1966-11-17

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
23033-632£
Rogeb Duhamel, f.h.s.c. queen's printer and controller of stationery OTTAWA, 1967
[Stage Direction]
Thursday. November 17, 1966

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (C) for the financial year ending March 31, 1967, was presented by Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but before doing so I want to extend a welcome to him on his return.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: Apparently no solution was found during his recent discussion, but I should like to ask the hon. minister whether he brought the issue in relation to the selfdetermination of the captive east European nations to the attention of the Soviet authorities and, if so, will he indicate their reaction?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I expect some time during the course of today

perhaps this afternoon-that my estimates will be before the committee for consideration. At that time I will have the opportunity of making a statement in relation to my visit.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister indicate whether this matter was considered during his recent discussions with the Soviet authorities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the answer to that question will be apparent in the statement I propose to make when my estimates come before the committee.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue in his capacity as President of the Treasury Board.
In view of the statement made by the president of the postal workers union and the president of the letter carriers union, to the effect that in their negotiations with the government there was the implied threat that special legislation would be passed to compel them to go back to work, I want to ask the minister whether he or any member of his staff carrying on negotiations for the government sought to intimidate the representatives of these unions by threatening that legislation would be passed; and if such intimidation was carried out, is this the government's idea of free collective bargaining?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member has asked this particular question, because I listened to Mr. Decarie and Mr. Houle last evening on television and heard this statement. I can assure the hon. member that no such threat was ever advanced either by myself or any member of the negotiating team that was dealing with the postal workers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister was not present at all the negotiations-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -I wonder whether he would be prepared to get in touch with the representative of the union who made the statement on C.B.C. television last night and ask him whether any person made such a threat, in order that the minister himself may be absolutely sure that no one connected with the government's negotiating team implied such a threat.


Edgar John Benson: I have already been in contact with my negotiating team in this regard and
COMMONS DEBATES	November 17, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry am assured that this is not the case. However, I would consider getting in touch with Mr. Decarie, who in his television statement of last night did not say that the government issued this kind of threat at all. I think this should be carefully noted.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the question put by the leader of the New Democratic Party I should like to ask the Minister of Labour the present position and condition in reference to the Air Canada strike. Has a mediator been appointed; are the government going to appoint a federal mediator, or are they just going to allow this matter to lie dormant, in spite of the emergency?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the members of the bargaining committee for the employees of Air Canada have been communicating with their local groups with a view to ascertaining their views. As I said yesterday, if either of the parties were to approach the government the matter will be given prompt consideration, but for the government to intervene when these people are still exchanging views would be, I think, the wrong thing to do at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. Do I take it from the reply of the Minister of Labour that the government's position is that they are going to wait until they are approached by either side before taking any steps?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: For the time being, Mr. Speaker. We are still waiting for reports or requests for assistance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that both the president of the machinists union and the general manager of Air Canada indicated on C.B.C.-TV that they would be quite prepared to have the federal government initiate mediation by the appointment of a mediator; and in view of the fact that public interest is certainly affected in this matter, may I ask the minister why the government does not take the initiative and appoint a government mediator?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I gave the reasons for our position yesterday. It is quite true that one of the parties might be anxious to have the government intervene by appointing a mediator, but, until the situation which has developed within the last few days as a result of the exchange of correspondence, about which I am sure most hon. members have heard, has resolved itself, I think it would be better for matters to settle down a little and for the government to get a direct request for intervention from one or the other, or preferably from both parties before it decides to intervene.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask him whether he has been requested by either side in the dispute to stay out of the field of mediation at this time?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have had no such direct request. I have seen or heard reference to it in the news media, but no such request has been directed to me.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In fairness to the union concerned I think this matter should be cleared up. Is the minister in a position to give us any information on reports that have appeared in the press, which I must say I find hard to accept, that the union has given notice that if any other air lines are granted temporary authority by the Air Transport Board to give service on routes normally served by Air Canada and which at the present time are discontinued, the union will picket and make it impossible for this service to be given? This is the report that has appeared in the press, and I think that in fairness the matter should be cleared up. I wonder whether the minister is in a position give us any information in this regard.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: will have to refer this question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: As a matter of fact, one telegram was sent to the chairman of the Air Transport Board and another to the Prime Minister, by the head of the union. I have received a
November 17, 1966

report on this matter jointly from my department and the Air Transport Board. I have just drafted a letter which I am about to send to the head of the union to explain precisely what the situation is. If I could explain it in a word, Mr. Speaker, it is that the Air Transport Board has not granted-indeed, if I could have the indulgence of the house, as an answer to the question I think it would be much better if I read this memorandum so that hon. members would know what the situation is.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us have it.


Mr. Churchill:: Why did you not do it on motions? How long is it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is about a page long. The hon. member for Bow River said that he regards this matter as one of national emergency, and I think we all regard it as a matter of great importance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Therefore I do hope, sir, that I have the indulgence of the house to read this memorandum, rather than attempting to paraphrase it. I understood that the house gave their indulgence.


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope I have that indulgence, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-and I am agreeable that the minister should read this very important report -but I wonder whether Mr. Speaker would take note of the time so consumed and add it to the end of the question period. We should be given credit for the time taken by the minister to read this memorandum.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope this will not be necessary and that questions will be ended much before the 40 minutes allotted have expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would probably have taken longer otherwise, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Nielsen:: Read it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a memorandum to the minister:
Charter Air Carrier Services on Air Canada Routes.
With regard to the telegram addressed to the Prime Minister by the general vice president of the
Inquiries of the Ministry
International Association of Machinists dealing with the operations of charter air carriers over Air Canada routes, the facts are as follows.
No special government authorization and no new Air Transport Board licence or Department of Transport operating certificates have been issued for these flights since none were required. The flights are being performed under the authorization of existing licences and operating certificates which the charter carriers held as a result of applications and hearing by the Air Transport Board in past years.
These carriers are entitled to perform point-to-point charter services in accordance with the terms of their licences and operating certificates. A policy rule of the Air Transport Board provides that they may not make flights over routes which are being served by regular scheduled flights of another carrier and, under normal circumstances, this meant that they could not fly over the routes served by Air Canada.
However, the grounding of the Air Canada services as a result of the strike made this rule inapplicable.
May I interject at this point to emphasize that this was just a rule of the board and not part of the law.
It thus became possible for the charter carriers to fly between points served by Air Canada since the rule only applies in cases where services are actually being provided by the scheduled carrier.
The only change in the situation is the fact that the Air Transport Board has allowed these carriers, in accordance with the terms of their licences, to use tariffs covering unit as well as bulk charter rates. To stop them from performing the flights they are now carrying out would have meant intervention by the Air Transport Board or the Department of Transport to take away from the carriers licences and rights which they have held for a long time.
Both the Air Transport Board and the Department of Transport are keeping the situation under careful review to ensure that flights performed are carried on in accordance with the licences and operating certificates which have been issued.
This is signed by J. R. Belcher, Acting Chairman of the Air Transport Board, and J. R. Baldwin, Deputy Minister of Transport.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister whether he or his colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), could clear up the question which arises from reports which indicate that the union will picket, if these chartered carriers extend their flights into areas otherwise served by Air Canada. As I say, I find this hard to credit. Can either minister give us information bearing on that question? Are these services actually being picketed or has this only been threatened?

November 17, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, of course that is not a matter which would be within my knowledge as Minister of Transport. I question whether it is a matter which, under the usual terms of questions in the house, would be within the knowledge of the government. However, it may be that the Minister of Labour can throw some light on it.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I made inquiries just before coming to the house as to whether there were any new developments, but was informed there were none. However, I will take the hon. member's question as notice.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is there any impediment to the operation of aircraft in and out of Ottawa under the regulations laid down in the letter, and if so, are any of the aeroplanes operating in and out of Ottawa?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, that question is of such a general nature-and of course it relates to a legal situation-that I cannot attempt to answer it without obtaining advice from someone more competent than I would be to give legal opinions. If the hon. gentleman has any specific situation in mind I will be glad to refer it to the Air Transport Board.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, are there any such flights operating in and out of Ottawa?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this is a factual question which I cannot answer either.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question with reference to the statement of the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether he could clarify one point for me. In the case were C.P.A. does not have landing rights for which it has applied such as applies in Calgary, is it the intention of the Air Transport Board to allow C.P.A. with the approval of the minister to operate in those areas where at present there is no service whatsoever owing to the present strike?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It may be that the question is in order, though the minister would be in a better position than I to judge; it does sound technical.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, it is not technical.


Mr. Speaker:: Then if it is not, the minister is in a better position to judge and I would

have no objection to the question being answered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I got the purport of the hon. gentleman's question correctly, and I think I did, my understanding would be that if Canadian Pacific Airlines have any existing licence which would permit them to serve these places, under the terms of the document I read they would be able to do so.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. During his visit to Rome, did he discuss, with His Holiness Paul VI, the possibility for Canada to have a permanent representative to the Vatican?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the hon. minister intend to recommend that a permanent Canadian representative be appointed to the Vatican?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that question was put just a moment ago.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I believe this question to be entirely different from the one asked by the hon. member for Chapleau.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already answered that question, not only today, but also a few months ago.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the report the other day to the effect that an announcement regarding the restructuring of the radio operators class would be made in a
November 17, 1966

lew days, can the minister advise us now when we can expect that report?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, I did not precisely understand the purport of the hon. gentleman's question.


Alexander Bell Patterson: An item which appeared in the paper a couple of days ago indicated that a report would be made very soon in regard to the restructuring of the radio operators class, and I was wondering whether we could anticipate that report very shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question does not appear to be of national urgency, and I suggest it might be placed on the order paper.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whose absence has distressed me for a number of days. I am holding in my hand a press release which is marked for immediate release, dated at Ottawa, November 17, 1966, the heading to which is: "Text of the statement by Hon. Paul Martin, Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the House of Commons reporting on his European tour, November 4-16, 1966."
I have been following the proceedings very carefully since 2.30 but I have not yet heard this statement made. Is there some error in the proceedings?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, while I was away I thought of my hon. friend, I can assure him. I will have to look into this.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is action now being taken to follow up the national conference on pollution by having discussions at the ministerial level?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, but I am quite sure that this will come soon.
Inquiries of the Ministry OLD AGE SECURITY



INCREASED TAXATION TO COMPENSATE FOR HIGHER PENSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Yes, Mr. Speaker.']
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and it is based on information given yesterday in answer to a starred question of mine concerning the surplus of revenues collected for old age pensioners as against the amounts paid out. In view of this information, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government will reconsider its announced intention of increasing taxation to pay for the proposed increase in the old age pension?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, we will not reconsider our intention or our decision to introduce a baby budget in this session, which among other things will have to take care of certain additional expenditures which will be required, if the house authorizes those expenditures.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to welcome back the Secretary of State for External Affairs by putting a question to him.
In view of the forthcoming establishment of a Canadian cultural institute in Italy, can the minister assure the house that the Canadian government will take advantage of this opportunity to illustrate in that country, and in the resulting general agreement, the bicultural character of Canada?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: My
question is for the Minister of Finance. As the fall session has approximately four weeks remaining, has the minister decided on what date to present the baby budget to the house?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker. As I said in answer to a similar question the other day, much depends on the time taken by the house with legislation having to do with the increase in old age pensions.

November 17, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL CANADIAN MINT



CIRCULATION OF GOLD COIN IN UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: While I am on my feet may I answer a question put to me the other day by the hon. member for Skeena, who asked whether I would consider having the $20 gold coin to be produced next year by the mint made as a so-called proof coin, so that it might be allowed entry into the United States. We addressed a question on this subject to the United States authorities who gave us this opinion:
Since the Canadian $20 gold coins will be struck for sale to collectors only and not intended for circulation, they will not be considered to be of exceptional numismatic value within the meaning of Section 54.20(d) of the Treasury Department Gold Regulations and will not be admissible for importation into the United States.
I am advised that the position would be no different if the gold coins were what the coin trade describes as proof coins.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I mentioned to the hon. member for Lisgar that I would make a report to him on the Mennonite cases in Manitoba to which he referred. I have received a preliminary report and investigation is being carried on. I hope to receive the complete report shortly, and I will answer the question at that time.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister is considering his final report will he tell the house whether these immigrants in question have complied with the Canadian health regulations for crossing borders into Canada?


Jean Marchand: We are inquiring into this, as well as the immigration aspects of the case, Mr. Speaker.



HIRING OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it a fact that the minister's department has launched a program to hire 500 university graduates?


Jean Marchand: Not that I am aware of.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General of Canada, but in his absence, could I direct it to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and ask him whether he or the cabinet have received a report on the search made by the R.C.M.P. in the home of a Mr. Denoncourt of Longueuil, during which political records and documents of a political party were seized?



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister's attention been called to reports from Washington, regarding the Federal Power Commission's demand of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company for substantiating evidence to show that the document that company presented to the F.P.C. is an authentic copy of the letter tabled by the minister. Has the minister been in communication with the F.P.C. over this question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The copy of the letter in question unfortunately did not include a letterhead. A new copy of the original document, has been sent to the Federal Power Commission by the company.


Colin Cameron: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister been requested to supply copies of the two other letters mentioned in the first letter which the Federal Power Commission is now demanding as substantiating evidence?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yesterday the government
agreed to table all correspondence on this
November 17, 1966

subject in the House of Commons. I understand that, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company will make copies of this correspondence available to the Federal Power Commission.


Mr, T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the documents tabled by the minister include the two letters of September 15 and 19 which were requested by the F.P.C.?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We would not be tabling all correspondence if we did not include those two letters.



REINTRODUCTION OF PRODUCTION EXPORT TARGETS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: My
question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the government consider reintroducing production export targets in the national oil policy, in view of the success such targets had in increasing production and exports of oil when they were first introduced?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think the press has reported recently the great amount of work being done with respect to our exports to the United States. The results will be announced in due course.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport relating to the meeting held, I understand, at Dorval airport yesterday between officials of his department and representatives concerned with shipping, the manning of ships, and safety matters related to ships. In light of the declaration by the department that technological changes might reduce the number of men available to man ships to the point where safety considerations come into play, can the minister report the results of that meeting, and what is to be done about the question of manning?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir. I could not give any useful report, because since this meeting was held,
I was engaged in the transport committee with legislation that the house referred there.
I shall make inquiries and endeavour to put 23033-633*

Inquiries of the Ministry myself in a position of being able to reply at an early date.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the continuing complaints of delays in cream subsidy payments, and latterly in sugar beet subsidy payments, which delays allegedly are caused by imperfect data processing machinery, has the minister considered ways and means of processing these payments so that they will not always be late?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: With respect to the cream payments we are attempting to improve procedures, and I hope that cheques will go out more quickly than every three months, as is happening now. The 1965 sugar beet crop payment is now under immediate consideration. There was a change in the method of calculating world sugar prices on the London exchange, on which our payments were based. We hope that these payments can go out within two or three weeks. We are considering the possibility of updating the computer services, and we hope that there will be an improvement in the areas referred to.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not only talking about the time lags in paying the cream subsidies. Some cheques are already six months late. I would ask the minister if his department is considering changing the computer programming systems, so that the payments I have mentioned may be processed more quickly.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, my instructions are that the only areas in which payments are more than three months after delivery are those in which, either by inadvertence or misunderstanding, the plants did not make returns in time to the stabilization board.
You will appreciate that this is a new program and it may be that the factories need some help and direction. To that end we have tried to send representatives of the board to the factories which were late, in order to help them out with their records. I believe that these are merely teething pains with the new program, and it is my further belief that by the first of the year most of these will be cleared up.

November 17, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Is it true that the minister, as chairman of a ministerial committee, has received an address from the Quebec Liberal members at Ottawa concerning the grievances of the C.N.T.U. and the attitude of the C.L.R.B? As the problem is urgent, will the said committee, or the government, make its decision known on that subject shortly?


Mr. Speaker:: The question, as put by the hon. member, is not acceptable.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, could it be put in another form?


Mr. Speaker:: It would be rather difficult. It could be put in another way at ten o'clock.


Maurice Allard: Ten o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, could I rephrase the question so as to make it acceptable?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Sherbrooke has just told of his intention to raise the question on the adjournment motion.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the government house leader as to the work with which we will be proceeding today. Last Tuesday, November 15, was the last day the government announced the business for the consideration of the house. It was proposed that the estimates of the National Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Transport, in that order, would be considered by the house.	.
Last night no announcement was made as to what would be proceeded with today, so consequently we took it for granted on this side of the house that the order of business announced on November 15 would be followed. However, today, in answer to a question the Secretary of State for External

Affairs (Mr. Martin) intimated that he would be making a statement later this day. We have been prepared to deal with matters in the sequence in which they were announced last Tuesday, and it would be most unfair if that sequence were broken with something else.
If the minister wishes to have his estimates considered today and make a statement at that time, I believe those estimates should follow after the items which were called on November 15. We should proceed in that orderly fashion so that we can have a good debate when the time comes to consider his estimates.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry if there is any misunderstanding about this matter.


Michael Starr: It is down in Hansard in black and white.


George James McIlraith: I am of the opinion that I spoke with the house leader for the official opposition about this matter yesterday. I believe that following the return of the Secretary of State for External Affairs there was some discussion with the house leader of the official opposition, as well as with other house leaders, about the wisdom of having the minister's statement made, not on motions, but on the estimates of his department. The intimation was that we would call his estimates first in order to permit that to be done in a way that would be agreeable to all hon. members. It is now clear, however, that there are some who have misunderstood.


Mr. Herridge:: We don't know anything about it.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. I remember meeting the government house leader-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest that we hear the government house leader, and then perhaps there might be a point of order.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, if there is some misunderstanding about this, and I believe there is, then I am not prepared to be very assertive about the position. I would hope we could arrange some mutually agreeable point at which this could be done, because I would emphasize that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has returned from a rather important trip, and I think it would be desirable that his statement be put on record by some method at an early opportunity.
November 17, 1966	COMMONS
I would suggest that a better way to solve the problem is to have some discussions with the house leader for the official opposition, with others from that side of the house who would be discussing these estimates, and with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to see if we could get a mutually agreeable time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a suggestion; but may I preface my remarks by saying that when I drew attention to a press release issued by the Secretary of State for External Affairs I did not want to embarrass him, although I may have done so unintentionally. I much prefer to embarrass him intentionally. I suggest that we revert to motions to allow the minister to make his statement. I have already read it, and it is a good statement, considering its source. I shall limit my reply to five minutes, and if other hon. members agree to a similar limitation we will not be using up much of the time of the house. Then on a subsequent occasion we shall be able to have more time for a lengthy debate on external affairs.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I had intended on the estimates of my department to make the statement which I shall now make. Naturally, on the estimates, I had intended to go into certain phases of my report more extensively. However, I accept the suggestion made now, in view of what is alleged to be a misunderstanding as to the order of business for today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. Is there unanimous agreement that we revert to motions? This will be for the purpose of hearing a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, surely we could finish the question period first and revert to motions then.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we have concluded the question period? I believe there are only three or four minutes left of it. Is it agreed that after we have heard the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and comments on it, we shall go on to orders of the day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
DEBATES	9995
Report by External Affairs Minister
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house having reverted to the order for motions:
Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, on motions it is not the habit of the house to have anything but a brief statement and I hope that the statement I make, while it may be a little longer than one would normally make on motions, will not be so long as to transgress the practice we have observed in our procedures at this particular point.
I should like to take this opportunity to make a report to the house on the talks I had during my recent official visit to Poland, the Soviet Union, and to Italy. When in Rome I concluded my exchanges with a valuable talk with the Pope.
I may say how with expressions of thanks that in both Poland and in the Soviet Union I was cordially received, and I thank the governments of Poland, of the Soviet Union and of Italy for their invitations to make this visit.
The leaders in Poland and in the Soviet Union listened to the Canadian views I presented. I think we made progress on a number of bilateral matters. On some major international issues there was evidence of common interest. However, I would not want to hide the fact that there is still a considerable distance between us in many areas.
In all three countries while my most extensive discussions were with the foreign ministers, I also had an opportunity to meet and talk with many other leaders. In Poland I was taken by the foreign minister for a talk with the Prime Minister and later with the Chairman of the Council of State, President Ochab. In the Soviet Union I talked with President Podgorny, Prime Minister Kosygin, the First Deputy Prime Minister Mr. Polyansky, who was in Canada during last summer, and with General Secretary Brezhnev. Finally, in Italy I was able to exchange views with President Saragat, Prime Minister Moro and Deputy Prime Minister Nenni.
The Polish government is desirous of settling the long outstanding matter of the claims of certain Canadians arising out of post-war nationalization, and in the very near future we expect to enter into detailed negotiations to that end.
November 17, 1966
9996	COMMONS
Report by External Affairs Minister
We have agreed with the Soviet Union to enter into early negotiations for the conclusion of a comprehensive agreement on cultural, scientific and technical exchanges in order to ensure better reciprocity and to raise further the level of mutually beneficial exchanges between the two countries. We have also agreed on the opening of a Soviet Consulate General in Montreal to deal with the growing flow of trade and persons both ways. It was agreed that Canada has the right to open a comparable office in the U.S.S.R. whenever it wishes.
It is true, as news reports stated, that Mr. Gromyko raised with me the questions of the extradition of alleged "war criminals" and the so-called "anti-Soviet campaign" in Canada. I explained to him the Canadian law on the former subject, law designed to protect the individual against arbitrary action. On the latter, I made it clear that there was not and had not, as suggested, been any "anti-Soviet campaign" inspired or encouraged by the Canadian government. I pointed out that Canada is a free country and that the government is not in control of the news media.
I also urged Prime Minister Kosygin, on humanitarian grounds, to continue facilitating the movement of close relatives from the U.S.S.R. to Canada in order to assist the reunification of families. I have every hope that there will be an amelioration in the reunification of families as a result of what Mr. Kosygin said to me. I sought to impress on him how much this means to Canadians who come from that part of the world.
In Italy, needless to say my talks took place in the very easy and open atmosphere to which we have long been accustomed in our relations with Italy, our friend and ally. We were readily able to reach agreement on some bilateral matters, and in large measure we found ourselves in agreement on the international issues.
I was happy to explain to Italian government leaders the implications of the recent white paper in regard to immigration from Italy, and to assure them both of our great appreciation of the contribution made by the Italians who have already come to Canada and our hope and desire that the flow should continue. I signed with Mr. Fanfani, foreign affairs minister, an exchange of letters providing for the creation of a Canadian institute in Rome. This, and the cultural agreement on which we agreed to open negotiations soon, will help greatly to enhance cultural and academic exchanges between Canada and Italy.


In all three capitals, I held useful discussions on the current problems before the United Nations and on the efforts being made at the eighteen nation disarmament committee and elsewhere to achieve certain partial measures of disarmament as tangible steps toward our objective of general and complete disarmament. I do not of course, intend to report on the policy positions of the countries I visited with respect to these several questions. That is for them to do. But I did find everywhere a recognition of the importance of the further strengthening of the United Nations. I explained the Canadian stand on some of the current subjects before the organization, particularly our hope that this assembly will be able to come to some agreement on peace keeping. Mr. Gromyko raised with me his government's interest in the item of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries, and I assured him of our general agreement with this standard of international conduct, as well as our support for the principle of the self-determination of peoples.
The Polish and Soviet governments, I conclude, are anxious, as we and the Italians are, about the possible further proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world. There have been recent bilateral discussions between the United States and the U.S.S.R. on the subject of non-proliferation, and the Soviet side assured me that they are anxious to arrive at a treaty in this respect. I already know from my talks with Secretary of State Rusk that this continues to be the wish of the United States. If this were achieved, it would be a very important step which would undoubtedly contribute toward the reduction of tensions in Europe and other parts of the world.
I confirmed by my talk in Poland and the Soviet Union that there is in those countries a desire to work for a further detente in Europe and an improvement in the atmosphere there in order to create conditions for a satisfactory settlement of the outstanding European problems. I pointed out that as a NATO member this was very much the Canadian view.
In all of my discussions I made it clear that Canada continued to support the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and that it should not be concluded, because we were disposed to seek the best possible relations with all countries, including the two with whom I was first having discussions, that there was in any way a lessening of our interest in and of our support for the organization and the alliance.
November 17, 1966	COMMONS
It would not be realistic to expect an easing of the tensions quickly, but increasing contacts between east and west, such as the official visits which I have just made, will certainly help. I strongly believe that this is the desire of the countries I visited. I emphasized the Canadian conviction that our friend and ally, the Federal German Republic, was genuinely anxious to improve its relations with the eastern European countries and to make its contribution to the detente.
I know that hon. members will expect me to speak particularly about my discussions on Viet Nam. Let me make it quite clear that I took with me to Warsaw and Moscow no simple, magic formula to bring about an end to the war. This is an infinitely complicated situation. There is no magic formula, and I made that very clear to the people with whom I spoke. I put forward Canadian views repeatedly in great detail and I explained forcefully, on the basis of our very intimate knowledge of the United States and its policies, and on the basis of our abiding friendship for that country, why certain over-simplified suggestions which have been put forward from time to time for ending the war were not the most realistic way of moving toward a settlement, quite apart from the view one might hold as to the merits of the case. I refer, of course, to the proposal for a unilateral decision to stop the bombing of North Viet Nam unconditionally and for good, without any indication as to what the other side might do in return, to start toward de-escalation of the conflict or toward negotiations.
It was suggested that Canada might exert its influence, raise its voice, in order to bring about an end to the bombing. I pointed out that there was an obligation not only on Canada but on all countries to do all they could with those countries with which they have special relations, in an attempt to bring about at least a preliminary basis for negotiation.
I put forward in considerable detail to the Polish and Soviet leaders Canadian views on the possible future role of the Viet Nam Commission, and certain suggestions as to steps which might be taken to lead us away from a military and toward a political settlement.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Our views were listened to most carefully. I am sure that they will be studied attentively in Warsaw and Moscow, just as we will seriously study the positions they took, and I hope
DEBATES	9997
Report by External Affairs Minister that this in itself will be a modest contribution toward a solution. I cannot say that I detected the prospect of any immediate change in the views of these two communist powers whose interests are so deeply engaged in the Viet Nam question, but I am convinced that they are desirous of reaching a peaceful settlement, amongst other reasons for the beneficial effect this will have on east-west relations in general. Thus, despite very substantial differences between us, there seems to be some identity of view as to the desire to see the conflict brought to an end.
Our discussions were more detailed in respect of Viet Nam than any other subject. I outlined the Canadian government's objectives for the commission and our other efforts to secure peace. I listened to the reactions, particularly of the government of Poland to the Canadian views regarding the role of this commission.
This was my first visit to Poland and to the Soviet union. Even after this brief visit, I think the forces which help to shape the policies of their governments are more clearly discernible. I saw the reconstruction of the historic city of Warsaw, so hideously scarred by war. I saw ancient Krakow and the horror that was Auschwitz, now silent witness to the massacre of how many millions of Jewish people.
I saw Moscow, the vibrant capital of one of the two most powerful countries on earth. I saw Leningrad, that creation of Peter the Great, which lost almost a million of its inhabitants in 900 days of wartime siege. And had it not been for bad weather I would have seen Kiev, the historic capital of the Ukraine.
As I visited all these places and talked with their people, I further confirmed my assessment of what is taking place in eastern Europe-and there is certainly change afoot. My thoughts also turned instinctively to the hundreds of thousands of people in Canada of Polish descent, of Ukrainian and of Russian descent. I understood their love for the countries from which they and their ancestors came, and I understand better some of the sources of the great contributions which they have brought to Canada.
When the Archbishop of Canterbury came to Ottawa a few weeks ago I had the opportunity of discussing with him, as I have with other great religious leaders, the important role which can be played by these heads of vital bodies in the world. I felt I was honoured to be received in Rome by His Holiness the Pope, and was again impressed by his wise and
November 17, 1966

Report by External Affairs Minister compassionate understanding oi the troubles of the world as well as by his great spirit of ecumenism which has done so much to bring the Christian churches closer together. He commended the efforts of Canada to bring about peace. He was well briefed in respect of our efforts, and particularly in respect of what we have been trying to do through the Viet Nam commission. I told him that the leadership which he and other religious leaders were continuing to give to international collaboration met with warm support and appreciation in Canada. I can only say that I have the strongest hope that my talks with the Pope, as with the other leaders, will be shown to have yielded productive results.
When we reach a consideration of the estimates of my department I will be anxious to go into greater detail in respect of some matters, particularly the Viet Nam situation and the nonproliferation agreement expectancy. Let me say that I have appreciated from time to time the visits to Ottawa of foreign ministers from many governments, and I particularly appreciated the discussions I had with Mr. Rapacki, Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Fanfani and the members of the ministries in which they serve.
I thank the government of Poland, the government of the Soviet union and the government of Italy for the way in which the Canadian representative was received in those countries. No matter what our ideological differences may be I am sure that if we have determination,-all of us in this parliament and in every parliament in the world-we can promote conditions which will lead to lasting peace. That was the purpose of my visit. While I did not at any time expect that I would return with great solutions, I feel as strongly as I possibly can that the further understanding of some of these problems and positions resulting from my visits will have constructive consequences and will I hope help in an improvement of the international problems facing the world at this very difficult time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, under my self-imposed rule which limits me to five minutes, I cannot do justice to the speech of the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. As I listened to him I came to the conclusion that he was almost convincing himself. As an example of his attitude, I would suggest that he feels perhaps we can bring about peace in the world, and that is a fine objective.

Would it not have been wise when he visited Russia to have raised with the authorities there the problem brought to his attention on November 3 by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Ontario regarding the self-determination of captive countries. The minister on that occasion replied that he would think about this suggestion. The hon. member for Ontario suggested that the minister should speak his mind and ask the Soviet authorities to consider giving these people behind the iron curtain the right to self-determination.
The minister has not told us what he said in this regard or indicated what reaction may have been visible. He has told us of his instinctive feeling for the hundreds of thousands of people in Canada and Polish, Ukrainian and Russian descent, yet there is a gap in the information the minister has given us in this regard.
It is pleasant to have the minister back in the house again so that we can ask him questions and obtain answers in respect of these vitally important matters. We have been kept informed, almost twice daily, by the news media regarding the minister's trip overseas. I thought there were other international matters of greater importance, but we were kept informed of the minister's travels. I have wondered about the brashness of the minister in talking to the Polish and Soviet governments, as well as others, about the further proliferation of nuclear weapons at a time when Canada has not set an example to the world by getting rid of her nuclear weapons. This has been promised time and time again during the past three years.
There was a serious omission in this report in respect of the nuclear weapons situation in that China was not mentioned as a subject of discussion. This is particularly true in view of the Chinese advance in the production of nuclear weapons.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: We will discuss that on the estimates.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister will be able to give us a fuller account in this respect when we reach the estimates. We will be able to ask him questions, daily perhaps, on the estimates. Although I would like to deal more fully with the statement the minister made today, and give him the compliments which I think he would like to receive, I will conclude my remarks at this time and make preparation for a full debate on some future occasion.
November 17, 1986	COMMONS
I hope that it the time for the discussion of estimates runs out, the minister will arrange with the government house leader for a day or two days to be set aside for the discussion of one of the most serious problems in the world, that is, the subject of external affairs linked with the problems of defence. We should like to bring to the attention of the minister the problems of defence in Canada, because the prestige of Canada abroad, enhanced as it has been by the minister's visit, may have been diminished by the Minister of National Defence in this country.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join in welcoming the minister back. I am sure it is very useful for the minister, and indeed for Canada, for him to have the opportunity to speak to the foreign ministers of the U.S.S.R., Poland and Italy in their own countries. I am also glad that the minister was received by His Holiness the Pope, whose deep and practical concern for peace has impressed many people throughout the world, including many not within his own church.
I am glad to learn that we have agreed with the Soviet Union to enter into early negotiations for the conclusion of a comprehensive agreement on cultural, scientific and technical exchanges. We think this is useful, and welcome it. I am also very happy, because of the concern I have had in this respect, to notice that there is progress being made in connection with the reunification of families.
When making a brief statement of this sort, it is necessary to concentrate on essentials. There are one or two things I wish to take up with the minister in the hope that during the discussion of his estimates we may hear a little more about them. The minister said that he found in his trip a wide recognition of the need for further strengthening the United Nations. I ask the minister to tell this house as soon as possible what the government of Canada proposes to do, and what are the views of the U.S.S.R. and the other countries he visited, with regard to a major question affecting the strengthening of the United Nations. I refer to ending the isolation of the People's Republic of China, which question has already been referred to in debate in the house. It has been widely reported by the press that Canada is taking some initiative in this matter and is suggesting what is called a two-China policy. We have heard that this initiative has not met with widespread approval. I say to the minister, without enlarging on the subject, that we in this party have
DEBATES	9999
Report by External Affairs Minister serious doubts about that policy. It may well be that the nationalist regime in Taiwan should be recognized as being the government of that country; but I would have thought that to attempt any solution which recognized a two-China policy would be to fly in the face of the facts and the views of both regimes in question.
I wish to say a word or two about the minister's reference to discussions on Viet Nam. I ask the minister very directly if it is not the view of the people to whom he spoke, the government of the U.S.S.R., the government of Poland and perhaps the government of Italy as well, that an unconditional cessation of the bombing of North Viet Nam is a necessary preliminary to successful negotiations. The minister, in his statement, referred to certain unrealistic views. Are not these unrealistic views the views expressed by U Thant, the Secretary General of the United Nations? Are not these unrealistic views the views expressed by the governments of the countries which the minister visited and the governments with whom he spoke?
There was a news report in the Globe and Mail of November 16 to the effect that Canada may ask the United States to halt the Hanoi bombing. I should like to ask the minister whether this is proposed. Indeed, I would urge him to do it, but not in the terms used in this report-I nearly used an uncomplimentary adjective, but that would be unseemly at this time-which refers to the unrealistic proposals that have been made from time to time. I ask the minister if it is not realistic to say that until the bombing of North Viet Nam ceases there is unlikely to be any fruitful negotiation whatsoever. I urge the minister to put the full weight of Canada unequivocally behind that view.
Lastly, Mr. Minister, as so often happens when we Canadians are discussing our visits elsewhere, the minister says-and I have no doubt it is true-that he had ample evidence of the high regard in which our country and people are held. I believe that is true, but I say that I do not think this high regard will be maintained unless we speak more clearly on some of the basic issues of the day, such as those I have mentioned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: They are, our position vis-a-vis the People's Republic of China; our position vis-a-vis what is necessary to end the war in Viet Nam; our view as to necessary changes
10000	COMMONS
Report by External Affairs Minister in NATO. I believe that the high regard in which we are held at this time will be enhanced if we adopt a new, clearer style in our utterances in connection with these matters. Quiet diplomacy has its place, and no doubt Canada has contributed much in its policy of quiet diplomacy. However, I suggest that the condition of the world today requires a more open form of diplomacy, a diplomacy of frank, clear and open statements on the principles involved in some of these basic issues.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, 1 only want to add a few words to what has already been said concerning the trip made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) to certain countries.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs is surely aware that we do understand the importance of his trip, and I think that the fact that he started his journey by visiting communist countries, which I would place at one end of the scale, and ended it at the Holy See, at the other end of the scale gives us much hope because he was able to get firsthand nowledge of views which are, I think, miles apart as far as the conduct of world affairs is concerned.
I find it very unfortunate, however, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not deem it advisable to discuss with Pope Paul VI the possibility of appointing a permanent representative to the Vatican. We all appreciate the importance and the effect of being in contact with a man such as His Holiness Pope Paul VI, and I believe the appointment of a permanent representative to the Vatican would be most favourable for our country.
The Vatican is obviously a very small state, but one must nevertheless realize that all of its subjects are disseminated throughout the whole world, and for a country of Canada's standing, where there is an appreciable number of Catholics-and particularly in view of the ecumenical council, where there is a reconciliation among all Christian denominations-I feel that a Canadian representative to the Vatican would be very desirable.
In any event, the trip to different countries which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just completed gave him an idea or enabled him to form an opinion concerning world affairs, with which we are more immediately concerned, because Viet Nam is at present the cynosure for men of peace, but we note that it is unfortunately also a focus point for dominating countries.

DEBATES	November 17, 1966
Therefore, I believe and I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will pursue his efforts with the countries involved, so that there may be immediate peace in Viet Nam and everywhere else.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr.  A. B. Paiterson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in connection with the statement made by the minister. First of all, I wish to say that we join in welcoming him back to Canada and we appreciate the report which he has given us today. Of course we recognize that many of the subjects to which he made reference are of world wide importance and beyond the scope of our debate at the present time. I would also like to say that we appreciate the contacts which were made by the minister on behalf of the citizens of Canada who are originally from the Soviet Union and who wish to bring their relatives from that country to Canada. Many of my constituents are deeply interested in this matter, and we appreciate the minister's statement.
The minister made reference to the nonintervention of nations in the affairs of other nations. He also raised the matter of the self-determination of peoples. I, myself, have raised this matter on a number of occasions in the past, and I think it should be stressed more forcefully in discussions with the Soviet Union.
Matters relating to the two great organizations of which Canada is a member, the united Nations and NATO, are of course subjects of great importance and we will reserve our comments on them until the estimates are before us.
There was an interesting reference in one of the daily newspapers to the fact that discussions were held with officials in Italy regarding the training of prospective immigrants to Canada. I wonder whether it was anticipated that Canada would bear the financial responsibility for this particular project.
May I say in conclusion that we appreciate the statement made by the minister today, and we look forward to an extended debate on the various matters raised in it.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-245, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1967-Mr. Benson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
November 17, 1966
The Chairman:: Before rising last evening the committee was discussing clause No. 1 of the bill as the final clause.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asked me to consider a proposal whereby the matters involved in the payment of midmonth payrolls of civil servants be referred to the committee on public accounts. He said that it was unusual for him to plead with the government, and that the day on which he pleads with members of the government is a red letter day for him. I am very pleased that I said to him I would consider his request because I have since found that such a referral is not as simple as one might suppose it to be when such a proposal is made at five minutes to six.
First of all, I would like to point out that all the information for which I have been asked with regard to these particular transactions has been presented in the House of Commons and included in Hansard, except for a list of all the votes and the individual amounts used from them. I should like to give an undertaking to the house that later in the day I will bring this information forward, and will ask that it be included in Hansard. Thus, the house will have before it all the accounting data which was involved in the particular transactions referred to.
It seems to me that the real argument concerns the legal opinion. This is an opinion which the government obtained from the Acting Deputy Attorney General and tabled in the house at the request of the opposition. It was then agreed to print it in Hansard. I may point out that it is an unusual procedure to include such a legal opinion in Hansard, and I can recall times when the members of the opposition refused to do just that when they were in power. This legal opinion deals with the basis of the whole transaction because it covers all the steps which were taken by the government in this particular regard; it is, therefore, the basis of the argument.
Every member in the house has the right to question it once it is tabled and printed in Hansard. But I do not believe that a legal opinion which is presented to the government by a senior member of the Department of Justice, and on which the government has acted, can be referred to a committeee for debate. In such a case, the committee would not be questioning the minister but would be examining the legal ability of a law officer of the Crown. I believe that this can only be done in the House of Commons, where the
Appropriation Act No. 8 debate can be two-sided, and not in a committee which would be obliged to report back to the house on whether or not the law officer of the Crown had given a valid legal opinion.
I must therefore reluctantly reject the request to refer the legal opinion, which is the basis of all the transactions, to the committee on public accounts. I would be prepared and pleased to table in the house all documents with respect to the transaction, and any other documents which might be requested including the cancelled salary cheques of the civil servants. Members of the House of Commons have every right to look at these documents and to ask questions regarding them but I cannot, as the minister who received the legal opinion and took the unusual step of tabling it in the house and having it printed in Hansard, agree to have it referred to a committee.
Mr. Chairman, before concluding I would like to raise one or two other points. The other day, owing to incorrect information which was given to me, I indicated that the Auditor General had requested $53,000 to meet his mid-month payrolls. Subsequently, I corrected myself and said that what the Auditor General had asked for were funds from vote 15 to supplement his payroll owing to adjustments which had to be made after the original estimates were approved, and which covered the period from November 15 to November 30 of this year. I should like to make it quite clear to everyone that if I misled anybody in this regard in my initial statement I completely withdraw the statement. I would simply say that the Auditor General did ask, as I have said, for funds to supplement his payroll, and the figure of $53,000 was determined through the Comptroller of the Treasury. Someone in the department of the Auditor General confirmed that this amount was needed-though that is not important-and the amount was transferred.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Another question which was raised concerned whether or not, through the present use being made of vote 15, parliament's rights were being taken away. In this regard, I should like to point out that vote 15 was changed in 1963 as a result of a recommendation of the Glassco commission, and that change was approved by the public accounts committee. The vote continued in substantially the same form until 1966, though there was a change made in two or three words which is not too important. As I recall it, I think the words "to supplement other votes including

November 17, 1966
Appropriation Act No. 8 payroll list" were in the original vote and the words "including payroll list" were taken out.
In this regard, Mr. Chairman, if members of parliament and the committee on public accounts think that vote 15 should be changed or are questioning the use of vote 15, then they have every right to do this before the public accounts committee as it is presently constituted. Vote 15 is included in the public accounts which are being considered by the public accounts committee. That committee has the right to call whoever it would like to call regarding how vote 15 operates, and whether or not it is wise to continue vote 15 in its present form.
Because of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that I do not think we should have a committee of the house forming a judgment with regard to the legal opinion given by a senior law officer in the Department of Justice, I very much regret that I must refuse to have this legal opinion referred to any particular committee of this house. However, I should like again to reassure all members that I acted on the basis of the legal opinion which has been presented to the house.
Although I have been pleased to listen to this debate with regard to this legal opinion, whether the remarks have been made by laymen or lawyers in the house, I must reject the idea that the legal opinion, as such, must be referred to a committee as a basis for forming a judgment upon it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. gentleman permit one question. Does the minister feel that it is correct to put on yesterday's request the interpretation which he now puts on it, namely, that we are asking for the legal opinion to be referred to the public accounts committee? Is it not rather that we are asking that the government's action in relation to this whole transaction be referred to the committee? After all, in his closing words the minister said that he takes responsibility for what was done. The government must often receive legal opinions which it does not act upon. But to put the blame for this action on the fact that the opinion approved the action is begging the question. What we are concerned with, is not the opinion which was given but the actual action taken by the government.


Edgar John Benson: The actual accounting transactions will all be on the record of the house. Whether or not something was paid from a particular vote, is always subject to the Comptroller of the Treasury confirming that the funds are there. I trust that the Comptroller of the Treasury, who is not in my CMr. Benson.]
department but in the Department of Finance, can carry out his duties properly. The Auditor General has the right to check on whether he has carried out his duties properly. I think the accounting transactions as such have been carried out properly. They will be shown in the records of the House of Commons, in Hansard, and will be subject to review by the Auditor General.
I accept full responsibility for the government's action in this regard, and that action is supported by the fact that we did not misuse vote 15. The action was the subject of a legal opinion from a senior law officer of the crown, which opinion is now in Hansard. I, for one, believe that any reference to a committee would involve the committee in forming a judgment as to whether or not the legal opinion was correct, instead of considering basic accounting data, whether the cheque was written out properly and charged to the appropriate account.
This will all be in the records of the house, Mr. Chairman. I will be putting in each vote and the amount charged to it. The wording of the votes is available in the estimates. But I cannot agree that the legal opinion which was given should be open to question.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I am most pleased that the minister has seen fit to accede to the very reasonable suggestion made on this side of the house. I have watched with interest and listened to the eloquent words of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and the fact that his pleas are able to move the government reinforces me in my belief that he is entitled to be heard. Under the circumstances, I think that we on this side of the house might do worse than to keep the hon. member more frequently in his seat. He is in his seat very frequently as it is, but if we keep him in his seat more frequently than he is at present, making further pleas, it may well be that this government might then be kept more on the path of rectitude and virtue than it has been in the past.


Edgar John Benson: That would be rather difficult.


Gerald William Baldwin: So far as the legal opinion is concerned, I do not think that this is an issue.
I quite agree with the minister that neither the committee nor this house is the forum in which to effectually debate legal opinions. There is one place to do this, and that is in the courts of the land.
Because I do not think that this matter is an issue as far as we on this side of the house are
November 17, 1966

concerned, nor from listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as far as the members of his party are concerned, I should like to say this: The legality of certain issues which arise from time to time may be subject to question. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, without giving away any secrets may I say that today in the public accounts committee the Auditor General, through a very sensible arrangement which was reached some time ago, now has access to competent counsel. And he should have this access because he is the agent and servant of parliament, not of the government. Merely because the Minister of Justice and his officials, who constitutionally are the advisers of the Governor in Council and the respective ministers of the crown, give a certain opinion to the government, that opinion is not necessarily vested with the sanctity of certainty.
Many hon. members here who are members of the bar have challenged the opinions of legal officers of the crown and have carried their case successfully to the highest courts of the land. We listen to them with respect, of course, because usually they are basically correct and are accepted as such. We have never suggested that, other than incidentally, the question of legality would be considered. On that point, I agree completely with the minister.
However, I think I made quite plain last Tuesday this point with regard to the wording of vote 15 in particular, an I think my fears in this regard have been augmented today. We notice that what I might call the petty cash of government has now been increased from the $15 million included in the main estimates by an additional $45 million in the first supplementary estimates, and by another $50 million in the estimates which have just been filed. This represents petty cash amounting to $110 million. There may be a need for this and there may not be, but the reason behind the request which I made, and which the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and others have made, is that this matter can now be considered by the public accounts committee.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
As the minister said some years ago, the whole question of the pattern of votes in the estimates is a matter for consideration by the public accounts committee. We considered a great many matters, and I can honestly say that our attention was not directed exclusively or particularly to this issue. Certainly, when I considered this matter I did not contemplate that under the cloak of vote 15 there
Appropriation Act No. 8 would be an item which, in this fiscal year, has reached the total of $110 million. Because of this state of affairs, we urge that action be taken.
This morning I asked the chairman of the public accounts committee if I could pursue a certain line of questioning of the Auditor General, who was then present. With great regret, and with the acumen which the chairman usually shows, I was ruled out of order.
I am glad the minister has accepted our proposal, because I have touched on the root of the matter. I hope the public accounts committee, with the assistance of the Auditor General, who is the agent of parliament, and the Secretary of the Privy Council, might embark on a useful and essential discussion to consider in detail the wording of vote 15. The public accounts committee feels that certain changes must be made in the wording of this Vote to safeguard the traditional rights and immemorial privileges of parliament in the control of the public purse. It is essential that such a meeting, to undertake such a discussion, be held as quickly as possible. It may be that as a result of our deliberations in the public accounts committee certain changes will be made. Those would be brought to the house, and we may have a good debate. As a result of that debate, changes in the wording of the items in the estimates might be made in ensuing years. It is very important that what I suggest be done.
I am pleased that for once the reasonable and moderate arguments from this side of the house have been listened to, and that the minister has accepted our proposal. I hope what has happened, if I may say so objectively, will be a lesson to other ministers.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I also am a member of the public accounts committee. I believe we are the watchdogs of the public purse, and when I say that I come down to the root of the powers of parliament. If the government was able to enlarge vote 15 to $110 million this year, I do not know why the vote could not be increased to $500 million next year in order to get around the power of parliament.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to interrupt the hon. member? I am not asking a question, but rather making an explanation.
The particularly large increase in vote 15 this year was necessary because of the great amount on supplementary payrolls. The hon. member may recall that a strike was settled,

November 17. 1966
Appropriation Act No. 8 which meant that all wages throughout the civil service had to be increased greatly throughout the year.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I will take the minister's word that everything done was not only legal, but was so according to the best legal opinion. I do not think what he has said should end the discussion of this matter either in parliament or in committee. It seems to me that the very basis of parliamentary control over the executive is being eroded and almost completely destroyed. If vote 15 can be enlarged, no matter for what good purpose,-the purpose might sound good enough to get by an alert public accounts committee such as we have at the present time-parliament will still be faced with this very dangerous method by which its powers can be circumvented. That should be clearly pointed out to the committee. The very fact that what was done was legal, in no way detracts from the necessity of making sure that in future such a course will not be legal. We, in this house, make the law, and unless we know where the law is weak we cannot improve it.
If the law is adequate in the opinion of parliament, we should leave it alone. But I, for one, think that here, in this situation, we have a danger. If the government can increase vote 15 to $110 million, they can increase it to a much greater extent. An emergency such as has occurred may never again come before us. My hon. friend from Carleton has suggested that the law should be amended so that civil servants, members of the armed forces, the mounted police and certain crown corporations essential to the welfare of the country, corporations such as Air Canada, should be exempt from the present form of parliamentary control.
It is not good enough to say that we have had a legal opinion. The fact that this legal opinion has been given is an added reason, in my opinion, for looking into this matter thoroughly and quickly.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I have done considerable work this morning getting the figures for vote 15 from 1954 to date. I ask the Minister of National Revenue, when he talks about this tremendous increase in vote 15 to $110 million, whether that great increase was taken up entirely with the pay increases to which he has made reference, or will there be added hocus-pocus when the question of civil service salaries comes up-next.


Edgar John Benson: There has been no hocus-pocus used. If we look back at vote 15, as it is now, it will be seen that it used to be two votes. One was for supplementary estimates-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Vote 70?


Edgar John Benson: Vote 70, which was put through separately. The other vote was for general contingencies. The two votes had been combined into one. In addition to this, in the past year, as my hon. friend knows, there was a great increase in salaries. I can assure him that the majority of money in that vote is for that purpose, though not all the money is for that purpose. I shall be pleased to give him an analysis of everything that has been charged to the account. Of course, amounts have been repaid, because amounts are often repaid when supplementary estimates come through. I shall be pleased to give him the breakdown at my earliest convenience.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: In commenting upon the remarks of the Minister of National Revenue in which he points out that there has been a combination of votes 70 and 15, I would not have the house come to the conclusion that previously, when these votes were passed separately they amounted to a figure anywhere near that contained in vote 15 at this time.
I went back to 1954, 1955 and 1956 to find estimates as passed by Liberal governments of that day. It will be interesting to note, I am certain, that the item for supplementals to paylists in those years ran as low as $750,000, and $1.5 million. These figures are in Liberal estimates for 1954, 1955 and 1956. They came under vote 70 to which reference has been made. Sometimes vote 70 was changed and tabled as vote 124 or 119 or 117.
Of course, the government also had the contingency reserve. In 1954 it was $1 million. In 1955 it was $1 million. In 1956 it was $1 million. In 1957 it was $1.5 million. In 1958 it was $1.5 million. In 1959 it was $1.5 million. In 1960 it was $1.5 million. In 1961 it was $1.5 million. In 1962 it was $1.5 million. In 1963 it was $3 million; that was item 15. In 1964 it was $3 million in the main estimates, plus $7 million unter supplementals. In 1965 it was $6 million. I have not had a chance to examine the supplementals at all.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In 1966 the request was for $6 million on vote 15, plus $60 million in supplementaries; and in 1967 we are asked for $15 million. We have already passed that amount under the
November 17, 1986

Department of Finance, but now we are being asked to pass supplementaries of $95 million. Mr. Chairman, we have inflation but in that respect I do not think there is anything to compare with these figures I have read to you.
I make the plain statement that this is the manner by which parliamentary control can be circumvented. I believe it was circumvented last week. I do not like it. I have said I will vote for interim supply, but I want to be on the record as opposed to the manner in which the civil service was paid last week. I certainly will be opposed if the civil service is paid again out of vote 15 before March 31 next. I repeat that in 1954 there was $1 million under vote 15, and $1.5 million under vote 117, a total of $2.5 million. Now, for the present financial year there is $15 million under vote 15 and $95 million in supplementaries. I am not trying to be funny but I ask you, Mr. Chairman, is this the Liberal party?


Alfred Dryden Hales: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and in order to bring this debate to a close, I wish to say I understand that the minister has agreed to refer this matter to the public accounts committee, except the legal aspect of the question. Is this the interpretation I can take from what the minister has said?


Edgar John Benson: What I have said is that I recognize the right of the committee to look into the wording of vote 15 and ask questions on vote 15 in the public accounts presently before it. I have said that the particular transactions, indicating each vote and the amount used from each vote, will appear in Hansard. The amount by which this vote was supplemented, which was $2.16 million, will have to be repaid. I shall bring the details before the house later today, and ask that they be included in Hansard.


Alfred Dryden Hales: The public accounts committee can only deal with those matters that are referred to it by the house. The Auditor General's report for 1965 has been referred to this committee, and we, in the committee, are dealing with it. I take it that we are within the bounds of our terms of reference relating to that report if we deal with this particular matter that we have been discussing.


Mr. Pugh:: Reference has been made several times to the fact that this is an acknowledged procedure in the House of Commons. I would like to ask the minister, was a legal opinion sought by the department or its minister in previous years concerning the covering of
Appropriation Act No. 8 increases by vote 15 or a combination of the other two votes?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the government does not normally have to ask for a legal opinion to include an amount in a vote, or with respect to increases in a vote. Some such thing may have happened in the past. I am not positive of this and would have to do a little investigation. I mentioned yesterday that we are hoping to include in next year's budget individual votes to cover some anticipated salary adjustments that may have to be made.
This was not done in previous years, and unanticipated increases in salaries which occurred during a year were provided for by supplementary estimates under vote 15. Yesterday, I indicated that I have been concerned about this matter, and so has the Minister of Finance. We are looking into the possibility of bringing into the original estimates an amount to take care of at least part of salary increases. I may say that such increases have totalled more within recent times than was the case previously.


David Vaughan Pugh: The minister may wonder at my concern as to why it should have been necessary to ask for a legal opinion this year. I am wondering whether it was due to the sizeable increase in the vote, and thus it was felt absolutely necessary to get a legal opinion this year.


Edgar John Benson: No. In these particular circumstances, we arrived at a situation where it appeared there was going to be a great deal of difficulty among civil servants with respect to their mid-month pay. We naturally looked through the votes to find those in which supply was completely passed. There also was no particular doubt in our minds about those cases in which amounts were left over from the six twelfths or seven twelfths supply already passed, but there was some question in our minds as to the matter of transferring funds out of vote 15. I think if one looks back at previous Auditor Generals' reports one will find that there have been questions raised from time to time with respect to vote 15.
On this occasion, when it appeared that the funds were there, it was decided that we should get an opinion. The net total involved was $2.16 million. I have already produced the extracts from the treasury board minutes, and these have been printed in Hansard. I felt we should have a legal opinion before we took the step that we did, and the legal opinion supported our action.

November 17, 1966
Supply-Industry


David Vaughan Pugh: I thank the minister for his answer, but I would like to reiterate the stand taken by the hon. member for Peace River. I notice that the minister is indicating his affirmation because all of us in the house, no matter on which side we sit, know it is necessary to be eternally vigilant over parliamentary expenditures. I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River is a must, and I expect the minister will be looking into the question of introducing legislation to cover this very point in the very near future.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Estimates of the National Research Council, including the Medical Research Council, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1967, vote No. 1-this vote can be found in the blue book at page 314.



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, operation and maintenance, $33,468,000.
Mr. Drury:: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the presentation of the estimates for the National Research Council and the Medical Research Council for the current year, I should like to take this opportunity to clarify the government's policies regarding financial support for scientific activities generally, and to correct certain misapprehensions over what have been described as our possible future intentions in this respect.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In order to place this matter into perspective, I would first point out that the federal government's total science budget has risen from $257 million in the fiscal year 1962-63 to $396 million in 1965-66, for an average growth rate of 16 per cent per annum. Over the same four year period, our over-all support for university research has risen from $19.7 millions to $42 millions-a growth rate of 30 per cent per annum. Similarly, our expenditures on industrial research and development have risen from $21.8 millions to $71 millions.

Admittedly, we started from a relatively low level, and there is much ground yet to be made up, but I think members will agree that the trend is in the right direction and our rate of progress has indeed been substantial.
For the future, the government intends to maintain these rates of growth and this is reflected in the current year's estimates. Moreover, with respect to next year's estimates which are presently under preparation, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has assured me that the normal growth in our over-all science budget will be accommodated.
On a more general plane, I do not believe that there can be any doubt as to the government's recognition of the importance of science and technology to the future economic and social development of Canada. A few months ago the Science Council of Canada was established to advise the government on all aspects of national science policy. Earlier, the Science Secretariat was established in the Privy Council office to assist the government in dealing with our growing endeavours in the fields of science, technology and engineering. Last year, the Department of Industry established its program for the advancement of industrial technology which I am pleased to report has initiated some 58 new development projects in its first year of operation, representing a total industrial effort in the order of $22.7 millions. Finally, within the next few weeks, I hope to introduce legislation establishing a new general incentive for industrial research and development which is designed to stimulate a major expansion of innovation activity in Canadian industry.
If I might now turn to the estimates of the National Research Council and Medical Research Council as outlined in the bluebook, it will be noted that the item for which the largest single increase has been sought in the N.R.C. estimates for 1966-67 is the university support program, vote 10. It is from this program that the continuing Canadian scientific community will emerge, and on which our future scientific achievements will depend. A shortage of qualified scientists continues, to the detriment of industrial research and university staff. It is important, therefore, that special attention should be devoted to the assistance of scientific, engineering and medical research in universities.
There has been a rapid increase in university staff, and the graduate student population continues to increase about 20 per cent per annum. The support of these students, either through scholarships or as assistants on re-
November 17, 19B6

search projects, represents a very significant proportion of the total university support.
To maintain a suitable position in science, it is necessary to acquire increasingly expensive and modern equipment. Thus, not only is the number of researchers increasing, but the cost per researcher is also increasing.
Government investment in science has contributed significantly to the Canadian economy. It is proposed in these estimates, therefore, that the university support be increased by 33.6 per cent over the amount in the main estimates of the last fiscal year.
Under vote 15, assistance to industry, the increase in estimated support of industrial research is about 30 per cent greater than that voted for the last fiscal year. The program is progressing satisfactorily. It is of interest to note that there were 160 active projects in progress under the Industrial Research Assistance Plan at the beginning of this fiscal year. These projects are distributed among both small and large companies, and already very promising results are emerging. The growth of this program is limited by the inability of industry to recruit staff, particularly senior research men.
In respect of vote 5, I might mention that aside from the operation of the laboratories, it is estimated that the cost of construction programs for the fiscal year 1966-67 will be approximately $7,100,000, almost all of which is earmarked for major projects which have been included in previous years' estimates. The construction of the structures laboratory for the National Aeronautical Establishment, however, has been deferred for this year.
Since these estimates have been examined in some detail by the appropriate house committee, I would hope that perhaps they would now receive the support of the house and be approved.


Mr. Graffiey:: Mr. Chairman, primarily, I should like to thank the minister for his statement. There is, however, one note of disappointment which I should like to strike; that is, with regard to a recent series of meetings which have been held here in Ottawa by federal, provincial and other interested parties on automobile and highway deaths and injuries. With the support of this side of the house, the minister took the initiative in convening here in Ottawa a series of studies by interested federal officials and their counterparts at the provincial level with people in the safety engineering field, with doctors, automobile associations, and with highway
Supply-Industry
safety council officials. As we studied criteria involving the road, the driver and the car, we felt that while we were not making use of the knowledge we already had, much more needed to be known about automobile and highway deaths and injuries. Therefore, there was a unanimous recommendation by this committee on two occasions that the government set up, under the National Research Council, a national accident prevention research centre here in Ottawa. I do not know whether or not this is the time at which the minister might see fit to make an announcement concerning the establishment of a national accident prevention research centre.
However, I think it is important that such a national accident prevention research centre should be set up as soon as possible in Ottawa under the National Research Council. I believe also that we should have a report made to this house in respect of what has been ascertained at these meetings. I congratulate the minister for setting them up because, while we certainly experienced certain frustrations, we found that we lacked information about the driver, the car and the road. We lack sophisticated and uniform information. Among other things, a national accident prevention research centre could correlate the information received in uniform and sophisticated accident reports emanating from the provinces and municipalities.
I should also like to take this opportunity to encourage the minister and his officials, as we have done in the past in this house, to seek means to co-operate with the state of New York, through the National Research Council if possible, in the building of their prototype safety car. I have said time and time again-and Governor Rockefeller now has approval for an increased vote of money-that I think we ail agree that Canada, because of its climate among other things and because of what the National Research Council already has done, has a real and positive role to play in the building of such a prototype safety car.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The car is only one of three aspects of this problem. It is the microbe in the epidemic of automobile and highway deaths and injuries. The road is the atmosphere and the driver is the agent. Such a prototype car once built, would enable us to determine performance standards. This would help public officials who want to put together codified standards in relation to the driver, the car and the road.

November 17, 1966
Supply-Industry
The hon. member for Simcoe East will later touch upon another subject, namely the question of medical research. Suffice it for me to say that it is my opinion we are not doing enough in this regard. The government has increased grants in respect of medical research, and I congratulate the minister. However, I foresee a serious shortage of doctors in this country because we are not supporting medical research to the extent we should. This means we lack a sufficient number of teachers, and as a result we are not turning out enough doctors. This is a continuing and vicious circle.
I am sure the hon. member for Simcoe East will point out in great detail that medical research is one thing we must concentrate upon if we are to avoid a serious doctor shortage in this country. We must do something about medical personnel in this country independently of medicare considerations. In this regard, we must increase our aid to scientific medical research as a first step. Without going into great detail, I seriously doubt whether these estimates provide a sufficient amount.
It was interesting to hear the minister's remarks relating to the research secretariat and council. Obviously, this is a step forward. After analysing the increased amounts allocated to which he referred let me say this: No matter how we look at it, and no matter how we discuss percentage increases or total increases, the facts of life indicate that in the past year for every dollar spent in Canada per scientist the United States spend $10 to $15 and the United Kingdom spends $5. I am not suggesting we are not going forward, but we certainly must encourage the minister to support the activities of the research secretariat and council and to authorize more funds.
It will be extremely interesting to note the minister's proposal in relation to a new general incentive program. It is everybody's hope, including all the members of the opposition, that this program will really work.
Yesterday I did not notice that the Speaker was still in the chair, and was not aware that certain arrangements had been made between house leaders. At that time I rose in the house to make this speech. Perhaps my mind had been diverted to matters outside of this chamber, and I did not know quite what was going on. I did get up to make a speech on interim supply thinking we were dealing with the estimates. At that time I mentioned one other subject, namely a matter relating to Canadian-United States relations, which was so
[Mr. Grafftey.l
ably referred to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I hope I can paraphrase the minister correctly. He said that we should be doing something that we have not been doing often enough, namely paying attention in Canada to selectivity and specialization relating to our economic legislative and social programs. I think I know what he meant. Too many of our decisions are overly affected by our great neighbour to the south which enjoys the highest standard of living the world has ever known. The dictates of common sense and natural events indicate that we must enter into certain economic and social programs. However, I personally feel that we sometimes try to keep up with the Joneses by entering into economic and social programs in which we should not be involved. I feel that the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding the necessity for the Canadian government and the private sector of this country to pay more attention to the selectivity and specialization of our activities were terribly important. That is why I feel the role of scientific research, for which the Minister of Industry is responsible, is a very important part of these general considerations.
Let me continue briefly by saying this: I do not intend to become argumentative on this point, but I think we should be clear about the situation. No matter what the Minister of Finance says, there are certain aspects of our economic situation which indicate that the government has to cut back in order to curb inflation. The government must look to its blue book, of expenditures so to speak. I know what the situation is as a result of my experience as parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance. The hon. member for Carleton informed me that when the government has to cut back expenditures, things become very difficult. This is true, because many expenditures are statutory and others realistically cannot be cut back. As a result, one must look at the small areas in order to make savings.
The minister has indicated that in order to cut back government expenditure to combat inflation we will have to curb research expenditures. The Minister of Finance has told us that these cutbacks are not serious, but it is my suspicion that if the government did not follow this policy to combat inflation the increase in research expenditure would have been greater than it is. Some of these shortterm measures now being used to combat inflation are too little and too late. We are
November 17, 1966

beginning to realize that this kind of cutback cannot properly be co-ordinated or integrated into a meaningful method of combatting modern day inflation. What we should do is increase assistance to scientific research which, in the long run, will help defeat the kind of inflation we experience today. The paradox of this problem compounds itself. While we can only talk about this subject in general, it is something that has been in our minds for some time.
In these days when we should take definitive measures to curtail inflationary trends, I believe we should make more and more expenditures in aid of medical, industrial and scientific research. If the government adopted such an attitude, even in our present economic conditions, I am sure it would receive the support of the people of this country and the support of hon. members in many corners of this house. I believe in our endeavours we must emphasize what I have already referred to as selectivity and specialization in Canada.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Nations, like individuals, very often are, by nature, best at doing certain things. We in Canada must examine, more so than the United States, the quality of our ventures rather than the bigness of our enterprises. I have stated time and time again, that it is my belief that governments have a dynamic role to play in encouraging what I call individual and national excellence. I believe it should be almost a clarion call for this generation of Canadians to encourage individual and national excellence.
The minister has announced certain increases in research. We should encourage research, be it general, special, industrial, medical or university, even in periods of tight money or times when we should perhaps be cutting our spending to reduce inflationary pressures. I frankly do not think many of the measures we are adopting are any good any more. It is difficult to get economists to agree on anything. It is said that if you get 50 economists in a room you will get 50 different opinions. But I believe that most economists think we are using horse and buggy methods when we cut back here and there on some of these expenditures.
We should make more expenditures for legitimate scientific research. As I have said before, we will obtain support for such a policy because when we consider the National Research Council and all the research responsibilities that this minister has for the government and the Canadian people, we realize that
Supply-Industry
government has a real and dynamic role to play in encouraging individual and national excellence.


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on the item before us dealing with research expenditures of the Department of Industry.
I do not intend to tackle the problem of medical research which is no doubt related to problems with which I am not too familiar, but I do wish to deal with industrial research. We have here in Canada a very peculiar economic situation in that we have a large country endowed with vast resources but with a relatively small population. Furthermore, our economic and industrial development is closely related to that of the United States.
We are highly dependent on large American companies, which many deplore but others welcome.
There is a great deal of industrial research in the United States, the results of which are accepted without any change by the Canadian subsidiaries of American companies. We try, as best we can, to copy American made products on a scale which is often not productive. We force our market to absorb goods which have in fact been manufactured and developed to meet the needs of our American friends.
To be efficient, industrial research in Canada should be done on a far greater scale. There is no doubt that companies are concerned with the research problem but I feel that the state has an important part to play in this field due to our particular circumstances, namely the size of the country, the extent of its resources, but the weakness of the market for our products.
If the government is to help industrial research effectively, either through its own research bodies or through subsidies to industrial associations or university laboratories, there must be full awareness of our particular situation from an industrial point of view. In other words, we must find out where we fit in the North American industrial context.
In the case of many widely used products, I feel there should be no problem and our research could consist merely in improving the product as such and finding new equipment to manufacture it more efficiently. In many other fields, on the other hand, products

November 17, 1966
Supply-Industry must be designed in accordance with the needs and wishes of the Canadian people.
Canada should follow the example of certain small European countries, like Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, and try to develop original products, to design new products different from the ones offered by the large-scale American production. Not only shall we then have large industries involved in mass production, but also medium-sized and small industries scattered throughout the country, which will provide both the Canadian people and foreign countries with typically Canadian products, that is, adjusted to our special conditions.
I visited Russia recently along with some of my colleagues of the House of Commons. Two things struck me in particular: on the one hand, the great emphasis laid on research, because in the longer run, the prosperity of a country depends on the research and studies and, second, the effort made to adjust such research to the special needs of a huge country which has a great variety of resources and great differences in climate. Canada could surely manufacture products which could be marketed in Scandinavian countries where conditions are somewhat similar to those we find here in Canada. Therefore, any effort on our part in the field of industrial research, so as to design products suitable for domestic use, could also serve to develop a worthwhile export trade. And even on the American market. The American market is a huge market with a tremendous purchasing power and customers are used to some uniformity in current products. But it is also a market where the unusual is sought, as far as some products are concerned, such as furniture, clothing, etc. Therefore, those are the fields in which we could find a very interesting market if we could develop in Canada an original product, and experience has proved this in some fields in Canada. It is useless for us to try to copy blindly what is found in the United States cheaper and better, but if we succeed, thanks to our applied industrial research, in creating new products which are original, either by the quality of the material used, or by their form, or their possible uses, I am convinced that, located where we are, at the gate of that economic giant, we could step up considerably our exports to that country.
We would thus reach a double objective: we would serve the Canadian market better with products created with the needs of Canada in mind and we would have access

more easily to that huge American market. At the same time, we would enable small and medium businesses, which lack capital for industrial research, to benefit from those laboratories for the production of some interesting products.
Therefore, I am convinced that the house will give very special attention to the increase needed by the Department of Industry in the field of research and it is to be hoped that such research will serve the real needs of the Canadian economy, in short, that such research will not be done only at the federal government level but that all the provinces, following the example set by Ontario, will become more and more active in the field of applied industrial research. Thus, we will be able to have in Canada what many people want, namely an industrial development more and more adapted to the real needs of the Canadian people. That might be the way for Canada to achieve an industrial development which will be truly ours and which, at the same time, will complement the economic development of the United States which we all admire.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the time allotted under the rules for the discussion of estimates is slipping away much faster than many members of this house realize. Therefore, I will take this opportunity to treat the subjects on which I wish to speak on a somewhat wider basis than I originally intended.
First of all, I will say that I appreciated the minister's statement and, shall I say, the optimistic predictions he made with respect to the future in the field of research. I trust they will be fulfilled. The total estimates which we have before us amount to $86,068,000 which means an increase of $14,827,000 for this year. I trust this will provide the funds to give effect to the guidelines proposed by the national conference on "Pollution and our environment" sponsored by the Canadian council of resource ministers. This Conference was held from October 31 to November 4 of this year at the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal. I am told that about 600 experts attended this conference cn pollution and there were about 400 observers, including several members of parliament from all parties in this house who are particularly interested in this problem. In this connection, I wish to quote Dr. John P.
November 17, 1966



Tully, secretary of the privy council committee on water pollution.
He said that Canada's pollution policy for the next generation will evolve from the guidelines set at the national pollution conference, and I trust he is correct in this respect. I am told that Mr. Tully is a chemist who has worked on pollution problems for more than 35 years. In an interview about the five-day pollution conference sponsored by the Canadian council of resource ministers, he said there were 600 experts from a variety of fields who had assembled to establish guidelines on water, air and soil pollution for the council which was set up to advise the federal and provincial governments. He said also that there were 400 decision makers such as cabinet ministers, members of parliament, deputy ministers and high level civil servants listening to the discussions.
I was very interested to hear him say that there had never been another conference for this particular purpose anywhere in the world at any other time. I was glad to see that Canada was taking the lead with respect to this very important problem. The guidelines that were established at the conference represent the best thoughts of Canadian intellectuals, both federal and provincial legislators, administrators, as well as representatives of industries in this country.
I understand there were also a few members of the medical profession present at the conference. In my opinion, the major value of the conference was the focusing and directing of public attention on this very important and vital issue.
Today, I am making an appeal to the minister and to the government which has nothing to do with political beliefs or other partisan convictions. I am alarmed at the sight of our industries and people polluting our waters, as it were, with their own hands.
All over Canada, the water table is falling, yet thousands of factories and hundreds of municipal sewer systems are discharging their wastes into our rivers and lakes with only a fraction of our industries or our municipalities giving so-called adequate treatment to this increasing filth. That was clearly indicated in the panel discussions that I attended at this conference.
We all know that water is the lifeblood of any country, and while we have more than tripled our former consumption we are polluting and destroying the water sheds from which it comes. We are destroying something
Supply-Industry
without which we cannot survive and for which there is no substitute.
The soul of man, shaken and bruised by the ceaseless din of modern cities and the relentless international and national sabre rattling-and I mean it, Mr. Chairman-needs tree-ways rather than free-ways; needs pure water-ways rather than sewer-ways. We disfigure the natural landscape, erode our soils, destroy our forests, and pollute our waters almost with the zeal of a religious mission. I am convinced of this after listening quite recently to one or two conversations between some industrialists who did not appear to be much concerned about this problem.
A great many Canadians are showing an increasing concern and interest in this problem, and are demanding action at all levels of the government and of industry to deal with it effectively. In my own constituency, the municipalities and other organizations are very concerned. I know we have to treat this as a national problem, but naturally I am more informed on the circumstances in my own constituency. Municipalities, conservation committees and other groups in my constituency have been meeting frequently to discuss this problem, although we are very fortunate because only a very small proportion of our waters in Kootenay West are polluted at the present time. The large bulk of the water is still as pure as it comes from the mountain peaks.
To illustrate my point I will quote a headline from the Nelson Daily News of February 13, 1960 which reads: "Pollution concern to South Slocan". Another headline from the Trail Daily Times of March 11, 1966 reads: "Rescue our water, health unit urges", "Claim population growth has polluted streams". Another one from the Nelson Daily News of May 17, 1966 reads: "Pollution control discussed by AKBM"; "Lack of government interest concerning sewage disposal". This has been frequently mentioned both by provincial and federal governments.
Mr. Chairman, I have had a lifelong interest in the conservation of renewable natural resources and when I start speaking on this subject I find it very difficult to stop. However, I will not take more of the time of the house than I think is appropriate to the importance of the subject. It is for this reason that for over 10 years I have moved the following resolution in the house, and I will quote from Hansard of March 26, 1952. It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of calling a

November 17, 1966
Supply-Industry
federal-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy-on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This is the policy which our party has put forward repeatedly. During the debates on my resolution throughout the years. I have received the unanimous approval of all members who spoke. In spite of this fact, nothing was done largely because at that time Du-plessis was the premier of Quebec and they were afraid of treading on his toes. I understand he thought this proposal would be an invasion of provincial rights. As a matter of fact, on one occasion the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, spoke in favour of the principle of the resolution. However, fortunately Hon. Jean Lesage was later elected premier of Quebec. He had been a cabinet minister in the federal government and he knew the federal approach to this question. He had listened to the debates in this house, had taken part in them himself, and there was a change of climate on that account. He was quite willing to listen to the views expressed by cabinet ministers and members of this house as well as others.
As a result of the change of attitude in Quebec at the time of the election of Premier Lesage, the Progressive Conservative party of the day made arrangements to call the "Resources for Tomorrow" conference in Montreal which took place on October 23-28 of 1961. In this connection, I give full credit to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who has always been very interested in this question. This conference was called and it was, shall I say, the commencement of this federal-provincial approach to these important questions.
From this conference, Mr. Chairman, sprang the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers, which dealt with the question of dominion-provincial conferences for this purpose. As a result of the "Resources for Tomorrow" conference in 1961, I placed another resolution on the order paper on January 17, 1962, having read the publications issued by that conference. That resolution was in these terms:
That in the opinion of this house the government should consider the advisability of the creation of a water pollution control division, composed of representatives of the ten provinces, within the framework of the proposed National Resources Council, with powers and funds required to institute research programs, collect, collate and analyse water control data, and to co-ordinate the water pollution control objectives for the provinces; in addition, to further the study of water pollution control problems of a national character.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that whenever the motion has come before the house for consideration since that time, it has received general support from hon. members representing all parties in this house. So, I think it is true to say that we are united in the realization that we must have federal and provincial co-operation to effectively meet the problems that we face.
This year, Mr. Chairman, I was fortunate in being able to attend the conference on "Pollution and our Environment" as a parliamentary observer. I was most interested in the general meetings of the conference and the discussions which took place, as well as in the various panels which were arranged and which dealt with various aspects of pollution, whether of air, soil or water. I went from one to the other and did the best I could to pick up, shall I say, the general tenor of the information given, the general tenor of the debates, and so on, and found them most informative and interesting.
Then, after three days at the conference the panels reported to another general conference meeting. As a result of that meeting, guideline groups were organized to deal with various aspects of this question. For instance, one group discussed scientific and technological problems. Another group discussed legal, jurisdictional, legislative and enforcement problems; another economic and financial considerations; another administration both public and private; another education and research; another dealt with planning, and finally one which dealt with getting the information with respect to this problem to the public and to the organizations concerned.
As a result of these meettings, another general meeting was held and the common guidelines which emerged were as follows. The first one was the need for a federal organization or agency which could develop a pollution abatement code, co-ordinate and disseminate available information, conduct research and co-operate with other agencies working in this field. In effect, this is along the lines of the principle contained in the resolution which I have moved in this house since 1952.
The second guideline concerned itself with the preparation of some form of national standards. Many delegates did not like the word "standards", partly because these would be difficult to define on a nation-wide basis and partly because they would be interpreted as a minimum in some cases. Therefore, they preferred to use the expression "national objectives" in relation to pollution.
November 17, 1966

Third, a guiding principle should be that polluters should bear the cost of treatment and of pollution damage inflicted upon resource users. I found general agreement with that third guideline.
The fourth guideline was that there should be financial incentives to industry to improve its anti-pollution measures and to encourage research. I understand that we have some legislation which provides for this at the present time, and I expect that there will be further study of this legislation to see whether something can be done to promote more interest in this problem on the part of industry.
Fifth, the opinion was expressed that there is a shortage of trained experts in this field, and this is correct. I have discussed this matter since the conference with other persons, and I understand that it is quite a problem to get competent persons to undertake this work.
Sixth, the best unit for pollution control is a region or watershed. I attended one or two meetings on this subject. The attack against it should be on a multifunctional basis. There were a lot of interesting discussions on this aspect of the problem. Some rivers are international in character, some are interprovincial but all, have watersheds. It is obvious that in order to have some satisfactory administration some watershed authority will have to be established.
As a result of these guidelines and of listening to the discussions, I propose-when I say that I propose, I am sure there is general agreement on the part of many members in this house-that federal funds should be used to launch a Pollution Research Institute under the jurisdiction of the National Research Council, staffed by engineers, biologists and medical and sociological experts. I do not think there is any time to lose in dealing with this problem effctively, or in commencing to deal with it effectively.
When I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the other day what action was being taken by the government with respect to these guidelines, I was glad he indicated the government was proposing to take immediate action. To illustrate this need, let me quote an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail for November 1, 1966.
If you have a water pollution problem, tackle it now.
It doesn't matter whether you are a primary or secondary industry, a resource of a manufacturing industry, a municipality or a village, it makes eminent good sense in dollars and cents to curb water pollution today-and not wait for tomorrow.
Supply-Industry
That's the advice of Dr. A. E. Berry, secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Institute on Pollution Control and president of the Conservation Council of Ontario. Dr. Berry also is former general manager of the Ontario Water Resources Commission, and often is called Mr. Water in the United States.
"The difference in cost between tackling pollution control now and putting off a decision for a few years is likely to be high," he said, "a most costly business. It can mean millions of dollars in the long run."
Then, he concludes this interesting article with this paragraph:
"Society is no more and no less than a collection of individuals-you and I. If we don't face up to this problem, no one will. If we are inactive, nothing will be done-but you can be sure that we will pay a heavy price for this inactivity."
Without a doubt, Mr. Chairman, in the final analysis the deciding factor is money to conduct the necessary research and to provide co-operation between all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. Then, industry should accept clearly defined fiscal responsibilities to give effect to the policies that result from sound research into this problem. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I once again urge that federal funds be used to launch a Pollution Research Institute staffed by engineers, biologists, medical and sociological experts in order to conduct research into this problem at the earliest possible date.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman, in support of my argument I want to quote a paragraph from a speech made by the parliamentary secretary to minister of mines and technical surveys on water pollution. This speech, I understand, was made at the conference on united action for clear water, at the U.A.W. Hall, St. Catharines, Ontario, on June 18, 1966. The speech is of fairly recent date. This is what the parliamentary secretary had to say on this particular problem:
Ottawa has a vital role to play. It must take the initiative on our international rivers and streams. It should concern itself with schemes which are inter-provincial in scope. More than that... it must backstop and even complement the efforts of those individual provinces which wish to make the most of their own resources. It can make grants to municipalities. And it can do research and frame tax laws which encourage industry to do for the rest of society what they would not always do for themselves.
I trust this government makes every effort to secure the co-operation of municipal governments, industry and all those organizations concerned with this matter, and tries to get as many interested persons as possible in this country to assume some personal responsibility to deal with something that is of great consequence to this and future generations.

November 17, 1966
Supply-Industry


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the minister for his statement that funds for scientific research are to be increased. I shall deal with that subject later. I also want to compliment the hon. member for Kootenay West upon what he had to say about pollution. The scientific aspects of pollution have not been sufficiently studied in his province or in Canada, as indicated by the fact that 50 per cent of raw sewage is being pumped into the lakes and rivers of his province. This is a serious matter.
For a few moments I shall deal with air pollution. One gets confused whether this comes under the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of Industry, or the minister of what's what. I assume that this subject comes under the aegis of the Minister of Industry, because he is responsible for scientific research. I propose this afternoon, therefore, to bring this matter under the heading of scientific research.
Referring to air pollution, it is said on good authority that in Canadian cities this pollution costs us over $500 million a year, which is a large figure. Surely, a small percentage of this amount could be devoted to research to try to solve the difficulty. The damage done is to fabrics, vehicles, machinery and so forth. One can figure out what the per capita cost to the Canadian taxpayer of such pollution is. It is around $40 to $60 per capita. Let me go farther, and talk of how air pollution affects people.
According to scientists researching in Los Angeles, 50 contaminants have been identified in the air of this city. How many unidentified contaminants there are I do not know. Many of these contaminants do harm to individuals, at least to a minor extent. In this country we are getting big cities, we are becoming industrialized. What scientific research in our universities is devoted to overcoming our difficulties? How great a concentration of air pollutants must one inhale before they become dangerous? Also, how much harm are those pollutants doing to us, even though they do not make us sick. To these questions scientific attention must be devoted.
Let me refer to one of the first areas on record affected by smog. In the Meuse Valley in Europe 6,000 people were made ill by smog and polluted air. Smog, of course, is one of the great problems of London, England. In one year there were 4,000 deaths attributable to the London smog. In Pensylvania in 1948 5,900 people became sick and 20 died. That is

close to us on this continent. Pollution presents a serious problem. To recapitulate, it may cause diseases, or make people susceptible to diseases which have not been identified to date. So far nothing has been done under this heading in Canada in the scientific field. Also to be remembered, is the epidemic in New Orleans. I am sure the minister remembers this, because in that epidemic there were several fatal asthmatic attacks. It was thought at first that smog had caused the attacks, but later it was discovered that the dust from grain elevators had caused the acute asthma and killed the people. The serious part of this is that once this sort of thing happens, it may be too late to do anything about it. That is why I urge the minister to conduct investigations in this field, because research is his responsibility.
So far as I can determine, most smogs causing fatalities have resulted from the burning of soft coal which gives off oxides and sulphur. Combined with water, or with moisture in the air, the sulphur forms sulphuric acid.
Will the minister take into consideration the chest diseases that are aggravated by air pollution? Will he also consider our greatly increased asthma, bronchitis and emphysema? Air pollution aggravates such diseases. Statistics show an alarming increase in emphysema alone during the last few years. This is of great concern to the medical profession, and research ought to be done in this field.
I wish to deal now with the harm smoking does. How much harm is smoking doing to the population? When one drives in a metropolitan city one has the exhausts from automobiles, the waste from factories, as well as the smoke from cigarettes to inhale. Of course, the non-smoker has less trouble from pollution than the smoker has, and I refer particularly to the cigarette smoker. At the seventh annual air pollution medical research gathering, epidemiologists reported that personal air pollution was a far more serious hazard to health than the most serious form of communal air pollution. Cigarette smokers inhale their own pollutant as well as pollutants in the surrounding air.
To give an example, the two pack a day smoker inhales roughly 150 milligrams of benzyprene in one year. That is a serious problem itself. Equally serious is the fact that the smoker, by puffing smoke into the air, pollutes the air which other people breathe.
November 17, 196G
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The non-smoker gets 200 mgms. of benzpyrene per year driving to and from work in a metropolitan area. But how about the poor guy who is smoking two packs of cigarettes a day? He is affected by both air pollution and cigarette pollution. He is getting 350 mgms. of benzpyrene a year. That is a heavy dosage, a very heavy dosage.
It is an accepted fact that cigarettes are a major cause of lung cancer. Anybody who has seen anyone with lung cancer cannot but be moved with compassion, and must be concerned with the smoking problem. I am not criticizing the government in a political way, but what has it done in this field? Surely, it is the responsibility of our medical research centres, and particularly of the people who manufacture cigarettes, to produce a tobacco that is not cancer stimulating.
The last figures I saw for 1965, showed that there were over 3,000 deaths due to cancer of the lung. As an aside, I may mention that Dr. Delarue will be speaking here shortly, and I hope all members of the house will go to hear him. He is an outstanding authority on chest surgery.
On January 1, 1966, the United States government made it mandatory on cigarette manufacturers to indicate on each package the hazard to health. What have we done in this respect? How much have we spent advertising the harmful effects of cigarette smoking? What have been the results of that advertising? I would like the minister to give us a reply on this matter, and if he cannot give it today then let him give it to us within the next two days.
What does the government intend to do in the matter of cigarette package labelling. If my memory serves me correctly, we were informed that once the United States made a move we would follow. Now, I ask when will we make it mandatory for cigarette package labels to read, "This may be hazardous to your health"?
I say in all sincerity to the minister that I am very concerned about this matter. Being a doctor and being the head of a clinic, I have seen too many fellows come in with cancer of the lung. They get the smoking habit early, and if there is anything we as members of parliament can do to stop young people acquiring the smoking habit, we should do it.
The hon. member for New Westminster has asked many questions about this matter, but we have not received the information that we
10015
Sup p ly-Industry want. I am sure the minister would like to give us that information because I hope he is as much concerned as I am.
I was pleased to see that the minister has increased the grant for medical research but, Mr. Chairman, he is only throwing a little more fuel on the fire. He is not really stoking it up. We are spending $12 million a year on research in Canada, just a tenth per capita of what the United States is spending. We rank far down the list. In the medical profession, we rank 13th among the progressive countries of the world so far as the provision of doctors is concerned. When I look at that figure, I get a little ashamed of our efforts in this field.
The same is true with respect to medical research. We are far down the list, even though we have motor cars, television sets and radios, and even though we boast about having the second highest standard of living in the world. But we cannot provide enough research and money to keep our young university graduates in Canada.
Today we have a shortage of doctors. We have about one general practitioner to every 1,900 people. I repeat that we are in 13th place among the nations of the world with respect to the provision of doctors. Why is this so? It is because we lose 200 doctors every year to the United States. Why do we lose them? Because they do not have adequate research opportunities here in Canada.
The government is going to implement a medicare scheme in 1968, but I ask where is it going to get the teaching scientists to staff the universities? At present we are losing 200 bright young fellows every year because many of them are taking on research in the United States. Where are we going to find the teaching scientists to fill our own teaching posts?
I say with all sincerity that no matter how the government expands our present medical schools, if it does not get sufficient teaching scientists there will be a musical chairs program, with teachers moving from the poorer universities to the better universities. The result will be that poorer universities may lose their accredited standing entirely. This is a very serious mater.
Just last week I was talking in Toronto about this problem. We need more money for research and more branches of research. There is no use erecting buildings if we do not have the teachers and teaching scientists to man them. Where can we get these people that we need? First of all the government



November 17, 1966
Supply-Industry
must provide the funds which are necessary for research and then we may attract some of our own people back from the United States. We will also have to offer them comparable salaries in Canada. We need between 1,500 and 1,700 such people. I repeat it is a serious problem.
I am well aware the responsibility does not fall solely on the minister I wonder why we do not set up a medical board to examine students in Great Britain who want to emigrate to Canada, as the United States has done. We should have our own examining board in London, and if doctors there want to come to Canada they could take their examinations in London.


Mr. Haidasz:: What about provincial jurisdiction.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Somebody has mentioned the word "provincial". I say the government had better get a dominion-provincial conference working on this problem mighty fast, because anybody who comes into this country has to come in through the department of immigration. Once you pass the Medical Council of Canada, you are eligible to practise in any province in Canada.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I say with all seriousness, that if you take that attitude and do not co-operate you will not get anywhere. My hon. friend from Parkdale-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Another doctor?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes, another doctor. I am sure he realizes what the situation is as well as I do. If he doesn't, he should. He knows I am right, he knows that regardless of how it is done, you must go after these people and give them the same opportunities which they are given in the United States. I should like to say also that thex-e are some teacher-scientists in Great Britain who would be very glad to come to Canada to teach if they were given the opportunity, the salary, the money and adequate research work. Therefore, I say to the minister, here is $12 million in medical research. For heaven's sake, you cannot do it on that amount. I know the minister is taking in all of this. You cannot do it; you will have to put $40 million in that item, and add to it again and again as the facilities and teachers are available.
I do not intend to discuss the industrial field, but I should like to say that if we were doing the research in Canada which we should be doing we would not be paying $300

million a year to the United States for the research and statistics done there by some of the graduates from our Canadian universities. If we continue in this manner, we will never build Canada as we should. We have a Canada of which I am sure all of us are proud. This is a country with more resources per capita probably than any nation in the world. I^ame it; we have it. A lot of the raw material which is going out of Canada is processed scientifically by techniques developed by Canadians educated in this country. I should like to say to the minister that in the field of medicine the cost is $50,000 per medical graduate. We are losing these people at the rate of 200 per year. This means we are losing $10 million per year. I have said this before on many occasions. We also are losing quite a number of persons to the United States who would be teacher-scientists. I could name many of these. What is their earning power? The other day I looked up the lifetime earnings. It is three quarters of a million dollars. This means we are giving to the United States, so long as we permit this traffic across the border to the extent we are, a gift of $150 million plus $10 million which is $160 million, and we get back in return from the United States very little in the medical field.
This is a disastrous situation. I am not blaming the government for all of this. As the minister has said, we started slowly. But, for goodness sake, let us not keep on being slow, because in 1980 we will be in the same position we are today, if we do not make a change. I am very concerned about this point. We do need more doctors and medical schools have to be built. We are far behind in our schedule. I do not wish to have this on my conscience and, therefore, I hope I have made my point perfectly clear. I have occasion to be in hospitals. I was there myself as a patient 3 weeks ago. I could tell you a little story about that, but I will not do it. I do not want anyone in this house to lose his life because there has not been a doctor to attend him. It may be your life or that of one of your family. We are becoming short of doctors. A doctor can do only so much. It is up to us to get those doctors. Once you overwork doctors, the quality of their work goes down.
I mentioned that we should have an examining board in London. I am sure my friend from Parkdale will agree with me that we have reciprocity, but it is only with a few of the provinces. We should set up an examining board in London, because Great Britain trains very good doctors. They have good medical
November 17, 1966

schools. We could obtain doctors there. Not only can we do that, but we should build up the research in our own schools and employ those 200 doctors who are crossing the border. In this way we would be able to close the gap. So, I appeal to the minister to do everything in his power to see that this is done.
In conclusion, I should like to say that in Canada we have a great medical profession. We have good medical schools, many of which rank with the best. I can remember when a great many of our medical schools were better than those in the United States, but the situation has changed. Today four of our medical schools have had difficulty in meeting the academic requirements. I am one who has great faith in the young people of our country, and I say that with the great country we have, the great resources we have and above all with the human resources we have, for goodness sake let us keep Canada at the top. If we do not do this, we will downgrade the profession and when it is downgraded it will be too late to lift it up.
I hope the minister will reply to some of the points I have raised. I am sure he may have to consult with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and perhaps look up some information. I would be very happy, however, if he would report back on this, if not today, at least in a few days.


Mr. Barneii:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that every member who has been listening to the eloquent words of the hon. member for Simcoe East has been moved by the plea he has put before the house. I doubt that there are many members of this house who could find very much with which to disagree in what the hon. member has just said. His remarks moved me to take a look at this item of $12,350,000 which is shown under scholarships and grants in aid of medical research. I did a bit of quick arithmetic and my calculation is that this amounts to roughly six-tenths of one cent per person per year in Canada. I hope his remarks may have caused other members to take a new look at the limitations which we are imposing at the federal level on the development and progress in this particular field to which the hon. member for Simcoe East referred.
I think the minister will find, in effect, that the hon. member for Kootenay West, the hon. member for Simcoe East and myself are going to be indulging in what I might describe as variations of a theme here today. Before I move into the particular area which I wish to discuss, I should like to say that I did enjoy
Supply-Industry
listening to the minister's brief introduction of these estimates. I agree with him that in view of the consideration given to the estimates in the committee, perhaps it should not be necessary for us today to launch into the broad spectrum of what may be involved in the work of the National Research Council and the Medical Research Centre.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
However, I must say I feel the topics that have been raised by the hon. members for Kootenay West and Simcoe East are topics which are very timely as far as this house is concerned. Just prior to going to Montreal to attend the conference on "Pollution and our Environment", I had the privilege of being one of a small group of members who paid an all too brief visit to the National Research Council on the Montreal road. At that time I was given a glimpse of some aspects of the work of that institution which I had not had the opportunity of observing before. That visit was a very useful and valuable prelude to my visit to the conference in Montreal as one of the parliamentary observers in attendance.
The hon. member for Kootenay West dealt with the question of pollution of our water, air and soil. I intend to make my remarks on research in the light of what he had to say about the background leading up to the holding of this important conference.
I am sure the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is the Canadian federal member of that council of resource ministers, will have no objection to some of us, during this discussion of research in Canada, attempting to focus attention on what happened at the conference. I am sure he will not object to our attempt to enlist the Minister of Industry as an active supporter of some of the proposals which were made. I certainly hope that other proposals will be forthcoming from the federal member of the council of resource ministers in the near future.
The hon. member for Kootenay West said earlier that the conference sought to arrive at conclusions in respect of certain guide lines which are not, as yet, legislative policy at either the federal or provincial levels of government. Let me spend some time discussing what I consider to be the relevant guidelines in relation to the particular estimates we have before us in the field of air, water and soil pollution control.
It is my intention to refer to a document which I have in my hand entitled "Recommendations from the Guideline Groups". I do

November 17, 1966
Supply-Industry
not intend to read them all, but I should like to quote those I believe are pertinent to the subject now under discussion.
Under the heading "Air Pollution", having regard to the possible activities of the federal government in this field, it is suggested:
That a single federal organization or agency be established
(a)	To establish a national pollution abatement code.
(b)	To co-ordinate the preparation, collection and dissemination of pollution information.
(c)	To conduct or cause to be conducted, research in the field of pollution on a continuing basis.
Let me refer to paragraph (g) which reads:
(g) To promote environmental contamination studies which must include the following factors:
(1)	cost-benefit analyses including social costs where possible.
(2)	the consequences of inaction or incomplete action as a function of time.
In another part of this report which deals with the field of water pollution, other recommendations are set out. Perhaps I should mention to the house that the conference was subdivided into many guideline groups which attempted to arrive at a composite picture. I mention that fact because I want to stress the almost unanimous view which emerged from these various groups in certain fields.
Under the heading of "recommendations on water pollution control and legislation and administration", the following is stated:
2-2 that the federal government undertake responsibility for general program direction, the development of standards, and research into pollution control; 2-3 that a single federal organization or agency be established to develop a national pollution abatement code and to co-ordinate the preparation, collection and dissemination of information on pollution, to conduct research, to co-operate with other agencies and to cover a broad spectrum of aids;
Under the guideline recommendations referring to the matter of soil pollution, following the heading "Science and Technology", the following recommendation states:
That a single inter-disciplinary national agency on environmental contamination be established with broad responsibilities in the general areas of
(1)	Setting up a library and data centre,
(2)	Developing national standards,
(3)	Support for research,
(4)	Resource management techniques,
(5)	Use of the least harmful chemicals,
(6)	Training and education,
(7)	Monitoring system,
(8)	Guidance on legislation,
(9)	Dissemination of information and
(10)	Cost benefit analysis.

Recommendation No. 2 reads:
That a national environmental policy be developed in close co-ordination with industry. This policy should emphasize:
(1)	Encouragement of uniform objectives between provinces,
(2)	Financial incentives to expedite abatement,
(3)	Establishing national standards for sampling and analytical procedures,
(4)	Step-by-step implementation of objectives at the local level,
(5)	Extensive documentation on environmental control,
(6)	Development of additional technology.
Recommendation No. 3 reads:
That support be given to fundamental research and that support, encouragement and judicial direction be given to applied research in pollution.
It should be obvious to all hon. members of this committee on reading these recommendations in respect of all three fields of pollution control, as dealt with by the conference, that there is a common theme. The theme is that the responsibility for developing standards and objectives,-however they may be described-and the responsibility for initiating and co-ordinating efforts in this regard should immediately be assumed as the responsibility of the federal government.
I do not intend to go into the guideline suggestions in relation to the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, other than to say that in my view the general consensus of the conference was that the provinces had primary jurisdiction in the matter of legislative control of pollution and that they should move actively into this area, going far beyond anything that has been done up to the present time.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. It being six o'clock, in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private member's business, I do now leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal), Expo '67-Montreal-tourist accommodation; the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-inquiry as to a search; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles),
November 17, 196G

old age security-increased taxation to compensate for higher pension.
It being six o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, papers, and private bills.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I understand there has been some discussion among representatives of all parties in the house and the individual members who have items standing in their names for consideration at this time. I believe there is general agreement to recess for supper between six and eight o'clock. I should like, therefore, to make that request.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does the house agree to suspend the sitting until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered. The house will now resume the business interrupted a few moments ago.

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


[Stage Direction]
I. Administration, operation and maintenance, $33,468,000.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; house again in committee of supply. Pursuant to an order of the house, I do now leave the chair.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Progress reported.

Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I indicated to the committee that I would request that information with regard to the mid-month payroll requirements of the public service be attached as an appendix to today's Hansard. I now ask that I be permitted to do so.
Supply-Industry


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is there unanimous consent to the request of the minister?


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: No, Mr. Speaker, there is not. We want the information presented at the correct time. At present we should proceed with the regular business of the house. There is no unanimous consent.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a word in this regard? I am not asking to read this document into the record. I simply indicated earlier today that I would table it and ask that it be attached as an appendix to today's Hansard. All I ask is that I be permitted to keep my commitment to the house.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we do not want a lengthy explanation which cannot be answered from this side of the house.


Edgar John Benson: I am not making a lengthy explanation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house agree to the request made by the Minister of National Revenue?


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

The house in committee of supply.



NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, INCLUDING THE MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
.,i-^A0d™lnIstration- °Perati°n and maintenance,
$oo,4oo,UU0.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I had just concluded making some references to the suggested guidelines arising from the conference on pollution and our environment which was held recently in Montreal. I referred in particular to those guidelines which I felt had a direct relevance to the item now under consideration, namely, the administration of the National Research Council.
I would now like to attempt to relate what I was saying earlier directly to the operation of the N.R.C., and to do so I would like to make one or two references to the publications of that body. I am referring to a booklet entitled "N.R.C. Yesterday Today Tomorrow" which was published on the occasion of the fiftieth

November 17, 1966
Supply-Industry
anniversary of the founding of the council in 1916.
I am referring to the booklet for two reasons. First, I believe that we as members of this house should accept a greater responsibility than we have in the past for assisting the Canadian people to know and to understand the asset they have in the National Research Council which has been built up over the last 50 years and, second, I feel that in the urgency of approaching a solution to the growing pollution problem in Canada we should first take a look at the resources we have at hand which can be put to work in this field, and I hope to suggest that N.R.C. is indeed a very important agency which we could use in this connection. I will therefore quote from the publication to which I referred. On page 1 it reads:
The National Research Council of Canada Is a link between the scientific interests of the government, industry and the universities of Canada and a patron of basic and applied science. The governing body of the council is drawn from leading members of the universities, industries and labour. Research
N.R.C.'s ten laboratory divisions in Ottawa and two regional institutions, one in Halifax, and one in Saskatoon, comprise Canada's largest and most diversified laboratory complex.
Both pure and long-term applied research are carried out in these laboratories, as well as contract research on specific projects, standardization work, and testing for which no private or commercial facilities are available.
A little farther on, under the heading "Technical Information", it reads as follows:
N.R.C.'s technical information service provides, without cost, information and advice on technological matters to Canadian firms. Its industrial engineers give direct assistance and advice especially to small firms on improvement of their plant layout, efficiency of operating and good plant management. This service answers about 17,000 inquiries per year from Canadian industries.
It seems to me that this is a very short but effective summary of the work done by N.R.C. It also seems to me that N.R.C. is the kind of institution which was certainly uppermost in the minds of the numerous technically competent people and people from various federal and provincial government departments who attended the conference in Montreal. It is an institution which is in the position to serve the government, industry and universities in relation to research in the pollution field. I would therefore suggest that although there is no provision in these estimates for the kind of work suggested in the guidelines which arose from the conference on pollution, nevertheless now is the time to start preparing for consideration of next year's estimates in which

appropriate provision may have to be made for work in the field of pollution similar to what the N.R.C. is already doing in many other fields. We should expect to see a major expansion in the very limited work in this field that already comes within the responsibility of the National Research Council.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It is not my intention at this time to go into any detail as to the discussions to which I listened with regard to the amount of money that needs to be put into the battle against pollution. I might mention in passing that one of the spokesmen at the conference, in order to give us some idea of the scale on which the war against pollution should be fought, suggested that if we were to put into it something equivalent to the amount now appropriated for the national defences forces of Canada we would be thinking in terms of the kind of scale on which this problem should be attacked. What I particularly want to emphasize is that we should begin to think about taking active steps to commence this program.
One of the reasons I am taking the opportunity of emphasizing this matter on the discussion of the estimates of the National Research Council is that during my visit to the Montreal road establishment not too long ago one of the places we were taken to see was the division of building research. We had some discussion about the work of that division, about its relationship to the national building code of Canada and the kind of co-operation that existed between it and a body like Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in regard to the improvement of building standards throughout Canada.
During the week I was in Montreal the picture that built up in my mind in respect of the operations of the building research division and the national building code came back to me several times. Increasingly as I listened to the discussion it seemed to me that the most appropriate way to approach the idea of a national pollution standards code or whatever one might eventually decide to call it, for the practical implementation across the country of pollution control in a manner which would bring about co-operation between all levels of government in Canada was already established in an ideal pattern within the existing framework of the National Research Council.
I should like to make a brief reference to the work of the division of building research in relation to the national building code as outlined in the 1965-66 annual report of the
November 17, 1966

council. At page 26 of that report the following paragraph appears:
The division of building research, in its continuing service to Canada's largest industry, serves the whole field of design and construction. This includes not only problems associated with superstructure design, but also questions related to the design of foundations and to the ground on which structures and buildings have to be founded.
Soil mechanics and allied studies, grouped under the title Geotechnical Research, continue, therefore, to occupy an important place in the program of work of the division.
On the same page under the heading "Code" I find the following:
The national building code of Canada provides probably the most important bridge between research and practice. Although published through the associate committee on the national building code, the code reflects many of the most recent findings from the division's work.
Early in 1965, the fourth (new) edition of the code was published. Before the end of the year the first printing of 10,000 copies was almost exhausted, indicating the wide acceptance of the code across Canada. By local legal adoption, it is now in official use from coast to coast by 80 per cent of the cities of Canada, and for the direct benefit of about 70 per cent of the total urban population.
New adoptions of the code are continuing so that the time is not far distant when Canada will have essential technical uniformity in all its local building regulations, through the voluntary adoption of a publication of the National Research Council firmly based upon the results of building research.
It seems to me that if what is described there in respect of the division of building research and the national building code, the adoption of which has spread across Canada, could be translated into terms of developing standards and implementing controls in the field of pollution, it could provide almost an ideal parallel. As I said earlier in my remarks, the general consensus of the conference was that the field of enforcement and administration of pollution control properly rests, constitutionally and otherwise, primarily in the hands of the provincial authorities, and through them is applied to the municipal or regional divisions of the country.
However, there was general agreement, which certainly confirmed the view I have held for quite some time, that the only way in which this whole problem can be really attacked in a proper manner is if we in this parliament, through the federal government, exercise real leadership and guidance. Only when we can develop a national code and national standards based upon active and continuing research, so that the standards can be continually upgraded as new science and technology are developed, can we make continuing progress in this field which will lead to
Supply-Industry
more uniformity across the entire country, thereby avoiding all the complications in the various fields of industry because of the existence of different standards in different regions or provinces of the country.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I should like to conclude my remarks by saying that if nothing more has emerged out of that conference than this, certainly the most logical guideline that can be actively implemented with the least possible delay, we should utilize the existing framework of the national research council to establish a national pollution control institute and through that institute develop a national pollution standards code. Backed by the kind of work done in the field of building research we could continually upgrade our approach in dealing with this whole problem.
The most knowledgeable spokesmen at the conference suggested that most of the research on the technical problems of the control of domestic sewage or waste had been donej but continually reference was made to what some described as the more exotic chemical compounds that increasingly emanate from developing industry. I do not know whether some of the chemicals that emanate from some industrial plants in my constituency could be described as exotic, but they are certainly chemicals that a great many of my constituents would prefer to see somewhere else than in the air or water of the region in which they live. The truth of what I say is obvious to all of us, and applies to more and more parts of our country as time goes on.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I join with the hon. member for Kootenay West in urging on the minister and the house the view that no time ought to be lost. The guidelines from the conference and the spirit and interest generated must not be lost. We in this house should accept our share of responsibility for seeing that they are not lost.
We cannot afford delay. I know that what I am about to mention is not directly parallel with the facts, but because of experience in this house I must take advantage of the first opportunity to raise some of these matters in the aftermath of the conference. I am not indulging in political gibes, but I recall that not too long ago a debate, not concluded yet, was begun in this house and reference was made to guidelines in the field of medical care which were laid down in 1919. With that background in mind I hope that hon. members now occupying the treasury benches will take a somewhat different approach to implement

November 17, 1966
Supply-Industry
the guide lines of the conference on pollution in our environment held earlier this year.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall vote 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall item 5 carry?
5. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $7,100,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall item 10 carry?
10. Scholarships and grants in aid of research, $41,000,000.


Mr. Brand:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on item 10. I thought we could give the minister a sense of accomplishment if we left vote 1 and went to vote 10. I want to say a few words about the Medical Research Council, the grants proposed for the coming year and those given in the past year. I was pleased to hear the increase that the minister has recommended but I am sorry to say, as has been said by others this afternoon and this evening, that it is not good enough. It is too little. The minister obviously has not paid attention to the many organizations and reports advocating increased grants for medical research, particularly in view of the medical care legislation which we hope to have before the house at some time, though the prospects are somewhat dim at the moment. Nevertheless, I submit that the house and the government must take a longer and closer look at the reasons for the shortages of funds for medical research in Canada.
My colleague from Simcoe East points out that in the United States they spend $5.05 per capita on medical research whereas we spend about 75 cents per capita. This is not good enough. As an example I should like to show how badly the University of Saskatchewan medical school, my home college, needs money and help in the field of medical research. Quite recently there was a long series of articles in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, beginning on October 29 and running through to November 2 on the problem of the financing of research as a major health need. I wish to quote from the excellent articles written by a staff reporter, Florence Pratt.
More and better teachers and better facilities for research, or second class medical care-which?
I hope that is a rhetorical question.
This is the critical situation which medical personnel and some laymen say Canada must face at once.

She quotes Dr. Louis Horlick of the department of clinical medicine in the university medical school.
-to provide high class service, "the kind I am convinced the people of Canada want, we must produce a new kind of doctor, one who will not be obsolete the day he graduates. He must know how to receive information and use it properly. This calls for a new kind of training-one that will teach the student how to examine, evaluate and apply evidence and treatment."
Sound teaching and research go hand in hand. They require a medical college which both teaches and carries on a continuing research program, interfaculty exchange of ideas and continual expansion of those ideas-*
The article points out that it is not enough to find one or two qualified men. Then it continues:
A researcher coming here needs to be assured conditions, both of staff and of facilities, will stimulate and encourage the creative mind.
A favourable climate for research is a nebulous thing, formed of a well-balanced combination of people, equipment and buildings. This combination can be provided. But it takes money, a great deal of money and long-range planning. In Canada, the immediate and most urgent problem is where and how to get that money.
Though I am pleased at the proposed 33J per cent increase, it is about 50 per cent of what is required at this time and perhaps 20 per cent of what will be needed in ten years if, as the hon. member for Simcoe East points out, we are to bring in the kind of medical teachers who have solid research backgrounds and can produce more and better doctors to service Canada's people, and if we are to stop the exodus of doctors to the United States and other countries. We must have these funds and we must have them now.
We are all familiar with the Gundy report which was presented to the Prime Minister earlier this year. Surely the minister knows what the Gundy report recommends should be spent on research. If he has not done so I suggest that he should read the report, as it makes excellent reading and is most informative. The summary of the report on page 1 says:
Medical research is essential to the provision of high standards of medical education, health services and health care. This fact must be recognized in any programs aimed at broadening health services and raising health care standards in Canada. If these are to become objectives of public policy-
We all know, if I may interject my thought, that this matter ought indeed to become one of the objectives of this house. It continues:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
-provision must be made for expansion of medical education in Canada and this, in turn, necessitates a greatly expanded scale of medical research effort.
November 17, 1966

It is, of course, the Gundy report which suggests a minimum of $40 million rather than the $15 million or $20 million, if there is an increase, that is now being provided. I see the figure given in vote No. 10 is $12,350,000. This is not good enough. There are many people who apply to the Medical Research Council. Do hon. members realize that not only medical schools apply but also veterinary colleges and they too, because they are involved in a related health science, receive grants from the council for research into animal diseases which affect both animals and humans?
The paltry $12 million in the estimates is not enough to service even the needs of our veterinary colleges. A new one has been built in Saskatchewan and has just been opened, and the amount of money needed there for research to make it a first-class centre will be tremendous.
I am happy to see the Minister of Agriculture in his seat. Perhaps he could persuade the Minister of Industry to spend a little more for improvements in veterinary schools, particularly under the aegis of the Medical Research Council. I could read editorials all night that ask the House of Commons and the government to do something about the amount of money needed for medical research.
Last March the Star-Phoenix of Saskatoon carried an editorial reading as follows:
Canada continues to drag its anchor-
I have heard other descriptions used outside this chamber.
-when it comes to support of scientific research. This is false economy and the lack of financial generosity for research is one of the root causes of the continuing "brain-drain" under which the United States gets the cream of Canada's intellectual crop.
This must have been said tens of thousands of times across the country in newspapers, over radio and television, and in this house. Yet the message has not got through and I am concerned about this.
A few weeks ago I spent some time visiting the medical college in Saskatoon. I have spoken about it previously, and I was appalled at the lack of facilities and the lack of research in depth because of the shortage of personnel and money to provide such research in depth. I have previously said that in modern times research cannot be done in a garret. You must have a research team so that if one drops out you have a back-up man to take his place. You need a whole team to do such research 23033-635
Supply-Industry
and you need proper buildings in which to do it. It is from such research that we get good teachers.
The Saskatchewan medical school, one of the newest medical schools in Canada, was brought into being when the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was premier of Saskatchewan, and I am sure that if he went through it today he would be appalled at what he would see there. Let me give a few specific examples. There was a washroom for the ladies on the third floor. It is now a laboratory because they did not have space to build another laboratory, and so now the ladies must walk down two floors. Perhaps that is funny but I think it is pretty pathetic when we do not have the facilities to provide for proper laboratory space.
The school has a classroom in which 90 to 110 students are taught at a time, depending on the classes being taught. It is the only classroom on the anatomy floor. There are 70 seats and there is no room for any more. I asked Dr. Federoff, who is professor of anatomy, "What do you do with the extra students?" He replied, "We have been wondering about that too." But he is a cheerful man and he told me, "We have finally managed to snag an assistant professor of anatomy. I only hope he does not find out what it is like before he gets here." The professor added, "We ran into a problem because we did not have an office for him. There was not a nook or cranny where we could put him, so we have decided to take the end of the corridor, partition it off, and that will be his office."
Then he asked me, "Would you like to see the electron microscope we have here?" It is the only one on the campus of the university and is used by all departments. I said I would be delighted to see it and I was then taken through the dissecting room. As a physician that did not bother me very much. I spent many happy hours in such a room during my student days. But the point is that we had to walk through that room the same as technicians do and any other workers from some of the, shall we say, less bloody sciences. Then we went into a little corner room where they keep the electron microscope-this, Mr. Chairman, in this great Canada of ours where we are supposed to have all the modern things of science.
Nevertheless it is encouraging to know that despite these shabby circumstances and despite the paucity of funds this university, as is the case with many of our universities, has attained an international reputation for the

November 17, 1966
Supply-Industry
quality of the work done there. But this is no credit to the governments of our country. It is a credit to the few dedicated teacher-scientists who are doing this work despite the hardships under which they labour.
Some time ago I received a letter from the head of the department of physiology and pharmacology at the University of Saskatchewan, Dr. L. B. Jaques. His letter is not relevant to this discussion except in one respect. He sent me a clipping taken from the May 14 edition of the Toronto Star, with a story reported by the Canadian Press about the difficulty one doctor in Kingston had in obtaining grants from the Medical Research Council. This man, Dr. Basmajian, said that his original application for a grant was turned down because his project was termed completely impractical, and another doctor had termed it silly. The story concluded:
Dr. Basmajian said refusal of the grant obliged him to stop trying to harness nerves to artificial limbs.
The doctor was rather upset because apparently the Russians had come out with something good along this line and had announced it to the world. The only reason Dr. Jaques wrote to me was that at the time Dr. Bas-majian's application was turned down Dr. Jaques was a member of the medical advisory committee of the National Research Council, and he wanted to correct the impression Dr. Basmajian had left that his application was turned down because his project was silly.
I would like to read from this letter-I have had permission to do so-to show the real cause of refusal with respect to this remarkable project designed to help those who are disabled. Dr. Jaques says in his letter:
[DOT]-I would like to point out that Dr. Basmajian's application was refused, basically because there was not sufficient money to provide support for medical research. With money only sufficient to support one-third of the applications with well-conceived and well-planned projects-
I will repeat that:
With money only sufficient to support about one-third of the applications with well-conceived and well-planned projects, any misunderstanding or misreading of the application by the referee leading to adverse comments such as those cited by Dr. Basmajian, automatically led to the rejection of the application.
In other words, even with projects of great worth, if they find the slightest excuse they throw them away. Dr. Jaques continues:
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I have received identical treatment and it has only been by obtaining support from U.S. public

health services, has it been possible for me to continue with my research.
In a western Canadian university we find a person who has to go to the United States public health service to obtain sufficient funds not even to initiate research but to continue the research he has been doing on anti-coagulants. This is some of the most important research which is being done in this country. I might add that it was also being done by the Charles E. Frosst Company of Canada at that time through a small grant from the Medical Research Council. He continues, referring to the treatment given himself and Dr. Basmajian:
However, I do not attribute this treatment to the shortsightedness of referees but to the fact that they were forced to do an impossible job as honestly as they know how. Until the amount of money allotted annually by parliament to the Medical Research Council is approximately equal to the medical research resources of Canada, such unfortunate events will continue to happen.
I think this is most significant. This is from a member of the advisory committee to the National Research Council, and I think his comments are most apropos to the discussion this evening. I am not going to say too much more except to point out a couple of things. I have here a telegram that was sent to the Minister of Finance on September 9, 1968. It came about as a result of his statement that the government was going to put the brakes on with regard to medical research. From the comments of the minister earlier I am hopeful that the brakes are being released somewhat.
I was disturbed recently when I saw this statement by the Canadian Heart Foundation:
The provisional committee of the Canadian Association for the Advancement of the Health Sciences is alarmed at the disastrous consequences that would flow from any restraint, even temporary, on the growth of research in Canada. More particularly, we draw your attention to the need to recruit over one thousand teacher-scientists in the health fields to staff our universities in the next five years. Research is essential to the recruitment of this personnel.
We reaffirm the recommendations of the Gundy report as necessary to change the climate of medical research in Canada and urge the government to give an early indication of its long-term plans for a drive for medical manpower.
The reference to medical manpower is from the report of the royal commission on health services. We have heard nothing about that, but I hope the long-term plans in respect of research will be accelerated in a short time. The report, "Medical Research in Canada", points out at page 39 that of the grants made by the Medical Research Council grants-in-aid
November 17, 1966

have been the single most important component of the council's program since its inception and that at $7 million in 1965-66 they will be about three quarters of all expenditures. They go on to discuss what this means. I read from paragraph 3 on the same page:
In general, the pattern is that sufficient funds are available to support in full only one-third of the value of all applications; that one-half of the value of all applications can be supported only at a level of two-thirds of the funds requested; and that the balance of applications that are rejected contains projects worthy of support.
In other words, there are not sufficient funds. It seems to me that if we are going to increase the funds right now by only one-third there will still not be enough money for grants-in-aid alone. I am sure that if the government had prepared this report they would have spent more money on just getting out the report. It was handed to the government as a fait accompli, and I think that in gratitude we could supply some extra funds this year. There is one group which does have difficulty. Under the present system new grants are not made except in very exceptional circumstances. On page 44 of the report there is a comment which I think is very important:
For these grants, the shortage of funds Is even more clearly apparent: full approval could generally only be given to one-fifth of the number of applications and one-tenth of the value. About one-half of the applications have been approved in part, but the extent of this partial approval has only been about three-fifths of the amount requested.
The next paragraph on this page reads:
The inadequacy of support that can be given to new grants is particularly serious, since it is under this category of support that new entrants to medical research who have yet to make their reputation will generally be seeking funds to start their careers. The low availability of funds can only act as a severe discouragement to their efforts and as a deterrent to others contemplating entering the field of research.
I think this is a very serious statement in a report as comprehensive as the Gundy report. It is a very serious matter if we do not do something soon to try to narrow the gap between the funds available and the medical research resources which are available in Canada today. Surely the events of the past few months, and even of the past few days, would indicate the need to encourage younger people to come into the field of medical research. It is vitally important that we do this.
I know that from the graduating class at the University of Saskatchewan medical school the number of graduates who stay in Canada is so small that the situation has become 23033-635J
Supply-Industry
extremely serious indeed. In order to get interns to stay in the hospitals in the province very large inducements have to be offered. We have not been able to match those offered south of the border. We have not been able to even keep close. With all due respect to those who come to us as immigrants, and we need as many trained persons as possible, it seems a strange paradox, in a city with a medical school, that in one of the large metropolitan hospitals not one intern was educated in the province of Saskatchewan medical school. They have come from the Philippines, India, China and other countries.
I question very much whether we have the moral right to continue to attract physicians from seriously under-doctored countries. I question very much whether we have the moral right to allow our own young men and women to go south of the border-the brain drain as it is called. We are losing the very lifeblood of our country when we allow these people, because of the inducement of more benefits and greater facilities, to go there. We cannot keep them because we do not have sufficient funds. We have sufficient funds to build a $300 million edifice for defence, although the forces seem to be disintegrating. We do not have enough to keep the young people of our country here where they should be helping to educate others and look after not only our families but those of generations to come. I think it is of vital importance that we find more money and find it soon.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The very day that the Minister of Finance was talking in this house last September, the head of the Economic Council of Canada was speaking in Montreal and he said that the one thing we must not do is cut back on education or research. As he was saying this, the minister was quietly whittling away. We must increase the amounts for research and education. They go hand in hand at the university level; you cannot separate them. I think it is of vital importance that something be done immediately in this field.
In conclusion I should like to read another of the summaries of which the Gundy report is full. On page 45 of the report we find the following:
The granting experience of the Medical Research Council illustrates the problems that exist in the field of medical research in Canada. The council, within the limitations of the funds at its disposal, has apparently attempted to provide for the increasing numbers of individuals engaging in medical research at all levels of skill and experience, and to provide funds for their operations and for the

November 17, 1966
Supply-Industry
necessary equipment in a manner which will give some continuity of support and permit investigators to continue to work in the field.
In saying this the report gives credit to the work that has been done by the Medical Research Council, which I think has done a magnificent job in the circumstances. The key phrase in the passage I have read refers to continuity of support to permit investigators to continue to work in this field. Many of our grants are for one year, and by the time a researcher starts up and trains an assistant the grant has expired and is not continued. Something must be done to change this pattern so that investigators and researchers can obtain a bulk grant with which they can plan their projects for a two or three-year period and thereby avoid the hiring and training of new assistants all the time. The report says further:
Deficiencies exist, however, at all levels and in all categories of support and it is apparent that these deficiencies stem more from a shortage of funds than from lack of scientific merit in the applications.
I trust that the minister will take this passage to heart and will do everything in his power, as I am sure he will, to provide more funds for this most vital of all things in this country, namely, the work of the Medical Research Council and education and training in our medical schools.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity this evening to speak on the subject of Medical Research Council scholarships and grants in aid of medical research. The estimate in this respect is $12,350,000. Inasmuch as this is Thursday, November 17, four days before Monday, November 21, when the government of which I am happy to be a member will be making the largest single contribution toward medical research that the Dominion of Canada has ever known, I am glad of this opportunity to take part in the debate. On Monday afternoon the federal government, through the Minister of Veterans Affairs, will be turning over Sunnybrook hospital, with its surrounding acres and acres of grounds to the University of Toronto.
I do not know what estimate one would place on the value of that magnificent hospital and its parkland setting. No doubt the Minister of Industry could tell us how many tens of millions of dollars it is worth. However, Mr. Chairman, this hospital is being turned over to the University of Toronto for the training of doctor and for medical research. It seems rather odd that on this Thursday afternoon and evening we have had three members

of the official opposition standing up and demanding more co-operation from the federal government in the matter of medical research and student training when the education of doctors is primarily a provincial matter. I sincerely hope that the governments of Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan will learn of the well-delivered remarks of representatives of those three provinces in this house today, because their remarks could better be addressed to the provincial legislatures rather than the dominion house.
We are told that the federal government are increasing the grants in aid and scholarships in medical research from $9,250,000 last year to $12,350,000 this year. This is a fine increase, the opposition say, "but". There is always the "but" when the opposition are commenting on something that the government is doing for the good of the country. One of the speakers in this debate told us we are only stoking up the fire and are not really throwing fuel into the furnace. I would point out that in the four paragraphs of the estimates for the National Research Council, including the Medical Research Council, we have an increase of only 20 per cent in all four votes, but in the field of the Medical Research Council the increase is 33J per cent. In the four votes in these estimates the greatest increase percentagewise is in respect of the Medical Research Council, amounting to $3,100,000.
The continual demand on the federal government to enter the field of education becomes a little wearisome when you realize that several provinces are everlastingly raising their guard against the federal government intruding into the field of education. This is certainly an area in which we must make progress slowly because of the opposition from the individual provinces.
The criticisms made this afternoon by the opposition regarding the fine action that has been taken by the Pearson administration fall harshly on my ears in view of the fact that I know on Monday we are making this contribution which runs into tens of millions of dollars to the University of Toronto.
However, Mr. Chairman, what are the first words in Toronto that greet me, a member from Toronto, about Sunnybrook hospital? The first thing I hear is: Oh, it will take the doctors four years to work Sunnybrook hospital up to the requirements they set for a hospital in which they are going to teach students and in which research will be carried out. It strikes me, as a layman, as mighty funny that these people in Toronto are willing
November 17, 1966

to allow the war veterans in Sunnybrook hospital to be treated the way they are treated today-it is a magnificent hospital with magnificent facilities-and yet the moment we are turning it over for research and the training of medical students they tell us it will take four years for the doctors to bring this magnificent hospital up to the standards they have set.
In turning this hospital over to the university the Liberal administration of the day is following a recommendation of the Glassco report. The Glassco Commission was set up by our predecessors in office, the Diefenbaker government. I think it shows the breadth of wisdom of this government when I point out that we are gladly adopting the recommendation made by the Glassco commission in this regard. We not only believe that it will be a great aid to medical research in Ontario and Canada, and a great aid in training medical students, but it will be of great benefit in providing civilian beds for the city of Toronto.
The Glassco reports points out that with the success of the various provincial hospital plans, which were initiated on a national scale by the Secretary of State for External Affairs following their success in Saskatchewan under the Douglas administration and in the province of British Columbia, and in view of the success of the ten provincial hospital schemes, many beds are being left empty in veterans hospitals at the moment because men choose to stay in their local city hospitals, where they are close to relatives and friends rather than to distant veterans hospitals. The Glassco's Commission recommended that these empty beds be used for civilian purposes, since the records show that they have been empty for years on end. This Liberal administration has been happy to adopt that suggestion.
When it comes to providing funds for medical research, I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that quite a few hospitals in the Dominion of Canada which have large endowments which they spend, they say, on medical research, and some hospitals that do not have large endowments, are out seeking funds for this purpose.
I for one maintain that medical research is not a function of hospitals. I can get into plenty of arguments on that score with doctors on the staffs of hospitals that have endowments.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Of course these gentlemen maintain that there is nobody as brilliant as they are and
Supply-Industry
that they alone should have the right to say how the endowments that they enjoy shall be spent in research. I believe that research should be under the auspices of universities. It is interesting to know that one of the Commonwealth countries in the southern hemisphere introduced about two years ago legislation impressing endowments made to hospitals for medical research to be used under the auspices of universities. This is the subject of lively discussions in the southern hemisphere at the present time and it is becoming a very lively topic of discussion in hospital and university circles in Canada. There is no reason under the sun why certain hospitals, which over a period of 80, 90 or 100 years have built up a tremendous reputation in this field and are now enjoying continuous gifts, particularly through sums bequeathed to them, should be able to spend funds for research carried out by their closed staffs as distinct from medical research grants to universities. If those endowment funds were taken over by individual provinces and applied to medical research in university centres the money could be used for the good of many universities and many research specialists instead of being used for a few hospitals, few researchers and few doctors.
The hon. member for Saskatoon referred to the shortage of interns. I know of one particular hospital where the interns employed by this hospital are assigned to certain doctors in that hospital which is richly endowed. These doctors tell the interns to do research for them so as to build up the doctor's reputation, taking advantage of the money which was bequeathed by people long since dead and gone. I do not believe that doctors on the staff of public hospitals should be allowed to build up a reputation for themselves by using what I consider to be public funds which were left in wills and on which no succession duties were turned over to the government. I do not believe the day is far distant when the endowments left to hospitals will be taken over by the provinces and used for medical research carried out by universities for the good of the whole country.
In commending the government for its action in increasing the grants to the Medical Research Council by 33J per cent, which is an invasion into provincial jurisdiction, I should like to express my thanks for the decision taken by this party and this government to turn Sunnybrook Hospital over to the University of Toronto for the training of medical students and for research. I should

November 17, 1966
Supply-Industry
also like to commend the government for the size of the contribution made to medical research in Canada.


Mr. Caouetfe:: Mr. Chairman, I listened very closely to the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) when he dealt with the importance of the National Research Council, including the Medical Research Council. The hon. member mentioned several times that the federal government was not allocating sufficient money so that such research may be more consistent with the needs of the country.
The hon. member for Saskatoon, himself a doctor, was entirely right when he said that we are short of money, that we should find the required money; that we spend too much for national defence, when we should be spending more in the medical or national field.
However, Mr. Chairman, I must point out to the hon. member that, for the past three weeks, his party has objected to the passage of interim supply in this house, alleging that the three Canadian services should be maintained as they are at present.
The statement of the hon. member for Saskatoon is therefore inconsistent with the activities of his own party in the last three weeks. Well, Mr. Chairman, 1 fully agree with the hon. member-


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Will the hon. member permit a question? Would he not agree that what I said was that the present government found $300 million to build a defence establishment-I was referring to a building-in spite of the fact that the armed forces are apparently withering away? I was not referring to the amount of money spent on defence but to the money which is being spent on this monument to the Minister of National Defence, if you want to call it that. That is different from what the hon. member said.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member said,
"a monument". This is an affirmation, not a question. I should like the hon. member to ask me a question if he has one to ask.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: It is a pleasure indeed. I asked whether the hon. member would not agree that those were the words I used, not the ones he attributed to me. That, sir, is a question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. member for Saskatoon to mean that a

building now under construction or about to be built will probably cost the government millions of dollars. However, that building will nevertheless be used by the Canadian armed forces.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
And the hon. member for Saskatoon will agree with me that for the last three weeks, his political party has been against reducing the expenditures of the National Defence Department through unification of the Canadian armed forces. And the hon. member is aware that those expenditures will be sharply reduced when we have one army instead of three.
Now, when the hon. member talks about the construction of an army building anywhere in Canada, he has the right to do so.
I do it myself, and I even feel that we spend too much now for national defence. And, like the hon. member also, I feel that we spend far from enough in the field of research.
And when you consider that vote 10 of the National Research Council, including the Medical Research Council, amounts to $41 million, I think that any member of the house feels that $41 million, even if it is a huge amount, is not enough to help research in this country.
When you consider, Mr. Chairman, that this year we will pay in interest only on the public debt $1,215 million without touching the principal. That is 29.5 times the amount allocated to the National Research Council including the Medical Research Council.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) did not mention that. And I do not think that the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) will mention it now or when we reach the end of the estimates of the department now under consideration.
But, Mr. Chairman, the same problems exist throughout the world. Yesterday, it is not so long ago, on November 16, Mr. Daniel Johnson, premier of Quebec, received at his office a group of senior Swedish officials-this means that those people came for Sweden-and I want that to be recorded in Hansard, so that everyone will understand, even the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay). As I said, some Swedish officials came to pay him a courtesy call. After that, at a conference, Mr. Gunnar Lange-I do not know how it is pronounced in Swedish but it is Lange, and I thank the former minister of immigration for telling me that the name is
November 17, 1966

Lange-the minister of trade from Sweden, said that Mr. Johnson had asked them if they could not give him a steel plant. At the present time, Sweden has 64 steel plants and it is a country smaller than the province of Quebec. The 64 steel plants operated by the private sector are showing a profit whereas the 65th, operated by the state, shows a deficit.
Mr. Gunnar Lange said that if it were up to him to decide, he would give up the Swedish state iron foundry to the province of Quebec, but not the ironworks under private enterprise, for the latter have a profit earning capacity while the state enterprise shows a deficit.
And to think that we have here people who are ready to spend millions of dollars for research, as if the federal government or provincial ones were willing to assume the responsibility of developing existing industries and creating new ones. We made an attempt in Quebec with Sidbec, but it was not very successful.
I see my colleague from Matapedia-Ma-tane (Mr. Tremblay); he knows full well that Sidbec was not really a success.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that if governments, present or future federal governments, or provincial governments, were to pay more attention to private industry in order to stimulate personal initiative, solutions would be found to the problems which crop up from day to day.
As for item 10, the funds for the National Research Council, including those for the Medical Research Council, it amounts to $41,000,000, that is 29 times less than the interest we pay on the national debt. Yet, the National Research Council is far more important than the interest we can and must pay on the national debt. But no one seems to worry much about it, and the debate goes on.
A while ago, the member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) repeated many times again: How is it that we have no money, no credits, no finance? It is always the same problem. No money, no finance; we are broke and there is very little that we see through to the end. We vote supply this year, and we will do the same next year, going on and on in the same fashion, without change, without initiative, tossed about as we are by a financial system which is clearly old fashioned in this day and age.


René Tremblay: There we go.
Supply-Industry


David Réal Caouette: My friend from Matapedia-Matane says: there we go. Sure. And it has been going on for a long time. We have put up with it for a long time, and have been wanting to correct the errors of that system for a long time. And the member could help us do so, because he knows the system. But because he is trapped somehow, he does not have the right to help us. He does not even have the right to say what he thinks. He is prevented from doing so.
Mr. Chairman, I repeat what I have often said: we will not perform miracles. No. But at least let us face the facts. The National Research Council needs more funds than we are now offering or granting it.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Research in a country in the scientific field, in the medical field, in short, in every field, are matters that count and which have the utmost importance. Now, because we do not have the necessary funds, we limit research. But afterwards, we will spend millions of dollars to secure information from the United States, England, France, Belgium and nearly everywhere in the world, when we have here people who are able to learn and discover something, scientists who are willing to work for the intellectual and medical development, etc., in Canada.
The hon. member for Saskatoon said: We do not have the funds; the government complains that it does not have money. The member is right; I fully agree with his statements, but even though I agree with him that does not change much in item No. 10:
National Research Council, Including the Medical Research Council, $41,000,000.
However, parliament is quite agreeable, for instance, to spend as much as 41 million dollars for a medical plan, medicare, as my friends of the N.D.P. say, except my friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who is a capitalist-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What a myth.


David Réal Caouette: -he was a creditist once, he is now a capitalist.
Mr. Chairman, we will, of course, spend millions of dollars here to discuss a medical plan for Canada as a whole, a plan which will be administered by the provinces, independently of Ottawa. Millions of dollars will be spent then, while an estimate of 41 million dollars is proposed for the National Research Council, even in the medical field. I repeat it once again, that is 29 times less than

November 17, 1966
Supply-Industry
the interest paid every year on the national debt.
Mr. Chairman, that is unthinkable. But the fact is that the public, the Canadian people, our fellow citizens, our workers, our professionals, our doctors-even the one I listened to a moment ago, who is a physician from Saskatoon and member for his riding- never attack the monetary system. Never. However, always in the field of taxation, taxing more here, less there, to allow more development in the medical field and the research field. That does not settle the problem but the member for Saskatoon was creating the problem at the same time as the government.
Where will we get the money. Where?
Has the hon. member ever wondered where we found the money to wage war and millions of dollars to manufacture cannons, shells, war implements? The hon. member does not stop to think why it is that we cannot find the same funds to undertake medical and scientific research in Canada, to develop our country, to educate our people, to make Canada into a country where everyone could acquire intellectual formation and other types of training. The hon. member never wonders about these things. Why? Because our world is getting smaller. The physical and intellectual assets that we have, we bring all this down to financial considerations, monetary considerations. Even though the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) does not agree with what I say, he knows that is the truth. The facts are there to prove it, not only here in Ottawa, but also in any of the Canadian provinces.
Mr. Chairman, we are not asking anyone to perform miracles, but whenever it is physically and intellectually possible, we ask that research be carried out in the medical as well as in the scientific fields, so as to give Canada a different aspect, a reputation of being an intelligent and progressive country. These are the results that we want. Then, I believe that the Canadian government would be making a worthwhile contribution to the whole world, by offering to the entire world the possibilities existing here, and which cannot be found in other countries of the world.
The hon. Minister of Industry is perfectly aware of what I am saying. Besides, it is not up to me to show or to point out the great influence which Canada enjoys in other countries of the world. But I submit that we cannot continue to keep on being an

example for other countries if we stand pat, if we wait, if we limit ourselves in the fields of research and scientific discovery.
Mr. Chairman, I personally feel that item No. 10 is totally inadequate to enable our research workers to go on with their studies or their research, since it barely represents one thirtieth or "one twenty-ninth and one half" of the interests paid on the national debt alone.


Mr.   Oiio@: Mr. Chairman, we have had a good debate about the National Research Council and specialized research. I will approach the minister on a broader basis. We have heard and we know that the National Research Council makes grants, as the hon. member for York-Humber said, toward medical research. We support scientific research, but many research projects from time to time are duplicated. By and large the National Research Council disburses money, trying to put every dollar to good use. What we have failed to introduce in this country and what we desperately need is more applied research. Nobody downgrades the importance of specialized or pure scientific research, but applied research is something we have not debated and my recommendations are directed to that field.
In broad terms, applied research can effect every department of government. Let us consider the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which gathers a great deal of information. Unless that information is put to practical use it is of little value. The government of this country spends more money buying goods than any other corporation or individual within the country. Yet we rely to a great extent on pure extinct in deciding what to buy and where to spend money. Consider the organization known as the Japanese Export Trade Research Organization, JETRO for short. It is no accident that the Japanese have cornered about 67 per cent of the Canadian and United States stainless steelware market, nor is it an accident that most members of the press gallery have good cameras made in Japan. This situation has been brought about through a careful research program.
The JETRO people subcontract their market research to individuals or companies in Canada, the United States, Germany and so on. When that research is finished they know what Canadians like, whether the articles are cameras or pieces of luggage. They know the weight, the colour and the style of luggage that will sell here. They know who the buyers are, whether they are good or bad bargainers,
November 17, 1966

whether they belong to clubs and, if so, what clubs. As a result when a Japanese salesman comes to Canada to sell luggage he knows exactly what to sell and how to sell it and the manufacturers in Japan know what to produce. This sort of thing happened with stainless steelware. The Japanese have concentrated on applied research whereas we have not. We try to sell the wrong goods to countries at the wrong prices because we do not have the facts.
Comprehensive research under the National Research Council can be developed, and I shall make suggestions about that. We have heard much about the export of gas but we do not really know how long gas will be a source of energy before being replaced by atomic or other forms of energy. We have preserved our coal resources and we are stuck with a great deal of coal in the ground that we cannot use. We built the St. Lawrence canal system but we did not find out the future requirements of water transport, the size that ships will be or whether they will be able to unload in our ports. So we are now duplicating canals and locks, and we are not making money. The ships are getting larger and larger and we do not know if we will be able to accommodate them.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
We have heard a great deal about specific problems, including housing, sewage disposal and in fact every field of endeavour, but we judge by instinct even though there is a very sophisticated method of getting the facts and applying them in future programs. In the United States the Rand Corporation does the research work and advises the United States armed forces, industry and the finance department in Washington. It is a very good organization, and by using such a tool of sophisticated research not just in a narrow field we could do a good deal for all government departments.
What I envisage is a crown corporation employing the best brains we have in Canada, a well-staffed organization to be at the beck and call of each and every department of the federal government, and the provincial governments and municipalities. It should be provided with all the necessary facilities and the best equipment. The organization would produce results whereby, if the Minister of Industry, for instance, wanted to know whether to stockpile more atomic fuel for future use in electric energy, it could tell him that in all probability within ten years, using the facilities they had, they could develop an electric
Supply-Industry
power plant suitable for any size of requirement in any community of any nation. The minister would then know what policy to adopt with respect to raw materials and with respect to aid for industry.
I think all hon. members will agree that we are living in a very sophisticated age so far as research is concerned. It is no longer sensible merely to guess. We should have the proper facilities and, as I say, a crown corporation to be at the call of governments at all levels, and of private industry, so that each specific problem can be researched and an answer given in broad terms in order that the results of that research can be applied to our problems as we face them from time to time.


Mr. Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Chairman, it is significant to me that on the other side of the house there are as many doctors who are members of parliament as there are on this side and yet none of them have been able to defend or even attempt to defend this pittance that is being used as an excuse for producing medical research in Canada. The hon. member for Villeneuve has said that the party to which I belong is a socialist one. I say in reply that there is no other expenditure the government makes that represents more the welfare of all the people of Canada than does the amount that is spent on medical research.
Medical research is not a matter of buildings donated to the cause of medical research, nor is it a matter of salary for the people who are producing this research. Rather it is the funds that are necessary to carry on the research in the buildings that already exist and to provide such facilities whereby we are going to retain our research people within this country rather than lose them to the country south of us as we have been doing for so many years.
Recently in the press we have read that the Minister of Finance is going to reduce the rate of increase of the amount to be spent on medical research. It is my understanding that the amount of $15,350,000 in the present year's estimates will not be raised to the minimum amount of $23 million that has been suggested. We of the medical profession are aware that anything less than $23 million would have a devastating impact on Canada's continued progress in the field of health sciences.
It is almost incredible to think that from the list of estimated government expenditures for the year 1967-68 which could well bear drastic pruning such a fundamentally important one as this should have been selected to

November 17, 1966
Supply-Industry
be decreased. The exodus of Canadian medical teacher-scientists will be even further stimulated by the proposed cutback, and it will be impossible to attract teacher-scientists from the United States in sufficient numbers to meet the growing Canadian faculty needs. This is not too hard to understand when one considers that the present per capita expenditure for medical research in the United States amounts to $6.50 compared with a mere 90 cents in Canada. Over seven times the amount per capita that we spend is spent on medical research in the United States, and surely we are as great on a per capita basis as the United States.
The staffs of new universities at present are secured by taking teachers from existing universities. In other words, what we are doing is playing musical chairs with our highly trained personnel across Canada. What is needed is sufficient funds to keep our own trained men in this country.
Of the scientists who take up permanent residence in the United States 10 per cent are Canadians but 23 per cent give Canada as their last address. So we are rapidly becoming a good way-station en route to a country which has adequate funds for medical research. Naturally, Mr. Chairman, this is going to attract the best brains to the country to the south of us, not because of salary but because they know they will have enough money to carry on their work and not have to stop in the middle of it. These figures prove there is a full-scale crisis right at this moment in Canada.
What needs to be said about this has been much more adequately said by many experts in this field, people who are wiser in this respect than I am, and in that context I would like to quote first from a Globe and Mail editorial which appeared on September 24, 1966:
Finance Minister Mitchell Sharp's plea for greater restraint in the rate of research grant increases as an anti-inflationary measure might lead one to believe that in the field of medicine, for example, research could fairly be regarded as a peripheral activity in the work of providing medical care and training doctors; that it is a dispensable adjunct to the main operation and can be painlessly amputated.
The nation must learn to pace itself, we are told. Quite so, but how should this be applied in the area of medical research?
Four men who are, in their individual ways, concerned in medical research and training, give views in The Globe magazine today which suggest that restraining medical research funds could be one of the most ill-conceived economies in the history of Canadian medicine, and that it could condemn Canada to at least a decade of second-class medical care.

There is a striking similarity in the opinions offered by the four: Dr. Louis Siminovitch, head of the division of biological research, Ontario Cancer Institute; Dr. John Armstrong, executive director of the Canadian Heart Foundation; Dr. John Evans, dean of medicine at McMaster University; and Mr. Edward Dunlop, member of the legislature for Forest Hill and executive director of the Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society.
Each in turn acknowledges the fact that if Canada does not move boldly ahead with the provision of much larger research funds than are now being dispensed, the impact will be felt heavily-and for a number of years-upon the calibre of medical teachers that can be recruited and consequently upon the standards of our future doctors.
The urgency of the matter stems, ironically, from the federal government's provision of a $500 million health resources fund, set up to provide physical facilities for medical training. Thus, four new medical schools will come into operation within a few years and expansions will take place at established schools.
The task of recruiting department heads and staff for the new schools is an immediate one and there are compelling reasons for filling the positions with men of the highest quality. This, the experts are agreed, is an impossible task with the resources they have to hand.
Dr. Evans explains: "People just will not take full time positions in university departments unless they can continue their research-
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
At present we need people with the research approach, not so much for the discoveries that they are going to make, but because they are updating their knowledge and are in a position to act as continuing educators ... It is almost impossible for them to maintain their interest, their contacts, their flow of information, the updating of their knowledge without doing research.
I have quoted only part of this editorial, but I wish to emphasize the quotation from Dr. Evans of McMaster University in Hamilton. This of course is of great interest to myself. Dr. Evans is one of the most promising and progressive doctors of any medical faculty in Canada. Although this university is only in the making in so far as a medical college is concerned, they fully expect to be able to open a medical school in 1969. Already there are pre-medical students elsewhere in McMaster University. The success of the medical college is dependent on the amount of the grant from the government to enable them to acquire teachers for this great university.
As I have said before, we have the buildings and we have the necessary physical attributes to carry on a medical school but we do not have the teaching personnel nor the incentive to attract them. How are we going to get these teachers? Are we going to take them from other universities and deplete their staff? Are we going to do without? Or we
November 17, 1966

going to get second-rate teachers because all our professors and men of learning have gone to the United States and are not here in this country to teach simply for the reason that there was not enough money for medical research in this country?
One of the bodies which is greatly interested in medical research is the Association of Medical Colleges of Canada, a relatively newly formed body. They met in Saskatoon last September. They had a convention with representatives from all parts of Canada and from all medical colleges of Canada. Also within this body are the College of General Practice of Canada, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Association of Hospital Administrators, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation and the Canadian Association for Advancement of Health Sciences.
A letter was sent to the Prime Minister of this country by Mr. Gundy who is known for the Gundy report on medical research. It contains another 14 pages of names of prominent people such as deans and assistant deans from universities all across Canada. At the meeting in Saskatoon these people drew up a resolution which I do not believe has been released. I should like to read it into the record because of the significance of the people who constitute this body and because of the conclusions this massive body came to in this regard. The title is "Support Of Medical Research". It reads:
In Canada the shortage of physicians of all kinds, especially those that provide family care, is alarming. The 12 existing medical schools and the 4 new ones are committed to the formidable task of increasing the number of places for undergraduates, graduates, and physicians in continuing education programs. At the same time they must upgrade the quality of their training programs. This objective- producing the many kinds of health workers needed in the future-can only be reached if the numbers of teachers and medical scientists now employed In Canadian medical schools more than doubles over the next five years. If Canadian medical schools are to retain good teachers and scientists, attract others from abroad, and induce larger numbers of talented students to continue in academic careers, adequate facilities and greatly increased funds to cover the operating costs for research must be provided.
The Association of Canadian Medical Colleges and other medical groups in Canada have for some years urged greater federal government support for research in medical schools. In 1965 the report entitled "Medical Research in Canada" (Gundy Report) presented a comprehensive estimate of capital and operating funds needed to support research at a reasonable level in Canadian medical schools during the period 1966-1970. As far as can be predicted the health resources fund should meet
Supply-Industry
the need for capital expenditures although the delay in passing specific legislation has held up the construction of badly needed facilities. Similarly, the new programs of the Medical Research Council, made possible by the special 65 per cent increase in its budget for 1966-67, seemed to indicate that the federal government recognized the urgent need for support of medical research. However, much of the benefit of the Medical Research Council budget increase may be lost if the announcement of the Minister of Finance on September 8, 1966 to "exercise more restraint" on the rate of increase of research support is implemented. We are nevertheless concerned to re-emphasize the dependence of quality of health care on medical research and the necessity to create, without delay, a favourable climate and a stable environment for medical research in Canada.
Over the next five years Canadian medical schools have goals that will require over 1,200 new teachers and medical scientists. Unless staff of high quality are obtained we will lose a unique opportunity to upgrade markedly the standard of medical education and health care in Canada. The most important consideration in attracting staff of requisite quality today is the adequacy of support for medical research.
This is the nub of the whole thing.
In the light of these considerations the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges reaffirms its conviction that strong scientific programs in medical schools and their teaching hospitals are essential to high standards of undergraduate, graduate and continuing medical education and-in the final analysis-to quality health care. In the present phase of rapid expansion of facilities for medical education the need for a consistent policy of greatly increased support for medical research is essential. Failure to develop such a policy of greatly increased support for medical research makes it increasingly difficult for the medical schools to attract teachers and scientists. This places in jeopardy the future standard of health care for Canadians. Resolution
Whereas the shortage of all kinds of physicians, especially those that provide family care, is alarming;
Whereas there are not enough high quality medical teachers and scientists to staff existing medical schools and to man new and expanded facilities;
Whereas there is an urgent need for funds for research and development to attract and keep such teachers and scientists;
Whereas teachers and scientists of the greatest competence must be obtained without delay in order to train adeuate numbers of physicians;
Whereas in comparison to sums spent in other government programs, expenditures in support of medical research are small; however, these expenditures will exert a profound influence on medical education and future health care;
And whereas the Minister of Finance has recently announced a reduction in the projected rate of increase in funds for research;
Be it resolved that the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges emphatically recommend that funds for medical research be substantially increased until the objectives recommended by the Gundy report are reached. These can be achieved

November 17, 1966
Royal Assent
by adoption of the revised Medical Research Council budget for 1966-67 as a base, and acceptance of the recommendation of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, based on the formula of the Bladen Report, of (a) an additional 30 per cent for administration, (b) a grant of 10 per cent of salaries to each institution as a general encouragement for research and (c) an annual rate of growth in research grants of 50 per cent, as communicated to the Prime Minister, May 30, 1966.
Only such significant increases in support of medical research will assure the required change in the climate of research in Canada so that defects in the quantity and quality of medical manpower can be repaired.
Resolutions adopted in Committee of Supply this day reported and concurred in.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, November 17, 1966
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor-General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, Thursday, November 17, at 9:45 o'clock p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor-General.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act respecting The Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company.
An Act to provide assistance to livestock feeders in Eastern Canada and British Columbia.
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1967.
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, if it is agreeable to the members of the house, particularly to the members who were discussing in committee the expenditures of the National Research Council, including the Medical Research Council, and were on the last but one item, I wonder whether we could revert to that business and pass the other items so as to complete this department?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, might I point out that the hon. member for Hamilton South was interrupted by a recent event while he was in the middle of his remarks and I am not sure whether he would wish to continue. As a matter of fact, he was reading a certain resolution. Could we not let the matter stand over until tomorrow?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us put the housing bill through instead.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday night the house gave second reading to Bill No. C-241, to amend the National Housing Act. We then considered the bill clause by clause in committee and it was reported and third reading was stood over. It is my hope that unanimous consent will be given to give the bill third reading at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we will proceed with the matter referred to by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as we were unsuccessful in completing the estimates of the National Research Council and the Medical Research Council tonight these will be the first items of business tomorrow in committee of supply, to be followed by the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and then Agriculture. Perhaps I
November 17. 1966	COMMONS
should add that because of the limited time remaining out of the total time allocated for the completion of the business of supply, hon. members should perhaps be ready to deal tomorrow with any of the outstanding estimates not yet considered in committee of supply.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I must object at once to that procedure. I think it is only fair that we should know ahead of time so that those members in the opposition who wish to make speeches, or for that matter members on the government side, will know exactly what is going to happen and when. I object strenuously to the statement of the minister that we should be prepared to deal with any of the outstanding estimates. I think that we should deal with them in the order announced by the minister.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, there is also a point to be kept in mind here. There has been a general understanding that with the limited number of days set aside for supply there should be consultation with the opposition in order that they may be able to designate which departments they wish to have called first. This is particularly applicable now when there are only a few days left. I am agreeable to the departments the minister has announced tonight, but it seems to me that any other departments ought to be selected on the basis of consultation between the various house leaders of the parties. I believe that the opposition parties ought to be consulted in the selection of the limited number of departments we shall be able to deal with in the days still available to us.


Michael Starr: I agree.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr.   R.-E. Regimbal@Argenleuil-Deux-Montagnes: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is worth while continuing with the remarks I intended to make inasmuch as the parliamentary assistant as well as the minister are not here. However, as this is an interesting subject I shall continue.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In bringing forward the question of Expo '67 in the adjournment debate I want to make abundantly clear that I do so in no sense of criticizing or downgrading. On the contrary, I speak because of my great concern for and interest in the greatest possible success for what should be the most gigantic and enthusiastic birthday party of all times.
The question I addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on November 9 made special reference to room reservations. It was suggested that possibly my subject matter had been covered by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein) on November 7, as reported on pages 9658 and 9659 of Hansard, under the general title of rent controls during Expo. The hon. member for Cartier made a good point, and adding to his remarks I wish to read into the record a news commentary from Winnipeg radio station CJTV broadcast on September 23, 1966:
Despite assurances from provincial and civic leaders in Montreal that the anticipated thousands of visitors to Expo will not be gouged by increased prices, I have an acquaintance who has proof that such might not be the case. They applied for reservations through an organization called Loge Expo, a clearing house for all accommodation reservations. They received word that a reservation had been made at a certain motel.
My friend checked in the Automobile Association handbook and saw that the rate was $14.50 per night for two people, $19.50 per night for four. He then received word directly from the motel that the rate would be $35.50 per night, and the entire week's charge would have to be forwarded immediately or else the reservation would be cancelled.
Now this may be an isolated case-lets hope so, for if it is not, the Expo will be tarnished for years to come.
Incidentally, my friends are not going.
In his answer to the hon. member for Cartier the minister's parliamentary secretary pointed out that this was a provincial responsibility, that the government's hands were tied, and he said that the closest continuing watch on the accommodation situation in Montreal would be kept. I believe that the minister responsible to this house for Expo should try to dispel all doubts in people's minds whether such a thing is possible.
At the same time I am particularly concerned about rumours-and heaven knows how fast the news can travel down the grapevine in such cases-which I heard within a period of one month in areas as widespread as New York, Hamilton and Vancouver, according to which room reservations would be impossible to obtain in Montreal during Expo. In each case the person involved had given up
10038	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion plans of going to Expo. There is genuine interest in Expo '67, and people are talking about it everywhere, which means that the publicity has done a good job. But apparently publicity has been lacking on the particular point of accommodations.
I could have written directly to Expo's public relations officer but decided to use this occasion in the house because it might prove to be a more effective way of giving this very serious point its proper prominence. I gave the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) written notice of my question at this time so that he might be able to take this opportunity to give his answer loud and clear, because I trust such is not the case and that accommodations will be possible. I had hoped the minister might take a page from the Minister of National Defence's book on public relations to make sure every corner in Canada and in the world will know that the metropolitan area of Montreal can accommodate all comers and that interested people everywhere can make definite plans to visit Expo '67 with all the confidence in the world.


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to pinch hit tonight for the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I thank the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal) for accepting me as a substitute. I am also very happy to give my hon. friend the assurance he is seeking, and I say this loud and clear.
The Expo corporation has set up a reservations department called Logexpo. It has already made 90,000 reservations covering some 370,000 hotel days. Logexpo is in a position to make reservations at reasonable prices for all inquirers at the present time, and invites any people who are concerned about accommodation to communicate with it.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-SEARCH OF PRIVATE HOMES

Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to raise a matter today, about which I put a question two days ago and received no answer. My question was directed to the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) responsible for the R.C.M.P. I do not see him in the house tonight and I wonder who will answer. I even wonder whether there is somebody to answer. Ah. I see there is a substitute who will answer the question.

DEBATES	November 17, 1968
Here is the case, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday, that is on November 10, about 8 o'clock p.m., when Mr. Jean-Louis Denoncourt, 264 St. Charles St. West, Longueuil, had just left his residence, three police constables, one from the R.C.M.P., one from the Quebec provincial police and another from the Montreal municipal police, having search warrant No. 21947, entered into Mr. Denoncourt's house. These policemen were posted around his house, waiting for him to leave, in order to get in with the search warrant I just mentioned. On entering, they read it out rapidly to Denoncourt's young sister, a 17-year old, who could not quite make out what they were reading so fast. The policemen even refused to show her the document. According to Denoncourt's sister, the policemen were very rude to her as well as to her friend, Raymond Larouche who was at Denoncourt's home at this time.
I should like to mention at this point that Jean-Louis Denoncourt is the regional director of the Rassemblement pour l'independance nationale, which political party is legally recognized as such in the province of Quebec. It is not that this party advocates the independence of Quebec, for it is not the same party as the Ralliement national. In fact, they are competitors after a fashion. But that is not why I am bringing up the matter. I do so because I feel that the treatment inflicted upon a partisan of independence, where members of the R.C.M.P. were involved, should not recur. I believe in democracy and feel that the police should not interfere with political matters.
And so, the policemen asked to go into the house and more specifically to go into Jean-Louis Denoncourt's bedroom. They went in, pulled out the drawers and emptied them on the floor in a heap that begs description. In the meantime, they refused access to the apartment to everyone, and prevented-which they did not have the right to do-Denoncourt's sister from putting in a telephone call to one of her uncles, Dollard Dansereau, a very well known Montreal lawyer.
When Miss Denoncourt tried to make a phone call, one of the policemen put his hand on the phone so as to prevent her from using it, which is something completely irregular. This was repeated many times.
The policemen were especially looking for papers, files belonging to the executives of the organization for the Richelieu area of the Rassemblement pour l'independance nationale.
November 17, 1966
At one moment, Miss Denoncourt succeeded in shutting herself up in a room, with the telephone, and in getting in touch with another brother of Mr. Denoncourt, who is a teacher and lives in Longueuil.
When he reached the home of Mr. Jean-Louis Denoncourt, the police officers almost denied him entry, requiring him beforehand to identify himself before entering his brother's home, which is quite an abnormal situation.
When Mr. Denoncourt's mother arrived, the police officers were openly rude to her, yet she had nothing to do with the whole matter.
They seized indiscriminately all the political literature of the R.I.N. found at Mr. Denoncourt's, including a great deal of official information regarding the election campaign conducted by Mr. Denoncourt in the Laviolette riding, as well as the names of all those who worked in that election.
Following such action, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know who laid that complaint against Mr. Denoncourt. What kind of complaint was it? The police officers said they were looking for explosives but they did not find any. They left with the records of the political organization called the Rassemblement pour l'in-dependance nationale.
I would like to know what the police officers were looking for. I would like to know if they found what they were looking for. I would like to know if the police officers took something else besides what they were looking for, and I would like to know also what they took with them. Did they give everything back to the owner? Did they find anything improper in Mr. Denoncourt's home? Has such a search been made at the same Mr. Denoncourt's home over the last two years? If so, who had laid the complaint? Did they find anything improper during those previous searches? On what were the complaints based at the time of the previous searches? I would also like to know the names of the police officers who made the search on November 10, 1966. Which police force obtained the search warrant? Why was the Royal Canadian Mounted Police there? Who had asked for or authorized them to be there? Were the seized documents photographed, and who has the pictures of the documents?
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I ask these questions, Mr. Speaker, because there was a flagrant violation of a man's property simply because he is involved with political organization. I feel that a man may be a partisan of independence without having
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion political and electoral organization documents seized in his home.
I wish to protest against what has happened. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were there, they did not object to preventing a young lady from calling a lawyer and another person from coming to his brother's home, and to acting impolitely toward that young lady's mother. Why did the Royal Canadian Mounted Police let that happen?
And do not tell me that such information is not ordinarily available, because public inquiries have been made in several such cases. But, because a partisan of independence is involved, people try to hide everything.
Let there be no hypocrisy, do not refuse to answer, let straight answers be given to the questions I have just asked.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General regrets that he is unable to be here this evening, but I can assure the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that the reply I am now going to give is substantially the reply the Solicitor General would have given had it been possible for him to be here.
I am informed that it is a long established practice, for obvious reasons, not to state whether an investigation has or has not been conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I wish to emphasize that no inference of any nature should be drawn from this reply. I understand that in regard to the issue raised by the hon. member for Lapointe a search warrant was obtained by a police force other than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and that anything seized would be in the possession of that police force and not in the possession of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Gilles Grégoire: That is not an answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Deputy Speaker@: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allocated to him for his intervention on the matter he wished to raise in the house has expired. The same applies to the answer. He heard the answer given on behalf of the government.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, am I allowed under the rules to rise on a question of privilege?

10038	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but at this time, a question of privilege cannot be raised. A member is allowed seven minutes to put his question and three minutes are allowed for the answer.


Gilles Grégoire: It is sheer hypocrisy on the part of the government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).



OLD AGE SECURITY-INCREASED TAXATION TO COMPENSATE FOR HIGHER PENSION

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the orders of the day this afternoon I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) whether the government would reconsider its announced intention to increase taxation to cover the proposed increase in the old age security pension. I put this question to the Prime Minister on the basis of information given to the house yesterday in response to a starred question of mine which shows that during the time the present government has been in power it has collected for old age pension purposes, by way of earmarked taxes, a sum considerably in excess of the amount that has been paid out in pensions under the Old Age Security Act during the same period.
This information is found in yesterday's Hansard at pages 9951 and 9952. As a matter of fact there is more information there than I asked for, but the two figures that I wanted are clearly on the record. I asked in particular for the total amount of money collected from April 1, 1963, to the end of August, 1966-that is, for the first three and a half years that the present government has been in power- under the various old age security taxes for old age security purposes. I also asked for the amount paid out in old age security pensions during the same period. I said the period covered was three and a half years, Mr. Speaker, but actually it was three years and five months.
The figures are as follows: The total amount collected in earmarked taxes during this three years and five months period was $3,407,344,696. The total amount paid out in old age security pensions during the same period was $3,040,020,753.48. This means that the amount overcollected, the amount overtaxed, the amount contributed by the people of Canada for old age pensions during that period was $367,323,942.52 in excess of the amount paid out in old age security pensions during that same period of time.

DEBATES	November 17, 1966
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
These are figures with many digits in them and they include dollars and cents. May I boil them down to the simple proposition that $367 million more has been collected during three and a half years than has been paid out in old age security pensions. Hence my question to the Prime Minister: Why talk now about raising additional taxes to pay the proposed increase, notice of which is now on our order paper?
When the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) announced on July 14 the proposed increase he said that in the first year of operation it would cost $225 million. In that case why do we have to collect extra taxes to pay in the first year $225 million when this government has in the time that it has been in office, collected $367 million of a surplus for this very purpose? It makes me feel that the old age pension increase is being used as an excuse for increasing taxation, and I think this is most unfair.
Lest there by any doubt about the purpose of the tax increase, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), in reply to a question of mine put to him on November 4 as recorded on page 9544 of Hansard, said that the so-called baby budget would be related to the approval by the house of legislation with respect to pensions because this will be the principal reason for bringing down a budget. I submit that the reason for increasing taxes at this time cannot be attributed to the increase in old age pensions when the proposal is for a program that will cost $225 million in the first year and this government has collected in the last three and a half years, for this very purpose, a surplus of $367 million.
I may be told that the amounts that we are paying out are rising as the eligible age is brought down. I may be told that some time from now, a year or two, or maybe three, it will be necessary to raise more money. But why not wait until that time? This is a pay-as-you-go plan. Why collect taxes in this fiscal year that are not necessary in view of this huge surplus that the government has collected? I remind the government that part of the reason that this surplus is so huge is that this government increased one of the old age security taxes during the first year in which it came to office. When the pension was raised from $65 to $75 in 1963 it raised the 3 per cent personal tax for old age security to 4 per cent. It is now obvious that this was not necessary.
One of the reasons which justifies the taxation of everyone for old age pensions on an
November 17, 1966	COMMONS
earmarked basis is that everybody gets the pension, but when, as is now proposed, there will be a means test-and after all the notice on the order paper makes it clear that some people will not get the pension because they will have to report their income-I submit that the justification for earmarked taxes for pensions, taxes which go into the old age security fund, has been removed. I therefore plead with the government to reconsider its position with respect to this legislation and I ask that this reconsideration cover two points.
In the first place there should not be any means or needs or income test. We should stick with the plan which is now in the Old Age Security Act under which everybody gets it as a matter of right. In the second place I ask for reconsideration of the proposal to increase taxes. It is not necessary. A huge surplus has been collected during the past three and a half years, and any suggestion that the increase in old age pensions is responsible for the taxation increase is, as I said, using our old age pensioners as an excuse for raising taxes which should not be raised at this time.


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the hon. member is opposed to the principle of a minimum income for the citizens of Canada but I shall not attempt to deal with the economic arguments raised by the hon. member. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will have something to say on that aspect of the matter at a later time. Instead I shall give some simple facts concerning the old age security fund.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Without any change in the rate of old age security payments, that is, at $75 per month plus escalation, the current expenditures will exceed the current revenues around the year 1969 or 1970 and the surplus in the old age security fund will begin to decline at that time. In other words, when the age of payment reaches 65 it appears that the tax revenues will be inadequate to meet the costs on the current basis.
Payments of the supplement proposed in the resolution before the house will, of course, add very substantially to the expenditures charged against the old age security fund. I am advised that if the legislation which will be introduced is approved as submitted, current revenues from existing taxes would not be sufficient to meet the annual charges from the very outset and the surplus in the fund would disappear within a couple of years and be replaced by a very substantial and rapidly growing deficit.
The hon. member will agree, I am sure, that if there is to be an old age security fund it should be administered on a sound basis with the aim of maintaining a balance between expenditures and revenues over a reasonable term of years. In political and economic terms we call it "planification", a term very popular in the political vocabulary of my hon. friend and his party.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.38 p.m.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]



NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, INCLUDING THE MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 1, 5 COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
November 17, 1966


[Stage Direction]
This statement on the mid-November payroll requirements is in two parts: one relating to the 15 Votes which were supplemented from Finance Vote 15, the other relating to those Votes in which there were sufficient funds.
The total of amounts shown in both parts as the mid-November payroll requirement is $55,830,738, which is the latest estimate of the actual mid-November requirement. It is less than the $60,175,000 reported to the House on November 15, which was a total arrived at by taking one-half of the total payroll for October.

[Stage Direction]
These are the votes in which there were insufficient funds to meet the November midmonthly payroll, and to which transfers from Finance Vote 15 were authorized:
Estimated
amount
	required		Transfer
	to meet		from
Mid-November	Balance	FinancePayrolls	Needed	Vote 15Auditor General	Vote 1	53,000	52,350	53,000Finance	Vote 1	190,000	118,800	120,000Fisheries	Vote 1	45,000	9,013	15,000National Health and Welfare	Vote 1	101,200	18,812	30,000Vote 30	177,200	90,032	120,000Vote 40	247,300	189,849	199,500Public Works	Vote 1	454,800	175,600	240,000Vote 35	105,000	41,871	75,000Secretary of State	Vote 1	19,100	19,100	20,000Vote 10	95,000	41,000	45,000Vote 15	37,500	36,765	40,000Solicitor General	Vote 15 (RCMP)	1,826,000	708,485	1,120,000Trade and Commerce	Vote 10	16,450	16,450	20,000Vote 20	96,400	17,000	17,000Transport	Vote 80	40,900	40,900	45,000
Note: The differences between the amounts in columns 2 and 3 arise from the fact that the exact amounts required and the exact balances needed on November 9 could not be precisely determined. It was not possible in some cases to obtain complete figures from field offices in time and in all cases the amounts shown in column 3 were based on the best estimate possible on November 9 whereas the figures in column 2 represent information as of November 15.

[Stage Direction]
These are the votes in those Departments for which interim supply only has been granted which contained sufficient funds to meet November mid-monthly payrolls:
		Estimated Mid-Nov.
		Salary
Dept. & Vote Requirement		
Agriculture		
Vote
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Dept'l Admin.
[Stage Direction]
140,000
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
Research Admin.
[Stage Direction]
1,100,000
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
Production & Marketing
[Stage Direction]
-Admin.
[Stage Direction]
114,800
[Stage Direction]
20
[Stage Direction]
Animal & Animal Prod-
[Stage Direction]
ucts-Admin.
[Stage Direction]
205,000
[Stage Direction]
30
[Stage Direction]
Plant & Plant Products
[Stage Direction]
-Admin.
[Stage Direction]
255,000
[Stage Direction]
40
[Stage Direction]
Health of Animals Admin.
[Stage Direction]
555,000
[Stage Direction]
50
[Stage Direction]
Bd. of Grain Commis-
[Stage Direction]
sioners Admin.
[Stage Direction]
177,000
[Stage Direction]
55
[Stage Direction]
Irrigation Projects-
[Stage Direction]
Admin.
[Stage Direction]
231,000
[Stage Direction]
Atomic
[Stage Direction]
Energy Control Board
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Admin.
[Stage Direction]
6,500
[Stage Direction]
Board
[Stage Direction]
of Broadcast Governors
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Salaries & Expenses
[Stage Direction]
13,700
[Stage Direction]
Chief Electoral Officer
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Salaries & Expenses
[Stage Direction]
5,800
[Stage Direction]
Civil Service Commission Vote
1 Salaries & Contingencies
349,700
November 17, 1966
[Stage Direction]
	Estimated			Estimated
		Mid-Nov.		Mid.-Nov.
		Salary		Salary
[Stage Direction]
Dept. &
[Stage Direction]
; Vote Requirement
[Stage Direction]
Dept. & Vote Requirement
[Stage Direction]
Energy,
[Stage Direction]
Mines and Resources
[Stage Direction]
Insurance
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Dept'l Admin.
[Stage Direction]
69,900
[Stage Direction]
1 Admin.
[Stage Direction]
33,877
[Stage Direction]
20
[Stage Direction]
Surveys & Mapping
[Stage Direction]
146,200
[Stage Direction]
Justice
[Stage Direction]
25
[Stage Direction]
Marine Surveys
[Stage Direction]
142,100
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
35
[Stage Direction]
Geological Research-
[Stage Direction]
1 Admin.
[Stage Direction]
65,000
[Stage Direction]
Admin.
[Stage Direction]
110,800
[Stage Direction]
Labour
[Stage Direction]
45
[Stage Direction]
Mining & Metallurgy
[Stage Direction]
140,900
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
55
[Stage Direction]
Geographical Surveys
[Stage Direction]
18,200
[Stage Direction]
1 Admin.
[Stage Direction]
132,100
[Stage Direction]
60
[Stage Direction]
Astronomy and Geophysics
[Stage Direction]
41,200
[Stage Direction]
10 Annuities Act-Admin.
[Stage Direction]
30,700
[Stage Direction]
70
[Stage Direction]
Water Resources
[Stage Direction]
85,500
[Stage Direction]
15 Govt. Employees Compen
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
85
[Stage Direction]
Polar Continental Shelf
[Stage Direction]
sation-Admin.
[Stage Direction]
4,600
[Stage Direction]
Project
[Stage Direction]
7,800
[Stage Direction]
National Defence
[Stage Direction]
100
[Stage Direction]
Dominion Coal Board
[Stage Direction]
3,300
[Stage Direction]
110
[Stage Direction]
National Energy Board
[Stage Direction]
27,000
[Stage Direction]
v ote 1 Dept'l Admin.
[Stage Direction]
181,300
[Stage Direction]
15 Defence Services-O&M
[Stage Direction]
34,170,000
[Stage Direction]
Dominion Bureau of Statistics
[Stage Direction]
DRB-O&M
[Stage Direction]
804,500
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Admin. & Operation
[Stage Direction]
424,700
[Stage Direction]
National Gallery
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
1961 Decennial Census
[Stage Direction]
845
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
10
[Stage Direction]
1966 Quinquennial Census
[Stage Direction]
35,600
[Stage Direction]
1 Admin.
[Stage Direction]
22,000
[Stage Direction]
National Health and Welfare
[Stage Direction]
External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
5 Health Services-Admin.
[Stage Direction]
225,700
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Admin. O&M
[Stage Direction]
289,400
[Stage Direction]
20 Medical Services-Admin. 640,000
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
Representation Abroad
[Stage Direction]
301,600
[Stage Direction]
National Research Council
[Stage Direction]
30
[Stage Direction]
External Aid Office
[Stage Direction]
40,100
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
40
[Stage Direction]
Int'l Joint Comm.
[Stage Direction]
3,000
[Stage Direction]
1 Admin.
[Stage Direction]
800,000
[Stage Direction]
Finance
[Stage Direction]
(including T.B.)
[Stage Direction]
Public Archives
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
25
[Stage Direction]
Comptroller of Treasury-
[Stage Direction]
1 General Admin.
[Stage Direction]
49,700
[Stage Direction]
Admin.
[Stage Direction]
1,000,000
[Stage Direction]
National Library
[Stage Direction]
30
[Stage Direction]
Tariff Board-Admin.
[Stage Direction]
9,800
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
35
[Stage Direction]
Royal Cdn. Mint-Admin.
[Stage Direction]
76,500
[Stage Direction]
5 General Admin.
[Stage Direction]
37,600
[Stage Direction]
45
[Stage Direction]
Municipal Development &
[Stage Direction]
Loan Bd.-Admin.
[Stage Direction]
916
[Stage Direction]
Public Printing and Stationery
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
Indian
[Stage Direction]
Affairs &
[Stage Direction]
1 Dept'l Admin.
[Stage Direction]
9,000
[Stage Direction]
Northern Development
[Stage Direction]
5 Printing, Binding, Etc.
[Stage Direction]
31,500
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
Public Works
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Dept'l Admin.
[Stage Direction]
75,700
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
Resource Development
[Stage Direction]
21,100
[Stage Direction]
5 Accommodation Services
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
Natural and Historical
[Stage Direction]
-O&M
[Stage Direction]
670,800
[Stage Direction]
Resources
[Stage Direction]
435,900
[Stage Direction]
20 Harbours & Rivers Eng.
[Stage Direction]
30
[Stage Direction]
Indian Affairs
[Stage Direction]
770,000
[Stage Direction]
Services-O&M
[Stage Direction]
75,800
[Stage Direction]
45
[Stage Direction]
Northern Admin.
[Stage Direction]
525,800
[Stage Direction]
55 Testing Laboratory
[Stage Direction]
25,800
[Stage Direction]
November 17, 1966
Estimated
Mid-Nov.
Salary
Require-
Dept. & Vote		ment
Registrar General		
Vote
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Dept'l Admin.
[Stage Direction]
15,000
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
Corporations Branch
[Stage Direction]
5,800
[Stage Direction]
20
[Stage Direction]
Patent & Copyright
[Stage Direction]
82,800
[Stage Direction]
101
[Stage Direction]
Bankruptcy Act-Admin.
[Stage Direction]
5,100
[Stage Direction]
105
[Stage Direction]
Combines Investigation
[Stage Direction]
19,600
[Stage Direction]
Secretary of State
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
22
[Stage Direction]
National Arts Centre
[Stage Direction]
6,000
[Stage Direction]
35
[Stage Direction]
(Under C&I) Citizenship
[Stage Direction]
Branch
[Stage Direction]
62,000
[Stage Direction]
35
[Stage Direction]
Centennial Comm.
[Stage Direction]
55,000
[Stage Direction]
Solicitor
[Stage Direction]
General
[Stage Direction]
Vote
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
General Expenses
[Stage Direction]
3,100
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
Correctional Services
[Stage Direction]
Admin.
[Stage Direction]
780,000
[Stage Direction]
Estimated
Mid-Nov.
Salary
Require-
Dept. & Vote	merit
Trade and Commerce Vote
1	Dept'l Admin.	126,400
5	Trade Commissioner
Service-Admin.	22,000
15	Travel Bureau	40,150
29	1967 World Exhibition-
Cdn. Participation	12,500
Transport
Vote
1	Dept'l Admin.	120,800
5	Marine Services-
Admin.	1,088,400
30	Air Services-Admin.	2,886,000
75	Air Transport Bd.-
Admin.	22,900
85	Cdn. Marine Comm.
Admin.	6,000
Atlantic Development Board Vote
110	Admin. & Operation	18,400
Unemployment Insurance Commission Vote
1	Admin, of U.I. Act	980,000
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 18, 1986