increased five times to $11,054,000. It is very obvious that Northern Electric Company is doing extremely well out of its manufacturing of telephone equipment, the vast majority of which, according to the vice president of Bell Telephone, is sold to its parent company, Bell Telephone. If one were of a suspicious nature, which I am far from being, one might imagine that the Bell Telephone Company perhaps found it advantageous to pay to its wholly owned subsidiary rather larger prices for telephone equipment than were normally justified.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but it is my duty to remind him that he should in some way relate his remarks to the item before us now.


Colin Cameron: They will be related.


Lucien Lamoureux: He knows as well as I do the provisions of the standing order about relevancy and I would invite him to keep that in mind as we proceed.


Colin Cameron: I will, Mr. Chairman, and you will realize as I go on with what I am saying that my remarks are completely relevant. There are certain matters that I think must be made plain to the committee. The first, and to my mind the most important, is to recognize the monopoly position of this company and the complete dependence of the very large proportion of Canadians who live in central Canada on the operations of the company.
The company has come before us to ask us to authorize the appointment of five new directors. My colleagues in this party have proposed that three of these directors should be appointed by the government or by parlia-

ment as public representatives on the board to keep an eye, if you like, on the public interest in the operations of this company. I think you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that if as we contend this is advisable, then there is one thing these public representatives should also keep a very close eye on, namely the operations of this wholly owned subsidiary, because it may well be that an examination of the books of Northern Electric in conjunction with an examination of the books of the parent company may show that the public interest is not being fully protected in the relationships and the transactions between the parent and subsidiary companies.
I have quoted some figures to suggest, ever so gently, that in the balance sheet presented by the Northern Electric Company there may be some grounds for this doubt and suspicion. For instance, the net earnings of this company, most of whose business is with the Bell Telephone Company, amounted to less than $5J million in 1961 but by the following year its net earnings had reached $8,834,000. That would appear to me to be a matter of very great interest to anyone appointed to the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company to protect the public interest. Therefore I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is quite relevant to the argument I am presenting for the necessity of having some measure of public control and supervision over companies that are of such vital interest to such a large portion of the population.
My own personal view, of course, which stems quite naturally from my political and economic views, is that this company should be a crown corporation, that it is perfectly ridiculous that something so vital to the welfare of the people of Canada should be left in the hands of private individuals. I think it is nonsensical. I see no particular hope of achieving that end now, but I do think that parliament has a responsibility to consider whether or not it should decide at this point that a company of this size and importance should have some measure of public supervision.
When we discussed this matter with the vice president of the Bell Telephone Company he was rather plaintive. He wanted to know why we were singling out the Bell Telephone Company and why we did not apply the same yardstick to other companies. I said I would be delighted to do so and intended to do so on every occasion that one popped up its head here and rendered itself liable to this sort of treatment, which has been perhaps unfortunate for the Bell Tele-20220-496
Private Bills
phone Company in that they were the first to come to parliament with such a request and were obvious targets for this sort of development-which I really think is one that to most thoughtful people would constitute a very moderate and reasonable demand on the part of our party with regard to the control of this company.
In my discussions with the vice president of the Bell Telephone Company I pointed out to him that such provisions were not unheard of in the world and that there were places where the supervision and direction went much farther. I pointed out, for instance, that in France there is a public director on the board of directors of every bank who, incidentally, has the power of veto over directorial decisions. There are a number of public directors appointed to such industrial operations as the French steel industry in which the public has an investment of only 30 per cent. Obviously it was decided in France that corporations that were important to the welfare of the whole country must be subjected to some measure of public control and public supervision. I think we have been very modest in suggesting that out of these five new directors three should be public representatives, and not demanding that the whole five should be.
I was interested in the remarks made by the vice president to me with regard to not only the purpose in seeking this authorization but the sort of people they had in mind to get. He told me they had in mind people from the academic world. Just what they were going to be doing on a telephone company's board I was not quite sure, but possibly the idea was that they would lend a certain air of intellectual responsibility to the company's operations. But it did occur to me at the time, if the company considers it is in its interests and presumably in the interests of the public to have people from the academic world sitting on the board of directors, how much more important it is that directors should be appointed vested with the responsibility of guarding the public interest, and not just academic interest or whatever interest these people were supposed to be concerned with in the operations of this company. I hope the House of Commons will not pass the bill until it is amended to incorporate the provision that members of this party have advanced in earlier discussions of this matter.


Reid Scott: I wanted to ask the sponsor of the bill a question, as to whether or not he had discussed with the Bell Telephone Company directors the request we made for rep-

Private Bills
resentation on the board of members of the government, and if so what was the nature of their response to this request? Are they prepared to entertain the idea or are they turning it down flat?


James Elisha Brown: I endeavoured to answer that question. As the company is set up, the directors are appointed by the shareholders. Unless the law is changed or varied this matter cannot be the subject of discussion here because appointments to the board have to be approved by the shareholders.


Reid Scott: That is a technically correct answer. However, it does seem that whoever the board wants to get on the board somehow manages to be elected at the annual meeting. A very small percentage of these shares is being voted under proxies and by some strange process or coincidence, to my knowledge the choice of the administration is always elected to the board. I have not the slightest doubt if your gentleman would give us this assurance, that the nominees of the government would be on the slate, or whatever they call it, we would be happy to have that assurance. I think they can give us the kind of guarantee that would result in these people being elected at a shareholders meeting. I still want to know whether or not they are prepared to consider the idea and give us that assurance.


James Elisha Brown: I could not give that assurance at this time. It was discussed, but as I stated no director is competent to state that the parliament of Canada should appoint a director to the company.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking on previous Thursdays in connection with this Bill S-37 by which the Bell Telephone Company of Canada seeks to increase the number of directors from 15 to 20, I have pointed out that my interest in this bill stems from the fact that a competing company with Northern Electric is located within the riding of York West. The factory or production centre is in the riding of York West, but many of the employees of that company are residents of the riding of York-Humber.
Now, some time ago the hon. member for Timiskaming asked a rhetorical question as to why the Bell Telephone Company wished to increase its directors from 15 to 20. I might state that, personally, I am in favour of increasing the number from 15 to 20 if we should ever get to a vote. However, in answer to the hon. member for Timiskaming 1 should like to suggest that the company wants more directors in order to strengthen

its hold on Northern Electric. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands stated that the Bell Telephone Company controls 99 per cent of the stock of Northern Electric, which company is not under public supervision.
I have in my hands a Hansard, report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. This is the report of a meeting held on Tuesday, July 7, 1964. Mr. Vincent, the president of the Bell Telephone Company answered a question by one of the hon. members for Halifax which is recorded on page 416 of this report, and I quote:
We own 100 per cent of Northern Electric Company Limited.
There may be some directors with qualifying shares which would not be in the name of the Bell Telephone Company but may be entered in the name of the directors. However, the president of the Bell Telephone Company states that they own 100 per cent of Northern Electric Limited. Then, Mr. Regan, one of the two members for Halifax, questioned the representative of the Bell Telephone Company during this committee meeting. He asked specifically if it was not correct that Bell was entitled to own shares of Northern Electric Company simply because of a certain clause in their charter which states that they can buy any company operating a telephone line. Mr. Venne, who is vice president and general counsel gave the answer which is recorded on page 417 as follows-he is quoting section 4 of the incorporating act:
The company shall also have power to enter into any arrangement with any person or company possessing, as proprietor, any line of telegraphic or telephonic communication, or any power or right to use communication by means of the telephone upon such terms and in such manner as the board of directors may, from time to time, deem expedient or advisable, or to become a shareholder in any such corporation.
Now, I have read the entire transcript of the evidence in the hearing before the board of transport commissioners some months ago in which the Bell Telephone Company was seeking some adjustment in its rates and capitalization and in which the Industrial Wire and Cable Company-which is located close to my riding-entered objections as in-tervenor. Many questions were asked during the hearing before the board concerning Bell Telephone Company's control of Northern Electric. The evidence, given under oath and available from the public record, indicates that the president, vice president and general counsel of the Bell Telephone Company

pointed out that they were able to buy the shares of Northern Electric Company because Northern Electric owned a telephone company. Thus, section 4 of their charter allowed them to own another telephone company.
Well, further evidence brought out the fact that there is a telephone line of 19,000 feet in length between the Northern Electric plant in Montreal and one building of the Bell Telephone Company. You and I, being laymen in this telephonic communication business, would think the telephone line owned exclusively by Northern Electric would be a telephone line that you could go out and see with the naked eye, a telephone line over which persons such as you and I could talk to one another. Far be it for me to expose the situation, but I should like to quote from the board of transport commissioners. It appears from the evidence that the value of Bell Telephone Company's shareholdings in Northern Electric was $34 million. They said at that time they owned 90 per cent of the stock, and it has since been increased. If they had a $34 million investment in Northern Electric Company when they appeared before the board of transport commissioners a year ago, by adding 10 per cent we are within reason in saying that they must have a $38 million investment in Northern Electric now.
I mentioned that increasing the number of directors from 15 to 20 is probably necessary in order for Bell Telephone to strengthen the bond between Bell and Northern, because some of these directors would be interlocking directors. This investment of $38 million that the Bell Telephone Company has in Northern Electric shows up in their full beauty the two most valuable strands of copper wire in the Dominion of Canada. The evidence before the board of transport commissioners was to the effect that the Bell Telephone Company installed a telephone line for Northern Electric many years ago. After a year or so Northern Electric bought the telephone line from the Bell Telephone and thus become the proprietor of a telephone line.
Now, the charter of the Bell Telephone Company permits the company to buy any company that operates a telephone system. The interesting thing in the evidence was that there were only two strands in the telephone communication system which the Northern Electric Company operates in Montreal. What is further interesting is the fact that these two strands of copper wire are embedded in a major cable.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member was good enough at the outset of his remarks
Private Bills
to indicate that he intended to establish a connection or relationship between what he is saying now and the bill presently before the committee. At the beginning of his remarks I thought there was some relevancy in what he was saying, but it seems to me that at this point he is referring to the technical operation of a company and I wonder whether this can properly be considered as relevant to the clause before the committee.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: You ask me to show a connection between my remarks and the bill. Mr. Chairman, here is the connection-two strands of copper wire that I am sure the members of the committee cannot even see.


Lucien Lamoureux: I believe the hon. member is familiar with the rule of the house which requires members to deliver an oral presentation and argument unsupported by exhibits. We know that in courts of law the putting forward of exhibits is acceptable because exhibits can be filed and examined. But there is no such provision in relation to debates in this house and I would ask the hon. member to refrain from using exhibits at this time.
Mr. Cov/an: I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would not have thought of bringing in an exhibit were it not for the fact that many flags were introduced a while ago; they appeared on the desks of members for a while and were then voluntarily removed. However, I do not need a material exhibit to make my point-that in the middle of a large cable running from Northern Electric to the Bell Telephone Company building there are two thin strands of copper wire. They are tagged at either end with little tags to say that these two strands belong to Northern Electric. This is in accordance with testimony presented before the board of transport commissioners.
Hon. members may think these are valuable wires-two strands representing an investment worth $38 million. This works out at the rate of $5 million a mile per strand, I believe- I have not figured it out on paper. But the interesting thing is that you cannot talk from one end of the wire to the other in conversation. The wire carries the voice in only one direction-from the Northern Electric plant to the Bell Telephone plant. This appears in the testimony produced before the board of transport commissioners. Of course it may be that Northern Electric only needs to use this line to ask the Bell Telephone Company what it must do next. Then I suppose the Bell Telephone Company either sends a mes-

Private Bills
senger across to tell them what to do next or calls Northern Electric over the Bell Telephone system. But the capital ownership of Northern Electric by Bell is based on section 4 of a statute which gives the Bell Telephone Company the right to own a company which owns a telephone line and, as I have explained, Northern Electric owns a telephone line 19,000 feet long consisting of two strands of copper wire within a larger cable.
A little while ago the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) gave an illuminating address on the manner in which Canadian taxpaying companies engaged in the production of wires and telephone equipment are in open competition with the Northern Electric Company which does a $150 million a year business with the Bell Telephone Company. I might point out that the Bell Telephone Company, as a consequence of its compensatory advantages, was able to put in a tender to the C.B.C. 25 per cent lower than either the C.P.R. or the C.N.R. were able to offer after 30 years experience of operation. It is obvious that the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. should know what it costs to service 195 radio stations. But when the contract came up for tender two years ago the Bell Telephone Company was able to undercut the tenders submitted by both the railway companies. As the presidents of both of these vast organizations pointed out in a letter to the government of the day, it would be interesting to know if it is fair, in the communication business, that a competitor should be able to undercut tenders on a competitive basis while fattening its profits in unregulated fields.
There is a great deal of dissatisfaction at the present time at this arrangement by which the stock of the Northern Electric Company is 100 per cent held by the Bell Telephone Company. A hearing has been held before the board of transport commissioners and Mr. Venne, solicitor for the company, who appeared before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines mentioned that the board of transport commissioners had decided it was perfectly legal for the company to hold the stock. Mr. Chairman, the board of transport commissioners is not a court of law. Mr. Venne told the committee that the board was "a court of record-a court of law". But it is not; and Mr. P. C. Venne, Q.C., general counsel for the Bell Telephone Company, knows it better than we do. The board of transport commissioners is a regulatory body and, like other great empire builders in the vast reaches of government, it seeks perpetually to increase its empire. Under the IMr. Cowan.]
terms of the Railway Act which established the board of transport commissioners the board is authorized to make rules, regulations, orders and decisions. But it has come to the point where the board of transport commissioners when it renders a decision or makes an order places on top of it, the word "judgment". Mr. Chairman, they may think they are judges, but they are not judges and these are not legal rulings. The board of transport commissioners makes decisions or determinations.
I should like to suggest in the interest of the voters in my riding, in the interests of Industrial Wire and Cable and in the interests of millions of others in Canada that a request be made to the Supreme Court of Canada for a review to be made of the relationship between these two companies which are so closely knit together, one of them under so-called public regulation and the other under no regulation at all-the Bell Telephone Company and Northern Electric. Is this a combine in restraint of trade? Is this arrangement in violation of the restrictive trade practices act? Many people are asking these questions.
We were told during the sittings of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, that the total income of the Bell Telephone Company in 1962 amounted to $471 million. What amazed us was to hear-and I think this information was given to us somewhat unintentionally-that the company paid the American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation of the United States 1 per cent of its income every year for research. I put a specific question to the officers of the Bell Telephone Company. I asked whether they meant 1 per cent of the gross income or of the net income. And they said it was 1 per cent of the gross. Now, on a gross income of $471 million in 1962, 1 per cent comes to $4,710,000 a year. I think it was the hon. member for Villeneuve, speaking some weeks ago on this bill, who asked whether income tax was being paid to the Canadian government on all the moneys earned by Bell Telephone. It would be interesting to know whether any tax is paid on this $4,710,000 which is sent to the United States under the guise of funds for research. We were told there were 15,000 employees in the research department of the A. T. and T. and that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada has the right to draw on all the results of the studies made by these ladies and gentlemen in the United States. I wonder whether the Department of National Revenue checks to find out whether the A. T. and T. in fact spends $4,710,000 on research work

for the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. Perhaps they only spend $500,000 for research for the Bell Telephone Company. I would not know, never having been given an opportunity of looking into the books in that way. It is interesting in connection with that $4,710,000, that the Bell Telephone Company has a director representing the A.T.T. from the States, and we are pretty certain where the company is controlled despite all the wide publicity about 207,000 shareholders resident in Canada.
They told us in the committee meeting that maybe 300 people attend the annual meeting, and of course the voting is controlled by proxies; but it would be interesting to know what research the A.T.T. is going to do in the United States in connection with the false siren alarm that went off in Ottawa last Saturday. This siren system is operated by the Bell Telephone Company, and with all this money going to research one would have thought they would have found a way of overcoming shotgun pellets setting a city of 300,000 people on its ear, just because somebody was shooting starlings sitting on a telephone wire.
Are we getting value for the money we allow the Bell Telephone Company to send out of Canada for research in the United States on behalf of a Canadian company? We talk about the brain drain to the United States and about how there are few opportunities for our educated young men and women in Canada to engage in research. Why in the name of heaven can't this money be held back in Canada and research conducted in this dominion, or are they taking Canadians down into the United States to conduct research on money earned in Canada and shipped down to the United States, and no doubt classified as an expense to the company?
I am speaking on behalf of a fine company, Industrial Wire and Cable, which is engaged in a very competitive business. The hon. member for Broadview showed that a couple of weeks ago, and I believe it is entitled to every protection the government and the law can afford it. I do not think it should be forced to compete on an open market with a company subsidized to the extent of $150,000,000 a year in equipment purchases by the Bell Telephone Company, which does not go on the open market and ask for competitive prices.
I would suggest, before I make way for some other valuable contributions on this subject-because I know some are going to be made-the air will not be cleared until
Private Bills
there has been an open reference to the Supreme Court of Canada for an investigation into the method of control of the Northern Electric Company by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. When Industrial Wire and Cable tried to appeal the decision of the board of transport commissioners to the Supreme Court of Canada, they got a curt refusal, that as their application involved a mixture of law and fact the supreme court would not be able to review it. If Industrial Wire and Cable are not given the opportunity of paying for an appeal to the supreme court, then I say the government of the day should see that such a reference is made. A final decision must be made on this matter of interest to millions of Canadians, a matter that has interested them for many years and will continue to interest them until a final decision is made by the most competent of authorities, and not such a board as the board of transport commissioners.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I have followed with great interest the speeches made in this debate today, and I am particularly interested in the reasons and the suppositions put forward for an increase in the number of directors of this company. On behalf of several members of my party, as well as for myself I would like to thank the mover of this bill for the courtesy he paid us in introducing us to a vice president of the Bell Telephone Company and discussing with us some of the problems we raised. Following that meeting the vice president of the company wrote me a letter saying that although he could not agree with all the matters raised he was pleased that the conversation remained on a friendly and cordial basis. That is true, but we are not really interested in the cordial and friendly basis. We are interested in the reasons for the increase in number of the board of directors.
The relationship between the Bell Telephone Company and the Northern Electric Company has created a great deal of controversy in the minds of many hon. members, especially the method used in acquiring Northern Electric Company. Many hon. members have asked questions about this, which the board of transport commissioners will have to answer. It is not quite correct, in my opinion, for the mover of the bill to say that the matter about the ownership of Northern Electric and the interalliance between the two companies could be raised by Industrial Wire and Cable whenever that company wished it to be raised. As I remember

Private Bills
it, this matter was asked to be deferred by the board itself, and the second part of the inquiry was left in abeyance and remains in abeyance. It would appear that because of this request there will have to be a further request from Industrial Wire and Cable before the matter is brought before the public once more.
I make no apology for saying my interest in this is more on the subscribers' side than the Northern Electric side of the question, but I do endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands who said Bell Telephone Company is a monopoly company, that it operates in a monopolistic field, that this field has to be a monopoly, and that we representing the people of Canada must show some interest in the relation of the Bell Telephone Company to its subscribers and to the interests of the country.
The siren alarm which was mentioned by the hon. member for York-Humber gives rise to one of the problems that the board of transport commissioners will have much difficulty in settling. I believe the Bell Telephone Company is away out of its jurisdiction in many fields in which it operates, and it is for this reason we think part of the board of directors must represent the public of Canada.
I was very pleased to hear the vice president of the company tell us that he expected at least one or two of the proposed new directors would be appointed from the university level, that they would be academic people chosen to give the board a broader public representation than it now has, but I discount his suggestion that this is to allow the vice presidents to take turns in going on the board of directors. I do not believe that is correct; I do not believe that is necessary, and I do not believe it would serve the interests of the company, of the subscribers, and more particularly of the shareholders to have additional directors appointed from the management side of the company.
I am sure the management and the board of directors have discussed this with each other. I am sure they are willing to allow the vice presidents to appear on the board of directors, with voice but without vote, and such nominees would appear in a managerial status.
I am interested in this matter because of the picture that is shown by the financial statements of the various companies held by Bell Telephone, and also because of the high rates charged to subscribers to the Bell Telephone system. An indication of this is the

Montreal system where the private rate is $6.46. In Ottawa it is $5.46, and in Halifax the Maritime Telephone Company rate is $5.35. In Saskatchewan the system is operated by a provincial telephone exchange under the government and there the rate is only $3.90. In Regina, under the Saskatchewan provincial government the rate is $3.90. This may double in the next few weeks owing to the change of government, but at the time I obtained these figures it was $3.90. The Alberta government system is $3.50.
I do not want to go into all the ramifications of these figures, Mr. Chairman, but let no hon. member confuse himself into believing that it is cheaper to operate a rural telephone system than an urban telephone system. But the Bell Telephone urban systems are almost double the cost to the subscriber of the rural telephone systems. This is the reason we wish to have some control and why I wish to move an amendment. This amendment, in my mind, will allow you and I and the people of Canada to give the Bell Telephone Company, in an academic sense, the chance to have certain people on their board of directors, so as to give it the allure they wish the board to present. I move:
That clause 1 of the bill be amended by striking out lines 9 to 21 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"8. The business of the company shall be managed by a board of not less than five nor more than twenty directors, as may from time to time be determined by resolution of the shareholders, and three such directors shall be appointed by the governor in council and each other such director, additional to these three, shall be the proprietor of at least ten shares in the capital stock of the company, or such other additional number of shares, not exceeding forty additional shares, as the shareholders shall by any resolution passed at any annual general meeting, or special general meeting, from time to time determine; and the said board of directors, save as in this section provided, shall be elected and hold office as hereinafter provided; and all the directors so appointed shall be Canadians resident in Canada and a majority, where more than two, of the directors so elected shall be residents of Canada".
We have discussed this matter, Mr. Chairman, with the vice president of the company. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has pointed out, this gentleman said: "This is a very interesting idea but why pick on me? Why not pick on the Canadian Pacific Railway?" I suppose he chose the C.P.R. because it is larger than the Bell Telephone Company, is in the public domain and in a monopoly field as well. We believe that if what the sponsor has said is representative of the thinking of the majority of the board of directors who are asking parliament

to increase the number of directors, then we can supply what they seem to require and increase the board in a way which will give it the appearance of impartiality which I think the vice president indicated was desirable. This could be accomplished by letting the governor in council appoint three of the directors.
There are a number of ways of doing this. Originally I thought we should buy stock in the company; that perhaps the government should take it over as a crown corporation. However, I think this is a very mild way of exerting some authority which I think the board of transport commissioners has been unable to exert.
I sincerely believe that if we are wrong in our supposition that the Northern Electric Company is being used for ulterior purposes, if we are wrong in our belief that rural telephones are more expensive to operate than urban telephone exchanges, and if we are wrong in assuming that the rate in Ottawa should be lower than the rate in rural parts of Ontario and rural parts of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the maritimes as well, then I believe that these representatives, the ombudsmen, really, of the federal government in this monopoly jurisdiction, will serve the Bell Telephone Company well. We certainly will not appoint low class people, but they will be ordinary people representative of the Canadian government who will act responsibly in representing the Bell Telephone, but who will act also to represent the people of Canada, the subscribers of the Bell Telephone Company and all other interested parties, including the competitors of this company in one of its fields.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Regan:: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a rather unusual and unique suggestion which has been made by the hon. member, and I think one which would require a certain amount of consideration on the part of many members who are present before we were in a position even to judge the merits involved. Certainly in this specific case suggested by the hon. member it would set a very sweeping precedent indeed, a precedent which would apply in the case of any privately owned utility which was subject to the jurisdiction of this house. I know the hon. member has given the matter a great deal of thought before moving the amendment today; of that we can be certain; but I am sure he would be ready to agree that he has left the members
Supply-Health and Welfare of this committee in the position that they have not had sufficient time even to examine the proposal. On this basis there can be no question but that before I would want to comment further I would hope that there would be the opportunity to examine in some detail the amendment which he has moved. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Lucien Lamoureux: It being six o'clock, shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the question to be raised at 10.30 o'clock this evening is as follows: the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock), agriculture-request for indication of countries of origin of lamb imports.
The house will now resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. La-moureux in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $2,099,000.
Lucien Lamoureux: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. [Translation]
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, before I close those brief remarks, I should like to point out to the minister, as I did this afternoon, that the government is often weak enough to yield to repeated requests from pressure groups which pretend to exercise the privileges of democracy, but which often represent but a very slight percentage of their alleged supporters.
By means of blatant publicity, with the help of newspapers, radio and television, and

Supply-Health and Welfare also as a result of polls conducted by people who handle election campaigns, such associations or pressure groups, who often represent only a very low percentage of the mass of private individuals who are supposed to be concerned, influence the government to such an extent that it will finally propose social legislation which, no matter how attractive it might be from a humanitarian viewpoint, proves disastrous from an economic and social point of view. Once again, I shall caution the minister against this excessive enthusiasm which could result from the application of a social measure. I feel that if the government spent more money for medical research on cancer, not only in connection with the use of tobacco but with regard to cancer itself, cardiovascular diseases and mental illness, it would render a much greater service to the people than if it decided to increase its contribution in the field of social security.
I should like to quote from memory the words of Mr. Claude Jourdain, former Liberal member for Gaspe North in the Quebec legislature. Speaking before the economic council of the Gaspe peninsula, he said that the government should reduce, if not abolish, all social security benefits, so that the people of his district-and I think this could be implemented on a national basis-would decide to earn their living by working instead of relying on state assistance. In addition, Mr. Jourdain said that such a measure would not increase the popularity of any political party but that, for the good of the citizens of his region, a political party just had to take a decision to that effect.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the government should rather try to solve the unemployment problem, to abolish salary differentials in various regions, in short to help the Canadian citizens to earn their living by themselves instead of making them dependant on the state, because it is a well-known fact that everything that pertains to the state is much more costly than that which has nothing to do with it.
The minister also talked about a new organization set up by the Department of National Health and Welfare to deal with the marketing of new drugs.
At this stage, I should like to point out that the food and drugs committee did some most interesting work not because I was one of its members but because all the other members were most objective in the serious and precise questions they asked the representatives of various groups. In fact, I am sure


that the committee's recommendations will be advantageous not only to the department but to every Canadian.
I should also like to say a word about amateur sport. I suppose the hon. member who will speak after me-the name of his riding has slipped my mind for the moment- will also discuss that point since he has been interested in amateur sport for years.
Once again, I regret that the administration of amateur sports comes under the Department of National Health and Welfare. However, since this division of the department is still at the organization stage we have no choice but to go along with it. I believe that the country, in general, should do even more than it does at present for amateur sports.
There are several good reasons to change such a policy. First of all, we know that amateur sport will go a long way to give a good physical education to our young people, to improve the physical fitness of the whole population and especially, to bolster the reputation of Canada at the international level in the field of sports.
When we see, for instance, that hockey clubs representing Canada at the Olympic games or in world tournaments are generally second class clubs, except last year, when a new system was given a try, it is really humiliating for Canada to realize that while our country has a monopoly, if we may say so, in regard to the quality of hockey at home, it is being defeated by much inferior countries on the international level, merely because the government did not want to take its responsibilities in that regard and did not make a sufficient financial contribution to certain teams that could have been worthy representatives.
Be that as it may, it is a pleasure to note the continuous progress made in the Department of National Health and Welfare. We hope that the department will not fall into the same traps as other countries, which turned out to be economically disastrous.
We hope that from now on and little by little, the Minister of National Health and Welfare will heed the advice of the various groups represented in this house who reflect Canadian public opinion, so that the legislation to be introduced by the Department of National Health and Welfare and by other departments will really promote the welfare of the Canadian people.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I hope hon. members of the committee will permit me to interject something at this time while there

are a number of members present in the chamber.
Earlier this afternoon many hon. members joined me in extending felicitations to my departmental secretary. Since that time I have learned that today is a very special day in the life of my senior deputy, the deputy minister of health, who has held that office for nearly 20 years. Since 1926 he has taken over a number of new ministers, three at least, and led them, if not down the garden path, at least up the path through the administration.
Dr. Donald Cameron is a man much beloved by those associated with him, not only by ministers but by very many members of parliament who over the years have had occasion to seek his advice and assistance. Today is his 65th birthday. Normally that would be the signal for his retirement, but he has been good enough to agree to serve Canada for at least one additional year. I am happy that this year saw the opening of the new building and I am happy that I have this opportunity on behalf of the thousands of people who work in the department of health and who have known him over the years to offer my felicitations to him. I am also happy, Mr. Chairman, to provide an opportunity at the close either of today's sitting or of the estimates, whichever first occurs, when many of his friends will be able to come to my office and to give him greetings. In concluding, I should like to offer to him a token of our esteem, even if the Sergeant-at-Arms may have it removed shortly thereafter. I apologize to him because for all I know perhaps it should be a Tory blue cornflower, but I should like him to accept this red rose.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to say a word at this stage of the proceedings. Everything the minister has said is entirely correct. Having practically lived with the gentleman in question for some six years I can vouch for everything the minister has said. I would refer particularly to the steadying influence he has exerted in the Department of National Health and Welfare over the years. I know we will all wish him the very best of everything in the future and we will have to wait and see, of course, what happens after his year's extension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we too would like to join in the expression of felicitations to Dr. Cameron. We are very pleased that the minister has drawn our attention to the fact that this is his birthday and we feel
Supply-Health and Welfare that in taking this unusual way of paying tribute to this deputy minister we are paying tribute to all members of the very efficient and hardworking staff of this department. Now that Miss Waters has been mentioned and now that Dr. Cameron has had a birthday, I hope that before the evening is over there will be something said about Joe Willard.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, may I associate the members of this group with those who have offered greetings and felicitations on this very interesting occasion.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our group, I would like to join all the others in offering our most sincere congratulations to Dr. Cameron.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, as the one in the chamber tonight who, with the exception perhaps of the President of the Privy Council, has sat longest in the house, may I say that this is a most felicitous occasion and I compliment the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the light touch with which she introduced this tribute to Dr. Cameron. Perhaps there is a ruse involved. The minister is creating such good will that I imagine my estimates will come up faster than I had anticipated.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Too bad.


William Moore Benidickson: May I say that the hon. member for Perth and I have been associated with the deputy minister of health for a great number of years. I also had the honour of working with the new deputy minister of welfare when I was vice chairman of the joint committee that brought in a unanimous report recommending universal old age pensions. So it is a great delight to me to have been associated with these people.
I was also a member of the house when the first lady adviser to a minister of the department sat in the chair in front of the minister, as Miss Waters sits again tonight. Dr. Cameron and I have had a long and close association and I wish to extend birthday greetings to him and the wish that he may long serve the state. Many people have served the state after reaching the age of 65 and I hope he will have the opportunity to do so for some time in the future.
This department more or less developed during the course of my own career. The Hon. Brooke Claxton was its first minister. He was a superb organizer and I can say

Supply-Health and Welfare to the parliamentary secretaries behind me that he developed his concept of the department when he was a parliamentary secretary. He persuaded the prime minister at that time that this department was an important and necessary bailiwick, and we thank those officials who in association with members of parliament have made the development of this department possible.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Chairman, at this time I should like to say a few words about the physical fitness program. As we all know, the physical fitness program of the Department of National Health and Welfare has been the subject of criticism under both governments and I am afraid that I have been one of the main critics, as has the hon. member for Peel. However, in addition to offering a few suggestions at this time which I think are vital to the success of a physical fitness program I should also like to give a few bouquets.
First I want to congratulate the minister on the increase in the funds allocated to Olympic teams. This in itself has automatically caused more interest not only within the different organizations receiving the funds but also among the Canadian people themselves. The very fact of receiving these grants has lent an added incentive to the teams and organizations concerned. We all know there are different groups within any Olympic organization. Some are able to raise funds because they are a group that appeals to the public and they can get people to come out to see them perform. Others cannot. These grants will add to their incentive to work to raise funds to send their representatives to the Olympics.
Our Prime Minister, who we have to admit is a really true sportsman and athlete in every sense of the word, is to be commended highly for taking time out of his very busy schedule to attend athletic functions such as the Canadian Henley at St. Catharines and the Olympic track and field trials at St. Lambert, Quebec. There is little doubt in the minds of all of us, I am sure, that his presence at these functions must have not only added prestige to them but have contributed to the morale of the athletes participating in the events.
It was also rather gratifying to have the Minister of National Health and Welfare attend the Olympic games at Innsbruck, representing the government of Canada. I would not say that I agreed with everything she said after she came back, but the fact is that Canada had a fine representative there. I do


not know whether this was the first time that Canada was represented at the Olympic games by such a person. At the Olympic games this fall in Tokyo the hon. member for York West, the one and only Red Kelly, is going to represent the Canadian government. As we all know, he is one of the most respected and outstanding young athletes today and I am sure all members will agree that Canada will be well and truly represented by him.
I would be very remiss indeed if I did not mention the wonderful Father Bauer at this time. Surely Canada must be very proud, not only of his work as a coach of our Olympic team but of the great respect he brought to himself, to his team and to the people of Canada as a result of the true sportsmanship shown by him during the hockey championships. Those were very trying circumstances, and Canada can be proud of the fact we had such a wonderful young gentleman handling our team.
I mentioned previously a little bit about grants. I just want to say this, that as important as grants are to our teams and to our athletic organizations, the most important feature by far-let us get this straight now- of any physical fitness program is the child, our youth in the country. Naturally, any physical fitness program that deals with children has to start in the school itself. I realize that schools mean education and education is a provincial matter. However I sincerely hope that perhaps as a result of the co-operation of the provinces we may be able to put a federal program into the schools right across Canada.
There is one thing however that we can do federally to get this physical fitness program off the ground. This is something that is absolutely necessary if any physical fitness program is to succeed. I refer to the need for facilities. If we have not got facilities, nothing can happen. Today, more than any time in our history, we need these facilities. We are living in an age entirely different from the past. Our boys and girls go to school in buses or drive their own cars. We are living in a different age under different conditions. We do need a physical fitness program more than ever. There are many areas in the different parts of Canada that are practically devoid of facilities, track and field, arenas, swimming pools and so forth.
The reference to swimming pools reminds me of a situation in the minister's constituency. I do not know whether or not she realizes it, but there is only one covered

swimming pool in the Niagara district to take care of something like 60,000 people. I am going to say this, that in West Germany, a country that was devastated during the war, they have a program which covers 15 years and is called the "golden plan". This program will provide a billion and a half dollars worth of facilities for the youth of that country. So we can go ahead and take this $5 million grant which, so far as I am concerned, is slowly being used up. This is merely a pittance to a country like Canada that has not felt the ravages of war. We could start off with $15 million or $25 million and it would be money well spent. Let me tell you that money spent on sports will return more than dollars and cents to the people and the communities of this nation. It will make returns in the form of good citizenship, and God only knows we need it these days.
I have just finished reading quite an interesting little book entitled "Soviet and Sport", by Dr. Henry W. Morton a member of the faculty of Queen's University. I have no intention of dealing with these matters because they would take up all my time; however, I should like to point out something. The U.S.S.R. has a seven year plan which will be completed in 1967. Do you know what is going to happen by that time? One out of every four people, a quarter of the population of the U.S.S.R., will belong to a sports organization. Remember, this quarter of the people of Russia will be the vital, youthful sector of that society, and that really means something. The Soviets do not look upon sport as a means for creating only physical fitness, health and stamina. They look upon it also as a means of ensuring the prestige of their country in the world today, in the sport world. Whether we like it or whether we do not, during peacetime we need this and our young people need it. They need sport; they need relaxation to burn up their energies. We are having enough trouble as it is and one reason for that is that we are not properly organized for sport activities in which the young people can take part.
I do not know whether you realize the important part our young athletes really play in bringing respect to Canada and Canadians throughout the world today. I do not know whether you realize it or not but you can be in Canada today and in Europe tomorrow. It was not always this way. Our soldiers were recognized in the first and second world wars; they really let the world know what Canada was. What about the big space between the two world wars? What about the big space
Supply-Health and Welfare following the last war? Tourists were not going over there then because they did not have the money they have today. There were a few members of the government and businessmen going over at that time, but how did Canada become the respected nation she is today? How did that old maple leaf become what it is and how was it kept in front of the people? I will tell you. Mr. Frank Sargent, past president of the Canadian amateur hockey association took a team on tour through Europe at that time. They went over by boat and spent some time in the countries of Europe. This is what the top government men, the top men in the cities and communities in which they played hockey said-just try and get this because I have never forgotten it: Outside of war, the only time we ever hear the name "Canada" mentioned is when your young athletes tour our country with their hockey teams and play their games in our cities.
I am going to say this, that sport is the greatest means for breaking down barriers; it is the common denominator that creates equality. It does not make any difference whether you are red or yellow or black; it does not make any difference whether you are Catholic, Jewish or Protestant, in these sport lanes you are as one. Let us never forget that. It does do something else, it makes you value one another. The value of sport cannot be added up in dollars and cents. I just want to bring one further thought to you about the Soviet union and sport. This is the most important thing so far as the U.S.S.R. is concerned, that sport organizations are used as the means of rallying the working men around the various party government and training organizations, and are automatically drawn into the social and political life of the nation. That is why they are doing it. That is why they have a quarter of their youth tied up in sports organizations. I will not go as far as to say the same should be done in Canada. But I do believe that physical fitness and sport should and could play a far greater role in the life of our nation.


Mr. Willoughby:: I should like to add my personal congratulations and felicitations to Dr. Cameron on his sixty fifth anniversary. I should also like to add my personal suggestion to him, that in view of his fitness physically as well as mentally he should continue to offer his services to his country in some way and not allow the fact that he has reached this milestone to persuade him to retire to some position where he could not do anything either for himself or for his country
7856	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare and where his qualities would deteriorate. I feel men of his experience are so valuable to their country that they should not allow such milestones as these to interfere with their future activities for our welfare.
I am happy to have this opportunity to make a few observations with regard to this important and interesting department. The department of health and welfare is probably the most important of all the departments of the federal government. Now that it has reached a wonderful position of being able to spend more than $2 billion annually, I think it is in the top bracket of all the government departments. As far as the estimates before us are concerned, I have no particular objection to the items which are included, or to the remarks which have been made by the minister. My complaint is directed, rather, to the omissions.
I do not wish to delay passage of these estimates unduly. Indeed I think they should be passed without much delay. I spoke in November of last year on the estimates of this department and at that time I stressed the great importance of medical research. This evening I wish to continue in that vein. I feel this is probably the most important field which lies before the department today. Indeed it is probably the most important question facing medical science in Canada today and I believe it offers an opportunity for the government to provide assistance so as not only to save money for the taxpayer but also to improve our scientific status as a nation. There have been suggestions that further grants will be made, and I am grateful for them. But I feel these improvements are only fractional. I believe, and I am sure the vast majority of the medical profession in Canada would agree with me, that as far as the government is concerned medical research is a neglected child in Canada. As I have already mentioned, this is a most vital need if medical science is to advance; it is vital, also, to the educational services of medicine.
I had hoped to speak on this subject when the estimates of the research council were before the committee for consideration, but unfortunately there was no opportunity to do so. I should like to suggest now that the subject of the research council is closely allied with the observations I am making this evening. The council has added to its budget the sum or $1.8 million. There is no question but that we are grateful for this addition. But I would draw this to the attention of the committee: $1.8 million is just the equivalent of the grants received from the United States


which are being cancelled. So we are just where we began before this grant was made; there has really been no increase. Canada today needs to double this amount in order to be effective in this great field of medical research. I should like to suggest three pertinent questions to this committee. I should like to ask why Canadians in the upper income bracket frequently find it advisable to go to the United States institutions for medical treatment. I do not endorse this practice; I feel it is unnecessary. But it is a fact that it exists. I would even get down to a more personal question and ask why it is that members of this House of Commons go to the United States for medical care. It is unnecessary. We can do the same things here in Canada. But this is the situation which exists today. What happens when people go to the United States? In many cases they are treated by Canadians, men who trained at Canadian universities, graduated there and went to the United States to work. It reminds one of the well known story of the Scotsman who made his first business trip to London. When he returned to Glasgow they asked him how he got along with Englishmen, and he replied: Englishmen? I didn't see any Englishmen. I only talked with heads of firms.
Let me repeat, there are approximately 350 Canadian medical men who go to take up practice in the United States every year. They are replaced by about 100 who come here from Europe, so we have a deficit of 250 every year. These doctors go to the United States partly because of the climate and partly because of economic reasons. But I am glad to say that medical men in general are not influenced in going to the United States for economic reasons. They go there mostly because of the scientific advantages, and that is why we are experiencing this terrible drain of graduates from Canadian universities. We are spending money on training these people but they go to the United States where they are offered better facilities and very few of them ever return to Canada.
I should like to put on the record a report from New York which was published in the Toronto Globe and Mail on August 4 of this year under the name of Frederick Hodgson, and these are the views of Canadian scientists attending the sixth international congress of biochemistry. I will not detain the committee by putting the whole report on record, but this paragraph is of particular interest because it has a direct bearing on the subject I am dealing with tonight. This is what it says:

Unless Ottawa loosens the federal purse strings and pours more millions into basic scientific research, particularly into the biological and medical fields, there will be a mass migration of Canadian scientists to laboratories and universities in the United States.
I should like to quote now from Dr. John T. Edsall, head of the department of biochemistry at Harvard University, who backed up this prediction by saying:
This is not a brain drain engineered by the United States. It is an insane export of scientific manpower. If I can't get support for my work in my own country then I've got to go where I can get that support.
Canada is rich enough to stand on her own two feet scientifically.
He continued in the same vein:
Grants to research laboratories in Canada have been cut by about 20 per cent this year-
These are the American grants he is speaking of.
-with an additional cut of 40 per cent due in the next fiscal year.
He continued at great length, but I shall only burden you with one more quotation, in which he said he saw no other way to give Canada scientific independence than to get Canada to contribute more to scientific research. That is what we are facing in Canada today.
I also have here the report of the National Research Council of Canada for 1962-63. This year's report is not out yet, but here are a couple of sentences from the report of the vice president, Dr. R. F. Farquharson, who is well known to many hon. members:
Two great shortages currently exist in Canada's medical research program. One of these is the small number of full time appointments in Canadian medical schools, particularly in clinical departments. Because of its heavy teaching load, the small full time staff has inadequate time for research.
Further on he made this statement:
The other great shortage is of research laboratories. In all our universities there is a serious lack of space for the work that must be done. This shortage is becoming a critical factor actively interfering with further progress. It also aggravates the tendency for good people to seek positions outside the country.
This is a serious situation and I do not think we in the House of Commons are aware of the seriousness of it. Economically it is to our advantage to pay some attention to this matter. We have more medical schools than are actually necessary in Canada today, if we could keep our doctors at home. At the present time, without allowing for increased population, if we could keep our medical graduates at home we would not need any
Supply-Health and Welfare more medical schools. We have 12 of them but we lose 30 per cent of their graduates to the United States.
When health insurance is introduced there will be a greater demand than ever for medical graduates, and I know we will need more medical schools because of increased population but, as I say, we have enough now if we could keep the graduates in Canada. We would save ourselves the extra expense of more schools if we could keep our people from migrating, and the unfortunate thing is that in this migration we are losing our scientific leaders and many of our potential teachers. We are losing the individuals with inquiring minds, and they are leaving because of exasperation and frustration. They are leaving because of lack of facilities to carry on the work they want to do in Canada, and they are finding greater opportunities to develop their research tendencies in other countries.
I have another short quotation here, this one from Sir Howard Florey, delivering his David Rivett memorial lecture at the University of Melbourne:
There are, of course, personal rivalries between laboratories, between universities and between countries, but the desire to know, and the desire to know first, explains a great deal of the drive of scientists for ever better facilities and their increasing tendency to go to whatever country is prepared to offer them a satisfactory scientific life.
This is what is happening to Canada. Canada has reached a crisis in regard to its medical education. The time was when Canada led the world but today we are becoming a second or third rate medical country. The teachers with the exploring minds are going elsewhere. They go where they can get the top medical research facilities.
In the amount of money we devote for scientific research in medicine, how do we compare with the sums provided in other countries? Per capita and on a gross national basis for every $1 donated in the United States toward medical research Britain donates 20 cents and Canada 15 cents, and that 15 cents includes what we get from philanthropic sources. We cannot look with any pride on the fact that we donate only 15 cents per head as compared with $1 per head in the United States.
As a country we should realize that if we are to hold our place in the world we must donate what is relatively fair in proportion to our gross national product. The United States donates more than six times as much as we do in Canada, and therefore it is obvious

Supply-Health and Welfare why Canadians will go to the United States for medical care. It is also obvious why our best scientists go to the United States, and it is obvious why our medical schools are tending to deteriorate.
Unfortunately those of our doctors who stay in Canada have to teach yesterday's medicine, and yesterday's medicine is not good enough for today, and it will be worse for tomorrow. We are simply failing to keep pace with world development. As I have said, our medical schools are becoming second and third rate. At one time, not many generations ago, they were the best medical schools in the world but now they are gradually deteriorating. We must do something about it, and we must do it now.
I congratulate the minister upon her announcement the other day of a fine contribution towards the extension of the medical research facilities in the University of British Columbia. I happen to be familiar with that undertaking, as I come from B.C. myself, and I congratulate the minister on the assistance being offered to Dr. J. McCreary, dean of medicine there. He is undertaking a wonderful experiment, and I understand she is also assisting medical education in other provinces. This is something which should be extended across the nation.
The Farquharson report, which was the result of an investigation of the situation not long ago, indicated we required not only grants for the salaries and for the upkeep of these institutions but that $37 million was required to construct proper facilities for research centres in hospitals and universities. That report, as I recall it, came in about two years ago, although I may be out a year or so. But the fact is that what was going to cost $37 million at that time will now cost $60 million, and the longer we put it off the greater will be the cost.
There is also a large amount of expenditure on the part of drug and pharmaceutical firms in Canada as well as their associated organizations in the United States. As a member of the committee of this house on food and drugs it was my privilege to visit some of the research laboratories in Canada, and I feel that we should all be appreciative of the work which these people are doing. They are doing fine work as far as research is concerned, and I think that if it is necessary for us to assist them in some way we should be prepared to do so. But we should under any circumstances be prepared to increase the amount of grants we are presently making

to these objects. It is extremely important that we do so.
On a recent trip to Montreal the members of the food and drugs committee were allowed the privilege of visiting several laboratories. In this connection I should like to draw to the attention of this committee an article which happened to be on my desk this dinner recess, having come in in today's mail. I think it is rather interesting. It refers to a Dr. Hans Selye, a man of whom we in Canada should be very proud. He is doing wonderful work and is so engrossed in scientific research that no amount of money would influence him to go anywhere else. Part of this article reads as follows:
In the face of strong opposition, Selye devoted himself to the task of finding the causes of this stress syndrome and, in moments of doubt, he gained added strength from the fact that one of the most noted Canadian scientists, Sir Frederick Banting, has been interested in his studies from the outset. As an adviser for the national research council, a government body, Banting visited university laboratories throughout the country and, when he came to Montreal, he often dropped into Selye's small, crammed laboratory and listened attentively to the young research worker. Banting was also responsible for Selye's first financial support, a modest grant of $500.
"But this was not as important to me as the moral support and encouragement I derived from being taken seriously by the discoverer of insulin," Dr. Selye recalls. He continued his investigations and perseverance brought success.
Also while in Montreal we had the opportunity to visit the laboratory of Dr. Genest in the Hotel Dieu, who is doing probably some of the world's greatest research into cardiovascular disease, particularly in regard to arteriosclerosis and high blood pressure. I am sure that everyone in the house should have the opportunity to visit his laboratory, because I never saw anything so disgraceful in my life. This gentleman is doing national work. His office is so crowded with books and diplomas that he hardly has a place to sit down, and his laboratory is equally overcrowded. He has visitors from all the large institutions in the United States, where they have all the facilities to work with, and who come to him because he is doing wonderful work under these adverse circumstances.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that we have to wake up and increase our grants toward medical research or we are not only going to lose our status in the medical world but also our scientists will be lost to the United States and things will get worse. We can save ourselves money if we take an interest in this subject and in those engaged on medical re-

search in our country. In this way we can re-establish ourselves to the position which is ours. I say that today we are in a period of explosive scientific development. Do you realize, Mr. Chairman, that 90 per cent of all the scientists who ever lived in the world are alive today? That is a very striking statement but I have that on very good authority. Scientific developments and knowledge are increasing so rapidly that they are going ahead at lightning speed, and wealthy countries like Canada-and we are a wealthy country-must develop our scientific resources or we are going to lose them. We have everything here to work with. I say let us save our scientists for Canada. Let us save our prestige in the field of medicine. Let us save our medical schools and develop and maintain adequate research facilities. Let us pay adequate salaries to those willing to dedicate their lives to medical research in the interests of the welfare of human beings, and let us wake up to our urgent responsibilities. I ask the government to act now because tomorrow may be too late. In the interests of science and national economy let us extend our medical research facilities so as to preserve not only our scientists but also probably postpone the immediate necessity for building more medical schools.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the minister and others in congratulating the deputy minister. I might say that Welland had an earlier attraction for him as he came often in his earlier days, and won the hand of his better half, who is a very fine lady.
I want to say a few words tonight about the necessity for an increased grant to the health league of Canada. The health league of Canada has served the country for 45 years or more and as far as I know it was the only organization of that type in Canada. Other organizations have been formed since, but they have been segmentations of public spirited individuals who have joined together into associations, groups and the like, and devoted their work to a more specific aspect of health.
There are many things one could say about the health league of Canada. I think it is the only voluntary organization devoted mainly to the prevention of disease rather than to its cure. It is the only voluntary health organization in Canada with a charter which is concerned with an all-embracing interest in personal and community health. It is also the only organization in Canada with ex-
Supply-Health and Welfare perience in established policies and it is prepared to advance, either singly or in cooperation with other health agencies, the promotion of any new and improved health technique, thereby helping to improve the health of our people. I would suggest that the health league of Canada stands as a sentry in our society in respect of anything that may become a challenge to the best health treatment we can give. I can give one example of this fact. In my home town a few years ago the local anti-fluoridationists combined to have fluorine eliminated from our water supply. A vote was held and it was retained. The health league gave a great deal of assistance in this fight by supplying data, material and a great deal of other help. We preserved the practice of adding fluorine to our water, and this has certainly been beneficial to the condition of our children's teeth, and will continue to be so in the future.
Dr. Gordon Bates, head of the health league of Canada was the one man in the forefront promoting pasteurization of milk in Canada, as a result of which I am sure many lives have been saved. Dr. Bates was also in the forefront promoting the immunization of our citizens, although I know that many others were involved. The health league has done a great deal in promoting fluoridation of communal water supplies through the publication of its magazine and in other ways. I read an article about ten days ago in a Toronto newspaper which quoted a dentist as saying that the savings to the people in the city of Toronto alone as a result of fluoridation will in the future be as high as $1,200,000 per annum.
Mr. Chairman, grants from the federal government to the health league of Canada were at one time $25,000, although this has now been cut to $15,000. Since the period of that reduction the expenses of the health league have doubled as a result of increased postage charges on periodicals, which the league distributes, as well as the cost of raw materials and printing.
The voluntary health committee of the Senate and the House of Commons has received a great deal of co-operation from the health league of Canada as a result of the provision of speakers here at luncheon meetings, many of whom a great number of the members of this house have heard. I am sure we have all learned a great deal about the health league. The hon. member for Simcoe East was chairman of that health committee under the previous government, and I have

Supply-Health and Welfare filled that position during the last year or so. Our meetings have been held often and I am sure the members of that committee realize that with the increased need of assistance, the federal government grants to this health league are not sufficient. During successive years this committee has passed resolutions, which have been presented both to the previous minister of national health and welfare, and to the present minister, suggesting that this annual grant should be increased. I appeal to the present minister, who always has a keen sense in respect of the need to increase general health in our country, to give favourable consideration to the requests to increase this annual grant.


William Dean Howe: Mr. Chairman,
I should like to rise during what is left of this doctors' night in the House of Commons and make a few remarks. Before I do I should like to explain the exuberance of our party during the last few minutes. In the last few minutes we have learned that Mr. Renwick has just been conceded as the winner in the by-election in the Toronto Riverdale riding.
At this time, if there was no mention of the Hall commission report, I think we would be remiss. With all the medical-social recommendations that it contains, a person in my position is forced to endorse this report and advocate its full acceptance without, I hope, its being torn to shreds when it is produced as legislation in the house. The recommendations, including medical education and research facilities, relate to some of the most important needs of the present day. However, tonight I am not dealing with this subject, but rather I am going to discuss one of Canada's significant minority groups-that of the mentally retarded.
I appreciate the fact that the minister in her opening remarks mentioned the work the government is doing in this regard, but I consider it of sufficient importance to emphasize certain points. In Canada today there are more than 540,000 retarded persons, representing some 3 per cent of the population. Another 6.7 per cent of the population may be described as borderline. Of our retarded people, 116,000 are between the ages of 3 and 19.
Retarded persons may be divided into three classes. The first group comprises the 4 per cent who will never exceed the mental age of 4, and will always be dependant. The next group includes the 13 per cent who may achieve a mental age of 8, and can be trained to be partially self-sustaining. The largest group is the 83 per cent who may reach a

mental age of 12, and can be educated to be totally self-supporting. Of the 116,000 mentally retarded children in Canada, 96 per cent, or 111,000, are trainable. Yet only about 10 per cent of them are presently receiving training.
Dr. Donald Zarfas of the children's psychiatric research institute in London has said that prevention of retardation involves "prevention of deterioration in the retardate by helping him to overcome his handicaps as much as possible by good training programs." Education of the retarded is an expensive proposition. The cost of full time schooling is 400 to 600 per cent higher than for normal children, because of the special equipment, facilities and time required. It is estimated that day schools for 95,000 pupils, and boarding schools for another 10,000 are now needed. We must also provide for some 31,000 school-age children from rural areas. The cost of such a program, properly executed, could come to many millions of dollars, but surely we are practising false economy if we fail to spend this money.
Of those retardates who receive training, 83 per cent can be expected to support themselves, and another 13 per cent to support themselves to some extent. Ideally, only 4 per cent of the mentally retarded should be fully dependant.
In failing to provide adequate training, we fail to equip the retarded to support themselves, and thus render them dependant on public or private funds. The cost of supporting a dependant person through his lifetime is far in excess of the cost of the education that could and should be provided for him. Officials of the Canadian association of social workers state that retardation, in children and adults, forms one of their major problems in welfare work.
Beyond education itself, many other services must be provided. Diagnostic services are all important, so that mental retardation can be detected early and proper treatment instituted.
Home visiting services, vocational training, job placement services and recreational facilities are needed. Institutions for those who cannot live in the community are essential. At present some 18,000 persons are accommodated in 13 government supported institutions, all overcrowded. Another 19,000 retarded persons are in mental institutions; a highly unsatisfactory situation.
In order to carry out all these essential steps, more doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, nurses, occupational therapists and educationists are needed, and

provision must be made for their training. Canada's objectives should be those of the World Health Organization, expressed as follows:
All children irrespective of whether or not they suffer from mental or physical handicap, should have every access to the best medical diagnosis and treatment, allied therapeutic services, nursing and social services, education, vocational preparation, and employment. They should be able to satisfy fully the needs of their own personalities and become, as far as possible, independent and useful members of the community.
Beyond the problem of care is the problem of research in prevention of retardation. Here again, money spent now will mean a public saving in future years. To quote the World Health Organization again:
Every child has the right to expect the greatest possible protection against the occurrence of preventable physical or mental handicap before, during and after birth.
To date research has uncovered more than 100 causes of mental retardation. Other projects are under way to determine the early manifestations of retardation so that preventive measures or treatment may begin early. Psychological research is investigating the personality disorders that frequently accompany retardation, and research into the best methods of training and treatment is being conducted. In her maiden speech the hon. member for Saskatoon suggested research into sheltered employment situations for the mentally ill and such research should also be pursued for the retarded. This research is going on under the severe handicap of lack of funds. We must provide for an intensified research program if we expect to diminish the problem of the retarded.
The Hall commission report has included among its first priorities the recommendation that services to retarded children be made available under the mental health services and the health grant programs. I would most strongly urge that the government approach the October federal-provincial conference on retardation with these recommendations in mind. We can no longer afford to ignore the problem of the retarded. I should like to conclude my remarks by reading a short quotation:
Each of us is made up of the same 98 cents worth of chemistry, give or take a few cents depending upon inflation. The difference lies in abilities, not in feelings. Our retarded children have the same feelings of joy, sorrow, pain and fear as others and a few more of frustration. Comprehension is slower but they still want to be included and treated just as their more fortunate sisters, brothers and friends are treated.
Supply-Health and Welfare [Translation]


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the business of the house, I would be remiss if I did not stand up for the family, for its welfare, its needs and those of every individual.
The right to live is a strictly personal one. Life belongs to a person. The human person alone lives and has needs connected with the reality of life-every day, every month, and throughout the year. All the needs of each human being, whether they be material, spiritual or intellectual, may, in the present order of things, be met by means of one and the same instrument called money, or currency.
The inevitable conclusion is that this vital right is connected with the individual, and must follow the individual, if he is capable to administer his own life, or be paid to the head of the family or the institution responsible for that individual, if he is a dependant. The vital right, even in this case, remains a personal one, connected with the human person.
We also must inevitably conclude that, in a country of 19,200,000 people, there are necessarily 19,200,000 rights to live, ensuring to each human being a certain amount of money or currency to procure the goods or services strictly necessary to enable him to live- whether material, intellectual or spiritual.
And we come to another irrefutable conclusion:	that vital right is natural and
anterior to, or independent from, the capacity for work of each person, for its urgency applies in the same way to children, old and handicapped people, to the invalids, the sick, the blind, the students, the widows and mothers of families who are unable to work outside to earn their living, because it is their responsibility to work at home, and look after their children-their students or any other adult dependants.
The inevitable conclusion is that vital personal right, which at first sight seems to be of social, personal and family interest, becomes of national interest as soon as it has to be paid for in money, in cash-because only the national government of Canada holds the supreme authority on everything that has to do with money, its administration, its issuing, its circulation, its distribution to 19,200,000 human beings, in 4,700,000 families with children or dependants and to all the legal institutions, private or public, which have received from the governments administration charters. Only human beings exist, have the right to live; only human beings have life

Supply-Health and Welfare and the right to existence before all institutions, even before families.
Families and institutions are groups of men constituted by nature or society to facilitate the material, intellectual and spiritual life of human beings. Only men have the right to live and are entitled to the necessities of life and to the amount of money with which they can each day, each week, each month and each year, purchase the goods and services which are vital for their survival.
In my opinion, all those who hear this simple speech and all those who will read it will have to accept that unavoidable conclusion within the framework of our present system of government. Thus, the right to live is a matter which concerns the individual, the family, society and the nation.
Society is based on the person, and the person is the unit element of society. The family is already an institution, the first institution, the closest to the human being, the most responsible for the human being, from conception, birth, during infancy, adolescence, youth and even during middle age-for the weak, the sick or the cripple. If the family is first responsible for the human being, this responsibility is unavoidably exercised within organized society-and in this organization of the society, everything concerning money and its circulation is under the sole control of the Canadian government at Ottawa.
The inevitable conclusion is that the Canadian government at Ottawa is responsible for the vital rights of the individual within the boundaries of Canada, because only the Canadian government has full control and full authority over the whole monetary, economic and political machinery within the boundaries of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I think a few words should be said here about the importance of family allowances in our national economy, especially as an important part of the purchasing power of families. In keeping with the axiom "equal work, equal pay", it happens that both the single man and the family head get the same salary for the same work, that is, the same purchasing power. Now, inasmuch as he has a wife and children, the expenses of the head of a family are higher and require more purchasing power than those of a bachelor.
Governments have already thought of compensating for that difference by providing for income tax exemptions and certain family allowances, which simply proves that we are merely asking for corrections and adjustments in the figures laid down in the existing legislation, in order to make such legislation more

efficient, in keeping with the spirit which prevailed when it was discussed and passed.
The following table will show without the shadow of a doubt that this problem exists and that it must be solved immediately for the greater benefit of the whole national economy.
Today the number of workers has reached seven million people, half of whom are unmarried or married people without children. We see on one side:
3.500.000	fathers
3.500.000	mothers
7.000.	000 children
1.000.	000 students
15,000,000 consumers And on the other:
3,500,000	unmarried people
3,500,000	consumers
As the average salary is approximately $4,200 a year, we see on one side 15 million consumers living off the salary of 3,500,000 heads of family, and on the other, 3,500,000 consumers living off the salary of 3,500,000 unmarried or married people without children when the two spouses are in a position to work to earn a salary, such being the case with 80 per cent of young couples and even of couples who have brought up their families.
To show to what extent income tax exemptions and family allowances are inadequate to compare the family budget with that of the single person, one has only to examine the specific case of the head of an average family of five persons including three children earning all together average wages of $80 per week, that is $4,200 per year. How much more money will family allowances and the difference in income tax bring to the head of that family than to the single person who also earns $4,200?
A single person who earns $4,200 pays $458 in income tax after claiming his $1,000 exemption. Net income: $3,742. The head of a family who earns $4,200 pays $117 in income tax, after claiming his $2,000 exemption for himself and his wife and his $1,150 exemption for his three children, a 19 year-old student, a 14 year-old and an eight year-old. The 14 year-old child receives an allowance of $8 per month or $96 per year; the eight year-old child receives an allowance of $6 per month, or $72 per year. When this amount is added to the income we get $4,368 in

wages and allowances. $4,368 less $117 income tax leaves a net income of $4,251.
The net income of a father of three children, 19, 14 and eight years old, is $4,251, after he has paid $117 in income tax, whereas a bachelor who also earns $4,200 has a net income of $3,742, after he has paid $458 in income tax.
The difference in income tax and allowances gives to this head of family a net surplus of $509 to support his wife and his three dependant children. He gets $509 more for four more persons. That is $127.25 per annum for each person, or about $10.60 a month.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the naked truth. That is what the Minister of Finance believes to be the expression of economic justice between the people of this country.
Such is, Mr. Chairman and hon. members, what we are tolerating, what is taking place under our responsibility, our supreme monetary, economical and political authority in our parliament as well as in our national life. I would much rather have concealed those details instead of publishing them, so as to avoid the humiliation which is ours for having tolerated such an unfair situation for so long, for having delayed so long the small adjustment that has been necessary in our family allowances since their establishment in 1944, so as to restore a proper balance among the citizens who are assuming greater family responsibilities for the benefit of this country.
What are we going to do, Mr. Chairman, faced with these hard facts, with the sufferings and distress of our courageous heads of families who are never any further advanced after toiling for so many years and continually depriving themselves?
The time has come to clear up a situation which can no longer be tolerated.
I appreciate that we were not sufficiently aware of the situation, just as I know that it was not through ill will that we have put up with such a monstrosity, as the granting of $10 a month for the welfare of the wives and children of our fellow citizens who work year in and year out in prosperous plants, offices, schools, universities and elsewhere for the progress of our country. 1 know that the pleasure and joy caused by progress in other fields of the national economy have taken the attention away from a still more important factor, that of the human being in his normal environment, his family.
I am quite aware of the fact that the success of companies and institutions is both useful and necessary. Indeed, we have
Supply-Health and Welfare dedicated the last 20 wonderful years, that is since 1944, to them but it is high time that we turn our attention with the same enthusiasm and with the same measure of success to the needs of human beings in our regular and honest families which are always a tribute to life, love and fecundity. Are life, love and fecundity to be encouraged, tolerated or criticized-in our capitalistic yet Christian society? Within the family, must life, love and fecundity be considered as economically important as they are in the production of goods and in the field of material and physical achievements?
So, there is an enormous gap between the purchasing power of the father of a family and that of a bachelor or of a childless married couple. Fifteen million people must get by with an approximate total income of $14,700 million while the other 3,500,000 have an equivalent amount to spend.
As taxes are in a large measure hidden in the purchase price of goods, the taxpayer who is obliged to spend all his salary to support himself, his wife and children, pays his income tax and also the taxes included in the items purchased out of his salary, so that he spends each year 100 per cent of his income on vital expenditures and taxes.
On the other hand, unmarried or married people without children can save and put aside part of their income on which they do not pay taxes at the time of purchase. There lies the fundamental unfairness, unfairness which is not compensated either by tax exemptions or small family allowances which are not high enough and which are not granted to all dependants.
That is what must be especially recognized in the unfairness of burdens people have to bear.
The man who has more children to support has less revenues to put a roof over their heads, to feed them and to pay for their clothes and education. The man who has more children has less money and pays more taxes towards society. That is what should be realized and admitted. That is where, in the final analysis, adjustments should be made. That is the solution we are offering here. And everybody would benefit, because an increased purchasing power, according to the number of children, would promote everywhere a better distribution of goods, production and professional services, and would help business, industry, agriculture and the whole economic activity of the small and medium firms. The large firms themselves would benefit by this increased economic

Supply-Health and Welfare activity in every sphere of the national economy.
After having realized how little compensation tax exemptions and family allowances represent on the income of the family heads, in comparison to the single people, when they earn an average salary of $80 a week, or $4,200 a year, what should we think now of wage earners who earn less than $80 a week; many wage earners earn only $40 a week, or $2,000 a year?
How about the small wage earner who does not earn enough to have his name appear on the roll of income taxpayers?
How about the people who earn less than $1,000 a year, for themselves and their wives, less than $550 a year for their children aged 16 years or over, and less than $300 a year for their children under 16 years old?
Do you think that these are just a few unfortunate people who should be ignored when we consider the population as a whole? There again, we fail to envisage reality if we do not pay attention to this.
Whether or not this surprises you, there are two million taxpayers whose names do not appear on the list of income taxpayers, out of seven million citizens who compose our labour force. Five million only appear on the list of personal income taxpayers, as there are about 80,000 companies appearing on the list of profit-earning corporations.
You may consult your Canada Year Book 1963-64, page 991-and you will have an idea of the distribution of income between Canadian citizens taking part in production and the income derived from their work or their capital. You can take from it the following details which put the situation in a nutshell:
First, 20 per cent, that is, 1.5 million persons, earn $6,000 or more a year, or $120 a week; second, 50 per cent, that is, 3.5 million persons, earn from $1,000 to $6,000 a year, or from $20 to $120 a week; third, nearly 30 per cent, that is, two million Canadians, earn less than the income tax exemption which would apply to them and their families.
Those are statistics given by the government in Ottawa. Now, am I the only one to come to those conclusions? Professor O. J. Firestone, a well-known figure in administrative circles in Ottawa, a member of the royal commission on health services, a professor and vice dean of social sciences at the University of Ottawa, made the following statement during the masterful speech he just
[Mr. Latulippe.l

made in Manitoba before business and labour leaders:
Canadians pay a great deal of attention to the 300,000 unemployed, while ignoring almost entirely the 3,800,000 Canadians who live in poverty, whether they are unemployed or not.
And this, even though Canada ranks second in the world for the highest per capita income and alternates with Sweden between second and third place for the highest standard of living.
Those 3,800,000 Canadians, one out of five, 20 per cent of the population, have an income lower than the minimum necessary to buy the necessaries of life.
This statement adds nothing new to the reality of economic imbalance, of the iniquitous distribution of income and burdens of society in our prosperous and progressive Canada. This statement adds nothing new, but confirms once again an unfortunate situation which must be corrected as soon as possible.
That statement was made by a university authority acknowledged and appreciated by our Ottawa authorities, by our political leaders, since Mr. O. J. Firestone was a member of the royal commission on health services in Canada, whose report was submitted to the governor general in council in Ottawa in April 1964.
Do those statistics and reports not suggest that we do not live any better in Canada than in underdeveloped countries? Not any better than in South Africa? Not any better than in India, where there are 300 people per square mile, against six people per square mile here in Canada?
I feel it is high time to put an end to this unbearable situation which most members of this house deplore, even if the 26 powerful ministers go on ignoring it and pretending not to admit the real facts.
What did Mr. Mackenzie King, prime minister of Canada, say in 1944, during the debates in the House of Commons which preceded the passing of the Family Allowances Act? Our ministers might still in 1964 hear the words of that former Liberal prime minister, who can reproach them for having misunderstood his lesson and the spirit of the legislation sponsored on that occasion. Here is this statement which has been considered so important that it is reported in a work published by the International Labour Review, Vol. LXXV, No. 3, March 1957:
Out of the citizens forming the labour force, 48 per cent are bachelors, 39 per cent of those who are married or widowers have no children under 16, and 40 per cent of those who have children under 16 have only one child.

It must be specified that 84 per cent of children under 16 are dependants of a fraction of only 19 per cent of the labour force.
To train the next generation is the responsibility of less than one fifth of the labour force and it is only fair that the expenses incurred be supported by all.
There might be an excuse if the general condition of the national economy required such a strict and faulty distribution of production and wealth. But no, this country of ours, Canada, is considered as the second nation in the world. But no, the following statistics will make it clear that if some people lack the necessaries of life, others enjoy prosperity and the security which it gives, while piling up surpluses, profits and capital that can be envied by the most ambitious capitalists in Canada and even in the world.
Here is, for instance, a few samples of the general prosperity in Canada with regard to great factors of the national economy and their constant progress between 1944 and 1964. Let us take the year 1944 because it coincides with a general survey of finance and banking that year and with the establishment of family allowances which have remained at the 1944 level while all other sectors increased three, four, five, six, eight or nine times.
Let us have a good look in order to see where and how the Canadian economy may be improved.
The principal ministers are responsible for this situation.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has control over all the administration of the country and its citizens.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) has to keep watch mainly on economic justice, which concerns all citizens in the most sensitive material and physical areas: money, cash, the vital minimum purchasing power.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) controls all the monetary, economic and political machinery and procedures for levying taxes on incomes and profits. It is incumbent on him, especially, and on others also, to analyse the incomes, expenses and profits among citizens, families and institutions.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) keeps an eye on all the relations between the population and the ministers, and above all, he is an economist and understands professionally the significance of the primary financial needs, of the vital strict minimum for each citizen, as an individual, in the family circle and in the framework of the private and public institutions.
Supply-Health and Welfare
The Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) knows very well that the whole of the production is intended for consumption and not for warehouses or capitalization. He knows also that the total purchasing power distributed among labour and among capital following production, directly affects only
7,000,000 citizens in Canada and leaves without income the 12,200,000 dependant citizens: children, students or adults unable to earn a living on account of age, illness or unemployment.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) knows quite well that trade is going at a slow pace, because there is unemployment and even poverty, even among families where the head is working at a single man's salary. Equal work, equal pay.
Every line of business would be more prosperous and more efficient if each citizen were to receive as a matter of right a minimum living allowance, over and above his wages as head of family which he receives in return for his labour.
Those six ministers must examine this proposal and consider that it is a problem for which they are personally responsible. All 26 ministers would readily approve any decision thus taken. The Minister of National Health and Welfare would only have to distribute $30 instead of $6 and $8.
I understand that to bring up family allowances to the level of the cost of living in all economy sectors, they should be raised to $30 monthly.


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


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Chairman, I do not need to remind the minister, charming as she always is, and especially at this time of the evening, that her department began in one room in 1944 under the administration of the late Brooke Claxton. I begin what remarks I have to contribute this evening by paying tribute to the late Brooke Claxton, and I want to say, as one of his successors in the riding of St. Lawrence-St. George in Montreal, which he represented for 14 years from 1940 until his retirement from politics in 1954, how pleased I am and how pleased the people of his former constituency, and indeed the population of the metropolis of Canada generally are that the new imposing building of the Department of National Health and Welfare, which is to be dedicated and opened on October 7, is to be named the Brooke Claxton building.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Napier Turner: Perhaps knowing the-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Just one brief question. I do not want to delay his talk in any way but I do want to understand it. Do I follow him correctly when I understand him to be saying that he agrees with me that the old age pension should be paid to those 65 years of age instead of 70? Is that the point he is getting at in his brief remarks so far?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I want to be as friendly as I can to the hon. member when I suggest to him that not only has he not listened to what I am attempting to say, but he has not yet quite seized the point. I want to urge upon him-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Maybe I am a slight bit ahead of the hon. member, but that is what I gathered from his remarks and from reading between the lines of what he said.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has the floor.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into an argument with the hon. member whose contribution I listened to the other evening; I only hope that someone again pages him to the telephone this evening. Not only can the hon. member not read between the lines correctly, but at times I am not sure whether he can read the actual lines themselves. I would just ask him to bear with me on this particular problem.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If I might intervene once more, I know-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -he does not wish to leave any incorrect impressions with me in his talk this evening.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member is out of order. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St George has the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member does not want to leave any incorrect impression with me I am sure that one more brief question would set me clear.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One brief question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to impose order on a rather exuberant member here.
I might say that not only were these questions directed to co-ordination by way of a federal department of aging, but provincial governments have been active in this field, as well as welfare agencies. Hundreds of senior citizens across the country have formed clubs and groups in the different provinces to organize recreational activities for older people. From experience in my own riding I would say that churches of various denominations have also done what they can for older citizens. I might mention that the Canadian welfare council is organizing a national conference on aging which is to be held in 1966.
While all of these efforts are most commendable and deserving of the highest praise, has this whole problem, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, been viewed in a proper perspective? Co-ordination of effort seems to be a desirable objective but it cannot be achieved until all parties concerned know what are the problems of the older persons as individuals-and I repeat individuals-and not as a group. There are hundreds and hundreds of reports, I am sure, in the minister's filing cabinets and in cabinets across the country, all of them dealing with some segment of the problems of the older citizens, but they are all written from the group standpoint.
We know, for instance, that it is almost impossible for a person who is 65 years of age or over to get employment. We also know that there are many reports prepared on the prospects of employment for older persons, but who knows how many of these persons need employment? Therefore, I am saying that specific information is needed rather than the generalities which have so far been compiled. This information must be available in Canada, either through governments or agencies, before we can make progressive headway with a solution to this problem. Such information would be invaluable if it were available, not only to the minister's department but to other agencies of government, and certainly for the purpose of the forthcoming national conference on aging; and it is essential if we are to achieve any concrete results.
Now, what are the problems of these older citizens? It is easy to provide or to suggest an all-inclusive or blanket answer, but I submit this would be inadequate because of
Supply-Health and Welfare the numbers, variety and complexity of our older people. If I can refer to the transcript of the Senate committee on aging, the Nuffield survey of old age conducted in Britain stated the position simply as this at page 59 of the report, that "all old people do not like the same things". In our studies in this country so far we have not been able to find factual material assembled on a national basis which collates and evaluates these problems. Therefore I submit that the only way to find out and to get a truly national picture is to ask the older people themselves, and it is for this reason that I suggest to the minister and to this committee that she inaugurate a national survey of the needs of the older people.
Now, Mr. Chairman, what am I proposing? I am proposing a nation-wide survey of Canadians who are 65 years of age and over. Why am I proposing this survey? I am proposing this so that the minister can find out what the problems are concerning these men and women in this age group. What are some of the problems? Financial insecurity and housing are two. If I might refer to the transcript again of the Senate committee on aging, it is reported at page 59 that:
A study of housing for older people which, is now in progress under Canadian welfare council auspices may be available in a few months, so I shall not deal further with low rental, self-contained accommodation which may be built, but I must emphasize the importance of suitable location.
Other problems are easy to find, and I am sure hon. members have had them brought to their attention in their capacity as members of parliament. There is for example the cost of illness, cost of drugs, cost of hospitalization, the need to augment income, inability to get employment. Despite the fact that he or she has arrived at the age of 60 or 65 years, a man or woman is still able and willing to work and deserves work. The reduced purchasing power of pensions is another problem. Then there is the domestic problem which arises after retirement. Any wife in such circumstances can testify to the difference in the domestic scene when a man who has been working for 40 or 45 years is suddenly compelled to spend most of his time at home. In addition, because there is a surplus of leisure time there is often an addiction to alcohol.
From what I have been able to learn during my brief experience in my constituency, it is suggested there is a difficulty among older women in readjustment when the retired husband spends all or most of his time at

Supply-Health and Welfare home. There is an interference and dislocation of established normal habits in the home. There is, resentment toward the restriction of personal freedom enjoyed before the husband retired. There is difficulty experienced in respect of the cost of accommodation and the inability to obtain employment. There are many problems affecting widows particularly, including the financial, hospitalization and the cost of drugs.
Mr. Chairman, you might ask me, as well might the minister and her advisers who look at me with some interest and perhaps some scepticism, what would be the value of such a survey? It would reveal on a national instead of a local or regional basis, what are the major and common problems among Canadians 65 years old and over. I submit with great sincerity to the minister that such a survey would result in the assembly of valuable and accurate statistical information. Such information could be the foundation on which the federal government could formulate a policy to deal with these problems. Has such a survey been made on a national basis, Mr. Chairman? To the best of my knowledge no such survey has been made.
I should like to quote from the evidence of Mrs. Jean Good, who appeared before the Senate committee on aging. At page 67 of that evidence, in answer to Senator Grosart, who asked the same question I have posed now, she said:
I really do not know. This, as you mentioned, sir, requires investigation in Canada. We do not know enough about the cost of living.
Then Senator Roebuck said:
What we should really be doing is searching around for what we can do or what we can recommend to be done, including an increase in the pension and everything else that might help the lot of the older citizen.
Then Senator Grosart again says:
I think we should get at the facts.
Mr. Chairman, how would a survey be conducted? It could be conducted of course by co-ordinating other government agencies, and it might well be done under private auspices. I can anticipate the arguments of the advisers to the minister who are sitting before her. I know they would say at the moment that there is a committee in the other place in respect of aging; but the honourable senators who have sat on that committee, and the witnesses who have appeared before it, stated that the main problem was in assessing the needs of the aging. Assessing the needs of our so-called older citizens is difficult because of the lack of concrete information and

facts. Of course the minister's advisers may well say, we are holding a national conference on aging in 1966, and that will take care of the problem. Surely this national convention will not prove to be of much value, or of as much value as it could have, unless it is able to operate on the basis of concrete information assembled between now and that time. I would therefore in this brief intervention urge the minister and her advisers, in cooperation perhaps with the Department of Labour, to institute on a national basis a survey of the older people of this country, to ascertain from their own mouths what their problems and needs are, and not impose upon them suggestions preconceived by experts, and preconceived by professions which deal, admittedly in a dedicated way, with their problems. We should ascertain in this way from their own mouths the hopes, frustrations and expectations of these citizens.
I am sure the minister has had this quotation of that great prime minister of Great Britain, Mr. Disraeli, drawn to her attention. He said, let us hope that the heritage of old age is not despair. This problem will become more and more direct, and it will be incumbent upon the minister as she proceeds with her duties to solve it. I urge her to give consideration to the suggestions I have made this evening.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member for Huron speaks I wonder whether I may be permitted to ask the hon. member who has just sat down one question? I asked him a question earlier in respect of reducing the pensionable age from 70 to 65, and he replied in the negative. I will put my question in this way. Can I then assume that he is against reducing the eligible age for old age pensions, or security, from 70 to 65? I should like the hon. member to put his position in this respect on record, and stop riding the fence.


John Napier Turner: I should like to thank the hon. member for his usual succinct question, and say to him that my reply to his earlier question was neither in the affirmative nor in the negative.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are riding the fence, then.


John Napier Turner: I would urge the hon. member to wait for the institution of the Canada pension plan, which I am sure will solve this difficulty to his satisfaction and mine.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When will it be instituted? I should like to ask one more question,

Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is a good friend of mine, and I know he does not want to contribute in any way to a lengthy sitting or debate here in the house, but can he assure this house that the pension plan will be brought before us next week or sooner, or can he assure us that it will be presented on Monday, as I gather he indicated in his remarks?


John Napier Turner: I can assure the hon. member in answer to that question that the government will introduce this legislation with due haste. I can give no assurance about the treatment it will receive from the other side of this house.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak for a short time in respect of this item because I was a member of the committee which Hon. Waldo Monteith chaired.
Mr. Chairman, I think I am as good an example of health as anyone in the house, taking my age into consideration. I know some of the officials who are sitting before the minister at this moment and would like to make special reference to the lady who several years ago was private secretary to the then minister of defence Hon. T. L. Ralston.
At that time I had the privilege of being one of the junior members of this house and that was, as you will remember, during wartime. I went to Colonel Ralston's office in an attempt to get a boy released from the army. He was a married man, but because he was married after the deadline he was considered by the army to be single, and was drafted. This man had 250 acres of land and stock to look after. There was no one on his farm except his wife and his aged father to do the chores, and this was in February, during the winter. His wife and father asked me to try to get him released from the army so that he could look after his farm. I asked them whether this boy had asked for a postponement of his draft and they informed me that he had not, on the basis of information supplied by a neighbour to the effect that he would not be drafted because he was married. In any event he was drafted into the army and his father was attempting to do the chores on his own farm and on his son's farm.
As I suggested, I approached Colonel Ralston's office and found that he was not in Ottawa. I might say that Colonel Ralston was one of the finest members of parliament I have ever met. Colonel Ralston's secretary, the lady presently sitting before the Minister 20220-497
Supply-Health and Welfare of National Health and Welfare, informed me that she could not get this young man out of the army, and that he was to be moved from Camp Borden to Red Deer, Alberta. I told her that he might just as well be released now before being moved to Red Deer, because I intended to get him out of the army and there would be the extra cost involved of bringing him back. She said: "What will I do"? I said, "Call the official and try to get him out". She did. They did not believe me. They sent an official down to the farm to see if I was telling the truth, and I was. He was given six months leave and was never back in the army again. That was an example of a good secretary.
I had a letter today from two elderly people between 65 and 70 years of age asking me if there was any chance of the government lowering the age to 65. They do not have much means of support and are not able to work. They were wondering if the age limit could be lowered to 65 and asked me to do all I could to have that done. They also asked whether the pension could not be raised from $75 to $100 a month because they said they have to pay rent and have very little means. I am passing this on the minister without making any comment whether it should or should not be done.
In the first instance however the old age pension was never intended to keep people alive but rather as assistance to them. In this day and age people seem to spend their money as they make it, and when they grow old and are not able to work they fall back on the mercy of the government. I do not know what we are going to do about this situation because it involves circumstances over which we have no control.
I want to speak for a moment about the Canada pension plan. As hon. members know, a Canada pension plan is to be brought forward. We have been trying for some time to have it introduced into the house but up to now we have not been very successful. The other day I was reminiscing in my office and I composed a little poem. I am sure the minister will not object to my reading it because it contains nothing detrimental to her.
Judy tried as best she could
With a pension plan she understood.
But when Pearson and Gordon got through with her script
Poor Judy's plan started to slip.
They mauled it around from pillar to post
'Til there's nothing left but a ghastly ghost.
They're on their fourth translated test
And it seems to me even worse than the rest.
The only hope I see for success
Is let the opposition bring in a test.

Supply-Health and Welfare
They've been a wonderful help in the past
And there isn't a doubt their plan would last.
I am only trying to help the minister. I always like to help ministers because I find that when I am in the opposition it is much better to try to get along with the ministers than to quarrel with them, and you get more satisfaction that way. Having nothing more to say I will be glad to sit down if there is another speaker to take up the time of the house from now until 10.30.


Mr. Slogan:: Mr. Chairman, I hope I may be allowed a moment of jubilation at this time, as was the hon. member for Hamilton South when he informed the house that their party had been conceded victory in Toronto Riverdale, because I understand our party has been conceded victory in Windsor Sandwich, my birthplace.


Mr. Baldwin:: That is good for the health of the nation.


Joseph Slogan: The only question at this time, of course, is where is the Liberal party headed, because they are the only ones who seem to have lost out.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I suggest that the hon. member revert to the business under consideration.


Joseph Slogan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I was referring, of course, to the health of the Liberal party. I should like to congratulate the minister and all members of her staff. I congratulate the minister because I think she did a much better job in presenting her estimates today than she did in presenting her first version of the Canada pension plan. I suppose this only goes to show that one matures in office and that the minister and others on the front benches across the way perhaps realize now that they have no divine right to rule and that probably a bit of diplomacy is better than the tactics they followed in the past.
I should also like to congratulate the minister on the fact that she will be occupying new quarters shortly. I suppose we might refer to her as the penthouse queen because I understand she will be occupying the penthouse in this wonderful new building with a view of both Ontario and Quebec. Added to the fact that she already drives a Thunder-bird, this is certainly a sign of affluence.
I do not want to say very much about the many items in these estimates. I associate myself with previous speakers who have spoken on specific subjects such as mental retardation, the aged, and physical fitness
[Mr. Cardiff.1
and sports. I am sure both the minister and I should lend our support to the physical fitness program because we are good examples of poor physical fitness. I should like to congratulate my confrere, the hon. member for Kamloops, on his speech regarding research grants in medicine.
I should like to say a word about the food and drugs committee of which I have been a member. I think the committee is doing valuable work and in my view Dr. Morrell and his staff are doing a wonderful job under somewhat trying circumstances. I hope the minister will pay heed to the recommendations which the committee will make with regard to increasing his staff and having to do with the conditions under which they work. As a personal observation I would say that although the food and drug directorate is doing a very good job, it seems to me their efforts are not as widespread as they might be and are not reaching those who could have a direct effect on the economics of prescription drugs. I refer to the individual doctor, dentist, veterinarian or druggist. To this end I have suggested in the committee that some improvements in the labelling and grading of drugs be made and I hope these suggestions will be reflected in the committee's report and that the minister will take some action on them.
I was one of those who supported youth allowances. I understand that some parents are under the impression that the cheques will be sent directly to the children. I would ask the minister to make clear to the house exactly what the mechanics of the administration of youth allowances will be and whether the amounts payable will become part of the family allowance cheques or whether separate cheques will be sent to the young people individually. It seems to me that if these cheques are sent to the young people individually the administration of the allowances will cost a great deal more, and I certainly see no reason why they should be handled in this way.
I should also like to congratulate the northern health services officials. In the northern part of my riding we have a number of health clinics which provide health services to the Indians and the local people. We also have two new hospitals in my riding. One is the fine new hospital at the new Whiteshell atomic energy research centre in Manitoba and the other is the new wing of the hospital at Pine Falls, built at a cost of half a million dollars. It is interesting that in this new wing Indian health services are being integrated with the general hospital

facilities in the community. I am proud to say that the people in the Pine Falls community have accepted this integration and perhaps this is a good portent for success in the future.
I want to congratulate the minister on her stand against smoking. As a member of the dental profession who has to clean people's teeth I want to wish her every success in this campaign against smoking. I might mention that at the recent convention of the Canadian dental association the minister's stand against smoking was endorsed and, as I say, we wish her every success in this undertaking.
My main purpose in speaking tonight, and I make no apology for it, is to bring to the attention of the house and the government some factors relating to dentistry as they apply to the federal government and the people of Canada. I make no apology for this because I did not hear anything in the minister's introductory remark about this subject, nor have I heard any of the various speakers mention the subject in discussing these estimates. I think the importance of dentistry to the community at large might be better appreciated if people realized that approximately 33 per cent of the amount of money spent on health services in Canada is spent on dental services. The latest figures which
1	have are for the year 1962 and they indicate that Canadians spent for these services some $395.2 million, and for dental services $132.4 million. This is a very significant sum of money. I mention it, Mr. Chairman, only because I want to relate this sum of money which, as I say, amounts to something like 33 per cent of the amount spent for health care services by the Canadian people to the amount of money allocated by the department to dental health programs and dental research.
I should like to say that only about 1 or
2	per cent of the amount of money allocated by the federal government under national health grants allocated to dental research. It seems to me that this is a negligible amount. In fact, in the last three years this amount has been decreasing. The percentage of money allocated for dental research as related to the expenditures on all health research in 1961-62 amounted to 1.79 per cent; in 1962-63, 1.42 per cent; 196364, 1.14 per cent. In the last three years, therefore, it can be seen there has been a steady decline in the relative amount of money that has been allocated by the federal government to dental research. The amount in dollars and cents was, in 1961-62, $67,911;
20220-497i
Supply-Health and Welfare 1962-63, $50,312; 1963-64, $48,009. We might compare this with the amount that was allocated in 1959-60 which was $164,264.
I note that the Canadian Dental Association has made representations to the minister in this matter, and I hope that before we leave the first item the minister will give us some indication of the action her department has taken toward alleviating the scarcity of funds for dental research. As I say, the Canadian dental association has made representations and I am sure the minister will realize it is urgent that this amount of money be increased. I should like to refer to the brief presented to the royal commission on health services by the Canadian dental association. In the introductory portion of the brief the association asserts, with regard to dental disease, that the unnecessary tragedy of dental diseases is one of Canada's greatest health problems. Dental diseases are largely preventive, yet they are virtually universal. Almost everyone needs dental care yet in any given year only one third of the population visits a dentist. At another point the brief states that, by their very nature, dental diseases defy defeat without widespread application of preventive medicine.
This brings me now to the fact that we need to spend a great deal more money on research in developing further preventive measures because we are dealing with a disease which is largely preventable. I am reminded of my second pet subject, that is fluoridation. Fluoridation, as a public health measure, is probably the least expensive that is practised in this country. I think it costs around 12 cents per year per person to fluoridate the water in any fair sized community. This is indeed a very small amount of money when we consider the amount of money I have already mentioned as being spent on dental health services in the country. This is one dental health preventive measure which I think should commend itself to the government. It is a field in which I feel the government should take leadership. As I said, dental diseases are largely preventable. Statistics have shown that among the children of dentists, dental caries are some 40 per cent to 50 per cent less than in the population as a whole. This I believe is attributable to better health knowledge and education. I feel that before the government rushes into medicare or rushes into the socialization of dentistry and medicine, they should assume responsibility in the fields where responsibility lies on their shoulders, that is in the field of dental education and medical education as well as the prevention field.

Supply-Health and Welfare
I feel that the federal government has been very remiss in this field. I believe that there is a great responsibility which they have failed to discharge. Before I conclude my remarks tomorrow I will show the government that it is incumbent upon them to assume a larger responsibility in this field.
May I call it 10.30 o'clock sir?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I was just wondering if it might be agreeable to the house if the hon. member were allowed to continue his remarks this evening? I think we would be pleased to continue with the estimates of this department and try to conclude them this evening if that is agreeable to other members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We do not mind sitting for a little while, certainly to hear the rest of the
hon. member's speech. However, there are some other members who wish to speak on this first item.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the house leader about the business for tomorrow.


Guy Favreau: Tomorrow we intend to complete the discussion of the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare after which we will take up the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, to be followed by those of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
At 10.33 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
A copy of letter sent to all provinces except Quebec.
Ottawa, August 15, 1964.
My dear Premier:
I refer to the discussions on contracting-out arrangements for conditional grant and shared cost programs which took place in Ottawa on June 8 and 9. These discussions were, as you know, initiated at the request of the Quebec government, pursuant to the decision of the federal-provincial conference held in Quebec city from March 31 to April 2, 1964.
At the June meeting, our representatives sought to find an approach which would fulfil two conditions: first, it would be equally available to all provinces; and second, it would not interfere with provinces maintaining the existing arrangements for conditional grant and shared cost programs.
I should now like to review with you the conclusions we have reached subsequent to these consultations. I believe that these provide a satisfactory basis for the agreement which it is proposed to make with the Quebec government. We are prepared to make an arrangement on a similar basis with any province which so wishes.
It has been mutually agreed that it would be desirable to provide initially for an interim or transitional arrangement. Under such an interim arrangement, the province would maintain its present obligations in respect of programs which would be eligible for contracting-out. It would, in particular, continue to provide the services envisaged in them and to furnish to the federal government an accounting of the expenditures incurred under the programs. On the other hand, the federal contribution would, depending on the nature and size of each program, take the form either of equalized personal income tax abatements subject to adjustments, or of cash payments. The length of the interim period would vary depending also on the circumstances of each program. More permanent contracting-out arrangements would be the subject of further negotiations at the appropriate time, taking into account, among other factors, the experience acquired during the interim period and such recommendations as the tax structure committee might formulate
in the meantime on the subject of conditional grant and shared cost programs. Such arrangements might well prove to be part of a new approach to fiscal arrangements commencing in 1967.
The programs which it is proposed should be eligible for contracting-out fall into two categories. The first includes continuing programs which are concerned primarily with social objectives. Excluded from this category are programs involving non-recurring projects, such as capital, research and demonstration projects. The second category includes a group of programs which are expected to be of limited duration.
It has been recognized from the beginning that the contracting-out arrangements that might be agreed between the federal and Quebec governments should be such as to be readily applicable to any province that might wish to avail itself of them. It was agreed furthermore that a contracting-out province would, during the interim period and subsequently, continue to participate in federal-provincial bodies and meetings established for the purposes of consultation and co-ordination in fields of activity where contracting-out would apply.
As regards the compensation, it was established that it would, normally, take the form of equalized personal income tax abatements in the case of well established programs which could be expected to continue indefinitely, and the form of cash payments in the case of smaller programs which might not be expected to continue indefinitely.
More specifically, it is proposed that:
A.	Among the programs to which contracting-out would not apply are the following:
1.	Capital programs:	(a) Trans-Canada
highway; (b) Railway grade crossing; (c) Vocational training, capital assistance; (d) ARDA; (e) Municipal winter works.
2.	Current programs: (a) Grants to 4-H clubs; (b) Grants to special fairs; (c) compensation for animal disease losses; (d) crop insurance; (e) Farm labour agreement; (f) Health grants (research and demonstration projects; (g) Public health research grant; (h) Training of unemployed; (i) Training in
[Stage Direction]
co-operation with industry; (j) Fisheries industries development.
3.	Emergency measures.
4.	Centennial of confederation.
B.	The following continuing programs, which involve primarily social objectives, would be suitable for contracting-out in return for a total compensation as indicated in the form of abatement of the federal income tax by a specified percentage, together with equalization to equate the yield of each percentage point to the average of the two provinces where it is highest. If programs involving a single abatement point were the only ones to which contracting-out applied, compensation could take the form of a lump sum payment. In all cases the compensation would be subject to adjustments to bring the compensation to equal actual audited expenditures, and on the understanding that all the other conditions of the program would be maintained during the interim period:
(a)	Hospital insurance: interim period until December 31, 1970; compensation to amount to 14 points;
(b)	Old age assistance, blind persons allowances, disabled persons allowances, unemployment assistance; compensation for the three categorical welfare programs to amount to 2 points; the "base load" or welfare portion of unemployment assistance to be represented by an equalized abatement of 2 points on personal income tax, and remaining or unemployment portion to continue on present basis; length of the interim period for four welfare programs to be governed by the timing of the establishment by the federal government of an integrated program of public assistance and, in any event, not to go beyond March 31, 1970;
(c)	Vocational training: Student aid, vocational high school training, technician training, trade and occupational training (except those elements of the program which are agreed to be concerned with members of the labour force receiving further training), training of disabled, correspondence courses, training of technical teachers; interim period until March 31, 1967; compensation to amount to 1 point;
(d)	Health grants (excluding research and
demonstration projects):	general public
health, tuberculosis control, mental health, professional training, cancer control, medical rehabilitation and crippled children, child and maternal health, disability advisory services, Blind pensioners treatment; interim period until March 31, 1967; compensation to amount to 1 point.
C.	The following programs would be suita-able for contracting-out for cash compensation on the understanding that a contracting-out province would agree to continue to carry on a program of this nature during the interim period, and that the federal government would reserve the right to terminate the program in respect of which contracting-out is arranged at the expiration of the interim period:
(a)	Agricultural lime assistance (March 31, 1967); (b) Premium on pure bred sires (March 31, 1967); (c) Forestry agreements (March 31,
1967)	; (d) Hospital construction (March 31,
1968)	; (e) Campgrounds and picnic areas (March 31, 1967); (f) Roads to resources (Payment of remaining entitlement under the program.
It is the intention of the federal government to introduce legislation to implement the above proposals as early as possible after the resumption of parliament in the autumn of this year. If your government has in mind the conclusion of arrangements along the lines we expect to be entering into with Quebec, I should appreciate it if you could let me know at your earliest convenience.
In developing these proposals, Mr. Premier, my colleagues and I have sought to find a formula which will meet, as far as possible, the various views which were expressed at the federal-provincial conference last March. For a province which wishes, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to contract-out of all of the continuing programs I have referred to above one alternative is provided. For the province which wishes to receive lump sum payments for certain specific programs another alternative is provided. By means of this approach we hope a formula has been developed, to prevail during the period that our tax structure committee is at work, which is responsive to the necessities of Canadian federalism today and which, at the same time, will give the tax structure committee the maximum scope for its deliberations about longer-term arrangements.
Yours sincerely,

[Stage Direction]
A copy of letter sent to Quebec.
Ottawa, August 15, 1964.
The Honourable Jean Lesage, P.C., M.L.A.,
Prime Minister of Quebec,
Quebec, P.Q.
My dear Prime Minister:
I refer to the discussions on contracting-out arrangements for conditional grant and

shared cost programs which took place in Ottawa on June 8 and 9, 1964, pursuant to the decision of the federal-provincial conference held in Quebec city from March 31 to April 2, 1964. I should like now to review with you the conclusions which emerged from these discussions in respect of the programs in which Quebec is at present participating. These conclusions are acceptable to me and my colleagues, and I submit them to you for your consideration and concurrence.
Our two governments are agreed, I believe, that it would be desirable to provide initially for an interim or transitional arrangement. Under such an interim arrangement, the province would maintain its present obligations in respect of programs which would be eligible for contracting-out. It would, in particular, continue to provide the services envisaged in them and to furnish to the federal government an accounting of the expenditures incurred under the programs. On the other hand, the federal contribution would, depending on the nature and size of each program, take the form either of equalized personal income tax abatements, subject to adjustments, or of cash payments. The length of the interim period would vary depending also on the circumstances of each program. More permanent contracting-out arrangements would be the subject of further negotiations at the appropriate time, taking into account, among other factors, the experience acquired during the interim period and such recommendations as the tax structure committee might formulate in the meantime on the subject of conditional grant and shared cost programmes. Such arrangements might well prove to be part of a new approach to fiscal arrangements commencing in 1967.
The programs which the representatives of our two governments agreed would be eligible for contracting-out fall into two categories, it seems to me. The first includes continuing programs which are concerned primarily with social objectives. Excluded from this category are programs involving non-recurring projects, such as capital, research, and demonstration projects. The second category includes a group of programs which are expected to be of limited duration.
It has been recognized from the beginning that the contracting-out arrangements that might be agreed between the federal and Quebec governments should be such as to be readily applicable to any province that might wish to avail itself of them. It was agreed furthermore that a contracting-out province
would, during the interim period and subsequently, continue to participate in federal-provincial bodies and meetings established for the purposes of consultation and co-ordination in fields of activity where contracting-out would apply.
As regards the compensation, it was established that it would normally take the form of equalized personal income tax abatements in the case of well established programs which could be expected to continue indefinitely, and the form of cash payments in the case of smaller programs which might not be expected to continue indefinitely.
More specifically, it is proposed that:
A.	Among the programs to which contracting-out would not apply are the following:
1.	Capital programs: (a) Trans-Canada highway; (b) Railway grade crossing; (c) Vocational training, capital assistance; (d) ARDA;
(e)	Municipal winter works.
2.	Current programs: (a) Grants to 4-H clubs; (b) Grants to special fairs; (c) Compensation for animal diseases losses; (d) Crop insurance; (e) Farm labour agreement; (f) Health grants (research and demonstration projects); (g) Public health research grant; (h) Training of unemployed; (i) Training in co-operation with industry; (j) Fisheries industries development.
3.	Emergency measures.
4.	Centennial of confederation.
B.	The following continuing programs, which involve primarily social objectives, would be suitable for contracting-out in return for compensation as indicated in the form of abatement of the federal income tax by a specified percentage, together with equalization to equate the yield of each percentage point to the average of the two provinces where it is highest. If programs involving a single abatement point were the only ones to which contracting-out applied, compensation could take the form of a lump sum payment. In all cases the compensation would be subject to adjustments to bring the compensation to equal actual audited expenditures, and on the understanding that all the other conditions of the programs would be maintained during the interim period:
(a)	Hospital insurance: interim period until December 31, 1970; compensation to amount to 14 points;
(b)	Old age assistance, blind persons allowances, disabled persons allowances, unemployment assistance: compensation for the
[Stage Direction]
three categorical welfare programs to amount to 2 points; the "base load" or welfare portion of unemployment assistance to be represented by an equalized abatement of 2 points on personal income tax, and remaining or unemployment portion to continue on present basis; length of the interim period for four welfare programs to be governed by the timing of the establishment by the federal government of an integrated program of public assistance and, in any event, not to go beyond March 31, 1970;
(c)	Vocational training: student aid, vocational high school training, technician training, trade and occupational training (except those elements of the program which are agreed to be concerned with members of the labour force receiving further training), training of disabled, correspondence courses, training of technical teachers: interim period until March 31, 1967; compensation to amount to 1 point;
(d)	Health grants (excluding research and
demonstration projects):	General public
health, tuberculosis control, mental health, professional training, cancer control, medical rehabilitation and crippled children, child and maternal health, disability advisory services, blind pensioners treatment: interim period until March 31, 1967; compensation to amount to 1 point.
C.	The following programs would be suitable for contracting-out for cash compensation on the understanding that the province would agree to continue to carry on a program of this nature during the interim period, and that the federal government would reserve the right to terminate the program in respect of which contracting-out is arranged at the expiration of the interim period:
(a) Agricultural lime assistance (March 31, 1967) (b) Premium on pure bred sires (March
31, 1967) (c) Forestry agreements (March 31,
1967)	(d) Hospital construction (March 31,
1968)	(e) Camp grounds and picnic areas (March 31, 1967) (f) Roads to resources (payment of remaining entitlement under the program).
It is the intention of the federal government to introduce legislation to implement the above proposals as early as possible after the resumption of parliament in the autumn of this year. I should therefore be grateful if you would confirm your concurrence in them at your earliest convenience. It would be the intention of the government in the legislation both to authorize the interim agreement and to make the necessary changes in the income tax acts.
May I say, Mr. Prime Minister, that in discussing the above proposals with your representatives, we have sought to find a formula which will meet, as far as possible, the various views which were expressed at the federal-provincial conference last March. As a result of our discussions, it will be possible for a province which wishes, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to contract-out of all of the continuing programs I have referred to above. For the province which wishes to receive lump sum payments for only a limited number of programs another alternative is provided.
We trust that the formula we have developed, to prevail during the period which our tax structure committee is at work, will be found to be responsive to the necessities of Canadian federalism today and will, at the same time, give the tax structure committee the maximum scope for its deliberations concerning longer-term arrangements.
Yours sincerely,

[Stage Direction]
Friday, September 11, 1964