1966-06-14

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of a distinguished delegation of parliamentarians from Czechoslovakia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The delegation is under the leadership of Mr. Lastovicka, who is the president of the Czechoslovak national assembly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: On behalf of my colleagues of the House of Commons, I wish them a pleasant and successful trip in Canada.
[English1
I would also like to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of His Highness Ras Men-gasha Segoum and Her Highness Princess Aida Desta of Ethiopia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West) presented the ninth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
INDIAN AFFAIRS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND CITIZENSHIP AND	IMMIGRATION-CONCUR-

Mr. Milton L. Klein (Cartier) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on Indian affairs, human rights and citizenship and immigration, presented to the house on Thursday, June 9, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
1Translation1


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, for the reasons already stated and since we object to the reduction of quorum, we ask that the report be concurred in but on division.

Motion agreed to on division.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to inform the house that the optimistic forecast which I gave on motions yesterday was fully justified.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Grafftey:: After months of pussyfooting.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The committee of the cabinet which has been working with the bargaining committees of the unions and of the employers involved in the longshoremen's strike resumed their discussions yesterday afternoon and, as a result, a basis of settlement was agreed upon very early this morning. The minutes of settlement have been drawn up and signed by the bargaining representatives of the parties.
The bargaining committees have agreed to strongly recommend acceptance of the proposals incorporated in the minutes, and these will be laid before the unions represented and the shipping federation not later than tomorrow. If, as I confidently expect, the proposals are accepted, it is hoped and expected that the longshoremen and other workers will return to work in all three St. Lawrence ports on Thursday morning.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that several of the bargaining agents on both sides are in the gallery. They asked to come to hear the announcement of the settlement.
The fact that such a settlement has come about as a result of hard bargaining between the parties concerned in my opinion justifies

June 14, 1966
Labour Relations
the confidence expressed by the government that such a result is possible when the parties really wish to settle, and when they have the advantage of the services of an able, patient and experienced mediator. I am sure both parties would want me to express their appreciation to Judge Rene Lippe for the great contribution he has made to the successful outcome of the negotiations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: His patience and tact over a trying period of several weeks contributed greatly to the settlement, and the thanks not only of the parties but of the Canadian public are due to Judge Lippe for his invaluable services in this dispute. The parties also have asked me to express their sincere appreciation of the significant contribution made by the right hon. Prime Minister, whose intervention late last night made possible a solution of the last two major points of difference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think the house and the Canadian public generally would be interested to know that some of the difficulties in this case have arisen out of the technological and other changes in the stevedoring industry which have taken place during recent years. The workmen felt they were entitled to substantial increases in remuneration for their services, and the employers were prepared to agree to substantial increases in return for an assurance of greater productivity in line with the changes to which I have referred.
It was difficult if not impossible for the parties to agree on the nature and extent of possible increases of productivity. When this situation developed I, as Minister of Labour, several weeks ago announced that I intended to set up a commission of inquiry under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to inquire into the possibilities of improving productivity, yet at the same time ensuring job security for any members of the unions concerned who might be directly affected by new methods of operation and technological changes.
I now wish to confirm that I intend to set up such a commission within the next few days. I will have more to say on that subject when I announce the appointment of the commissioner.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house appreciate how
(Mr. Nicholson.]
these negotiations can drag on without intervention by the government in a collective bargaining process, crippling the economy and harming the country. Consequently the announcement we heard last night that the strike had been settled pleased us just as much as it must have pleased the government. We hope the settlement arrived at after negotiation is satisfactory to both parties, and we are pleased that the agreement has now been ratified.
Let me point out that this was not an ordinary situation, but a situation that dragged on from November of 1965, when a breakdown in negotiations between the two parties took place. The government sat around hoping this situation would go away and that some miracle would be performed by someone other than themselves to bring about the settlement that was so vital to the economy of our country.
On May 9, 1966 the longshoremen walk-out was called illegal by the employers, and it was not until May 24, 1966 that it was considered to be legal; yet during all that time the government sat around waiting and hoping, in spite of the urgings on this side of the house in a serious vein, that it would somehow settle itself. It was not until last night that the advice we put forward was accepted by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: Attempts were made by a number of ministers without any past experience in negotiation to settle this strike, but their efforts were futile and unsuccessful. At nine o'clock last night they were still facing failure, and it was only when the Prime Minister stepped in, as we suggested he should, that a settlement of this dispute was brought about.
It is to be hoped that this serious situation has taught the government a lesson in negotiation, so that in future the government will accept its responsibility and act as mediator between two parties in a legal process of collective bargaining.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, there will be a sigh of relief across this country that the longshoremen's strike has now ended. I can assure the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister that the members of this party are very happy that a solution has been found without the necessity of parliamentary intervention. Perhaps the proposal we made last week for
June 14, 1966

parliamentary intervention without compulsory arbitration may have had some bearing on bringing the parties together. This house and the country ought to express appreciation to Judge Lippe and the Minister of Labour, both of whom worked very hard in search of a solution.
I hope we will receive from the minister very soon some details as to the terms of the settlement. The minister mentioned, for instance, that he is going to set up a commission of inquiry to look into the question of the reduction of work gangs. While the minister uses the term "productivity", I take it from the statements made by the shipping federation that when they refer to productivity they are talking about getting the same amount of work done with smaller work gangs.
I certainly have no objection to the idea of setting up a commission of inquiry to look into this matter, providing the decisions and recommendations of that commission are not binding upon both parties but are simply for the purpose of providing a basis upon which collective bargaining negotiations may continue. I hope the minister will give us some more information about that, perhaps when the orders of the day are called.
The government are very happy at the outcome, as we all are; but may I suggest to the government that they need not be too happy. This strike has been a costly affair; it has cost this country millions of dollars, and there must be some lessons which can be drawn from it. One of the lessons is that our methods of conciliation are outmoded, that we are appointing mediators only days before a strike deadline is upon us. We have now been negotiating the longshoremen's strike on the basis of an agreement which was supposed to commence on January 1 last. Surely with the rash of labour disputes which are now before us we cannot have the cabinet sitting up half the night for several days in order to settle each of these disputes. There must be some better way and some more up to date method of conciliating these labour disputes.
I suggest to the government that this strike ought to convey to them the fact that there are deep underlying causes not only for this strike but for the other strikes that are threatened in Canada. The two underlying causes are first, the increasing cost of living which gives rise to a demand for increased
Labour Relations
wages. We will continue to have labour disputes and labour discontent until the government grapples with this problem of the spiralling cost of living. The second of the basic causes of this strike, as of other strikes, has to do with the effects of automation or, as the shipping federation have called it, increased productivity. Increased productivity and automation inevitably mean the displacement of men. Unless the government are prepared to set up the necessary machinery whereby the men who are displaced, if they are young enough are retrained or if they are old enough are retired on a pension to which the employer will make the major contribution, we will continue to have labour disputes.
We in this party believe that the benefits of technology do not belong exclusively to management and that the workers, especially the workers who are displaced by automation, have a right to some of the benefits or the savings through technology. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while we are delighted that this strike has now been ended, in view of the prospect of many other labour disputes and probably some other strikes we hope the government will now begin to tackle the root causes, rather than always picking up the pieces of the crises which they have so long neglected.
[Translation1


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard with considerable interest the statement of the Minister of Labour to the effect that the strike of the longshoremen had ended this morning at two o'clock, following a direct intervention by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson).
Mr. Speaker, this strike had been going on for 36 days and the government could do nothing before 36 days, according to the statement of the minister. A cabinet committee was appointed, made up of the Minister of Labour, the President of the Privy Council, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Transport (Messrs. Fav-reau, MacEachen, Pickersgill).
Now, if there is within the cabinet one member who is conversant with labour relations, with labour questions, it is surely the minister of manpower who should have been invited to sit on this committee, because he knows all about strikes. He has been directly involved in strikes and has organized some of them. To my mind, he should have been a member of the cabinet committee and the strike would have been settled earlier.

June 14, 1966
Labour Relations
Now, we are faced with another prospective strike, because a strike by the workers of the seaway is being announced for Friday of this week. Why does the government not take position now and intervene at this point, before the employees of the seaway go out on strike which is scheduled for Friday, just as the Prime Minister did last night for the longshoremen's strike?
Mr. Speaker, the workers need security. A while ago the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) was saying that automation is becoming a grievous problem which will bring about more strikes eventually in any province of Canada.
There is a solution to those strikes, which are disastrous not only for the Canadian people, but for the strikers themselves, because they lose thousands of dollars.
Mr. Speaker, the solution the government should consider would be to meet with management and the unions, so as to discuss with both parties the possibility of enabling, for instance, the workers to share in the profits of the undertaking. This would be the ideal solution: when a person is a partner in an undertaking, he feels more responsible. This solution would prevent disastrous strikes for the Canadian people in general.
In order to prevent strikes I suggest that the government should urge management and labour leaders to consider jointly the advisability of allowing all employees, all workers, the entire Canadian labour force to share in the profits of business concerns.
Then Canada would grow, Canadian productivity would increase and the administration of the country's business would be spared a great deal of trouble.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.) tEnglish1


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that much satisfaction has been expressed by the Minister of Labour on the settlement of this very serious strike which has had far reaching national implications. It is equally obvious that there are many who would like to share in the credit for the settlement. Whether we believe the government should have taken more initiative earlier, and whether the negotiations could have been shortened, we are glad that an agreement has been reached to the satisfaction of both employers and employees, as well as to the relief of the people of Canada.
Perhaps we should draw attention to the fact that we are already on the threshold of
[Mr. Caouette.l
another strike, that of Air Canada employees. We are also faced with threatened strikes of the seaway workers, the C.N.R. employees and the international woodworkers on the west coast. It is obvious that foresight and advance planning are needed to help labour and management cope with the new problems which are raised by automation and by the continuing increase in the cost of living.
In this regard it is gratifying for those workers who were involved in this strike that some measure of justice has been brought to help them meet the increase in the cost of living, but there are literally hundreds of thousands of people living on fixed incomes, in particular pensioners whose pensions were set on a cost of living lower than it is now and who cannot resort to a strike. We see this problem in its proper perspective when we realize that it affects all Canadians, not only those involved in the strike action or the threatened strike action.
I believe the government must take the lead to assist labour and management in such matters as retraining, job security and unemployment. Manpower mobility assistance is not enough. If we wait until management is forced to instal new processes to increase productivity and enable it to compete for markets, then labour has no choice but to exert pressure to protect its workers. It is therefore imperative that joint labour-management-government committees be set up to study these problems before they are upon us. I believe it is now necessary, as we express our gratitude for what was done last night and this morning, to move forward and deal with those strikes which face us now.
I wish to add, Mr. Speaker, that we join in the expression of appreciation for what has been accomplished. We also wish to voice our appreciation to Judge Lippe together with the members of both negotiating parties for the final agreement.



SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Introduction of bills: Mr. Howard-Bill intituled "An Act to provide for the resumption of the loading and unloading of vessels at the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec".
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Inasmuch as this bill had the effect of a catalyst in motivating government action, I wonder if I might ask permission of the house to withdraw the notice.


Some hon. Members:: No; keep it.


Mr. Nielsen:: Just change the title.
June 14, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member shall have leave to withdraw the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



EXCISE TAX ACT

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-198, to amend the Excise Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Can the Minister of Labour say whether during the course of the discussions between the shipowners and the longshoremen, the longshoremen's officers asked for an assurance by the government that no consideration would be given to having the Canada Labour Relations Board directed to alter its long established policy and recognize regional bargaining in industries under federal jurisdiction, as requested and demanded by the C.N.T.U.?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: am not aware of any such request having been made.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister give us the assurance that he did not have in mind the recognition of regional bargaining agencies such as the C.N.T.U.?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Whenever government policy is made or changed an announcement is then made. However, no change in policy is contemplated at this time.



SEAWAY DISPUTE-INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Labour?
Can the minister tell us whether the strike of the St. Lawrence seaway employees which will begin on Friday is being considered by his department and whether he hopes to find a solution before the beginning of the strike.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I had an interim report last night from the mediator, Hon. Norman MacKenzie. He was in session yesterday with the parties in Cornwall, and proceedings were to continue there this morning. The mediator is expected back to resume his discussions in Ottawa later today, and I will be getting a further report at that time. I can only report some progress.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Does he propose to set up a committee made up of four ministers so that negotiations pertaining to the strike of seaway employees may be successful before the strike begins?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: The negotiations are being carried on satisfactorily at the moment.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the fact that the strike deadline for Air Canada personnel has been set for tomorrow, I wonder whether the Minister of Labour can give the house any report on how the negotiations between Air Canada and its employees are proceeding, and what success the mediator has had in bringing the parties together.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As I announced yesterday, the mediator brought the parties together and they met yesterday, in the morning and afternoon. This morning the mediator joined them. I have not received any reports since this morning, as I have been engaged in this other matter. If any news should come in later during the day, I shall be glad to pass it on to hon. members.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Have Air Canada employees indicated a willingness to postpone the strike deadline date while negotiations continue?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
6372
June 14, 1366

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



ZAMBIA-REQUEST FOR AIRLIFT FOR COPPER EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he say whether President Kaunda of Zambia has appealed to Canada for help in setting up an airlift for copper exports from that country?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no request.



REQUEST THAT EXPORT SHIPMENTS BE EXPEDITED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tisdale):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance, under whose jurisdiction the Canadian Wheat Board comes. Will the minister urge upon the Canadian Wheat Board that special efforts should be made now to export more grain than is usually exported during the short period of time before the crop season ends, in order to make up the loss of the 37 million bushels of grain we expected to ship?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am quite satisfied that the Canadian Wheat Board, which acts solely in the interests of the western farmer, is very conscious of the need to expedite grain shipments. Indeed, it is engaged upon that very task today.


Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: I
should like to address this question to the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the wheat board would consider extending the crop year beyond the end of July in order to compensate for the inability to get grain off the farms.


Mitchell William Sharp: I discussed this matter with the wheat board when the board was in Ottawa attending meetings of the agriculture committee. As I understand the position of the board, they do not think this would be in the interests of the western farmer.



INQUIRY AS TO PLANS TO EQUALIZE QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: My question is for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In view of the present
[Mr. Nicholson.)
disparity in grain quotas on the prairies resulting from the recent longshoremen's strike, has the Canadian Wheat Board any special plans to equalize quotas in the prairie areas before the end of the present crop year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, since the settlement was only worked out in the small hours of this morning I have not had an opportunity of speaking to the board about this question. Those who attended the agriculture committee will recall that it is the determination of the board to equalize these quotas if possible.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek concerning the need for special attention to be paid to the quota situation on the western prairies following the longshoremen's strike. It is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister been assured by the Canadian railroads that they are paying special attention to relieving the congestion in some of these areas in western Canada?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will consult the records, which I will be glad to send him, he will find that the Canadian railways have moved more wheat in the current year than ever before, and I am sure they are moving it as fast as possible from those areas where the congestion is greatest. But, as the hon. gentleman knows, the railways do not determine these priorities of themselves.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister now able to report on the results of clinical tests of the anti-cancer hormone developed by the Doctors Mirkovich, and whether such findings now open the way to the medicinal use of this drug in Canada?


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


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Ten o'clock, sir.
June 14. 1366


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if Your Honour would reconsider your ruling on the question asked by the hon. member for Queens. The reason I ask you to do so is that on at least two occasions you permitted me to ask a question about the Doctors Mirkovich and their work. As a matter of fact the Minister of National Health and Welfare promised to make a statement on the matter at a later date. Usually there are complaints about discrimination going the other way. In this case you favoured me and I do not think you should disallow the question by the hon. member for Queens.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course if the minister is prepared to make a statement in answer to a question which was asked previously there can be no objection to his doing so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not ready to answer?


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have already made a statement in reply to the question asked some time ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Because of the real interest in this matter I should like to reply to the hon. member for Queens by saying that my department has received an interim report of a confidential basis from the Ontario cancer treatment and research foundation with respect to this drug. However, additional information is being provided and I would expect that when this additional information is available the provincial authorities will be making a report about the matter.



MEDICARE-REPORTED SPEECH BY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I do not know whether the Prime Minister is in a position to answer this question right away, but yesterday Dr. Jones, president of the Canadian Medical Association, said there were still very sharp fields of disagreement between the medical profession and the government in regard to the principles connected with medicare. Will the Prime Minister say what is the nature of those 23033-404J
Inquiries of the Ministry fields of disagreement? There had been no suggestion, until Dr. Jones made his remarks, that there was disagreement; indeed, the contrary has been the attitude taken by the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The principles which in the opinion of the government would warrant assistance to the provinces in any scheme of medicare have been made public and have been discussed with the medical association. As my hon. friend knows, the medical association met the Minister of National Health and Welfare and me last week. The uneasiness of the medical association representatives was more with the nature of the application of these principles than with the principles themselves. Since any medicare scheme would be administered by the provinces completely, undoubtedly they will be discussing their uneasiness with regard to application with the provinces. We have had very constructive talks with them, and some of their difficulties have been removed as a result of these talks.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the right hon. gentleman say what are those fields of sharp disagreement? If I may be permitted, I should like to say that Dr. Jones said that despite the optimistic reports in the press after meetings between C.M.A. officials, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, there are fields of disagreement. I am not asking for particulars, but in general what are they?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that it is not in order to ask detailed questions of this nature at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when rulings like that are made I am usually most deferential. However, this is a matter of importance. The president of the association, Dr. Jones, indicates that there are serious disagreements. I felt that the Prime Minister would be most anxious to explain to the house the views of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister does not appear to be that anxious.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. One of the principles which the Prime Minister laid down for a medicare plan was public administration. Is it true that following the discussion which has been held with the
June 14, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian Medical Association the government is now proposing to reduce this to public auditing rather than public administration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should go into details on the question of public administration. We have discussed it with the doctors but it would, I think, be inappropriate of me to talk to the house about the doctors' views as to what public administration means. Our views are well known.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister went into detail in answering the last question, I wonder whether he would not answer the question posed to him by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there will be an opportunity when the medicare resolution is before the house to go into all these matters in great detail.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Russell Southam: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister advise the house whether Canadian General Electric has yet made a determination as to the location of Canada's second heavy water plant, and when construction may be expected to commence?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I was hoping, like everyone else, to learn the decision of Canadian General Electric today or tomorrow. However, Canadian General Electric has advised that the exhaustive study of the relative economic advantages of different sites offered has not yet been completed, and has asked for a time extension for the site selection to June 30. Canadian General Electric has given assurances that since receiving the letter of intent from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited on April 7, it has been proceeding without delay with its building plans, and that this work would not be held up by a short delay in the decision regarding the site. In the circumstances Canadian General Electric has been told that the extension to June 30 for site selection has been granted.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: May I ask the minister if Gaspe is one of the sites being studied? It so, does he expect the deep concern which the future government of Quebec is going to have for this region will lead to its acceptance as a plant location by Canadian General Electric?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think it would be unwise for me to announce the different sites Canadian General Electric is considering at this time.


Richard Russell Southam: In view of this extension of time that has been announced by the minister, can he assure us that Estevan, which was the original site chosen for the second heavy water plant, will be given consideration?


Jean-Luc Pepin: My previous answer stands.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he or the government has received a report from a specialist in air transport of the United Kingdom, whose name I believe is Dr. Wheatcroft, following his study of the possibility of Canadian Pacific Airlines operating a second trans-Canada route. If so, can the minister report to the house the conclusions in the report, and whether the government has reached a decision on the recommendations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can say the report has been received. I can say also that the government has not reached any conclusion about it as yet.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister able to tell the house what the report recommends?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The report contains advice to the minister, and it would seem prudent for the minister and the government to consider that advice and reach their own conclusion before making the advice public, if indeed they decide to make it public.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When may we expect the government to reach a conclusion and announce a decision?


John Whitney Pickersgill: With the usual expedition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May we not hope for better than that, Mr. Speaker?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nothing could be better.
June 14, 1966
[Translation1



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Postmaster General.
In view of the fact that a few days ago I asked a question of the minister in connection with a dispute developing between the Association of Letter Carriers of the Trois-Rivieres area and his department, has the minister yet received the report that he had announced he would ask for, and what are the findings of that report?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, further to the telegram I had received from the Association of Letter Carriers of Trois-Rivieres to the effect that they had been deprived of overtime pay in 1965, I had asked my departmental officers to look into the matter, and I am glad to announce that, further to that study, wages for overtime will be paid to the Trois-Rivieres letter carriers.
[English1



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the widespread discontent over the pricing and sales policies of gasoline companies in many parts of the country, and in view of the recent report of the royal commission on gasoline price structure in the province of British Columbia indicating the existence of unfair trade practices, would the minister not give serious consideration to conducting an immediate investigation under the Combines Investigation Act into the pricing, marketing and production practices of the oil and gasoline products industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is of a very general nature. I suggest that it should not be asked at this time.


Max Saltsman: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respectfully point out that there is an emergency arising in this regard and an answer from the minister would be most helpful. A number of gasoline dealers are closing their stations. Some have done so
Inquiries of the Ministry today and others did so yesterday. There is an indication that this trend will continue. An answer from the minister indicating his willingness to conduct an inquiry into this matter would go a long way toward ensuring the peace of mind of those in this industry. Might I have an answer?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister wish to make any reply to this question?


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: All due consideration will be given to the question posed by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg asked me, as appears on page 6246 of Hansard, for information about the wharf at Dayspring, Nova Scotia.
This structure, which is used chiefly by those involved in the repairing and outfitting of vessels, is not in good repair. Yesterday, in answer to written question No. 1584, I stated that repairs can be carried out this year provided satisfactory arrangements can be made either for the leasing of the wharf or for the payment of wharfage fees. I can now add that last week the company making the greatest use of the wharf agreed to lease it. When the rental agreement has been signed we will proceed to make the necessary repairs.
1Translation1



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
As concerns unloading of the large number of ships waiting in Montreal harbour, will priority be given certain items and, if so, will materials intended for Expo '67 be among them?
[English1


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, that before I can give any useful answer to that question I ought to communicate with the National Harbours Board, and I shall do so at once.

June 14, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



U.S. REACTION TO SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. During the last day or so has there been any communication by telephone or other means between the President of the United States or the secretary of state of that country and the Prime Minister indicating a reaction to the Prime Minister's refreshing speech in Illinois last week end?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to take prompt action on any of the aspects of highway safety which have been constantly brought to the attention of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question of very general policy and cannot be asked at this time.



PILOTAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister a question relating to the royal commission on pilotage about which I asked him a few days ago. The right hon. gentleman said he would make inquiries about the possibility of that royal commission reporting at an early date.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my inquiry indicates the somewhat depressing news that it will not be before the end of the year.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I regret I did not give him notice but perhaps he could take the

question as notice. Has the United States government suggested to the Canadian government that it might bear the cost of building an east-west express highway through the northern New England states, more or less a corridor road joining the maritimes with the Montreal region, in exchange for an undertaking by the Canadian government to pave 1,000 miles of the Alcan highway in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a question of a general nature involving general policy, and I suggest the hon. member cannot ask it now.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scolt (Danforih):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the urgent need for action to control the spiraling cost of living, as evidenced today by comments on the longshoremen's strike, would the right hon. gentleman contact the Economic Council of Canada with a view to speeding up the special study on prices which he requested it to make in March, 1965?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I hope this may be the last time I shall have to ask this question. I address it to the Minister of Finance. Will the legislation regarding the regulating of pensions which come under federal jurisdiction now be placed on the order paper?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I expect it to be placed on the order paper very soon.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent question for the Minister of Forestry, and I should like to ask the Prime Minister when he expects the hon. gentleman will return to the house so I may direct it to him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister is attending, as he should be, the international forestry conference in Europe.
June 14, 1966



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker,
some days ago I directed a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It concerned the report of the historic sites and monuments board on the Indian shrine Mistaseni, and the hon. member took the question as notice. May I ask when a reply may be expected?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the hon. member that I have brought this question to the attention of the minister who is now considering the matter.



HEALTH RESOURCES FUND


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a health resources fund to assist provinces in the acquisition, construction and renovation of health training facilities and research institutions and for the appropriation in conection therewith of the sum of five hundred million dollars to be credited to the fund in such amounts as from time to time are required and to provide for contributions therefrom to the provinces; to provide further for the establishment of a health resources advisory committee consisting of eleven members and for the payment of reasonable travelling expenses of its members.
Motion agreed to and the house went into
committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to begin the discussion on this resolution setting up a health resources fund. As hon. members are aware, the government proposes to introduce shortly legislation under which it will be possible to give financial support to the provinces for the provision of medical care benefits. Such a program 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.
Health Resources Fund
We are well aware that this would involve large investments in training and research facilities. Furthermore, the strengthening of such resources requires time, and planning must be initiated at an early date. It was in this context that the Prime Minister announced last July the proposal of the government to establish a health resources fund. At the same time, the Prime Minister promised that the terms of reference for the fund would be developed only after consultation with provincial governments through a conference of ministers of health which he proposed should meet at an early date.
In September, therefore, a federal-provincial conference of ministers of health was convened in Ottawa. Prior to this meeting departmental officials had visited the provinces to confer with their counterparts in order to acquire some of the necessary background data to assist the government in giving consideration to the appropriate size of a health resources fund. When the provincial ministers of health met, therefore, the Prime Minister was able to announce in more specific terms governmental proposals with regard to the size of the fund. At that time he announced that the government proposed to establish a fund in the amount of $500 million to be available over a 15-year period. The basic purpose of the fund is to help meet the greater need for trained people to provide medical care services and to endeavour to catch up where possible in areas where adequately trained personnel are in short supply. The moneys to be made available through the health resources fund will support the construction and equipment of facilities for health research and training. Capital grants will be available for the construction, renovation and basic equipment for research establishments, teaching hospitals, medical schools, as W'ell as training facilities for essential health personnel. It is not proposed that the funds provided through this program will be available to meet the operating costs of such establishments.
At the September meeting of the ministers of health it was agreed that since it is the provincial governments which are responsible for the types of facilities which will benefit from the fund, the allocation of the fund moneys obviously would require a considerable degree of consultation with the provinces. In conformity with this view it was decided to appoint an ad hoc technical committee

June 14, 1966
Health Resources Fund charged with the task of establishing estimates of immediate and foreseeable needs for health and research establishments, medical schools, teaching hospitals, schools of dentistry, schools of nursing, and training facilities for other health personnel. In the light of these estimates the committee was requested to make proposals for the general regional distribution which might govern the allocation of funds through provincial governments. This committee was also requested to make proposals for the method of allocating funds having regard to a desirable degree of consultation.
The ad hoc committee which met in October consisted of a representative from each of the provincial governments as well as representatives from the Medical Research Council and several of the large national professional associations representing doctors, dentists, nurses and hospitals. The committee submitted to the conference of ministers a report which I tabled in this house on February 2, 1966.
The conference of ministers had by this date completed its consideration of the report. It had dealt with proposals relating to preliminary estimates of provincial needs, the need for long-range projections, principles recommended for identifying certain type of facilities, the basis for allocation of funds, and the establishment of a health resources advisory committee for which were set out suggestions concerning composition and functions.
e (3:40 p.m.)
The conference of ministers accepted for the most part the proposals set out by the technical committee in its report although the proposal relating to the composition of the advisory committee was not supported by the ministers of health. The ministers suggested that such an advisory body should consist of representatives of the federal and provincial ministers of health and they recommended that the committee call upon professional bodies for advice on technical matters.
It was agreed that requests for assistance from the health resources fund would emanate from provincial governments in whose field of jurisdiction matters of health reside.
It will be noted that throughout the planning of the health resources fund the federal government has stressed the importance of close consultation and continuing liaison between the federal and provincial governments at all levels. Over the years the department

has maintained the closest possible relationship of this sort with the provincial departments to the mutual benefit of all concerned, I should like to take this occasion to express a word of public appreciation to provincial health authorities who at all levels have always worked very closely with my departmental officers.
Although planning has been carried out over many months in connection with the health resources fund, there are still many details to be worked out. As soon as the necessary legislation has been passed by the house the advisory committee authorized by this resolution will be established, and it is my hope that it will be possible to convene a meeting of this body as expeditiously as possible.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I should like to repeat the words of the Prime Minister when he first announced the intention of the government to launch this program. He said that what is now under consideration is among the most important investments in the human resources of Canada that have ever been planned. While there will be many difficulties to overcome and much careful preparation will be needed, he expressed confidence that the federal and provincial governments could go forward in this matter with a high sense of common purpose.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the minister for introducing the health resources fund measure but I can only say that in my opinion it is far too little and too late to cope with the future plans upon which the minister will be embarking. Those plans will require an increase in personnel to look after the health of the people of Canada. We shall require more doctors and more technicians, radiologists, physiotherapists, nurses, dentists and psychiatrists.
A sum of $500 million is to be set aside for this fund, but as far back as October, 1964, Mr. Robarts, the premier of Ontario, said that his province was launching a $114 million blitz program to train doctors, nurses and dentists. Further, in a report in the Toronto Star J. T. Allen has indicated that 70 to 75 doctors per year will be trained in a new medical science centre and that this will require an expenditure of $500,000 per year per doctor and for 500 first year doctors this will mean that a total sum of $250 million per year will be expended.
This is a matter of simple mathematics. Although $500 million sounds like a lot of
June 14, 1966

money the Hall commission report states that we must graduate 500 new doctors per year. Four new medical schools must be built by 1970 but it must be remembered that to start with we shall need 500 new doctors per year. Ontario is expecting Ottawa to pay a third of the cost per student which would mean a total of $46 million instead of the $33 million that has been mentioned.
I understand that Ontario alone will need $75 million for university capital costs. Given all these figures I want to say to the minister that if there is any part of education that can be made universal and national it is medical education. Every doctor graduating from a medical school takes the Canadian Medical Council examinations. The standard is uniform and therefore the minister need not worry about stepping into a national medical education policy. It is already there.
I would like to ask the minister whether under the provisions of the health resources fund there is any remuneration incentive for graduates. Last year close to 800 doctors crossed the Canadian border into the United States. To train each of them required a minimum of $25,000. If each stays in the United States he will earn approximately $500,000 during his lifetime, and 800 times $500,000 amounts to $400 million. There is an annual loss to Canada of $400 million, which shows the insufficiency of this $500 million health resources fund. The same is true of other professions.
I would also like to ask the minister whether anything is being done to increase incentives for doctors who stay in Canada. Taxation is a federal matter. Has the minister considered tax incentives for students after graduating and for postgraduates which will tend to keep them in Canada rather than lose them to the United States at a cost to Canada of $400 million per year?
At present there is a great shortage of physiotherapists and other technicians. By July my own hospital will be down to two technicians although we need five. We hope to import two from the Philippines but we will still be short.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Last year federal funds covered just 40 per cent of our research projects. How then can this $500 million be stretched to cover all the things we need? If there is one thing that will keep good teachers and people interested in research in Canada it is fine research centres. Without proper facilities we cannot
Health Resources Fund keep these people here and without the research itself we will not develop the doctors and trained personnel we need.
In 1958 the Conservative government doubled the per capita hospital grant. The minister will say we are continuing these grants for the next two years but I wonder whether he realizes that costs have gone up and up and up. I believe that costs per bed were around $6,000 but today they are around $20,000. In 1958 we doubled the grant from $1,000 to $2,000. In addition we gave $750 per bed for nurses and internes' quarters, radiologists' rooms and so on. But here we are in this parliament in 1966 not doing one solitary thing to remedy the situation. Here we are doing the same old thing we did in 1958. Yet we have accepted one-third, or one-half if you wish to put it that way, of the responsibility for hospitalization for the people across Canada. I should like to ask the minister why the federal government has not accepted a third of the cost shared with the provinces and the municipalities. In construction costs the municipalities are now holding the bag with the provinces. If I remember the statistics correctly, last year the federal government paid exactly 12 per cent of capital construction. This is not good enough when we consider municipal taxes, the cost of living and all the other things that weigh heavily on the municipalities. Yet they are asked to carry a disproportionate load.
The health resources fund is a good thing but I do not think it is half enough. We lose $400 million through doctors going to the United States but the government still comes up with a fund of only $500 million. This does not make sense to me. I should like the minister to take a good look at the problem to see whether or not the grants should be increased and whether they should accept one-third of the cost of construction. Several times when this matter has been mentioned to me I have felt like shrinking down and getting out of sight when I see the federal government asking the municipalities to carry the load which we should be carrying here. Mr. Chairman, I will have other questions to ask at a later time.


Mr. Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Chairman, we in this party welcome the advent of the health resources fund, at least in its resolution form. However, like the hon. member who has just spoken I am afraid it is going to be much too little too late. An aircraft crashed last week in California and its value

June 14, 1966
Health Resources Fund alone was $500 million. So it looks as it we are placing our health resources fund at a level equal to the value of one aircraft.
I should like to limit my remarks to the medical situation. In the Hall commission publication, "Medical Manpower in Canada", Judek shows that our medical manpower is inadequate and that in the ratio of population to physician we compare unfavourably with such countries as the United States, Germany and Italy. He estimates that as of 1961, 3,900 more doctors would have been needed in private practice to fulfil unmet demands for medical services. We can be sure that the gap has widened since.
Even if we leave the possibility of medicare aside, and we seem little closer to it now than we were 45 years ago, our requirement for medical personnel will increase sharply. Our population is growing fast and by 1990 can be expected to be over 35 million. Within our population there is a greater awareness of and demand for medical treatment. At the same time, old diseases are succumbing to research while new diseases appear.
Strong and immediate action is necessary to fulfil the needs of the present and to prepare for the future. This situation, like Gaul, resolves itself into three parts. We must solve the problems of schools, teaching facilities, teaching staff and, perhaps most of all, of students themselves.
In the field of construction and equipment for teaching facilities we welcomed the announcement in July of a $500 million fund to cover such expenses. We are glad now that something is being done. It is interesting to note that if Ontario carries out its proposed $300 million construction expenditures in the next seven years, with the federal government paying the recommended 50 per cent, it will run out of its share of the fund quite early in the program. We hope that the government will make provision for a periodic review of the sums available so that they may be increased.
In the field of nursing the Hall commission has demonstrated our acute shortage of personnel. It has recommended the expansion of existing university schools of nursing and the establishment of at least ten more in the next four years. At least 50 per cent of these construction and equipment costs should be borne by the federal government.
To cover our shortage of dentists the Hall commission calls for the expansion of our five existing dental schools and the construction of five new schools in the next ten years.

Here again, 50 per cent of the cost must be the responsibility of the federal government. To keep up with medical education we must expand and improve our existing schools and build seven more in the next ten years. For these and for associated teaching hospitals the federal government should pay 50 per cent.
In the field of medical research the Far-quharson committee of 1959 stressed the urgent need for research buildings and facilities and estimated that $25 million would be needed from the federal government. The Hall commission publication, "Medical Education in Canada", has repeated the recommendation. While medical research is of enormous importance in itself, it has an important bearing on medical and dental education. Almost all university medical teachers engage in research, and for most of them this is their chief interest. If research funds are not readily available, we will not be able to attract good teachers nor keep them when we get them.
In the 1964 report of the Medical Research Council Dr. Ray Farquharson wrote as follows:
The most important investment in medical science is to educate students well, and to train gifted young graduates in the art and practice of research. This can only be accomplished when the teachers themselves understand medical science and have practised it. Many more teacher-scientists are needed now, both because of the expansion of our medical schools and because of the rapid growth of medical science. Some of these teachers will not continue to carry out intensive medical research, but all should have a research approach to their teaching if they are to give their students the necessary instruction and practice in critical thinking and in the evaluation of evidence . . . Without . . . active research, covering a very wide range, the care of patients sick with related disorders would certainly suffer.
He pointed out the lack of funds for salaries for teachers and scientists and the lack of funds for facilities. He went on to say:
The loss of our competent medical scientists to the United States would be greatly reduced if we had the funds needed to support them personally, and if the facilities necessary for their work were provided in Canada.
The Hall commission has recommended that the Medical Research Council be changed into an independent health services research council and that funds available to it should be increased by $2 million per year. The Bladen commission of 1965 went even farther. It recommended a grant to the Medical Research Council of $20 million in 1966-67,
June 14, 1966

with a 20 per cent increase each year thereafter. It recommended further that research grants to universities should carry an unconditional 30 per cent supplement to the university concerned, to come from the fund just mentioned.
A new report, prepared for the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation and presented to the Prime Minister early this year, has called our present level of medical research inadequate. They have said that the federal government must become the chief source of expanded funds and they estimate that at least $140 million will be required before 1970 to build and equip facilities for an appropriate standard of research. They say:
Unless support to medical research is provided at the suggested levels as rapidly as possible, a deterioration in the standards ot Canadian medical schools and in the quality of health care provided to the Canadian people is in prospect.
They conclude the report thus:
-it is imperative that a research environment be established which will encourage individuals to enter medical science as a career, which will induce leading teacher-scientists to stay in Canada, and which will attract back to Canada those who have gone elsewhere for lack of opportunity in their own country.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It is interesting to note that this report has been endorsed by the deans of our 12 medical schools, by voluntary health organizations and by hundreds of Canadian medical scientists. Certainly a greater responsibility for research on the part of the federal government will be necessary to develop and maintain good medical teachers.
In nursing it has been found that 75 per cent of hospital instructors and 56 per cent of university instructors are not even minimally qualified. When one considers the salaries paid one can only be surprised that so many are qualified.
To bring the present situation to proper standards and to provide for future needs the Hall commission recommended that the federal government contribute to greatly increased salaries for these teachers comparable with salaries in similar fields.
In medical and dental teaching qualification is not now a problem but salaries are a continuing deterrent to teaching as a career. The average income of a doctor engaged in research is less than half that of his colleague in private practice. In order to provide the medical teachers we need we must make
Health Resources Fund available many more postgraduate opportunities simply to train teachers in the increasingly complex and diversified fields of medicine. Research funds and operating funds must be greatly increased to attract and to hold competent people within our educational structure, and in this the federal government must carry its share of the load.
We come now to the problem of the students themselves. No educational system will work if it fails to attract students and there has been a distressing decline in the number and quality of young people seeking education in the health sciences.
In order to attract more nursing students we must first consider their financial position. Student nurses earn little or no money and those without financial help cannot consider training. The Hall commission has recommended that assistance be provided for student nurses in the same manner as for other hospital students. It has also been recommended that hospital nursing courses be shortened to two years, eliminating much of the free labour which nurses exchange for their training. This would increase the operating costs of teaching hospitals but we can ill afford to continue using trained nurses to do char work.
For medical students availability of money is of paramount importance. The medical course is the most expensive in any university and the one, paradoxically, where the fewest scholarships are available. In the 1961-62 school year the average student expenditure was $2,250. Of the few scholarships and bursaries available the median value was $325.
The Hall commission has recommended scholarships of $2,000 a year in the last two years of the course, depending only on satisfactory progress. We must also make arrangements whereby the cost of postgraduate training is at least income tax deductible, if not directly subsidized. Once a medical student has completed his degree he still has a period of poverty before him as an interne and resident. In 1960 the average income of an interne was $1,740 and for a resident, $3,360. This obviously constitutes a barrier in the recruitment of students and salaries must be raised to provide proper compensation for these doctors.
During the post-war years total university enrolment in the 20-24 year age group rose from 7.1 per cent to 8.9 per cent. Medical student enrolment during the same period fell from 3.5 per cent to 3.2 per cent.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the resolution I wish to take only a few minutes to tell the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) that we welcome with a certain satisfaction this resolution, which reads in part as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a Health Resources Fund to assist provinces in the acquisition, construction and renovation of health training facilities and research institutions-
Mr. Chairman, this resolution meets a pressing need, since we have been aware for quite some time already-and almost everywhere-of a shortage of doctors especially in the sparsely populated areas of our country. We lack doctors, and above all, specialists in areas remote from the large centres; this forces those who need special care to travel over relatively long distances from their homes to receive the required medical attention.
We also have an urgent need for hospital orderlies and nurses to care for the sick and I think that the purpose of the resolution, that is to assist the provinces in building and restoring facilities for the training of personnel, will meet this rather general need.
I have also noted that this resolution deals with research institutions, and I think that in the past we have largely failed in that respect and we still have much to do in the future to prevent illness and contagious diseases, or at least to control an outbreak. I think that those research institutions can be quite beneficial to the Canadian public and will meet an ever increasing need in countries with a similar standard of living.
Mr. Chairman, on the whole I think that this resolution deserves all the attention of
June 14, 1966

hon. members and we are impatiently awaiting the bill which will give us the very essence of the proposed resolution; at that time, we will take a greater part in the consideration of this bill, item by item, and we shall have other remarks to make at that time.
The resolution also refers to the establishment of a $500 million fund, that is half a billion dollars, to be taken out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the country; this, then, means new taxes which the taxpayers will have to bear.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know to what extent the provinces have been asked to express their views on this subject, but I surmise that if the provinces are given half a billion dollars to meet public health requirements, it seems to me that they will greet the prospect with satisfaction. It is quite apparent that once again, the taxpayers will have to pay for this new fund and this new service, and I think that the minister should have consulted the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to find another means to finance this new development, these studies and these requirements of the country.
I think that the Bank of Canada would have been the proper institution to meet this new requirement, and to facilitate the operation of this new Health Resources Advisory Committee which will be responsible for the distribution of this half a billion dollar fund. I think the Bank of Canada would have been the ideal institution to meet such need without burdening the budget of the small taxpayer because, as in all other funds, all other deductions, the small taxpayer will again foot the bill.
So, Mr. Chairman, on the whole, we accept this resolution that meets a need, but the fact remains that the substance of the problem should rather be incumbent upon the government itself and I think that the minister would have been well advised to use the facilities of the Bank of Canada to implement this need as claimed by all.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.) lEnglish]


Mr.   Paiterson@: Mr. Chairman, for a while this afternoon it appeared that this was going to be a doctors' debate, but although I am neither a doctor nor the son of a doctor I want to make a very few observations in regard to the resolution now before us. In
Health Resources Fund presenting the resolution the minister indicated the importance of attracting capable personnel through additional and adequate training facilities. I believe this is a fact that is well recognized across the country because unless there are adequate facilities available to those who wish to enter these service vocations people will be hesitant to do so. Therefore we agree that the provision of additional facilities is vitally important if we are to build up an adequate and effective corps of workers in the medical field who will take care of the health needs of the Canadian people.
A great deal has been said about automation, retraining and so on. I believe that the freeing of a larger number of people from other vocations and activities will make them available for participation in the service fields. Not only will this take place but I believe the expansion of facilities will increase the demand for trained personnel. We are talking in terms of national medical plans, etc. If the government is proposing to proceed along that line attention will have to be given, of course, to the matter of trained personnel to fit into these programs and provide the services that are required.
The great question is: If there is now a shortage of doctors, nurses and technicians in various fields, what will the situation be like when some of these other plans are put into operation? It seems to me that the need is urgent and there should be a crash program to train people to take their places in these activities.
The resolution points up some of the areas of concern and some of the facilities that will be required. The minister referred to training hospitals, research institutions, medical schools and so on. I see in the resolution a recognition of the fact that there must be an all-inclusive program which will meet the medical and physical needs of the people of this country.
A short time ago some of us had the opportunity of attending a meeting at the University of British Columbia and seeing there a diagram of what is contemplated in regard to what might be called an integrated course in health services instead of spreading them out and having one in the medical field, another in dentistry and another in something else. In this way all the courses are going to be brought together in an over-all program covering the medical services that are required and must be provided for the Canadian people.

June 14, 1966
Health Resources Fund
Reference has been made to the ad hoc committee which was set up to study this particular matter and to several of the terms of reference of that committee, such as the question of regional distribution of funds and several other matters. I believe these are very important because when we think of some of the federal plans that have been implemented in other areas we realize there has been a very inequitable allocation of funds to the various parts of Canada. I believe it is most important that this matter be resolved in an equitable manner so that all parts of the country will be able to benefit from this program.
Reference was also made during this debate to the proposal to allocate funds to the various areas of concern. This also is a matter of real importance. I believe that constant and close consultation with the provinces is absolutely essential because this is one of the fields where responsibility primarily rests with the provincial administrations. In view of the fact that we are moving into another area and perhaps into another era, I think it is vitally important that close co-operation be established between the federal and provincial authorities in regard to the development of our health services.
The question has been raised of the adequacy of the amount of $500 million established for this program. It appears that it is far below what is required to provide what I have referred to as the crash type program which is needed to meet the challenge in the health field. However, Mr. Chairman, these are matters that can be discussed when the bill is before us. We will reserve further comment until we have the bill and are able to discuss it intelligently on the basis of its various provisions.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before us asks the house to approve a fund which will help to finance health training facilities and medical research institutions. As a member from Montreal this proposal has great interest for me and for the people of Montreal. Montreal has long been known as one of the great medical centres of the world. Among its great training and research hospitals are the Royal Victoria Hospital, the Montreal General, the Montreal Neurological Institute and many others. There are also extensive research facilities at McGill University, the University of Montreal and many nursing schools.

[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I mention these things, Mr. Chairman, not to promote my own city but to remind all hon. members of the national medical institutions which are located in Montreal. I use the word "national" because these institutions, in contrast to other hospitals and research centres, serve the medical needs of all Canada and not merely of the inhabitants of the Montreal area. There is no doubt that there are several other national medical centres in Canada about which similar comments could be made.
It is because of the national function of such institutions that the government has seen fit to set up this fund. Medical science and technology have developed to such an extent that they can no longer be carried on by small privately financed teams. It is not even possible for the required facilities to be provided by provincial financing. As other hon. members have said, many of our provinces are too small to provide the large resources necessary to give their people the proper medical personnel and research. In a country of barely 20 million people it is essential that such facilities be shared and financed on a national basis.
A further reason for setting up such a fund is to provide capital in Canada for the most up-to-date research facilities. In an age when change takes place so quickly and discoveries are soon outdated after they are put in production, it is necessary that finances be made available to keep pace with these changes. Although Canada is presently producing many fine young doctors and research scientists, a good number of them are obliged to leave the country to find facilities and programs which will allow them to do advance research and study. If we are to keep these highly trained citizens, then we must give them the opportunity to work here in Canada.
It is to be noted that this resolution has been mentioned in conjunction with the proposed medicare bill and the proposed Canada Assistance Plan. It is obvious that if we are to establish a plan to provide medical care to all Canadians we will have to provide hospitals and personnel to give this care. Some Canadians have argued that the shortage of hospitals and medical personnel are foremost reasons for not introducing medicare. This is not valid. If we were to follow that reasoning we would still have a system where health depended on wealth and where many would go without proper medical care.
June 14, 1966

We need a system of medicare; we also need the development of health resources. The members of any modern society are interdependent. The economic, social and political well-being of any citizen will depend to a great extent on the good health, education and industriousness of his neighbours. If a large segment of the society is in poor health, this will affect the whole society. I remember a few years ago when we had the Asian flu epidemic and I was shocked to learn of the large scale economic loss to the country due to absenteeism and other side effects which resulted from it.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this initiative of the federal government will be followed by a greater effort on the part of corporations and individuals who can also do much to help in this area. No matter how great the contribution of the government there will always be a need for private action.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer briefly to a subject which was mentioned by other hon. members, the situation with regard to nurses. I do not think that any other group, trained professionally for many years, is treated so poorly. There is no doubt that these young women perform a great service for Canada and it is unfortunate that they are often not paid as well as those who are far less deserving. I hope that this plan will also provide assistance to preventive medicine and mental illness. In all, I think this resolution is a commendable one and deserves our full support.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Chairman, I also would like to make a few brief remarks on this resolution. I will start by joining my colleagues on both sides of the house in commending the minister and the government for bringing forward such an important resolution at this time. However, I am afraid I must echo the words of the hon. member for Simcoe East that it is too little, too late. When the idea was first suggested it was welcomed by the medical profession and by educators across Canada as a great step forward in the provision of medical education and facilities. It is still welcomed but unfortunately, as we all know, not much study has been given to the amount of money which will be required.
I presume the minister is aware that the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges has estimated the amount of money which it feels will be needed not in the next 15 years but in next four years from 1965-66 to 1969-70. It believes that the cost of building programs
Health Resources Fund envisaged will come to a total of $514,250,000. I was assured by the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges that at present this figure would be much higher because of the increase in current costs.
I would be very interested to hear what the government intends to do in view of this projection carefully prepared by the deans of medical colleges in this country, people who understand the tremendous need for physicians in Canada. Some mention has been made of the ratio of doctors to the population of Canada. There are 20 countries in the world which have a more favourable ratio of doctors to the population. We do know that a very large number of our physicians are overworked and do not have time to keep up to date with medical progress. In order to take care of our present needs and to maintain the present ratio, which is one doctor for every 859 Canadians, we must register 1,300 new physicians every year. At present our medical schools produce 850 physicians a year. I think it is very significant that were it not for the fact that we enjoy the immigration of 400 to 600 physicians from countries all over the world we would be in a very serious position indeed. As a matter of fact, the immigration of doctors could very well be reduced significantly. As we know, there is a serious shortage of doctors in Great Britain and attempts are being made to persuade them to stay there instead of emigrating to other countries.
We in Canada have received many very well trained physicians from the Philippines, but the government of the Philippines is attempting to refuse, and I think succeeding, permission to doctors to emigrate from that country because of their own great need of physicians. We need 1,300 new physicians a year and between 400 to 600 immigrant physicians are coming here.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
What about the other side of the question? What about those who are leaving the country? I believe there is a significant report in the Gazette of January 20, 1966, in which Dr. Barrie Pierce, who is about 40 years old and a Canadian professor at the University of Michigan, makes these statements:
-the brain drain of top-flight medical and scientific men is growing worse and presents a great threat to the country. If you think you have a problem in medical education today, you can rest assured it will become worse. Competition for these high quality men is increasing all the time, especially in the United States where a drastic expansion will take place in the coming years.

June 14, 1966
Health Resources Fund
He pointed out that the United States is
importing some 1,500 physicians per year and Canada is one of the main sources of supply.
The minister said, and he seemed to state this unequivocally, that the health resources fund would result in improved medical care and the attraction of people to the medical profession. I wish that were true. I could point out to him the situation in Saskatchewan. The University of Saskatchewan established a medical school for the definite purpose of trying to obtain more physicians for Saskatchewan. The major purpose was to increase the doctor supply in our province. The results of this program were studied carefully by Dr. Samuel Wolfe, whose name will be familiar to the members of the New Democratic Party, I am sure. His report in the Canadian Medical Journal of a year ago contains a detailed analysis of this matter and demonstrates that as a result of setting up our medical school we have 40 per cent fewer Canadian graduates practising in Saskatchewan today than there were before. I believe there must be other measures at which the minister and the government must look to ascertain if we can encourage people into the profession of medicine.
I was disturbed by the minister's suggestion that the introduction of medicare would automatically attract people to medicine. I suggest that the minister is not at all familiar with some of the happenings in the province of Saskatchewan in 1962. I have said that I believe this measure is too little and too late. We feel it will take anywhere from two years to eight years to catch up on the number of medical schools and the number of graduates necessary to maintain the status quo. I heard the minister say that immediately following the passage of this resolution and the bill based upon it the government would introduce the medicare resolution. What we are trying to do is provide services with inadequate resources, and this disturbs me a great deal.
As hon. members will recall, the United Kingdom attempted to introduce this sort of plan before they established medical care in the United Kingdom. It was a plan to increase the strength and number of medical schools. However, the funds were not provided at once and before they knew it medical care was upon them. The medical journals of the United Kingdom and the records of the House of Commons and House of Lords are full of reports that indicate the United Kingdom
(Mr. Brand.]
made a major mistake in not providing facilities before they provided comprehensive medical care.
There must be a great deal of attention paid to the idea of having the facilities before you can provide the care. It is all very well to say that we are going to have a plan under which everybody is going to be covered. What will happen if there are no doctors, nurses or physiotherapists to provide this type of care? I believe this is a most important aspect, and I sincerely hope it is not the intention of the government to allow this $500 million and the wonderful idea behind it to be side-tracked and the funds used for something else. I think you must provide sufficient funds and you must provide them now. I know it is going to cost the Canadian people money but I believe all Canadians will understand that we need these facilities and need this type of care.
I support most earnestly the pleas for increased funds for research which I have heard from every corner of the house. I am sure we will hear more about that. The government increased the funds available for medical research this year, for which I thank them, but the amount is still very small compared with the amount that should be provided for research into the various types of disease.
So far as immigration is concerned, I have pointed out that there will be a considerable drop in the number of immigrant doctors coming to this country over the next few years. I wonder whether the government realizes that by 1986, if our immigration policies about which we have heard so much are successful, we will need somewhere in the neighbourhood of 41,000 doctors in Canada compared with the 24,000 we have now. These figures are based on the ratio of one doctor to every 800 people.
I could go on and discuss other matters that have been covered today but I do not believe any useful purpose would be served. I should like to plead again that the government reconsider the amount of money that is going to be available. They should take a realistic look at the proposals received from the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges, the people who will be most concerned with this problem, to ascertain whether or not the amount of money available can be increased tremendously.
I should like to say a brief word about medical research, to which I referred a moment ago. I point out that in the United
June 14, 1966

States there are 88 medical colleges and 12 in the process of being built. In 1958 the federal government of the United States decided to institute a crash program to strengthen its medical schools by increasing the amount of federal funds available for medical research. As hon. members realize, most medical research is conducted in medical schools. For some years the government of the United States had been providing $250 million for support of medical research. This amount was divided amongst the 88 medical schools. The amount of money available was rapidly expanded until in 1965 that government provided $1.5 billion for research. As a result it has been possible for them to increase rapidly their full-time staff in medical schools. Since they did not have sufficient academically trained individuals in the country it was inevitable that they would look to Canada and the United Kingdom, and that is what they did. As a result we have lost doctors.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Our answer to this must be to provide the facilities for doctors. We must provide them with the medical schools here and we must do so in sufficient quantity so that the brain drain, to use a well known term, does not continue in this country and so that the medical schools and the doctors graduating from them will continue to provide the very highest possible standard of service to the people of Canada.


Mr. Harley:: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to participate in this debate. First I want to say a few words about the brain drain that is concerning many people in the country.
Looking at the figures from various departments and from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics we find that 117,000 immigrant professional workers came to Canada between the years 1946 and 1953. Graduate nurses formed the largest proportion, numbering one in every six persons who came to Canada as immigrant professional workers.
I shall relate my figures to four classes of people with whom we are dealing. They can all be classified as health personnel. I shall quote statistics with regard to dentists, laboratory technicians and assistants, graduate nurses, and physicians and surgeons. In the years 1953 to 1963, 420 dentists, 4,428 laboratory technicians and assistants, 15,359 graduate nurses and 5,032 physicians and surgeons came to Canada as immigrants. It is
Health Resources Fund interesting to note that the doctors and dentists usually came from countries other than the United Kingdom or the United States while laboratory technicians and nurses came mostly from the United Kingdom.
Moving to the question of emigration, which concerns people in Canada even more than immigration, we find that of the professional workers leaving Canada one-quarter are graduate nurses. Using the same four groups of people and the same years, 1953 to 1963, we find that 104 dentists, 3,390 laboratory technicians and assistants, 13,963 graduate nurses and 2,630 physicians and surgeons emigrated from Canada. Therefore, out of the total number of professional emigrants from Canada almost 25 per cent were graduate nurses, 6.1 per cent were laboratory technicians, and almost 5 per cent were physicians and surgeons. We see from the figures the gradually increasing numbers of doctors who are emigrating to the United States. In 1953 doctors represented 4 per cent of professional emigrants and in 1963 this figure had risen to 7 per cent.
Comparing the figures of immigration to Canada and emigration from Canada one sees that there was a net outflow from Canada to the United States in all of the above occupations. Therefore Canada has been losing to the United States but fortunately, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Saskatoon, Canada has been gaining back these groups in that more have emigrated from other countries in the world at large. If one takes the net inflow of these occupations to Canada and subtracts the people in these groups who leave this country to go to the United States, it will be seen that in those years Canada has actually gained 316 dentists, 1,038 laboratory technicians, 1,396 graduate nurses and 2,402 physicians and surgeons.
It is interesting to note that the figures show that one out of every five doctors practising now in Canada is a foreign born, post-war immigrant, as is one dentist out of every 20 and one graduate nurse of every eight. Bringing the value of all this education down to dollars and cents, the figures would indicate a value in the neighbourhood of $450 million.
The brain drain is of great concern to the people of Canada and to the government. I can only reiterate what the hon. member for Saskatoon has already said, that without immigrant doctors coming to Canada our medical profession would have been stretched very far and thin.

June 14, 1966
Health Resources Fund
Interestingly enough, the educational level is higher among the people coming to Canada than among those who are leaving. It should also be noted that Canada gains a great deal from Canadians who are studying abroad as more Canadians study abroad than people from abroad study in Canada. This situation, however, is rapidly reaching a balance.
One of the things we must concern ourselves with is why Canadians with professional training emigrate to the United States. Generally speaking, if one delves into the reasons why people wish to emigrate to the United States one finds that the reasons given are, first, the climate, second, larger incomes in the United States and, third, the fact that some immigrants use Canada as a stepping stone to get into the United States because that country will not allow them to come in directly from their own countries.
For the professional groups the reasons for emigrating are somewhat different. The first reason is the better opportunity in the United States, both in terms of salary and the research facilities which are available; second, because of the free flow of skilled people between Canada and the United States it is often easier for those people to move north or south than it is to move east or west and remain in Canada and, third, again there is the question of climate. Unfortunately we do not have very much control over that. The brain drain is very serious and we all hope that the provisions made by the government in the measure before the house will tend to reverse the trend.
I now want to talk about doctors who are trained in Canada. The medical association is greatly concerned with problems related to this matter and a short time ago published two special editions of their journal which were devoted to medical education. I should like to quote an abstract from "Medical Education, Part I", found in the Canadian Medical Association Journal dated April 2, 1966.
Enrolment in the 12 Canadian medical schools in 1965-66 reached a new high of 4,023, an increase of 3.8 per cent over 1964-65. The percentage of women among medical students (11.4 per cent) was close to that for the preceding two years. The decline in the numbers of students from outside Canada continued into the present year; in 1965-66, 9.1 per cent of medical students were non-Canadian. This decline has been primarily in the number of students from the U.S.A. The number of students from commonwealth countries has shown a steady increase over the seven year period under review; in 1965-66 they make up nearly one-half of all nonCanadian students. It was noted that 27 per cent

of overseas students came to Canada under governmental or intergovernmental sponsorship. Of the Canadian students, 95 per cent came from the "home" provinces of the medical schools.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It is interesting to compare standards of training in Canada with those of the United States. It is apparent that one of our needs is a better staffing of medical faculties. A comparison between the student-faculty ratio in Canada and the United States reveals a sharp contrast. In the United States there are 6.6 faculty members for every student while in Canada the ratio is 1 to 2.2. Thus the United States has roughly three times as many fulltime faculty members for every student.
It has been said in various publications that a student taking a medical course should have an I.Q. of between 120 and 125. This would encompass approximately 6 per cent of Canadians. I should like to refer to another interesting statement in the Medical Journal. It is from an article entitled "Canadian Applicants For Medical Schools in Canada, 1965-66". The conclusion reached by the author of the article is that it is erroneous to believe there is a surplus of well qualified Canadian applicants at the present time.
I find his conclusion surprising because I had thought there were more well qualified Canadians wishing to take up medicine than were able to do so in the light of our limited facilities. Approximately 10 per cent of all medical students drop out before graduation. There are now 12 medical schools in Canada and two are in the course of construction, in Sherbrooke and Hamilton. It is estimated that we need 440 new doctors each year in order to keep pace with our population growth. We need another 400 to replace doctors who die, retire or fall ill. This means we must find a total of 840 new doctors each year, and we graduate approximately 850 a year. This number is, therefore, only sufficient to keep pace with events, which is not good enough for a country that boasts of an extremely high standard of medical practice, especially bearing in mind recent developments in technology.
Another difficulty which is becoming apparent concerns the role of the general practitioner. In Canada the general practitioner seems to be disappearing. Some people predict he will eventually disappear completely. General practitioners now account for approximately 40 per cent of the total number of doctors, the remainder being specialists of some kind. However, I am glad to say that
June 14, 1966

Health Resources Fund
general practitioners usually spend more than one year at the present time in postgraduate training. In fact, the average is two years.
This brings me to the special concern felt because of the shortage of doctors in rural areas. Not only are more specialists being trained today but general practitioners are increasingly being drawn to practices in well established urban localities rather than in rural areas as was the case years ago. It was common to find efforts to attract doctors to rural communities. A community would provide rent-free facilities and other benefits of a fringe nature to encourage doctors to come to the area.
In 1960 the ratio of doctors to patients in Canada was approximately one to 904. Some people think this ratio should be one in every 750. The ratio of dentists to patients is roughly one to 3,000 and most dental authorities think it should probably be one to 2,000. There is one nurse for every 260 of the population and most authorities think the proportion should be one to every 200. So there is a need to train more and more people in these fields and we certainly welcome the grants which the federal government intends to make available to help provide training facilities.
It has been estimated, I hope accurately, that with the help of the increased facilities provided by the medical schools the medical student population should double by 1970. This should be the aim, and if it means the spending of even more money by the federal government then I would certainly support it.
One important aspect of this whole subject concerns wages and salaries. In the last Civil Service Commission circular, a copy of which goes to members of parliament, I noticed an advertisement for an elevator maintenance and inspection officer for which post the salary offered was $9,000 a year. But for chemists, bacteriologists and pharmacists the salary offered was approximately $7,000 a year. I am not against paying a reasonable wage to an elevator inspector or maintenance officer but I suggest that a qualified chemist, bacteriologist or pharmacist should certainly command a higher salary than persons in that category. I am sure the hon. member for Simcoe East could give even more surprising examples. When I graduated from the University of Toronto in 1951 the salary paid to junior internes by the Toronto General Hospital-it was not even called a salary; it was called an honorarium-amounted to $100 a year, the price per day of a pack of
cigarettes for a person in a highly responsible position and on call 24 hours a day.
I am glad to say that the situation has altered. Nevertheless, salaries have still not reached a level appropriate to the work these doctors are doing, the hours they must put in and the responsibility they carry. The same is true of nurses and other trained personnel.
Before closing I should like to make six recommendations. I am aware that most of them do not fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government but I put them forward, in the hope that those concerned will take cognizance of them and follow them up in order that sufficient health personnel may be available in Canada when we put a full medical care scheme into effect.
My first suggestion, to which I have already referred, is that higher salaries be paid to doctors and nurses in their training period. Though Canadian hospitals may pay $100 a month, one can pick up journals carrying advertisements for positions in the United States where internes are paid $5,000 and more. If we are to have Canadian doctors we must encourage them to stay in Canada.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
My second suggestion is that refresher courses be made available for general practitioners. More and more general practitioners are taking advantage of such facilities as now exist. In fact, it is now insisted that doctors in general practice should devote a certain amount of time to training each year. I should like to encourage the further training of general practitioners in the practice of medicine before they actually go out into practice, and this again means giving these people a reasonable wage while they are taking this extra training.
The third point I wish to mention is that I notice that in the Hall commission report and in other reports there is reference to dental and nursing aides or assistants. Certainly in the field of dentistry a dental aide could buff teeth and do other jobs that take up so much of a dentist's time, and many of the duties of nursing could be performed by a nursing aide. I would like to see medical technicians trained to do the relatively simple medical tasks that are time consuming for a doctor or a graduate nurse. I speak of such things as vaccination procedures, taking blood pressures and blood samples. These could be done equally well by trained aides as by graduate doctors and nurses.

June 14, 1966
Health Resources Fund
My fourth point is that we should encourage more postgraduate training in medical science. In this connection I would like to read from a Medical Journal abstract under an article headed, "Canadian-Trained Basic Medical Scientists", in the issue of April 9. 1966:
Questionnaire returns from doctoral degree holders revealed that citizenship status at the time of graduation is positively related to migration; migration rates were lowest for Canadian-horn and highest for landed immigrants and foreign students. Geographic mobility during training was also found to be a significant factor which increased the propensity to migrate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Has the hon. member
unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harry Cruickshank Harley: I shall end shortly, Mr. Chairman. The abstract continues:
One-half of those who took further postdoctorate training in the United States are currently living in the United States, compared to 15 per cent of those who received all their training in Canada.
In other words, if we train these people in Canada they will remain in Canada. This brings me back to the idea of providing facilities for postgraduate training in Canada and providing these people with better wages while they are here.
The fifth point I want to make is that we have been talking a great deal about the provision of federal money for medical research. We are always told in this chamber that health facilities and health care are a provincial matter. Therefore I suggest that the provincial governments give consideration to providing funds for medical research in addition to the funds provided by the federal government.
My sixth point is that I agree with previous speakers that we in Canada should provide more federal and provincial funds for medical research in keeping with the findings of the Woods-Gundy report recently tabled in the house. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for allowing me extra time to conclude my remarks.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, I join with the hon. member for Hamilton South who spoke first for this party in giving general support to the proposals contained in this resolution,

but I do so only in the sense that we consider this to be the first payment toward meeting a tremendously urgent problem.
The minister indicated that this fund would be administered jointly and in co-operation with the provincial governments involved. I wish that co-operation had begun before the government plucked this $500 million figure out of thin air because I can find no report, no recommendation, no study by any group of experts which would indicate that it is realistic.
The sum of $500 million sounds like a large amount of money until one realizes that the government is talking about spending it over a period of 15 years. This means that the expenditure in respect of medical colleges, medical education and research will total only $33 million a year. The provincial minister of health from the minister's own province of Nova Scotia, after this program was announced, indicated that Nova Scotia could use $33 million each year itself. Therefore I suggest that the $500 million figure is completely inadequate. I am satisfied that when the government has an opportunity to look at the matter again and pays attention to the representations made to it year after year by the most qualified people in this field it will realize that it will have to double or quadruple this amount.
I want to deal just with the subject of medical research. Through its national institute on health the government of the United States is spending over $1 billion a year on medical research. Canada has approximately one-tenth of the population of the United States and to come anywhere close to the United States we should be spending $100 million a year on medical research alone. Yet the government proposes an annual expenditure of $33 million to cover not only medical research but also the building of medical colleges, the training of medical students and everything else in this field.
It is no wonder that the experts who work for the government have been saying for years that what we are doing is completely inadequate. I am not going to go back to the report made by the special committee headed by Dr. Farquharson which was submitted to the former government in 1955, having been presented to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre when he was the minister in charge, and which was almost completely ignored by that government. But I do want to refer to the report made by the late Dr.
June 14, 1966

Farquharson on behalf of the Medical Research Council in 1964 and presented to the present government, in which he said:
The other limiting factors are the longstanding shortage of medical research laboratories and the expensive facilities they involve. The shortage now is far more critical than ever before and no research-granting bodies have the funds with which to meet it. It is vital, however, that some way be found to do so in the near future.
He went on to speak about the medical brain drain to the United States and said this would be greatly reduced if we had the funds to support the personnel and the facilities necessary for their work. Up to now we have not been providing sufficient funds. The program envisaged by this resolution does not provide sufficient funds and the brain drain of doctors to the United States is not only continuing but accelerating. Over the last five years never less than 500 of the best doctors in Canada, including some of the best research doctors, have left annually for the United States. As usual the government's proposal is too little and too late.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The government did not have to consider the somewhat outdated recommendations made by Dr. Farquharson. In December, 1965, a report was prepared by Mr. Gundy of Woods-Gundy on medical research in Canada, an analysis of immediate and future needs which was subscribed to by close to 200 of the most respected medical teachers and researchers in Canada. If one reads that report and compares it with the picayune proposals included in this resolution one can conclude only that the government, as past governments, is determined to ignore the advice, recommendations and entreaties of the best medical brains in this country. I am not being critical, Mr. Chairman, but this country will continue to be able to find money to build projects such as Expo. We will continue to be able to find literally billions of dollars to build highways so that the people of this country can drive from one city to another faster than ever before. I am not being critical of the expenditures on roads. However, we are not prepared to find the money which is required to build and maintain the medical colleges and medical research facilities without which the health of the people of this country can go only from bad to worse.
Let us look at some of the findings in the Gundy report. I am not going to spend a great deal of time reading it. I am sure the minister has had an opportunity to read it and I wish he had paid some attention to it. I can find
Health Resources Fund nothing in the resolution and nothing in the introductory remarks of the minister to indicate that the government has taken at all seriously the report of the Gundy committee, which report, as I said earlier, has been endorsed by the leading medical educators and research people in Canada. Here is what the report says in part:
Although financial support has been increasing, medical research In Canada today is being conducted on an inadequate scale.
A substantial increase in capital and operating support for medical research in Canada is needed at once. The key consideration is the creation of conditions which will encourage teacher-scientists to remain in Canada and in teaching and research; which will encourage Canadian teacher-scientists and graduates now in the United States to return to work in Canadian universities and hospitals;
When the United States government is
spending $1 billion a year on medical research and this country is spending-I will let the minister give the figure-not much more than one-hundredth rather than one-tenth of that amount, I ask the minister how the objective set forth by Mr. Gundy can be met. How can one expect medical researchers to stay in Canada or expect medical researchers from Canada who now are in the United States to come back here when it is obvious that in any field in the United States in which they are interested they can write their own tickets, work out their own programs, set their own objectives and the money will be there. This is not the time to discuss this matter in detail but when we have the estimates of the minister before us I can assure him that we will go into it. The fact is that not more than 70 per cent of the requests made to the Medical Research Council in the last few years have been met.
Persons doing medical research in Canada know there is a shortage of funds. When they have ideas and want funds for projects they know they have to be careful to pare their requests to the bone or they will not be met. Yet, Mr. Chairman, despite that 30 per cent of their requests are turned down. More serious still are the newer requests. After all, to some extent the young, eager and newer graduates are the ones who wish to get into this work. Of the new requests 90 per cent are turned down in whole or in part. The figures and the evidence are here in the Gundy report. Is it any wonder that the
O.E.C.D. Observer, which had a special issue recently on science, reports that 48 per cent of the scientists and engineers who graduated in Canada from 1956 to 1961 left Canada for

June 14. 1966
Health Resources Fund the United States? Who can blame them? Can one be critical of them? The British, the French and the Germans are worried about the brain drain.
I should like to pause here for a moment, Mr. Chairman, to make a correction. Forty eight per cent of the engineers who graduated in Canada left for the United States. The figure for scientists and engineers is 32.3 per cent. The figure in respect of western Europe, which is concerned about the drain, is just 7.4 per cent. In other words, almost four times as many scientists, engineers and doctors are leaving Canada compared with the number leaving western Europe. Western Europe is worried about this. As the hon. member for Saskatoon and the hon. member for Halton said, they are doing something about it. But we, on the basis of what the minister is proposing today, in effect are continuing to ignore the very serious problem which has been with us and is continuing.
The report of the Gundy committee spells this out in great detail. What do they say about the position of medical research in Canada at the present time? Let me quote one sentence:
The 1959 report to the Privy Council recommended that the government of Canada provide in the next three to five years $25 million for the erection of new research laboratories in the medical schools and $12 million for the installation of research facilities in the affiliated teaching hospitals. No response was forthcoming.
That was the result in respect of the recent recommendation. They go on to speak of extramural research support by the federal government to medical research. The funds available for 1965-1966 from the federal government were $14.9 million and the deficit compared with the requests was $5.2 million. Almost one-third of what was requested was refused or ignored by the federal government in the last fiscal year. I am not going to blame this government for the sins of past governments or even for its errors of omission and commission in earlier years, but for the year 1965-1966 there were requests for $10.5 million for medical research and the amount granted by the federal government was just over $7 million or 67 per cent. There were requests for payment to personnel of over $2.5 million, s (5:20 p.m.)
The minister by ignoring these needs is saying in effect to the medical research people of this country: We do not need you, we do not want you and we invite you to make

arrangements to go to the United States as quickly as possible.


Mr. Churchill:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


David Orlikow: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps the hon. member would repeat the figure he mentioned for 1965-66 which I understood to be in the neighbourhood of $7 million. The book of estimates for the fiscal year ended March 31 shows that the expenditure was $9,250,000 under the Medical Research Council for scholarships and grants in aid of medical research.


David Orlikow: I was using the figures which appear on the table opposite page 36 of the Gundy report, and it is indicated that the source of the information was the Medical Research Council and that the figures for 1965-66 were not final. I quoted exactly the same figures that appear in the table or at least used the round figures. If they are wrong or the hon. member wishes to argue about them I suggest he argue with the experts who prepared the Gundy report.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was just accepting the figures provided by the government in this book of estimates.


David Orlikow: The Medical Research Council states that the figures were not final for that year and it may be that there were some later grants which increased the amount. In any event, whether one accepts the figures I mentioned or the slightly higher figures mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, the amount is inadequate. The amount is in the neighbourhood of $10 million and, as I indicated, if we were to spend as much per capita on medical research as is being spent in the United States we should spend ten times that much or roughly $100 million.
What will happen in the future? In this area the Gundy report again has stated some specific requirements which I must assume the minister and the government have completely ignored.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. gentleman has expired. Is it the wish of the hon. member to ask for unanimous consent to extend his time?


David Orlikow: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
June 14, 1966


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give its unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: I appreciate the extra time and I assure hon. members that I will not abuse their consideration.
I should like to quote briefly from page 49 of the Gundy report:
-we have indicated the scale of medical research in Canada that we consider necessary for a high standard of medical education and health services in the expansionary conditions now being experienced and that are anticipated in the immediate future. Hence our projection is designed not only to overcome present inadequacies but to move medical research in Canada onto a level which will permit these expansions to be realized successfully.
The report then goes on to refer to needs and points out that we will need by 1969-70 an additional 1,200 full-time staff members in the medical colleges which are now in existence or which will be built. That is a tremendous number and the amount of money required certainly will not be provided by the picayune $33 million per year which the government proposes to spend.
At page 55 of the report the recommendations are summed up as follows:
In combination then, the capital requirements of the projected expansion in medical research in the five years to 1969-70 are estimated at $93 million for buildings and $46 million to $57 million for equipment.
Compare the approximately $150 million needed just for medical research, buildings and equipment by 1970 with the $33 million per year the government proposes to spend and you will see how far short of the need we actually are.
The report then states:
It would appear that some assistance from the government of Canada toward such capital is in prospect in the form of the health resources fund. However, this fund is for a wide range of purposes, including teaching hospitals, medical schools, dental schools and training facilities for other health personnel, as well as for research establishments, and its announced size of $500 million is for use over a 15-year period. It would seem that the capital requirements of medical research today and in the future-and, it would appear, of health facilities as a whole-may not have been fully appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, when the most eminent group of medical scientists in this country states in these careful words the needs for the future one can assume not only that we have not achieved what we should have but that we certainly have come nowhere near achieving the objective.
Health Resources Fund
Let me conclude by saying that we support this proposal as a first step forward meeting one of the most important needs of this country. We hope and expect that the government will have second thoughts, consult with the medical colleges and medical scientists and study carefully the recommended needs because unless it does so the health standards of the people of this country will and must deteriorate. These are tremendous needs in the field of medical education and medical research, as outlined by my colleague the hon. member for Hamilton South.
I do not join completely with the hon. member for Saskatoon who seemed to be saying that we should not begin a health services plan until we had a sufficiently trained staff of doctors to carry it forward. If we wait until that time I do not believe we will ever accomplish our purpose. Surely we will not be successful in obtaining a sufficient number of trained personnel to operate an efficient health services plan until such a plan is put into operation in Canada so that the people who need to consult the medical profession will do so without worrying about the fact that they may not be able to afford to do so.
If we do not make some beginning in this field, Mr. Chairman, I am sure a tremendous problem will develop which will place a terrific strain on health services in this country. I urge the minister to give serious consideration, once this bill is passed by the house, to increasing the funds available so that the health needs of the people of this country will really be met.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Honey:: Mr. Chairman, the debate this
afternoon on the need for a health resources fund has been of a constructive nature and I hope that my remarks will follow the general precedent set by those speakers who have preceded me. As mentioned by the minister in his introductory remarks this afternoon, this resolution is a preliminary step to the introduction of a national medicare program. I believe all members will recognize the necessity of moving immediately into the planning stage of this program. I believe that the minister said we should initiate the planning at once by way of the establishment of a health resources fund so we will have to the greatest extent possible-I appreciate that we may not achieve perfection at all times in

June 14, 1966
Health Resources Fund this matter-the trained personnel and facilities for training personnel who will be available to service the health plan when it is introduced, I hope next year, on a national basis.
In my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I want to take a general and pragmatic approach to the subject of the health resources fund and discuss, as I have already mentioned, the necessity of moving ahead with this legislation as quickly as we can in order that we will be in a position to implement and carry out the provisions of the medicare program which will be implemented next year. This will be important social legislation and it is important for us in the parliament of Canada to do what we can to ensure that this social legislation will go into operation effectively and smoothly when it is introduced.
I do not subscribe to the argument which I believe was advanced by the hon. member for Saskatoon that we should not proceed with a national medicare program until we have reached the state of perfection where we have all the trained personnel necessary to put it into effect. It is my belief that we are never going to reach a state of utopia where we will have all the personnel and facilities we would like to have but that we should do the best we can in this matter and move ahead as quickly as is reasonably possible.
The resolution we are debating this afternoon proposes the setting up of a $500 million fund to be expended over a period of 15 years. As the minister said in introducing the resolution, the basic purpose is to help meet the greater need for trained people to provide medical care services and to endeavour to catch up where possible in areas where adequate trained personnel are in short supply. This fund will also supply moneys to support the construction and equipment of facilities for health research and training. It will provide capital grants for the construction, renovation and basic equipment of research establishments, teaching schools, medical schools and training facilities for essential health services personnel.
On three or four occasions this afternoon there has been an expression of opinion and regret in this debate from those opposite-I appreciate that it is informed opinion particularly because much of it has come from members of the medical profession-that the legislation which we are now considering will be too little, too late. I think that was the expression of one of the speakers. I am not personally wedded to the proposition that this

program will be an end in itself. I think we will have to proceed on the basis of experience. We will have to proceed and see what we can achieve with the money available to us which we are prepared to expend in pursuance of the objectives of this resolution, if it should transpire that we are not graduating the number of trained personnel required to implement our health services program, if we do not have the facilities to ensure that Canadians have the right to take advantage of the program, then parliament will have to look at this proposition again. But for the time being I think we are taking a reasonable and responsible approach to this matter.
In his introductory remarks the minister referred, as did my hon. friend from Halton, to the part the provinces will be expected to play in this program. I want to take a minute or two to deal with this question and particularly with the constitutional aspect of the responsibility of the provinces in the supplying of funds to further the objectives we are trying to achieve in this resolution. I know the minister has been in consultation with the health ministers of the provinces and that this matter has been under discussion. I am a little concerned in this respect. I would feel more at ease if the resolution itself were worded in a little firmer or more definitive fashion. I have reference to the portion of the resolution which says "it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a health resources fund to assist provinces in the acquisition", and so on. I emphasize the words "to assist provinces". Further, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the reference in the resolution to "such amounts as from time to time are required and to provide for contributions therefrom to the provinces".
I appreciate, as my hon. friend from Halton has already pointed out, that constitutionally there are some responsibilities resting on the provinces in this area. I raise this matter now only to say to the minister that it is my hope he will keep in mind in his further negotiations with the provinces that they have a responsibility which they should assume in this matter as we are, I think, assuming our responsibility by the introduction of this legislation. I mention this matter, as I say, because as representatives of the federal authority we are today considering, and I hope will today pass, a resolution which will provide for a substantial contribution to the implementation of health services in this
June 14, 1966

country, and it is proper that we should do so. I only emphasize the matter to point out that there is a collateral responsibility on the provincial governments.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I recapitulate by saying that it is my personal hope, the hope of members on this side of the house and, indeed, I suppose of members generally throughout the house, that we will see the realization of the expression by the Prime Minister of the policy of this government that on July 1, 1967, Canadians will have in effect as a centenary present, if I may use that expression, a national health program. I commend the minister for moving ahead now-certainly it is not too early to move ahead now-to make a beginning on the provision of the necessary facilities and personnel to staff and implement that program, and I hope we will see the beginning of a very useful and constructive item of social legislation next year in the introduction of the national medicare program.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Fairweather:: I propose, Mr. Chairman, to be very brief but as this is a debate I wish to comment on one or two things that have been said up to now. I also wish to relate my remarks to a problem that we face in New Brunswick.
First of all, I think the hon. members for Saskatoon and Winnipeg North outlined in a very compelling and informed way the urgent need for a much larger allocation of funds than the half billion dollars provided in this resolution. The hon. member for Saskatoon was able to spend this sum in a four year period, I think. I understand the government proposes to spend it in a 15 year period.
I was also attracted, as I think we all have been, by the remarks of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace on the national aspect of the plan. I have never been impressed by the constitutional argument that postgraduate education is the sole responsibility of the provinces. I think that the federal government as well as the provincial governments have recognized that this narrow interpretation of the constitution is not applicable in a world in which medical and other research have no national boundaries. There are no provincial boundaries to the need for doctors, nurses and others trained in this field.
However, in a more provincial vein may I say I was struck by what was said by the hon. member for Durham that the provinces 23033-405
Health Resources Fund have a collateral responsibility in this field. I should like to point out that provinces of the size of New Brunswick which have a relatively narrow economic base cannot possibly provide a meaningful sum of money for medical research or for the provision of medical schools. Therefore it has been recognized long ago that special consideration should be given in this regard to provinces of the type of New Brunswick.
Two briefs have been presented to the Minister of National Health and Welfare by a group of medical people in New Brunswick emphasizing the need for a medical school in that province. I have to be careful in what I am about to say because of the presence of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who, I presume, also has a view on this subject. I feel that in providing for medical schools we should be very careful not to be influenced by any parochial considerations. I think that if, for instance, a thoughtful and careful survey backed by facts were to be made which would say in a convincing manner that New Brunswick did not require a medical school and that a better use of the money could be made in expanding Dalhousie University, I, as a member of parliament, would have to support the expansion of the medical school at Dalhousie. However, I do not think that any survey would show this to be the case.
I should like to read part of the brief which I have mentioned. It reads as follows:
Registration of physicians in New Brunswick for the decade 1946-1955 was 135, for the decade 19561965 it was 80. This alarming drop, despite an increase in population, is mainly because of inability of eligible students to gain admission to medical schools other than Dalhousie University.
Undergraduates from New Brunswick have great difficulty in gaining admission to Dalhousie which has a quota system favouring students from Nova Scotia. Of course, I do not mean to criticize that university but their quota system is weighted against those young men and women from outside Nova Scotia who wish to enter that university, and this situation will be made more acute by the institution of medicare.
The brief states further:
There is little hope that this situation will be relieved by the provision of increased medical school facilities in other provinces. The situation has become even more acute during the current year-


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, like many
other members who have risen this afternoon I, too, rise to support this resolution in principle. It is extremely interesting to me, sir, to realize that we are debating this issue at a time when the question of medicare is foremost in our minds. I also support the principle of medicare just as I support the principle of this resolution. I speak, I think, for many members in all corners of the house when I say that I am sick and tired of seeing people have their life savings wiped out after a few months of illness. I believe that the program of medicare which the minister is putting before the house, coupled with provincial action, will go a long way toward alleviating the situation in which so many Canadians find themselves today, namely, seeing their life savings dissipated overnight as a result of sickness.
I thought I should like to bring this point to the attention of the house. Intention and reality are two different things. When the British brought in their national health plan years ago they really had to wrestle with what we recognize now as a shortage of medical manpower. In bringing this problem to the minister's attention today and in looking back at the British experience, I think we will realize we have a great lesson to learn. Whether or not the officials of the Canadian
June 14, 1966

Medical Association who conferred with the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare last week indicated they were effectively supporting the principle of medicare, I think they indicated to the minister that even independently of medicare our nation is facing an imminent crisis related to a shortage of medical manpower.
What I am going to say could be debated but I will make this declaration: What we are dealing with today is a long-term measure but even as a long-term measure I do not think it goes far enough to deal with the situation. But if we are not going to be faced with a real dilemma we need an emergency crash program today, immediately, in order to avert the imminent crisis relating to the shortage of doctors in this country. Last year, as the hon. member for Simcoe East has continually pointed out, 800 doctors went to the United States. Their earning power annually represented $400 million and it cost this country on the average $25,000 to educate these doctors. I reiterate that Canada is losing these doctors, this medical manpower, and unless immediate action is taken we shall be faced with a real crisis within two years. The long-term measure we are discussing today does not take that into consideration.
As many of us know, when the family doctor in the smaller centres passes on he is not replaced. Last year hundreds of qualified applicants were turned down at our medical schools. In 1965 these schools turned out approximately the same number of doctors as they did ten years ago. About 4 per cent of all the doctors who graduated in 1965 left the country. Some time ago many doctors were coming to our country because of dissatisfaction with working conditions in their native lands. This situation no longer exists. Not only do we lack medical schools but some of the existing schools have recently been found to be below proper accreditation standards. Before we embark on a medicare program we need to give consideration to the fact that Canada ranks only twentieth in the world in relation to the doctor to population ratio.
Today we have 1,000 teachers in our medical schools. If we want to maintain present standards, excluding all the doctors involved in medicare we must by 1970 have at least 2,000 teachers in our schools. Yet our teachers continue to move to the United States. Why is this so. The major reason lies in the fact that there are improved research facilities there. As has been stated this afternoon, improved
Health Resources Fund research is being done in the United States medical schools. The United States federal government is responsible for 90 per cent of the financial support for research in these schools. Federal assistance in the United States last year in this regard amounted to $1,300 million, while in the same year the federal share in Canada amounted to approximately $15 million. Who can wonder at the fact that our medical teachers continue to go to the United States? This exodus must be stopped, Mr. Chairman. The long-term measure we are discussing today will not stop it.
I shall try to finish before six o'clock, Mr. Chairman. Our medical schools should reevaluate their position. They have a job to do in connection with this situation. The federal government could greatly increase its assistance to medical research in Canada. This should be done right away, independently of the measure we are discussing, if this crash emergency program is going to avert a crisis. The province of Ontario, for example, has a five year plan under which they will spend $500 million to enlarge existing medical schools and construct new ones. These schools will be mere shells unless we have teachers to staff them. We must remember that research attracts teachers. The difference between having sufficient excellent teachers and having none is medical research.
The government in Ottawa must announce a drive on medical manpower. The crisis is nearer at hand than we think. I commend this resolution to members of the house and I commend the principle of medicare. When we look back at the British experience we should recall that the real crisis existed in connection with medical manpower, the shortage of doctors. I think the minister must announce to the people of Canada that the government will undertake an emergency program in order to avert this crisis. I hope he will do so during this debate. May I call it six o'clock?
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps I should advise the hon. gentleman to read provisional standing order 61-A. This debate will continue until it is completed.


William Heward Grafftey: I appreciate being able to hold the floor under those circumstances. I was under the impression that it was six o'clock and that we were going on with private members' business.
May I read into the record something very germane to this debate. I do not usually like doing this but I think some of the facts

those sections that propose ways of attracting more medical personnel. I quote from appendix 1 of that report, section 144 and following:
144.	That to attract more medical personnel, the professional training grant be increased to provide for an annual grant, on application, of $2,000 to each Canadian medical student with satisfactory performance in his third and fourth medical years at a Canadian school of medicine.
145.	That in respect of foreign medical students enrolled in Canadian medical schools at the request of federal departments, a grant be made to the university over and above the regular fees, calculated to represent the amount of university subsidy of the student. (The amount should be negotiated between federal officials and the Canadian Universities Foundation.)
146.	That the remuneration of part-time clinical teachers be increased to realistic levels.
147.	That the salaries paid to interns and residents in teaching hospitals approved for internship and resident training be increased to more reasonable levels.
148.	That the health sciences research council be encouraged to increase the number of research associateships at medical schools and, in addition, make provisions for scholarships to recent medical graduates not yet qualified for research associate-ships.
149.	That to train sufficient personnel required for faculties in basic and pre-clinical science departments the present grants to graduate students from the National Research Council be continued and increased to more reasonable levels.
150.	That to help ensure that physicians in practice maintain their level of competence, medical schools inaugurate or expand their programmes of continuing medical education, and that fees, travel, and living expenses for attendance at such courses be regarded as deductible expenses for income tax purposes.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
151.	That to reduce our most serious shortages of specialists in areas in which we are recommending rapid expansion of services, medical schools and teachng hospitals introduce or expand their programs for postgraduate study in psychiatry, physical medicine, ophthalmology, anaesthesiology, pathology and radiology.
152.	That as part of a seven year crash program-
That is what they are talking about, a crash program which recognizes that a crisis is near at hand unless we act immediately, independent of this legislation. I will read the whole recommendation again:
152.	That as part of a seven year crash program, special professional training grants of $5,000 per year be allocated to medical graduates undertaking postgraduate studies in psychiatry, physical medicine, ophthalmology, anaesthesiology, pathology and radiology.
153.	That funds be made available to medical schools to provide adequate remuneration in order to increase the ratio of full-time to part-time staff.
Health Resources Fund
Recommendation No. 154 states:
That funds be made available to those schools that wish to convert to year-round operations for the purpose of improving the quality of instruction and/or reducing the total length of time required to qualify for graduation or licensure to practise.
I am sure many of these recommendations will be encompassed by the legislation which will follow this resolution. The main purpose of my rising today is to suggest to the government through the minister that the crisis is nearer at hand than we think and that we need pinpointed action on these recommendations coupled with vastly increased research grants from the federal treasury to research units in universities and other organizations in order to keep teaching personnel here in Canada to teach our own doctors who in turn would and should stay in our nation.
Let us not pretend for a moment that this will not cost lots and lots of money. Let us not pretend for a moment that anybody can pay for it except the taxpayer. But I think this is something in which the taxpayer is keenly interested and something he is willing to pay for. Let us be frank with the people and put the cards on the table. I am sure that if the public were aware of the crisis which looms before them in terms of medical manpower they would be appalled, and that any action the minister might be willing to take would be well received.
The shortage of medical staff involves doctors, teachers, research workers and trained nurses. My family had a visit yesterday from a trained nurse who was telling us that many young nurses were moving to the United States where they received better salaries. Many of the young doctors with whom I went to college I see only on those occasions when I visit them in the United States where they have removed themselves sometimes to take advantage of better research facilities and sometimes attracted by what they feel to be a more realistic level of remuneration.
That is the situation. Let the minister announce a short-term crash program in order to cope with it.


Mr. McQuaid:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the passage of this resolution unduly but there are one or two observations I should like to make on this important measure.
Most hon. members have been critical of the fact that only $500 million has been allocated to this project. I agree that the

June 14. 1966
Health Resources Fund amount should be larger, but in all fairness I feel that the minister and the government should be congratulated on the start which has been made. We agree that $500 million will not be sufficient but it is a start and I have a notion that once this project is under way additional money will be made available as required.
I am concerned about the division which will be made of this sum when the time comes to divide it. Several times I have had occasion to sit around a conference table when federal funds were being divided and my experience has been that unfortunately in many cases it is a case of "dog eat dog".
I am especially reminded of what happened in 1957 when the federal government of that day made a substantial grant available to the Atlantic provinces. It was decided that the division of the grant should be arranged by the provinces themselves, and the premiers or their financial advisers met to divide this adjustment grant. The result was very unfair so far as the province of Prince Edward Island was concerned. The money was divided on the basis of 30 per cent to Nova Scotia, 30 per cent to New Brunswick, 30 per cent to Newfoundland and only 10 per cent to Prince Edward Island. I hope that when the time comes to allocate this $500 million among the provinces it will not be done on a per capita basis but rather on the basis of fiscal need which is the only fair system of allocation.
I have a suggestion which I shall make to the minister for what its worth. It is that when the time comes to divide this money a certain amount be set aside to be divided on a per capita basis. I agree that this should be done. Having done this, a further sum should be set aside to be divided on the basis of fiscal need. I think we have a friend in court because the Minister of National Health and Welfare comes from the Atlantic provinces. I believe, too, that an additional amount should be set aside as a special grant to the Atlantic provinces.
It is in the Atlantic provinces that the fiscal need really arises. We do not have the tax potential which exists in other parts of Canada and unless some recognition is given to our special fiscal need we shall not be able to share in the benefits of this legislation as fairly as we ought.
I was interested in the statement of the minister that the objective of the fund is to catch up in places where supplies of adequately trained personnel are not presently available. This is most important and I hope

something can be done by means of this program to encourage doctors to settle in sparsely populated areas such as country districts. I have in mind particularly my own district where we are served by only one medical doctor. It is frightening at times to think that a district of such a size is served by only one medical doctor. Efforts have been made by the people themselves to encourage doctors to come there but for some reason or other doctors do not want to settle in these sparsely populated places.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I do not know what the incentive can be. Possibly it could be in the form of a tax incentive. We offer tax incentives to industries to settle in areas in which ordinarily they might not be inclined to settle. Something in the form of a tax incentive over a five year period might be made available to doctors to encourage them to settle in areas in which otherwise they might not be inclined to practise.
Such a program would have to be clearly defined. There would have to be a definition of an area suffering from the lack of medical service and some arrangement would have to be made whereby doctors would enter into contracts to stay there for a stated period of time, say five, six or ten years. The time is coming when the government will have to consider providing an incentive of some kind to encourage young men leaving medical schools to settle in areas not properly serviced by doctors.
We in our small province do not hope to benefit from this fund by the setting up of medical schools. The size of our province does not warrant a medical school. We are adequately served by Dalhousie and by the medical school at McGill for those who choose to go there, but something could be done in our province in the field of medical research.
One of the reasons doctors are not inclined to settle in areas less thickly populated than cities is that they have no research facilities at their disposal, and a young man coming out of medical school wants to continue to improve his status and education. Unless there are facilities available to do so he will not settle in isolated areas.
I hope an adequate share of this $500 million will be given to our province for assistance in research. In recent years we have made encouraging advances in Prince Edward Island in research into mental health and mental retardation. Such research could
June 14, 1966

be encouraged by the allotment of some of this fund.
In our province, as in others we are suffering from an inadequate supply of trained nurses. I believe some consideration is being given in Prince Edward Island to the setting up of a central nursing school to be operated in conjunction with our university. I would hope that some of this fund could be made available to us for such a purpose so that young girls could train in their home province. Having trained there I suggest they will be more inclined to settle in the province and work in it.
I commend the government for introducing this measure and I give it my full support. When it comes time to divide the money I hope the minister will consider the peculiar circumstances we are in financially in the Atlantic area and see that we get an adequate share of the $500 million.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak at length on the resolution. I am sure this measure will receive the support of most people across the country. I suppose that in introducing this legislation the government was motivated by several factors, one no doubt having to do with the intention to implement a public medicare plan within a relatively short period of time and a second no doubt having to do with the fact that there exists an ever-increasing problem concerning the shortage of doctors, dentists and other paramedical services.
In some provinces even to this date medical schools and teaching hospitals directly connected with university administration do not exist. It is felt that the quality and efficiency of medical training in Manitoba would be better if the medical school came closely under the purview of the university administration.
The teaching hospitals in Winnipeg have high standards in many ways, but nevertheless it is felt it would be better if they and the services they provide were to be coordinated more closely with the university and its administration. I hope the government in using this fund will utilize every opportunity to expedite the construction of more university teaching hospitals.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi mentioned the pressures on the quality of medical services and skill in this country. Most members would agree, and consequently there could be no good reason for opposing the establishment of this health resources fund. Of course one could argue about the
Health Resources Fund adequacy of the sum of $500 million but as a beginning it seems impressive enough. Much will depend upon the co-operation and the contribution put into this effort by the provinces.
We have a far way to go. Our medical education and research are far behind those of other advanced countries and, unless a special effort is made to catch up, in a very few years time we will have real reason to despair. It has been pointed out that the ratio of Canadian efforts and expenditures on medical research compared with those of the United States is somewhere of the order of one to 100. Compared with our respective populations and wealth ratios, it seems inexcusable that we have allowed ourselves to lag so far behind. In keeping with my undertaking not to speak at length I conclude by again telling the minister that I hope this program will assist in the construction of more university teaching hospitals directly co-ordinated with university administration.


Mr. MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Chairman, I do not plan to prolong the debate but I would
like to make two or three observations which may be helpful during consideration of this fund. Prince Edward Island, being small in population, has not had an opportunity to deal with the large issues of medical endeavour and research. But there is one area in which Prince Edward Island has made a significant contribution, that of mental retardation and mental health generally. I believe all this is due to the leadership of some of our people who over the past few years have established an excellent mental health program. Inasmuch as we have free mental health services in Prince Edward Island I think this is a significant pioneering move in this country. When consideration is being given to adding both extra resource and research facilities in this country, I feel that strong consideration should be given to the province of Prince Edward Island in view of its lead in the field of mental health. I think both the men working there now and others who may join them have made and will make a significant contribution in the area of research in the field of mental health generally in this country.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
When I mention the problem of mental retardation I must be very careful. There is a slight conflict of interest here because the members of my family have been very concerned about the problem of mental retardation over the past few years. My father is

June 14, 1S66
Health Resources Fund director of a Sheltered workshop in Charlottetown. I say to him that whatever success he is having is due to the experience he had when his children were growing up. One of the things which has been discovered here is that there is a whole general area in the field of retardation which has been untouched until the past decade. I believe we have been fortunate in having a number of people on a volunteer basis who have provided leadership in this area throughout the province.
I think there is an important area in terms of the social integration of these young people, because it is both a health and vocational problem and it very well may fall in the lap of more than one department. I think the contribution made by many people in Prince Edward Island has been very significant, and I hope that under the terms of this resolution such work can be encouraged and moved forward.
I should like to build on the remarks of the hon. member for Kings with regard to the difficulty today in obtaining the services of a doctor in the rural areas of Canada. He confined his remarks generally to his area and although I might do the same I know it is true that more and more it is becoming a problem for small towns, villages and rural areas to obtain the services of a general practitioner. I realize the reasons are many. One very obvious one is the fact that more and more men who graduate as general practitioners go on to become specialists and therefore their services are too specialized for them to serve in a rural area. Of course others are anxious to serve in areas where there may be research facilities and where they will have opportunities to consult.
I think one of the fundamental problems is that which concerns education itself. Unfortunately because of our own experience and training we are very much of the opinion that when a man graduates from medical school by and large he has completed his education and goes forth to serve wherever he is called upon to do so. The problem, particularly today, is that medical knowledge is expanding at such a rate that what a man may be equipped to do this year may be completely out of date four or five years from now; so much will have been added that he may feel almost unable to exercise his practice successfully. When a man goes to a rural area it becomes a real problem for him to keep in touch with the latest developments. He is not meeting and talking every day to

people who are in touch with all the recent
changes. He is not caught up in the kind of intellectual milieu which will assist him to keep up with medical practice. Therefore he feels he really is putting himself behind the eight-ball, not just financially but in terms of his own effective service, by going out into a rural practice.
Therefore when we are thinking of expanding our medical training I would encourage the minister and members of this house to consider this along the line that we should offer free refresher courses and encourage doctors to take sabbatical years just as university professors do now so that the doctors in rural or isolated areas will not feel they are sacrificing their own intellectual ability or quality of service by serving in these fields. If we make a real attempt to encourage the rural doctor to keep his training up to date, I think we will find a very competent service being administered medically to all parts of this country.
ITranslationl


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, before commenting on the bill introduced this afternoon by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), I should like to congratulate the minister-we, in the official or unofficial opposition, are rather inclined to criticize the government and emphasize its deficiencies-for I think that occasionally it is a good thing to recognize the merits of the government.
I think that, as far as the bill before us is concerned, the minister justly deserves our commendation and that we underline his dynamism. I am glad to do just that, Mr. Chairman.	.
As I am no expert in this field, I will
confine my remarks to questions which, I think, some hon. members and the public would like to have answered.
The resolution reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a health resources fund to assist provinces in the acquisition, construction and renovation of health training facilities and research institutions-
I presume, of course, that the most urgent needs will be met first.
I am thinking especially of the field of psychiatry which has become more important in recent years, taking into account, in particular, the quicker pace of our modern life and the more recent discoveries regarding what is commonly called stress. Such findings reminded us that preventive medicine rather
June 14, 1966

than curative medicine is of prime importance in that field; in addition, there seems to be a deficiency throughout the country in this respect. I suppose this resolution will make it possible to provide those willing to specialize in the most recent developments with regard to psychiatric care with a fairly high amount of money.
And I should like to add to psychiatry, since to my mind-and I repeat it is the mind of a layman-it is a field related to psychiatric services, the question of chronic alcoholism. I mention this because I am now thinking of two persons in my riding who, for the past few years, have been making a thorough study of the alcoholic problem.
Formerly, alcoholism was considered a vice; today, it is looked upon as an illness and it is felt that there are means not only to prevent it but also to cure it. I have in mind more particularly a young member of the Roman Catholic clergy who has so far spent at least two years of his life in advanced studies of various areas in order to plumb the depths of the problem of alcoholism, to find out what is being done in other countries, so that it may be helpful in solving the problem here, and who obviously will not be in a position, with his own means, to carry on his studies indefinitely. He will have to rely on the assistance of governments.
Having said this, Mr. Chairman, I should now like to put a few questions to the minister and, at the outset, beg his indulgence If they seem naive, for he is probably more conversant with the problem than we are. But I shall put them nevertheless, because I am aware that my electors would like to have the answers.	'
For instance, I note the following in the resolution now before us:
-to provide further for the establishment of a health resources advisory committee consisting of eleven members and for the payment of reasonable travelling expenses of its members.
Now then, I should like to ask the minister by whom are the members of the advisory committee going to be selected.
I presume, without being sure-and I regret if it was said before I came into the house- that it will be the provinces, but will the federal government have to approve them because their qualifications will have been checked? Be that as it may, I shall be interested to know who will be making the selection and what standards will be used in the selection of the 11 members of the advisory committee.
Health Resources Fund
I should also like to put another question to the minister. How will these amounts of money be distributed? The resolution mentions $500 million. Will these amounts be distributed on a pro rata of the population or will some top priority requirements be taken into account in certain cases and in certain areas?
This is surely a question which deserves an answer, so that the proposed project may be fully understood.
Now, I have in mind a third question concerning my province. Suppose someone from my province, from Quebec, wants to specialize in an area related to health and who is in need of assistance, must he apply to the federal Department of National Health and Welfare or to the provincial Department of Health?
In the case of the province of Quebec, and this is another of my questions, will such sums of money be simply distributed "en bloc", without any control on their use, or will the federal government, through the Department of National Health and Welfare, occasionally make the check I feel is required to determine what use is being made of the share of the $500 million which will be allocated to the province of Quebec?
Mr. Chairman, I shall close with this remark: I am one of those who believes that this is a proposition deserving of the support of the whole house, and I think it is timely for us to tell the minister that we appreciate the practical work he has been doing in this field, and when he has replied to the few questions I have put to him, I think all the members will wish to pass this resolution.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
[English1


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just before the resolution carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two about this proposal because of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. It is a bad mistake on the part of members of this house to draw attention to other members who are rather peacefully listening to remarks with just one ear. As I heard the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North a little earlier he brought my name into the debate, not at my request, and had something to say which I understand was not very complimentary to the aid to medical research provided by the former government. As I had responsibility for about five years as chairman of the Privy Council committee on research including medical research, I naturally want to say to the hon. member that he was unduly critical of our activities.

June 14, 1966
Health Resources Fund
We took a great deal of interest in the field of medical research and it was during our term of office as the government that the Medical Research Council was set up separate and apart from the National Research Council under which it had functioned for a great many years. I was prepared to bring forward a bill to establish the Medical Research Council in its own right just as the National Research Council is established by statute. Unfortunately the people of Canada had ideas which differed from ours and they changed the government of the country. That step has not yet been taken.
Nevertheless the Medical Research Council for the last several years has been administering its own budget and special funds which have been allocated to that council. These amounts are now shown separately in the estimates each year whereas in the years prior to 1961 they were not easily discovered because they were combined with those of the National Research Council.
May I point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North that in the 44th annual report of the National Research Council of Canada, 1960-61, page 33, will be found the report of the Medical Research Council given by the late Dr. Farquharson. Just to indicate the development may I read one or two paragraphs from his report:
In the last two decades also, government support of medical research has been increased greatly in an attempt to meet expanding needs. In 1938 the first associate committee on medical research of the National Research Council had a budget of $53,000.
We have come a very long way since 1938. I continue to quote:
After the war a division of medical research was established, with an initial budget of approximately $200,000. With the rapid growth of medical research in our universities, the budget was gradually increased to some $900,000 by 1957.
That was the year that the Progressive Conservative party took over the government of this country. Then the learned doctor stated:
A sharper increase in the last three years brought it to $2,300,000. Virtually all these funds have been used in the training of scientists and the support of medical research in the universities and their associated institutes and hospitals; the National Research Council maintained no medical laboratories of its own.
Surely that quotation meets the unfounded statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North that we did not give attention to the field of medical research. I am not suggesting for one minute that the funds were adequate at that time and I do not think they are

adequate now, but we support the resolution presently before us because we recognize the need, within the limitation of funds available, to provide for medical research.
The funds made available were more than doubled in three years and the amount has been increasing steadily ever since. The present government continues to recognize the need. We must not overlook the fact that over and above the funds voted in this way there are other funds made available and I should like to quote again from page 34 of this annual report to indicate the increase. It is stated there:
By 1959-60, the total government funds for support of extramural research had risen to approximately $5,000,000-
The chairman of the council then went on to deal with other matters and future needs.
Within government circles it is well known that medical research has been carried on by the Department of National Defence, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Veterans Affairs, so the total amount available is not simply the figure in respect of the Medical Research Council.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
A special committee was appointed to review support of extramural medical research by the government of Canada and a report was submitted to the government of the day in November, 1959. That valuable report was a guide to us as we made an attempt to increase the amount of money available for medical research and it was available as a guide to set up the Medical Research Council separate and apart from the National Research Council. This report asked for very large sums of money for capital expenditure to set up medical research laboratories and research facilities in the affiliated teaching hospitals. I shall not attempt to go into all the details of that report this evening, but we were quite aware of the demands and requirements of medical research and took appropriate steps at the time.
At that time, 1959, the report showed that Canada was not lagging too far behind other countries such as the United States and Great Britain in the field of medical research. The comparative figures were related to the gross national product of various countries. The situation has changed since 1959. Seven years have gone by and there is an increasing interest and requirement in Canada for a great expansion of our medical services. With the adoption of hospitalization, the proposal
June 14, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	6405
of medicare and the greater public interest in all matters pertaining to health there must be very large, increased expenditures for these purposes.
Various people who have spoken today, particularly the hon. member for Simcoe East, have pointed out-and the same information was available last year-that if we are to cope with public demand and public requirement for hospitalization and medical care we have to make a really great effort. That brings the matter down to priorities with regard to the expenditure of money that becomes available through taxation. Having had some experience in government circles, I know the problem that faces the present government in establishing priorities, but I would suggest to the government that the field of health and medical care should rank high on the list of priorities and certain other projects that they may have in mind should take second place or be deferred in favour of health services in this country.
Certain expenditures that have been suggested to us and appear in the estimates for the current fiscal year deserve more careful scrutiny and perhaps suggestions from the house to change them in favour of applying money toward health and medical services. I wonder whether the government should not take a second, hard look at the expenditures they are suggesting for this fiscal year, cut back on some of them and apply the money to the field we are talking about.
I also realize the problem of establishing priorities when you have the responsibilities of government. I had sufficient experience dealing with Treasury Board to know of the present ministers' problems in dealing with that body. The hard facts of life become known to ministers of the crown when they put their proposals before Treasury Board. Members of Treasury Board in any government, I suppose, are hard-faced men who are not easily swayed by emotional appeals and they can quite readily strike down proposals put forward by their more enterprising colleagues. I have had that experience and I bear the scars, sir, and sympathize with members of the present government who have similarly appeared before Treasury Board and have been turned out to pasture. But the nub of the problem in regard to priorities lies with Treasury Board. I know that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue have this problem in setting, with the approval of the Prime Minister and the cabinet generally, priorities of expenditures.
23033-406J
Health Resources Fund
Take, for instance, the suggestion that millions of dollars should be spent on a building for national defence. I am not attempting to be overly critical of the Minister of National Defence but I raise this as an example where a pause would perhaps be helpful and the money proposed for that enterprise might more usefully be shifted to this field-


Mr. Hellyer:: There has been a 20-year pause.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -for the establishment of health and medical services. I think that if the government would take a second look at their expenditures for this year they might be able to meet the demands and requirements that have been so carefully set out today by various members who have spoken on this important problem, because in this field we are touching the lives of everybody in the country and government's job is to look after the people of the country. One of the most acceptable methods of looking after the interests of the citizens of this country is in the area of health and medical services.
Unless we have the trained medical staff and provide plenty of money for research facilities we cannot give to our people the services they desire. The economy of the country suffers accordingly because if there is great sickness or illness within the country we do not get the productivity that we are always talking about as being essential for the advancement of our economy. This, of course, has been proven time and time again in our military forces. Money is well spent that goes toward maintaining the health of those who are serving in the military field, particularly in time of war. I think the same thing applies in time of peace with regard to the population generally and that money is well spent that saves the health of the people and makes it possible for them to give their full effort to the advancement of their country.
I am saving the committee a longer address, Mr. Chairman, because I had not intended participating until the hon. member for Winnipeg North aroused me. Any blame should be attached to him.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Mr. McCleave:: I realize the committee has had a long and interesting debate on the subject but perhaps it will listen for five more minutes. There are only a couple of comments I wish to make.

June 14, 1966
Health Resources Fund
First, I wish to endorse the excellent reasoning of the hon. member for Simcoe East who spoke first from this side of the house on the resolution presented to us by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The hon. member, basing his observations on his long experience, pointed out the pretty obvious fact that, however impressive the amount of money proposed for this fund might be, it will not be sufficient to carry out all the purposes that have been envisaged by the hon. member and by others who have taken part in the debate.
The hon. member for Royal made a point about the difficulty experienced by students from New Brunswick in seeking admission to the Dalhousie medical school in Halifax. Of course he did not present his argument in such a way as to suggest that there was discrimination against them, nor is it so; it is simply an evidence of the fact that a great expansion in medical training facilities is needed in this country.
I hope that when this bill is passed the minister will take appropriate steps in presenting the supplementary estimates so as to make money available for the building of the Sir Charles Tupper Medical School at Dalhousie University which will require a few more millions of dollars. No doubt, the construction of medical institutions elsewhere in Canada is on the planning board, and they could also use the first $33 million that is promised to us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before the
resolution is passed, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to make one further comment. He did not use up his 20 minutes when he spoke at the beginning of the debate. I am sure he realizes that most of the observations made by hon. members have centred around the inadequacy of the sum of money proposed for this fund. We all approve the principle of backing up medicare with these resources, but there seems to be some concern about the inadequacy of the amount of money. Can the minister comment on this, with a few well chosen words?


Stanley Haidasz: Before the minister rises to answer the question, may I ask him to state in the house today what he thinks about the representations that were made by the members of different medical associations of Canada and medical educators about those who are to be included in the advisory committee on the health resources fund. Perhaps the minister knows already that at

the Canadian Medical Association meeting held yesterday in Edmonton, the executive of that association was advised by the council to press for membership in the advisory committee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The size of the fund is in
the amount of $500 million as stated in the bill, and the federal contribution to any particular project represents up to 50 per cent of the cost of each particular project; so that in effect the federal and provincial treasuries are assuming an obligation for $1 billion in the expenditure on capital facilities for the training of health personnel. The single purpose of the fund is to provide capital facilities for the training of personnel in the health field. I believe it is true to say that with the best planning that is possible it is not likely that in the early years the amounts available can be properly utilized in this field.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a question? Will it be possible to use this money at a faster rate than the yearly amount that is assigned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it will be possible. The expected life of the fund is 15 years, but there will be no obligation to spend equal amounts each year during that period. When we get into a discussion of the clauses of the bill, hon. members will be able to ensure that adequate funds are made available for the provision of capital facilities. That is the purpose of the resolution.
May I make a brief comment on requests from professional associations to be represented on the advisory committee. This point can be dealt with more adequately when the bill is before hon. members, but let me say that this matter was considered by a conference of ministers of health held this year and full consideration was given to the representations made by professional associations that they be represented on the advisory committee. According to my recollection the ministers of health of all the provinces unnan-imously decided that membership on his committee should be confined to the representatives of the provincial ministers of health.
However, it is understood that the views and advice of professional associations can be made available through subcommittees which will be set up in connection with the advisory committee. A decision on this particular aspect has been made as the result of consultations with all provinces and as a result of the decision made by the conference of the ministers of health.
June 14, 1966


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I ask the minister another question? Will this money be available this year? I have in mind the problem related to the Sir Charles Tupper Medical School in Halifax.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Here again we are anticipating the bill. Money will be made available for projects for this current year retroactive to January 1.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. MacEachen thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-199 to provide for the establishment of a health resources fund to assist provinces in the acquisition, construction and renovation of health training facilities and research institutions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time? Next sitting of the house.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 

CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National
Health and Welfare) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
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
Canada Assistance Plan
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.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to speak to the resolution dealing with the Canada Assistance Plan. In doing so, I can say that the resolution deals with an area that has been the subject of extensive federal-provincial discussions over the past few years. It is also an area in which there is a remarkable degree of agreement on the need for action and the essentials of the approach that should be taken.
The basic features of the Canada Assistance Plan, as set out in the resolution, were outlined in the house by the Prime Minister on April 6, 1965 when he described the various measures being proposed to increase opportunity and reduce poverty.
The Prime Minister referred at the time to the discussions that had been held with the provinces up to that point in developing proposals. Since then the plan has been considered at two federal-provincial conferences of ministers of welfare.
Briefly stated, the Canada Assistance Plan will provide: a basis for co-ordinating public assistance programs in Canada; 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 designed 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; no federal ceilings on benefits under this new program and full sharing of payments made on the basis of need to improve the level of benefits now being paid to the aged, the blind and the disabled.

June 14, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
The Canada Assistance Plan will mean an additional cost to the federal treasury in this fiscal year of $85 million, bringing federal outlays on public assistance and welfare services to more than one quarter of a billion dollars. This is a program which carried the endorsement of all provincial governments at the federal-provincial conference earlier this year.
I do not propose to review the background of this measure in detail. It is worth noting, however, that the federal government and the provinces have been working co-operatively for 40 years in the provision of public assistance to persons in need. These joint efforts began with the old age pensions program of 1927 and were followed by pensions for the blind in 1937, the old age assistance program of 1951, and the disabled persons allowances program of 1954. These we have come to refer to as the categorical allowance programs. With the adoption of the unemployment assistance program in 1956 and its amendments in 1957, the federal government undertook to share in responsibility for the provision of general assistance to a broader group of employable and unemployable persons.
As a result of this sequence of events, the federal government is now sharing with the provinces in assistance to persons in need under four separate programs, three of which-those for the aged, the blind and the disabled-base eligibility on a means test. The fourth, unemployment assistance, employs the needs test.
The logic of moving toward an integrated approach to public assistance has been widely recognized. This step has been recommended by many welfare organizations, including the Canadian Welfare Council. It has also been advocated by the Auditor General and, in 1964, by the public accounts committee which recommended "that consideration should be given to including with unemployment assistance other existing programs to assist the needy so as to provide better co-ordination of federal-provincial efforts in this field."
The movement away from special or categorical assistance toward general assistance programs began in some provinces in the early 1950's and has continued at differing rates since then. In some, it has taken the form of integrating all provincially administered measures for persons requiring assistance on a long term basis because of age, disability or family responsibility in the absence of the principal breadwinner.
XMr. MacEachen.]
While encouraging the movement toward comprehensive programs based on need, it is the government's intention to continue to provide for contributions under the existing categorical programs for the aged, the blind and the disabled. This will enable provinces to retain these measures if they wish, or to phase them out on a gradual basis. I should also point out that under existing agreements the federal government must give ten years notice if it wishes to discontinue its contributions under any of these categorical programs.
In addition to providing for the integration of existing programs, the plan will provide for the payment of assistance on the basis of need. The needs test considers the actual requirements of individuals and families, as well as their resources, in determining the amount of assistance to be provided. This is in contrast to the means test which relates assistance to income and assets.
A major limitation of the unemployment assistance program was that it excluded one of the largest categories of persons in need, namely mothers with dependent children. The Canada Assistance Plan corrects this anomaly by providing for federal contributions toward the costs of assistance to some 200,000 mothers and children who have not previously been covered under a federal measure. Through this extension, the federal government will be providing an estimated $27 million of new funds to the provinces and will further support the integration of mothers' allowances programs into comprehensive assistance measures. In the past year, some provinces have already increased rates of benefits for needy mothers, and I believe that the anticipated introduction of the Canada Assistance Plan was helpful in encouraging this action. We are hopeful that the addition of federal aid will do much to assist needy mothers and children both now and in the years to come.
I would like to refer briefly to the other areas to be covered under the Canada Assistance Plan. Coverage of health care services for persons in need is an essential feature of the plan and constitutes federal recognition of the importance of such services in any program that seeks to alleviate or prevent poverty. It is intended that the plan will cover any range of medical and associated health services, including drugs and dental and optical care, that the provinces choose to offer. The cost of this extension will, of course depend on the nature and extent of
June 14, 1966

the programs adopted by the provinces. Our present estimate of federal contributions to the provinces for such services is some $22 million for the current fiscal year. The medical care costs under this program will, of course, be reduced with the coming into effect of the medicare plan.
The plan will provide for federal contributions toward the costs of improving and extending welfare services, including services provided either through public welfare departments or, under certain conditions, by voluntary agencies. Welfare services are intended to include those services that have as their object the lessening, removal or prevention of the causes and effects of poverty, child neglect or dependence on public assistance. Examples of such services include casework, counselling, assessment and referral services, adoption services, homemakers and day care services, and community development. The federal contribution to the provinces under this part of the plan is expected to be several million dollars for the current fiscal year.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
An important consideration in developing a measure with strong preventive emphasis is that it should make appropriate provision for the needs of children and youth. With this in mind, the plan has been extended to cover maintenance costs for children in the care of child welfare authorities. Health care and welfare services will similarly be extended to such children. The estimated cost of this item for 1966-67 is some $16 million.
The plan-that is the Canada Assistance Plan-will provide for separate agreements with provinces for the extension of provincial welfare programs to Indians who are now living on reserves, crown lands, or in unorganized territory. Provincial programs will be extended only with the consent of the Indian bands involved and the agreements will be along the lines of the draft agreement tabled in the house by my colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, on January 19, 1966.
This measure is intended to provide Indians, for whom services are now largely provided by the federal government, with the same access to provincial assistance and welfare service programs as is available to other provincial residents. As such, it represents a significant step toward enabling Indians to take full advantage of the community services available to the general population.
Canada Assistance Plan Since the incidence of need for Indians is greater than for the balance of the population, the agreements will contain a special sharing formula to enable provinces to assume responsibility for Indian assistance and welfare services without incurring burdensome costs.
An agreement of the type contemplated by the plan has recently been entered into with the province of Ontario, and I hope that with the assurance of an appropriate federal contribution toward their costs, other provinces will undertake to extend their welfare programs to Indians.
Another feature of the plan which emphasizes its rehabilitative approach is its provision for work activity projects. These are projects designed to provide socially useful activity to help persons in need move toward self-support. The projects would be for persons who are apparently fit to work, but who, because of environmental, personal or family reasons, are unable to obtain or retain employment or to take advantage of the various vocational rehabilitation and training measures designed to help improve their work capacities. These work activity programs will also be for persons, such as the severely retarded, who have limited employment potential which can be developed if they are given opportunity for some form of meaningful activity.
This part of the plan is experimental in its approach and will require close co-ordination with other measures having to do with employment and vocational rehabilitation. Thus reimbursement will be on a project basis.
In the course of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I have referred to five areas-assistance for needy mothers, health care, welfare services and child welfare and work activity-in which new federal funds will be made available to the provinces. While these additional funds are largely directed to programs now being provincially financed, and may be thought of as savings to the provinces, it is the hope of the government that the provinces will use these funds to make improvements in their assistance and welfare service programs. I am happy to see evidence that this is already being done in several provinces.
We estimate that these new federal contributions, when taken with the additional outlays that are anticipated as a direct result of improvements made by the provinces, will amount to some $85 million in 1966-67. The full impact on federal expenditures will be
June 14. 1966

Canada Assistance Plan felt as provinces are able to strengthen and improve their programs in accordance with the purposes of this plan.
Another feature of the plan is that it will make funds available to the provinces to supplement those cases where existing social welfare benefits fall short of budgetary needs. It should be noted that improvements can be made not only through more adequate cash benefits, but also through more ready access to health care and welfare services. The value of such services cannot be overrated in enabling the recipients of these programs to maintain the fullest possible degree of independence in the community.
The resolution refers to amendments to the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act. Under the amendments, the provinces will be able to discontinue these programs, either wholly or in part, and to assist persons who would otherwise qualify for allowances under these acts through general assistance measures coming under the Canada Assistance Plan. I should make it clear that where persons now receiving such allowances are transferred, provision will be made for them to receive assistance in amounts at least comparable to their present benefits.
The resolution also refers to the extension of the terms of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act to the Canada Assistance Plan. This means that a province that has taken advantage of the contracting-out provisions of that act may take the same step in relation to the Canada Assistance Plan. This provision is consistent with existing arrangements under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act which cover old age assistance, blind persons allowances, disabled persons allowances and unemployment assistance.
To sum up, legislation is being proposed to provide for a comprehensive program of assistance and welfare services for persons requiring public support for one reason or another. This plan complements social insurance measures such as unemployment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan and it provides an underpinning for our whole social security structure. It is a matter of great satisfaction to me that the plan, as announced, has received general and enthusiastic support from public authorities and voluntary agencies across Canada.
[Mr. MacEachen.l


Mr. Winkler:: May I ask the minister a question for clarification, before proceeding with the debate? He mentioned the sum of $85 million for the fiscal year 1966-67. Will that be the total cost to the federal government for the five programs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Additional.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Additional?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, additional.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Thank you.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, may I say first of all that I think the plan before us is a good plan. I feel, none the less, that its framework was started some years ago by the hon. member for Perth when he was minister of national health and welfare. It is true that we had means, one way or another, of helping, with the exception of the 200,000 mothers, all those persons fitting into the categories that the minister mentioned. Including the mothers in this manner is well worth while.
I am disappointed that the minister has not seen fit to raise the old age pension to $100 a month. Pensioners are the forgotten people. If all the promises made during the last election about a Canadian assistance act and the war on poverty came true, there would be no poverty-and there would be no money to look after it. There are many aspects of this question-old age pensions, disabled persons pensions, various kinds of welfare programs, the training and retraining of young people and welfare programs affecting mothers and children. Then, of course, the decline in the value of the dollar has brought about the erosion of the value of savings of all pensioners and other people.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
I will deal first with old age security. The Senate committee in its report said no means test should be applied to old age pensioners. They brought this out dramatically. It has definitely been proven that 70 per cent of women and 60 per cent of the men have no other income than old age pension at the age of 70. This leaves only 30 per cent of the women and 40 per cent of the men as possible subjects for a means test.
If hon. members look up the figures relating to the incomes of these pensioners as they are to be found in figures produced by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics I think they will be persuaded that it is not worth while submitting these people to the humiliation of an inquiry into their affairs. Or is there some
June 14, 1966

economic reason for it? This is one of the statements made in the Senate report on aging. One of the submissions in that report was-and the committee was most emphatic on this point-that the old age pensioner must not be subjected to the humiliation of a means or needs test. I believe most of us in this chamber, including the minister, will say the Senate was right.
How can we propose to apply a means test to these people whose savings have been taken away from year to year by the erosion of money values? I would like to think that this government wishes to make amends. I am not excusing the Conservatives, but a Liberal government has been in power for 25 of the 31 years in which the savings of those who are now pensioners were being eroded-and Liberal erosion was always higher.
Let us bear in mind that those who are pensioners today had completed half of their working lives by 1940 when wages were about 40 cents an hour, if you had a job, and that the dollar they earned then has now a purchasing power of only 37 cents.
I wonder why we are so dilatory and derelict about doing something for these people whose money we have eroded year after year-a hidden form of taxation which is a terrible form of taxation for persons living on fixed incomes. It is impossible to gauge the amount. One year it is 2 per cent. Another year it is 4 per cent, or 5 per cent. It takes its toll every year of their savings, of the value of their government bonds, of their life insurance policies and so on. It is our duty to see that justice is done to these people.
I wonder why the government did not pay more attention to the Senate report on aging. I think it was a very fine report. These pensioners are proud people. Many of them have been through two world wars. They do not want to come begging for their rights to this House of Commons. Many are too proud to come and ask. They would not want to suffer the humiliation. They would just go on tightening their belts, eating a little less and spending a little less on clothes and the other things they need so badly.
I do not see how this government can have
the audacity to face the old people of this country with a means test or a needs test -because there is no difference. Why have hon. members opposite discarded their Liberal principles? You were in the house, Mr. Chairman, when Mr. St. Laurent brought
Canada Assistance Plan down the old age security bill which was made to apply universally. There was no means test or needs test. Why? Simply because he understood the feelings of those who would benefit and their wish to avoid humiliation. In the second place the parliament of that they day knew that income tax would apply to those who were getting more than they should. He made the benefits available to everyone. Why have hon. gentlemen opposite departed so far from Liberal principles? I wonder whether the government realizes that the pensioner of today went through one of the great depressions of this world from 1928 to 1940. These are the people who are now being denied $100 a month.
There is another principle involved. These people are growing older. There is more sickness among them, more degenerative processes requiring treatment by drugs-and today's drug prices bear no relation to what their earnings were.
There are rays of hope occasionally, and we do see a ray of hope. There is some indication that the government is beginning to listen to the opposition. An article in the Globe and Mail last Monday says this:
The government had resisted efforts by the opposition parties in the Commons to raise old-age pensions to $100 a month. But an increasing number of Liberal members, led by cabinet ministers, are arguing that something must be done to aid old folk.
Next it argued that there should be no increase in the pension while attempts are being made to place a lid on wage increases which would add to inflation.
But now the construction workers in Montreal, the Quebec longshoremen and the seaway workers are heading toward pay raises exceeding 30 per cent.
Many Liberals feel it is unjust that economic groups with political muscle should be able to improve their economic position by striking, or threatening to strike, while old persons are denied an increase in the admittedly inadequate pension.
Legislation to implement the Canada Assistance Plan will be introduced shortly.
Well, we have arrived.
This will provide that pensioners proving need will be able to draw benefits raising their total allowance to more than $100 a month. But old persons have told the government bluntly that they are not interested in this plan; they want their pensions as a right and without having to show need.
Surely they should not be required to do so, when, looking back over the record, we can see that the working years of so many of them were spent before 1940, when wages
June 14, 1966


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare reminded us, it was in April, 1965, 14 months ago, that the Prime Minister sounded the trumpet and told us about the Canada Assistance Plan. At long last we have the legislation for this plan before parliament.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has a very winsome voice. He has also a capacity for picking words; and when you add that capacity to that voice it makes us feel we have something. But when one looks at the package which has been outlined tonight he wonders whether it was really worth the sound of the trumpet. I have been looking through some of the speeches made about the Canada Assistance Plan by the former minister of national health and welfare, by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare, and by no less a person than his parliamentary secretary. I should like to draw attention to one sentence in a speech made by the parliamentary secretary in Fredericton on June 2 of this year. Speaking of the Canada Assistance Plan she said:
...I would like to make two general points; the first is that the plan does not involve any grand new programs.
How right she was.
It is, rather, an attempt to re-organize and redirect existing programs and fashion a comprehensive social assistance system that will reflect the needs and problems of today.
Later she said:
The second point is that although the plan will operate under the umbrella of a federal statute, and will receive substantial financial support from the federal government, the specific details of the various programs and the responsibility for administering them will rest with the provinces.
Even after one says the nice things that can be said about this legislation-and I am going to say them-the fact is that we have just shuffled the deck a bit; we have just done a little re-organizing of our services. We have not come through with any "grand new programs"-and I quote my hon. friend from Westmorland. As a matter of fact even the amount of money that is involved-and the hon. member for Grey-Bruce pinned the minister down on that-indicates that there really is not as much to this program as we have been led to believe there was.
DEBATES	6413
Canada Assistance Plan
Now, Mr. Chairman, I said there were some good things in the Canada Assistance Plan and I wish to take a minute or two to emphasize the things about this legislation which I think are good. I think it is most encouraging to learn there has been a wide measure of federal-provincial agreement on what is being done. I think the more federal-provincial co-operation we can have in the welfare field, the better for Canada as a whole. I think also it is very much to be commended that the federal government is prepared to share financially in a number of programs in which up to this point there has been no federal financial participation. I do not know yet-and we will not know until we have the details-how this $85 million breaks down, or how much federal money is going into these various fields. But even if it is only the beginning, I welcome the fact that there will be federal participation in such things as mothers' allowances, the administration of social welfare services, work in the field of dependency, homemaker services, day care, Indian welfare programs, rehabilitation, and so on.
I think the more we weld together these programs and have federal-provincial cooperation and federal financial participation in these programs, the better for all concerned. I listened carefully, when the minister was referring to things to be done for children, to hear whether or not he would have anything to say about some of the information which recently has reached us about the problems of mentally disturbed children. Right in this province of Ontario we have learned some things which have been disturbing to us. I would hope that at a later stage the minister might be able to tell us whether any of this federal money that is to be used in our participation in these various programs will be available for assistance in this general area.
So I say, Mr. Chairman, it is good that we are going to get our social welfare programs on some sort of a basis of wider co-operation. I welcome that; but I am afraid, as one who had looked forward to the Canada Assistance Plan very hopefully, that I do not feel as encouraged or as optimistic about it as I might have been. I hope the minister will accept that as a challenge.
He says that sometimes I probe his social conscience and give him sleepless nights.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have had several in the last few days.
June 14, 1966

Canada Assistance Plan


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says he has had several sleepless nights in the last few days. I hope he will have one tonight and come back with a great deal more substance to this measure when we get to the bill. Also I should like to say that to the extent we are moving from means' tests to needs tests, with regard to programs which now have means tests, this is all to the good. Sometimes people wonder whether a change of name makes for any real difference, but in the field of social work it does make a difference. A needs test is more humane and more realistic than a means test. I am glad to know that in programs such as old age assistance, blind persons allowances and disabled persons allowances we are going to move from a means test to a more advanced approach, namely the needs test.
Having said that I want to say something pretty specific and forthright about the position of our older people. The first thing I wish to say, I have to say without having heard much from the minister tonight as to what the plan is going to do for older people. I do not want to see any kind of test brought back with regard to our older people. It took us a long time to get rid of the means test. With all respect to my good friend from Sirncoe East, Mr. St. Laurent did not give that legislation quite as generously and easily as my hon. friend suggested tonight. He was not here but I was. I remember Mr. St. Laurent standing up and saying he could not conceive of the idea that he at the age of 70 would get a pension without a means test; but in 1950 we did bring in the kind of report to which the government had to pay some attention. We got rid of the means test from the pension payable to people at age 70 and over.
Now we have the Canada Pension Plan which provides pensions from age 65 on for people who have been employed. They can take the pension between the ages of 65 and 70 or at age 70. In connection with pensions under the Canada Pension Plan there is no means test. I think it is progress that today we have got to the place where people, when they retire, receive their pensions as of right without any means test. I do not think we should take the backward step of imposing any kind of a test, call it a needs test or what you will, so far as old people are concerned. If we start saying the way to provide extra money for our older people is under some kind of a needs test, then the pressure will be on to leave the $75 old age security level

where it is for all time, whereas I think what we should be doing is pushing up that $75 level to at least $100 a month now, and indeed still further later on.
What troubles me tonight, Mr. Chairman -and perhaps this is the reason I cannot get up and give the minister a soporific and complimentary speech-is the way in which he skated around this question of what is going to be done for our older people. Is it that there is something in the legislation which he is ashamed of? Once or twice he made reference to this legislation as having in it something for the aged. He referred to the Old Age Assistance Act, but did not once refer to the Old Age Security Act and did not once give us any details.
c (8:00 p.m.)
I find this passing strange in view of a number of speeches that have been made by Liberals on the subject of what the Canada Assistance Plan was going to do for our older people. All of us who went through the last election campaign remember what the Prime Minister replied to those of us in other parties who were calling for an increase in old age security pensions to $100 a month. He said that if you voted Liberal you might get $125 a month; there might be a needs test, and it might be given under the Canada Assistance Plan; but you would get more money if you managed to meet the test under the Liberal program than under the programs of any of the other parties.
Not only was that the kind of thing the Liberals said during the election campaign, but they made similar statements in several speeches. I have not got them all with me but I do have four of them. The rest are in my flies upstairs, but I have been saving them.
The former minister of national health and welfare, the present Secretary of State, set the pattern by a typical speech she made on May 20, 1965, at Charlottetown. She said this, among other things:
One of the things that is often forgotten when the Canada Assistance Plan is being discussed is that it can provide additional assistance for people who are already receiving old age security.
Where was that remark tonight in the minister's statement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says it was there? Why did he not read it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I did, but your comprehension is not as acute as it used to be, I guess.
June 14, 1966


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was listening very closely. There were references to the aged and to the Old Age Assistance Act, but there was no reference that I heard to extra money being made available to people who are in receipt of old age security. Let me quote from a speech the present minister made to the Ottawa Welfare Council on May 4, 1966. He said in part:
The basic aim of the Canada Assistance Plan is to remove the anomalies from present programs. As a result, the federal government will share in payments higher than the present $75 a month limit in cases where more help is needed. And, needless to say, the assistance will be available in addition to the present $75 a month old age security pension.
I have another speech which seems to be the same as the one made by the former minister and by the parliamentary secretary. This speech was made at a meeting of the Victorian Order of Nurses here in Ottawa on May 6, 1966, at 12 noon. The Minister of National Health and Welfare stated at that time in part:
One of the most important features of the Canada Assistance Plan is that it will make funds available for supplementary payments over and above payments made under such programs as old age security and the Canada Pension Plan. This will be particularly important during the early years of the contributory pension plan, when its benefits are building up.
Just in case the minister himself was not speaking with the authority of the government, I should like to quote again from the speech made in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on June 2, 1966 by the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Westmorland. She said in part:
The basic aim of the Canada Assistance Plan is to close the gaps in the present programs. As a result, the federal government will share in payments higher than the present $75 a month limit in cases where more help is needed. And, needless to say, the assistance will be available in addition to the present $75 a month old age security pension.
And so I could go on.
We have all read in the papers recently, and the hon. member for Simcoe East referred to this, some interesting reports as to anxiety among Liberal members as to whether this kind of a program is going to meet the demands and the needs of our older people. I think the minister should have been at least frank and told us tonight what the government has in mind in this field.
I should like to say this again, and I hope I have made it clear, that we think where there are at the present time means test
Canada Assistance Plan programs it is a mark of progress to move to needs test programs, but in the field of assistance to our retired and older people where we now have two programs, namely th old age security program and the Canada Pension Plan, without any means test-plans under which people get their pensions as of right-I believe we would be doing our older people a disservice by bringing back any kind of test. We would be discriminating against those people as to the amount of pension they could get.
I know the line that is sometimes peddled, that any increase in pensions across the board will give extra money to people who do not need it; but I think this is one of the greatest pieces of fiction ever devised in this particular field. If I were a wealthy person I would know that the tax I have to pay during my working years, the tax I would have to pay as a retired person on my income as such and in social security taxes, the extra taxes I would have to pay on my old age security pension and the taxes I would have to pay because I was spending money on goods subject to sales tax, and the tax I would have to pay as corporation tax, would amount to more in the total package than what I would be getting back. Raising the pension for everyone does not amount to giving something to people who do not need it. They may get extra old age security money, but it is offset by taxes on income, sales taxes and as a result of the corporations tax structure now in existence.
We went into this whole question thoroughly during the meetings of that excellent committee on old age security in 1950, and I think we came up with a good plan. I think the Canada Pension Plan along with the old age security plan is good and that the combination of them will help the retired people of this country in the future, but I think this good picture and the good steps we have taken will be nullified and cancelled out if we now build into our old age retirement picture a means or needs test. Once we provide a plan which gives $10, $25 or $50 in assistance on a means test, then the pressure of that test will remain for a long time. Older people will only be able to meet their needs in that way and we shall be back where we were. There could even be pressure to reduce the $75 old age security pension on the basis that we could provide assistance in this other way.
I believe that the most important part of this whole Canada Assistance Plan, or the

June 14, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan whole problem it is supposed to deal with, was unfortunately only skated around by the minister, when he made the briefest allusion to it. He told us all about many other things but did not refer to this, and I hope before the debate on this question is over that some Liberals, like my good friend the hon. member for Brantford, will have something to say about it, along with some others on that side, which will cause the minister to realize that he cannot sell this piece of goods to the older people of this country.
The older people in Canada are aware of how close we came at the beginning of this session to passing a measure that would call for an increase in the old age security pension to $100 a month. They now wonder what happened, having got that close, to prevent our getting over the hump. I suggest that now is the time for this issue to be brought squarely out into the open; now is the time for the government to face up to the fact that we have to do something positive in this area.
I do not know why the minister skated around this issue tonight. Perhaps he did not have enough to eat and was too weak to cope with it. After all, he has had to sit here all day during one piece of legislation after another, and he has had little or no chance to go out and eat. Perhaps he was just ashamed of this program for our older people. I am sure there are others of his supporters sitting on that side of the house who are likewise ashamed, and I hope we will get a different view of this subject before the debate on this resolution concludes.
In spite of the sharp and critical things I have said about the failure of this legislation so far as the needs of our older people are concerned, I repeat that I welcome the progress being made in federal-provincial cooperation in the social welfare field. I welcome the idea of the federal government's moving into financial participation in these fields, but I hope that we will crown these things that are good with something really worthy of this parliament so far as our older people are concerned.
[DOT] (8:10 p.ra.)


Milton L. Klein: Mr. Chairman, I support this resolution as being part of the program in the war on poverty. The expression "war on poverty" has been used throughout the ages, and if it is to have any meaning now I would think it has to be measured by the number of battles that are won; because I do not think the war on poverty will ever end.


Mr. Herridge:: Not according to scripture.


Milton L. Klein: In order to wage a successful war on poverty several things must be done. The hon. member for Simcoe East was speaking about seeking out the pockets of poverty and then educating a member of the household so he could become a worth-while citizen. I think what we have to do in a war on poverty is educate the affluent society. I believe that the only way we can do this is by an honest approach on the part of all political parties.
Every shade of political opinion in this-house favours welfare legislation, and if we are to be honest with the electorate we cannot increase welfare action and reduce taxation. If the people of this country were to realize that from here on out all these programs will require additional taxation, I think there would be a greater chance to win. the war on poverty. Particularly in election campaigns or prior to election campaigns it has become the custom of governments to reduce taxation in order to entice the support of the electorate. I think that every political party from here on out that supports welfare legislation should be honest enough, not opportunist, to tell the public that it cannot reduce taxation.
I believe that the campaigns of welfare organizations such as the Red Feather campaigns do not solve the problem of poverty. I do not condemn them but I think they never solve the problem of poverty; they only postpone its solution. I think that welfare organizations such as Red Feather, and so on, ought to vacate the fields in which they are now engaged and let govermnent assume responsibility in these areas.
We have a system now in which we allow tax deductible philanthropy and it has arrived at the stage where in many cases the philanthropist seeks the advice of his accountant in order to determine how far his philanthropy can go. In this particular area it means that there are a lot of people who are able to support philanthropic endeavours, but do not do so, whereas if a program were provided from time to time, whether it be under an excess profits tax or whatever kind of taxation it might be, it would place everyone within the ambit of being a taxable contributor to the form of welfare programs upon which we are now embarked.
I think the question arises, where does prosperity end and where does inflation begin? An hon. member spoke about the depression in 1929. The United States of
June 14, 1966

America in trying to meet the problems that they faced in that era embarked upon what they called pump priming. Any sums of money that are going to be given under the headings mentioned in this resolution will be money that will be put back into the economy. Speaking particularly about the old age pensioner, or sums of money that he receives will be put back by him immediately into the economy.
I deal now with one other question, Mr. Chairman, namely that raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who preceded me. He condemned the means test and said that the increase in the old age pension should be to $100 a month across the board without a means test. I would think that under this particular scheme it is not inconceivable that an old age pensioner, with the means test, will in certain instances be receiving more than $100 a month. If this be the case we would be making contributions to the old age pensioner who needs the money most.
If the increase is to $100 a month across the board, of course there will be people who will be receiving the extra $25 a month when they do not need it. But I think we at least ought to see how this legislation is going to work, because the old age pensioner who is now receiving $75 a month, and who in many instances has to supplement that pension by going to some welfare organization and receiving dole of some kind, will not be at all scandalized by going before a proper board, explaining his position and receiving in certain instances perhaps $125 a month. I believe that to attack this legislation on the basis of the arguments just made by the speaker who preceded me is to deny the very things that the hon. member seems to want to accomplish.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you remember the means test?


Milton L. Klein: I know that many of the old age pensioners living in my area would far rather be in a position in which they received more than $100 a month, with a means test, than would be the case in eliminating the means test and giving everyone $100 a month, to the detriment of the man who might be receiving $125 a month.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with the closing remarks of the previous speaker, who is obviously making a case for the means test which the government is going
Canada Assistance Plan to use, even though they may call it a needs test. His argument falls away short of the mark when he says that a man's income may be high enough to be taxable, no matter what age he may have reached. Certainly the hon. member was taking this position to protect the government in regard to this piece of legislation. I do not make this statement, Mr. Chairman, to indicate that I am opposed to this piece of legislation at all. Certainly I do not think there is any question in the mind of any member of the house, including all the backbenchers on the government side, that had it not been for the position of the Conservative party in the last election campaign this government would not be acting as quickly as they are today. I call as my witness -unfortunately I have not the exact quotation in front of me-Hon. Watson Mac-Naught who made this statement following his defeat at the polls in the last general election. He said it was the promise of the Conservative Party of $100 a month that defeated him.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this proposal for co-ordinated plans is a reasonably wise one. I believe that the proliferation of plans that have existed until now might well be brought together and dealt with on an integrated basis. I think the minister put the case very clearly, and I wonder if he will allow me at this time to use the information that was made available to me. I believe that when this plan is approved it will be made retroactive. That is why I asked the minister what is the sum of money which will be spent in the current fiscal year, and whether it will include the money which will be paid retroactively.
It is obvious from the minister's explanation that this is to be a shared program. I believe that the provinces will be expected to contribute 50 per cent of the increased cost. I have some interesting observations to make in that regard.
May I also say at this time that many of the interested organizations across the country have lauded the logical integration of the plans in existence. I think it would be wise for the minister to set forth at this juncture a new and clearer definition in regard to disability pensions. This is one of the phases of our social program which seems to be applied from time to time on a discriminatory basis and, in many cases which I have personally seen, without good reason.

June 14, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
It has also been indicated that the government is planning this scheme for a period of 10 years so as to allow for a phasing out during the transitional period before full payments are made under the Canada Pension Plan. So far as the older people are concerned, it is rather difficult to forecast their financial circumstances at a later time. At the end of the 10 year period our thinking in this field may well be completely changed if the status of our economy is not projected into the future. I do not think the minister should deceive us on the difference between a means test and a needs test, and I think the older people will agree.
We on this side of the house will not oppose this plan and we think that the sooner it is put into operation, the better. As I said previously, I appreciate the fact that the plan will be put into operation on a retroactive basis.
I was also interested in what the previous speaker has said in regard to additional taxation with reference to this and other plans in the future. I think if he were to examine the statistics regarding the present status of the old age security fund he would realize his error of judgment. I believe that the previous speaker was speaking in socialistic terms when he indicated that the government should take over all plans administered by the Red Feather and associated organizations and when he indicated he is not willing to allow anyone the right to do as he pleases with the money he has been able to earn. I think that his eyes would be opened if he realized the total cost in this regard.
Let us look at the existing figures. On page 5164 of Hansard of May 16, 1966 the following question which I put to the Minister of Finance appears:
What was the balance on account In the federal old age security fund as of December 31, 1965?
The Minister of Finance replied that the amount at that time was $139,974,933.15.
Yesterday I received a reply to a further question of mine which reads as follows:
What was the balance on account in the federal old age security fund for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1966?
The answer reads $216,982,834.44.
The next question which I asked the minister was:
What is the anticipated balance for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1967?

I received a fascinating answer relating the rate of growth of this fund. It amounts to $455 million.
On the basis of the figures given to us by the Minister of National Health and Welfare I think we should do our utmost to protect the way in which this particular fund is raised. I think we should be careful to consider this fund in the fight of what it will actually cost the government. It is very clear that over the years, at the rate specified by the minister, this fund might well take care of all charges under this scheme without additional taxation and even without additional contributions from other sources. I know the minister will disagree with me, but that might be so in the future. Such plans usually cost more than we bargain for initially, and therefore I do not believe that the provincial governments which will be dealing with the administrative disposition of this plan should be totally exempted from some responsibility. I think that the provinces will be so grateful to receive the benefits of such a scheme that they will offer to contribute to it if they have not already done so. The minister will know that much better than I. It is obvious to me that this plan will be of benefit to the recipients of this scheme without any additional increase in the income tax either now or later.
As I have said before, when my notice of motion was under discussion, and as I believe other hon. members have said in the past, I believe that a flat increase across the board should have been applied. However, if this is the program, we will take it as it is, in the hope that it will bring some benefit to Canadians in this category.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say just a few words at this stage on the measure now before the committee, because of its importance to a great many of the people in this country. I want briefly to support the views of my colleague who spoke earlier and who argued against the provision in this resolution, or the bill to follow, which will in effect impose a means test upon the citizens of the country who are now in receipt of old age pensions. It is in my opinion a regrettable backward step that the minister proposes. It is one which we would not really have expected from him. The senior members of the house who, over the years, have fought the battle to remove the means test know that it was not an easy thing to do. We have read the debates and are aware of the
June 14, 1966

proposals put forward by my friends opposite that you must discriminate amongst these people, you must subject them to baring all their finances. These people will have to go through the degrading spectacle of opening up their personal affairs. Make no mistake about it, whether you call it a needs test or a means test, it is the same thing in the long run, no matter what the intention behind it is.
Let anyone go to the old age pensioners, as all of us in this house did during the election campaign, and ask them how they feel. It is all very well to get up in the house and talk sanctimoniously about old age pensioners as though they were a group of numbers, a group of a million or a million and a half people. You can say they are a group set apart, that we are not so much concerned with what they think, but this is what we are going to do. We are going to have a means test. We are going to go back to the old degrading attitude that prevailed many years ago. What you are going to end up with is an army of snoopers who are going to be commissioned to interview all these people. Whether you call it a needs test or a means test, it means individual investigation. You are not setting a standard basis at all. It means individual investigation of every old age pensioner to establish his need. This seems to be a retrograde step.
Perhaps before this debate ends, Mr. Chairman, we will have an opportunity of going into the final report of the special committee of the Senate on aging. I wish my friend opposite, if he has not already read it would read it. The report is a great tribute to the chairman of that committee, Senator Croll. The foreword to the report, and the report itself, adopts what I feel is probably the most humane and reasonable approach to the whole problem of aging in Canada. If the philosophy contained in this report were carried over into the legislation before us now, I think the measure would meet with a far greater response. This committee sat a great length of time, heard numerous witnesses and numerous briefs. One of its conclusions is set out on page 17 of the report. After investigating the whole problem of the old age pensioner and his needs, and the ways to meet these needs, the committee made this recommendation which is found on page 17 of the report:
Any suggestion that these older people, when the $75 pension is not sufficient, should be expected to depend for supplementation on public assistance after a needs test is utterly unacceptable.
Canada Assistance Plan
The committee made proposals to meet the problems of old age pensioners. I would not expect the government to announce right now their acceptance of the new concept of a guaranteed income program for these people. However, the one thing the committee did conclude after hearing these old age pensioners, associations and so on, after travelling all over the country, was that you must not supplement the $75 old age pension with any program based upon a needs test. In the view of the committee, this would be totally unacceptable. I would have thought this suggestion would have had some influence on the thinking of the government and the minister. Apparently it has not.
I want to make it clear, as I am sure other members will, that this is a retrograde step. The proposal is going to mean humiliation for pensioners. They are going to be individually investigated and asked to show all their affairs. All the degrading things that it took generations to do away with in this country are being reintroduced in one fell swoop. Who is introducing this? It is not the Conservative party, but the members of the Liberal party, the new, left Liberal party, the party of progress and leftism about which we have been reading in the newspapers. You are the people who are taking this retrograde step. I think it is most regrettable. We intend to fight it as strongly as we can.
There was one other aspect of this subject about which I wanted to make suggestions to the minister, Mr. Chairman. The Senate report makes it clear that you cannot ever really deal with the needs of our old age pensioners by dealing only with the amount of the pension you are going to give them. Even if we raised the pension to $100 a month tonight, as we would like to do, and even if that were acceptable to the government, we would not really be solving very much in the long run. Raising the pension is a relatively futile step unless you are prepared to deal with all the other things with which the pensioner has to deal in his daily life.
We have been asking, for example, for some program to deal with the rising cost of living in this country. If you go out and talk to old age pensioners, you will understand what they go through. You give them a $25 increase in pension and prices keep going up. Within a year this increase in the pension is lost and they have to come back and ask for more. If you are really going to help the old age pensioner, you have to do so by some sort

June 14, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan of integrated approach which will deal with the whole community in which he lives. One of the main things would be some action to try to deal with the high cost of living. This would be more advantageous, almost, than continuing to bump up the pension every time we have an election. This is the most important feature, and you hear it from every old age pensioner you meet.
Then there is the problem of the lack of proper housing for pensioners at rents they can afford. I am thinking for example of some countries in Europe where pensioners can rent accommodation for $5 or $6 a month. Here in Canada our pensioners are paying just whatever can be gouged out of them, except for the very few cases where we have any sort of low cost apartment units. If we were able to inaugurate proper housing proposals whereby old age pensioners could rent accommodation at low rates, this would be more useful than continuing to jack up the pension at every election.
If you are really going to help these old age pensioners, then another important matter is the payment for drugs and medical care. In my area we have old age pensioners who are paying more for drugs than they are for rent. They require a great many drugs, and the drugs are expensive. As I read the medicare proposal, it does not include drugs for pensioners. In any event this is another aspect of the problem with which we have to deal. As I have said, a mere increase in the monthly amount we give these people is not, in the long run, going to be that beneficial.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
These are the main points I wanted to make. I want to re-emphasize again our absolute opposition to the retrograde aspect of the means test and the corps of snoopers it is going to create, because this is not the type of forward looking proposal that we would have looked for from the minister or the government. It is not a proposal that will meet with widespread support among the old age pensioners.


Mr. Enns:: Mr. Chairman, the Canada Assistance Plan, as a statement of intent, will commend itself readily to members of the house and to all Canadians. At this stage it is simply a statement of intent, and until we see it becoming actually operative, in co-operation between the provinces and the federal government on a cost-sharing basis, we really cannot say that we have anything at all, because there is no directive on the part of

the federal government toward the provinces as to what they must do.
On the other hand this measure can be an exciting, revolutionary step, perhaps the most revolutionary among the whole group of public welfare acts, so that in this we are moving away from the concept of public welfare administered through a patchwork quilt of legislation covering different categories.
We shall have to define again need, and move away from the means test, as other speakers have said. It is of course true that the main question to be considered will be the benefits to Canadians as the result of this legislation.
We talk about the adequacy of intended benefits. I am sorry that I missed the first portion of the minister's statement, because I believe that he dealt to some degree with services to children. I am not clear whether the cost sharing features of the Canada Assistance Plan will be extended to children served by Children's Aid Societies. I raise this because one of the difficulties in the welfare structure is the inadequacy of the provision for children.
Child welfare agencies, whether they are
private or public agencies, or branches of welfare departments, are covering the services to children across the country. Those agencies are providing the rehabilitative services concerned with the basic unit in Canadian society, namely the family. I must point out that child welfare services have been understaffed all across the land. They lack the professional supervisory and administrative staff necessary for their operation, but they have still managed somehow to maintain a service, salving the public conscience in relation to child neglect.
It has become accepted that the program responsible for ensuring the provision of child welfare is a government responsibility. For this reason the exclusion of child welfare services from the Canada Assistance Plan is a very disturbing oversight.
I think that definitions which have been entered into are also very disturbing. You see, I do not think any other country in the world has introduced this kind of legislation where the "sky is the limit". One municipality or one province may decide that need within its area is minimal. For example, we all know that some people have said in the past that a washing machine for a family on welfare is a luxury, and not necessary. We have come a long way from then in our
June 14, 1966

definition of need. Similarly the attitude was that a refrigerator for some people might be considered a luxury; yet many of us have come to recognize a refrigerator, for some families, as an absolute need. In the same way a television set can be a very useful and needed item because it may help to keep the family together in the home. The definition of need becomes crucial in this legislation.
In recent years a good deal of attention has been given to the means test versus other approaches to the right to public assistance. The inference it is hoped would be drawn was that the means test procedure would automatically result in a proper benefit rate for recipients. I quarrel with that. I say that in many communities there is a quite different philosophy respecting the definition of need. The term is valid only, I say, if need is rationally defined and seen to include a number of requirements that are available outside the so-called welfare program. To be included in the definition of need should be the right to an adequate education, for example, and proper clothing, decent housing, and recreational facilities. All these factors, in my view, ought to be taken into account when defining need. Certainly we ought to think of more than marginal, bare existence when we define need. In short, all those things which contribute to the social usefulness of the citizen ought to be included in definitions of need if we are to make this an adequate program.
This is very unusual legislation because no standards are set. We may see great variations in programs across this country, where programs vary extensively between provinces because needs are differently defined.
If I understand the intent of the legislation correctly, it simply means that the federal government will share in the cost of the administration of these welfare services. Well, I can see that in some cases the provision of benefits will be much more generous than in others, because rather than the federal government's setting standards, or raising standards, this will not necessarily be done. This legislation adheres to a wide open door policy and does not seem to enforce on the provinces, or to suggest to the provinces, any similarities of standards that must be adhered to.
I am hopeful that the standards will be included in the legislation, when we see the act before us, or perhaps it can be done by regulation. Surely there must be minimum requirements for a province to live up to,
Canada Assistance Plan before it can benefit from cost sharing arrangements; otherwise this is the "sky is the limit" legislation. I am worried about that aspect of it.
The Canada Assistance Plan seems to suffer from the defect of assuming that the dollar figure to be applied to need is always rising, whereas the dollar figure to be applied to resources seems to be constant. Let me clarify what I mean. We see the position of pensioners-and many hon. members have spoken of the need of increasing the minimum pension to $100 a month. In the broad concept, need is defined in terms of constant dollar value, whereas the rest of the members of the community enjoy motorcars, washing machines, refrigerators, and an ever increasing standard of living. To the needy, some people say, "Doing without such things was good enough for my grandfather, therefore it must be good enough for you".
I believe in the concept that where members of the community live on an ever increasing standard, that those persons who are dependent on public assistance and on public programs of support should also be entitled to increasing needs. It is very discouraging, and detrimental to those persons who are left with fixed standards of living, to see other members of the community enjoying ever more affluent standards of living. I say that this whole concept must be carefully looked into, in order to make this a useful plan.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Another question that must be raised has to do with the adequacy of staff. Staff, not structure, will determine the adequacy of any legislation on this subject. However carefully legislation is formulated, if there is not adequate staff the families who are to be served will probably be more frustrated than ever and may even be harmed. For this reason I urge that every effort be made to increase opportunities for staff training. I find it difficult to express in strong enough terms my apprehensions regarding the manning of the welfare services, I draw attention to the need for large numbers of ancillary workers for the many responsible but comparatively uncomplicated tasks in welfare establishments. I agree that there should be excellent training programs to prepare workers for such tasks. I am a member of the social work profession and I have great sympathy for the tremendous needs of the profession itself. I agree we may not be using our resources adequately, and possibly are not finding ways of correctly

June 14. 1966
Canada Assistance Plan dividing our time between the more uncomplicated chores and those for which a higher degree of professional training is necessary. For these reasons I strongly urge the importance of a determined program of social work recruitment and education. In the absence of well qualified personnel, the availability of additional funds and ancillary personnel will create immediate confusion and may end in damage to the families concerned.
The organizations which are closest to families in want have always known that often families might have been strengthened and breakdown prevented had there been sufficient income, with assurance of its continuance for the duration of need and with administrative arrangements and methods which enable family members to maintain their self-respect. Family crises such as unemployment, or prolonged misfortune such as widowhood, would not then have had such power to destroy family happiness or have held so many threats to family unity. The Canada Assistance Plan, if utilized responsibly and generously across Canada, will mean a long stride toward goals which welfare agencies have coveted for Canadian families.
Mr. Chairman, that is the core of the remarks I intended to make at this stage. I look forward to seeing the legislation when it is finally introduced.


Mr. Otio:: I am pleased to support this legislation wholeheartedly. Nevertheless I hope it is a temporary measure. I take it that the purpose of this legislation-is to rehabilitate those whom it will assist-to enable them to earn a living and run the race we all run, without extra help.
I am not much in sympathy with those who say it does not matter how much help we give these people, that they will always be in the same place. The reactionaries who express this view would themselves be aghast at the suggestion that a physical cripple should run a race in competition with a perfectly healthy man. They do not realize that those who need the assistance to be provided by the measure we are considering are cripples, just as much as if they were physically crippled.
Nor can I accept the statement that Canada cannot afford such a program as this. We can certainly afford it. We are the wealthiest nation in the world-not the second wealthiest but the wealthiest. It was recorded in November last year that Canada is now the wealthiest nation in the world.

Yet with all our affluence there is still evidence of poverty of a kind which is a discredit to this nation. Only a couple of weeks ago I was reminded that in the town of Bancroft there are children who attend school without having eaten for two days; there are families where none of the children have shoes. I had a long talk with a lawyer in Bancroft and with a high school teacher there, and I verified the facts which they related to me-that half the energy of high school teachers there was spent in an attempt to feed and clothe their students. They buy clothes for them. One high school teacher, now retired, spent at least half his salary buying clothes for students so that they could go to get jobs. It does not matter how few these pockets of poverty are: As long as one family is in difficulty of this kind, it is a matter of great concern for this nation.
I am, as I said, very much in favour of this legislation, but I wish to express certain apprehensions in connection with the question of provincial co-operation. I realize that this program has to be administered provincially, and possibly locally; it cannot be done federally from Ottawa. I would remind the minister that there is a tendency in the smaller areas where the successful burghers of the town are usually elected to the council, to preserve the status quo and to save money

even though it may not be their own money-rather than spend it usefully on programs of the kind now envisaged. This legislation would be of no value if we do not succeed in rehabilitating most of the families who will be taking advantage of the legislation.
As the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa has pointed out, extensive training programs for social workers will be required. It is not enough for a social worker to be merely a distributor of money; he has to be trained to help a family back on its feet, an important and difficult job.
I read recently that a welfare worker could not handle more than 17 or 18 cases a year with any success. Obviously then we shall need a great number of trained workers in this field and the minister might well consider whether some of this money should not be spent on their training.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Now I should like to say a word about assistance to older people who will come under this program. I hope that if they are to be included it will be only temporarily. I do
June 14. 1966

not believe that the pensioner thinks of himself, nor should we think of him, as a welfare case. He is not a welfare case. He is entitled to a pension as of right, the same as a veteran. The person now receiving the old age pension went through the depression years when normally he could have accumulated something to provide for his older years. He is now 65, 70 or 75 years old. He was the one who suffered and could not accumulate a nest egg during the depression.
Then the war followed the depression, and immediately after the war industry and business stratified their age limits so that when he expected to be employed profitably he found himself too old at age 45 or 50. Add to that the burden of educating his children much more expensively then he ever anticipated, and you will find he has a very good argument that he is a special case and is not a welfare case.
Therefore, as I suggested in my private members bill, I believe the old age pension should be merged with the Canada Pension Plan. The elderly person should be allowed to pay in a lump sum to that plan if he has the money, and if he has not got it he should be allowed to borrow it at a reasonable rate so that he may be enabled to join the plan. It is not his fault that the Canada Pension Plan was introduced when he was 70 years of age. This is the type of legislative change I would like to see.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Since the hon. member has mentioned the old age pensioner's entitlement by right, would he agree that the means test, and even the needs test should not be applied?


Steven Otto: I will say yes, I agree with that. However, Mr. Chairman, that does not detract from the legislation which has been presented, and which I am sure will not be the only legislation introduced to help the old age pensioner. The hon. member for Danforth said we have to be concerned about the inflationary pressure of this, but I am sure the government will not for long stand idly by before introducing amendments providing greater benefits for the old age pensioner. This legislation should not be regarded as a permanent solution to his problems.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary at the resolution stage to go into great detail regarding the proposed Canada Assistance Plan. We shall have ample opportunity to do that when the bill is before
Canada Assistance Plan us. I have followed the debate throughout the afternoon and evening and it seems most hon. members who spoke regard this measure as an attempt to fill gaps that have been left by already existent plans.
Canada has a fairly comprehensive program of welfare, and in terms of expenditure it has gone up rather astronomically in recent years. But, as pointed out by other hon. members, the postwar development was a rather hodge-podge if not confused approach to the total program.
The pattern of social welfare progress has
been similar in most western countries, with slow development up to the depression period, rapid development during the depression years and the war years, postwar adjustment and, more recently, as I have already mentioned, a certain air of uncertainty and confusion. The lack of specifics in this legislative proposal, the Canada Assistance Plan, would suggest that the government is going to endeavour to fill some of the awkward gaps not provided for in existing public schemes and voluntary programs.
Hon. members have issued a warning that it is going to be extremely difficult to standardize programs of this kind on a national basis. The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa, who is a professional in the field, has thoroughly covered problems with respect to the needs test. My hon. friends in the N.D.P. seem to take great exception to this phrase, a needs test, and are apparently equating it with a means test, which deals entirely with financial criteria. I would rather think in terms of the ideas that have been presented to us tonight by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa, that the needs test is an attempt to deal with total needs, not only the financial and fiscal needs of the person requiring this sort of assistance but also the cultural, psychological and even the spiritual needs.
A person can be affluent so far as material goods are concerned, yet still be in need in terms of his total participation in society. I hope this is the definition and interpretation behind the proposals that will be placed before the house.
With respect to the matter of getting some sort of national co-ordination in social welfare programs, I would point out that in the initial stages it would appear that such programs were pioneered by provincial governments. Under the constitution they have responsibility for welfare, and some of the

June 14, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan earliest schemes, such as workmen's compensation, mothers allowances, and even old age pensions were initially brought forward by provincial authorities. In more recent times, due to the expanding idea and influence of the welfare state, the national government has moved more and more into the field of welfare.
I would direct the attention of the minister
to some excellent pioneering that has already taken place in the provincial sphere with reference to the proposal now before the committee. In 1959 the government of Manitoba passed an act known as the social allowances act which, so far as I can gather from the minister's introductory remarks, was designed to cover much the same area as the Canada Assistance Plan.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I presume there has been a very close consultation with the provincial governments; but just to indicate how comprehensive the Manitoba legislation is, certainly as I read the act it is endeavouring to fill all the gaps and loopholes in existing welfare legislation. Perhaps I should draw to the attention of the minister the fact that section 3 of the social allowances act indicates that the purpose of the legislation is as follows:
Subject as herein provided, the government of Manitoba and each of the several municipalities in the province may take such measures as are necessary for the purpose of ensuring that no resident of Manitoba-
This is all comprehensive.
-including an Indian as defined in the Indian Act (Canada), lacks
(a) such things, goods, and services as are essential to his health and well-being, including food, clothing, shelter, and essential surgical, medical, optical, dental, and other remedial treatment, care, and attention;
Now, I think the minister will agree that is all-embracing and comprehensive. I presume this particular piece of legislation has been the pattern for the Canada social allowances act. Let me point out one or two gaps which have prevailed in existing legislation. One could refer in this conviction to wives deserted by husbands, a wife where the breadwinner has faced imprisonment, and the problems which arise where the breadwinner is institutionalized for a long period of time. I am just drawing examples from the Manitoba social allowances act, which covers all these important areas of social and welfare need.
If we are going to have a program which will be co-ordinated on a national basis and which will be reasonably standardized for

each of the provinces, as the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa pointed out it is going to require rather comprehensive study. We already have a shortage of trained personnel. The proposal has been made that there is a need to train ancillary personnel. This has been found necessary in the province of Manitoba, and such a program has been in operation under this legislation for the past six years. Both in the city of Winnipeg and the city of Brandon, for the past winter at least, there have been special training programs designed to meet the shortage of personnel. If you are going to operate a needs test in the broader concept you are going to require people who can train others to appraise and appreciate all the aspects of the social problem.
My final comment at this stage, Mr. Chairman, would be that I trust the government is not using this legislation as a substitute for the urgent necessity to increase the old age pension. A member of parliament gauges the needs of his constituents by the volume of correspondence he receives. Recently my correspondence has contained a growing number of letters from senior citizens who are faced with the financial pressure imposed by the rapidly rising high cost of living and who find they are being placed in a difficult financial position. Obviously there is a need for a basic pension of $100. I know the comment has been made that this problem will be resolved when the Canada Assistance Plan is implemented. I trust the minister has no such notion, and that as we proceed to approve this plan he will also take into consideration this immediate and pressing need of our senior citizens.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have this opportunity to say a few words on the effects of the Canada Assistance Plan.
Involved in the bill now before us is a plan to share the cost of assistance between the federal government and the provinces. According to the minister, the cost of such program will amount to approximately $85 million.
In this case, improvements are sought in public assistance and welfare services for the unemployed, the disabled, the orphans, the needy mothers and other persons in need, in a word, to all the have-nots of the present system. The question is to help them by various means.
June 14, 1966

What are the means to help all these categories of outcasts of society? Are there any? The minister did not suggest many. He talks of improving this and that, but he has no practical solution. All those who have spoken following the minister have not suggested any practical solution to the problem either, it seems to me.
There is a tremendous social and economic problem to resolve and it relates to all areas of the economy; it is a problem that no one, until now, has been able to solve. It was partly solved by robbing those who were working to help those who were unemployed; by emptying the pockets of one who was working to give to an other who was out of a job, so that he could exist but not live.
At the present time, if you look at all the old people, all the old-age pensioners, all those who receive subsidies and if you listen to their requests and complaints, you will realize that they barely exist. Not one of them can say that he has enough. The cost of living keeps on increasing and all those pensioners, all those outcasts, are not getting any relief. The needs of those citizens have not been adjusted to the cost of living. In the case of children, we are asking that family allowances be increased because life is getting unbearable. People are living only by piling up debts. They live on credit, on money borrowed from finance companies.
The present economic system in Canada limits credit. It is no longer possible to live on borrowed money. The citizens are forced to pay back what they have borrowed already and they cannot borrow again.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The situation is more serious than you think, Mr. Chairman. Reforms are needed in Canada, even in the field of production. Can one say that production is lacking in Canada? Are there citizens who are afraid that the land will not produce tomorrow? Are there members in this house who are afraid that the cow will not give milk tomorrow or that there will be a shortage of butter tomorrow morning in Canada? Not a single one. On the other hand, the people in general are not favoured by the system. They are afraid and worry about tomorrow. They are terribly afraid for tomorrow. They do not know if they will be able to get three meals tomorrow. That is serious, Mr. Chairman.
Why is there so much poverty in Canada when the land does not refuse to produce, when we have a production surplus? I read here in a newspaper that the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in 1965, 1966,
Canada Assistance Plan 1967 we will give $75 million worth of food to various countries.
If we can help foreign countries, surely we can help Canadians in need. It is not money that Canadians want-you cannot eat dollar bills-it is production, something to feed the inner man. Nothing else. And if we have a surplus of products in Canada, why can we not manage our economic system, balance our economy so as to distribute this surplus? Why can we not take advantage of all the products with which our warehouses are bulging? Why can we not distribute them to meet everybody's needs? It is because our economy is topsy-turvy, unbalanced, and nothing has been done to correct that. Well, Mr. Chairman, the volume of money must be balanced with the volume of products. There must be as much money as there are products, and if we do that, business will run well, people will work and we will have what is necessary for our needy citizens. Production has surely been made to fill needs and not to be destroyed. It has not been made to let it deteriorate, it was meant to fill needs.
I ask the minister to assume his responsibilities in that regard. We must work towards meeting the needs in a country bursting with wealth, where we do not know what to do with our riches and our products. That is what we must do.
There are seven million producers in Canada; on the other hand, there are three million people who do not work half the time, who do not earn enough money to pay income tax. Something is wrong in the distribution system. We must look after that. We can surely make arrangements with the provinces but they have no money. The provinces cannot distribute the surplus of products in Canada. Well, if we would co-operate with the provinces, it would certainly be possible to find some solutions to the different economic problems with which we have to cope.
Those social problems are more serious than we think. Sad to say, a bomb was thrown in this parliament and others will follow, if we cannot settle the problem of daily bread, satisfactory housing at a proper rent in Canada. If we cannot do that, we will be destroyed and so will parliament. I wish I were wrong but I know I am not. Now for those reasons, it seems to me that we should pull ourselves together and see to it that this abundant and unfailing production is distributed in Canada. But we seem unable

June 14, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan to solve that problem and those who speak about it are laughed at.
Mr. Chairman, that problem should have been settled a long time ago in Canada. For a long time, those who have been suggesting solutions lay themselves open to ridicule. A day will come, Mr. Chairman, when they will be vindicated. I know that war settles many problems and indeed the Second World War has proved it, but I know that it also emptied warehouses and stores in Canada. Warehouses were bulging with goods when the war broke out in 1939. Well, there is still a surplus of goods now; yet, the war has been over for 20 years. Every year, we have a surplus production worth anywhere from $10, $12 to $16 billion. We had surpluses worth 16 billion in 1965-66. What shall we do with those surpluses, Mr. Chairman? Is the minister doing anything to try to distribute these goods, to meet the needs in Canada? Not much is done directly, but efforts are made to distribute scarcities, which is unusual. We eat according to the money we have, and dress, and house ourselves depending on our means-not according to our resources, our production-but according to the money we have. And the money we have in Canada is controlled by three or four financiers who make it terribly scare and prevent production from being distributed.
They prevent production from meeting the needs that exist.
Mr. Chairman, we certainly will not solve the problem by approving such abuses as exist in Canada.
Our democratic system, our capitalist system, is the best system in the world, but there are abuses and it is these that we must fight. We do not condemn the system at all, but we do condemn its main abuses. That is where we must work: to destroy the abuses within the system. We do not want socialism, nor communism; we want freedom, free enterprise, and that is what we must fight for, so that enterprise and men may be free, as God made them. We must work toward that goal, and men will be free to the extent where we can finance ourselves freely.
Finance is the reflection of all there is on earth. We cannot have a single potato without finance. Let the government take over the control of credit, of money, let it make sufficient credit to distribute the abundant production we have in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I have many other things to say on unemployment, on production, on old

age pensions. Stinginess precludes increases in old age pensions; stinginess prevents money being made to produce. One member was saying a while ago that 70 per cent of our oldsters have only their old age pension to live on. When inflation is being felt in the country, when money is no longer worth anything, when the dollar is worth about 25 cents, how can one live?
How can you expect that demands will not be made for higher wages, higher pensions, higher everything? And when pensions, salaries, when everything is increased all over, this increases the costs of production. When the costs of production are increased, everything is increased. There is no way out. It is like a dog running after its own tail: there is no solution, Mr. Chairman, because it will never catch up with it.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, this problem has to be solved and I am asking the representatives of the people here in this house, to open their eyes and to look at things other than the old formulas of days gone by, formulas that are obsolete and inadequate and that must be made over. I ask them to open their eyes and to make over what needs to be made over. And whatever is going well, let it be. But what is going wrong must be corrected. The financial system is the only thing wrong with Canada. There is nothing wrong with production; there is an overabundance of products. If the government were to put to work all the unemployed, all those receiving social welfare allowances, all those who could work but are not working because they cannot be forced to under our system, how much would the country produce? Canadian production could be trebled if our physical forces were put to work.
Mr. Chairman, this cannot be done at the present time, but it could be done if we opened our eyes instead of keeping a diabolical system under which our people are starving in the midst of plenty.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on the resolution before us and speak specifically to two, or perhaps three, points. I should like to say that I agree in great part with the remarks of the hon. member for York East, particularly with his statements about the use of these funds for rehabilitation. I must say that when I read the resolution on the order paper I was concerned about the repetitive references to providing assistance for welfare services and
June 14, 19S6

welfare service programs. I sincerely hope- and in this connection I echo the sentiments of the hon. member for York East-that the idea will be to provide rehabilitation if at all possible as the prime concern of this proposed plan, because I think it is so much more important to human dignity to give people the opportunity to fend for themselves and to provide for themselves. This surely should be paramount, and we should not be concerned with just handouts to help, perhaps for political reasons, meanwhile paying only lipservice to the needs of so many people across Canada.
I do not speak lightly when I talk about lipservice in this measure, because we have heard a great deal from many members of this house-and I agree with them-about the old age pension and the need to raise the amount to $100 a month. Surely it has become evident, not only in this house but across the country, that there is an immediate need for such a program to be carried out. Surely the number of letters we are all receiving and the number of interviews we have had with the old folk have made us realize the fantastic numbers of these people across the country who do not have sufficient to keep body and soul together.
In answer to a question put by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, I believe the minister stated that the moneys to be appropriated in 1966-67 for this plan would be $85 million.
I will leave that aspect of the matter for a moment. I listened to the hon. member for Cartier, and I must say I have heard similar observations from the Prime Minister as well as the minister, when he put forward the argument that the government cannot increase the old age pension across the board because it will cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $800 million. They say that we cannot afford it. I heard the hon. member for Cartier make the statement that the means test, or the needs test, whatever you want to call it-I do not think we should deal in semantics this evening-would be very beneficial to some because through the Canada Assistance Plan those who really need assistance may receive $125 a month instead of $100, or perhaps $150 if there is real need present. But let us look at this statement, in view of the amount the minister said would be required to increase the old age pension, namely $800 million. This matter has not been raised by myself but was raised by the Prime Minister and members on the other side of the house.
Canada Assistance Plan
If we look at the Senate report on the aging I think it is said quite clearly-I do not have the report with me but I am sure we could clarify this point at any time-that 15 per cent of those in receipt of old age pension are actively needing and receiving welfare service, social aid or whatever you want to call it. If you take 15 per cent of $800 million-and I believe the figure is actually more than that, but I will use the figure of $800 million to allow for my poor mathematical progress-you come up with a figure of $125 million. In other words, to raise to just $100 the old age pension of the 15 per cent who are in need now and are already receiving welfare service will cost $125 million, and the Canada Assistance Plan provides only $85 million.
What sort of legerdemain is this, that we can try to fool the people that we will give them $125 a month or $150? Surely this sort of thing is absolute nonsense. Surely the need is there, that we must now provide for the old age pensioners who need assistance, and we must provide adequately across the board for them as has been said so many times this evening.
I would ask the minister to heed the remarks of the hon. member for Cartier-and I am sorry he is not in the chamber-a member of his own party, who said that we should not be afraid to tell people that it is going to cost them money. I agree that we should not be afraid to tell them when we have to raise taxes, perhaps, in order to provide for these elderly people in Canada who are so desperately in need today. I agree with the hon. member for Danforth when he refers to the increase in the old age pension as being only part of this problem. Certainly integration of such things as the provision of adequate housing for the aged is important. This is clearly laid out in the Senate report on the aging.
It came as a great surprise to me to find that, despite the assertions of the Minister of Labour with regard to the tight money policy that there would still be money available through C.M.H.C. for the provision of homes for the elderly, nowhere in the National Housing Act is there any reference at all to homes for the elderly-none whatsoever. There is only reference to low cost rental housing on the basis of economics. There is nothing to take care of the elderly, as has been suggested in the Senate report on the aging.
To come back to the question of rehabilitation for a moment, Mr. Chairman, I wonder
6428

June 14, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan whether, when we see in the resolution the words "specialized projects for assisting and rehabilitating persons in need or likely to become persons in need", this will be extended-I sincerely hope it will-by the minister and the government to old age pensioners and others, such as the chronically ill. I refer to the facilities for rehabilitation through physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and so on, in our nursing homes.
Surely there must be integration in this respect with the nursing homes. We need more nursing homes. I ask the minister, how much money will be provided for such things as increased home care, which has been recommended so many times across this country? I do not see anything in the resolution to indicate that such a provision will be included in the program. I believe these are extremely important matters to which the government should direct their attention and pay heed to the desires and wishes of groups which have already approached the government and presented briefs pleading that they do something along this line.
I congratulate the minister on one thing, namely the inclusion in the program of assistance for the rehabilitation of the mentally retarded. This is a matter that the Canadian Association for Retarded Children has for many years been advocating to the government in briefs and every other possible method. I believe it is extremely important that we do something to increase the rehabilitation of the mentally retarded, particularly those who do not fall under the educational acts of the provinces, are not considered educable and therefore are not included in the educational programs of those provinces.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I did wonder, however, with all the amendments to the various acts in this resolution, about the omission of one. Perhaps some time toward the end of this discussion the minister could comment on it. On February 21 of this year I asked a question of the ministry. It appears at page 1499 of Hansard and as follows:
Does the government plan to introduce legislation this session to provide capital and operational assistance to sheltered workshops for the mentally handicapped throughout Canada?
The answer was:
Operational assistance is already being provided to a number of sheltered workshops for the mentally handicapped under the federal provincial vocational rehabilitation and vocational training programs.

Of course we are all well aware of this. However, I wonder whether the act will contain amendments governing vocational rehabilitation to allow for the improvement of those of the mentally retarded who could be trained to work in industry in sheltered conditions. It seems to me that it would be well worth the government's time to look into this matter. I do not care what makes a person handicapped, whether he is paraplegic, mentally retarded or blind; the important thing is the rehabilitation, and the keynote of this matter is that they are handicapped.
As the minister may know, there is at present a crusade for Canada's mentally retarded. The organizers of this crusade plan to raise over the next five years $15 million by public subscription to take care of several programs that have been set up. There are 13 such projects across Canada. I will mention one in the rehabilitation sphere which is taking place in Edmonton, Alberta, for the training to independence through the application of the latest industrial technology, which demonstrates that the retarded can work on a competitive basis although in sheltered conditions.
In his remarks the minister made reference to the fact that he will provide aid for these types of projects. Was he suggesting that he will help this particular crusade through the Canada Assistance Plan? This year this crusade will require $5 million and it is estimated that it will require $15 million over the next five years.
If such is the minister's intention, then I think those people across Canada who are vitally concerned with this problem will be most pleased to hear this from him. I might point out that the lives of over two million Canadians, which is a greater number than those inhabiting some of Canada's largest cities, are directly affected, being members of families who have someone stricken by retardation. This is not a small matter. Surveys have shown that special care for the retarded by institutions, agencies and families costs close to $100 million a year, enough to build the monument to the Minister of National Defence to which reference has been made in the last few days.
I wonder if there is enough in the $85 million that is being suggested to provide the kind of help that is so vitally needed. I would just like to point out that the Canadian Association for Retarded Children has shown that by carrying out these projects and other similar projects for the mentally retarded,
June 14, 1966	COMMONS
Canada's economic health can be improved in several ways. May I list them briefly. The program helps to improve Canada's economic health in the following ways:
By integrating necessary services for the retarded with regular health, welfare and educational resources;
By continuing and extending methods for cutting down costs of long-term institutional care;
By transforming more tax consumer retardates into self-sufficient members of the community;
By moving toward maximum efficiency in development of the nation's manpower;
Commercial and industrial interests are improved in the following ways:
By reducing the emotional burdens upon tens of thousands of families who are consumers of goods and services;
By improving the morale and productivity of employees who are from homes stricken by mental retardation;
By adding new people to the ranks of the gainfully employable;
By making new techniques of training and rehabilitation available to commerce and industry for application among normal workers.
Let me say in summary, Mr. Chairman, that when we discussed the health resources fund I echoed the statement that it was too little and too late. Now I would like to say about this plan that perhaps it is not too late, but it is certainly too little.
The minister said that the government would attempt through the Canada Assistance Plan to provide at least a comparable amount to the sum contributed by the provinces to some of the assistance programs. May I point out to the minister that in the province of Saskatchewan old age pensioners receive through old age assistance an average of $2.50 a month over and above their $75 a month. I wonder what they will think when they hear that perhaps the government will give them $5 instead of $2.50 a month. Is this enough? I think a clear answer has been given by many speakers. It is far too little, and something must be done to increase the aid to our old age pensioners. This is something which should be done as quickly as possible, not some indefinite tomorrow or next week. Assistance is needed to lift these people out of the degradation in which we, the parliament of Canada, have allowed them to stay. We must do something to lift them to the level of decency that they most certainly deserve as pioneers in this great country of ours.


Mr. Clancy:: Frankly I think that this resolution can be compared to No. 8 birdshot. If you shoot with a No. 8 you have to hit
23033-407J
DEBATES	6429
Canada Assistance Plan something within five feet. There is nothing we can say about this resolution. The minister knows and I know that welfare is administered by the provinces. If we increase our welfare grants, the provinces are left with the decision of whether to pass them on or to shrug their way out of their responsibilities. For instance, let us take my own province, which was mentioned by the previous speaker. Every time the federal government raised their grant in my province, the provincial government reduced theirs. In the end the old age pensioner is left with a supplementary pension of $2.50 a month.
There is nothing in this resolution at all. We all know that everything that is mentioned in the resolution has to be administered by the provinces. This is just straight buckshot. Why is not the minister more practical? Why does he not raise old age security to $100 a month? Why is he talking about a means test? It is the provinces that put on means tests and not the federal government. What is the minister trying to tell us-absolutely nothing.
I Translation]


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to delay the house very long, but I would make a few remarks in connection with the legislation under consideration. Having taken a careful look at the resolution before us, we cannot but support it, at least in principle. It is a brilliant statement of intentions, but it will surely be necessary to wait for the details of this legislation before deciding whether it is actually worth as much as the minister wants to make us believe.
Looking at this legislation, Mr. Chairman, one gets the impression that the government would want to settle all the problems of the needy at once, but we may entertain doubts about that, since we have striking examples of the lack of foresight or of the lack of enthusiasm in meeting the needs of the destitute.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
For instance, I would simply point out the refusal of the government to accept our proposal to raise old age security pensions to $100 per month. Mr. Chairman, if there is one group in our society which surely deserves our gratitude and our financial support, it is the state pensioners.
I agree that we should improve the plight of the needy, but we must go further. There are numerous other sectors of society which

June 14, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan must be assisted. The program put forward is explicit and alsp refers to a great number of measures which are shared cost programs, under provincial and federal jurisdictions. In fact that will give rise to several problems, and I have no doubts that, while exercising his rights, the minister will not want to infringe upon the rights of the other parties to those programs.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think I am mistaken in saying that this measure is part of the big war, in words rather than deeds, against poverty. Apparently, as soon as this government intends to take steps to reduce poverty, poverty increases in Canada. This is no doubt due to the increasingly high cost of living and the constant danger of inflation which threatens all of us from day to day.
Well, it seems that in both fields, that is the high cost of living and inflation, the government could take steps to wage a real war against poverty and win the admiration of the people. The population is fed up with promises that the situation will improve; they want to see the government take action. As I do not want to take up any more of the time of the house and in order to afford the government the opportunity to implement its various programs, I will say no more, and await the introduction of the bill, reserving the right to criticize it if need be.
Before I resume my seat, I should like to remind the minister that he could surely do a lot to improve the fate of thousands of people who deserve it by raising as soon as possible the old age pension to $100 a month without a means test.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wonder if I could raise a point of order, Mr. Chairman? I do not expect to be in the house until next Tuesday, and I wondered if it might not suit the committee to pass the resolution tonight so that the bill would be available. There would be several days during which hon. members could look at the bill. Naturally any hon. members who might wish to speak tonight would have a full opportunity to speak on second reading or in committee.


Mr. Nowlan:: I was not going to speak tonight on this resolution, and in view of the minister's remarks I shall only take a few minutes, so perhaps his wishes will be fulfilled. I was provoked into speaking on this resolution for three reasons. The first one is the multitude of speeches on the problem that
IMr. Ricard.l
I have heard and the fact that there have been few voices from the east. This subject is of concern in the east because of the age groups there, to say nothing of the political implications as a result of the last election on November 8.
Another reason that I have been provoked into saying a few words lies in the two fundamental faults which I submit are contained in this resolution. I am not like the hon. member for Yorkton, who was going to use buckshot but decided there was no point in firing. I say you can use two broadside attacks on this plan, as it is presently drawn.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat surprised at the minister from my own province, who is well known for his liberal tendencies not only politically but in social welfare programs, advocating and sponsoring such a resolution which perpetuates the means test on two levels. First, I should like to discuss the means test at the dominion-provincial level. As I understood the minister's opening remarks, the purpose of the bill which is to follow this resolution is that the federal government will contribute to the provinces on the basis of what those provinces can pay. I submit that if this is the intent of the measure then, instead of this legislation unifying Canada in the fashion of the concert of voices on the government side either on a one nation or two nation basis, this measure is going to divide Canada into ten different provincial areas. It will do so on the basis that one province can pay so much and another province can pay so much; the various provinces have different abilities to pay. I submit that whether you call it a means test or a needs test, you are driving a wedge between provinces rather than unifying the provinces under this particular program which, potentially, is a unifying program.
I submit on that ground alone, this resolution should be amended at the bill stage so that assistance is given to the provinces without discrimination on the basis of the ability of those provinces to pay for assistance in the way indicated in the resolution. Whether you call it a means test or a needs test, you are merely getting into a debate on a psychological distinction in semantics. I submit that whether or not the minister or the government like the words "means test", they cannot find solace in the confusion of trying to interpret needs or means. You will define means by defining needs, and vice-versa. You
June 14. 1966

cannot change the thing by calling it a different name; you cannot change a goose to a gander or a goose to a chicken, merely by a change in name.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I have mentioned two reasons for my disagreement with this resolution. The first is that it is going to perpetuate the differences between the provinces. We have a minister sitting here on the government side tonight who claimed he was going to integrate the services. This plan has a potential for helping to integrate assistance to all the provinces. Yet, by having different levels of payments based on the ability of the provinces to pay you will have disintegration. You will have old age pensioners and people like that in Saskatchewan, Ontario or British Columbia wondering perhaps whether if they had been born under any other star, or in any other province, their benefits which would be based on the province's ability to pay might not have been somewhat different.
The minister of course is familiar with the legislation the government has brought down. His views are exemplified in the measures providing for assistance in education, which were commendable, and in the health resources program which he manoeuvred through the house today or yesterday. There is an adjustment in those measures with respect to certain parts of the country which have not the ability to pay as much as other parts.
In this legislation there is no such adjustment. The fact is that the inability of some provinces to pay will be perpetuated, and you will have not one nation, or even two nations, of which people have been talking for some time, but ten nations, each one of which would have different levels of assistance.
Because of that, and the fact that there is a means test-and hon. members will remember all the things which have been said about the means test-I am surprised at the minister. He deserves much credit for much of the recent legislation he has piloted through the house, but he is to be somewhat reprimanded, in my view, for trying to pilot this resolution through the house, a resolution running counter to most fundamental welfare programs that the present government and the past government brought in.
As far as assistance is concerned, Mr. Chairman, you do not have assistance. This legislation should try to stimulate a person, rather than stagnating his personality. If you are going to have handouts, with means tests
Canada Assistance Plan and all that that means, you are going to stagnate personalities. We have heard members speaking of the need to help, rather than to give handouts. For these reasons I must register a strong protest against the resolution as it presently stands. I hope that in the bill stage some of the major defects that you could hit with a broadside might be rectified so that the bill could sail through, and be the kind of bill to fulfil the minister's wishes, and satisfy the urgent needs of many Canadians.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wonder if you could pass the resolution so that hon. members would have the bill for the next few days__
1Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we will support the resolution in order to come sooner to the bill, because we believe we can consider the matter more seriously with the bill before us than at the resolution stage. That is why, as far as we are concerned, we will let the resolution be passed tonight.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, members of this party have been expressing their opposition to the means test. We think the minister and the government ought to have a little time to consider the objections which have been made, to see whether or not they could not improve the bill before it is brought in again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
^ Mr. Douglas: We should like to call it ten o'clock and give the government an opportunity to re-examine the position it has taken, a position which we think is fundamentally unsound.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Did the hon. gentleman hear the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who described this measure as humane and advanced?


An hon. Member:: Not on the old age pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a libel.


An hon. Member:: It is a speech.


Eric Alfred Winkler: We would be prepared to carry the resolution, or to sit until hon. members finish expressing their views.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.
Progress reported.
June 14, 1966
6432	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we shall be considering estimates. The first will be those of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and then, depending on the progress we make, the Department of Labour, unemployment insurance, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Legislation, the Privy Council and the Department of Finance.
On Thursday we propose to return to the consideration of legislation, taking first item 64 on the order paper, the bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act; then item 55, the bill to establish The Company of Young Canadians; item 65, second reading of the bill to amend the Canada Student Loans Act, and item 61, the bill to establish a corporation for the administration of the National Arts Centre. Afterwards we would proceed with item 62, the resolution on the Canadian Film Development Corporation.
On Friday we will again be considering estimates.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Reid Scott: On June 1, I addressed a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) in his capacity as the minister answering for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I asked when we could expect legislation implementing the government's election promise that National Housing Act financing would be extended to older homes.
In reply, the minister said:
I do not recall any such election promise, but I can assume that when government policy in this matter has been settled, it will be announced in this house.
I thought that for the record I might refresh the minister's memory. I have in my possession a document called "The Policies of the Liberal Party". This was put out in 1963 and on the opening page it stated:
These are the policies of the Liberal party of Canada. The purpose of this document is to give the voters of Canada a clear statement of what they will be doing if they entrust the country's affairs to a new Liberal government.


A great deal of self-congratulatory comment follows. Later on the document says:
The proposals that the Liberal party puts before you are not election promises, cooked up for the occasion to attract support from this group and that. They are nation-wide policies developed during five years of careful study and intensive discussion among Liberals all over the country.
Then the document says: "We put these policies forward for the next four years."
In another section, dealing with community services and housing, there is a paragraph which promises toextend national housing legislation to provide insured mortgages for the purchase of existing homes as well as for building new homes.
I took that to mean that this is the Liberal party policy, and I think it is a good one. It is one for which we have been asking for several sessions. It works a hardship on young people if they must move to the suburbs to take advantage of C.M.H.C. financing provisions.
For several years I have asked when the government would be prepared to present this legislation to us. The only reason I raise the matter tonight is because of the minister's answer that he did not recall any such election promise. But from our experience with this government we all know its propensity for honouring its commitments. We heard much talk about that on previous occasions, and knowing the views of the government in that regard I wanted to draw this election promise to the attention of the minister.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I am sorry that I have had to keep the minister in the house so late tonight, after his arduous efforts on the labour front, but it only enforces our argument that we should have two ministers, one to look after labour and the other to be in charge of housing and who could answer questions of this type. Now that I have refreshed the minister's memory on this election promise, I ask him when these commitments will be honoured?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for refreshing my memory. I had thought that he had in mind a promise that had been made during the election campaign last fall and I could not remember any such promise at that time. As the minister responsible and answerable to this house for activities in the housing field, and for the work of C.M.H.C., I am sure I would have remembered any such promise.
June 14, 1966	COMMONS
However, I do recall the commitment that was made in 1963 and I can assure the house that in the short time that intervened between the election of 1963 and election of 1965, the government went a long way to implement the promise which was contained in the 1963 election platform to which the hon. member has referred.
I am sure he will recall the symposium that was held in Toronto when the amendments made in 1964 to the National Housing Act were discussed at length. It was a very useful exercise and one that I am sure will have beneficial results. On that occasion reference was made to the point raised by the hon. member tonight.
It was then pointed out that in the amendments which I introduced to the act in 1964 we had made a first and important step toward implementing the promise that we gave in 1963. We included in our new urban renewal program provision for loans to embrace houses that were included in any urban renewal area. It was explained at that conference, and at others which were held across Canada, that this was but the initial step, and those 11 conferences were important for the ideas that were raised at them by municipalities and others all across the country.
After the first symposium I was not surprised that at almost every one of these conferences a suggestion was advanced to the effect, "Well, now that you have made your experimental run, will you give consideration to extending or amending the National Housing Act to include loans for the repair or for the modernization of existing houses"? Quite frankly I doubt if at any of these conferences any problem received more attention than the one mentioned by the hon. member.
I am not making any commitments because the government policy has not been decided, but I can assure you that when amendments to the National Housing Act are introduced, I hope later this year-and this is included in the government's legislative program-provision may be made to take care of the situation which has been raised by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott).



OLD AGE SECURITY-CONSIDERATION OF INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF PENSION

Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday June 8 I asked the following
DEBATES	6433
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen):
Is the government still giving consideration to increasing the old age pension?
I asked this question on the eve of the bringing before the House of Commons by the government of the resolution in connection with the Canada Assistance Plan. Tonight this resolution has been brought forward. The resolution proposes legislation to establish a program for sharing with the provinces the cost of assistance to persons in need. Among those mentioned in the resolution as being in need are the older persons, as well as mothers of children, disabled persons and the unemployed. A provision is forecast providing amendments to the Old Age Assistance Act, among other acts.
My question is asked because I, as a member of parliament, believe that benefits to old age pensioners and senior citizens should be benefits which will accrue to such persons as of right rather than of need.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


James Elisha Brown: The Old Age Assistance Act, as presently administered in Ontario and other provinces, is antiquated. The means test as provided in these provinces is not an up to date provision for the health and welfare of older citizens.
A year or two ago I endeavoured to obtain assistance for a man between 65 and 70 years of age who no longer, because of his physical condition, was able to earn a proper livelihood. His wife was employed part time at a household in Brantford and her annual income was not quite $1,000 a year. At her age she could not work for longer hours or more days than she did. They owned their own home. When their assets, including a small bank account and their house, as well as his meager income and her meager income were added up, this gentleman could not qualify for assistance. They were told to spend what they had in the bank and then this man could re-apply. It was a shocking thing to me that this person could not qualify. Since that time I have not thought much of the means test under the Old Age Assistance Act. I told him never to dispose of their home, no matter what they did.
There are older persons, without even a home of their own, living in old attics in Brantford and paying high rents, whose only income is $75 a month under the old age pension. I want to see an end to this situation
June 14, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion which exists in Canada; I want to see an end to the idea ot a means test for old age pensioners in Canada who desire more income than the present old age pension. I should like to see Canadian citizens who no longer can earn an income, because of age, be able to live in dignity in their retirement. Therefore, I want to see an increase in the old age pension and I want senior citizens to be removed from the class of welfare cases once and for all. I am far from sure that the implementation of the Canada Assistance Plan will have this effect, particularly from what I have heard in the debate tonight.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
In the Ottawa Citizen of today, Tuesday, June 14, there appears an editorial from which I should like to quote. The Ottawa Citizen has always been very close to the government, and this editorial adds to the rumour that something additional might be done for the benefit of old age pensioners. The editorial states in part:
There are reports that the Pearson government is considering special action to assist elderly persons who stand to get little or no benefit from the Canada Pension Plan. The idea would be to supplement by up to $25 a month the present $75 old-age security pension.
Perhaps the stage has been reached where such a move is required.
Then after referring to a surplus of $240 million in the fiscal year ending March 31 in receipts under the old age security fund the editorial states:
If the federal government decides to supplement the old-age security pension, and if the economy does not grow sufficiently to make this possible under the present arrangement, then it should raise the contribution rate under the special formula.
I should therefore like to hear from the minister as to what is being considered by the government to alleviate the income problems of all persons 65 years of age or more, and to provide a remedy for all those persons who will never be able to obtain benefits under the Canada Pension Plan because of their age and the date when they were born.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, just a few evenings ago, in connection with a similar question, I pointed out that in the current fiscal year, 1966-67, federal expenditures in respect of old age security will amount to $1,035 million. It should be pointed out also

that in 1963-64 the federal government was spending $755 million on old age security payments. Thus in a period of three years outlays have been increased by $280 million, or 37 per cent. During this period of three years the level or rate of benefit has been raised and the number of persons covered has been increased by 100,000 through lowering the age to 69.
I want to say that more should be done, and I am sure that more will be done to improve the lot of our old age security pensioners; but I also want to point out that the record over the past three years in this field has been one of achievement. We have in effect today a substantially more generous and much broader program in support of old age security recipients than was in effect when this government took office three years ago.
These improvements have not been confined only to old age security. A steadily increasing level of retirement benefit will be payable under the Canada Pension Plan commencing next January. The lowering of the age under old age security to 68 in January will also extend protection to another 100,000 persons heretofore not covered.
The medicare registration, which will soon be before this house, will be especially important to older people in Canada. The incidence and duration of illness is greater in older people. With the combined benefits of hospital and medical care our older people will have a greater sense of security, knowing that these health needs will be met. Along with this there will be provision under the Canada Assistance Plan for other health care services such as drugs, nursing services and prosthetic appliances, and for income supplementation for those whose budgetary requirements are insufficient.
These are but a few of the things the government is doing or has done for Canada's senior citizens. I want to express my personal appreciation to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) who has maintained a keen and humanitarian interest in this question of providing income support for Canada's older citizens. That interest is shared by the government of Canada and will be demonstrated as we develop further programs of support for Canada's older citizens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When?
June 14, 1966	COMMONS



NORTHERN AFFAIRS-CONSTRUCTION OF REPLICA OF &quot;GRANDE HERMINE&quot; FOR EXPO '67

James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I must first of all apologize to those members who are still in the house for having to listen to me come back to the question of the Grande Hermine. However, I wish to state to the parliamentary secretary who is here tonight that I intend coming back to this question as long as it is necessary. I will insist on raising the question until justice is done to history, and there is by the government an acknowledgement of the historical events of this country, and they are placed in their proper order.
I think it would be very illogical if we thought of celebrating our centennial year in 2049 because Newfoundland joined confederation in 1949, rather than having it in 1967 to commemorate the beginning of confederation.
I am sure we would not have done this after the western provinces, British Columbia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island came into confederation, but rather would have celebrated our centennial from the signing of the British North America Act, which was its beginning. Next year is the time to celebrate our centennial, namely 1967. However, in this case we seem to want to celebrate the second voyage of Cartier to Canada. We have forgotten that he came here a first time.
The other night after the parliamentary secretary listened to my plea, all I got from him was a prepared statement which was an exact replica of the announcement made by the minister on March 18. There was no rebuttal but simply a statement. I think we can expect more than this from the department. There must be reasons for their action in this regard and I believe those reasons should be made known to those of us who have spent many years working on this project and have now seen it, as I have said, taken over or expropriated by the department, without any consultation with those who first thought of the idea.
All I received at that time was a weak, defenceless and worthless reason to justify the actions of the government. No mention was made of the work accomplished over a period of four years. There was no mention of the worth based on the value of this project, its place in our history and the economic values which develop from its exploitation.
DEBATES	6435
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion What is happening now, as I said the other night, is that we have planned to do something that will cost this country much more money. The decision was made without the proper studies being first of all carried out. We are now faced with the problem of having to dismantle this ship after it has been built and after spending many, many thousands of dollars to get it under two single bridges and one double bridge. The next thing that arises is that we discover the bed of the St. Charles river is federal property and that the province is asking that it be ceded over to them in order to develop the Cartier-Brebeuf park. I think these things are serious and the government should not proceed with its plan until all the studies are completed. In my opinion these studies will definitely prove that it is not rational in any way whatsoever to proceed with placing this ship in the Cartier-Brebeuf park.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
It is only recently that the city of Quebec has asked the federal government to return to it the scale model belonging to the city of Quebec as constructed by surveyor Duberger in 1806. This model now rests in the Daly building here in Ottawa, and anyone who wishes to see what the city of Quebec looked like in 1806 must make a trip to Ottawa and take a photograph of this model. I do not know what this adds to Ottawa, but if this city insists on being the proprietor of the model, why should it not at least loan this scale model to the city of Quebec so that they also can have their memento of 1806? I think Quebec has the right to demand it, and if Ottawa lends them the model then Quebec might not insist on our ship being berthed there permanently.
For this reason and also because we have made a statement that we intend to proceed with these plans, it is evident that no study whatsoever has been made and that there is only one logical place where this ship should be berthed permanently, and that is in the birthplace of Canada. I think that the department should at least give some consideration to this request and, as I have already stated, ask representatives of the national Historic Sites and Monuments Board to appear before the standing committee so that we will have a chance to question them and try to justify our claim.


Stanley Haidasz: I wish to assure the hon.
June 14, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) that I appreciate the interest he is showing in the history of Canada and to remind him that in 1934 the Historic Sites and Monuments Board caused a cross to be erected in Gaspe where in 1534 Jacques Cartier landed.
I also understand his concern in view of the many representations that have been made to him from his constituents to retain locally as much as possible the association of Jacques Cartier with the Gaspe region. However, I would like to take this opportunity to reassure him that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) has given the representations of the hon. member and those of his constituents very serious consideration. In so doing he was also guided by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board advisory committee which advises him
on the historical importance of events that have occurred in Canada.
In considering the site where the Grande Hermine should be located after Expo '67 we should recall that the Grande Hermine was not part of Cartier's fleet at the time of his landing in Gaspe in 1534. I am informed that the Grande Hermine was only used in 1535 when it took Cartier to the junction of the St. Charles and Loiret rivers where he spent eight months, including an eventful winter.
The site where Cartier wintered is the area where the Cartier-Brebeuf National Historic Park is being developed. According to the present plan, I understand that the Grande Hermine will be relocated in this park after Expo '67 and it is there that it will be displayed as a prominent feature.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

Wednesday, June 15, 1966