1966-06-21

NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I wish to obtain consent of the house to table two copies of a report prepared for the department by the Stanford Research Institute entitled "An Improvement Program for the Alaska Highway".


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved: that the first report of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on divorce, presented to the house on Thursday, June 9, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.   Patrick-T. Asselin@Richmond-Wolfe: that the first report of the standing committee on standing orders presented to the house on Thursday, June 16, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-206, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (removal of Kitsilano trestle).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In 1895 the C.P.R. built a railway bridge called the Kitsilano trestle across False creek in my riding. While the
west block fire of 1897 destroyed most of the records, this bridge is quite obviously illegal, is constituting a hazard to navigation and preventing the industrial development of the region behind its structure.
The purpose of this bill is to empower the Minister of Public Works to remove the bridge at the expense of the C.P.R., at an estimated cost of $2,160,000.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



REPORTED SPEECH BY INDUSTRY MINISTER RESPECTING NEWS COVERAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I shall take notice of that question, Mr. Speaker, and discuss it with the minister directly concerned.']
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with a report in the press and over the radio to the effect that the Minister of Industry wants to establish a "designated area" for public information, for press and radio. I ask the Prime Minister whether in the enunciation by the Minister of Industry as reported, and I quote "-the answer would be for the government to print its own newspaper-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but he knows we cannot quote from newspaper articles in framing or submitting questions.


John George Diefenbaker: I think what I can do is
simply give the substance. I wanted to be so fair and put everything in quotations so that nothing would be lost. Has the government in mind the printing of its own newspaper and utilizing its control over the C.B.C. to the end that the Canadian people will see what the government believes they should see and hear what the government feels they should hear? In other words, does the government believe the Canadian people will benefit greatly from government controlled information?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Neither the government as a whole nor the Minister of Industry in particular has any such intention. My hon. friend may not have had the opportunity of ascertaining that the Minister of Industry has already categoricallv denied the accuracy of this report.
June 21, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have seen these categorical denials in the past. I would ask the Prime Minister whether, in order to give the government that image it apparently has not got today, according to the report of the minister, the government has in mind the printing of a newspaper or directing or controlling the C.B.C.? That is the question I asked.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think
that question is rhetorical.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: At least that is the way it sounded to the Chair.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it was not
allegorical either. I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has in mind the printing of a newspaper for the control of the C.B.C. in the references which are made to the august government that now presides over the destinies of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my right hon. friend for describing the government as august. The right hon. gentleman's question is not only rhetorical; it is hypothetical.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry. I wonder whether the Minister of Industry can assure the house that he did not mean what he said to the Saint-Antoine-Westmount association last night.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would agree with the idea that if the taxpayers are going to pay for a government publication, they should also consider paying for an opposition one.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is argumentative.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, of which I have given notice. I should like to ask, in view of the statement by the Secretary General of the

United Nations yesterday that he has proposed the cessation of bombing of North Viet Nam, the scaling down of military activities in South Viet Nam, and a willingness to deal with the Viet Cong as three initial steps toward peace in that unhappy country, if the minister would inform the house whether the Canadian government is prepared to make these steps the basis of its policies, and to urge the government of the United States to accept them as well.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. The government shares the concern of the Secretary General with respect to the continuing hostilities in Viet Nam, not only because of the human suffering involved but because of the effects for world peace inherent in this conflict. We have been in touch with the Secretary General on these problems and have discussed these matters with him.
The diplomatic initiatives in which Canada is engaged are designed to determine whether a mutually acceptable basis for a negotiated settlement exists. I believe my hon. friend would agree that Mr. Ronning having just returned to Canada, and our having just begun our discussions with him, and being now engaged here and elsewhere in discussions with other governments concerned, it would not help what we are seeking to do to take particular positions in this way when they would be bound to prejudice what we have in mind.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister, in view of the remarks he has just made, would tell the house whether he has been in communication with the Secretary General of the United Nations with regard to the results of Mr. Ronning's recent visit and his previous visit to North Viet Nam.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I was in touch with the Secretary General prior to the visit to Hanoi last week. The Secretary General was aware of what the Canadian government and others had in mind. I am sure he would agree that this has been a very desirable course for us to pursue in respect of a situation which, I might tell hon. members, does not warrant the levity which my young and hon. friend has just, I know unintentionally, manifested with regard to a very serious situation.
June 21, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. Starr:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us whether Mr. Ronning is a mind reader?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was not referring to the hon. member who has just risen when I said "young member".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is running true to form. Could we not get clarification with respect to questions asked, similar to that given by the Minister of Industry in another matter? Is the government of Canada taking an initiative that has been countenanced and agreed to by other countries, and as well by the Secretary General?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the house that the initiative we have taken was discussed with the Secretary General and with other governments which are deeply involved in this situation. I am sure those governments share with us, as does the right hon. gentleman, the hope that this continuing process will yield the kind of result for which the world over is looking.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government will not make it clear to the United States administration that it does not share the view attributed to it by Mr. James Reston, that the escalation of military activities in Viet Nam during the summer is likely to lead to improved prospects of a negotiated peace. I suggest that this could be made clear without in any way interfering with any other initiatives we are taking.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question posed by the hon. member is argumentative
and may not be asked.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's answer may I ask whether the Secretary General of the United Nations sent to the government of Canada a copy of the proposals he has made? I understand he is supposed to have sent his proposals to interested parties. I should like to know whether he sent these proposals to the government of Canada and, if so, what reply is being contemplated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already dealt with the last part of the question to the
DEBATES	6679
Inquiries of the Ministry extent that I feel, under the circumstances, would be prudent. With regard to the proposal itself which was outlined in today's press, I do not know whether the text of that statement has been sent to the government. I can say that two weeks ago I did discuss these very ideas with the Secretary General.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell us whether it is still the position of the government of North Viet Nam that it will not enter into any negotiations until all United States troops are removed from South Viet Nam?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend will appreciate that that question asked on orders of the day would require a detailed explanation, and I would want to consider whether an explanation at this particular moment is desirable in view of what the Canadian government is seeking to do now or at some other time.


John George Diefenbaker: What is it seeking to do now or some other time?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: It is doing its best to try to bring about a negotiated settlement in Viet Nam.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. And what has it in mind to do at some other time? The minister mentioned now or some other time. What has it in mind to do then? That is a nonsensical answer to get from the minister.
[Translation1


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that federal-provincial relations are of vital importance and now present very thorny problems, has the Prime Minister got in touch with the new premier of Quebec since the latter was sworn in last week? If so, could he make a statement to the house in this regard?
6680	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
1English]
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to an opportunity at an early date to discuss these matters with the prime minister of Quebec.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare?
Did the hon. minister get in touch with the new Quebec government, or has he received from that government representations in writing concerning health and public assistance programs?


Mr. Speaker;: It seems to me that question is very general, and I do not believe it should be asked under the circumstances.
1English1


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to submit my question to the Minister of Finance. Since he is absent I wonder if I might direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the world food crisis described at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization conference in Rome, are Canadian trade officers or wheat board representatives attempting to negotiate wheat sales to any of the underdeveloped countries of Africa or Asia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall take notice of that question, Mr. Speaker, and discuss it with the minister directly concerned.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: should like to direct this question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Mr. Speaker. The urgency of my question arises from the fact that important financial decisions are pending on the answers the minister may give. Is the minister in a position to advise whether the home of the late Colonel John McCrae, the immortal

DEBATES	June 21, 1966
poet and soldier, will be made a national historic site?


Arthur Laing: In reply to the hon. member's question I wish to say that the historic sites and monuments board has declared that the home of Colonel McCrae is of national historical significance. This means that our department will undertake to work with the historical society or the city of Guelph for its restoration on a fifty-fifty basis.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina Cily):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Labour and I ask it because of the desire of everyone that the port of Montreal should return to normal working conditions as quickly as possible. Can the minister tell the house what effect the strike of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific freight handlers is likely to have on the situation at the port, and will he also say what action the government is taking to bring this strike to an early conclusion?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I do not like to dodge questions, but I suggest that this one should be addressed to my colleague the Minister of Transport.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Minister of Transport, then.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I understand that negotiations are going on between the railway companies and those employees who have stopped working. I hope these negotiations are successful and can be completed without delay.



TELEGRAM TO QUEEN ON BEHALF OF B.C. UNION LEADERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barneit (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he has any knowledge of a telegram addressed to Her Majesty by the British Columbia Federation of Labour requesting the Queen's grace for some ten officers of the longshoremen's union who have gone to jail defending what they believe to be their rights under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. If so, can the Prime Minister inform the
June 21, 1966
house what advice he has given or intends to give to Her Majesty in this connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no knowledge of the telegram, but I will make inquiries immediately.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: My question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the debates which took place at the end of last week can the hon. gentleman now assure the house that the government will announce a short term emergency drive for medical manpower before the medicare legislation is introduced later this session?


William Heward Grafftey: I do not know whether there was a breakdown in communications, but I did address a question to the minister and I thought he was about to answer before the next question was addressed to the Chair.
Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National
Health and Welfare): I am glad to advise the hon. member that this whole subject matter is now under consideration by the house. We have, as the hon. member realizes, both a short term and a long term program, and the health resources fund will have an effect in producing an increase in the number of personnel in the health field. But we shall have an opportunity to discuss this subject both later today and when the medicare bill comes before the house.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a related question to ask the minister. Can the hon. gentleman say whether it is likely that the medicare resolution will be introduced in this house prior to the discussions he may have with his opposite number in the province of Quebec?


Mr. MacEachen:: The timetable with respect to the introduction of the medicare legislation has not been altered.
[Translation1



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compion-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Would it be the minister's intention to set up a royal inquiry on fraudulent bankruptcies in Canada?
[English1


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the impression that this question has been asked previously during the course of the present session.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: You are
quite right on that point, Mr. Speaker; it was addressed to the Prime Minister. At that time he said the matter was before the Senate because of Bill S-17. That is now out of the Senate, and perhaps the Prime Minister has something new to communicate to the house.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's statement in Vancouver yesterday to the effect that the government is giving intensive study to the problems of our old age pensioners, can he say whether this means that some other legislation in this field will be placed before parliament at this session apart from what we already have?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would not rule out that possibility, although I am
not confirming it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is an answer worthy of Paul.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to ask a supplementary question. In the meantime, while the government is deciding on this and while the minister is trying to make up his mind, would he make a statement as to what old age pensioners are to do to meet the rising cost of living?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question
was ruled out of order previously.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is still a good question.

6B82	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS



ALASKA HIGHWAY-INQUIRY AS TO PAVING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister of northern affairs and indian affairs. I have not given him notice, and he may wish to take it as notice. My question arises out of his tabling today of the Stan-ford-Flemming report on the Alaska highway. On the basis of this report I would like to know what progress is being made in the paving of the Alaska highway.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest this question might be placed on the order paper.


Stanley Ronald Basford: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the paving of the Alaska highway is a matter of very great importance to the development of the north, and I am sure the house would be interested in the minister's answer.


Mr. Speaker:: It is because it is very important that I suggest to the hon. member that he place it on the order paper.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during the question period the hon. member for Mackenzie directed a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, in effect asking for a progress report on the federal-provincial experimental housing program for Indians in Saskatchewan.
In April, 1965 the federal government and the government of the province of Saskatchewan entered into a joint program to provide housing for low income families in sparsely settled regions of that province. The program was experimental in nature, designed primarily to meet the needs of the metis and enfranchised Indians in northern Saskatchewan.
Under the program to date the province has applied for financial assistance for the construction of 36 houses. The units have an average estimated cost of $4,500 and are to be sold to qualified applicants through co-operatives or directly by the province. Applicants are encouraged to provide a down payment of $500. The province provides at least $500 by
IMr. Knowles.]
DEBATES	June 21, 1966
way of grant. The balance of the capital cost is shared 75 per cent by the federal government and 25 per cent by the province.
This program, as I have stated, is experimental in nature but I am pleased to inform the hon. member who asked the question that officials of C.M.H.C. are considering possible extension of the program to other provinces, and their recommendation to the government is expected shortly.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer, but I wonder is he in a position to indicate the number of houses that have actually been built for Indians to date?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for statistical information.


Stanley James Korchinski: The minister may want to take that question as notice.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, that information is contained in the answer already given.



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask when the hon. gentleman expects to bring in the new Railway Act?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that some time before the end of 1966 I will be able to propose some amendments to the Railway Act.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the reported statement today by the president of the postal workers' union that a strike would take place unless substantial wage increases were granted by the government, what action is the minister taking now to investigate the claims of the postal workers so they can be settled in an orderly way rather than waiting until a critical strike situation develops?
[Translation1


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: It is still the same problem of Group B civil servants; their salaries are to be revised before the fall.
June 21. 1966

[English1



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct an inquiry to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Since his parliamentary secretary said last evening in the adjournment hour debate that they would endeavour to ascertain more facts concerning the deportation order against Miss Endo and have them available as soon as possible, has the minister any additional information as yet?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question as notice on behalf of the minister.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader whether the order of business today will be precisely as it was announced last night, or have there been any changes?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that in the business to be put before the house today the first item would be the resolution stage of the Canada Assistance Plan; and second, second reading of the health resources fund bill. Depending on the progress made in the debate it may be that after the resolution stage of the Canada Assistance Plan we would wish to call one of the measures standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture and continue with it until private members' hour at six o'clock, and then at seven o'clock revert to the health resources fund bill. Subject to that I expect to follow the order of business indicated last night.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 14, consideration in committee of the following
Canada Assistance Plan resolution-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Batten in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure, to be known as the Canada Assistance Plan, to establish a program for sharing with the provinces in the cost of assistance, including health care and welfare services, provided to or in respect of persons in need, including mothers and children, older persons, disabled persons and unemployed persons who are in need, and in the cost of developing and improving assistance and welfare services programs including child and youth welfare programs throughout Canada; to provide for the making of arrangements for extending provincial welfare programs, with the approval of Indian bands, to Indians with reserve status, and for the making of payments to the provinces with respect to the cost of so extending those programs; to provide for the making of payments to the provinces with respect to the cost of specialized projects for assisting and rehabilitating persons in need or likely to become persons in need who have unusual difficulty in obtaining or holding employment; to provide for amendments to the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Unemployment Assistance Act that are incidental to or consequential on the introduction of the Canada Assistance Plan; and to provide further for the extension of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act to the Canada Assistance Plan.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Mr. Monteilh:: Mr. Chairman, this resolution was discussed one week ago, and I am pleased that it did not carry at that time. I have a few words to say on this matter. I might start out by saying we do support the resolution. I think it should be completely understood, however, that this is not any end-all to welfare legislation; it is purely a tidying up operation and there really is nothing new in it. It appears to me that in this 1966-67 fiscal year we simply are taking over $85 million of expenditure which previously was undertaken by the provinces. This is going to be paid by the federal government and, as I see it, we are going to co-ordinate and tidy up these pieces of legislation.
I am for that; let this not be mistaken. During my term of office I contemplated some operation of this kind. I recall so well when, during my term of office, we proposed any of our many advanced and improved pieces of welfare legislation the then hon. member for Essex East, at present the Secretary of State for External Affairs, made many blatant claims to having instituted all the good legislation ever put on the statute books of Canada. I remember one evening he was putting on such a good show that I became very impressed and offered him a position as an actor with the Stratford Shakespearean festival; his acting was really that good. If I

June 21, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan might digress for a moment, while I know his birthday is not until Thursday I should like to wish the Secretary of State for External Affairs the best of everything for that day.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I repeat that this is only a showpiece of legislation. I should like to examine some of the minister's remarks when he opened the discussion on this resolution. I know this government would like to have the people of Canada forget just what has been done in the past by way of welfare legislation, and I should like to outline some of the accomplishments in this field under the government of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.
The last original set of estimates for the Department of National Health and Welfare prepared by our government in 1963 for the fiscal year 1963-64 provided $1,205 million. The last set of estimates by the previous St. Laurent government, for the fiscal year 1957-58, totalled $525,500,000. This is an increase of $679,500,000 in a period of six years. The increase in that period is approximately 130 per cent. I would point out that both these figures exclude any reference to old age security. We know what happened there. Immediately the house sat after our government took over in 1957 the old age security payment was raised from $46 to $55 a month, effective November 1, 1957. Effective February 1, 1962 the old age security payment was raised from $55 to $65 a month. These increases also immediately went to the recipients of old age assistance, recipients of the blind persons allowance and recipients of the disabled persons allowance; they were effective on the same date.
Then we remember that great period early in 1963. Big things were supposed to come about. We had the presumed 60 days of decision coming before us. Those days of decision were supposed to include presentation of a Canada pension plan. We remember what happened to that; it fell apart. Some three or four efforts later we did have a pension plan. The original plan suggested an immediate increase to $75 a month in the old age security payment, but this had to be withdrawn, as we well know. It was only through pressure by the official opposition when the house reconvened, I believe on September 30 of that year, that an increase in the old age security payment to $75 a month then became effective. The government neglected the recipients of the old age security, the blind persons allowances and the disabled

persons allowances; their increase did not come about until 1964.
This government has allowed an increase in the cost of living which is incomprehensible to the people in these categories, the people who receive these allowances and who cannot get along without them. We know that old age security should be $100 a month today. Earlier this session we brought in an amendment to the effect that the recipients of old age security and these other allowances should receive $100 a month. Our motion was defeated by the people in the far left corner of the house; we would have had it except for that party.
A week ago today the hon. member for Simcoe East dealt with the need for this increase. We claim it is needed now, not sometime in the future. Only this morning I was speaking to a social worker who indicated the gross need for some help, some alleviation of the conditions under which these people are living. She mentioned one person who is existing almost entirely on shredded wheat. Another family had had no meat for quite a long period. These things are before us, Mr. Chairman-these needs, these requirements. This is the reason I claim we should act now to increase the old age security to $100 a month.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
In his remarks a week ago the minister mentioned unemployment assistance. I should like to point out just what did transpire in respect of unemployment assistance. When we came into office in 1957 there was a 4.5 per cent minimum below which the federal government would not participate with the provinces in unemployment assistance. What happened? In the estimate for this item in the Department of National Health and Welfare for the year 1963-64, to which I referred earlier, the last prepared by our government, the amount was $110 million. For the year 1957-58, the last year in which the St. Laurent government prepared estimates, the figure for unemployment assistance was $5,125,000. This is an increase of approximately $105 million, from $5 million to $110 million. This indicates the welfare assistance steps that were taken by our government in an effort to assist the needy.
The minister spoke of supplementary payments to recipients of welfare assistance, and a huge part of the increase I mentioned from $5 million to $110 million is represented by these payments to various categories of welfare recipients. The government during the
June 21, 1966

last election campaign seemed to indicate that this increase represented something new and that something over the $75 per month to the aged would be paid. The government tried to hoodwink the people by suggesting that old age assistance would amount to something in the neighbourhood of $125 per month. I can show you legislation on the statute books which indicates that any amount of money which is paid by way of a supplemental allowance is shared between the federal and provincial governments on a 50-50 basis.
This house and the country are aware of the advance in social legislation initiated by the government of which I had the honour to be a member. I claim without any risk of contradiction that the greatest strides in social welfare to be taken in the history of Canada were taken when the Progressive Conservative party was in power.
I should like to refer to a few things about which the minister spoke in presenting this resolution. He referred to mothers' allowances and I am pleased that this type of assistance is to be given. When I was the minister a suggestion was made to the various provinces that if they changed their legislation our legislation could be interpreted in such a way that assistance in the form of mothers' allowances could be brought under the category of unemployment assistance. This suggestion was followed and involved a large portion of the increase in assistance from $5 million to $110 million over a six-year period. In any event, I am pleased that as a result of this resolution mothers' allowances will be supported by the federal government.
The minister also referred to health care costs which are to be brought within the proposed legislation. While it is true that people are receiving health care assistance from the provinces at this time, under this proposal the federal government will share in the cost.
Let me repeat that what is really happening is a transfer of payments. Instead of the provinces paying these costs alone the federal government is now going to assist. I am not against such a proposal but let us not forget that this legislation will not provide something new.
The minister said that the government intends to continue to contribute to existing categorical programs for the aged, blind and disabled. I assume this will involve a phasing out operation and that eventually these programs will disappear. He also suggested an
Canada Assistance Plan extension of provincial welfare programs to Indians who are now living on reserves, crown land or unorganized territory. It is my belief that this type of assistance was provided formerly by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources through the Indian affairs branch. I realize that certain medical services were provided for Indians on reservations by the Department of National Health and Welfare and I am pleased to note that this whole program will be brought under the one department.
I was impressed by the minister's remarks which indicated that he was pressing for assistance to the severely retarded who have a limited employment potential. This potential can be developed if they are given an opportunity to partake in meaningful activity. This is a very worth-while step. We all know of the existence of private organizations which participate in this type of endeavour, and the one which occurs to me immediately is Marina Creations. I happen to be fairly well acquainted with this organization and I recall a visit made to my office by Mrs. George A. Marshall of Toronto at which time she set forth the work they were doing on behalf of the handicapped. This is worthwhile work and government funds should be made available in this regard.
Under this kind of a program the handicapped are taught to use the abilities they have. Some of them are not able to do much but through programs of this kind they are taught self-respect. Some of them even reach self-sufficiency to the point that they pay income tax.
During the last election campaign the Progressive Conservative party proposed that the means test be discarded in respect of retarded and disabled people. Certainly these people deserve assistance and encouragement in living their own lives and I am pleased that the minister has made some mention of assistance in this direction.
The minister spoke in glowing terms of the proposed legislation and suggested that it will cost an additional $85 million during the 1966-67 fiscal year. In this regard I should like to emphasize the words quoted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he referred to a speech made by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in Fredericton on June 2 of this year. She said on that occasion that she wanted to make two general points. The first was that this plan does not involve any grand new programs. She said
June 21, 1966

Canada Assistance Plan the second point was that although the plan would operate under the umbrella of a federal statute and receive substantial financial support from the federal government the details of the various programs and administrative responsibility would rest with the provinces.
I conclude by saying that what this plan amounts to is really a tidying up operation which is completely inadequate for the needs of people in these welfare categories. Let us not be fooled by the government when it refers to supplementary benefits because any thought that there are additional benefits to be received is wrong and only a delusion. We should provide $100 a month now for our older citizens.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Chairman, in considering the legislation under discussion one must congratulate the federal government for recognizing its responsibility to assume a greater share of the cost of providing supplementary assistance to the needy. I hope the government continues to recognize this necessity and thereby relieves provincial governments of a portion of the growing burden of welfare costs. It is doing so to the extent that a tax rearrangement is taking place and there is greater recognition of the federal role to be played in Canada. These changes are gratifying.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
What disturbs me about this legislation is the implication that this is in effect what the government is offering the senior citizens of Canada in response to their urgent needs. If this is so, if the government is using this legislation as a red herring to relieve itself of its responsibilities to our senior citizens, then this government must stand condemned in the strongest possible terms. This is part of the phony war on poverty, and I use these words advisedly because of a deep feeling of anger at having to stand by on this side of the house and watch the government lightly ignore the pressing needs of our senior citizens. At times the purpose of this legislation appears to be little more than to convince those who are prosperous in this country that the needs of those who are poor are being met. Yet this is not so. The needs of our senior citizens and of our disadvantaged are simply not being met by the legislation that the government is introducing at the present time.
It is difficult to understand how the government can ignore the almost universal
[Mr. Monteith.l

pleas on behalf of the older people in this; country after listening to hon. members in all sections of the house, including the government side, who have spoken and called for an increase in the old age pension. The only-reason I can find for such lack of action is that the government thinks it is fairly safe in office. Although it is a minority government, it is fairly obvious that very few people in Canada want an election and because the government has assessed the mood of the country it thinks it can maintain itself in office.
Let me speak for myself in this respect. I do not wish to see another election any more-than anyone else, especially when we consider the number of elections that have taken place recently. However, if we are going to-have to defeat the government in order to get increased old age pensions for our senior citizens, than I think this government should be defeated and the sooner the better because positive action must be taken. This government is playing at politics although they know they have to do something for the older people in Canada. What are they waiting for? Will they hold off action on this matter until just before an election so they can look like geniuses and heroes at that time? Will they ignore the present needs and stand by and watch the kind of suffering that is taking place among our senior citizens before they do anything? I would certainly hope that will not be the case but we have had no indication that the government's intention is to do anything other than that.
The government has been saying that it cannot afford to increase old age pensions and in the very same breath it speaks of the fantastic progress that has been made in this country. They brag about our great $51 billion economy and they talk about the most affluent of times under the jurisdiction of the Liberal party. Affluent for whom and affluent for what? What sense of values have they when they say "this great affluent society, this great $51 billion economy", and in the same breath say "there is no money for our older people?" In my opinion Canada can very well afford to treat its senior citizens with decency.
It is interesting to note that Canada in comparison with other western nations has far fewer people over the age of 60. In the booklet called "The Aging Worker In The Canadian Economy" dated July, 1964 it is stated that only 10.8 per cent of our population are 60 years and over. Of course the
June 21, 1966

percentage of those who are 65 and over is *even smaller. We can draw the conclusion from this information that an affluent society can easily afford to give increased support and sustenance to the small proportion of its people who require assistance. In Canada 10.8 per cent of our population are over 60; in Australia, 12.2 per cent; New Zealand, 12.2 per cent; the Netherlands, 13.3 per cent; the United States, 13.2 per cent and Sweden 17.3 per cent. In view of the resources of our *country and our working population there is no reason to assume that we cannot provide this increased assistance to our older citizens.
We hear about priorities. The government says that education and other matters have a greater priority than old age assistance. No one denies the importance of these other matters and no one denies the need for education, medicare, etc., but what can have greater priority than the giving of assistance to those who require it? If necessary, some of these other matters can wait but this matter cannot wait because the hand of time will not wait for our senior citizens. Every month and every year that go by mean that a portion of their lives which could have been a little more worth while and a little more livable has been lost to them.
This situation requires some elementary justice. We have heard eloquent speeches from both sides of the house on why this country should carry out its obligation toward its senior citizens. These are the people who built this country. These are the people who lived in less than affluent times and who did not have the opportunity to put aside sufficient money for their old age despite the fact that they probably worked much harder than does the present generation.
Let me refer again to the information contained in "The Aging Worker In The Canadian Economy" regarding the educational level of our senior citizens aged 65 and over. It is said there that 65.6 per cent of them reached no higher than the elementary school level. The reason for this was certainly not their lack of interest in furthering their education but simply that it was not possible for them to do so. It is these people who have made it possible for those of us who are younger, for those now in school or who have been in school recently, to acquire a higher and fuller education.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Does this generation not owe at least something to them? Does it not have a duty to see that they get some minimum standard of
Canada Assistance Plan living? When we talk about an old age pension of $100 a month we are not talking about the moon. We are not talking about a sum of money to enable our older citizens to live in affluence. At this time $100 per month will do little more than retrieve the erosion that has taken place in the $75. The old age pensioners are not only not advancing, not only not keeping up with the increased rewards of productivity and increased benefits obtainable in our society, but keep slipping inexorably behind. I do not know what the $75 would be worth in actual value today but it certainly would not buy as much as it would have three years ago. An increase in the pension at this time would do little more than put pensioners in the same position they were a few years ago.
Is this such a great thing to demand in an affluent society? Is this such a great thing to ask of the country? Is this too great a burden to place upon the working population, to ask our young people to provide some assistance for the generation that not only fought our wars in many cases but through their sacrifices built up public services and an educational system for the benefit of those who followed? I do not believe it is too great a sacrifice. I think it is a sacrifice our people would willingly make if the government would provide them with that opportunity. How can we stand by in Canada and see our resources used inadequately, and yet talk about not being able to afford things?
It seems to me that if this government had some better philosophy, some better attitude toward the management of this country, they would find that an efficient use of our natural resources would be adequate to the task of assisting our senior citizens. We heard a big hint earlier today when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre questioned the minister about the plans he had and whether he had any other ideas for helping the senior citizens of Canada. The member for Winnipeg North Centre did not receive much information.
There is a report from the Senate that calls for a different kind of program than a flat rate, old age pension. It is a good report and contains some worth-while ideas. In the years ahead the old age pension may not be the only answer to the problems of our senior citizens. What is the alternative? Has the government any other answer? Is the government considering any other program? Has it any hope to
6688	COMMONS
Canada Assistance Plan offer the people of Canada who need assistance now or is the government merely obscuring the issue in such a way as to deny responsibility? Is this a way of procrastinating, a way for the government to drag its feet? Certainly it is not helping.
Occasionally we hear, and we have heard this from the government, that any increase in the pension would be inflationary. When the economy is bad the government says, we cannot afford these things. When the economy is good, increases in old age pensions become inflationary. No matter what happens in this country, whether we have high unemployment or low unemployment, whether we have prosperity or a depression, when it comes to increases in old age pensions the government says either that we cannot afford it or it is going to be inflationary. So far no one on the government side has said that the older people of this country do not deserve it. They would not dare to say this.
However, the government does assert entirely contradictory points of view. They say we cannot afford it and that it is inflationary. The government often asks, where are you going to get the money? When the government says that increases in old age pensions will be inflationary, I do not think they know what they are talking about. We look around and see the kind of spending that is going on in those sectors of the economy that are truly under some pressure and it does not make sense to see expenditures that really are inflationary. What is happening is that the government is not prepared to stop inflation in those sectors in which it should be stopped.
What is the older person going to do with an increase in the old age pension? Is he going to buy shopping centres, put up apartment buildings or erect a grand mansion? What is this $25 a month going to do for the pensioner? What is it going to enable the older people to do that is so inflationary? Will they buy a little more food or perhaps meet their rent commitments? They may spend it on drugs. Is this inflationary? They might buy a gift for their grandchildren. Would this be inflationary? They might take a trip.
If you study the expenditures of the older people in our society you will find that with few exceptions they are spending their money on fundamental things, and by no stretch of the imagination are those the things that are promoting inflationary pressure in this country. I was disturbed when the Minister of Finance brought in his great budget which was heralded for its originality.

DEBATES	June 21, 1966
.	;	I
It was original because he adopted a magnificent double standard of taxation to gain the revenues he required. He was quite willing to impose taxes on the individual but when it came to corporations taxes were not the answer. Loans were the answer. I believe these loans amounted to over $300 million, and I believe that amount would meet at least half the cost of increasing the old age pension. Why do we have this double standard? Why was the government not prepared to raise the money and provide an increase in old age pensions?
We talk about national unity in Canada and we regret the fact that our people are increasingly turning to their provincial governments for assistance. We regret the fact that the people have a greater affection for their provincial governments than they have for their national government in Ottawa. Is this surprising when the federal government displays such callousness? If the federal government wants to make a contribution to national unity, if it wants the people of Canada to feel that those who sit here in Ottawa are not insulated from the rest of the people in this country, it should do something about old age pensions. However, the government does not hear the voice of the old age pensioners. So, Mr. Chairman, the provincial governments tell their people that they can do it on their own, that they recognize their need and will raise the pension. [DOT] (3:50 pjn.)
Because those governments are closer to the people is no excuse for inaction on the part of the government in Ottawa. If the federal government in talking of national unity wants to make Canadians from one end of Canada to the other feel as though the government at Ottawa does care about them and wants to do something for them, then let the government act in fields such as this. Let the government at least do something in fields over which they have jurisdiction.
There is no question that the federal government can raise the old age pension. There is no question that this would benefit every Canadian in every part of the country. But the government does not do this. Frequently the government says it would love to do things to promote national unity and to show the nation that the national government is at least as deserving of the affection of the Canadian people as are the provincial governments. Yet they tell the people that these
June 21, 1966

things are beyond their jurisdiction and that they have no say in the matter. The government does have a say in the matter of old age pensions. But what is its answer? The government merely ignores the wishes and the needs of the people of the country.
Again we hear talk about redressing the balance between the rich provinces and the poor provinces. I think there is a real need for correction of the imbalance and to see that the poor provinces in Canada do receive more consideration than has been the case in the past. So the government brings in a measure which has its own built-in means test. The government brings in a measure, the Canada Assistance Plan, which provides that if a province is big, fat and wealthy it will get more money. The more money it can raise the more money it will receive. But if a poor little province cannot raise much money the federal government just matches the amount which is raised.


The Chairman:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him
has expired.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, if I might
continue for a few minutes I will bring my remarks to a close.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation to the committee for allowing me to continue my remarks. I shall be brief and will sum up what I have said.
For every reason I have advanced, whether
it be for the reason of social justice, whether for financial reasons, whether for the reason of national unity, whether for the reason of better income distribution in Canada to help the poor provinces, whether for the reason that this is part of the war on poverty, whether for the reason of making the people of this country feel that their government in Ottawa cares and is concerned about them-for all these reasons I urge upon the government to see to it that the old age pension is increased.
I would also indicate to the government that as much as many of us are desirous of maintaining stability and as much as we would regret precipitating an election, unless
Canada Assistance Plan the government acts to do something to help the desperate need of the senior citizens of this country it may very well be courting its own defeat.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I have
some observations to make in regard to the subject of social security and in particular in regard to the Canada Assistance Plan, the item we are now discussing. 1 begin by referring to the summary of the minister, reported at page 6407 of Hansard, in which he said:
-the Canada Assistance Plan will provide: a basis for co-ordinating public assistance programs in Canada; -
That has been referred to by the hon. member for Perth.
-federal sharing for the first time in mothers' allowance programs; federal support for the strengthening of administration and welfare services related to social assistance programs; emphasis on developing, improving and extending services designated to lessen the amount of dependency; federal aid for buttressing child and youth welfare services, federal sharing of health care costs for social assistance recipients-
In large measure it is a bringing together, in co-ordination, programs of social security which time and experience have indicated are necessary. As has been stated by the hon. member for Simcoe East and the hon. member for Perth, there is no question whatever that this party will take any stand other than that of support for this legislation. Indeed, the hon. member for Perth set out in detail the course of action taken by the government of which I had the honour to be the prime minister.
I would remind the committee that in addition to the matters to which the hon. member made reference, during our period of office we reduced the residence requirement for payment of old age pensions in Canada from 20 years to 10 years. We brought in for the first time legislation to allow recipients of pensions to take their pensions with them when leaving Canada for health or other reasons. We brought about the increase in pensions, to which the hon. member made reference, from $46 to $65 per month, covering not only old age pensions but also blind persons' allowances and disability allowances. In one other field of social security, that of unemployment assistance, we removed the threshold clause and for the first time Canadians from all provinces in Canada and from the territories were made eligible to receive unemployment assistance benefits.
6690	COMMONS
Canada Assistance Plan
These and other matters, Mr. Chairman, indicate that social security is not a matter of monopoly by any one party. In the field of hospital construction the grants were increased during the six years that we were in office by 175 per cent. Grants for hospital beds used for active treatment were doubled from $1,000 to $2,000. I might deal with many of the changes made to assist those who were in need and to alleviate the economic conditions of those who required assistance.
In other words, we endeavoured to bring about within this nation a wide expansion of social justice, which I might define as the concern of government matched by government action to bring about higher standards of welfare for our fellow men and in particular for those who, because of age, disability, unemployment or other causes, would otherwise not enjoy a reasonable share of the good life.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am not going to review the matters with which the hon. member for Perth dealt in such a comprehensive and effective manner. However, there is one field in which this government has failed, and failed demonstrably, to take action. I refer to its failure to provide an increase in old age pensions to $100 a month. The problem has been played with by the members of this government. Across this nation there has been an almost unanimous demand for action in this regard.
The view of Canadians as a whole, I think, was set out in an editorial in the Chronicle-Herald of January 15 last which stated:
There is ... a strong argument in favor of an immediate pension increase for all persons who now qualify for old age security, which increase should also apply to future pensioners who derive little or no support from the contributory plan.
We have tried. We have failed. The hon. member who preceded me stated that the need for action might very well bring about the defeat of the government. That may happen unless action is taken.
Let me review what has taken place. On Thursday, January 20, I had the honour to move an amendment to the effect that the old age pension be increased to $100 a month. A subamendment was moved thereto to have the increase commence at 65 years of age. Members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition voted in favour of the subamendment and again voted for the amendment. Nevertheless the hopes of the old age pensioner were defeated because every Liberal member in this house voted against that amendment.

DEBATES	June 21 1966
Explain as they will that it was a vote of non-confidence, they cannot get away from the fact that at that time, had the government been defeated, the Governor General would have had to call on Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as the alternative government rather than go to the country.
There is no doubt about that. That took place in the United Kingdom in the 1920's, and it is the only established precedent there is.
Why did the government succeed in defeating the $100 a month? Because it had the support of the Social Credit members who stood together with the government regardless of the attitude of people as a whole. Indeed, if they had not done so the old age pensioner today would be getting $100 a month.


An hon. Member:: May I ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member can make his remarks after-


Robert Norman Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask the right hon. gentleman a question?


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Red Deer on a point of order.


Robert Norman Thompson: My point of order is simply this, Mr. Chairman. The right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition has just suggested that if this amendment had been passed the old age pensioner would have received an increase bringing his pension to $100 a month. Would the passing of the amendment that the right hon. gentleman referred to have brought about that result?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Chair is unable to discern any point of order in the hon. member's remarks.


John George Diefenbaker: Even though there is no point of order, I should be very happy to
June 21. 1966

answer. Had the government been defeated, as I said a moment ago, on that first want of confidence amendment in this parliament, there would have been no alternative for the government. It would have been the Prime Minister's bounden duty and responsibility to ask the Governor General to call on Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to form a government. If that had been done a pension increase would have been the first matter of legislation to be brought before parliament and the old age pensioner would be getting $100 a month today.
I have never been able to understand the attitude taken by the Social Credit party in this connection. I was not able to understand it at that time. Since then it has become almost a chronic condition. No matter what comes up, the hon. gentleman and his group stand with the government, right or wrong.
I am glad that question was asked. I wanted the opportunity to clarify the position of affairs in this connection. It is interesting to find that those who voted against the increase to $100 a month, and every Liberal member did so, are today engaged in a variety of alibis. I am not going to designate the members supporting the government who have been explaining to their constituents how their very hearts bleed for the old age pensioner and how, if only they had the opportunity to vote for $100 a month, they would do so.
That is one of the reasons why all across this nation there has been a feeling of deep concern that representatives of the people, voting in parliament, voted against that in which they themselves believed. It has hurt the image of parliament.
Last evening the Minister of Industry spoke in the city of Montreal. I am going to quote what he said. It is supported by the Gazette as being entirely correct. Then I am going to refer to his revised edition which received circulation this morning. The Gazette states that the statement arose under circumstances in which questions were asked. And questions are being asked. Everywhere the old age pensioner says: "Why don't you do something about it? Why don't you secure us what is fair? Why, in the face of the greatest increase in the cost of living in Canada's history, are we made to live on a sub-nutritional basis?" This is understandable. I am sure the minister has had representations in this connection. I have seen one or two of his letters in reply. I congratulate him for his capacity to convey, by suggestion,
Canada Assistance Plan support for that whose defeat he contributed to by his vote.
Hope is held out. "Wait and see", it is said. Lo, what was said in Vancouver in the last couple of days has rather dampened hopes. Mr. Chairman, the government has been leading the people to believe that $125 a month is just round the corner. Where the corner is, when it will be seen at close range, when we shall round it, will not be made known for the immediate present or apparently for a long time to come.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
So I commend the remarks the hon. gentleman made yesterday. I am willing to congratulate him on never making statements unless they are well founded. He promised $25 million for the benefit of the Cape Breton coal miners and they are still waiting. But I am one of his supporters and I know that some time, somewhere, he will get around to carrying out that promise which was to have been put into effect immediately, a word which in the Liberal lexicon means "Whenever we think appropriate, however long the delay".
I now read from the Gazette:
Industry Minister Drury said Monday night the Federal government should establish its own mass communication outlets to publicize its achievements.
Well, if they can publicize what they have done for the old age pensioners by establishing a government agency they will have achieved the impossible. I read further:
"If Prime Minister Pearson isn't obtaining enthusiastic public support these days, it's because our government has been doing poorly in publicizing its achievements," Mr. Drury said in a speech to the federal Liberal association of his Montreal St. Antoine-Westmount riding.
One of the things they will not publicize, even though they come to control the media of communication, will be the fact that they have done nothing for the old age pensioner. Many of those who are sitting opposite me belong to that school represented by the Secretary of State for External Affairs who in 1956 said the country could not afford an increase of more than $6. in old age pensions. A number of those who stood with him on that side of the house are still in parliament. The hon. member for Kootenay East is one who supported that stand in 1956. Apparently today, in his independence, he supports the government in its refusal to increase old age pensions to $100 per month.

June 21, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
Then the Minister of Industry went on to say:
The public media-newspapers, radio and television-concentrate on the issues which cause parliamentary argument and bypass important legislation enacted with little fuss.
Well, they have certainly bypassed the fact that this government has refused to increase the pension to $100 a month. The minister is then quoted as saying:
Perhaps an answer would be for the government to print its own newspapers-
I do not know what hon. gentlemen opposite intend to do with the members of the press gallery when the government finally takes them over and begins printing its own newspapers. The quotation continues:
-and to utilize its control over the C.B.C. by inserting a few programs of its own as well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Then the report says:
The minister admitted his idea "might give rise to some discussion".
Mr. Chairman, no minister was ever more prophetic. It even led to some discussion in his own mind as a result of which he issued a revised version today. And the interesting part is that all he deals with is the C.B.C. I will read his statement so that the record may be clear. I did not have it at question time today.
Commenting on a story in the Montreal Gazette of Tuesday, June 21, 1966, which quoted him as suggesting the use of the C.B.C. to broadcast programs prepared by the government, the Hon. C. M. Drury, Minister of Industry, stated that the quotation was inaccurate, out of context, and did not represent his own views or those of the government.
The minister stated that he was replying to a question concerning a public opinion poll during an informal question and answer period at the annual meeting of the St. Antoine-Westmount Liberal Association. He had attributed the result of the poll to overemphasis in the public news media on conflict in parliament and relatively inadequate coverage of important legislation. He had stated that the government should improve its methods of bringing its achievements to the attention of the public, including better utilization of such media as newspapers and television.
Then he said:
At no time did I advocate that the government misuse public ownership of the C.B.C. by inserting government programs.
You will note, Mr. Chairman, that he did not deny that, in his opinion, the answer might be for the government to print its own newspapers. The only part he denied was the statement that he intended to try to control the C.B.C. So in the revised version it now

becomes clear what the hon. gentleman had in mind. Speaking in this institution for freedom, I want to say this: leaving aside the reference- to the C.B.C., the statement made by the Minister of Industry last night reveals an unexpected frankness. It leads us to understand that thought control by the government and for the government, without regard for freedom, is not outside their thinking.
There is no denial of that part of the statement which expresses the opinion that the government should print its own newspapers. This is an amazing revelation. Last night the minister spoke. Today he revises. But never does he deny that what he has in mind-and when ministers speak they speak for the government-is the taking over of newspapers.
I can understand the somewhat cavalier manner in which questions in this connection were brushed aside today. The Prime Minister did not know the facts because in answer to me he said there had been a categorical denial of the things alleged to have been said last night by the minister.
There was no such denial so far as the publication of newspapers is concerned. That statement shows the arrogant state of mind of this government. It reveals that in their minds they feel the people of Canada are not as appreciative of them as they should be. If we had a recording of what the old age pensioners say about this government it would be unparliamentary. Members opposite are not getting the right interpretation from the press so they must have their own newspapers. We now have the information, revealed from the lips of one of the government's leading ministers, that hon. gentlemen opposite know best what the people of Canada should hear and see. Mr. Chairman, the revision is worse than the original report.
The revision removes only that part of the statement which deals with the control of the C.B.C. I have nothing to say about the C.B.C. but this: I have found, and this is regularly so, that whenever the government is in difficulty there will always be available independent observers of political thought who, free from any consideration except the edification of the people and the purveying of truth, will say "After all, the government did what was appropriate".
But, when we, on this side of the house take a stand that is critical, we can always be assured that not many hours later, through the facilities of the C.B.C., we will hear one of those independent commentators proceed to dislodge us from our position by alleging
June 21, 1966

that we are far removed from the facts. I see no reason why the minister should have found it necessary to suggest, if he did, control of the C.B.C., which he says he did not.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
That speech last night by the Minister of Industry was the most revealing one we have had during this parliament. They cannot understand it. Something has happened. Halos are being removed from the heads of ministers of a government that for long was free from criticism. There are no halos for this government from the old age pensioners of Canada, from the superannuated civil servants, from the civil servants who are being denied their rightful increases at this time or from the veterans. I could go down the whole list but, as the Minister of Industry says, "If we had our own newspaper we could improve our image." If they did it would be a caricature of the truth.
Sir, this legislation represents necessary changes. It receives our approval, but with all the force at my command I again call on the government to act in increasing old age pensions. I do not know whether the parliamentary post office delivers only letters of praise and approbation to members of the government or whether correspondence from old age pensioners ever finds its way into their offices and into the offices of those members supporting the government. But if it does, the old age pensioners call, they ask, and they are denied.
Some of the letters I have received outlining the attitude of Canadians regarding the failure of the government to take appropriate action should have been written on asbestos paper. Under this legislation the old age pensioners have nothing to hope for whatsoever. Yet members of the government are talking about $100 million defence buildings, $6 million paintings, $10 million for this and that and millions of other dollars for other purposes. I hope that members sitting opposite, who heretofore have voted as strongly as they have been able against $100 a month for old age pensioners, will feel the twinges of conscience or else the scorpions of the old age pensioners as they call upon parliament to act.
This legislation is beneficial but what is needed now for the benefit of Canadians as a whole is an increase in the old age pension so that the old age pensioner will not find himself in a position of penury, faced by rising costs of rental, food, clothing and all
Canada Assistance Plan those things he has to buy while, at the same time he is caught under a ceiling that makes it impossible for the ordinary things of life to be available to those who deserve better.
1Translation1


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before us advises us that, in due course, a measure will be introduced giving effect to the resolution which reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure, to be known as the Canada Assistance Plan, to establish a program for sharing with the provinces in the cost of assistance, including health care and welfare services, provided to or in respect of persons in need, including mothers and children, older persons, disabled persons and unemployed persons who are in need, and in the cost of developing and improving assistance and welfare services programs including child and youth welfare programs throughout Canada; to provide for the making of arrangements for extending provincial welfare programs, with the approval of Indian bands, to Indians with reserve status, and for the making of payments to the provinces with respect to the cost of so extending those programs; to provide for the making of payments to the provinces with respect to the cost of specialized projects for assisting and rehabilitating persons in need or likely to become persons in need who have unusual difficulty in obtaining or holding employment; to provide for amendments to the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Unemployment Assistance Act that are incidental to or consequential on the introduction of the Canada Assistance Plan; and to provide further for the extension of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act to the Canada Assistance Plan.
Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has just spoken at quite some length of a matter related to this resolution and naturally, to the bill which we hope will soon follow. He blames the government for not having granted our senior citizens $100 per month. He forgets, it seems, that three years ago, when his government was in power, the old age pension was $65 per month. He has been a member of the opposition now for three years and he tells the Liberals: you are mean, you are wicked, you do not give $100 a month to our senior citizens aged 70 or more.
Mr. Chairman, when an amendment was moved by the Conservative party, namely by the Leader of the Opposition himself, to the effect that the old age pension should be increased to $100 per month, we from the Ralliement Creditiste had voted for the amendment, not because we were Conservatives or Liberals, but because we were in favour of a $100 monthly pension for our senior citizens. But the paradox is not that we voted with the opposition. By the way, I

June 21, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan would like to mention that on the evening alter we voted for the amendment, we heard on the C.B.C. the report of a commentator who is here in the lobby, behind the scenes, but who seldom attends our proceedings. Undoubtedly because he had not seen us, he said that thanks to the Social Credit, the Liberal party saved face and remained in power.
Throughout the country our stand was then taken to mean-I have kept in my office, letters which bear me out-that we had voted with the Liberals against the Conservatives' amendment.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the facts are quite different. It is true that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) and his comrades in arms voted with the government and it is true that we voted against the government. Those who say that an amendment is not a bill or a resolution are right. However, should a free vote been allowed on the amendment or the increase in old age pensions, as was one for capital punishment-I feel that the old people in Canada are just as important as the question of capital punishment in Canada, and that a free vote should have been allowed then-the old people who would have received $100 a month at 70 or 65, as we suggested when the amendment was introduced. Mr. Chairman, people were confused.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We took a stand for our senior citizens and we are still asking for $100 a month at 65, without any means test, and at 60 for those who are in need. But that is not the question. I come back to the paradox which I wanted to point out a little earlier. The Prime Minister stated in the maritimes before the election of November 8: $100 a month is not enough, it should be $125 a month.
The government does not even want to grant $100 a month and it is talking about $125. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) talked of $125 a month in Vancouver a few days ago, but the government is careful not to grant $100 or $125 a month. Now suppose an election took place and the government were defeated; the Leader of the Opposition would be the new prime minister with his friends as ministers.
Then if he introduced legislation to give $100 a month, the Liberals would cry out right away and say: $100 is not enough, it takes $125 a month. That is the sincerity of the two old line political parties in Canada, the sincerity of those who are ready to make promises at election time and willing to forget them when the elections are over.
[Mr. Caouette.l
The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron)-I call on him to witness what I am saying, even if we do not share the same political ideas 

has been promised for 15 years that public buildings would be built on the other side of the river. And what has the Liberal government done for the people of Hull in the field of federal public buildings?


Maurice Allard: It is a shame.


David Réal Caouette: A monstrous shame. The ministers should blush in shame, all of them without exception, for treating so unfairly the region of Hull.
Mr. Chairman, the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) is losing his temper. He does not like to hear us criticizing the government-


John Cole: You are the one who
is losing his temper-


David Réal Caouette: No, I often lose my temper, precisely because the government takes no action. The Leader of the Opposition said a while ago that the government was busy setting up a propaganda system for itself.
I will state an immediate fact to the Postmaster General.
I wrote him about two months ago to request a post office for the western part of Hull. I was told that it was granted. It is not yet there. But the paradox, once again, is that the member for Gatineau (Mr. Isabelle) who was not even aware of that, sent a letter to the man who was to be appointed as postmaster, telling him:	I recommended you
strongly as postmaster.
And the Postmaster General will tell me that this is justice. Political patronage, patronage dispensers on the government side, that is what we witness.


John Cole: Mr. Chairman, does the member for Villeneuve allow me to put a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


John Cole: Mr. Chairman, when the member for Villeneuve recommends somebody as postmaster, is that patronage?


David Réal Caouette: The member for Gatineau never made any recommendation to the Postmaster General, but I did, concerning the building of a post office in that area. I challenge the minister to send me the correspondence exchanged with the member for Gatineau. But, the minister has correspondence with the member for Villeneuve in that regard.
June 21, 1966


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: I never had personally any correspondence with the member for Gatineau concerning that post office.


David Réal Caouette: But the Postmaster General has had correspondence with the member for Villeneuve. That is certain.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I granted it on the recommendation of the department.


David Réal Caouette: How is it that the member for Gatineau wrote the man in question to tell him: "I firmly recommended you to the department". What has the member for Gatineau to do with that?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: What had the Postmaster General to do with that also?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly, the Postmaster General has something to do with that; however, he has nothing to do with patronage.
Mr. Chairman, this is not patronage. I admit that when a man is elected to the federal parliament, he is elected by the people and this must be taken into consideration, whatever his political complexion. But let us stop this wire-pulling, as some members are doing or trying to do within the federal government, and the hon. member is aware of that; he knows that I am right.
Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition-


John Cole: You are stuck-


David Réal Caouette: No, I am not stuck. The Postmaster General will be stuck long before I get stuck.
Mr. Chairman, coming back to this resolution concerning introduction of a bill to be known as the Canada Assistance Plan, I suggest that assistance programs do exist in Canada. We have had them in the past and we still have them today. This resolution does not say what the bill will contain. How will needy mothers be assisted? How will the aged, the blind or the disabled be further assisted? How will the unemployed be helped, under the new act or through unemployment assistance?
Only by reading the bill will we know exactly what the government proposes to do. One thing we do know, however, like everybody else, is that the bill itself will be centrally administered in Ottawa. Yet, every province has its own provincial administration in this field; therefore, there will be a
Canada Assistance Plan duplication of administrative expenses, because we are already paying both Quebec and Ottawa; as far as we are concerned, we will again be paying Ottawa and Quebec, and the other provinces will do the same thing.
Mr. Chairman, this duplication could be avoided by returning to the provinces the whole administrative jurisdiction of these programs or this Canada Assistance Plan.
In the first place, poverty-stricken families, families in dire straits, blind persons, disabled persons, etc., are all better known to provincial civil servants. Federal authorities in Ottawa are far from those people while provincial authorities are near them; they already have the administrative machinery to look after persons in need.
If a mother receives $125 or $130 a month at the present time, there is no doubt that she is a person in need. She gets $90 and $10 per child; if she has five children, this means $50 plus $90, or a total of $140 a month. Mr. Chairman, I put this question to the government or to any minister: Who can support six persons here in Canada on $140 a month? Can anyone say that $140 a month is all you need to live on nowadays, considering the high cost of living?
Mr. Chairman, it is all very well for the government to fight or get ready to fight poverty, but the government should wage this fight effectively and, in my opinion, the best way to fight poverty is to give the provinces the necessary financial means to fight and stamp out poverty within their own borders. And each and every province is in the same state of financial stagnation.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, this legislation should be more generous toward our senior citizens. One hundred dollars a month is a strict minimum. I should like to point out that when a man receives the old age pension at 65 years of age, he is a person in need. He may receive $75 a month, others $85, because the provincial government can, from time to time, add $10 in this case, $10 in another, probably according to the political affiliation of the pensioner, but in any case the amount is $75.
And suppose the wife of this pensioner, of this 65-year-old man, is 57 or 58 years old, she is refused her pension, since she is not 60 or 62 years old.
Mr. Chairman, the new legislation concerning old age pensions should provide that whenever an old man has the right to become a pensioner and is eligible to an old age

June 21, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan pension, his wife should also become a pensioner at the same time, regardless of her age; 55 and 58-year-old women would not be compelled to do office work, washing floors at night, so as to bring home additional income and have a little more decent standard of living than can be obtained nowadays for two human beings with a $75 monthly pension.
Mr. Chairman, I am anxious to see the bill introduced, so as to know about the magnanimity, the generosity on the part of the government for the disabled, the needy, the old people of this country. I am anxious to see that. Then, I can assure you that if the bill is a generous one-generous is not the right word as we are showing no generosity for the disabled and the needy, since in all fairness they have a right to this-I will support it. But, if the bill to be introduced does not give them justice we shall fight it with all our might. On the other hand, should the piece of legislation be a fair one, should it really give assistance to the needy and the old people, I commit myself, on behalf of my group and personally, to support the government to the extent that there will be justice for the Canadian people who need it tremendously nowadays.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to support this resolution with the hope that it will be soon approved in order that we can obtain the bill and proceed to move toward its adoption as quickly as possible. This will permit us to put into effect a very important and positive measure to help disadvantaged groups in this country.
I expect there will not be unanimity of opinion in respect of what I wish to say next because it is in direct contrast to some of the remarks of the Leader of the Official Opposition. But surely even he will permit me to say to the committee that in spite of his suggestions, it should be put on record that by passing the amendment to which he referred no change would have been made in the law and, in spite of his ingenious argument to the contrary, no immediate increase in the amount available to the aged and other groups in need in this country would have been brought about. As he himself said, it would have brought about the defeat of the government and its resignation.
The Leader of the Opposition went on to suggest that it perhaps might have caused the Governor General to call upon his party to

form the government. What he neglected to say to this house was that he would then have had to present himself to the house after a Speech from the Throne to face a vote of confidence. I think it would stretch the imagination of even the most fair-minded members of this house to believe that the members of the New Democratic Party, for example, and members of other minor parties, to say nothing of the members of the Liberal party, would have supported him in all the aims he wanted to put forward. It can be stated that they would all have agreed, in spite of what he had in his program, that it would not have been in the the interests of this country to have another period of Conservative government. The only result of moving into another election at that time, which would either be under way now or just completed, would be that we would not now have this resolution before us bringing in the Canada Assistance Plan. I am confident this plan will provide aid in future not only to the aged but to other people who belong to disadvantaged groups in this country. This measure would not be before us now had the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition been followed seriously when this parliament opened last January.
The fact is that we do have this resolution before us at this time. Once the bill to follow is passed it will bring about, with appropriate co-operation on the part of provincial governments, increased assistance to the aged and others including needy mothers and children, the disabled and blind.
For the first time we will have an integrated and uniform program to help needy groups which up until now have been assisted in a piecemeal manner through programs which left many gaps. But this program is one which is supported by many groups in this country, including the Canadian Welfare Council, which have studied this whole problem. I think every member of the house who has attempted to be in contact with his constituents and help them in a useful and constructive way with their problems is aware of the gaps that are present in existing programs of social assistance.
The minister said when introducing this legislation that at the present time assistance programs such as mothers' allowances do not have the financial support of the federal government. He also suggested that the maximum amounts available under other programs do not really cover the needs of those who require assistance to obtain a decent
June 21, 1966

standard of living. These people are faced with problems relating to obtaining adequate clothing, living accommodation, food and medical supplies. In some urban areas at this time they cannot enjoy a decent standard of living.
Very little argument, if any, will come from this side of the house against any suggestion that all Canadians as human beings are entitled to a decent standard of living. This is true particularly of the aged who have served this country well in its development. The Canada Assistance Plan resolution and the bill which will follow will go a long way toward Ailing the gaps that exist in present assistance programs and will help the aged and other disadvantaged groups to live in a more equitable manner than they can at the present time.
One of the big difficulties in respect of assistance programs now in operation is the application of the means test. This is an unfair and unrealistic way in which to provide assistance. Under the provisions of the present means test the income of recipients of assistance includes not only actual disposable earnings but also national amounts, for example, for rent in cases of individuals who own their own homes. Even though a person does not receive a nickel in the way of rent from a property he owns and lives in he must include a certain amount as rent in his income.
The present deffnition of means is unfair to those individuals who have been able to accumulate some savings during a lifetime of hard work. The present level of permissible savings is far too low, and very often because of the length of time required for provincial authorities administering these programs to come to a decision on applications for help these individuals who have accumulated savings below the permissable level must dip into them in order to exist. In this way they deplete these savings while waiting for approval of their applications for social assistance.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
One of the most valuable features of the new Canada Assistance Plan will be the substitution of a needs test for the present means test so that amounts paid can be based on the actual need of the senior citizen the widow, the disabled and the blind who apply. Perhaps some of them may need $100 while others may only need $90 and still others may need $125 a month or more. According to my understanding of the bill which will evolve from this resolution, no limit will be
Canada Assistance Plan put on the amount which the federal government will be able to contribute to match the provincial contributions available under the new programs based on the Canada Assistance Plan to meet the needs of those covered by it.
There comes a time, Mr. Chairman, when measures put forward in an attempt to treat all people in certain categories fairly turn out to have just the opposite effect. There comes a time when measures put forward on this basis actually create inequality. I think it is obvious that needs differ in different parts of the country. An amount that may be adequate in some outport in Newfoundland is unlikely to be adequate in Toronto or Windsor, and in fact needs may differ among people with similar problems living in the same community.
Someone once said that in medieval France the law treated everyone alike; it made it illegal for both rich and poor to sleep under bridges. I think it would be agreed by anyone studying this approach, which still exists under many laws today, that it provides a most unequal form of equality. So, to do nothing more in the Aeld of social security than give people irrespective of need exactly the same amount can and does create and perpetuate inequalities.
I think there is no question that there is need in Canada today for a basic level of social assistance all across the country. However, it is my argument that to continue to give the same across-the-board increases, where the need for such increases exists, to everyone in Canada in exactly the same manner no matter what their individual needs in their areas may be will have the effect of creating and perpetuating inequalities. For example, I suggest that giving $100 a month, as the Conservative party has suggested, to everyone irrespective of their needs and of the amounts they have available will mean giving $100 a month not only to the needy, the aged and others in need of assistance but also to people such as E. P. Taylor and Senator McCutcheon. I suggest that even the good Senator McCutcheon will agree that he does not require this type of help now nor will he need it in the foreseeable future. I do not intend to speak disrespectfully of him, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: What about Walter
Gordon?

June 21, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Others could be mentioned who are quite well off financially and who would receive this assistance although they are quite well able to take care of themselves.
I think the effect of the Canada Assistance Plan will not be to foster inequality but rather create a plan which will meet the needs of the individuals concerned. I might also say, that the use of the flexible needs test approach upon which the Canada Assistance Plan is based will help to bring about a more effective and efficient use of the moneys contributed to the federal government by the taxpayers of this country. It permits greater help to be given to those who are really in need and at the same time it creates a lesser burden on the taxpayer and a more effective use of his tax contributions than might otherwise be the case.
It is important to note that the programs covered by the Canada Assistance Plan are to be administered by the provincial governments because the existing constitutional arrangements of this country give them the basic authority required in this area. I think this is something we have to accept since we have to base federal assistance and support on the constitutional structure of this country.
And I think it is important to note that under this resolution the Canada Assistance Plan enables the provinces to increase their services through the recruitment of social service workers. For the flexible needs test approach to work most effectively it should be administered and applied in a humane fashion by a sufficient number of trained and interested people who are not only concerned with putting in a day's work but with dealing with the human needs of the people who come to them for help.
An important feature of the proposed Canada Assistance Plan is its emphasis on rehabilitation. Many of the aged who will be covered by the plan have contributed to the active life of this country and should therefore be entitled to call upon their fellow citizens to provide them, through federal and provincial assistance, with a decent standard of living with which to complete their days. However, there are others in need of social assistance who, with proper help, rehabilitation and training, will be able to play a more active and more useful role in the life of this country, and I am sure that is what many of them would like to do. I believe that the Canada Assistance Plan will make it possible for them to do so.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I understand there will be no limit on the amount of federal contributions to the programs supported by the Canada Assistance Plan provided these will be matched by the provinces. I hope that the provincial governments will not refrain from accepting their share of the responsibilities which at the present time seems to be constitutionally theirs so as to make the Canada Assistance Plan work in the way it is intended to work.
I also think it is an obligation of the provincial governments who will be administering the plan to inform the people who will benefit from it, and their families and neighbours, of the role of the federal government in providing not only the financing but also the framework of the social assistance programs covered by the Canada Assistance Plan. The public has the right to know what is being done with its tax dollars. It has the right to know the reason for these programs and who is paying for them. I urge the minister to make certain, in applying the legislation which we are discussing, that the methods of its implementation will be put into effect in such a way as to make the people of Canada aware of the contributions of the federal government. The provinces also have an obligation to inform the citizens living within their boundaries of the efforts of the federal government in providing a large part of this additional assistance.
I urge this house to support the Canada Assistance Plan and pass this resolution as quickly as possible so that the aged, needy mothers and children, the blind, the disabled and other groups concerned may receive the aid provided under its terms.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I think we can support many aspects of this plan in general because it is an effort to tidy up an area in which a great deal of tidying up is needed and where extra assistance is needed. I have before me the text of a speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on June 20 in Vancouver. I should like to refer to one or two parts of that speech. I notice that on page 6, particularly there are words indicating that the additional $85 million designated for the Canada Assistance Plan will bring federal outlays on public assistance and welfare services to more than one quarter of a billion dollars.
I urge the minister, and any other minister, not to use that phraseology. When he means
June 21. 1966

the sum of $250 million he should not try by the use of such a phrase to suggest that he means a billion dollars. There is something a bit sad, a bit wistful, about reaching toward a billion dollars when one is barely a quarter of the way there. One wonders why the expression would be used in connection with this plan. However, I believe we see the reason when we turn to page 8 and look at that part of the minister's speech. He talks about the concept of a guaranteed annual income and he talks about it wistfully. A few weeks ago he spoke about that concept with hope but now he seems to speak of it with a certain amount of despair. I regret very much this change in attitude within a short space of time.
Speaking about the idea of a guaranteed annual income, the minister said:
While the latter has a good deal to commend it, it has a number of far reaching implications which must be fully weighed before any decision is taken.
I would agree with him that it has far reaching implications. However, the real implication in a guaranteed annual income is that it would take the question of old age pensions out of the realm of politics once and for all. I suspect this is the reason the minister backed off from the idea of a guaranteed annual income. It would mean that we would not have the sort of exercise in politics that we have had this afternoon when speaker after speaker, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, indulged in the sort of political display that does not win elections in Canada any longer but only serves to complicate the election picture.
I should like to recall to the members of this committee the Senate report on aging, which is a remarkable report. A week or two ago Dr. Bortz from the United States appeared before a committee and spoke to us on the problems of the aged. He had the highest of praise for this report and said he wished he could claim it for his own country. He gave the Senate committee tremendous credit for its report which brought forth the concept of a guaranteed annual income. I should like to quote a paragraph or two from the report:
If this approach were adopted the following steps would be involved:
1. The establishment of a technically competent body to study the income needs of older people and to develop a socially acceptable minimum budget for single persons and couples, which would be adjusted automatically each year on the basis of a suitable index of consumer spending or of earnings, with a review every five years to reflect changes in the relative circumstances of the working population and the retired population.
Canada Assistance Plan
What a wonderful thing that would be. This country is capable of accomplishing it, we have the machinery. We could get old age security pensions out of the purely political area. The Senate committee made a further elaboration of the program as follows:
(a)	that the only conditions for eligibility under the income guaranteed program be age, as indicated above, ten years' residence in Canada, and net cash income from all sources, including old age security and the Canada Pension Plan, below the above amount.
(b)	that the program be administered and financed by the federal government.
(c)	that the procedure call for the completion of a simplified income form annually and that the amount by which the declared income falls short of the established minima in any year constitute the benefit for the year following.
(d)	that there be "sample checks" periodically, as under unemployment insurance, to catch abuses, but no means or needs test inquiries on traditional lines.
The one thing it would do would be to remove the idea of a means test and the guaranteed annual income would be accepted as a right. I believe this idea would be acceptable to the elderly people of Canada. I know they have been frightened away from it since the Senate report was made public. I believe they have been so frightened for political reasons because the present system is too valuable to too many people. We know that as long as old age pensions are a political football in Canada no government will be prepared to raise the pension to the point where it should be because if they did they would not be able to use it again, at least not immediately, in the Canadian political picture.
I urge the government to move on the matter of a guaranteed annual income. It must be put into practice somewhere on this continent. It is coming, I know, in many developed countries of the world. Let us lead for a change instead of following. Over and over again in this session it has been said the federal government should show strength. We hear that the provincial governments have been showing the strength. Here is the place for the federal government to try out a new concept, a concept where they have nothing to lose. The elderly people could not be any worse off than they are under the present system.
Once this system was tried I believe the government would find it would solve many problems. I believe the aged would find it acceptable. Then we could go on with this unusual concept and develop it until it became a factor in the lives of the Canadian

June 21. 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
people generally and not just the aged. The Globe and Mail of today, June 21, contains an editorial headed "Guaranteed Income For Age". I should like to quote from it:
The federal government has tried to depart from the flat-rate pension with the Canada Pension Plan, but this will not be fully effective until ten years after its initiation: and it will never do anything for the large group of old people who are already out of the labour market . . .
The Senate committee on aging, chaired by Senator David Croll, earlier this year produced a plan which could take the emphasis off the flat rate, and provide greater aid to those who really need it without the humiliation of the means test. This proposal-
Then the editorial goes on and gives details of the figures suggested in the report for the guaranteed annual income. I quote from the editorial:
The guaranteed annual income plan for persons over 65 would be simple to operate, it would adjust aid to need without an army of means testers, it would have built-in escalator machinery, and it would break up that solid block of pensioners which present far too great a temptation to irresponsible politicians.
I think that the government in its wisdom could very well move to introduce a guaranteed annual income for the aged at this time. We know that the Canada Assistance Plan was made use of in recent provincial elections. We know that it will be used again. We know now, from the resolution and the statements of the minister, that the people who have been using this plan in election campaigns have been using a will-o'-the-wisp because the plan will not give the elderly people of this country what they need in view of the rapid inflation at the present time. If the government is not prepared to introduce a monetary policy that might solve some of the problems of inflation, an inflation we seem to accept, then it is imperative that the government move to do something for the people who suffer most from the effects of inflation.
I urge that the government stop looking at their plan as one mighty package. The fact that the government does this is shown in the minister's speech in Vancouver. There is no need at all, so far as I can see, to attach the Canada Assistance Plan to the question of medicare. If the government can go ahead with medicare with the sort of unnecessary compulsion that is written into the plan, with the money going to provinces that do not want it, then certainly they could very easily introduce a guaranteed annual income plan for the aged. I suggest that the government drop the medicare part of its social assistance

plan until the country is ready for it and instead concentrate its attention on the elderly people, an area in which so far it has failed to move at all.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I should like to say one last word to the
members of the official opposition, particularly to their leader who unfortunately is not in the committee at the present time. I voted to support the government on the first motion of non-confidence when the house first assembled, and I was not ashamed to do so at that time. I went back to my constituency almost immediately afterwards and I was not afraid to go back there and meet elderly people and talk to them. I know that a great many of them did not believe the absolute falsehood which we heard repeated this afternoon, namely, that the five members of this political party were the only ones who had stood between the old age pensioners and an increase of $25 in the old age pension. We all know that the alternative which the Leader of the Opposition suggested this afternoon, that had this government been defeated the Governor General would have called upon him to form a government, is not what would in fact have happened.
I know that the Governor General is a man of great age but he is also a man of wisdom. Like so many other Canadians we all recall that the Leader of the Opposition had the opportunity to take this step when he was leader of a government with the largest majority the country had ever seen. I was out of the country for 18 months between 1961 and 1963 and in a way I was glad I was. Every time I read a paper from home I winced with embarrassment and shame when I realized the position in which Canada was floundering at that time and which led to the defeat of the government in 1963. That government was not even able to present a budget, let alone solve the problems of the nation.
I do not believe that at any time since, either the Leader of the Opposition or the people who support him have found a method which would have allowed 97 members, now 96, to have formed a government which could have worked and functioned in this country. I think one hon. member on the government side made the point that such a government would itself have had to face a vote of confidence and that that vote of confidence would not have been on the question of the old age security pension. I do not
June 21, 1966

believe for one moment that such a government would have withstood even the first vote of non-confidence.
What the members of this party did was to give the present government the opportunity to do something for the people of Canada, and the government has been doing something in many areas. Particularly over the last few weeks the record of legislation going through this house has been considerable. Although we support this bill I call on the government to take one more step, one of the most significant steps they could ever take, and bring in a guaranteed annual income for the elderly citizens of this country.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes remaining to me I do not think I need repeat the points which have been made in connection with the need of our old age pensioners. However, I do want to point out several weaknesses in the social justice measures we have in this country.
The first is in connection with widows. Take the case of mothers with children who have been receiving a pension or allowance of one sort or another. As soon as the children grow up and reach the age when they no longer attend school the pension is discontinued and no longer comes into the household. The mother then finds herself in the position where, having reached the age of 50 or over without having had any formal training and having tended her children in the home and made sacrifices, she is suddenly without income. This is a weakness in our social legislation today and I point out to the minister that it should be corrected.
The second weakness which I find in social justice measures that we have in this country is that there are strict regulations which bind social workers and deprive a disabled person of a pension. A doctor, having given a man a thorough check-up, may in all sincerity find that is not capable of physical work; yet because of the way these regulations are drawn up this person is not permitted to receive a disabled person's allowance. Many people with arms and legs are unable to perform manual work.
Some of the cases I have witnessed during my years of contact with the public are pitiful. They are not granted a disabled person's allowance and it is unfair to ask them to go to the municipality where they reside and ask for a hand-out from a group of people because they are no longer able to 23033-4251
Crop Insurance Act
work. Consequently they often turn to labours for which they are unfitted. I have seen cases, as no doubt have other hon. members, where people drive themselves with the result that their health fails. These people have a certain amount of pride. They would like to be able to do the type of work they are forcing themselves to do but their health does not permit it. The regulations in this regard must be relaxed in cases where a doctor indicates a man is unfit to work, in which case he should be given a disabled person's allowance. I do not know how much time I have but-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Under provisional standing order 61-A the time allotted to this debate, a period of five hours, has now expired. It is therefore my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put the question on the resolution before the committee. Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. MacEachen thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-207, to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs for the provision of assistance and welfare services to and in respect of persons in need.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.



CROP INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 20, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Greene-Mr. Batten in the
chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amended the Crop Insurance Act to increase the maximum contribution payable by Canada on crop insurance premiums; to increase the maximum amount of the insurance that may be effected on any crop; to authorize the making of contributions to a province providing insurance coverage against losses arising from the destruction of fruit trees or perennial plants or losses arising when the seeding of summer-fallowed land intended to be used to grow an insured crop is prevented by excessive ground moisture, weather or other agricultural hazards; to provide further for consequential amendments in connection with the administation of the act.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully and with great interest to the minister when he was introducing this resolution last night and I noticed a little less

June 21. 1966
Crop Insurance Act
confidence in his remarks than I had noticed in his introduction of previous legislation. When he was speaking he reminded me of a cat walking across the piano keys with the sun in its eyes. I think he indicated quite clearly by his presentation and his manner of delivery that he considers this more or less experimental legislation and that he is not quite certain about its development in the future.
However, Mr. Chairman, we support the principle of crop insurance because we believe it is sound. From our point of view crop insurance for agricultural producers is the counterpart of unemployment insurance for industrial and other workers in Canada. To date, however, it is obvious from the reports we have had with respect to the administration of the crop insurance legislation that farmers have not, shall I say, been very enthusiastic over this legislation to date and have not been attracted by the terms of the legislation or the contracts or agreements required with respect to certain crops in various regions. I think it is quite fair to say that this is experimental legislation which will be developed from experience.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, speaking personally and I think with considerable support in the party of which I am a member, that crop insurance will not be successful until we allow the law of averages to operate by including all farmers in Canada under the legislation so that they may take advantage of it. I hope it will be extended to all farmers. Personally, provided there are proper safeguards I would be in favour of the consideration of a tax to provide crop insurance for all agricultural producers in this country. That is just my personal opinion. I think it would go a long way toward solving the difficulties which have been experienced to date with respect to various groups and various regions and with respect to the different circumstances under which various types of producers operate, because conditions are very varied in Canada.
I do not underestimate the difficulties in developing this type of legislation. I am sure that anyone with any experience in agriculture realizes that it will be some time before we have dominion-wide crop insurance which will be satisfactory to the great bulk of the agricultural producers in Canada.
I was very pleased to hear the minister speak of the conference held with the provincial ministers and of the decisions arrived at as the result of the experience to date. I

think it is necessary that we have close co-operation with the provincial administrators if we want this type of legislation to be successful in the long run. I was interested to note that the minister said that the original 60 per cent coverage would now, as has been suggested, be raised to 80 per cent. I think that is a step in the right direction. I am glad that fruit tree destruction will be covered in future. This has been brought about largely as a result of the experience in the Okanagan where, through quite unprecedented frost, a large number of fruit trees were frozen and the capital investment of the fruit farmers in this respect had to be replaced. I was glad to hear that perennial and other plants will be covered in this new legislation.
The minister mentioned that he had, I think, a few minor amendments to introduce on second reading of the bill. We are looking forward to hearing what those minor amendments are. At any rate, the whole purpose of crop insurance is to reduce the hazards of weather, disease, pests and insects that are faced by all agricultural producers in Canada but by some in greater measure than others. There are certain areas which are, shall I say, high risk areas. There are others where there is very little risk so far as obtaining an adequate crop is concerned.
It might interest you to know, Mr. Chairman, that I have a property where a drop of rain need never fall and yet we have the most bountiful crops. I see the right hon. Leader of the Opposition looking at me speculatively. Let me explain, because it shows how different conditions can be. The ranch is in a valley some eight miles long and about three-quarters of a mile wide. It is covered with a ten foot depth of very fertile black soil which is very productive. The soil is on top of a solid rock basin and the mountains on both sides are between 7,000 and 9,000 feet high. The water in the valley comes from the mountains. Plenty of water comes from the mountains because they have snow on them which melts in the summer months, flows into the valley and down to the basin of rock ten feet below the surface. Then, of course, the moisture rises by capillary action. These are unusual circumstances, and that is why in that valley we only require one acre of land per season to pasture an animal whereas in the prairies 50 or 60 acres of range land are required to do the same thing.
In certain areas, even in the Kootenays, I know that owing to certain local climatic conditions apples produce scab at a much
June 21, 1966

greater rate than in other places. There are so many changes of circumstance and condition with respect to climate and other things that I do not think we should be finally satisfied until we have a crop insurance scheme in which all farmers in Canada are covered. The law of averages ought to be brought into play and crop insurance ought to be envisaged on the basis of a tax.
I shall not say more at this time. We are looking forward to the introduction of the bill. At that time we shall have the opportunity of asking the minister for a further explanation about the administration of the act and about the proposed amendments which have been mentioned and will be before us on second reading.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before us is an important one to those engaged in agriculture in every province of Canada. Legislation such as this goes back to the days when the present Leader of the Opposition was prime minister of this country. Under his ministry there was brought into being the first Crop Insurance Act on the statute books of Canada for the benefit of farmers. That act, of necessity, was limited in scope. That was the beginning of legislation which will provide comprehensive coverage to farmers growing a variety of crops in the many provinces of Canada.
The resolution before us providing for amendments to the legislation, coming as it does after the initial experience that we have had with the act over the past few years, is an indication that all legislation should be brought back within a few years after being passed to be amended as experience dictates.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In the grain growing areas of the province of Saskatchewan we have had the Prairie Farm Assistance Act which was a relief measure provided by the government of Canada in co-operation with the farmers and to be used for their benefit. That measure has existed over a long period of years and provides for a system of deductions on a per bushel basis from deliveries of grain to the Canadian Wheat Board. That act has served a very useful purpose in western Canada.
The Crop Insurance Aot was brought forward to extend the coverage provided under P.F.A.A. to make available to all who contributed the protection that they sought by making contributions. It is interesting for me, coming from Saskatchewan, to recall the hesitation with which the former administration in our province tried to bring forward
Crop Insurance Act
crop insurance legislation. The present premier of Saskatchewan now says they have a brand new crop insurance act on a provincial basis. One of the provisions of the federal legislation is designed to increase the maximum contribution payable. I am wondering whether this means an increase in the benefits payable per acre or whether it means an increase in benefits taken as a whole across the nation. I suppose the bill will make this clear.
It is good to see in the resolution before us a reference to compensation for losses incurred when the seeding of land intended for fallow becomes impossible because of excess moisture. In the northeast portion of Saskatchewan many farmers have suffered losses in the past because of this hazard.
I should like to say that though my province has been slow to implement crop insurance plans it is perhaps just as well since it is now possible to build soundly without either the province or the farmers suffering unduly.
There is nothing further I should like to say at this time except to commend the government for the changes it is proposing in this legislation and to express the hope they will be effective in improving the legislation which was introduced some years ago.


Stanley James Korchinski: June 21, 1966
Crop Insurance Act
It is only after these men have talked to individual farmers and explained the different rates that farmers realize, for example, that P.F.A.A. payments will not be deducted. These men could also explain that if no claim is made for a few years in succession the premiums would be reduced. Farmers do not know these things and it is therefore necessary, especially in the initial stages, to have more men in the field capable of explaining them.
It is not enough for the minister to say: Here are the amendments; from now on everything will take care of itself. I realize that there is a provincial responsibility here but I should like the minister to bring this point to the attention of his provincial counterparts. If they want to hire a few more men, that is all right with me. If those men happen to be their supporters, that is all right with me. But I do want the minister to try to put across the idea of providing more men to push crop insurance.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, looking back across the years it is a long time, it seems, since we first discussed the possibility of adequate crop insurance. Though some attempts have been made since to provide coverage for those in the agricultural industry, insurance programs are still not adequate to meet the needs of farmers in many areas.
We recognize, of course, that provision of an adequate crop insurance scheme is a difficult proposition. So many different facts enter into it and there are so many different types of commodities to be covered. It is certainly far from easy to evolve a plan capable of meeting every situation.
However, I do not believe this should deter the government from bringing forward its proposals. There are still areas of this country which do not have the benefit of a crop insurance scheme. I know there are producers who cannot avail themselves of the benefits of crop insurance on account of the type of crop they produce, and I believe provision should be made to take care of this situation.
In my own area, the Fraser Valley, we have our own particular problems. Twice within the last few years our berry growers have been faced with tragic losses of stock. In 1955 the strawberry plants were practically wiped out. No provision was made for assistance. Very recently the area suffered a heavy-frost which did tremendous harm to stocks. There was no measure under which the growers could receive assistance though they did get help through provincial disaster funds
[Mr Korchinski.l
and so on. But there was no over-all plan to take care of such a situation. Definite provision should be made to bring the benefits of crop insurance to all producers, no matter what type of crop they grow.
I say these brief words in support of the principle of the resolution and hoping that the measure will be made applicable to farmers in every area and to the various types of crops they produce.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure it has been very pleasing to the minister to note the extent of the support which this resolution has received from all parts of the chamber and I assure him I do not intend to be an exception. However, there are a couple of questions I would like him to take into consideration and to respond to before the resolution carries. I am thinking particularly of that provision in the resolution which allows for the making of contributions to a province providing insurance coverage against losses arising from the destruction of fruit trees.
I am quite certain no segment of the agricultural economy will welcome this extension of the crop insurance program more than the fruit growing industry, which is particularly vulnerable to the kind of disaster referred to, especially when one considers the fact that in so far as the apple growing industry is concerned it takes some seven years to bring an apple tree into production. The destruction of an orchard of trees therefore represents an enormous loss.
The fruit growing industry is of the greatest importance to areas in my district such as Salmon Arm and the Shuswap valley and, of course, there is the whole Okanagan and the Kootenay area as well. Though welcoming this provision, I wish therefore to ask for specific information whether the province of B.C. has committed itself to participation in such a scheme because I observe that the wording of the resolution reads:
__to authorize the making of contributions to a
province providing insurance coverage against losses arising from the destruction of fruit trees-
Second, I would like to know whether this program of crop insurance will now be applicable to the loss of an individual crop because, of course, there are occasions when the frosts do not destroy the trees but merely destroy one year's crop. Could the minister say if the scheme envisaged will make crop insurance available to the fruit growers of B.C. with respect not only to the destruction
June 21, 1966

of trees but also with respect to the destruction of one year's fruit crop?


Mr. Gauthier:: I have only a few words to say on the introduction of this resolution dealing with the Crop Insurance Act.
First, I must congratulate the minister for taking the initiative of proposing a measure to amend that act. Surly he started out right by consulting, as he did, all the provinces. The job we did on the committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development was useful for the minister in this sense that it helped him draft an act which will finally win the approval of all provinces.
The province of Quebec-it is nobody's se-cre*

did not yet dare undertake such insurance plans. We are always wondering for what reasons. We mentioned in the committee that the main reason was probably the diversity of cultures in Quebec and particularly the removal or the lack of insurance in the case of truck gardening.
Under the old act, truck gardening was not considered insurable. I believe that by adding this clause, the intention is to make insurance available for truck gardening and the main cultures in the province of Quebec. In my opinion, there is no reference to the volume or density of the crop, but simply to each individual farmer's crop.
There were objections because of the rather small volume of certain production classes in the province of Quebec. I do not understand why, when I find, in other provinces, certain classes whose volume is lesser still than in the province of Quebec, the latter would not seek an agreement with the federal government.
I also wish to call the attention of the minister to the fact that the province of Quebec would certainly be interested in a crop insurance which would cover not only damage caused by natural elements, but also damage caused by some artificial elements. Besides natural causes such as hail, frost, drought and parasites, etc., there are also artificial plagues such as we have been visited by for the last two or three years in our areas, specifically, the famous man-made rain.
These damages must absolutely be covered by insurance and, as I pointed out to the committee, in a way that will not be more expensive for the farmers but will have such disasters paid for by those responsible for them; in my area, they are the large lumber
Crop Insurance Act
operators. These people cut their lumber during the summer and must have constant rain on their forests.
I believe this is a very important point to bring up when the minister undertakes discussions with the Quebec agriculture minister. It is a very important point for the province of Quebec, precisely due to the repeated artificial rains every summer. And I feel I should inform the minister that the pressure is being maintained also on the provincial minister.
Farmers' organizations have already started and I have already received a letter from the Catholic Farmers Union on this matter, asking me to call the minister's particular attention not only to the losses incurred from natural causes, but specifically from such notorious artificial devices which have been wreaking havoc with our agriculture.
I hope that Quebec and all other provinces will reach an agreement on the benefits now being offered under the act, that is 25 per cent of the premium payments and 80 per cent of the losses. I trust the provinces will seriously consider this act and will help increase the working capital of this insurance, so that it will be in a position to render the expected services.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to give strong support to this measure because it is going to increase the coverage from 60 per cent to 80 per cent of crop losses and also increase the government's share of payments of premiums from 20 per cent to 25 per cent. Both of these changes are very desirable and necessary.
Such a measure is particularly necessary at a time like this when the farmer's costs are rising and his returns are shrinking every day. The farmer must be assured of a fair return for his crop just as the industrial worker is assured of a fair return for his labour through the efforts of his labour union and through unemployment insurance when by no fault of his own his employment is cut off. As we know, when the industrial worker loses his job through no fault of his own unemployment insurance takes over and he is looked after until it is possible for him to obtain work at a future time. In exactly the same way, when a farmer loses his crop I believe he must be compensated for it adequately through crop insurance.

June 21, 1966
Crop Insurance Act
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I believe the measure before us is going to be a worth-while improvement in the program which at present is in operation. In my own province of Ontario I know that the Ontario Farm Union and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have been pressing for this kind of legislation. I very much hope that the measure now before us will prove to be sufficiently attractive to the government of Ontario so that it will be induced to participate in what I consider to be indeed a worth-while measure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could the minister give a brief answer to the questions I asked?


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member knows, the province of British Columbia now has its own crop insurance legislation. When he sees the bill I think he will be satisfied that it makes provision for agreements with regard to both the annual crop and the replacement of the trees, but as I said there is no agreement with the province on these specific points. I believe that when the bill is implemented we will be able to enter into an agreement in this regard.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, I have only five or six minutes to discuss some aspects of crop insurance. At the outset I should like to say to the minister that we are in agreement with some of the amendments which we expect to find in the bill following this resolution. First of all, we think a change in the maximum coverage from 60 per cent to 80 per cent is desirable. The minister said there would be some arrangement made with the provinces so that the crop insurance could be calculated on a single farm experience. We will be watching with a great deal of interest how the administration of this works out because I think there has been a lot of pressure on the Department of Agriculture in respect of what they have done under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in the past.
I should like to say that I appreciate some of the reasons which have been advanced for resisting payment of prairie farm assistance on the basis of a single farm experience. My main reason for participating very briefly in the debate this afternoon is to raise again a question which I have raised a number of times before. Why has the federal Department of Agriculture not used extensively the experience gained under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act over the past 27 years in dealing with payments to farmers who have

lost their crops for one reason or another? I would think there must be a wealth of experience among the large number of personnel who have been involved which could be used beneficially in the administration of a crop insurance program. This may be an academic question now because the federal government has entered into agreements with some of the provinces. It seems they are attempting to encourage the provinces to take part in a national crop insurance program.
I am a little apprehensive about what may happen to the prairie farm assistance legislation in the years ahead. If there should be any disposition on the part of the federal Department of Agriculture to withdraw from the prairie farm assistance program before crop insurance is tried successfully to the point where it is working satisfactorily, particularly in the Prairie provinces, I would point out that we must remember that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been a very satisfactory means of taking some of the tragedy out of the major crop losses over the past 27 years. If we consider the operation of that act over the period of 27 years I believe we will find that it probably has been one of the cheapest programs in relation to the number of people who have been guaranteed some return. As I say, taking into account the number of years, the number of farmers and the very large area that has been covered, this is no time to be thinking of setting that act aside until we are satisfied that the crop insurance program has developed to the point where it does in fact meet all the objectives which have been laid out.
The reason I mention this matter at this time is that I have heard rumours that there is some idea that in the near future, depending on what is the definition of "near future", the federal government will be encouraging more areas to get into crop insurance so that it can withdraw from the prairie farm assistance program. I think it would be wrong to move too quickly in this regard until we are satisfied that these other provisions are a satisfactory alternative to the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Greene thereupon moved to introduce Bill No. C-208, to amend the Crop Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
June 21, 1966



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. C-151, to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas.


Michael Starr: Would the house leader explain the amendment?


George James McIlraith: Bill C-151, to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas, was considered by the Senate. The Senate amended it by inserting, in the provision which had to do with the requirement that the minister table an annual report in the house, that this should be done not later than six months after termination of the year and, if parliament is not then sitting, within 15 days after it meets.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be debated at the time of adjournement tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), Indian Affairs -Alberta-petition of teachers respecting school conditions; the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), The Canadian Constitution-request for joint parliamentary committee; the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe), Canadian National Railways-Hamilton, Ontario-night shunting of cars in residential area.
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 private bills and public bills.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE BILLS


Alan John Patrick Cameron: the second reading of Bill No. S-13, respecting Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation.
Private Bills
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-13 is a bill respecting Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation which was incorporated by special act of parliament in 1945 and has its head office in the city of Waterloo in the province of Ontario. At the time of commencement of business the corporation had a small office and employed a staff of four. Since that time the history of the corporation has been one of steady and progressive growth. It is now a healthy and successful organization, having an administrative staff of 95 and selling its policies through 40 active agencies in all provinces of Canada, using the services of over 300 salesmen. The present number of policyholders of the corporation is in excess of 70,000.
At the present time the corporation offers policies of insurance covering all aspects of medical, surgical and time-loss insurance. The acceptance by the public of the services offered by the corporation is indicated by the annual increase in net premium income. In the first year of its operation the corporation had a net premium income of $73,000. This had grown to $1,608,000 by 1950, increased to $2,830,000 by 1955 and to $3,819,000 by 1960. The year end figure for 1965 approaches $6,000,000.
The last report of the Superintendent of Insurance for Canada discloses that Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation is the largest Canadian company engaged solely in the field of accident and sickness insurance. The report further discloses that the net premiums written with respect to individual cancellable policies by all-Canadian companies totalled approximately $7,100,000. Of this amount over $4,500,000 was written by Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation.
Based on its past experience, the corporation feels that it can now profitably enter into the field of life insurance. At the time the corporation enters into this field it will be more than able to meet the financial requirements as set out by the Department of Insurance. The corporation has been transacting business in the province of Quebec since 1950 and has increased its net premium income from $160,000 to more than $760,000. As Canada is a bilingual country the corporation feels that it should carry on business not only under the English form of its name but also under the French form, namely, La Corporation Canadienne D'Assurances Santd et Accidents.

June 21. 1966
Private Bills
The corporation also desires to increase its authorized capital stock to $2,000,000, divided into shares of $10 each to satisfy the requirements of the Department of Insurance.
The business of the corporation is presently administered by a board of directors, all of whom are Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada. All shares in the corporation are presently owned by Canadian residents. It is the intention of the corporation to maintain Canadian management and ownership.
The corporation feels that by reason of its past history, progress and development it has indicated its ability to enter successfully into the field of life insurance. The corporation believes that its entry into the life insurance field would afford it greater opportunities to use the Canadian skills and initiative which have given it leadership in its existing fields of endeavour.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) will be pleased that this bill has finally reached the stage of discussion because he expected it would proceed during two or three past private members' hours but on each occasion some unforeseen development prevented that.
It seems to me that this and other similar bills unfortunately have a political flavour attached to them by reason of the manner in which they are handled. I do not say that with any unkindness to the hon. member, but the system operates in such a way that it is always a member on the government side who is selected to channel bills of this sort through the house. Inasmuch as the original directors of this company were from the city of Waterloo, it seems passing strange that one of the members of parliament representing that area was not chosen to sponsor the bill, thereby giving it a more non-political complexion.
I note that almost all private bills of this kind are sponsored by members on the government side. For some reason or other the promoters gravitate toward government members, perhaps with the idea that greater favours will result. That is an incidental and inconsequential point at this time.


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


Frank Howard: Certainly.


David James Walker: If the hon. member will refer to page 28 of today's order paper he will see

at first glance that there are at least five bills sponsored by members of parliament not on this side of the house.


Frank Howard: I was not referring to page 28 but to the general policy. In the past people in various sections of the house have been chosen to sponsor similar bills but the general trend is for promoters to seek sponsors on the government side.
I am sure that the members of this house, particularly those who have advanced the cause of bilingualism, will look favourably upon at least the first part of the bill by which the company seeks authority to do business under both English and French versions of its name. This company has been doing business in the province of Quebec since 1950 but it did not decide until now that it would be worth while to recognize bilingualism. It is only doing so in this instance for profitable purposes rather than as a real recognition of the bilingual nature of this country.
One of the other aspects of this bill which I think is unique is, as the hon. member for High Park has stated, that all the shares of the company at the present time are owned by Canadian residents. That does not mean that they are owned by Canadian citizens but by people who are ordinarily resident in Canada. This is a step which has been taken as a token attempt to give corporations operating in Canada a nationalistic purpose, namely, to have the directors and shareholders comprised as much as possible of people who are ordinarily resident in Canada.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
It augurs at least partially well for the company that all its shareholders are resident in Canada, and I take the use of the word "resident" to mean that they are not necessarily all Canadian citizens.
This company reflects to a large degree a success story because only some 20 years ago when it first went into business, as the hon. member for High Park pointed out, it employed only four people. I understand that at the present time it employs an administrative staff of some 95 people as well as 200 or 300 salesmen. To increase the sales and administrative staff from a total of four people to half a thousand in a matter of 20 years reflects a large degree of success. The same applies to the income of the company over the same period of time. I believe that this company started operating in 1945 or 1946 and had a net premium income of some
June 21, 1966

Private Bills
$73,000 but in 1965 its income was close to $6 million. This again reflects the success that can be achieved by companies in the insurance field. It also indicates the incentive of this company is solely to make profit, which undoubtedly applies to other companies in the life insurance field.
I am sure this company does not ask to be incorporated simply because its corporate officers happen to think it is a good thing for Canada. In fact, nowhere in the statement of the hon. member for High Park nor in the introductory remarks of the Senator who introduced this bill in the Senate was there even an intimation of any concern for the public good. I am sure the motivation here is the creation of an extremely profitable venture as has been proved by the success of the company over the last 20 years. The company now seeks to expand this success because it realizes how lucrative is the field of life insurance.
The reasoning advanced by my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), on another bill a few weeks ago should serve the house well in considering these matters in the future and should also serve the sponsors of such bills as this because even though they are private bills the companies established under such bills may have a great impact on the economy of Canada. As I have previously said, nowhere in this bill is there any intimation that the good of the country is being taken into consideration in the incorporation of this company.
The only thing this company is saying is that its purpose is to be able to enter into the field of life insurance successfully. It believes that its entry into the life insurance field will afford it greater opportunities to use the Canadian skills and initiative which have given it leadership in its existing fields of endeavour. In other words, the company simply hopes to use the abilities and techniques it has developed over the years to its advantage in the lucrative field of life insurance and the public good can come next, if it is considered at all.
I think that the sponsor of the bill should have considered this aspect and I also think that when this bill is considered in committee of the whole great attention should be given to finding out how the Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation will be able to serve the public welfare because this is the basis upon which we should decide to act in this matter.
Here is a company asking parliament to bestow upon it the right to make increasingly greater profits out of the activity of selling life insurance policies. I believe it is simply not good enough to say that the company has been so successful over the past few years, both in terms of increasing staff and increasing profits, that parliament on the basis of that success should give it an opportunity to make even greater profits. I believe we should look a little bit further into the matter.
As I said, this company is asking parliament to set aside consideration of public legislation to deal with its own private affairs. I submit that such matters should be dealt with in another way. We simply cannot continue to deal with these companies by rubberstamping a bill which is presented to us by a sponsor who reads a statement prepared by somebody else. I am not casting any reflections on the hon. member who sponsored this; I am speaking in general of such bills. The statement read by the hon. member for High Park in moving second reading of this bill is almost word for word a repetition of the statement made in the Senate. Maybe the sponsor of the bill will say that he read the statement made in the other place because he thought it was such an overpowering and overwhelming argument that he could not possibly improve it.
This may be true in this case but I have noticed that almost the identical procedure is followed with other private bills. Whatever is said in the Senate is repeated here by the sponsor of the bill. Who knows where the Senator got his information? Presumably he got it from some lawyer in an office in Toronto or Ottawa who is trying to engineer the incorporation of a company. This lawyer is only presenting the favourable aspects of the company. He gives this information to the Senator who reads it into the record of the Senate in substantiation of a bill which he has not really examined at all. In most cases the Senator is only repeating information prepared by a person who is seeking to have a company incorporated. I think this is a one-sided approach. This is what may have happened in this instance especially in view of the fact that the introductory remarks made by the hon member for High Park are almost identical, word for word and comma for comma, with those which were made in the Senate when this bill was considered there on January 23, if my memory serves me correctly.
Private Bills

June 21, 1666
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
This is not nearly good enough because it is just a continuation of the old insurance sales pitch. We all know that when an insurance agent comes to sell insurance, whether he works for Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation or any other company, he is only going to tell you what is good about the insurance. He is going to tell you how beneficial the insurance policy will be. He does not tell you about the bad parts. He does not tell you about the loopholes, nor does he explain the fine print. He explains how wonderful everything will be if you just buy his insurance policy. This is the sales pitch that is being used here. Someone comes forward and says how wonderful it will be if we just pass this bill. This is one side of the story.
I believe there devolves upon anyone who comes into parliament and advances a particular idea, especially an idea such as this which can have an influence upon millions of Canadians to the extent of millions of dollars, a duty to give us more than a simple recitation of an explanation developed in a lawyer's office. We have to go a little bit further in our examination of this matter. If this bill had not been brought before parliament we would have a different situation. If we could, as I submit we should, send petitions dealing with this particular class of business activity to a public employee who had been given some criteria and authority to issue letters patent for the incorporation of such companies, then I would say that would be a horse of a different colour. If parliament would set up general guideposts and rules and say to applicants, you must meet these standards before you can become incorporated and conduct this type of business in Canada, then we would be dealing with this matter in a different way.
However, that is not the situation. The situation is that the promoters of the Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation have selected the hon. member for High Park to advance their cause in this house. So far the only cause he has advanced in connection with the passage of this bill is an indication that its passage would be most helpful to the Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation. Nowhere has there been any indication that the passage of this measure would be helpful to the average Canadian citizen. Nowhere is there any indication that the passage of the bill will result in the introduction of any degree of competition, 
any element of desire on the part of the Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation to sell a better class of life insurance, to come up with new ideas or new types of coverage. Nowhere is there any indication that life insurance premiums will be decreased if this company happens to get into the business.
These questions are far too important to be passed over lightly simply because the hon. member who sponsors the bill happens to be a nice fellow. I think he is. I do not have any harsh words for him or his activities in the house. However, we are not legislating here for nice fellows, we are legislating for the Canadian people. Nice fellow as the hon. member for High Park is, I do not believe he is a shareholder in this company and I do not believe he is going to have anything to do with the operation of the company. We cannot, therefore, accept the "nice fellow" approach as being the one which should influence us. We have to look at the company itself. We have to ask ourselves, does it make sense that we should authorize this company to increase its capital from half a million dollars to $2 million? Is it for the good of the Canadian people that the capitalization of this company should be increased fourfold to permit it to engage in a type of insurance business in which it is not engaged at the moment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member to inform him that his time has expired unless he has unanimous consent of the house to continue beyond his allotted time. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret very much to say that I hear negative voices.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain whether the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) really desired to extend his remarks beyond the time limit. In any event, I am sure he wants to give me an opportunity to say a few words on the question now before the house. I share the hon. member's personal regard for the genial member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) who is sponsoring this bill. In this connection I am reminded of one occasion when a member of the cabinet felt I had been a bit rough with him during a discussion in the house. He chided me about it after the sitting was over and I said, "Well, of course we all have to perform our parliamentary duties in this chamber as we see them." I am sure that so
June 21, 1966

far as the hon. member for Skeena and I are concerned we are taking this approach to the bill being sponsored by the hon. member for High Park.
Like the member for Skeena, I feel that the question of the advisability of approving the proposals contained in this bill has to be considered as a matter of public policy rather than one concerning only a particular private company. While I am quite aware of the fact that under the rules this period is set aside for bills sponsored by individual members, when I consider the public bills standing in the names of private members, many of which will probably not come up for consideration during this allotted period, I must say that I feel we could be occupying ourselves much more fruitfully than we are. So far as I am concerned, I would much prefer at this time to be considering a proposal which is not on the order paper but which the government in previous sessions has had on the order paper and which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has stated the government intends to put on the order paper, namely, the bill to set up the Canada Development Corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the hon. member will address his remarks to the bill before the house and not to the proposed legislation to which he has just referred.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That is my intention, Mr. Speaker. I made that remark because I believe this bill and the proposal I have just mentioned deal basically with the same area of public policy. I suggest this bill has to be considered in the light of public policy and in the light of the proposal that Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation be allowed to extend its activities into the field of life insurance. In view of these facts I believe we move at once into the whole question of considering by what channels the surplus capital of this company is going to be accumulated and through what channels and under what policies these public accumulations of capital are going to be expended. In brief, Mr. Speaker, that is why I said I would much prefer to be discussing another proposal. I think it has become apparent and should become increasingly apparent to all members of the house that the time is passing when we can any longer allow the main channels and direction of flow of investment funds in this country to rest in the hands of private insurance companies.
Private Bills
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
It is for this reason that I seriously raise the question of the advisability of allowing in the public interest Canada Health and Accident Assurance Company to expand at this point into the life insurance field. In my view far too much of the accumulations of capital at the present time are in the hands of a multiplicity, all too large in number, of private insurance companies. As I have suggested when considering other bills having to do with the expansion or incorporation of insurance companies, I believe that in allowing this process to continue and expand we are in fact moving in a direction which is against the public interest of the Canadian people.
With reference to this particular proposal I think the sponsor of the bill in his opening remarks advanced some sound reasons why it is not advisable that this company be allowed to add life insurance to its present services. He has indicated to the house that this company has been operating successfully, that at the present time it is carrying a very large section of the total insurance market in the particular fields in which it has been engaging in the past, and that it is a successful company which is operating a profitable business at the present time. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, if for no other, it seems to me that in the light of the existing multiplicity of life insurance companies it is perhaps a bit greedy on the part of this already profitable concern to seek to move into what in my view is a much overcrowded field.
In view of the fact that the bill as proposed indicates that the company intends to operate under its present name, except for the addition of the French language version which was so delicately enunciated by the sponsor in his inimical use of the other language, I think that the situation will be a little puzzling for some people. I have been wondering why the company, if it wishes to expand into this field, did not seek to change its name. Perhaps there may be some obstacles in this connection. If I am not mistaken I believe there is already in existence a Canada Life Assurance Company, and there may have been some question about the desirability of adding the word "Life" to the name. However, in a sense one could claim that because of the retention of the title "Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation", so far as the public are concerned, except those who may become aware of this bill through reading the debates of this house in

June 21, 1966
Private Bills
detail, the company is in effect moving into the life insurance field by the back door. I do not know whether that is the intention of the company but none the less, Mr. Speaker, I mention this to add further to my argument as to the desirability of parliament allowing the company to expand into this particular field.
I could go on to expand on the relationship between this company's proposal to enter into the fife insurance field and the question of public policy in relation to the accumulation and direction of investment funds. However, in view of some of the proposals which I see are still on the order paper there may be further opportunities for me to make some observations along that line.
As I have said on other occasions, I feel that it is no longer good enough for the sponsors of such bills, as was the case recently and also today through the hon. member for High Park, simply to get up and give us a few facts-I accept that they are facts-about the past operation of a particular company, who its directors are to be and so on and so forth, without in any way attempting to justify to the house that it is in fact in the public interest that a proposal of this kind should be introduced.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: One word only, Mr. Speaker, first of all to congratulate the "Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation" for having, at long last, adopted a French name and fallen in tune with the others in acknowledgement of Canada's bilingualism from sea to sea.
Another reason brings me to my feet. The member who spoke before me said that the multiplicity of insurance companies was becoming a threat in the field of life insurance. We can, I believe, forgive him those words: he reasons like a socialist who would only have state insurance. But we, who stand for democratic principles, cannot admit that argument, because a multiplicity of insurance companies which have, like the one mentioned in this bill especially, the necessary capital to do well in business, plainly brings added assets to our Canadian economy. In a democratic economy, it is normal competition that adds to the standard of living and, especially, to the general credit of the country.
We have always been afraid of state insurance. I am afraid of any state control and I

dread also state insurance formed especially to create a single capital in order to have more control on the people. I think this is the sole purpose of the one-way insurance, as can be seen in totalitarian countries. We begin with one-way insurance, and we end up with one-way representation, as can be seen in Russia. Only one candidate is presented: you can vote for or against him, but there is only one.
We are for the principle of free enterprise; we advocate free enterprise and we are happy tonight to support this bill. I will not talk out this bill, because I want it to be passed, so that this company can continue to operate for the best interest of the Canadian economy, competing loyally with other insurance companies regulated by the same legislation. Once again, I congratulate the directors of that company to have recognized the principle of bilingualism in Canada.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong the debate on this bill but in fairness to the sponsor I should say a few words to answer the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who said in effect that the explanatory statement was not sufficiently extensive. Surely it is important for explanatory statements to be accurate rather than unduly long. In this house and particularly during this hour we are often subjected to statements which are unnecessarily long. There is no merit in making extended statements, particularly when they are inaccurate.
The hon. member who introduced this bill made a brief statement. Sometimes it is more
difficult to be brief and accurate than to be lengthy and inaccurate. The criticisms by the hon. member for Skeena in my view were uncalled for. The implication he sought to leave with the house was that the hon. member sponsoring the bill had not satisfied himself about certain particulars. I would ask the hon. member for Skeena whether he has independently investigated the matters he raised in order to justify such implications. They are not justified just because the introductory statement in the house was similar to the introductory statement in the other place. Most hon. members know the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) sufficiently well to have confidence that he has satisfied himself about the legitimacy of this company.
June 21, 1966

Another criticism was that the sponsor of the bill, in the opinion of some hon. members, was reading what had been prepared by someone in a lawyer's office. There is nothing wrong with being a lawyer. The question is not who prepared the statement but is the statement correct and has the sponsor of the bill satisfied himself of the accuracy of that statement? If so, there can be no possible objection to it.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the private members' hour should not be debased but should be reserved for private members' use.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would invite the hon. member for St. Paul's to address himself to the bill before us. I do not know whether he is speaking on a point of order or a question of privilege. I think we might hasten the debate by not straying rather far afield from the subject. I would invite the hon. member to come to the substance of Bill S-13 which we should be considering.


Ian Grant Wahn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would be delighted to do that.


Mr. Peters:: He has not read the bill.


Ian Grant Wahn: The point I emphasize is that instead of criticizing this company for its success, as the hon. members for Skeena and Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) have done, it would be much better, as the last speaker pointed out, to congratulate the company for its success. We should also congratulate the company for coming to parliament in order to adopt a French name. The company has been most successful in Quebec. In these circumstances it is natural that it wishes to have a French name. A large number of companies come to parliament to have their names changed. In this case the company ought to be congratulated and complimented for taking this step.
Comments have been made about the substantial increase in the company's authorized capital. Because of the long time it takes to get a private member's bill through the house it is important that a company initially should have substantial authorized capital rather than having to come back later to ask that the capital be increased. If arrangements can be made for bills that are of value to the economy and to Canada to pass through the house reasonably quickly, without unduly extended debate, then I am sure that companies such as this will be glad to come to the house more often to obtain smaller increases in their authorized capital.
Private Bills
Another purpose of the bill is to extend the business to be transacted by the company. Here again the company ought to be applauded for its initiative rather than criticized. It is true that in the past the company, as I assume from its name, has been in the health and accident insurance business. The life insurance business is different from the health and accident insurance business. Life insurance companies take deposits from the public. This is the important difference between life insurance and other insurance companies. It is therefore most important that the same principles should apply to life insurance companies that apply to other financial institutions such as banks.
I was delighted to learn from the introductory statement made by the sponsor of the bill that the shareholders and the directors of the company are Canadian and that the company will continue to be Canadian. It is easy for a company to have Canadian shareholders in its early stages. There is no guarantee that when such a company becomes larger and expands its business it will not be taken over by some foreign owned corporation. I was delighted to hear not only that the company is Canadian but that it intends to remain so. I hope this company shows the same initiative in expanding its life insurance business that it showed previously in expanding its health and accident insurance business. I particularly hope that the company gets into the field of the so-called variable annuity, that is to say, into the issuance of life insurance annuities with built-in protection against increases in the cost of living. With continuing inflation this has become most important and I think this company should take steps to include such insurance in its coverage.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
I am sure we are all anxious that this bill should pass this evening so I shall not continue my remarks further but simply repeat that this company should be complimented and congratulated rather than criticized for its initiative in seeking these changes in its incorporating act.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for High Park speaks now he will close the debate. The hon. member for Timiskaming.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I did not have any intention of speaking on this bill today but in this game of chess it appears to be inevitable that I should and I shall not disappoint anybody.

June 21, 1966
Private Bills
I was interested in the comments made this evening. They are not unlike comments which have been made in the past. In the case of the last speaker sour grapes are, of course, hard to take anyway. It would seem that this bill, like others of its kind, has been introduced in the normal way. The application has been prepared by a lawyer or agent and an hon. member is sponsoring the measure in this house in keeping with what the rules demand. There can be no resentment on this score about these things being done in the way they are, but it would appear to me that some other manner of presentation would be advantageous, one which would eliminate the responsibility an hon. member now has to take when proposing such measures to the house. We have set up a Department of Insurance and it seems inevitable that in the very near future this department should have power to make the changes which are being sought in a much more satisfactory way than we can hope to do as members of parliament.
The measure before us indicates that the company was set up under a bill passed by parliament in 1945 with a capitalization of $500,000. I agree with the sponsor that the company has done very well. It has been able to expand its business from the town of Waterloo across the province and into the province of Quebec as well. Thus the need for the change in name has arisen. According to the remarks of the sponsor the company appears capable of doing business without changing its name as a result of parliamentary action. It is not too difficult to pronounce the name in English. It is also true that a literal translation could be made which would serve all purposes except those involving legal documents which would have to correspond with the terms of the original act.
There seems little point in bringing a special bill before parliament. Consider the abuses which are possible as a result of this process. I am not suggesting that this is true of the particular company we are considering. But if this company were to come before parliament wishing to provide gangster accident insurance for members of the Mafia only, it would be easy for it to do so under the present system unless some hon. member took a special interest in the proceedings.
We are really not competent to go into the details of this bill. I am not familiar with the process by which sponsors are chosen. It could be by lot or by some other means. But it

would seem to me that if a sponsor undertakes to sponsor a bill he must take responsibility for it. This raises in my mind the question of how far he should go.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him that we have before us a specific bill dealing with a specific act. The tangent upon which he has embarked is procedural in nature. It certainly has nothing to do with the principle of the bill before us and I would invite the hon. member to return to the subject matter of the measure.


William Arnold Peters: I agree entirely that what we
are really talking about is the French version of the name of the company and, second, the increase in the capital stock.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not suggest that to the hon. member. On second reading we are dealing with the principle of the bill, not with the details. It is the principle which is to be considered now.


William Arnold Peters: Then it is a principle which covers the whole gamut of insurance because it relates to the three main branches of insurance, sickness, personal accident, and life insurance. In addition to the type of insurance it is providing the company we are considering now seeks to provide life insurance. I believe this raises the general question of insurance. I had not intended to go so far. I was trying to remain within the limits set by the sponsor himself when he drew attention to certain of the operations of this company and implied that this was a Canadian-owned company and that the members of the board of directors were Canadians. I need hardly say that being Canadian and being resident in Canada are not the same thing. There is also the fact that money does not appear to have any boundaries. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that it is seven o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being seven o'clock, the hour for private members' business has expired. The house will now revert to the consideration of the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)



HEALTH RESOURCES FUND


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the second reading of Bill No. C-199, to provide for the
June 21, 1966

establishment of a health resources fund to assist provinces in the acquisition, construction and renovation of health training facilities and research institutions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of hon. members I should like to deal with some of the details of the bill which incorporates the matters referred to in my statement of June 14 when I described the original proposals made last July by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and which were the subject of subsequent meetings with provincial ministers of health.
It will be recalled that I referred to certain conclusions which had been reached by the conference of ministers in regard to these matters, and I should like to assure the house that the government has been guided by these agreed conclusions in drafting the bill which is before us this evening. Under the bill a special account, to be known as the health resources fund, will be established in he consolidated revenue fund and a sum of $500 million will be credited to that account. It is provided that the payments may be made retroactively to January 1 of this year, and not later than the end of 1980, a 15 year period in all.
The $500 million figure was not an amount taken out of the hat. As I pointed out in my opening statement on June 14, departmental officers visited the provinces prior to the Prime Minister's announcement of the size of the fund, in an effort to ascertain approximate needs as foreseen by provincial governments. We all recognized that such estimates were approximate and subject to considerable refinement, but they gave us at least some clue as to foreseeable requirements.
It was never envisaged that the health resources fund would provide payment in full for the projects coming within the ambit of the bill. In fact when the conference of ministers discussed this aspect of the fund, it was recommended that the contribution of the federal government from the fund should not exceed 50 per cent of reasonable costs of any project. Thus, when we speak of projects to be established with the assistance of the fund, we are not speaking of projects totalling $500 million in cost but of projects of approximately $1,000 million.
While the federal moneys payable in accordance with the health resources fund bill will not exceed one half of the total cost, there is no requirement that the other half must be matched by a provincial government.
Health Resources Fund In fact, health resources funds may be available for up to half the cost of a project, even if the provincial government itself makes no direct contribution. For example, if a private foundation were prepared to finance half the cost of an eligible project, health resources funds would still be available if the project otherwise qualified.
It will be noted that in order to have consideration given to a contribution from the fund, an application must be made to the Minister of National Health and Welfare by the government of a province. As members are aware, under our constitution health training facilities come within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Thus, despite the very substantial contributions which will be made by the federal government, it is considered essential to preserve provincial sovereignty in this area by giving consideration only to those projects put forward by and through provincial authorities. The federal government will not accept projects directly from any individual university, hospital, or establishment for the conducting of research in the health field.
The bill stipulates that no payment may be authorized to be made unless the province making the application has developed a provincial plan covering a five year period. This provision is to ensure that individual projects will not be haphazard but rather will fit into a planned, orderly provincial scheme. Not unnaturally, the bill also requires that the provincial government shall provide the minister with necessary information and make available records and other data concerning the cost of the facilities for which assistance is to be provided.
It will be noted that provision is also made in the bill for joint applications on a regional basis in connection with the Atlantic provinces. The concept of regionalization is particularly applicable where small provinces are concerned. It is reasonable to expect that in some instances, though certainly not in all instances, the provinces concerned may themselves decide to set up a single health training facility to meet the general needs of the region.
The four provinces specifically mentioned in this regard in the bill decided to proceed with such projects on this basis. It will be for these provinces to decide jointly the types of projects for which this regional approach will be used.

June 21, 1S66
Health Resources Fund
The Atlantic provinces received particular attention from the conference of ministers because of the extraordinary needs of that region for health training facilities and the relative lack of fiscal capability to provide these facilities. It was unanimously agreed by the minister of health of all the provinces to recommend to the federal government that a sum of $25 million be set aside for the Atlantic provinces in connection with such projects. This is over and above what the Atlantic provinces are entitled to under the per capita formula.
With regard to the rest of the health resources fund it will be noted that more than half, that is, $300 million, will be allocated on a per capita basis to the provinces, while the remaining $175 million will be available in amounts which may be allocated from time to time by the Governor in Council.
The suggestion that this subdivision in the total remaining funds be made came from the conference of ministers of health. It was based on the belief that, while provincial governments clearly were in need of support for health training facilities within the borders of their own provinces, health training facilities, generally of a highly specialized nature, were also needed to serve purposes beyond the borders of a single province. But of greater importance was the consideration that unallocated funds would still be available when needs were more clearly defined for projects which might be developed later in the life of the fund.
Having regard to these considerations, the conference of ministers recommended that the bulk of the funds should be divided into two parts: first, on a per capita basis to meet purely provincial needs, and the second, to assist in meeting the costs of health training and research facilities designed to meet national needs.
I do not propose to go into extensive detail at this time concerning the method of actually calculating the costs of acquiring, constructing or renovating any building, except to point out the type of costs which will not be included. The health resources fund will not include the cost of land, any amount paid or payable as interest, or any amount paid or payable by the federal government under other arrangements.
It will also be noted that residential accommodation may not be supported out of the

health resources fund. This also was a conclusion arrived at by the conference of health minisiers, but 1 might mention that such accommodation may be supportable under other federal programs.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Because the health resources fund is, as described in the preamble, intended to assist provinces in the acquisition, construction and renovation of facilities, the question will inevitably arise as to the problem of operating costs. These costs are, of course, not included in this statute, which is designed solely for the purpose of providing capital funds. Nevertheless the government recognizes that the provision of buildings designed for certain purposes will not serve the ends for which the assistance was given unless it is possible to operate these facilities. The problem of such operational costs, however, is one which will of necessity require to be dealt with apart from the question of capital costs.
One of the problems inherent in the provision of operating funds in relation to teaching and educational establishments is the extent to which such funds are interrelated with those designed specifically for education in its broadest sense, including health. This area will still have to be examined by all governments, in collaboration with universities, with a view to reaching some workable solutions.
I believe it is particularly important to note one specific inclusion; the costs of basic equipment necessary for the operation of the health training facility. Obviously such equipment is an essential part of such a facility, without which it would not serve the purpose for which it was designed. Reliance will have to be placed, to a considerable extent, on professional opinion with regard to what, in fact, constitutes this basic equipment.
Reliance on professional opinion will, of course, also be necessary in determining whether the health training facility is of a type which meets the general definition set out in the act, having regard to the purposes of the fund.
Members will be interested to learn of the outstanding co-operation we have had already from the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges, which has given us the benefit of their wise counsel in our efforts to define such elusive facilities as "teaching hospitals", for example. It is my hope and anticipation that we shall be able to continue
June 21, 1966

to have the co-operation which we were so generously given in our early deliberations by such professional bodies as the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association and the Canadian Hospital Association.
During the last number of weeks I have had a considerable number of requests from other professional associations, as well, all of which have expressed keen interest in participating in the work to be associated with the health resources fund, and requesting representation on the advisory committee, for which provision is also made in the act.
It will be noted that the act makes provision for a health resources advisory committee consisting of 11 members, one to be appointed by each of the provinces under the chairmanship of the deputy minister of national health. The composition of this advisory committee was discussed by the conference of ministers, which gave consideration to the possibility of including professional associations. However, the conference was of the opinion that the committee should be established as set out in the act. At the same time, it was recommended that it should be empowered, as it is so empowered, to establish special committees. These committees would undoubtedly include representatives of professional associations and specialists in relevant fields. The government accepted the recommendation of the conference of ministers in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to give a brief outline of the main points in the bill. It is not a long bill and is relatively simple. Of course, in the clause by clause discussion of the bill I will be pleased to deal with any specific matters that are raised by hon. members.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with some interest to the minister's dissertation in respect of what this $500 million will cover and what it will do. Very briefly I should like to deal with three points. First of all, I should like to ask the minister whether it is proposed that the government, through the National Research Council, will take over all the research? I think this is very important. I feel the government should take over the whole fiscal control of national research. I do not see how the provinces adequately could undertake national research projects. They simply have not the funds.
I should like to go into this a little further and say that last year we spent about $9
Health Resources Fund million on research and covered only 65 per cent of our projects. Of the number of applicants who applied, 115 were turned down. This simply is not good enough. It seems pretty ridiculous that when the United States is spending $1 billion on research we are spending just under $10 million. How can we expect to halt the brain drain that is going on.
In the last report made by the late Dr. Farquharson in 1964 he said that research was woefully weak and falling behind all the time both in buildings and equipment. One of the last appeals he made was that this should be stepped up in an effort to stop the brain drain to the United States. I also should like to state that if we operated on the same basis as the United States, we would have to spend ten times as much, or $100 million. I realize, as does everybody now, that you cannot do this overnight; this is a continuous building-up process which must be programmed. However, until today we have dragged our feet. We are very short on medical personnel; we are short on teachers; we are short on medical schools and we are away down on our research.
Each year during the last five years we have been losing well over 500 doctors a year. When we can spend $10 million for the National Film Board, it seems a bit ridiculous that we cannot spend more than $10 million on research. This simply has to be stepped up. There is no point in building up a health resources fund unless you do this, because you will not get anywhere without research. You will not get competent teachers or staff all the way down.
I should like for a minute to dwell on what the minister had to say about this $500 million over 15 years. I do not know the situation in all the provinces, but I imagine they have similar problems. As I understand it, in the province of Ontario the committee is going to spend $300 million in the next six years and over a 10 year period $500 million. Here, Mr. Minister, you are bringing in a health resources fund in an amount of only $500 million. The provincial government is putting that amount into buildings alone, over ten years. I am not talking about personnel. This is the reason I think the government is away down in its approach to this problem. I do not think you will cover 40 per cent of what is required. This does not include teaching personnel in Ontario but only to plans for the construction of buildings. The minister said nothing whatever about replacement and
June 21, 196f>
Health Resources Fund
the putting in of equipment which today is mighty important.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
This is a very serious drawback in view of the development of heart-lung machines, kidney machines, pacemakers and artificial hearts over the last 10 years-and this is only the start. This type of equipment is being developed and improved every day and it is very expensive. If we are not going to make provisions for the purchase and use of these developments, if we are not going to provide money for research and for training doctors then we are not going to be successful in this program. It is doomed to failure and will destroy the esprit de corps of the medical profession.
In relation to the lack of personnel in the medical field, let me point out that four of our major Canadian medical schools are looking seriously at the shortages in their teachers and in funds for equipment for student training. This is facing them now. The situation is becoming serious. Every province must have similar plans in so far as construction of hospital facilities is concerned. The province of Ontario estimates that it will spend $500 million in the next ten year period by way of capital construction costs-as much as the federal government pumps in 15 years.
The minister said that if private individuals decided to invest in the construction of medical facilities the government would go along on a 50-50 basis. I hope the minister is not suggesting that programs of this type will be taken out of provincial control. If the provinces have not as yet gone along with that idea, how is the federal government going to do so? I hope that he will give us some indication as to how he plans to accomplish his ideas when he speaks again.
The minister made a serious error of judgment in referring to medicare plans. He suggested that a medicare plan would be brought into existence next year, but how can he when he has made little or no plans to alleviate the critical shortage of doctors. Does the minister not think he is cheating the people by promising a medical program which cannot be effective because of the lack of services available, particularly when he considers that premiums will be deducted, and taxes will be collected? I remember other occasions when the public was filched because someone else rushed ahead with plans that could not be put into effect. I am not suggesting the government is going ahead too fast with a medical services program, but it

should have before this time instituted a crash program in our medical schools in order to train the necessary personnel.
I can never understand why in the world our medical schools are closed during the summer when we are so short of doctors. That was not the case during the war, when we were much better off as far as medical personnel were concerned. We have not graduated many doctors per year more than we did following the war years, in spite of the fact that our population has increased by 25 per cent in the same 10 years. Does the minister not think that a crash training program is vital to the success of any national medical services plan? I hope he will discuss this serious situation with the provincial ministers of health in order to find some solution. We have the facilities and the teachers and I think we should go along with the suggestion that medical schools be kept open all year. We certainly will not have enough doctors to carry out this program unless we bring them from England or Europe. I understand that will be difficult because in at least some hospitals in England the staffs have come from outside England.
In conclusion let me say I will discuss some situations at a later stage because I think it is vital that we find solutions to these problems which are inherent in such a national medical plan.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, the health resources fund legislation is, in the opinion of the members of this party, of tremendous importance. I do not think its importance has been fully appreciated by the house, if one can judge b>
the interest that was taken in the debate or. the resolution which preceded this bill. Noi do I think its importance has been fully realized by the government, if one can judge by the length of time it has taken to bring down the legislation or by the amount of money which is being provided by it. I do not like to use an old hackneyed phrase, but the fact is the legislation has been brought down too late and the amount of money provided is too little.
The importance of this legislation lies in the fact that this is the basis upon which a successful medicare program can be built. I am not one who thinks that we must wait until every facility is available and all the technicians and professional people have been trained before adopting a medicare plan. The fact does remain, however, that medicare in
June 21, 1966

this country will place a tremendous strain upon our facilities and available personnel.
I had some experience in setting up the first hospital insurance plan in Canada-as a matter of fact, the first on this continent -which came into effect in the province of Saskatchewan on January 1, 1947. For two and a half years we had a crash program for the construction of hospitals. When we could not construct new hospitals we converted old airport and army buildings into temporary hospitals. We also had a crash program for training nurses, x-ray and laboratory technicians, because it was quite apparent that the moment hospital insurance came into effect the number who would apply for hospital care would increase. It was also apparent that once hospital insurance became effective the number of people sent to hospitals by physicians would increase, and that unless we were prepared to handle this increase, which we estimated at 25 per cent, congestion in hospitals would develop.
All these statistics in respect of hospital admissions which had been projected turned out to be reasonably accurate. We estimated that the increase would amount to approximately 26 per cent and my recollection is that in two years it was actually 26J per cent. We estimated that this increase would level off and gradually decline as we caught up with the backlog, and as better pre-operational care was provided, cutting down the length of hospital stay. These projections also proved to be accurate.
We had to make sure that when health insurance in any form came into effect facilities and personnel were available. I remember discussing this matter with Mr. Aneurin Bevan, who established the British health services plan. He told me that they had the same experience, that one could expect in the initial stages a marked increase in demand for services, and that unless we were ready to provide these services we would experience great congestion. There is bound to be some congestion with the very best of medical plans in the initial stages, but that congestion can be ameliorated somewhat by a crash program to provide facilities and trained personnel.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
To my mind the tremendous importance of the legislation which is now before the house lies in the fact that the effectiveness of medicare will largely depend upon the legislation which I hope the house will pass very
Health Resources Fund shortly. It will also depend upon the aggressiveness with which the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and the provincial ministers of health make use of the funds provided, so that when medicare is implemented in Canada the people who expect to get those services will be able to avail themselves of them. Nothing would give medicare a greater black eye than for us after July 1, 1967, to say that medical services of all types were available to the people of any given province, and then for those individuals who required medical care to find there were no adequate facilities or sufficient personnel to give them the care to which by law they were entitled, and to which they had contributed financially. Therefore it is of tremendous importance that this program to increase facilities and training and to make available personnel be pushed forward with all possible speed. That is why I said that I think the legislation has been much too late in coming.
It is now two years since the publication of the Hall Commission report. That commission recommended that within six months of receiving the report the government should convene a federal provincial conference and immediately begin to plan the expansion of health facilities and the training of health personnel so that when medicare became a fact it would be an effective program which would make available to the people of this country the services which they were led to expect. I can see no reason why this legislation which is before us now could not have been here a year ago. It is inconceivable to me that one year has not been sufficient for the government to digest this report, to consult with the provinces and to place before the house legislation of the nature which is before us at this time. Instead of that, two years have gone by. If the government keeps its commitment of setting up medicare in Canada by July 1, 1967, the provinces will be left with not more than 12 months to get ready for one of the greatest health experiments ever attempted on the North American continent. As a matter of fact, in some cases the provinces may still have to wait for their provincial legislatures to meet this fall and give them the necessary authorization and financial resources to co-operate in this program.
I am concerned about how the provinces will be able in 12 months to do the job that has to be done. It may be that some of the provinces have anticipated this situation and

June 21. 1966
Health Resources Fund
have already outlined plans and begun programs. I certainly hope they have, because under no circumstances do I want to see any delay in implementing medicare. I want to see it start on July 1, 1967. I can think of no finer centennial project for Canada than that on the anniversary of our 100th birthday we will make medical services available to every citizen of Canada, irrespective of who he is and irrespective of his financial ability to pay. But it will not be easy to do it when the provinces and the various educational institutions have such a short time to meet the heavy demands which will be laid upon them.
I will not belabour the point; it is not much use crying over spilled milk. But I do want to say to the government that I fear the 12 months delay may be very costly, and the congestion which may take place in some provinces when medicare is first set up will be due in no small measure to the fact that this legislation was so late in coming before parliament.
Not only do I think it is late in getting here, but I must say to the minister that I think the amount of money provided is pitifully inadequate.
I know that $500 million sounds like a very large sum of money, but spread over 15 years it comes to an average of some $33 million a year and in my opinion this sum will not begin to carry out the program which was suggested by the Hall Commission. As a matter of fact, on the basis of the information the minister has just given us, that $175 million will be set aside to be spent as the governor in council decides, and $25 million will be set aside for the Atlantic provinces -with which I thoroughly agree-this leaves some $300 million to be spent on the regular run-of-the-mill program which, if you spread it over 15 years, comes to about $20 million a year.
Now let us look at what has to be done. I just want to mention a few of the things which the Hall Commission pointed out will be absolutely imperative if we are to provide the Canadian people with the services they are entitled to expect, once medicare becomes a fact in Canada. First of all they point out that we will need a program to build six new university medical schools as well as expanding the existing medical schools. They point out that by 1971 we will require an additional 7,100 trained doctors. This will necessitate a tremendous program of training, and the construction of six new university medical

schools and the expansion of existing ones will require very large sums of money.
Nothing in the educational field today is as costly as the building of medical schools, because of the equipment and the highly technical apparatus now required in medical schools. The expense is fantastic, and there is no use training doctors unless we are going to give them the very best kind of medical training available, not only because they need it but also because the Canadian people deserve it.
The report of the Hall Commission says that we will also have to build four dental schools and that by 1971 we will have to add 2,130 newly trained dentists to those who are now practising that profession in Canada. Probably one of the biggest tasks will be the job of building 10 new university nursing schools to train the 42,000 additional nurses who will be needed by 1971 if this program is going to provide the services which the Canadian people will expect from it.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
Now, in addition to the medical schools, dental schools and university nursing schools, there are suggestions for local services which will be required, particularly in the rural areas. Suggestions have been made for medicine depots, nursing stations and, very important in a large country like Canada with a sparse population, an air ambulance service. I am sure the minister will agree with the position taken by the Hall Commission, that people in the isolated areas and in rural districts of Canada have a right to expect the same high standard of medical care as will be enjoyed by people in the metropolitan areas. They cannot get that unless there are facilities, first of all, to provide them with emergency care by local medical depots and nursing stations, and then an air ambulance to take them to the large medical centres where they may get the very best of medical and surgical care available.
After all, it is not possible to have a highly trained doctor or group of doctors and surgeons in every community. However, the very least we can do is see that people in isolated communities can be flown quickly and inexpensively to a place where there is a team of medical experts to provide them with the very best surgical and medical care. This is going to cost money, and it is going to cost a great deal of money. I do not believe this $20 million a year will cover the cost.
June 21, 1966

Then, there is the whole question of allied health services which will have to be provided under medicare and for which we have nothing like a sufficient nun . r of trained personnel. I am referring to x-ray technicians, lab technicians, physiotherapists and all the allied technicians that have now become an integral part of the practice of good medicine. Finally, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Ry-nard), the fundamental stimulant for any good medical program is medical research. This country must be prepared to spend very large sums of money, first in building medical research facilities and then in the actual research itself.
When the members of this party speak of medicare, Mr. Speaker, we are not just concerned with transferring the payments from the patient to a government agency. That is only a part of the value of medicare. The other great value of medicare is that it can make possible a much better qual ty of med -cal care; it can provide opportunities for group practice. It can provide opportunities for doctors to take refresher courses. It can provide opportunities lor research and the transmission of the results of that research to the practising professions. If medicare is going to be what we hope it will be, and give to the people of Canada the health er ces 'h need, without any financial obstacle standing between them and the members of the heahn profession, then it will also have to be a program which will give the people the very best kind of health services.
My conviction is that when medicare becomes fully operative in this country it will finally reach the stage wher - the major e '-phasis will be on the practice of preventive medicine. The real aim of a medica c s program is not just to get people well after they are sick, but to keep them from getting sick by developing clinics, group practice and by establishing a close relat on -hip between patients and doctors. When this condition prevails, the average family can go reguiariv to the family physician and, if they require it, be referred to specialists to help (hem keep in good health. This procedure makes possible the diagnosis and early identification of diseases that could later prove serious or even fatal.
I just cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that the sums of money the minister has been talking about this evening will be anywhere nearly adequate to carry out the vast program that needs to be undertaken. I hope the minister
Health Resources Fund will tell us, either when he concludes this debate or in the committee of the whole, whether these sums of money are to be paid out to the provinces on an annual basis, provided they qualify for them, or whether the federal government will match the projects completed in the provinces on a 50-50 basis, without any regard to the annual allocations. If the $300 million is to be held down to $20 million a year, and if the $175 million which is set aside for special projects is to be allocated on an annual basis, then I suggest to the minister that in my opinion the goals that have been set by the Hall Commission as to the number of doctors, dentists, nurses and allied health services personnel which will be required by 1971 will not be reached.
I hope the minister will say to the universities, medical schools, dental schools and nursing schools, "This is the goal we have for 1971 and you can proceed as fast as you want. If you complete it in two or three years, if you complete it before 1971, we will meet half the costs on the basis of the terms laid down in this legislation." The worst thing that could happen would be for the government each year to dole out this money in annual allocations, and then tell a province or university that has started out with great enthusiasm, "We are very sorry, but we have used up the allocation for this year; you will have to be paid out of next year's allocation."
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
That would slow down the whole program. As a matter of fact, this $500 million can, in my opinion, be spent over the next five or seven years-never mind 15 years. As a matter of fact, it will have to be spent over a much shorter period than 15 years if it is going to do the job which has to be done. Otherwise we will have a medicare program which will be hampered and hamstrung from the very beginning, owing to a lack of facilities and personnel.
I want to express my complete support for the position taken by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), who said that what the situation calls for is a crash program. I think that not only the federal government but the provincial governments will have to show the kind of imagination and drive that characterizes a real emergency. If we must have, as the Hall Commission suggests, 7,100 more doctors trained in the next five years, then we may have to change the techniques and make it possible for medical schools to operate 11 months in the year. We

June 21, 1966
Health Resources Fund may have to pay bursaries to medical students, and make provision for students allowances. Instead of having to go out and work in the summer months this might enable the students to study throughout the entire year.
We did this sort of thing during the war. We trained doctors because they were needed for the armed services. Many of those doctors are still practising today. I think it would be a brave and somewhat imprudent individual who would suggest that they were not well trained, merely because the courses they undertook were crash courses. We trained many fine doctors, dentists and psychiatrists as a result of those programs which were instituted during the war.
Mr. Speaker, we are just not going to get the doctors, dentists, trained nurses, x-ray and laboratory technicians and the physiotherapists we need if we simply follow the same routine course. We must make it possible for bright and promising young people to leave behind them the normal channels of university entrance, attending university for six or seven months and then working for four months or so, and we must enable them to go into crash courses, with the federal and provincial governments paying their funds and providing their training, as well as giving them a decent living while they take their courses, so that they will be trained as quickly as possible.
I am sure that if we put that kind of challenge to the young people of this country we will get a response. There are thousands of young people in Canada who would like to go into the health profession. In many cases they lack the opportunity and they lack the necessary funds. Everyone knows that one of the most expensive university courses is a medical course. This makes it difficult for all kinds of young people who come from families of modest means to become doctors, dentists or psychiatrists. But if the federal and provincial governments are prepared to embark upon a crash program, the necessary personnel would be available when medicare comes into operation. They will certainly be available when the flood tide has reached its crest. If we start medicare on July 1, 1967 it will reach its crest in 1968 and 1969, the period when there will be the greatest demand. By 1971 it should be starting to level off a bit.
I hope that the minister will not consider that I am harping on some of the defects which I think exist in the government's program. I think that the minister deserves a

good deal of commendation for the persistence and aggressiveness he has shown in pursuing this matter since he assumed the portfolio of National Health and Welfare. I can assure him that we in this party are thoroughly behind him as he presses on with this matter.
Let me also tell him that in our opinion he ought not to be dissuaded from proceeding with medicare on July 1, 1967 because of the problems that will undoubtedly face both him and the provincial governments with reference to provision of facilities and personnel. I am sorry that we did not start making plans sooner; but the fact that we did not start sooner ought not to be made an excuse for delaying the implementation of medicare.
I am sure that all of us have had the experience that, once we have started a program, the pressure of events compels us to move at an accelerated rate to do what has to be done. If we wait until we are absolutely sure that everything is ready before we launch medicare, then we will never start it. Therefore I urge the minister not to delay the setting up of a medicare scheme because of the difficulty of supplying the required facilities and personnel.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to him that the best way to make medicare work and the best way to save both himself and the provincial ministers of health a lot of headaches is to make sure that crash programs are devised within the next few weeks, that they are put into operation this fall, and that the money which is being made available by this legislation will be given to the provinces, not on an annual allocation basis at all, but made available to the provinces just as fast as they are able to complete the projects they want to undertake.
I feel sure, Mr. Speaker, that if that course is followed, and if the government is prepared to set up crash training programs, then the minister will get the support of the people of the country, the support of the young people who want to train for the health professions, and I think he will get the support of most of the ministers of health. If he gets that support and if he implements a medicare plan, I am convinced he will be taking one of the great forward steps in the social history of Canada. The minister will have won for himself a place of distinction in the country by having helped to launch a program that will be of inestimable value, not only to the people of our day and generation but to Canadians for all time to come.
June 21, 1966


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I want to say only a few words at this stage of the debate. It seems this is the only time when it will be possible for me to refer to one of the clauses in the bill which takes into account certain provisions in two other clauses of the bill. I am sure Your Honour will realize that after we move into committee stage we will be more or less confined to each clause as it comes up.
I should like to say, however, Mr. Speaker, that we in this party do not believe that the only reason for setting up a health resources fund is to make sure that a national medicare plan is successfully implemented. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because I believe there is an acute, almost critical shortage of trained personnel in most of the health services, and these additions to staff and to the professional groups particularly are required, whether or not we have a national medicare plan on July 1, 1967, or some time later.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
While I agree with many of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), I cannot accept the suggestion that this bill is predicated upon our being prepared for medicare by July 1, 1967. Unless the government has changed some of the requirements advanced several months ago about certain plans that the provinces already had begun, with respect to medical services, I do not think there is any reasonable possibility that a national medical care plan will be operative in all provinces of Canada.
First, some provinces do not now have any type of medical care plan. Second, those provinces administering such plans which they think are reasonably good are not disposed to making adjustments to their medicare plans to meet the conditions laid down by the federal government. I think, when we realize that medical services are almost exclusively within provincial jurisdiction under our constitution, the opinions and decisions of at least three provinces should be given careful consideration. That would apply in connection with this measure. The federal government should be ready to negotiate with those provinces, in order to bring their thinking into line with that of the majority of provinces.
It would be unfair for the federal government in an effort to have the plan universal and compulsory to insist on some conditions,
Health Resources Fund thereby forcing the provinces to make adjustments they did not believe were in their best interests.
My main purpose in participating in the debate at this stage is because clause 7 of the bill before us says:
No payment shall be authorized by the Minister pursuant to section 4 or 5 unless the government of the province making the application has
(a) submitted to the minister, and the advisory committee has approved, a program for the development of health training facilities in that province-
And so on.
I should like the minister to explain in greater detail, if he will, at the conclusion of this part of the debate exactly what is meant by those words. Otherwise we shall have difficulty when we get to the committee stage, as we shall be going through one clause at a time; and as clause 7 of the bill refers directly to sections 4 and 5, it seems appropriate for the minister to give this part of the bill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I wonder if there is much wisdom in the suggestion he is now making. I take the liberty of reminding him that at this stage we should be considering only the principle of the bill, and I am afraid it would be out of order to discuss the individual clauses of the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, when I rose to take part in this debate I tried to express to Mr. Deputy Speaker, who was in the chair at that time, that it would be difficult for me to raise this matter respecting clause 7 when we were considering clauses 4 and 5, because clause 7 would not be before us. Yet, clause 7 directly refers to the provisions of "section 4 or 5". That is why I wanted to bring up this matter now. I was apprehensive as to whether Your Honour would allow me to talk about clause 7 when we had reached, say, clause 4 in the committee stage.
Perhaps without referring directly to the clause I could explain to the minister that I am concerned about that part of the principle of the bill which would categorically forbid the minister and the advisory committee to advance funds for any program, unless beforehand the plans for such program had been presented to the minister and to the advisory committee. The reason I raise my point is that a number of provinces have programs for the extension of medical schools and other facilities already under way.

June 21, 1966
Health Resources Fund It seems to me that if that part of the bill to which I have referred stands as it is, it would prevent the federal government's participation in the expansion of building programs and other facilities included in existing programs. That would be so because the province had not submitted its plan to the minister and to the advisory committee before that plan was begun.
If you go on reading, the bill says:
-in respect of which a contribution is requested is included in that program;
The hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) and the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) have advanced persuasive arguments that there is need for an immediate expansion in facilities to train the personnel we need. I think one of the easiest and most economical ways of meeting this immediate need would be for some of the provinces to expand programs already under way, in order to accommodate additional students. This would give the needed results perhaps most economically.
Yet I am apprehensive about the wording of the bill, when it says that the minister or the advisory committee would be prevented from entertaining the consideration of making contributions to programs that were already under way, because the bill says that approval must be obtained prior to the program's getting under way.
Many provinces may have recognized the need to build new facilities that were beyond their financial resources. Now, with the federal government coming along with a program that will provide in aggregate some 500 million over the next 15 years, the provinces would be willing to extend the sizes of buildings, whether or not the facilities were included in the program already under way.
[DOT] (8:10 pjn.)
Perhaps the minister will give us an assurance that the buildings and other facilities which will need to be constructed need not be confined to completely new proposals in order to qualify.
I am a little concerned about what is meant by a "crash program". It seems to me pressure on the construction industry in Canada is such that any crash program for the building of medical training schools and so on would not give us the best return for the money invested. In Alberta recently we have seen bids for the construction of schools not altogether dissimilar from those which would need to be built under this program-bids 
which are as much as 30 per cent above the
estimate of the architects. So as far as building is concerned, a crash program would probably aggravate the situation still further; we must have regard for the value we are likely to receive in return for our investment.
I agree with previous speakers that if the government intends to pay out the $300 millions on an annual basis of $20 millions each year, it is proceeding along the wrong lines. No doubt some provinces will wish to undertake the building of a medical school or training college the cost of which would account for their entire share of the fund. Some arrangement should be made under which provinces which have programs under way could complete them without having to wait for one-fifteenth of their share each year over the entire period. I have in mind particularly the proposal for a new medical training school at the university in Calgary. It would be wrong, I think, to hold back completion of this project until 1980. This may be done through arrangements which differ from those set out in the bill now before us. But I want to suggest that one province could perhaps receive a larger proportion of the fund each year by agreement between the federal minister of health and the other provinces as to which of the new facilities would receive priority. Each province could wait its turn and all the projects could be completed during the 15-year period. I do not think the provinces should proceed only to the extent of a certain percentage of the total each year.
I trust my remarks have not been out of order in this attempt to get an explanation of how these three related clauses will operate. I trust the minister can give us some explanation of what is meant by the provisions of clause 7 in order that we may have this information before we pass clauses 4 and 5 in committee.


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilion West):: At
the outset I should like to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare upon the introduction of this measure. It may be said that it is easy for a supporter of the government to do this; but, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) stated, the minister is to be commended for his persistence in adhering to the date set for the medicare program and for the establishment of a health resources fund to assist the universities and the hospitals to train staff for medicare and for general purposes
June 21, 1966

throughout the country. I compliment him and I hope the members will agree to pass the bill after scrutinizing it. I have some questions to ask about it myself and I intend to raise them when we come to the clause by clause study of the measure.
May I refer to the brief called Medical Research in Canada-An Analysis of Immediate and Future Needs, which was presented to the government back in January. This is a comprehensive presentation drawing attention to the problems we face today in this field. Incidentally, I am happy to see among the endorsers of this report three eminent doctors, all of McMaster University in Hamilton-J. R. Evans, Principal, College of Health Sciences; W. B. Spaulding, Associate Dean, Faculty of Medicine; and W. J. Walsh, Assistant Dean, Faculty of Medicine.
It is not possible to separate medical research from the university training of scientists, doctors and medical teachers. The message of this brief is clear and simple: Unless support for medical research is increased beyond the level we now envisage, Canadian medical schools will deteriorate and so will the quality of health care provided to the Canadian people.
Not only has the quality of medical care and research work failed to keep pace with that of other highly developed countries but we are also falling behind on a quantitative basis. Today in Canada we have one doctor for every 870 citizens. Twenty countries in the world have a better ratio than this. In order to maintain our present ratio we have to register 1,300 new doctors every year. Our Canadian medical university schools turn out only 850 annually and we are holding our own by bringing in doctors from other countries at the rate of 450 a year, as the report states.
I realize the minister is not dealing with operational costs at the present time. However, the report says that federal government grants for operating expenses of medical research must reach a minimum of $80 millions annually by 1970. The present annual figure is $15 millions. The comparable figure in the United States is $1.3 billions a year. This illustrates how far behind we have fallen in medical research in this country. It will readily be understood why we are losing some of our best medical scientists to the United States. Indeed, this is one of our principal problems.
I agree with many hon. members that federal assistance in this field is of national
Health Resources Fund importance. This question of medical standards has to be considered nationally; unless this is done we shall fall still further behind. I believe the establishment of a health resources fund is one step toward improving a situation which has been allowed to deteriorate.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Unless we are able to provide sufficient funds we shall not be able to catch up at the pace we would like, and will continue to fall behind. I must agree with other hon. members that the $500 million is not going to be sufficient, especially since only $300 million will be distributed for construction grants and capital grants to universities over a 15 year period.
We lag in scientific research in all fields. I believe, as these doctors say in their brief, that we must give priority to medical research on the grounds that the nation's health is at stake and the demands of the medical profession simply cannot be met at the present scale of our medical research. In their brief the doctors estimate that as many as one third of our Canadian medical schools do not meet U.S. standards. The summary of their brief states this:
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.
We learn from this brief that it takes eight to ten years to plan, build and recruit staff for a new medical school, and a further eight to ten years for its graduates to become trained teacher-scientists to staff other new schools. It also states that this has serious implications for possible future emigration of physicians from Canada to the United States.
At present in the city of Hamilton, McMaster University, after some local problems of land acquisition have been settled, is planning to proceed with a modern complex costing $100 million, to be built by 1980, with the $40 million core of the project to be commenced almost immediately, containing a 400 bed hospital, research units and facilities for allied sciences, all forming part of the modern concept of a research centre and training hospital.
McMaster University is today leading in medical isotope research, with the aid of the nuclear reactor it has on campus, and the provincial government has approved this new $100 million complex. It is a vital necessity, and the Hall commission report has referred

June 21, 1966
Health Resources Fund to it. In fact the description "crash" could be applied to the project itself. What can we do with $300 million when it is realized that here is one new medical research complex that is going to cost $100 million, and this without the acquisition of land required for future expansion?
When a medical school is being constructed and land has to be acquired for that purpose, why should not the cost of that land be included in the over-all cost of construction? Where a university has sufficient land on campus to satisfy its needs, then that is a different matter, but in this instance McMaster University has to acquire land, and that should be taken into consideration. I would ask the minister to consider this matter.
I realize that the provinces have to be consulted, but again I repeat that land acquisition costs should be included in the over-all cost. Under this bill we are simply talking about capital construction costs. There still remain to be provided laboratories and their equipment and facilities. The sum of $300 million is not going to be sufficient, especially when one considers the present crash program being undertaken with respect to medical schools by the province of Ontario. We have a need for money to provide scientists, medical teachers, doctors and physicians to meet the requirements of our expanding population.
But the over-all situation augurs well, and I compliment the government and the minister upon introducing this legislation. It is a first step, and once the plan is approved the government should consult with provincial health ministers with a view to increasing the amount of money in the fund to take care of crash programs, such as the one I have mentioned in connection with McMaster University.
I use McMaster as an example, not because it is situated in Hamilton or because it is expanding its present medical facilities, as is the case with the University of Western Ontario and McGill. This is a case where a completely new complex is being constructed, and when it is completed Ontario will have one of the finest medical complexes on the North American continent.
Unless the federal government is prepared to contribute immediately sufficient funds for this complex the full burden is going to be placed on the provincial government. Providing 50 per cent of the capital cost is quite a contribution, but $300 million is not going to
be sufficient to provide the medical research facilities which are required, particularly if one takes into consideration the brief which has been presented to the government.
I do not intend to speak at length about this new complex at McMaster University, but I should point out that it will include not only the 400 bed hospital but also provision for allied sciences, such as a department of life sciences, a department of psychology, a department of rehabilitation, a diagnostic and treatment centre for out-patients, a school of dentistry, and a family practice centre to be added in the future, something of an innovation in Canada whereby doctors will be allowed to have their offices on campus and have the various laboratories and research facilities available to them.
In the modern concept of medical education there should be an integrated campus covering all the allied sciences such as biochemistry and full laboratory facilities to cover everything else, as well as a nursing school and all other facilities. Mr. Speaker, I keep emphasizing the need for sufficient money to build modern medical complexes. Today we have a serious shortage of medical scientists and teachers in Canada. The government is to be commended on the fact that over a year and a half ago it made a substantial grant to the University of British Columbia for medical research facilities. But that was only a start; we have to move ahead. I agree with other hon. members on the need for a crash program.
Although provinces have jurisdiction over education in medical schools, I personally would have liked to see provision in this bill whereby moneys could be payable directly to a university, once the province has approved the complex that is to be constructed. However, since that is not the case I think it should be made clear that capital cost grants alone are not the answer. Operating costs are very important. Over a long term they become more substantial than the capital costs.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
So although, as the minister stated, he is not dealing with that at this time, I do sincerely wish to bring to his attention again that the cost of the land is a factor when a university or a hospital has to acquire land to build, which is the case I understand in connection with this medical complex at McMaster University. Our universities and hospitals have a major part to play in the
June 21, 1966

planning and development of medical research in Canada. As we move along in this field I think we must look even more closely at what financial aid the federal government is going to undertake in respect of medical schools and medical research facilities, because the important thing is the federal government still is the prime mover with regard to a national medical standard. Unless the federal government takes on this burden then we are going to fall back further and further. We cannot allow that to happen, and I do not think it will happen. I believe the government has taken the right step.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) stated it is a year too late. However, I am sure that as a former provincial premier he realizes the number of discussions which have taken place on the matter of federal-provincial co-operation. That, however, is a minor matter. The provinces do have responsibility, but I submit that the federal government has a great responsibility in the matter of national medical standards. I sincerely hope that once approved by this house the plan will move forward to fruition and the government will see its way clear to supplement this $300 million in order to allow a university such as McMaster, which is building a new medical complex, to move ahead as fast as possible, so that it will not be delayed through lack of funds from either the federal or provincial government.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this measure which will provide $500 million for the establishment of a health resources fund to assist the provinces in the acquisition, construction and renovation of health training facilities and research institutions. I think this is a good measure. I feel sure it will receive the support of the house, because we in Canada badly need the greatly increased facilities which will be provided by the use of this money, in the training of more doctors, dentists, nurses, and technicians. This will make possible the operation of the greatly expanded health insurance programs which will be coming into existence here in Canada in the months and years ahead.
The only fault which I can find with this measure is that I believe the $500 million which will be provided over the next 15 years is going to turn out to be completely inadequate. Over a 15 year period this averages out to a yearly expenditure of only $33 million a year. As the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) pointed out when
Health Resources Fund he spoke on this measure when it was first introduced, last year nearly 800 doctors left Canada for the United States. These are doctors which this country urgently needs.
If we are going to provide by 1971 the more than 7,000 additional doctors, over and above those we have been regularly training year by year in the past, to make it possible for these health insurance programs to operate successfully, we cannot allow anything like 800 doctors a year to leave this country; they must remain here to take part in our giant program which, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) said, is going to be one of the greatest health insurance experiments ever undertaken.
As the hon. member for Simcoe East has pointed out, it cost about $25,000 to train a doctor. When you lose 800 of them you have lost some $20 million in one year. The lifetime earnings of these doctors would be about $400 million. That is a catastrophic loss for a country, in terms of dollars, in addition to the loss of these doctors who are vitally needed for the essential operation of our health insurance program of the future. I am advised by senior men in the medical and dental professions, persons who are high up in their associations in Canada, that the main reason for our loss of doctors and dentists to other countries, particularly the United States, is not only the higher salaries paid there in the various institutions, but rather- and I would say this is almost the complete reason-that in the United States they have vastly improved research facilities in which these scientists can work and develop their theories and practices. This, I am advised, is the principal reason these brilliant young doctors and dentists go to the United States to practise.
If we do not make available here in Canada the additional research facilities which are needed, not only for our own use, but in order to retain these young scientists we train each year, then we are going to continue to lose large numbers of doctors and dentists year after year. This is a catastrophic loss to our medical services, services which our people are going to need, and also an almost unbelievable dollar loss, because we have spent a great deal of money training these men who take their skills to another country.
I have been advised by senior men in the medical and dental professions who are in a position to know, that in order to catch up

June 21, 1966
Health Resources Fund with our lack of the necessary research facilities we should be spending now and for a number of years to come at least $100 million a year to provide the type of research facilities this country needs. I do not believe the provinces can afford to spend the money necessary to provide these research facilities in co-operation with the federal government, because they have to spend a great deal of the money they have available on additional hospitals and the other facilities which are needed, such as additional training facilities for their doctors, dentists, nurses and technicians. They simply are not going to have available the money to provide the additional research facilities which are needed.
I urge the minister to consider seriously having the federal government shoulder the whole research load and make available to the provinces the necessary funds so that their research effort can proceed in the manner which is necessary. I believe we are going to have to spend not $500 million in the next 15 years, but at least $500 million in the next five years, or three times the amount of money that is called for in this measure.
I agree with the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam when he mentions the need for a crash program to create the additional doctors, dentists, nurses and technicians who will be needed to make our vastly increased medical plans for the future operate successfully. As has been pointed out in the Hall report, in the next five years we will need 7,100 additional doctors, over and above those we have been training year by year, and an additional 2,100, I believe, additional dentists over and above those we have been training in the past. In addition we are going to have to train a great number of nurses and technicians to keep up with the needs which exist in their particular fields. During wartime we paid our young men and women on a year-round basis and trained them in a minimum time to do the jobs for which they were needed. We must consider our future medical needs on the same basis, in view of the plans we are going to put into operation. We must train our medical personnel in the same way as we trained our military personnel in wartime.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
During the past war I and many other Canadians took the war command and staff course, which normally required two years, in 16 weeks, or one sixth of the normal time. t am informed that the course we took was a more full, up to date, and demanding course
fMr. Hees.]
than the one spread over two years during peacetime. This is the kind of thing we must do today in respect of medical personnel. Those in training to become doctors, dentists, nurses and technicians must be paid and trained on a 12-month-per-year basis, by using the facilities we have available continuously, instead of on an eight or seven month basis, as we do at the present time.
We must not allow our training facilities to remain idle during the summer months while students go to work to earn enough money to continue their studies. We must pay these students on a full time basis and utilize the facilities in the same way. By doing so we would automatically add an additional third to the number of trained personnel we have without adding one brick or girder to our facilities. I strongly urge the minister to give very serious consideration to this proposal.
Finally I should like to speak about another problem with which we are faced today, even before embarking on this imaginative and greatly extended medical aid program. We must attract doctors and dentists to rural areas and then persuade them to stay and follow their professions in those areas. As in any other profession, the medical profession is built around our doctors, dentists and technicians, and some incentive must be provided to induce medical personnel to practice in rural areas, particularly in view of the greatly increased demand which will follow the establishment of any medicare program. I ask the minister to consider seriously the possibility of providing incentives to doctors and dentists to remain in these rural areas, compensating them in some way for the difficulties they experience because of the lack of hospitals and research facilities normally available in urban areas. Something must be done to make sure that in the future we have an adequate number of first class doctors and dentists in our rural areas, so that the medical and dental services we can make available under the medical services plan will be equitable no matter where people live.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the principle and purpose of this bill, and I concur in the criticisms that have been levelled in so far as the suggestion it does not go far enough to meet our immediate situation in respect of health services. I support the proposal that has been made to increase expenditures for the training of doctors, for research and for
June 21, 1966

the construction of buildings and the purchase of equipment. All these things are required in order successfully to provide adequate national medical service.
There is no need for me to repeat the arguments that have been so well advanced by previous speakers but I rise to emphasize one particular angle and to bring it to the attention of the minister. I do so because I am particularly interested in local participation in government sponsored plans wherever possible.
I come from a community that has done a great deal as a result of local effort and sacrifice. I might say that I have had some experience with the recruitment of doctors. I was one of a committee of three who recruited our first doctor, who was a gentleman who had lost his licence in Ontario. Fifty five years ago we persuaded him to come to our community and we promised him the job as bartender of the local saloon as a foundation for his security. He practised medicine for very small fees, sometimes just for a chicken, vegetables or whatever he might have needed. We made one other stipulation: He had to play the organ in the village church on Sunday night.
I may say that we were very glad he got his licence back when he joined the army in company with the hon. member for Kootenay West. In times of war the authorities overlooked past records. I have also had experience with hospital administration, and I helped to establish the first hospital in our district. I was the director of that hospital for 22 years and the president for several years, and I know what it is to establish and run a hospital in the backwoods as the result of local community effort.
We did establish a hospital in that area and we have a hospital today. This is a community with less than 1,000 people and the hospital is valued at something over $22,000. It has excellent bed services, x-ray equipment and modern operating facilities. Only the very serious cases in that area have to be taken a distance of approximately 100 miles to a larger centre. I pay tribute to the doctors and nurses who have worked in this hospital throughout the years. All of this was done as a result of local participation, local effort and, in many cases, local sacrifice.
When we have government sponsored programs, particularly in respect of health insurance or medicare plans, there is a tendency for local participation and interest to decline. I have seen this happen in recent years. I
Health Resources Fund simply rise at this time to bring this fact to the attention of the minister, because it is unfortunate when we do not have continued interest and participation in communities in support of local hospitals.
In connection with this program I urge the minister that everything be done to promote local interest and participation through a good public relations approach, and possibly as a result of the provision of information to local hospital boards in communities throughout the country. I am speaking from my lengthy experience in a small community, but I think the same applies to the towns and larger centres.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that people are not as happy today in the affluent society in Canada as they were in the pioneer days. You will ask why. Because many of them have no purpose in living and no direct interest in the society around them. The more local participation we can get in all these projects, the more successful they will be. I simply rise to bring this to the minister's attention. In view of the fact that possibly he has a somewhat similar background to mine, although probably on a more affluent level-anyway he has had similar experiences to mine-I do hope he will duly consider this aspect of the problem and get local people to co-operate with the provincial authorities and the federal government in securing for this development of health services in Canada the success it should have with our human and natural resources.


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: I should like to say a few words regarding the proposed Bill C-199. I must say I feel a bit like Oliver Twist in asking for more, in concert with so many others who have risen in the house tonight. The old cliche that politics makes strange bedfellows became, or is about to become a truism, when I find myself in the position of agreeing with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) on matters dealing with medicare. However, I hasten to qualify this by saying that I agree with his observations but not with his optimism. I agree that first of all there is a great need for medical facilities in this stepped-up program. I use the word "stepped-up" because the word "crash" has been overdone and it has overtones which perhaps in my profession are not always considered laudable. A stepped-up program is very necessary before medicare as proposed by the government can be brought in.
June 21/ 1966

Health Resources Fund
The hon. member mentioned 21 days. It seems to me that this is unreasoned optimism, in view of the fact that the guide line of 60 days on which the government operated previously has fallen by the wayside quite recently. I believe, as other speakers have said, that this program should have started a long time ago. In 1964 the medical profession approached the minister of health of that time with proposals for the type of fund which is before the house today. I support the principle of a health resources fund but, as I have said before, I do not believe this legislation is sufficient and I believe that some very important aspects have been left out. The fact that nowhere in the bill can we find any reference to assistance in the operating costs of these institutions that will be provided is,
I believe, a very serious defect. In the letter which was presented to the conference of health ministers in September of last year, the Canadian Medical Association pointed this out. This is also pointed out in a brief prepared this year by the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges. On page 9 of this brief which was prepared by J. F. McCreary, M.D., president of the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges, this is said:
The Royal Commission on Health Services recommended strengthening and expansion of Canadian medical schools through funds provided by federal sources-the health professions university grant. Although the health resources fund has been announced to assist with the construction and expansion of training schools for the health professions. no similar arrangement has been made for increased operational support of medical schools.
There is no provision in this bill to take care of this serious problem of operating costs.
Much has been said about the need for various types of personnel. Reference has already been made by other hon. members to the need for dental and paramedical personnel. As is stated in volume 2 of the report of the Royal Commission on Health Services, tremendous strides must be made in the training of personnel in the paramedical field. This would include physiotherapists and personnel in other related endeavours.
This bill points out the necessity of constructing buildings and providing them with equipment. Is this enough? I do not believe it is. You can build a barn but if you do not have cows to put in it you cannot set up a dairy business. I do not believe that by simply constructing buildings and placing wonderful equipment in them you will automatically provide better medical care and


will automatically get people to stall these buildings.
As has been pointed out by the Canadian Medical Association in the brief at a conference to which I have referred previously:
It is currently observable that certain institutions already built are unable to be used to their full potential because of the lack of trained personnel to operate them. Bricks and mortar are important but the supply of personnel is equally important.
There is laboratory space now available in Canada and not being used. I have already mentioned in this house that in my home city of Saskatoon the University Hospital, which is a very modern hospital, last summer had to close some of its wards which were waiting for patients because there was no personnel available to staff those wards. Am I to understand that if another building is put up alongside the University Hospital there will automatically be enough personnel as soon as the crash program is started? I do not think so. I believe that if this bill does not provide for an increase in personnel, another bill should be drafted which will provide the incentives mentioned by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees), incentives not only for those living in rural areas but to bring back to this country and keep here the type of medical personnel that we will need.
I do not think it is good enough to say that as it is the responsibility of the provinces to look after health and welfare it is they who should come up with a plan. I think it is up to the government to give leadership in this field. If the government is to commit itself to a plan of medical care for all of Canada, then they should be committed to making sure that sufficient personnel is available.
Now we come to the matter of priorities. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said that we need this program immediately and that it should have the highest priority, and I agree with him. However, I wonder whether the minister agrees with this. I have here a speech made by the minister to the annual meeting of the Canadian Dental Association held in the Nova Scotian Hotel in Halifax on June 15, 1966. I actually read it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What a surprise.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: It will be a surprise to the minister when I have finished, I am sure. It is said in the brief:
The first phase of the program will concentrate on bringing adequate medical services within the reach of all the population, regardless of their financial status.
June 21, 1966

This is not quite sufficient.
I wish to quote from page 3 of the speech where he says:
The Hall Commission did not contemplate that all its recommendations should, or indeed could, be put into effect at once. As a government we have the responsibility of determining the priorities -which gaps should be closed first and which programs would provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people without imposing an undue burden on the economy. We decided that two major first steps were needed: to ensure that Canadians had access to the best possible medical care, when they need it and without regard to their ability to pay, and secondly to help ensure that the country has the facilities and personnel to provide these services on a universal basis.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The minister went on to say this:
These are the minimum first steps which must be taken in bringing health care of the highest calibre within the reach of all Canadians.
The minister still has not said which comes first. Then, he says this:
But, we have, I hope made it clear that comprehensive physicians' services are the initial minimum.
There is no suggestion here about the provision of the personnel to operate the scheme. He wants to introduce the scheme first and then worry about the other later. Perhaps this bill, good as it is but still inadequate, is the minister's answer, I do not know. Does he honestly believe that the introduction of a scheme at this late date will allow him to provide the services to operate it? Interestingly enough, since the minister was speaking to a group of dentists, he goes on to discuss dental care and its relationship to the Hall Commission report. On page 4 of the speech, we find this:
Preliminary studies within my department indicate that the provision of dental services to only 5 per cent more of the Canadian population by 1975 will require additional treatment facilities equivalent to a thousand more dentists. If even this modest goal is to be achieved, the time available for further consideration must be severely limited and the training of whatever type of additional personnel may be required must be initiated on a significant scale as soon as possible.
Then the minister goes on to suggest-and this will interest you-that it will be 20 years before they can introduce dental care. An immediate start must be made on training personnel. But what is he saying now? It is suggested that a medical care program be introduced immediately. Never in my life have I read such absolute nonsense. I will not mention how many doctors we are going to need in the next few years, because those statistics have already been given. I leave it 23033-427
Health Resources Fund up to you to calculate the percentages we are going to be mentioning in the next few years.
There is another aspect mentioned in the Royal Commission report on health services which is not touched in this bill. The subject of research has been referred to by many speakers. Is it only a shortage of facilities again? I ask, is there any provision going to be made for more money for research? Provide the funds to conduct research in depth, and you will attract people. Let me read from page 111 of the Hall Commission report, volume II:
The deficiency in the field of health research is not so much the shortage of funds to provide qualified research workers with the support they require, although there is a shortage of such funds, but a shortage of qualified research personnel. This may be due to a loss of staff to the United States-
We have already shown that part of the problem results from this fact.
-but is more clearly associated with the failure to develop a national manpower policy for the expansion of the supply of Canadian-trained physicians and dentists.
This national manpower policy with regard to physicians, dentists, nurses and so on, is of very high importance in connection with this matter before the house tonight. The commission goes on to say once again that the problem is essentially one of expanding the supply of research personnel, more than the provision of funds, and they use dentistry research as an example.
These are just a few of the matters to which I wanted to refer this evening. I think they are the important ones. I should like to see the government give earnest consideration to the provision of incentives to bring back many of the scientists who have left our country, many of the trained teachers. I suggest part of this incentive might be monetary, because if you ask some of these people why they are in the United States they will tell you that the salary difference is one attraction. The type of research they are doing is also a consideration. The facilities are good, I will go along with that, but we need more. They are not enough, by themselves. I should like to see this done as soon as possible.
The Gundy report, as it is called, points out the need for a tremendous amount of money to be put into medical research in Canada. They make the point that, not by providing people, not by providing medical care, are you going to have sufficient trained personnel for medical research. I believe the minister is in this

June 21, 1966
Health Resources Fund group of optimists because he said the other day, as reported in Hansard at page 6377:
Such a ' ( fram will undoubtedly help to create a professional climate which will attract increasing numbers of able people to the study and practice of medicine and related professions, and will thereby improve still further the quality of care available to our people.
Well said, sir, but what does it mean? It means nothing unless you are willing to do what has to be done to provide the type of incentive for people to engage in medical research. You will attract them by giving them funds and this, I am sure, will benefit the people of Canada not only today but in the future.
I think probably I have said enough at this moment, and I see the minister is agreeing. I should like to refer to just a few newspaper headlines to bolster my opinions. "Medical inequalities would need millions", and that is from the Montreal Star. The Star Phoenix carries this headline, "Medical research crisis". I do not like to read from newpapers because I think they sometimes have a tendency to try to tell us how to run the house, but I should like to read this reference to the Gundy report:
Specifically, the report calls for $150 million for new buildings and equipment in the next five years-
The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) referred to this figure.
-and $100 million a year by 1970 to staff and operate medical research projects.
I will be generous; I will use four years, and say we need $400 million for research funds. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
1Translation1


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill providing for the establishment of a health resources fund to assist provinces in the acquisition, construction and renovation of health training facilities and research institutions. The purpose of this bill is to attract an increasing number of competent persons to the study and practice of medicine and medical support occupations.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is, in my opinion, another indirect interference in the field of education connected, in the spirit of this bill, to medical training. The new Quebec government is opposed to such an interference on the part of the central government. That is why I suggest, in order to prevent conflicts and tensions prejudicial to the country and

to national unity, to postpone the passing of this bill, so as to allow the new Quebec government to look into it and meet the central authorities in order to agree on terms and conditions.
Anyhow, this attitude of the province of Quebec is not new. During the last federal-provincial conference, the minister of health, Mr. Kierans, speaking on behalf of the province of Quebec of three essential conditions for co-operation in a field as ticklish as this said:
The creation of this fund is acceptable on three conditions.
First of all, money must be granted per capita; secondly, the Quebec government will be the only one having authority to ask and receive money from the fund; thirdly, the Quebec government itself will decide upon its use.
Mr. Speaker, according to the bill the central government reserves the right to distribute at its discretion, and by order in council, a great part that is $125 million of the fund of $500 million. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government, prior to June 5, 1966, and the new government, are absolutely opposed to this arbitrary way in which the central government will distribute, at its own discretion, a substantial part of this fund intended for health training facilities.
That is another example and even if I am one of the few who speak in that spirit in the house, I will do it until my term expires. Even if sometimes that attitude might bring a smile to the lips of the government members from the province of Quebec, we will see in the years to come who will have the opportunity to smile in this house and who will be wearing slippers at home after the next federal election.
Those problems, Mr. Speaker, must not be solved unilaterally, with that attitude, which I would call indifference and even arrogance towards the opinion of certain provinces and that of the province of Quebec, of always carrying the initiatives of the central government into exclusively provincial fields of jurisdiction.
Personally, when I observe the present government interfering in all the fields of Canadian activity, I cannot see any further reasons for having a Canadian constitution in this country and talking about a federative system in Canada. We have gone beyond that, following all those activities in the manifold details of Canadian life. The needs are great and several hon. members explained airily, with a great display of knowledge, that in the field of medical training
June 21, 1966
and research the needs are urgent and necessary. I agree that those needs exist and that the central government takes an interest in those problems and needs, but according to the Canadian constitution and under a federative system, it is not all justified to interfere in those problems, to engage in the game of "one-upmanship" with the provinces, to keep the larger share of the fiscal cake in Canada and to prevent the provinces from assuming their own responsibilities.
Are the provinces considered mentally retarded in that particular field since we are talking about health? What competence does the present government give the provinces, what intelligence does it grant to the administrators of the ten provincial governments? In the last few weeks or even months, we have had the impression that the present Liberal government is not giving credit for any intelligence to the administrators of the ten provincial governments, does not have enough confidence in them to allow those people to assume their responsibilities. It will be said that such and such a province did not assume a particular field of responsibility, did not take any initiative; it is very easy to understand because the central government, pretexting wars and economic crises, collected all the revenue from taxes in Canada and refuses to give back to the provinces their share of the taxation field.
How could the provinces, British Columbia, Nova Scotia or any other, including Quebec, have enough money to establish these very Health Resources Funds intended for training facilities, when the central government, like Scrooge, like a jealous and all-powerful Croesus, is keeping in its treasury three quarters of Canadian tax revenue? There lies the problem. It is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that members from the province of Quebec, fully aware of the views and aspirations of their fellow-citizens and of their province rise only to flatter their government. I predict that, some day, they will be appointed ministers, parliamentary secretaries, or sent on marvelous journeys around the world. But they are not fulfilling the mandate entrusted by the Fathers of our Canadian Confederation to us all legislators, until we amend the Constitution, and calling upon us to respect the principles of federalism and the responsibilities of the central government as well as of the provincial governments.
I am not surprised to see some members opposite smiling, or laughing their heads off.
23033-427i
Health Resources Fund I know that people in some quarters are not giving a rap about the aspirations of certain Canadians and of a certain province; but they may realize later on that by keeping the lid on Canadian federalism, and striving towards a unitary system, they will bring about severe conflicts in Canada and the responsible ones will be the very people who kept their eyes shut or who, ostrich-like, stuck their heads in the sand.
I have here the text of the 1867 Constitution, and I dare any member in the house, as well as the hon. minister, to tell me under what provision of the Canadian Constitution, which will remain in force until we amend it, the central government has the right to interfere in the field constituting the substance of this bill.
On the contrary, the object of this bill comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces as, in 1867, all local, regional, civil, professional, social and educational questions were assigned exclusively to the provinces, under a stipulated compact, within a confederative pact. And neither a province nor the central government has the right to change the agreements accepted at that time, in order to meddle in various fields.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Here is an opportunity for centralization rampant in Ottawa. And it is nothing new. For instance in 1919, Ottawa began to meddle in the health field, in social questions, by the passing of an act to contribute to the fight against venereal diseases and to create a public health department, although health and the social field belong to the provinces.
In 1942, Ottawa went even farther into the social and educational field of vocational training. In 1944, it set up the Department of National Health and Welfare. In 1948, it adopted a national program of health and hygiene by providing 13 subsidies. And today, it forges ahead in medical training, adding to the increasing centralization of powers and taxation in Canada which has been the only cause of dissension and misunderstanding between Canadians from Halifax to Vancouver.
Here again this evening we have another example of what is referred to, in fashionable circles, as co-operative federalism, that milk-and-water creation; instead of following the dictates and fundamental principles of true

June 21, 1966

Health Resources Fund federalism, the main principles of which were included in our Canadian constitution, people talk of co-operative federalism to excuse the trespassing, the meddling in exclusively provincial spheres of jurisdiction. We are told that the central government will reach agreements and co-operate with the provinces, and so, we will solve the country's problems. But see how this is done, Mr. Speaker. The central government, moved by a spirit of arrogance and domination, penetrates unilaterally, in a given field, without the ultimate and complete consent of the provinces, or at least that of Quebec, invades a given field, and having moved in, tells the provinces: See, that is what we can do. And out of the funds it distributes, it can allot $175 million, if it so wishes, by order in council, and as it sees fit, to a field of provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, newspapermen and public figures were right in saying that this cooperative federalism is just another excuse to justify more unrestrained centralization of powers and authority for the benefit of the federal government and that this amounts to centralization by agreement. It is nothing else, Mr. Speaker. Ottawa trespasses in an area outside its jurisdiction and when it is installed, it plays the liberal, the generous, the debonaire; the central government even plays Santa Claus by making offers right and left to the provinces and saying: Here, we have the money, because we have decided to give you this and that.
Mr. Speaker, here is another bill that will increase the mistrust and misunderstanding between Canadians and in spite of the rumblings I can hear, I challenge their authors to rise, even with the sarcastic smile showing on their faces, to show me in the constitution of Canada, the legality of this bill which is precisely contrary not only to the letter, but to the very spirit of the Canadian constitution.
I know that my own solitary intervention may be unilateral, but this will not prevent both sides of the house from maintaining this centralizing regime because it is based not only on rights but on needs. But, if within six months to a year, fundamental pressures or conflicts unfortunately occur- that would be cruel for the country-the responsibility for such tensions and conflicts will not rest with the province of Quebec but with those who, indifferent and allpowerful, take upon themselves powers that are not theirs and invade tax fields which belong to the other level of government.
IMr. Allard.]
That is why we, various members from
both sides of the house, have been asking, ever since the session began three months ago-I see some of them at their desks, others in the lobbies-in all good faith and fully aware of the implications, because of the problems which have developed in our country and of the new problems which have cropped up and did not exist in 1867, for the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee to enable us, legislators of the Canadian parliament, since we are just as intelligent as the Fathers of Confederation who, in 1867, settled the problems of their time, to solve them now together, within the framework established to that effect, rather than in the unilateral manner being followed by the present central government.
We are asking for a parliamentary committee on the constitution in order that senators and members of this house may sit here and define fairly, according to changing times and problems, a constitution within a true federalism, taking into account the disagreements and differences which exist in 1966 but which did not in 1867. That is what we are asking and what is the government doing? Nothing, it is asleep. I am looking at several members and telling them: At the next federal election, go back before the people and explain why you are preventing those who came here, in all sincerity and honesty, to settle the problems of 1966, why you prevent the members of either side from settling those problems. You are allowing such tensions and pressures to continue. Well, you will have to bear that responsibility, not only in your very heart, but also in the face of the whole country.
We are precisely requesting some reforms. Fiscal reforms are a must. Constitutional reforms are a must. It is necessary to examine problems of education, health, industrial problems within a new concept, a concept of 1966 or 1967. I cannot understand, although some members on this side of the house may call this a poor performance, how those who have come here, not to go to sleep, not to deceive the people, but to settle the problems of the country, are being refused this opportunity to establish a committee once and for all, because we Canadians, from Halifax to Vancouver, from Calgary, Fredericton, Toronto, North Bay, from everywhere, from coast to coast, need to live as brothers and with trust. But we are denied this opportunity, because initiatives which cause tensions, misunderstandings and defiance
June 21, 1966
between Canadians are allowed to become established. Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why I wanted to raise again this particular matter tonight.
I have high hopes that the present government will give serious thought to the situation before bringing forward other similar legislation. It is not only tonight's bill; recently it was the field of culture, and yesterday, that of federal loans to students, an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. I challenge hon. members of this house who are in favour of unrestrained centralization, to show me what, in the Canadian constitution, empowers the central government to handle everything and to handle it very badly at that.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The province of Quebec is not a separatist province; the province does not want separation from the rest of Canada. On the contrary, it is an hospitable province, it is a good-natured province. It is a province of good faith and its patriots want to live with the rest of the country, but on the same footing. They do not want always to be pushed around as is done through this legislation which conflicts with the aspirations and the sacred agreements which were passed in 1867.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I would be vexed with myself if I did not give my impressions on this bill and on the infringement of the federal government in provincial jurisdictions. I wish to support sincerely and wholeheartedly, the statements and the remarks made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard).
It is true that the federal government interferes in the field of provincial institutions; it is true that it does not behoove the federal government to encroach on provincial affairs; it is true that the provinces are able to administer themselves; it is true that we are short of doctors in Canada, as well as technicians in various fields, but this is not the fault of the provinces. Indeed, it is that of the federal government.
I would say also that it is the fault of the citizens, who failed to assume their responsibilities; that of the ministers, organizers and controllers of the federal government, who have refused to perform their duties. They only took the whole piece, they took over everything coming under provincial jurisdiction.
I absolutely agree with the hon. member for Sherbrooke that this constitution needs to be reformed. The provinces know their needs
Health Resources Fund and it is up to them to ask for the necessary reforms. The federal government has only to give credit to these provinces so that they may develop normally without periodically going into debt.
Technology in all fields must be helped. There is no lack of young people ready to become technicians and doctors. Many would like to become doctors. Medicine is a vocation. Many young people cannot become doctors because they do not have the means.
A student must get $25,000 to $30,000 in debt to become a doctor and then incur further debts to the tune of $50,000 to buy a property, a car, everything he needs to set up practice. On top of this the people are burdened with income tax and other federal and provincial taxes. People are then unable to develop their potential. That is why many are unable to reach their goal. There is no lack of human material, but what is lacking is financial means.
And that is because the financial institution is not fulfilling its role, achieving its object. It falls directly to the Minister of Finance to reform that institution. It is the sole responsibility of that Minister and all the other ministers of the present government.
All we have to do here in Parliament is give the provinces the necessary financial institutions and means and they will take care of fiscality and education. In all fields of endeavour, provinces know what they want, know where to go. They know where to get their technicians, how to build hospitals. There is no need for the federal government to butt in everywhere. It does not have to control everything, to socialize everything. We do not want socialism; we want free enterprise; we want our citizens to be free to organize their way of life as they wish, as they see fit, according to their own aspirations. *
That is what we need in Canada, Mr. Speaker. If we cannot achieve this, and give the provinces what they need, their fiscal powers, their rights in every field of provincial jurisdiction, if we cannot do this, then we are heading toward anarchy. The provinces will not tolerate indefinitely that the federal government monopolize all powers of taxation and all powers over institutions. The provinces want to manage their own affairs, the citizens in every province want to use their own initiative, for they are capable of developing their provinces themselves.
That is why I fully support the hon. member for Sherbrooke. He is well qualified to



June 21, 1966
Health Resources Fund speak of the constitution. He brought to light the constitutional principles of provincial governments with respect to the federal government.
I ask each minister to take his responsibilities; I also ask the Minister of Finance to take his responsibilities in the financial field and to organize a financial regime which
would make financially possible what is physically possible and feasible in our country.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I can hardly allow
the last two speeches to go without saying a word. I was not supposed to speak on this matter but when on hearing statements as those made by the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) to the effect that the federal government takes everything and gives nothing to the provinces, I feel I must rise and say that there is some intellectual dishonesty there.
The preamble of the bill reads in part as follows:
-to assist provinces in the acquisition, construction and renovation-
The federal government has prepared a bill in such a way that all provinces will have the same system so as to organize health properly in Canada.
Organization was essential and the federal government has chosen that method. The member who has just resumed his seat said a while ago: We are short of doctors and that is the fault of the federal government. But how could it be the fault of the federal government if we are short of doctors?
Doctors were always trained by our universities, and if we are short of doctors, it is because in our institutions, they were not given the opportunity to become doctors.
Today, the province of Quebec is reorganizing such courses so as to permit young people to carry on medical studies without having to follow a special course leading to literature rather than sciences; this will permit people to become doctors more easily, and the member also said that the federal government is to provide funds to those provinces. That is precisely what is being done; funds are provided to provinces so that they may organize, nothing else, and that is exactly what you are asking for.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) says: We are destroying confederation, and the province of Quebec is not responsible for that. I say that statement is completely false.
[Mr. Latulippe.l
The federal government always took the precaution of concluding an agreement with the provinces before doing anything; it always asked the provinces what they intended to do. It never imposed itself upon them nor does it intend to do so, and that is the reason why I say that this bill is absolutely necessary at the present time.
It is my contention that the hon. member- he just left the house-was wrong in condemning the federal government. I agree that his government has come to power in Quebec a few days ago, but this does not warrant a complete reversal of his position.
We are here to organize provincial welfare in the fields of health and labour, and within every existing organization. The federal government had to step in so that the provinces think in the same way. I maintain that our intervention is justified, that the government is to be commended for its action, with which I wholeheartedly concur.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak since one of our members already did, but following the intervention of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) who tried to refute the assertions of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), I must do so in order to point out that the argument of the member for Hull, as a French Canadian representative to the parliament in Ottawa, is very weak.
When hon. members say that there is a lack of doctors, teachers and technicians in the province of Quebec, they are right. And when they ask: who is to blame? The answer is: the federal government. And that is also true. Why? Precisely because, during the last war, the federal government took over the three main fields of taxation in the province of Quebec, leading it to think that they would be given back to her at the end of the war. The war has been over for 20 years and the federal government still keeps the land tax which the province of Quebec needs to provide training for its doctors, technicians and teachers.
When it is suggested that we lack such a thing on account of the federal government, this is what it means. We are not trying to evade the issue, we are going straight to the point. Give us back our taxation fields, give us back what we lent to you in the last war, and I assure you that the province of Quebec will have enough doctors; Laval University in Quebec city will not turn down, as it does every year, from 75 to 80 students who are
June 21, 1966

unable to further their studies for lack of space.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the statement of the member for Hull (Mr. Caron), but I am even more at the unquestioning and submissive silence of all our French Canadians within the Liberal party who dare not raise their voice. They had orders to let this bill pass. Whether it is anticonstitutional or not, it does not matter; the caucus decided so and it must be done. I say that this bill is the most anticonstitutional I have seen since the beginning of this session. It seems that the government is in a hurry to shower on us, at a rate of one or two a week, such bills which intrude in the affairs of Quebec. They seem to be trying to get away with it before the next Quebec government catches up with them. I am very anxious to witness the meetings with a man from Quebec who will finally stand on his feet.
When I saw the Quebec premier demanding the taxation fields after having surrendered them himself when he was minister of northern affairs, I failed to understand this amazing buffoonery. But the Quebeckers did, and I sincerely hope the present Quebec team will act as true Quebeckers and will sit around a table with the federal members in order to finally recover the rights which belong to the province of Quebec and make the whole population understand that the French Canadian jokers on the government side of the house will not always retain their seats.
In Quebec, there is a dearth of doctors, of professional men because our universities are overcrowded. And apparently, the whole problem is dependant on federal authorities.
I wonder if my hon. friends opposite who are rejoicing over the return to power of the present provincial government will recall that in 1942, a former colleague of the present premier who is now a judge of the superior court, stated before the Kiwanis Club in Montreal that our forefathers had been brought up in ignorance and that it would be treason to give instruction to our people because we would find happiness in ignorance.
Mr. Speaker, little wonder that between 1942 to 1960, there was a dearth of accommodation in our universities.
Fortunately, since 1960, the question of education in Quebec has been on the program of the former government. And only one thing is desirable, and it is that the present government continues in the footsteps of the Lesage
Health Resources Fund government and that there will soon be room in the universities.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must advise the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, a number of points have been raised by hon. members in the debate that I would like to deal with very briefly, but before doing so I wish to thank hon. members for their participation in the debate and for the contributions they have made to a better understanding of the health resources fund.
An apparent concern of a number of hon. members has been with respect to the size of the fund-is it large enough to meet the estimated needs in the field of health training in the immediate future? I hope that my comments will be of such a nature as to remove a good deal of the concern that has been expressed on this particular matter.
Hon. members may have had a chance to look at the report to the conference of ministers by the ad hoc technical committee on the health resources fund. As the report indicates, each of the representatives of the provinces was asked to supply preliminary estimates of provincial needs so far as these needs related to the areas coming within the scope of the health resources fund. The total amounts by provinces, as made available to the ad hoc committee, indicated that the approximate needs were in the range of $1 billion. Through this legislation the federal government is putting up an amount equal to one half of the needs in this field as estimated by the provinces.
Also to assist in removing the concern expressed by hon. members, I should like to refer to one paragraph found at page 11 of the report of the ad hoc committee, which reads as follows:
The committee worked on the premise that the $500 million in the fund was an estimate of need and that the federal government might be prepared to reconsider this amount when needs were more clearly defined.
The fact is that this sum was arrived at as a result of consultation with the provinces as to their needs. It has been confirmed by the ad hoc technical committee, and reported as such to the conference of ministers, and no province has suggested that this amount is inadequate to meet the estimated needs in the

June 21, 1966
Health Resources Fund field of providing capital facilities for training in the health sciences. My guess, Mr. Speaker, is that the amounts that will be readily available from this fund will not be taken up in the early years by projects submitted by the provinces. My guess is that this fund is more than adequate to meet the estimated needs in the immediate period ahead.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Hon. gentlemen raised another important point with regard to the allocation of funds. They asked whether funds are to be allocated on an annual basis. Funds will not necessarily be allocated on an annual basis. They will be made available as projects are brought forward. No project in any province will be held up because a strict annual allotment is being applied to the allocation of these funds. That also removes the major concern expressed by hon. members.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) raised a question with regard to the requirement that an over-all plan be made available to the minister, supported by the advisory committee, from which individual projects would be drawn for approval. We will ask for an over-all plan from any province so that there will be an orderly development in this field, and so that projects will not come forward on a haphazard basis. We not only expect but provide that the fund will be applicable from the first of this year, and that current programs will be eligible for support from the health resources fund.
Yesterday when I was in Vancouver I had an opportunity to discuss with the dean of the medical faculty at the University of British Columbia the plans of that institution for its new health sciences centre. Next Thursday the sod turning for this tremendous, major and in a sense pioneer development will take place. This will be supported from the health resources fund. I understand that this has been in the development and planning stage for a period of seven years. This project now will go ahead and the amount which will be available from the health resources fund for that particular project I understand will be in the amount of $18 million. That is a very significant sum to be made available for one particular health complex on one particular campus in Canada. The same application of the principle should be made to other institutions of Canada which have on-going plans and on-going preparations which are eligible for support under the health resources fund.
[Mr. MacEachen.l
I appreciate that certain aspects which have been raised in this debate are of great significance, but they are more directly related to another issue which will be before the house later this session, and I hope very shortly, namely the medicare insurance bill. I forego the opportunity to deal with the question of the shortage of personnel in anticipation that a full opportunity will be afforded for debate on this issue in a more relevant context when dealing with the medicare legislation itself.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) brought to our attention a very important point, namely his wish that the development of governmental plans shall not interfere with or inhibit local participation or local initiative. Had the hon. member listened to or read my speech which I made in Vancouver he would have realized that I agree fully with him in this instance, and agree also with this very interesting but incisive comment that possibly some of the major problems involving Canada today are problems of affluence rather than problems of deprivation. It is unfortunate I do not have more time to deal with this rather interesting by-path that was brought to our attention by the hon. member for Kootenay West.
I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) with regard to preserving the constitutional responsibility of the provinces in the health field. I should like to remind him that this proposal which is now before the house is the product of the most careful and intensive consultation with all provincial governments. An ad hoc committee composed of the deputy ministers of all the provinces met and reported to the conference of health ministers. The legislation before the house is a product, an agreed conclusion, of the conference of health ministers representing all the provinces.
I hope I am not misstating the situation when I say that the bill before the house substantially represents the views put forward by the province of Quebec at that particular conference of health ministers. In each case we will respect the right of a province to put forward its own project for approval by the governor in council and by the minister. No project will be accepted unless it is put forward by a provincial government. The framework of the legislation, the allocation of funds, the advisory committee structure, the purpose for which the moneys will be spent,
June 21, 1966

all have been dealt with at federal-provincial discussions, and this certainly is not arrogant centralizing legislation.
On the other hand it is the result of consultation and collaboration with the provinces of Canada. Because it is a result of this collaboration and consultation, it will make a substantial contribution to the provision of health resources in Canada. I commend this bill to the house for second reading.
[Translation1


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister.
Is it a fact that during the last federal-provincial conference, the government of the province of Quebec represented by the honourable Eric Kierans, objected to the amount of $175 million that the central government, under the bill, now proposes to distribute according to its own whims and fancies by order in council?
[English1


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to withhold an answer to this question until we are dealing with the clauses in the bill with regard to the allocation of funds. I would be very glad to discuss it at that time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate the business for tomorrow. We will start with the estimates of the Department of Labour; then the estimates of the Department of Fisheries; then No. 77 on the order paper, the Atlantic Development Board Act resolution; then No. 55, the bill to provide for the establishment of The Company of Young Canadians; and then No. 61, the bill relating to the National Arts Centre.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I should like to mention that there are two Canadian National Railways branch line resolutions which will be on the order paper. I am not sure whether or not the notice has been given tonight. I mention this so that members will have notice of it. One bill relates to a branch line in Saskatchewan to service a potash plant and the other relates to a branch line in Manitoba to service a copper-zinc mine. Since they are C.N.R. bills they will require a resolution stage. Once they appear on the order paper I hope that
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the resolution stage can be dealt with in order that the bills can be brought forward and passed promptly. I felt that I should give notice in this regard tonight.
On Thursday we propose to deal with legislation throughout the day, so hon. members should be prepared to debate any legislative item that appears on the order paper. On Monday we will continue with consideration of the Bank Act revision resolution.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, on June 8 I directed the following question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who is now, I believe, responsible for Indian affairs. The question appears at page 6139 of Hansard for that date:
Did the minister receive a petition from the Alberta Indian Teachers Association setting out certain grievances with regard to Indian schools, mentioning particularly the lack of proper medical attention and sanitation facilities? Is he aware that eight teachers have resigned because of the situation, and has he any comment to make?
Since that time there has been some discussion of Indian affairs during our consideration of the estimates. As a result of this question I asked the minister to investigate the educational, medical and other services that exist on Indian reservations, particularly in Alberta and more particularly at Morley and Gleichen in respect of the two tribes, the Stony and Blackfoot Indians. As a result of my letter to the minister I received a four page reply which in fact appeared to deny many of the facts contained in the article carried in the Calgary Herald and later in the Calgary Albertan.
I may say at the outset that any remarks I make should not be taken as criticism of the present minister, in view of the fact that he has only recently taken over this portfolio. I hope my remarks will be of some assistance to him in his thinking with reference to this matter.
My question was asked as a direct result of an article which appeared in the June 8 edition of the Calgary Herald. I do not lay
June 21. 1966
6740	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion any blame on the present minister tor the grievances that now exist because he has just, as I said, taken over this portfolio following reorganization. Unfortunately the ministers have changed so often as far as Indian affairs are concerned that they have failed to become knowledgeable of Indian affairs.
The letter written by the minister I am sure was of the same type that would have been written by former ministers-Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Favreau and, indeed, probably the ministers of the former government -because the department has been laying down a certain policy for so long that the Indians themselves are never asked what they consider to be the remedy for their problems in respect of education, medical services and, indeed, making a living. I once referred to this as the cod liver oil treatment. It is much like grandmother saying to a grandchild: Open your mouth, this is what you need; it is good for you.
I am sure the present minister will achieve nothing to improve the lot of Indians by continuing the policies of his predecessors, and I am sure he will not benefit by listening to the officials of his department. He could achieve more by visiting these reservations and talking to the Indians themselves.
I should like to quote from a letter written by Dr. B. A. Waldron. I know my time is limited but I should like to confirm that what he has stated in his letter of June 1, 1966 is factual on the basis of my experience during more than 25 visits to the reservations at Gleichen and Morley during the last 10 years.
I might add that before I became elected as a member of parliament I was made an honorary chief of both the Stony and Blackfoot tribes. This man has been providing medical attention to these Indians for a number of years and he states in his letter, in part:
My experience with treating these Indians has made me aware that their present medical and social welfare is at a standard far below that avail-ble to the residents of Canmore and Exshaw. I believe that the life expectancy for a Canadian Indian is half that for a Canadian European and I have knowledge of at least six deaths among Indians at Morley during the past 18 months which almost certainly would not have occurred had the medical facilities been the same as in Canmore.
I will send a copy of this letter to the minister because I do not have time to quote it all, but it points out the seriousness of the situation. For example he says that a building was constructed in Morley in 1930 when the population in the reserve was far less numerous than it is now. Although it is called a
[Mr. Woolliams.l

hospital it has not functioned as one for some years. The minister will say that those Indians are of course allowed to go into Calgary, but anybody who knows anything about the standard of living at Morley or Gleichen would know that the Indians cannot afford the gasoline for a car to take their sick people to the city of Calgary. These facts have existed for a long time, long before the present minister took over.
I am convinced the minister should be getting advice, not from his officials but from men who understand physcology, skilled anthropologists and sociologists such as Dr. Vernon Seri and Dr. Arthur Davis of the sociological department of the University of Calgary. As long as he takes advice from the same crowd of people from whom he has been getting it in the past, these Indians will continue to live in the state of poverty in which they have been for years. I do not mean this in any disrespectful way by any means but I hope the minister will ameliorate the situation and in that way make a name for himself.
I have spoken on this subject many a time. Too often we have been prone to criticize our neighbours to the south in reference to their treatment and understanding of the American negro. However, our treatment of the Canadian Indian is far more lacking in understanding. We have almost confined him to a form of concentration camp where, in some cases, he gets treaty money of $5 a year and $15 twice a year as interest on band funds. At the same time we keep eroding away the area known as the reserve. What other income has he but family allowance on which to live?
Eight teachers have resigned from the schools on the two reservations which I mentioned. I appreciate the time which the minister took to write me a letter setting out these details but the fact is that these teachers have resigned to go to other positions to which they would not be going if they were getting a fair deal on the reservation. I may say I had a conversation with one of them in reference to a letter he has written to the department, in which he said that their griev-ences were correctly set out in the newpapers but they could not afford to have their names bandied about when working as provincial employees.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.
June 21, 1966


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is one more matter with which I should like to deal. I will not take much longer.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recommend that we set up a form of educational system equal in standard to schools
which serve the rest of the communities in Alberta, and above all we must set up a royal commission on Indian affairs. I suggest that Indian representatives should sit on that royal commission because they are the ones who know their own culture and their own province best.
In this connection I wish to quote the
following poem:
We are a part of all that we have met;
Each is needed by each one,
And nothing is good alone.
If this matter is brought before a parliamentary committee, all that will be achieved is that these Indians will listen to the officials of the department but will continue to live in conditions of squalor.
Their educational standard is far below that of the other people in the province of Alberta and they really can be categorized as second class citizens because of the conditions to which we have subjected them. I hope the minister will take what I say very seriously, because I have never been more serious on any problem.


Arthur Laing: In replying to the hon. member I will not take issue with his statements because I have not been on either of these reservations. I have some knowledge of the conditions existing in the average Indian reservation. I am not proud of that and I do not think this house should be proud of it. However, I am of the opinion tha't on the average the reservations in the province of Alberta are probably equal, or even superior, to most of the reservations in Canada. There are therefore in some of these reservations some lands that are extremely valuable. There are returns to the Indian people, by way of oil leases and agriculture, that are above average.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I do not know all the facts connected with these particular incidents. The hon. member has suggested we should get to know more about the Indian problem. This is precisely why the committee on Indian affairs has
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion undertaken to send out committee members to see a number of reservations. We are going to break up the committee into three or four parts so we can get some members out physically to see conditions on the reserves. I feel this is a splendid move. I want them to be representative reservations. I do not want members to see all bad reservations or all good reservations, but to see a fair cross section of reservations in the country.
We have been endeavouring to work with the provinces in the field of education. We want to move all the Indian children into the provincial school system as rapidly as possible. In British Columbia today we have 47 per cent of all the Indian children in the school system of that province. So far we have not done so well in Alberta. There are 4,048 children in federal schools and 3,045 in provincial schools. We hope to extend the facilities ordinarily given to every other citizen except the Indian. In Alberta, we have approached the government with a project under which we will carry 90 per cent of the cost for two types of program. Alberta has indicated they will accept the community program, but they do not want the welfare program. We wish they would accept both of these programs because we are very heavy contributors, to the extent of 90 per cent. This would enable the services to which my hon. friend referred to be extended to the Indians.
I do not want to be critical of my hon. friend referred to be extended to the Indians, tions on these reservations. I do want to tell him there is some indication that in those particular schools in which some trouble has occurred, there is difficulty between members of the staff. He may have noted himself that some of the teachers in this group made it known to the press immediately afterwards that they wanted to dissociate themselves from the remarks that had been made. This matter is under study now. Mr. Davey, our superintendent of schools, has been in the territory and is discussing the entire matter which the director of education of the Oblate Mission there.
[Translation1



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION-REQUEST ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, on June 9 last, I put the following question to the right hon. Prime Minister:
As the new or next Quebec government advocates in its program, a new alliance with the rest of the
June 21, 1366
6742	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
country and the drawing up of a new Canadian constitution, does the government propose to set up shortly a joint parliamentary committee on the Canadian constitution?
The government knows that in 1963, a member of the Union Nationale, then in the opposition, moved a resolution for the establishment of a parliamentary committee on the Canadian constitution, a resolution, Mr. Speaker, which was unanimously approved at that time.
In 1964 and in 1965, that parliamentary committee in Quebec sat, heard evidence from several individuals, representatives of national associations or others, and studied five political options, namely: first, the status quo; the system which has been in operation since 1867, which I will call quasi federalism. With regard to the discrepancies in the text, there are also centralizing experiences in the confederation life over the last hundred years.
As a second option, various people commented on co-operative federalism which is, in a way, the continuation of the same system where the central government interferes in all kinds of fields coming under provincial jurisdiction and then asks the approval of the provinces-what Hon. Ren6 Levesque, with ministerial responsibilities, used to call the painless abortion of the French Canadian nation.
Consideration was also given, as a political option, to the associated state status, an independent status which in fact does not seem possible in the present circumstances.
And finally, as a last political option, which was strongly commented upon, the drafting of a new Canadian constitution setting up in the country a positive and bicultural federalism with a special status for the province of Quebec in some fields.
Mr. Speaker, that last option was in the political platform of the new Quebec government which is getting ready very soon, at ministerial meetings and at federal-provincial conferences, to request the drafting of a new Canadian constitution for such purposes.
It would be necessary, therefore, that parliament in Ottawa, the legislators in the Upper House and the other place, be in a position to state clearly, in good faith, their thoughts in a modern spirit, that of 1966, in order to engage in a dialogue on those fundamental problems.
We should not be afraid in 1966 to have the courage, the initiative and the good faith to approach all those Canadian problems, fiscal, 
constitutional, political and industrial, in order to set up the reforms necessary to a final get-together between Quebec and the other English provinces and the other ethnic groups in the country.
This is why, since the beginning of the session, many members have asked-and I am earnestly bringing up the subject again this evening-the present government to set up a joint parliamentary committee, in order that we may define more accurately together our opinions on those important matters and the proceedings of that parliamentary committee would be followed by a national constitutional conference.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister will be in a position this evening to give us a favourable answer.


Mr.   P.-E. Trudeau@Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the fascination exerted on the minds of the members of the opposition and of an independent member by this notion of a joint parliamentary committee to discuss constitutional problems.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) mainly spoke of the problems in connection with the interests of the Quebec government. I can hardly see why the Quebec government would come here to seek within a committee we would establish the enlightenment it needs over there to form its own opinion on the constitution. True, there was created three years ago, a committee of the legislature on constitutional problems and this is explained by the fact that there were not two Quebec politicians who agreed on constitutional matters. And each referred to a particular formula, such as independence, associate states, special status and all sorts of confederations of ten independent states. They needed a parliamentary committee probably to help themselves see their way through.
As for us, we think that the role of a party government, which claims to have power at the national level, is to have a constitutional philosophy and to govern accordingly.
A committee such as proposed by the hon. member for Sherbrooke seems absolutely useless to me in this direction. Either the opposition and the independents have no constitutional philosophy, and thus that committee can only serve to give them one, and therefore that committee is of no use whatsoever; or they have a constitutional philosophy and it is in agreement with that of the government, and
June 21, 1966

then that committee serves no purpose either: or finally they have a constitutional philosophy which is at variance with that of the government, and that committee can only serve as a forum to place constitutional problems at the level of political quibbling and partisan discords.
This can in no way, in my opinion, further the constitutional debate, and I think that those ideas originate from persons who put into their minds that Canada needed to amend its constitution throughout. I suggest that this idea essentially belongs to a rising bourgeoisie which wants to change the rules of the game without taking basic needs into account.
We have a constitution, it undoubtedly needs to be applied in certain sectors-and particularly in section 133-with more vigour, and also there surely is an area where there is room for improvement, but it is the responsibility of a party, a government to have that idea. And this sort of committee as proposed to us can only be, in my opinion, a place of discord or mutual sterilization.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
[English1



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-HAMILTON, ONT.,-NIGHT SHUNTING OF CARS IN RESIDENTIAL AREA

Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, last week I raised the matter of the inconvenience and nuisance caused by Canadian National shunting operations in Hamilton, and I would like to elaborate on this serious problem.
About a year ago, the Canadian National moved its shunting operations eastward from the Stuart Street yards to the Parkdale yards. Unfortunately the latter is immediately adjacent to some 200 homes, and the shift has caused great distress to the inhabitants of that neighbourhood. The diesel engines in the yard create television interference over a large area. After an evening of distorted viewing, the residents are then subjected to the noises of shunting from midnight on.
I have had letters written at three or four in the morning from constituents unable to sleep because of the noise. Some have described the situation as living in a constant thunderstorm. Added to this is the soot and ash produced as freight car sweepings are burned in the Parkdale yard. This ruins house exteriors and laundry, and makes outdoor recreation impossible. It makes it necessary to keep windows closed in hot summer weather. Property values in the neighborhood
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion have fallen drastically in the past year, and the residents are fed up.
Shortly after shunting began in the Park-dale yards, a citizens committee requested that the shunting be moved a few blocks east, to a relatively unpopulated area. This was done, but after a short time operations were resumed in the Parkdale shunting yards, as before.
During last fall, this committee met with municipal, provincial and federal authorities, in the presence of some Canadian National representatives. I was present at this meeting and I was delegated to approach the Minister of Transport on behalf of these groups. I asked that the shunting be moved again to the east, a very simple matter to relieve the current nuisance.
The minister never did answer my letter which I wrote on October 26, but with customary alacrity, the department officials replied in January of 1966 with a report which indicated that consideration was being given to a number of plans to improve the situation. But there still has been no change.
Again in February of 1966 I received a letter from the Canadian National, or from representatives of the Canadian National which states in part:
The transfer of operations to some other point than Parkdale would involve extensive study in line with industrial planning in order to forecast a more favourable location for further expansion of railway facilities.
Thus, the whole situation looked rather hopeless. As I say, I have received many letters appealing that something be done. The residents of this area have lived with this grave inconvenience for over a year now. A solution to the problem is readily available a few blocks east of the shunting yards. I trust that the Department of Transport will be able to do something for the residents of this area in the very near future.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the minister regrets being unable tonight to hear the representations by the hon. member for Hamilton South. Were the minister here I believe he would be inclined to say that responsibility in this matter rests with the management of the Canadian National. His office has brought to the attention of the officials of the C.N.R. the sincere grievance which was raised by the hon. member.
6744	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The hon. member did not inform the house or myself this evening whether he had made arrangements to meet with officials of the C.N.R. in Toronto as he was advised he might do in a letter from Mr. R. T. Vaughan, secretary of the C.N.R. on January 7. At that time Mr. Vaughan said:
There are a number of plans under study at the present time with a view to materially improving our switching operations within the city but it has not been possible as yet to reach any final conclusion.
He went on to invite the hon. member to meet with Mr. J. H. Spicer, area manager, Toronto, or his assistant, Mr. J. R. Burns. This is undoubtedly a serious matter and it has resulted in a great deal of inconvenience to residents of Hamilton South.
DEBATES	June 21. 1966
I am sure the minister will be pleased to bring this matter strongly once again to the attention of the officials of the C.N.R. In the meantime I might advise the hon. member that officials of the C.N.R. will probably be appearing before the standing committee on transportation and communications of this house and the hon. member is invited by the minister and, of course, by the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) to appear and ask the president of the C.N.R. to give a good and sufficient reason for not having acted upon the hon. member's request.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, June 22, 1966