1968-10-18

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill No. C-109, an act respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of Alberta by Canadian National Railway Company, without any amendment.



INDIAN LANDS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-121, relating to Indian lands in British Columbia.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the aboriginal title to lands in British Columbia, tribal and community property and other rights, were never extinguished by treaty, purchase or anything else except in one situation. The purpose of this bill is to give parliamentary recognition to the historical fact that the aboriginal and hereditary ownership of the lands still rests in the hands of the native people of British Columbia, and to give the governor in council authority to enter into discussions and negotiations to see that a mutually satisfactory agreement is reached in this respect, thus solving a problem that has existed for many decades.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, but before I do perhaps I might be permitted to congratulate him and wish him continued health and every happiness on his birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fairweather:: How old is he?


Mr. Hees:: Will he tell us that by way of a
statement on motions?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Prime Minister every happiness as he enters his fiftieth year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The question I ask him is a repeat. I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing the Prime Minister, because I find that as I age somewhat my memory is not as good as it used to be. My question arises from the repeated urgings of the governor of the Bank of Canada for some kind of guide lines relating to inflation, contained again in the speech of last night. Would the Prime Minister indicate when the house might expect the promised white paper relating to the proposed prices review board?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to answer this question. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for mentioning my birthday. I was hoping that the occasion would pass unnoticed, because I have never paid much attention to the question of age. I rather thought the same attitude existed on the other side of the house, but I suppose the longer I put off discussing my age, the worse it will get.
My memory has not yet slipped, however, on the point of the white paper on the stabilization of prices, costs and incomes. I had a meeting with the governor of the Bank of Canada this week and we discussed the subject. I was able to finalize in my own mind the action we should be taking on this matter. I think it is fair to speculate that within three weeks such a white paper, or a statement on this subject, will be made by the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question. Is there no prospect of receiving this white paper before the Minister of Finance presents his budget, as it might be related to the position taken by the minister?


Mr. Trudeau:: No, Mr. Speaker. The budget will deal with inflation in the usual way in which fiscal policy is tackled, but our thinking on this kind of stabilization or review board is that inflation has to be attacked by other than budgetary means. In a sense it is unrelated to the budget speech.

October 18, 1968
Inquiries oj the Ministry


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Prime Minister could indicate whether he feels that the introduction of the budget will not make it even more essential to produce the white paper as soon as possible.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that after the glee with which the budget will be met we might take much more time in introducing this white paper.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was stating government policy when he suggested he was in favour of a cost board rather than a prices and review board.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister inform the house now as to the terms of reference of the national grains council?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I think I referred to them yesterday, Mr. Speaker. In the proposed terms of reference we enumerated all the different aspects of the work which the grains council is expected to perform. One, for example, has to do with marketing, another with research, and still another with information. But I think I stated yesterday that everyone at the meeting held two days ago seemed to agree that the main function of the council would be a co-ordinating one, bringing together all the sections of that important industry.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have a supplementary question. Could we also have some information at the minister's convenience on the proposed method of financing the operations of the council?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This was also studied in Winnipeg two days ago. Different formulas were advanced by the participants at the meeting and by the ministers present and, as I said yesterday, we are now trying to bring all

these elements together and provide the participants with a new document which will be subject to their representations.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Will the national grains council be looking into the problems of western Canada resulting from the severe weather conditions there in trying to find some immediate solutions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not think the council will be created soon enough to allow views to be expressed on the current situation, but definitely the purpose of the grains council will be to analyse, digest and criticize the sometimes conflicting opinions that are advanced by very learned people and worth-while organizations on the interests of the grain industry.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister say whether it is the intention to give a full time salary or emolument to members of the grains council?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That will be discussed under financing.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I would direct a question to the minister of trade and industry. The hon. gentleman mentioned that the council which is being set up will not be operative or effective, as the case may be, for a couple of months. In view of the serious emergency facing the farmers of western Canada is the hon. gentleman giving consideration to convening a meeting of representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the farm unions and municipal organizations to discuss and consider what action the federal government might take to meet this emergency, and to give consideration also to action which might be taken with respect to sales which are going on outside the wheat board of feed grain and the like at inordinately low prices?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is always in my mind and in the mind of the Minister of Agriculture. We are trying to move both on the short term and on the longer term, the longer term being represented by the creation of the grains council. On the short term I have endeavoured to indicate yesterday and two weeks ago the support we are giving to the Canadian Wheat Board. There is no doubt, however, that the policies with regard to orientations, i.e., should it be hard grain,
October 18, 1968

softer grain, or concentration on feed grain and so on, are policies that require a good deal of discussion. I thought, and the Minister of Agriculture thought, that the proper place for these debates would be in the grains council, where all sectors of the industry will be represented and where the representatives would have an opportunity to sort of check the value of their own views against the views of their colleagues in the same industry.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will read the answer. I should like to ask the minister, under the circumstances that this council will not be effective for a couple of months, and in view of the serious situation on the prairies as well as the spirit of desperation among many farmers, whether he will do something now to give these farmers an opportunity to have at least a hope that action will be taken, not two or three months hence but now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will read the questions. I was endeavouring to say that efforts are being made now. My colleague the Minister of Agriculture was yesterday and is today involved in consultations of that kind. When we were in Winnipeg the other day-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MAPLE SYRUP-REPORTED SURPLUS IN QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to offer my best birthday greetings to the Prime Minister. I have no questions to put to him for the time being, but I should like to put one to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin).
Has he started negotiating disposal of the Beauce maple syrup surplus of approximately one million pounds? Does the minister expect that it would be possible to sell that production?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether that question is particularly urgent but under the circumstances, it might be well to allow the minister to reply.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that no one had yet brought the matter to my attention, but now that I know, thanks to the good offices of the hon. member, I shall look into this and endeavour to give him a reply, either personally or in the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. As minimum wages in this country range as low as 80 cents an hour, and the recipients of most minimum wages and their families are required to live in conditions of poverty, will the Prime Minister give consideration to calling a meeting of the provincial premiers to discuss the possibility of raising all minimum wages in this country above the poverty level?
Rxghi Hon. P.-E. Trudeau (Prime Minisler):
As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, we have arranged for meetings of federal-provincial ministers of finance, health and welfare, and later of prime ministers. The agendas are quite full, and I do not believe that at the meeting of prime ministers we will be able to discuss this particular matter. We are meeting on constitutional matters.

While I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette) for his good wishes and tell him that, like Maurice Chevalier, I do not relish the idea of getting old, but I feel better when I think of the alternative.


George Harris Hees: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the Prime Minister's reluctance to take any action or to give leadership in this regard, are we to take it the just society envisages built-in poverty?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence I will address it to the Prime Minister. My question arises out of reports that the military budget of NATO is to be increased to the sum of $172.8 billion for the next five year period. Will the Prime Minister say what representations, if any, have been made to Canada to increase its financial contribution to NATO?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I wonder if the hon. member would mind
October 18, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry asking this question of the minister when he is in the house?


John Angus MacLean: I have a supplementary question which perhaps may also be passed on to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the house and the country have been waiting for several weeks now for a clear statement of the government's position with regard to NATO, and such a statement has been promised both by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, can we now be given assurance that such a statement will be made without further delay on the return of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence to the house?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Dauphin.


John Angus MacLean: I should like to say further, Mr. Speaker, that since this statement has been promised by the Prime Minister on several occasions, he might like to make some reply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I have told the house, Mr. Speaker, the question of the review of our defence and external policy is under way. It is not envisaged that in the immediate future we will have any announcement to make. Once again, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be in the house next week, when the hon. member will be welcome to ask him any questions.



BARLEY-REPORTED LOSS OF MARKETS IN FRANCE AND AUSTRALIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. What action will the minister take in view of the almost complete loss of our traditional barley markets in France and Australia in the past six months, reportedly as a result of the rigid pricing policy of the Canadian Wheat Board?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I cannot declare war on France; that is one thing I cannot do.


An hon. Member:: What about your prayers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The barley market is one in which competition exists. As I said yesterday in answer to a question, we are trying to help by every means available to improve the

position of the wheat board in that competitive race around the world for wheat and barley markets. I mentioned yesterday that one of the important marketing factors was credit terms, and we are trying to improve upon that as well.



FROZEN COD FISH-LOSS OF U.S. MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is in a way supplementary, and it is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, whose day this seems to be. Will the minister tell the house what trade initiatives either his department or the government are taking to offset the serious decline in the Unitd States market for Canadian fish, with the disastrous consequences this is having on the industry in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the importance of the question asked by the hon. member, but I suggest to him that perhaps what he would want the minister to do is to make a statement on motions rather than give a general statement on policy at this time.


James Aloysius McGrath: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a very urgent question. The Fisheries Council of Canada will be meeting in Ottawa on Monday and this is a serious topic that the council will have under discussion. Perhaps the minister will give consideration to making a statement on the matter on motions on Monday.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether my hon. friend is referring to his favourite subject, which is Greenland halibut, or is he referring to fish in general?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to fresh frozen cod fish generally.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In that case, the question being so wide, Mr. Speaker, I will take it as notice.
[Later:\


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should address this question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as a supplementary to the question asked by the member for St. John's East. With regard to the question concerning the frozen fresh fish market in the United States, can the minister give some assurance that this question will result in a statement on Monday prior to the meeting of the fisheries council?
October 18, 1968


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.


John Howard Lundrigan: I did not catch the answer.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, I will give it a try.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reiterate what has been said, but after the very generous words which were expressed by the Prime Minister one month ago today 1 am happy to tell him sincerely how glad I am that he is in such good health. May I also congratulate him on his birthday and affix thereto a question.
May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can now advise that the opening of the national arts centre has been postponed from its original date of opening, so that he will be in his fifty-second year before the centre is opened; and may I ask him whether the delay in this regard is due to the fact that it will be necessary to secure further supply in the 1968-69 year before the alterations that are now being made to that building can be completed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure whether the question is urgent, but since this is the Prime Minister's birthday perhaps he should not be deprived of an opportunity to answer the question.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Thank you very much for your kind gift, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the question of the arts centre may I say I have had no news that the opening will be delayed, as the right hon. gentleman mentions. The Secretary of State is not in the house today, so I will call this question to his attention. The last I heard was that the opening would take place as scheduled and that there would be no difficulty.
May I also thank the right hon. gentleman for his good wishes. I am not an Indian chief or a long experienced and respected member of the house, but I am sensitive to the good wishes which have been addressed to me by the right hon. gentleman. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I do not mind when the gentlemen of this house call attention to my age, but I do hope the ladies will not notice it too much.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is it not a fact that a few months ago when the Prime Minister visited the Stratford festival the same question was asked of him by various artists who were doubtful as to the reason for the postponement of the opening of the centre? Is it also not a fact that it was said, after an aide had left to get the information, that one of the reasons for the delay was that the necessary supply had not been voted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps as the hon. Leader of the Opposition said a moment ago, my memory is failing. I have no recollection of this, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the flying schedule of Air Canada to Moscow. Since both Air Canada and Pan Am now leave for Moscow less than two hours apart on the same evening, making it difficult for either air line to make the route pay, is Air Canada negotiating with Pan Am to bring some order to this senseless situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think that question might be placed on the order paper.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andre Foriin (Loibiniere):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall put a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Can he tell us whether any division of his department is considering now or will consider in the near future the possible participation of the federal government, at the information level, in the serious problem of alcoholism in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the question of the hon. member could be placed on the order paper.

October 18, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Yesterday, he told us in a speech that the question of hallucinogens would be on the agenda of a future federal-provincial conference. Could he tell us whether alcoholism, which is becoming a national problem, will also be on the agenda.
I see that the minister is prepared to answer, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: It is not specifically on the agenda for discussion, although it may be introduced by interested parties from the provinces.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell us if it is the government's intention to replace in the near future our Canadian ambassador in Paris and to appoint Mr. Leger to the position of Under-Secretary of State?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I shall be prepared, next week, to make an announcement on this matter.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister intervene in the present hearings being held before the railway transport committee to establish a rail costing formula in order to lift the cloud of secrecy hiding railway costing figures, secrecy that is preventing the provinces from preparing a proper case for the railway transport committee hearing?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether I have any right to intervene, but I shall be glad to bring my hon. friend's representation to the attention of the president of the Canadian Transportation Commission.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the report of the Canadian Transportation Commission dealing with less than carload rates in Atlantic Canada. If so, when can action be taken thereon?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge I have not yet received this report.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Col-chester North):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister give some indication to the people of the Atlantic provinces when we are to have some action from the minister's committee in the field of transportation? We are certainly fed up with the lack of action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether a delegation of federal officials is now in Paris trying to prevent an agreement in the field of communication satellites between the province of Quebec and France?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. The question, as the Prime Minister of France said concerning another subject, is perfidious.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr,
Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us if a mission is now in Paris to discuss satellite communications between Canada and France?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: 
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, from one forty niner to another. Considering the great importance and possible implications of the discussions now in progress in Paris between the officials of France and Canada in respect of the telecommunications satellite, will the Prime Minister ask one of the ministers to make a statement on motions at an early date on this pretty important matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if a statement is made it will likely be made by the Postmaster General, who will be the minister responsible for communications. I will gladly discuss it with him.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Potsmaster General which arises out of a question I directed to the Prime Minister yesterday. I asked the Prime Minister whether the heads of certain daily and weekly newspapers have asked to meet him and discuss the questions of the cut off of service and the increase of rates. Yesterday morning the Prime Minister said those people had seen you. If they have contacted you, could you say what decision you have come to?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that questions ought to be addressed to the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will address the question through you, sir. Have you seen the heads of these newspapers with regard to the matter I have just raised?


Mr. Speaker:: I must tell the hon. member that I have not seen the people he has referred to.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General whether he has seen the heads of the daily and weekly newspapers I
DEBATES	1531
Inquiries of the Ministry referred to, and has he told them that the service is to be continued as it is today and that there will be no increase in rates?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I was beginning to feel a little neglected today. I met with the representatives of the Quebec daily newspapers association yesterday morning for about one hour and a half, and I think a summary of this meeting appeared in various newspapers today. Last evening I met for about one hour and three quarters with the president and general manager of the Canadian daily newspapers association, and I listened.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am happy that the Postmaster General listened. Having listened, has he reached any conclusion with reference to the submissions presented to him during those interviews?


Eric William Kierans: I think the debate on this bill begins on Monday, and I hope the hon. member has enough patience to wait until then.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Postmaster General a supplementary question.
About the motion to adjourn the business of the house which was introduced yesterday in his absence, can the minister tell us if he intends to reconsider the decision he made known to us in his letter of October 10 with regard to his intention to set new postal rates starting November 1, thus altering the franking privileges enjoyed by the members of the house and the Senate? Can he give us an answer today?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on second reading and then we can discuss whether such a statement is justified.


Gerald William Baldwin: As the
minister seems alarmed at the prospect of a parliamentary committee examing this question, would he have any objection to his officials appearing before a standing committee at the time their estimates are being considered, which could well be contemporaneous with the introduction of the bill?


Eric William Kierans: I have no objection to discussing this bill nor the principles underlying the policies of the department, but I would think the normal place to do this, the place which

October 18, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry
would give the opportunity for the fullest discussion, would be in committee of the whole.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister has had these long interviews and listened to these representations. Would he consent to these people appearing before the standing committee so they could air their views and in order that hon. members might be well informed and placed in a better position to discuss this unusual bill when it comes before the house?


Eric William Kierans: I have no doubt at all that the people who have made representations to me have also made representations to hon. members opposite, who are well aware of their nature.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Bearing in mind the vigorous press campaign against the proposed increase in second class rates, can the minister assure us that he intends to stand firm on this point and make the newspapers pay their way?


Eric William Kierans: I am glad to receive that expression of support from the hon. member opposite.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: In the absence of the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, the minister responsible for Indian affairs and the hon. member for Port Arthur, who is Minister without Portfolio, I should like to direct a question to any acting minister who may feel he has authority in the following urgent circumstances, and ask him whether the government has knowledge of an important decision by the supreme court of British Columbia that Indian reserve land surrendered for lease is no longer considered to be reserve land as such, and is lost to the Indian people. Is it intended to take any action to correct this injustice?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The three ministers mentioned by the hon. member are not scheduled to appear in the house today according to the roster, but I am sure they will be pleased to receive the question when they are here.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Aloysius McGrath: My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In the light of an indication yesterday in a speech by the Minister of Fisheries that he was advocating an extension of the 12-mile fishing limit, may I ask how the right hon. gentleman reconciles this proposal with French sovereignty over the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question asked by the hon. member appears to be argumentative.


James Aloysius McGrath: But Your Honour, this
speech was made yesterday at Boston by the Minister of Fisheries, and it concerned the 12-mile limit. Some doubt exists in the minds of Canadians, particularly on the east coast, as to whether the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon would be within the proposed new limit, and I would redirect my question to the Prime Minister and ask him how the government reconciles this new policy with French sovereignty over the islands mentioned.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to protest on a point of order. In 1964 the government of this country passed legislation establishing a 12-mile limit for Canada. This was done to preserve certain fishing areas including areas in the gulf of St. Lawrence and the bay of Fundy. At the present time our fishing industry on the east coast is going through a difficult period of readjustment. There is a shortage of fish, and implementation of this decision would help establish conservation areas for the fishermen of Canada. I would ask the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: The President of the Treasury Board is on the roster today and must not feel neglected. I wonder whether he is in a
October 18. 1968

position to answer a question he has been asked previously, namely whether he has been in touch with the province of Ontario with a view to making public any communication from that province calling into question the accurancy of the federal estimates for the current year which were tabled last November, relating in particular to the federal share of the joint cost programs.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: I have made inquiries and the answer as to whether there was a formal warning would have to be clarified. I hoped to be able to present a somewhat lengthy statement outlining all the facts but was unable to agree on a procedure for doing this. As the estimates of the Treasury Board are to be called this afternoon, perhaps this will provide a suitable occasion.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: But
it is health and welfare today.



TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY______

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: My
question is for the Prime Minister; it is prompted by the information that Premier Campbell of Prince Edward Island and his cabinet are coming to Ottawa to press for the construction of the Northumberland strait causeway. Can the Prime Minister advise us whether he is receiving representations from Premier Robichaud in connection with this important project?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether the question as asked is in order. The hon. member asks whether representations have been received, and I suggest that in those terms the question is not in order.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister now in a position to say whether the government has any plan to confer with the provinces in respect of the setting up of joint financial assistance in the field of Metis housing?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This question is under study. As my hon. friend is aware we already have an arrangement with the province of Saskatchewan. One is under review at the moment with the province of Manitoba. This is a problem which is being given active consideration, and plans are moving forward.


Robert Simpson: Can the minister say how long he believes it will be before the plan is finalized so some action may be taken?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot say, but I shall be glad to inquire and let my hon. friend know.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether Canada has been approached to join with Australia, Britain and Rhodesia in a four-nation treaty with the object of guaranteeing African rights in Rhodesia, and whether Canada would react fabourably to such a proposal.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I know of no such representation. I would have to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, some little time ago I asked the Minister of Transport whether a definitive opinion was being sought in respect of federal jurisdiction in the Roberts Bank affair. Is he now in a position to say whether that decision has been given, what it is, and what action may be expected?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We have asked for such an opinion from the legal officers of the crown, but it has not as yet been received.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the Minister of Transport say whether the chairman of the National Harbours Board was stating the minister's policy and that of the government when he

October 18, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry said the federal government cannot provide any major developments to handle containers and unit trains at any particular port until the shipping companies make a decision concerning which port they wish to designate for international container traffic?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister may wish to answer the question, but it is not quite within the rules. It is in order to ask whether statements made by ministers outside the house are in accord with government policy, but it is not in order to ask whether statements made by officials are in accord with government policy. In any event I might allow the minister to answer the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The justification for the question is its extreme urgency.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have not seen the statement by the chairman of the National Harbours Board to which my hon. friend refers. I would not like to make any comment until I have seen it. There certainly is a relationship between the provision of facilities and the demand for their use.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the minister or the government given any undertakings to any of the shipping conferences or any foreign shippers which would ensure their confidence in Canada's ability and intention to meet the requirements of international container traffic?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In general I would say we would assure all shippers that we will make an effort to provide the facilities necessary to facilitate the movement of goods in the most economical manner. If my hon. friend has a more specific case in mind I would be glad to look into it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Transport is still here, and on the days when he will not be here next week, will he use his good offices to discuss with the acting house leader the organization of the committee on transport and communications, which committee could define many of the problems about which he has been asked?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sure we will have the full co-operation of the house leader in this connection.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Transport now in a position to indicate whether the study of which he spoke on December 13 with regard to extension of the season at Churchill is now available and will be made public?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would have to take that question as notice. I am not sure whether it falls into the category of public documents.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's long, strong personal record of support for increases in the pensions of retired civil servants, can he say whether this matter is actually under consideration by the government of which he is now a member?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to a similar question a very short time ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the answer was that the matter is under consideration, will there be an anouncement about this matter at an early date?


Edgar John Benson: Probably in due course.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. May I join with others in wishing him happy birthday. In view of the absence all this week of the Minister of Defence Production would the Prime Minister give the people and the employees of Fairey Aviation in Canada some assurance that this company will not go down the drain before the minister gets back to work?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
October 18, 1988	COMMONS
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)

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


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. The house again in committee of supply, revised estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969. Vote 1 will be found at page 340 of the blue book. The details thereof are listed at page 343.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including recoverable expenditures on behalf of the Canada Pension Plan, and $500,000 for health grants and welfare grants, under terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board for research and demonstration activities in the field of mental retardation, $4,466,000.
John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman and members of the house, this parliament and its predecessors have charged the Department of National Health and Welfare with responsibility for promoting, preserving and improving the health, social security and social welfare of all Canadians. The five years that ended in 1967 saw the introduction of new, major programs such as the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, medicare, the health resources fund, the guaranteed income supplement and youth allowances.
These estimates for the fiscal year 1968-69 which are now before the committee do not contain additional moneys for new programs, other than the first fragments under medicare, but rather additional moneys for the improvement and extension of current programs. At $3.2 billion they are 26.3 per cent of the comparable federal government expenditures forecast for this same year, a true indication of the emphasis which this government places on programs designed to improve the health and well-being of the Canadian people.
This $3.2 billion has three major components: $1.6 billion for forecast expenditures from the non-budgetary old age security fund; $1.5 billion for budgeted statutory items, and $133 million to be voted by parliament. These show an increase of $403.2 million of 14 per cent over 1967-68. By major component they are: a $149 million or 10 per cent increase in payments from the old age security fund; a $253.8 million or 20 per cent increase in budgeted statutory items, and a $1.4 million or 1 per cent increase in voted items.
DEBATES	1535
Supply-National Health and Welfare
The $149 million increase in payments from the old age security fund reflects the lowering of the eligibility age to 67 on January 1, 1968 and to 66 on January 1, 1969.
The $253.8 million increase in budgeted statutory items includes: a $136.4 million increase in hospital insurance reflecting an increase in both outpatient and inpatient rates as well as a net increase in population; a $91.9 million increase for the Canada Assistance Plan which is due to a greater utilization of the plan by the provinces for such items as increased costs of institutional care for both adults and children, improvement in child welfare programs and increases in foster home payments for children. It also includes an extension of health services for persons in need, plus improvements in the level of benefits.
There is also a $35 million increase to provide the federal share of costs under medicare; a $7.5 million increase in funds required by the provinces from the health resources fund; a $2.2 million increase in payments under the youth allowances program which reflect both the effect of high birth rates in the early 1950's and the fact that a large proportion of youths are continuing their education beyond age 16; an $11.2 million decrease in old age assistance reflecting the reduction in the eligibility age for payments from the old age security fund; and a $9.8 million decrease in blind persons and disabled persons allowances reflecting the transfer of payments under these categorical programs to the Canada Assistance Act.
The $1.4 million increase in voted items includes:	a $1.8 million increase in the cost
of operating the medical services program which reflects a general increase in most activities of the program; a $1.4 million increase in the cost of providing food and drug services which reflects a further strengthening of the inspection and enforcement activities basic to its program; a $1.5 million increase in family assistance payments reflecting a forecast increase in the number of immigrant children not eligible under the family allowance programs; a $1 million decrease in the health services program reflecting mainly the phasing out of further additions to the emergency health services medical stockpiling program, and a $2 million decrease in the hospital construction grants program reflecting a lowering of payments against construction in the year. I would point out that while the forecast payments
October 18, 1963
1536	COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare have decreased, the funds required for commitment to projects has increased by $4 million.
In the foregoing analysis I have attempted to highlight significant changes in the department's proposed expenditures for 1968-69. I stated at the outset that these estimates did not contain additional moneys for new programs but rather additional moneys for the improvement and extension of current programs. Examples of this are to be found in the Canada Assistance Plan, where agreements have been entered into with all provinces under part 1 of the plan the part which covers assistance and welfare services for the general public. Negotiations have also been carried on with the Yukon and Northwest territories to enter into such agreements. Provision is made under part 2 of the plan for the federal-provincial agreement to cover the extension of the provincial assistance and welfare services program to Indians living on reservations, crown lands or unorganized territory. Active negotiations have been carried out on this matter with all the provinces. Although no agreements have yet been signed, the final stages of including an agreement under part 2 of the plan with the province of Ontario are at present under way.
Provision is made under part 3 of this act for contributions toward work activity projects that are designed to benefit persons who have unusual difficulty in obtaining or holding employment or participating in training or rehabilitation programs. Considerable discussions have been held with the provinces and to date six have signed agreements under part 3. Another example of improvement and extension of existing programs that falls under the Canada Pension Plan is the payment of survivors' benefits which started for the first time in February of this year. Payment of disability pensions is scheduled to come into effect early in 1970 and all planning in the area of survivors' benefits has been carried out jointly with the Quebec Pension Plan. Further planning and organization in relation to the administration of disability pensions will proceed on schedule in order that the payment of these pensions may be made, in accordance with the act, in 1970. One last example, Mr. Chairman, is the Indian health activity of medical services. Members of this committee are aware, from previous statements in the house, that the resources required for Indian health will be provided.
[Mr. Munro.l

[DOT] (12 noon)
There are many other areas of the department's operations where improvement or extension of services is being actively pursued. Rather than continuing at length on each, I cite these three examples and leave it to individual members of the committee to pursue, as I am sure they will, those programs which hold special interest for them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question. Before we begin an examination of the estimates of the minister's department, can he tell us whether any really serious consideration has been given to financial priorities in respect of the programs which come under his department, and in particular to increasing the old age pensions of those people across the nation who are in dire need? I believe this is one of the most important things facing the government today.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member is well aware of all the measures we have taken during the last two or three years to improve the situation of these people. We have increased the old age pension, and we have tied it to the cost of living index. There is the guaranteed income supplement under which we have provided an additional $30 to those people who can show they do not have an adequate income, bringing the total pension up to $105. When the increase based on the cost of living is counted it is higher than that. I think we have moved forward very strongly in this area in order to help these people, but for the forthcoming year this is not one of our priorities.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thank the minister for his frankness.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to congratulate the minister upon his appointment and say to him that he has a department that spends a tremendous amount of money. I believe the spending by his department is next to that of the defence department. The Department of National Health and Welfare is responsible for many growing, open-end programs. I realize that costs tend to increase when carrying out such programs.
The cost of the medical insurance plan operating in the province of Ontario is increasing at the rate of $2 million per week, or an increase of $1 a month for every man, woman and child in the province. This gives us all a great deal of cause for concern. Where does it
October 18, 1968	COMMONS
stop? When do we reach the point of being unable to provide these services? Somewhere along the line will the government have to say that they have to put off essential services or have to put off a program with top priority, such as education in our medical schools and universities?
I believe my own profession should take a look into the future. When I say this I am fully aware of the tremendous advances that have been made in research by doctors. Their long and patient hours of tedious work have benefited mankind beyond anything I can say. This has been a tremendous century of medical progress. Prior to 1900 comfort, solace and the strengthening of the patient's will and determination to get well was the big asset of a doctor. I believe it was Osier, the great teacher, who cited the case of the footman who cured his pneumonia in a stable without medical care. That was around 1900.
We did have vaccination prior to this century, and today we have an armament of vaccines, toxoids and injectables to prevent and cure disease. We also have antibiotics for curing diseases, thus saving millions of dollars to the economy. I do not know whether anybody has estimated the actual amount saved because of these wonder drugs. A great many people have been restored to health and returned to work because of them. Millions of people who are living, working and contributing to the economy would not be alive without the medical discoveries of this century.
We are now in the era of organ transplants. This is comparable to placing a man on the moon, and it is tremendously expensive. Osier, to whom I have already referred, used to say that pneumonia was the old person's friend; it was a blessing in disguise because in a few days the suffering from all life's ailments was over. Today antibiotics, diuretics and oxygen are given, and soon the patient is better. The point is that today millions of people are living who a few years ago would have passed on. Today these people are with us, some of them living an enjoyable life and some even working. Some require further chronic care.
I have noted that in 1967-68 the estimate for hospitalization and diagnostic services was $423 million. That is to be found at page 355 of the revised estimates. For 1968-69 the estimate is $560 million, an increase of $71 million. I also noted that in the budget white paper the figure for 1968 is $468 million and for 1967, $397 million. An increase of $71 million represents just under 20 per cent.
DEBATES	1537
Supply-National Health and Welfare This is a shared program with the provinces, and taking the budget paper figures this means in effect an increase to the federal government of approximately $87 million, to the provinces another $87 million, and to the public who pay about one-third, another $87 million. It is an increase, as I have said before, of about 18 per cent. The likelihood is-and this is something one should keep in mind-that this amount will increase faster than our gross national product. Over the years we have seen the figure increase by 15 per cent and 16 per cent; yet governments continue to estimate the increase at 7 per cent. To my mind this is completely unrealistic.
The point I am making is that the older we get, the more hospital beds we use and the more physician's care we need. This increases the cost of medicare. As a matter of fact, after the age of 35 the rate of illness starts to climb. From one year to 35 years the most common cause of death is by accidental means. Prior to the advent of scientific discoveries in this era there were far more deaths by illness from the age of one year to 35 years because of motor car accidents, motorcycle accidents, drownings, and so forth. Today these accidents kill over 5,000 people a year in Canada and mean that one hospital bed in ten is occupied by an accident victim.
This is a real challenge to all of us because we should be able to cut down the accident rate. If we can do this, many more beds will be available in our hospitals. Every effort must be made by the government to cut down the accident rate. Action must be taken by the federal, provincial and municipal governments to solve this problem. As I have already said, from age 35 on illness and medical care increase. By the age of 50 one person in ten has some cardiovascular disease, and cancer takes a frightening toll.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
The one way in which we can reduce the requirement for hospital beds is by preventing accidents. This means that more research is necessary to find the causes of accidents and prevent them. The present government is niggardly in its financial assistance for research, and only one-tenth of what is spent in the United States for this purpose is spent in Canada. This also means that our bright young graduates who wish to go into research do not have the job opportunities in Canada, so they simply go across the border. This is the most penny wise and pound foolish policy
1538	COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare we could devise. In my own profession of medicine it costs $50,000 for each young graduate to go through medical school, to say nothing of what it costs to raise them to the age at which they are ready to go to medical school.
Hospital and diagnostic services schemes are a decade old and their cost is rapidly increasing. I am sure the minister is as concerned about this as I am.
Another thing which concerns me greatly is the sharp difference in costs among the provinces. I wonder what the reason for this is. The daily cost per bed in Quebec is $47.53 while in Saskatchewan the cost is $42. In large metropolitan hospitals the daily cost per bed is $69 in Quebec and $48 in Ontario. There is probably some explanation for this divergence but I would like to know the reason for it. In 1965 physicians' services cost $545 million, while in 1968 they were estimated at over $800 million, an increase in the three years of nearly 50 per cent. Fee schedules did not increase that much, but there was a sharp increase in referrals, X-rays and diagnostic tests. The immediate question which comes to one's mind is whether this is not partly due to new equipment, to the fact that we are making diagnoses which we were not able to make before and are utilizing new equipment to a larger extent in this scientific age.
The question arises whether or not there is overutilization of services. This opinion has been voiced. This is something that the Minister of National Health and Welfare should take up with the provinces and discuss with the ministers of health in every province to find out whether the increase in costs is wholly due to the scientific upsurge or whether there is an overutilization of medical services. It has been stated by a previous minister of national health and welfare that the incomes of doctors could go up by as much as 20 per cent as there would be no bad accounts. I think it was Mr. Douglas, the former member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in the last parliament, whom we all miss here-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He will be back.


Philip Bernard Rynard: *-and who was first to bring in hospitalization and diagnostic services in any province, who stated that in Saskatchewan utilization went up by 25.5 per cent. It appears to me that with the advent of medicare there will be an increase all across the country and I wonder how well prepared we are for it.

DEBATES	October 18, 1968
Do we not have too many open-end programs whereby large amounts of money are spent as a result of which we will have to cut down on research or other programs which are not so noticeable? This will result in great harm being done to medical training and scientific research. We must give much thought to this matter because I am sure everyone in this house realizes that there is only so much money to be spent, and there comes a point beyond which people cannot be taxed.
Let me come back to what I said before, that doctors must take a close look at this whole matter and give serious thought to the future. This also applies to hospital administrators, hospital boards and, above all, governments which will be taxing the public. If these open-end programs cost too much, some essential services may well suffer as a result. We do not want to find ourselves in a situation where the government will lay down the rules and stifle incentive. Therefore I suggest that every avenue should be examined, including hospital costs, hospital administration and hospital construction.
I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare realizes that in 1958 the Conservative government doubled the grant per bed for hospital construction. I think it is a shame that with all the growth in our gross national product the figure is still $2,000. I say it is time to wake up. The minister should take a close look at the costs of hospital construction together with the health ministers of the provinces and the municipalities where the hospitals are being built. The cost is several times what it was ten years ago.
Most probably we will not be able to make any significant cut-backs with regard to active treatment beds. However, I also believe that when a patient reaches a certain point in his convalescence he could be transferred to another part of the hospital which is not equipped with all the new scientific apparatus and could be cared for there for half the cost. A few weeks ago I was south of the border and I visited some hospitals and saw there motels where patients were transferred after recovering sufficiently following an illness or surgery. This is cheaper than keeping them in hospitals. These motels are staffed by nurses aides, which also cuts down on the cost. I am sure this could be considered here.
Another matter which has concerned me is why the federal government has not given more grants in the field of mental health. I do
October 18, 1963
not think there is one province which has been given assistance in the capital construction of mental hospitals. Yet we find that 50 per cent of all hospital beds in Canada are occupied by mental patients. The very fact that medicine has moved into the ultrascientific field makes the equipment for first class care particularly expensive. No one denies this and I believe everyone agrees that it is absolutely essential to save lives, to restore health and to bring back individuals to a state where they can carry on normal lives and participate in the economy of the country. Therefore we must not skimp on the money that is spent on scientific equipment. In our free enterprise system we have been able to develop one of the best types of medicare programs anywhere in the world.
To revert to the matter of hospital construction, let me say again that patients recovering from an illness could be treated in a much cheaper way than is the case now. This is where some savings could be made. Another way is to prevent illnesses and accidents. As I have said, it is regrettable that one out of every ten people who reach the age of 50 suffers from a cardiovascular disease. Such diseases start about age 35 just when the accident rate goes down. The graph for these diseases climbs higher and higher the older a person becomes. These are the areas we have to tackle, the places where we have to prevent diseases and prevent accidents. In this way we can cut costs.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I believe that in my own province hospitals are continuing to be built. If I recall correctly the province has spent most, if not all, of its grant from the federal government. In other words, the provincial government is left in the position of carrying the cost of hospital construction. If I am wrong in this statement I stand to be corrected. However, I believe I am correct. The same situation applies to the health resources fund in my province. I am not speaking for other provinces because I do not know their situation as well. However, the province of Ontario has used up and is using up the health resources funds faster than they are being received. The province is going to be seriously short of funds. In my opinion the health resources fund is essential, and the grants should be increased, not reduced.
We in this parliament are introducing medicare but we are failing to provide the doctors to give the people the service they
Supply-National Health and Welfare need. This is hypocrisy; it is not fair or honest.
To recapitulate, I should like the minister to tell us how much the federal government has given to the province of Ontario under the health resources program. Have they given as much as the province has requested or could spend? These are the things I should like to know. Probably the same situation applies in other provinces. I should like to know also whether the federal government will take a more active role in operating some of these facilities. I want to say that health manpower needs and education are not provincial problems; they are federal problems. A man may live in Ontario and may go to British Columbia but he is the same man with the same education, and the same health manpower considerations apply.
There is another thing that bothers me. Yesterday the minister made a statement on marijuana. The minister lives in Ontario, not very far from Toronto, and probably knows as well as I do that they are building an alcoholic and drug addiction hospital there. However, Ontario is not getting one nickel from the federal government toward the cost of construction of this hospital, which will amount to about $10 million. It is going to cost almost another $2 million to operate it.
These are the things that are causing me grave concern. According to a reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Surrey, the federal government makes a grant of $15,000 annually to the Canadian Foundation on Alcoholism. However, the federal government also receives in tax revenue from alcohol the sum of $296 million. This figure can be found on page 1201 of Hansard. When the federal government is making this amount of money from alcohol, why can it not share the cost of the program covering alcoholism and drug addiction? This problem crosses provincial borders. It is nonsense to say it is a provincial matter. If a man is an alcoholic in Ontario he will be an alcoholic in Manitoba. If he is a drug user in Ontario, he will be a drug user in British Columbia. It is ridiculous for the federal government to hide behind that screen.
This problem is not to be treated lightly because I believe the number of alcoholics in the Dominion of Canada is somewhere around 3 per cent of the adult population or about
300,000	people. In addition, there are many drug addicts, but I do not have the figures for them. I am wondering, too, what the minister is doing about the cigarette problem. Has the

October 18, 1968
1540	COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare minister set an example by quitting smoking?
I believe the two previous ministers did, so I am wondering whether he has. If he has, I congratulate him upon setting an example.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
if he has not?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I will leave that to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The point is, what results has the government achieved from its anti-smoking campaign? I am indebted to the hon. member for Surrey for asking a question on this problem because the information relating to it can be found on page 1201 of Hansard. I find that the tax revenue the federal government receives from tobacco amounts to $461 million. However, the government spent only $2,000 on a program aimed at the reduction of cigarette smoking.


John Carr Munro: No, no.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I mean $200,000. That information is given on page 1201 of Hansard if the minister wants to turn it up. I do not believe the government has taken this problem seriously enough. It is admitted that the chances of a cigarette smoker contracting lung cancer are five to one vis-a-vis the non-smoker. Here is an excellent opportunity for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to have his name blazened across the country for cutting down the number of deaths from lung cancer. Have you ever seen a lung removed, Mr. Chairman? I have seen too many of them. The minister knows as well as I do, because he is intelligent and studies statistics, that coronary arterial diseases and cardiovascular diseases are also affected by the use of cigarettes. Here is an excellent chance for the minister to cut down on the number of beds that will be utilized for cases of lung cancer. Hundreds of dollars are spent on tests on these patients, not to mention the suffering the disease causes.
I want to ask the minister what he did with the film which was allowed to come into Canada recently and was viewed by the cancer society. Is that film going to be shown across Canada? Is he going to bring it to the House of Commons and show it here? I should like him to tell us what he proposes to do about it because the subject of the film asked to have it made in view of the fact he had not taken the advice of his doctors to quit smoking. I believe he left a wife and six children. This is one of the most emotional films that one could view and I think would


be well worth showing to members of parliament, doctors and others across the country in any educational program.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I should like to ask the minister by how much cigarette smoking has decreased as a result of his program. If the results are not good, perhaps the program should be revamped. The minister has been asked question after question about this subject, and sometimes he has probably wanted to answer but has not taken the opportunity. This happens to other ministers as well so I do not blame him. Nevertheless we should like to hear him tell us how his program is proceeding. Many members of the house are vitally interested in health care and in the prevention of disease.
I want to say a few words about the Canada Pension Plan. I received a very interesting letter, a copy of which I suppose all members received, from a lady living in western Ontario and it illustrated quite a paradox. This lady's husband died when he was about 40 years of age from a coronary, leaving a couple of children. When this lady's assets were totalled her Canada pension was taken into account for succession duty purposes and she was also called upon to pay income tax every month on it. I should like to know why in the world this is so. This is double taxation. I would ask the minister to explain it.
We must also remember that there are many people who cannot help themselves, for example, the old age pensioners. Why do these people have to live in poverty? They are the citizens who built this country; yet they are kept in poverty. I wonder how well the minister or I would live on $108.50 a month. Many of these people are beyond the age of helping themselves, and such a situation is not fair or right.
I understand that the minister is going to speak on the new drug bill, which is all to the good. We shall appreciate hearing from him. However, I am wondering why the old age pensioners and others who are subsidized by the provinces as to medicare do not have part or all of their drug bills paid for them. I have already stated that care increases as one gets older. So does medication. Medication to a man under 50 ordinarily is not a problem but many old age pensioners do require to purchase drugs.
Why cannot the minister consider purchasing drugs in bulk, as do some hospitals in Canada? Perhaps there are insufficient old
October 18, 1963
COMMONS DEBATES	1541
age pensioners' votes-about one million of them-or perhaps it is easier to deal with more pressing problems than with the problems of our elderly people. However, I do feel keenly about this matter and I do not apologize for raising it. I suggest that many people who are on the supplement should be provided with free drugs. It is just as vital to keep them out of hospital through the use of lifesaving drugs as to pay for their care in hospital. Perhaps their being kept in hospital is why hospitalization costs are on the increase. Sometimes patients have nothing but their old age pension.


Albert Béchard: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Albert Béchard: Does the committee give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I thank the committee very much; I will take only a minute or two longer. As I was saying, many of these elderly people require antibiotics, cardiovascular drugs in general, and so on. These drugs are expensive and have to be taken day in and day out.
The minister is a nice fellow and is, I believe sympathetic to this problem. I am wondering whether in some way the cost of drugs might be shared with the provinces so that drugs could be made available to such people. The minister comes from my home province and knows that 28 per cent of the people in Ontario either have their medicare paid by OMSIP or have the cost supplemented. If my figures are wrong I stand to be corrected, but I believe they are correct.
Such a scheme, would mean bigger buying power in the drug field. I realize the federal government would have to join with the province in such an undertaking, but when the minister meets the ministers of health from the various provinces perhaps he will raise this point. If such a scheme should eventuate, life for our old age pensioners and other pensioners who are on the borderline of poverty would be made much easier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with the hon. member for Simcoe North in extending my congratulations to the Minister of National Health and Welfare on his appointment. He
Supply-National Health and Welfare knows that I regard this department as one of the most important in the government; and I am also sure he is aware of both the responsibility and the privilege that it is to preside over the department. I enjoyed very much his reference in one of his first speeches after becoming minister to the fact that on the first occasion after his appointment when he went back to the office at night to work apparently the nightwatchman would not let him into the building. I suppose that the nightwatchman thought he looked like a suspicious agitator.
I mention that, Mr. Chairman, to express the hope that he is. As I recall, during the past six years that the hon. member has been in this house he has been a member of several of the cliques and groups who have done their best to get the Liberal party to move a little faster than its traditional snail's pace. In particular, I recall that he was one of the activists who believed that medicare should have been brought in by July 1, 1967, rather than 1968. Even though he has now become an Honourable with a capital "H" and has the prestige of being in the cabinet, I hope he will still be an agitator for further progress in this very important field.
While I am in indulging in these niceties, which I express warmly and sincerely, I should like once again to tell the minister what a privilege it is for him to preside over a department that has so many competent and dedicated people working for him. I know that some of those people are present in the gallery and listening to what I say but, apart from that, all through the department there are devoted and dedicated servants who have played a very important role in developing the programs that have made this department the important one it is in the life of this country.
I have already made a reference that will let the minister know that somehow or other I do find time to read some of his speeches. I cannot read them all. There are only 24 hours in the day and I do not know how he produces so many of them. They are so good that I suspect some speech writing assistants in his department who assisted previous ministers have been kept on, and I am glad.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
A note that comes out in some of his speeches that concerns me, and it has been expressed by the Prime Minister and others both in and out of parliament, is contained in the announcement that all of our programs are being critically examined, that they are
October 18, 1968
1542	COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare up for evaulation or for possible alteration or even discontinuance, if they do not serve the needs of our day and age as they ought to. I hope, in expressing that kind of concern, I do not sound like a Conservative. God forbid.
I agree that we must have improvements in all our programs. We have not yet heard the last word in social welfare programs or in plans which are for the benefit and welfare of all our people. The thing that concerns me about the minister's approach to our programs is, so it seems to me, his readiness to say that the programs are not what they ought to be, his readiness to consider discarding them, particularly those programs which are jointly financed, because they cost too much money, but his failure to give any indication of what is to be put in their place.
One of the most interesting speeches the minister made, and I suppose he retained his best writers for it, was the one he delivered in Hamilton on October 9 before the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce town meeting. I was so interested that I read it all the way through. I stuck with it because on the opening page or two I was given the impression that this re-evaluation of programs was the minister's concern and, therefore, that if I looked I might find some answer to my question:	What do you mean	by this
re-evaluation?
I went through the speech and found it dealt colourfully and interestingly with the generation gaps, and I used the plural, that are part of today's society. I found some excellent sentences in the speech. In particular I liked the reference to the fact that in this society we still think sex is obscene but violence is not. The other day the Postmaster General became concerned about certain pornographic literature going through the mails.
I wish we were equally concerned about war materials going from this country to the United States and on to Viet Nam. Though I enjoyed reading the speech the answers were not in it. There is no suggestion in it of what is to be put in place of the programs that we now have.
I submit to the minister that unless he has some ideas to bring forward he should not frighten the daylights out of us by delivering such speeches. When the Prime Minister stands up and says, "We will discuss these things at federal-provincial conferences; we have gone far enough in universal programs like medicare," and when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance say, "We must


begin to save money and balance the budget"-and these remarks come from people who call themselves Liberals-you cannot blame us for wondering whether pension programs will be cut back, the Canada Assistance program will not be proceeded with as we thought it would be, and medicare is again to be questioned. The other day the Prime Minister said that the question of whether medicare should be extended could be discussed.
When we hear such words from the minister they do not sound as if they came from that suspicious looking agitator who came to work here the other day. I do not want this minister to be a striped pants minister of the crown who just administers. I want him to show some concern for moving ahead. I want him to be concerned about the things he expressed and was well known for when he was a private member around this place.
I was pleased to note that in his speech the minister referred to gaps we must still fill. It is obvious that he read the report of the economic council on poverty. Let me quote one or two sentences from his speech that I think are particularly good. On page 2 he says:
Only a multi-faceted, flexible approach will meet the needs of poverty among farmers in eastern Quebec and unemployed in downtown Toronto, of the deserted mother and children in Vancouver and the fisherman in Newfoundland.
That is good. We must be up to date. We must span the generation gaps that trouble our society. We must realize that some of the things happening in the United States could happen to us. The minister says we must be up to date, I know, but up to date in what way? He gives no answer in his speech. He only succeeded in scaring some of us with the thought that this government would cut down on its welfare programs because of the reactionary cry that is heard that the budget must be balanced inasmuch as some are afraid we are spending too much in these areas.


Mr. Francis:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I have listened with interest to the hon. member's remarks and he knows I have a high regard for him. When he says he is scared about something, is there any particular item in the estimates before this committee that gives him this concern?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it is what is not in the estimates that concerns me. The minister stands up, this young, suspicious looking agitator, and says,
October 18, 1968

"At this point we have no new programs in the field. We are proud of what we have done but we have nothing new."
Why, Mr. Chairman, it is like Alice in Wonderland. You must keep running as fast as you can to stay where you are. If we are not to branch out into new areas, bearing in mind what is happening to our cost of living and our standard of living, we shall arrive at a position where our people will not benefit adequately from our social welfare programs because they will be deteriorating. Above all I am concerned about the minister's smugness and his satisfaction that all is well and that we can stay where we are.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. member for Ottawa West shakes his head. He used to be among those in the department I was complimenting a few minutes ago. Perhaps that is where he ought to be instead of in this place where he tells us everything is well and good.
Every time the topic of improving our welfare programs arises my hon. friend from Simcoe North takes the opportunity to talk about the cost of medicare programs and other, various open-end programs. When we argue that pensions ought to be increased-as a matter of fact, a week or so ago I presented a motion that had to do with raising the old age pension to $125 a month-the hon. member and others like him say we cannot afford to do so because we must balance the budget.
This is not the time to make a budget speech, but I should like to take this opportunity to comment briefly about some of the things the hon. member for Simcoe North talked about. Some day we must realize that in the kind of society we have in North America it is false and fictitious to draw a line between public and private funds. People complain bitterly when they read in the Auditor General's report that there has been waste and extravagance of the taxpayers' money. It is very popular to say we must not waste the taxpayers' money, and I agree, but we have the kind of society that pays $100,000 a year to some of our hockey players. That is not public money but private money; all the same it is part of the money which our society generates.
Considering the astronomical amounts we spend on liquor, tobacco, automobiles, and so on, I make no apology for pleading that we should spend all we have to spend on the health of our people, all we have to spend on
DEBATES	1543
Supply-National Health and Welfare their welfare and on the opportunity to give them a decent life. I plead with the minister again to be that suspicious looking agitator he was that first night he went back to work.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
All of us face limited time in the discussion of the estimates, Mr. Chairman. My hon. friends and I have divided up the subjects to be considered and in order that hon. members may know the program, there will be other speeches. One of my hon. friends will deal with hallucinogenics, another with liquor and tobacco, another with Indian health, another with the medical field and another with various pension matters, provided there is time for all these speeches to be made.
For my part, I want to ask the minister to address himself to one of the gaps in our pension and welfare system. It is not a gap which he himself has pinpointed but he has admitted that there are gaps, and I would ask him to attend to this one. He and other hon. members who are here have heard me times without number plead the case of retired civil servants. I tried again this morning to get some kind of hopeful answer from the Minister of Finance who in the last parliament said publicly and privately many times that he was all in favour of something being done.
I am not now zeroing in on that group alone. I would make the point to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that one of the most important things we have to cope with is the need to escalate pensions generally after they have been put in pay. This applies to retired members of the civil service, retired members of the armed forces, retired members of the R.C.M.P., retired employees of the C.N.R. It also applies to people receiving old age security pensions and to those receiving pensions from private companies and corporations. One might ask: was not this problem always present? The answer is: no, not to the extent that it is today. A number of things have happened. For one thing, far more people are receiving pensions. In the second place, thanks to medical science and the support it has received form the state, longevity has been increasing. I have one reasonably reliable document here which suggests that the average retired person has about 15 years to live. Some, of course, are living a good deal longer than that. In our type of economy a person just cannot live for 15 years on a fixed income pension even if his income is fairly good at the point of retirement.
1544	COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare
Many senior civil servants who have held responsible positions with the Government of Canada are today experiencing a poverty of life, if not actual poverty as far as bread and butter and lodging are concerned. An average life after retirement of 15 years means 20 or 25 years in some cases. I had a talk the other day with a schoolteacher who had just retired at the age of 60 on what appeared to be a reasonable pension. I said to him: "You are in good health. How do you think you will be able to live 30 years from now on that pension?" The question threw him.
This problem is a very real one. The federal government has given it a little attention- a very little; provision has been made for a cost of living increase on an automatic basis under the Canada Pension Plan. But this only amounts to 2 per cent per year, no matter how much the cost of living goes up. I believe that the minister and all others responsible ought not to settle merely for pensions which keep up with the cost of living. After all, we do not ask society generally to do this. We do not want our children or our grandchildren merely to have enough extra money to keep up with the cost of goods and services we presently enjoy.
We live in a society in which there is material progress. We expect our children and those who come after us to enjoy a better life because society is capable of producing more and better things and services. Then why, in the name of heaven, is there this notion that in the case of retired people there is a point at which they cease to share in the rising standard of living, the increased abundance we are producing? Unless we do something about this situation the whole spectrum of pensions is in danger. The minister spoke about our programs being inadequate. What he said in this respect may turn out to be more true than he thought was the case. Our whole pension program could become a farce if inflation, a rising cost of living and rising standards are such that decade after decade we find a whole section of our population condemned to a life in which there is no chance for improvement, no chance for advancement, no chance to share enjoyment of all the goods and services our society can make or produce.
I do not need to press the point that I have argued the case of retired civil servants for the last 25 years because I believe they have a sound claim on the government as an employer and because their needs are such that this claim should be met. And it has been established that my voice is not just a voice in the wilderness; a unanimous report

DEBATES	October 18, 1968
of the joint committee made on May 8, 1967, also recommended that increases be granted. I have pressed that case on its own merit, but-and there is no secret about this-I want it to be done in order that we might get this principle accepted. The minister should not try to tell us that the principle has already been accepted in any real way because of the 2 per cent automatic increase built in the old age security pension, an arrangement under which it would take ten years to get a $15 increase in a $75 pension. Meanwhile there are increases taking place in both the cost of living and in the standard of living, and this is the area in which we ought to be doing something.
I have a few more words I want to say on this subject and perhaps I can do so after we come back at 2.30. This is the area in the pension field which really deserves the minister's interest and endeavour. I should like him to go out to his office and not merely look like a suspicious agitator but be one.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when the committee was interrupted at one o'clock I had just about used the time allotted to me. There are just one or two more things I should like to say. One is simply a matter of emphasizing the main point I was attempting to get across to the minister. I stress that a major subject for research and action on the part of his department should be with regard to the question of what happens to the pensions of people who live for a period of 15 or 20 years on retirement and try to get by on a fixed income. I hope I made the argument when I was speaking before the luncheon recess.
Perhaps I might draw attention to a document that came to my desk a few days ago which emphasizes the point I am making. I refer to the Mercer Actuarial Bulletin which I am sure is familiar to all of us who are interested in this field. William M. Mercer Limited is, of course, in the business of pensions. It is not a social welfare organization. It looks at the whole problem from a very practical standpoint. This bulletin dated September, 1968, deals with the adequacy of pensions. Initially it deals with the question of what should be the level of pension provided
October 18, 1968	COMMONS
at the age of retirement, that is, whether it should be 40 per cent, 50 per cent or 100 per cent of the person's wages. The article deals mainly with this point but comes up against the fact that adequacy at retirement is an illusion if something is not done about the later years. Let me read a few sentences:
Moreover, a pensioner's income is generally fixed at the time of retirement and not therafter changed whether he has a lifetime of 10, 20 or 30 years. A fixed dollar pension is obviously not responsive to changing social standards or to the changing value of money, as pensioners have become painfully aware in recent years. How large a pension should be in the first place and how it should be maintained in value are matters of great concern to pensioners and those nearing retirement.
Later on the article, after discussing one or two actual cases of people who retired on what seemed to be reasonable pensions, at least at the time of retirement, has this to say:
Unfortunately the nicest calculation of the proper level of initial adequacy will seem to be little more than a waste of effort if after some years the pension has depreciated due to inflation. The average pensioner can look forward to 15 years of life and at current rates of inflation his pension will lose 40 per cent of its value before he dies.
The officials in the ministers' department can make contact with retired civil servants on a very high level who can substantiate this view.
Escalation of government benefit, limited to 2 per cent a year, is only a partial offset. In these circumstances it is not surprising that pensions of even 100 per cent of previous earnings are not considered ridiculous.
Later, after a few more comments, the bulletin says in very straightforward language:
There is a clear need to find some way of increasing pensions after payments have commenced.
I should like to make it clear that I am talking about pensions across the board. I include government pensions, allowances of all kinds, pensions of private corporations and the whole works. If there is anything that some of us believe in about government it is that government has a role of leadership to play. I believe our government should be playing a leadership role in this very important field.
This is the reason I ask the Minister of Finance to get cracking on the matter of raising the pensions of retired civil servants, but I also ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to become interested in it not only as a member of the cabinet but because of his responsibility for the subject of pensions generally. I point out that there are companies
DEBATES	1545
Supply-National Health and Welfare which have accepted this idea. Across the years I have known of a number. A piece of literature came to my desk a few years ago telling about how Lever Brothers has built into its pension plan an automatic escalation after retirement. There are a number of these.
I think this is the most serious gap in our pension structure so far as the future is concerned. I ask for an all-out study of the matter. If the minister thinks he may have some difficulty persuading some of those good people in his department-and he knows how good I think they are-to spend their time on this, I suggest that all he need do is ask them to figure out what their own pensions will be on retirement at age 60 or 65 and how they will get by on that pension after having been on retirement for a period of 20 or 25 years.
My other point at this time is in the same general field. I should like to plead with the minister as strongly as I can-and I am still sticking to my text-that he will be the same suspicious looking agitator he has been and will realize that we will not have a just society if our pensioners are told that they will just have to get by on $75 plus $30, $105 or $109 a month, because the program is being reassessed and the government will come up with something different or better 10 or 15 years from now. These people are alive now and have rights just as have people in any other section of our society.
I wish to tell the minister that this government is not going to get away with inaction in the whole field of old age security pensions, youth allowances, family allowances, and all the things we do to soften the blow and try to bring about and maintain an adequate level of income for our people. If the minister will present to us as members something in writing which tells us of better plans than we have, then fine; we will look at them and consider them with wholehearted enthusiasm. But until that time let us not scare people with the suggestion that their pensions are to be cut off or the suggestion that the plans they have are to be discarded. Our people deserve not just the knowledge that a few years hence life will be better; they are entitled to a decent retirement now.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I urge the minister and his department to work on these problems. To return to my main point today, I urge the minister to seize himself with the problem of escalating the pension payments that are in effect. This is, I assure him, urgent and pressing business.
October 18, 1968
1546	COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare [Translation]


Mr. Lalulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity of saying a few words on social welfare which has cost the government of Canada the amount $1,710,600,000. That budget is extravagant.
However, Canada has the required revenues to pay those expenditures.
When money is spent on social welfare, people complain that it is expensive, because the Canadian economy is not balanced and because many citizens who could work and earn an income do not, on account of the present economic situation, and instead they live off the state. I would say that almost 40 per cent of unemployed Canadian citizens could work. In addition, a large number could provide for their welfare, their needs and development, whether physical, intellectual or material.
In view of the present situation, we have surplus products and people are kept from working because we do not want to increase production. Production is abundant in Canada, but the distribution is not well balanced. Production is abundant but consumption demands some purchasing power which is not being made available to families.
At the present time, we have all sorts of plans, all sorts of rub-a-dubs and welfare legislation: old age pensions, widows pensions, this and that type of pensions, in addition to family allowances which are far from adequate, far from being made available to the people, in short which are not commensurate with the needs of the people.
We have a lot of social welfare legislation, but what a muddle. We could substitute to all that, a real welfare legislation, a real family allowance legislation, call it what you will. But we could distribute the income to each citizen, each child, each student, each unemployed person and even each family head. We could distribute income compatible with Canadian revenues and production. The citizens do not need money; you do not use money for clothes. You do not stitch up dollar bills to make a suit. The citizens need production, foodstuffs, clothes, buildings, housing, to live decently. The citizens are born with needs and those needs must be met in a country like Canada which is now bursting with wealth.
We are the highest authority in Canada, we belong to an institution which comes before all others in the country. We are the only ones with the power to pass legislation or amend the existing legislation. Even if the 29


government ministers are the ones who administer the existing legislation in 'Canada, the people who do the work in the house are the 264 members elected by the people of Canada and they are the only ones who can pass new legislation or amend the present legislation.
The government does not produce anything but it administers everything. Under the law, parliament, which is made up of 264 members elected by the people, passes or amends legislation that the ministers are then called upon to administer throughout Canada. Therefore, each of these 264 members Canadian must be asked, as representatives of the people, to amend the Family Allowances Act or to pass a new one to increase the amount to $1 per day per child under 16, instead of the $6 or $8 paid since 1944. The family allowances have not changed since the measure was passed, whereas the economy has improved to the extent that the present needs of the various sectors have increased by 8, 10, 12, 25 and even 30 per cent. Yet the family allowance rate has remained at the same level since 1944.
That does not make sense, since Canada's national production has increased and it would not allow an increase in family allowances. If Canada's national production increases, the government should increase family allowances accordingly, to be more realistic. In fact, it must be remembered, Mr. Chairman, that the family is the foundation of society. If there were no families, there would be no parliament. Without families, there would be no nation, no province, no construction. Nothing of that would be needed. But if we want to maintain the present order of things, we must maintain the families. Now families cannot be maintained with a cheese-paring economy as we are now doing, rightly or wrongly, by all sorts of mean policies, by refusing to give children what they are entitled to and bring family allowances in line with the cost of living. To adjust them in keeping with the cost of living, at least $1 a day should be granted to every child.
By so doing, we would maintain an adequate purchasing power, to enable the disposal of part of the production surplus. Production is made to be consumed, and if it is not, it does not meet the needs. Then our economy needs to be mended.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
It is necessary to mend our economy and it is high time, in 1968, in the twentieth century
October 18, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	1547
to do something about that, especially when we do not know what to do with surpluses of products, when people are prevented from working by all sorts of means, which is very costly to the people, and when businesses are prevented from manufacturing goods because there are already enough. When out of niggardliness, families are not given the purchasing power they need, proportionate to the increase in production, it is illogic to condone a parliament responsible for that.
If we do, we are not assuming our responsibilities. We must react and immediately provide in our legislation modernization of our economic system concerning family allowances.
It is up to the 264 members to pass a new legislation or amend the present act, increasing allowances to $1 a day for all children under 16 years of age.
It should be the first act, the first legislative move in the present session. I refer to a first move, because it is the first measure related to the budget of social welfare. This is the first opportunity that we have to talk about it, because since 1944, the allowance rates have remained unchanged, while every other element of the economy in Canada has multiplied 5, 8, 10 or 15 times that of the allowances, as can be seen in the table that will be available later.
That should be the first practical gesture of the new parliament of Canada, which endeavoured to officially create a just society in a united country. Nothing in the world, nor in Canada, can prevent 134 Canadian members from increasing family allowances to $1 a day, or $30 a month, if they really want to do so. Those 134 members represent the majority required to pass legislation in parliament. Even if the Liberal party was against the measure, because of the ministers' refusal, the 110 members of the opposition, joined by 24 liberal members, could vote to increase family allowances to $30 a month, from the amount of $5 or $6 in effect since 1944.
We are in 1968. Our governments allot $60 or $120 a month to foster homes and orphanages for children of the same age. Then why not give at least $30 a month to normal families? This is where we should begin if we attempt to establish a just society in Canada. It would only cost less than 4 per cent of national production compared to 33 per cent of people or $2,500 billion for 7 million children, from a same national production of $68 billion.
29180-98J
Supply-National Health and Welfare
It would only cost $210 millions a month out of the total assets of the eight Canadian chartered banks, money in circulation, compared to their bank assets of $33,460 million, to give $30 a month to the 7 millions Canadian children. The assets of the eight chartered banks would go down to $33,250 million but within a few days the amount of $210 million would all be returned to the banks so that their total assets would reach $33,460 million again.
It is simply a matter of balance, a game with figures; that is something which we could put forward. It would create almost no imbalance. Let us look at bank assets. If we made the banks pay for the cost of the allowances, their assets would not be affected, since that money would go into circulation only for a few days. That is one of the ways I suggest of finding the necessary funds.
Mr. Chairman, work and capital are the twin pillars of production. Production is regulated by the consumption of the population. It comes from the work of 7,700,000 citizens. It is regulated by 20,700,000 consumers and by 13 million dependent citizens. The above mentioned 7,700,000 citizens have purchasing power through work and capital; 13 million have no income, but have a right to live. We must therefore provide them with the purchasing power they need.
We must therefore guarantee the citizen purchasing power, a minimum personal income, which I shall illustrate by using a table which has been prepared and a calculation made establishing the possibility of providing a guaranteed annual income for all. My suggestion goes beyond family allowances, for I am talking here of a minimum income which we could guarantee for everybody of $30, $60, $90 or $120 per month, according to the age of each one of those 13 million dependent citizens. That is the way to provide a balanced personal family income for all families and homes in Canada. There are 7 million children, and if each were given $1 a day, this would amount to $360 a year, or $2,520,000,000. There are 1,500,000 students; if they were given each an income of $2 a day, or $60 a month, this would amount to $720 a year per student, or $1,080,000,000. We have 3 million adults, and if they were each given $90 a month or $1,080 per year, this would cost the government $3,240,000,000. We have
1,500,000	retired citizens, old people and all those who are in any way pensioners of the state. We have fixed a guaranteed monthly income of $120 per person, which would
1548	COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare amount to $1,440 a year per person, or a total of $2,160,000,000 a year.
For the 13 million dependents, the total guaranteed income we could grant them in the present circumstances will cost approximately $9 billion to the Canadian people. And we could deduct therefrom all the welfare, benefit, pension plans and rub-a-dubs, and the whole caboodle. All our plans and rub-a-dubs now in force cost nearly $5 billion to the Canadian people, whereas with $4 billion more, we could guarantee an income to every citizen.
Canada's national production in 1968 amounts to $68 billion. All we have to do is to retain an amount of $9 billion or 14 per cent from the national production for the 13 million dependent citizens. There would be more than $59 billion left with which to pay for the labour and capital of the 7,700,000 citizens making up that production.
* (3:00 p.m.)
If we calculate the averages of this distribution, we realize that the dependants receive an average of $700 a year, while the producers receive $7,700 a year. There are 7,700,000 producers and 13 million dependants.
In this way, each Canadian citizen will profit by a purchasing power through his work, his capital or his right to live. Nobody would be forgotten, nobody would be abandoned. Each citizen would have at least an income representing the vital minimum. Those who have neither work nor capital, will always have a guaranteed minimum income.
As for those who are afraid of any increase in taxes, duties, prices or the cost of living, to pay that personal minimum income to citizens without work or money, it is enough to know that those amounts will be taken out of the national production of $68 billion or out of the recapitalized surplus of $28 billion, after taxes are paid, in the context of the everyday economic life of the nation.
You do not need to be a university graduate, an economist or an expert in administration to know that every citizen has the right to live and that production must first serve the consumer before being used as surplus capitalization.
Before capitalizing in excess, Mr. Chairman, one must first of all consume enough.
Eeverybody will understand that. All members will understand that. Everybody would like it to be so. Everybody demands it from our large company managers and especially
[Mr. Latulippe.l
DEBATES	October 18, 1968
from our 264 members and ministers of the government of Canada. Even though people are not able to understand the mechanism and intricacies of the money circulation, everybody knows that every citizen has the right to live and that you need money to live.
To the 20,700,000 Canadians, 20,700,000 purchasing powers should be given because of the work of some, the capital of others and the individual right to live of citizens without work or capital. These are the three kinds of revenue which all Canadian citizens would enjoy: work, capital and right to live. They could be achieved immediately within the framework the regular mechanism of our monetary, economic and political system.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I think I have expressed these opinions many times and in many ways here, in this house. I present logical pictures, I speak of a financial situation which would be viable, because there is a surplus production amounting to $28 billion in 1968. As far as this surplus is concerned, $4 billion are capitalized by individuals and the remainder by big corporations.
Therefore, if capitalization is too high, something must be done about it. We must get from that surplus of capital, which is not even taxed, the money needed to pay the cost of a normal program of social allowances that would meet the economic needs and realities of our country.
If we fail to do it, it will be because we have not understood the situation. Those tables and that information are available to the house. If some hon. member wants more details, he can ask me and I will let him have all the necessary documentation about that matter. We are in a position to prove-and besides I have proved it many times-that we can give our citizens, our families, enough to live and to pay to each family a normal and adequate income to enable it to live decently in a wealthy country like Canada.
Just think, Mr. Chairman, that if, after having produced a surplus of $28 billion in 1968, we had put to work all those who are able to work, we could have increased our production to close to $100 billion.
If we were to put this purchasing power directly at the service of those who need it, that is the consumers, within two years we would see an unprecedented upsurge of activity in the Canadian economy.
The only thing lacking in Canada is purchasing power at the service of the consumers. Families need this purchasing power
October 18, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	1549
most of all and they are the ones we should help.
It is illogical to tolerate the existing situation any longer, when we could produce enough in Canada to support 100 million people. We barely manage to support 20 million people, by accumulating exorbitant surpluses everywhere by restricting production and preventing those who are able to work from working.
Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks by asking each member of this house to think logically and, above all, ask the minister to do his best to find the necessary and viable solutions, if he finds ours unacceptable. If our solutions are no good let him at least find others.
We criticize the administration but, at the same time, we suggest solutions which are easy as pie. There is a production surplus; let us grant more purchasing power in order to get rid of this surplus. We will then witness an upsurge of activity in industry and business throughout the country.


Mr. Danson:: Mr. Chairman and relatives-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Barnett Jerome Danson: -this is no longer my maiden speech after my previous appearances. I had actually prepared a more comprehensive maiden speech to be delivered during the throne speech debate, but in a rare show of wisdom and good fellowship that debate was cut short before I had an opportunity to delight this house with that great speech. That was to be an historic occasion and in a sense this one is to a certain extent because through the fortunes or misfortunes of war I am probably the first person who has addressed this august body half blind since Sir John A. Macdonald.
I wish at this time to speak on the matter of pollution which is of concern to all of us in all of its aspects. While not wishing to be parochial, I think that the question of pollution in my constituency poses some very special problems and responsibilities, as it would in any area with the same set of conditions.
York North sits on the northern edge of the great metropolitan area of Toronto, and a portion of it is actually inside the border of metro Toronto. It is largely rural, with a number of attractive small towns and villages. My belief is that regardless of present planning, or perhaps more properly lack of planning, the explosive growth of Toronto
Supply-National Health and Welfare will continue into this very pleasant and attractive area.
I could praise York North but my predecessors have done this in the past, great men such as William Lyon Mackenzie King and Sir William Mulock, and in an earlier legislature the grandfather of William Lyon Mackenzie King, William Lyon Mackenzie, the little rebel.
We have fields, streams and woodlands in York North which are very precious assets, as is the relatively clean air that still exists there. I believe that in such areas where urbanization and industrialization are imminent we must take very special care to preserve these gifts of nature in concert with both imaginative and orderly development.
In spite of long range plans and excellent research facilities for pollution control we are in grave danger of destroying our natural assets or contaminating them to an extent that they will be lost for all time. This would be a tragedy which we cannot afford and for which future generations would hardly thank us. The task force on housing and urban development will be finding ways to increase our housing inventory. In so doing they must keep the question of pollution in the forefront at all times.
I have had the experience of flying over the entire planning area of Metro Toronto in a helicopter, and it is really a shocking experience. You do not notice the cloud from the ground as you look up to the sky on a clear day-you just see the clear blue sky- but if you fly over the area you see a massive yellow and stinking cloud hanging like a pall over the entire area. I hope you do not mind this indelicacy but may I say that not only do you see it, you also smell it. Even on a clear day visibility at the southern end of my constituency is sometimes limited to one and a half miles. You see the once quite beautiful streams spewing masses of mud and filth into lake Ontario.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The reason for this flight was that during the election campaign I had been speaking to a group of ladies in a beautiful suburban subdivision. This subdivision contains many houses with a type of siding that is supposed to be impervious to the elements and to last about 100 years. I said that we had to attack the problem of pollution before it reached crisis proportions. Well, the crisis began right then. A great deal of trouble was being experienced with this siding in a region
1550	COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare which was some distance from the industrialized area.
About that time I was to make an address over a local radio station and I went up in a helicopter which belonged to the station. My talk was to be taped at the radio station but because of the shortage of time I had written it out before I took this flight. When we came down I was so mad that I tore up my speech. The helicopter has a little propeller at the back, which I understand is very important in so far as the stability of flight is concerned. Before we went up the pilot of the helicopter cleaned one of the blades of the propeller and when we landed he ran his thumb along this blade to show that it was dirty and sticky.
This is an indication of what has been taking place over this area. Before the problem escalates, I wish to plead with the minister concerned to give the matter of pollution control and abatement priority of the highest order. While the economy is rightly a paramount concern of this government, I suggest that the preservation of our natural environment, of our health as well as that of our children, is a priority upon which we cannot compromise on any account. These considerations of health apply, of course, to all areas of our country, and there is less excuse for pollution in the more remote areas.
There is, however, urgency in so far as this problem relates to York North which is unparalleled elsewhere. I should like to see a very special task force on pollution, comprised of the representatives of the various departments and jurisdictions involved, formed immediately to attack these problems on a crisis and crash basis. The metropolitan Toronto conservation authority is an excellent organization, particularly well informed on the situation in York North and other areas bordering metropolitan Toronto. This organization can be of special service if we here can provide the initiative and the funds it so desperately needs. The job these highly qualified and dedicated citizens are doing is worthy of the highest praise.
It is my belief that with adequate support from interested bodies and government agencies at all levels the problem can be attacked and controlled. The key is awareness of the crisis nature of the problem and a desire to get on with the job immediately. The support must not only be financial but moral and legislative. Such organizations must have the power, or at least access to the power, to put teeth into their recommendations. If we do this we will be doing no more than our job so

DEBATES	October 18, 1968
that our children and theirs will bless us. But if we dare to fail, Mr. Chairman, we will be rightly condemned. I believe we should get on with the job right now.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, this morning I asked the President of the Treasury Board whether he had engaged in consultations with the government of Ontario with regard to making available to the house any warnings that the treasury board, the government of Canada or appropriate ministers had received in respect of errors in the current estimates for the shared cost programs. The minister indicated he had a statement to make this afternoon at the appropriate moment. Since an important part of the shared cost programs comes within the Department of National Health and Welfare, I should like to ask the minister whether he would make that statement at this time.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am glad to do so. As I mentioned this morning, I had hoped to be able to find a suitable occasion to make this statement earlier but such an occasion did not arise. The statement is in answer to a question asked a week ago Friday by the hon. member for Edmonton West relating to the federal forecasts of the total cost for 1968-69 of the post-secondary education and hospitalization programs.
The program for post-secondary education payments to the provinces came into operation on April 1, 1967. The first estimate of the requirements under this item for the fiscal year 1968-69 was prepared in the spring of 1967. Because this program was new and there were only several weeks' experience with it. the estimates submitted by the department of the Secretary of State were based on the previous year's estimates adjusted upward by 20 per cent, the rate of increase of university costs in the years immediately prior to 1967.
During the intervening months between the spring of 1967 and January 12, 1968, when the estimates blue book was sent to the printer, extensive consultations took place between officials of the department of the Secretary of State and the provincial departments of education. At no time during these consultations was there any claim that the estimates for 1968-69 were low or, indeed, any indication that the monthly payments which were being made for 1967-68 were inadequate.
The first indication that these figures were low did not come to the department of the Secretary of State from the Ontario department of education but rather was contained
October 18, 1968
in an informal letter from an official of the Ontario office of the treasurer to an official of the federal Department of Finance. This letter, received in the Department of Finance on February 5, 1968, outlined the difficulties for Ontario in arriving at accurate estimates for this program, requested additional payments for the year 1967-68, indicated that the figures for 1986-69 would be higher than the original estimates and suggested that federal and provincial officials should get together for the purpose of arriving at a new agreed estimate.
I am informed that a meeting took place in Toronto on February 21 between officials of the department of the Secretary of State and the Ontario department of education and other provincial officials. This meeting indicated that on the basis of the still tentative figures discussed, the estimates for 196768 were low in respect of Ontario. As a consequence, the estimates for 1968-69, which were based on the previous year's estimates plus 20 per cent, would also be low.
The first official and formal confirmation from the government of Ontario to the government of Canada was contained in a letter dated June 20, 1968, enclosing interim statistical returns indicating post-secondary education operating expenditures for the province of Ontario for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 at a slightly higher level than had been discussed earlier. This letter also indicated that, and perhaps this is most significant, in future all financial returns regarding post-secondary operating expenditures for Ontario would be sent to the federal government through the office of the deputy provincial treasurer. These official figures from Ontario, made available formally late in June, were reflected in the revised main estimates which I tabled two weeks ago. I will not burden the house with the details of the representations and consultations that took place with the other nine provinces that also participated in this program.
I should like now to turn to the matter of the hospital insurance program. Prior to the preparation in the spring of 1967 of its forecasts for 1968-69, the Department of National Health and Welfare asked all provinces for long range expenditure forecasts under this program for the period 1967-74. On the basis of information submitted by the provinces, the estimated federal contribution for 1968-69 was printed in the main estimates at $515 million. The figure used for Ontario in this calculation was approximately $560 million, of which the federal government pays about half.
Supply-National Health and Welfare
(3:20 p.m.)
I have been informed that at no time between the spring of 1967 and January of 1968, a period when there were continuing discussions between the Department of National Health and Welfare and the provincial counterparts, was any revision whatever made by any province to its original estimates. In the preparation of forecasts for 1969-70 the provinces were again asked for their most recent expenditure estimates, including estimates for 1968-69. This information was received at varying times in the late winter and spring of 1968, as a result of which the federal forecast of cash requirements for this program for 1968-69 was updated to the figure of $560 million which appeared in the revised estimates tabled on September 25 last.
This information from Ontario was received by the Department of National Health and Welfare in a letter dated February 27, 1968 and the new cost estimate for that province in so far as the federal share is concerned was raised from $267 million to $274 million, or roughly 2 per cent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for his statement and for giving the house information about the various formal and informal consultations regarding the estimates.
To deal first, with the estimates of health and welfare which are now before the committee, I do not want to put words into the minister's mouth but I understood him to say that the revised estimates for 1968 came in from the provinces in the late winter and spring, and that the letter from the province of Ontario which was received in February, 1968, indicated that that province was forecasting substantially higher expenditures than had been initially contemplated, and on which the initial estimates for the current year were based and tabled in the house last November or December.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to endeavour to correct the hon. gentleman, but that last statement related to health and welfare costs only. These indicated revisions, in the case of Ontario an increase from $267 million to $274 million, which could hardly be described as substantial.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is right, Mr. Chairman. This information from the provinces came in at varying times, as the minister indicated. He specifically mentioned Ontario because

October 18, 1968
1552	COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare questions had been asked about that province. The letter from Ontario containing the estimates revised upward was received in Ottawa in February, 1968.
To deal with that by itself for a moment, Mr. Chairman, it was during that very month of February, 1968, a time of financial crisis in connection with the House of Commons, that extensive debates were taking place about the financial affairs of this country. It was during that same month that the House of Commons was given an assurance that federal expenditures would not exceed $10,225 million, apart from medicare and the Expo deficit.
How does one reconcile this situation, with prudent behaviour? How does one reconcile it with the efficient machinery of which the present Minister of Finance and the former president of the treasury board boasted last November and December? As I say, Mr. Chairman, at the time this information was being received from the various provinces this house was given an assurance. And not only that, Mr. Chairman, but assurances continued to be given to the house, not necessarily by the present President of the Treasury Board but by the Minister of Finance and the government generally.
The committee knows that we have had given to us a statement filed with the securities exchange commission. The provinces have indicated a very substantial upward revision in their estimates. Although we have not discussed the Canada Assistance Plan, a similar situation obtains of higher estimates than those originally brought in. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we must be frank with one another and I must say that I find it difficult to understand how a responsible minister of the government, particularly through May and June, continued to believe that the assurances given to this house in February were by any stretch of the imagination valid.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance indicated he was aware in May that there were discrepancies in the estimates and that some were running above what had been anticipated. However, he hoped that these might be made up by savings on controllable expenditures. I am sorry that the minister is not in the house; we will have to have this out with him on another occasion. However, no one took very seriously the prospects of saving anything like $400 million in the current fiscal year on controllable expenditures. The best indicated by the government was that it would try to save $75 million.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have one or two words to say, Mr. Chairman. I do not think the hon. gentleman would wish to be accused of exaggeration. The one specific change which had been indicated in the early spring was the one I mentioned here. It was a formal notification by the government of Ontario that their previous estimate was in error, and on the low side by about $7 million, or 2 per cent. I do not think one would describe this as substantially or dreadfully low. That is the one piece of concrete information that was given.
Perhaps the cause of our trouble is that estimates were submitted, not by provincial governments but by departments of provincial governments. Steps are being taken by the government of Ontario to rectify this in future. They are making sure that all estimates of this character henceforth will not be put forward by officials of the department directly interested but by officials of the Department of Finance of the province, who might be expected to take a more disinterested view, shall I say.
The hon. gentleman has been a premier of a province and he knows well how estimates are prepared by provincial government departments. He knows of the problems connected with obtaining from all departments accurate figures. Those figures are prepared initially not, perhaps, with the objective of minimum necessity in mind. Other matters are included in the figures, and those figures must be discounted when first examined. It is such figures that the officials of the federal government had to work with. They could only be certain that the figures were uncertain.
During the winter of 1967-68 the indications were that those figures were on the low rather than on the high side, and it took us until about June to reduce these figures to realistic and precise ones. That holds true, with the exception of those figures dealing with health matters for the government of Ontario, where the figure of $7 million only was agreed on.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not wish to prolong this discussion unduly. As I understood from the President of the Treasury Board, the letter that was received from the province of Ontario relating to health expenses in February, 1968, contained new estimates that were in line with the revised estimates tabled in the house a few weeks ago. The minister has been talking about direct communication between officials and ministers. I may point out that 29180-99
DEBATES	1553
Supply-National Health and Welfare during the period in question provincial governments were tabling their estimates in their legislatures.
I understand that in the month of March the government of Ontario tabled estimates in the legislature of Ontario. These estimates involved the higher estimates upon which the government of Canada is now basing its revised estimates. What has been going on, I wonder? Is the government of Canada pleading ignorance? Is it trying to avoid the charge of bad faith by pleading ignorance of what has been going on?
The relevant information is tabled in the provincial legislature across the country in the spring. I suggest that the Minister of Finance, for one, will find it difficult to persuade the people of Canada that the federal government acted in good faith and treated the House of Commons frankly and in good faith during the spring or early summer of this year.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. gentleman referred to the tabling of estimates in provincial legislatures. It is true that provincial governments do as we do when tabling estimates. Perhaps one ought not to criticize their formats in so doing, without criticizing our own. I think the hon. gentleman shares the dissatisfaction I feel for the form in which our estimates are entered. It is difficult, when one looks through these estimates, to determine precisely what amounts of money are to be devoted to specific purposes. In the government of Ontario estimates, for instance, it is difficult to determine what amounts are attributable to federal-provincial cost shared programs. I do not think the hon. member could determine this.
We propose, on our part, to try to rectify what has been going on by devising a new form of estimates which will be more illuminating. I only hope that provincial governments will follow our example and make it possible for officials in Ottawa to discover from provincial government estimates precisely what is our share of the cost in relation to shared cost programs. That is not so today.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I realize it is difficult to read accounts correctly. I am not an expert in this field, yet I understand that the present Minister of Finance said in the house last winter that there are many skilled people associated with Treasury Board who, with the benefit of their equipment, are able to see far into the future.
October 18, 1868

Supply-National Health and Welfare
Bearing that in mind, surely all an official in Ottawa who wishes to obtain an answer to a question needs to do is place a few telephone calls around the country. He can call the deputy provincial treasurers or others in their departments and obtain the necessary information quickly, particularly if estimates have been tabled in the provincial legislature.
I say in all sincerity that, considering all the skilled officials who are associated with Treasury Board and can perform the sophisticated procedures which have been outlined by the former President of the Treasury Board, the government cannot plead that it acted in ignorance or that there was difficulty in obtaining facts. In the light of this, Mr. Chairman, for the government of Canada to file as late as the end of May a prospectus involving the good faith of this country in the United States, and for the government to stand by its old assurances, which it must have known were hundreds of millions of dollars out, is inexcusable.


J. Michael Forrestall: I do not wish to prolong the debate on the estimates of the Department of Health and Welfare. I should like, however, to make a few comments which are directed towards the 150 odd athletes partaking in the Olympic games in Mexico City. I and my fellow Canadians congratulate them for the part they have played, a part we have been privileged to watch whenever the C.B.C. has seen fit to give us the opportunity to do so. Many of us are disappointed that our athletes have not performed as well as might be hoped. The games are not over yet however, and we still hope that some medals will be brought back to this country. I extend my congratulations sincerely on behalf of all Canadians.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
At the same time, as I think about what is happening in Mexico City, I wonder about the true depth of our participation as a nation in what led up to this tremendous event. I wonder, too, as I look ahead to 1976, with a knowledge of the bids which are being made, whether we are doing everything we can to make certain-and I hesitate about saying this since the games are still in progress- that Canada gets some athletes on the world scene. We are capable of doing better. One of the reasons for our failure to do as well as we might have done is that as a nation we have neglected to do enough to help our athletes. One of my concerns, and I am sure it is shared by a great many Canadians, is that we


have failed to build up a professional coaching staff, in depth.
The system of direct contributions through the fitness program is now five or six years old. It was introduced by my hon. friend from Perth, when he was minister of health in another administration. The act establishing the council placed a limitation on the amount to be granted to the council and, through that body, to the various athletic associations across Canada. The grant was set at $5 million, and I believe it was only last year that this money was fully utilized for the first time. This year again the same amount is earmarked. If we hope to do any better in international competition in the future I suggest we should now consider amending this act so as to make it easier for the council to do the job of work which needs to be done, in other words to bring our track and field athletes, our swimmers, our fencers, our scullers, our weight lifters and so on to true Olympic levels, which will reflect the pride we have in them and reinforce their ability to participate on an equal footing with athletes from all the other countries in the world.
I think it is wrong and a bit shameful that we should have any athletes in Mexico City who did not enjoy the benefit of working with professional coaches in their own fields. The only way round this situation is to open up our pocketbooks a little in connection with the grant I have mentioned. I shall not seek to suggest how much it should be. The council itself must be in a better position than is the Department of National Health and Welfare to judge what would be an appropriate amount of money. I think the act should be amended so as to make more generous provision. Canada has about 150 athletes in Mexico City entered in 30 or 40 events. This stands up well in comparison with other national teams. The United States and Russia have managed to field teams of 400 or more, but in comparison with countries of similar population and financial resources to our own we have done well and I think we can all be justly proud of our efforts. It is unfortunate that in many respects our team has gone there without full or proper training, and in some cases at tremendous personal cost to the athletes themselves, in terms of dollars and cents. I do not think this should be necessary in 1968, and I would ask the minister to think about these things. Whether he does anything about them is, of course, beyond our control.
There is one other matter I should like to raise-I may say it is also in the mind of one
Ociober 18, 1968

of my hon. friends who had hoped to comment on it this afternoon but who has been obliged to leave the chamber. This is the first opportunity I have had of discussing it, and it is one of the better ones. What I am about to say involves the importance of consultation between the federal government and the provinces, and touches the point which was raised during the exchanges between the President of the Treasury Board and my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition. The former prime minister, Right Hon. Lester Pearson remarked, with some justification I think, that we were living today in one of the most forward-looking welfare minded countries in the world. I think we are all very concerned with the effectiveness of the programs which have been introduced. The comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in this regard are apropos and many of his opinions are shared by everyone in this house.
We have reached a point, now, at which the full thrust of the welfare program is being met by the Canadian taxpayer. Let me cite one particular incident which might have been avoided had there been closer consultation between the departments and the provinces in the field of health and welfare. I refer to the so-called deterrent scheme introduced in Saskatchewan under the medical insurance plan. It seems to me this is the type of thing we should be careful to guard against in Canada. Taxpayers in Nova Scotia, for example, are paying money into a fund which is used to support provincial plans, but they are doing so, now, in accordance with terms different from the understanding which was initially reached when the scheme was proposed. I do not mind paying into a program, but I do not want to be told that because of a provincial move somebody is being deprived of full access to the benefits which were intended from medicare. This is the type of thing which has led to misunderstanding throughout the country, and I believe it could have been avoided if there had been close and continuing consultation between the federal government and the provinces.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I wish to make another comment or two with regard to the growing cost of medical and hospital insurance programs. In the past five years in numerous municipalities and civic areas throughout Canada we have noticed an undue amount of concern and costly delay in the matter of programming hospital 29180-99}
Supply-National Health and Welfare construction. There has been delay in terms of what type of bed space should be provided, whether it should be convalescent bed space or active treatment, where it should be, what type of facilities should be included in terms of technical developments and so on. I am sure there have been cases where many thousands, or perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars have been wasted on unnecessary feasibility studies. These are studies which have been wanted by a specific municipality or province so that it would have something upon which to base its hospital building program and equipment purchasing program. The minister has said that there is nothing here in terms of new programs, and it would seem to me that this is one area in which the government might play a part which would not cost the federal government too much money.
I think a reasonable amount of money might be expended in this area in an effort to overcome a continuing difficulty on the part of some of the municipalities and provinces in Canada. I suggest that the minister might consider calling together some of the outstanding medical people in Canada to establish a centre of information within the department which could be tapped by municipalities and provinces as they proceed with their building programs. I do not suggest that a task force be set up in this regard, because before too long task forces will fall into the same rut royal commissions have fallen into. I do not want to see that happen. I believe it would be most useful to start thinking now about the type of hospitals we might need in 1970 and what their role might be in 1980. We might look at the matter of what type of equipment we should buy now, what equipment is obsolete now in terms of its useful life and how we can balance out medical equipment and medical buildings in a given province so that we do not have a continuing wastage of money.
It is not sufficient for the provinces merely to meet certain standards from time to time. Something more must be added during this particular pause we have now in respect of federal participation in hospital construction grants. It seems to me that some slack might be taken up in this field of providing a source of information to municipalities and civic authorities.
I hope the minister will think about these two things. First of all, there is the opening up of the act by way of an amendment to permit greater flexibility in respect of the
October 18, 1968
1556	COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare fitness council, so that we may look forward hopefully not only to the 1976 Olympics but beyond. Meantime the minister might tell us whether we have any chance of getting the 1976 Olympics. I suggest that we should be looking forward generally, and not only to the 1976 Olympics, by making better provision for the fitness council to equip the natural talents of our athletes.


John Carr Munro: Do not forget about our contribution to the Canada games in Halifax.


J. Michael Forrestall: I must extend my warmest thanks to the government for the 1969 winter games. I extend a very warm invitation to everyone in this house to make their vacation plans in such a way that they include a quick trip through Prince Edward Island, a quick scoot around the Cabot trail and a week end in Halifax in 1969.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words this afternoon following the remarks by the minister when he introduced the estimates, which I think were very ably presented to the committee. The first two official spokesmen for the opposition, the hon. member for Simcoe North and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who unfortunately is not now in the house, made a number of remarks concerning the department and its operations. I wish to deal in the best way I can with what they have said.
If one looks at the operations of the Department of National Health and Welfare, as indicated in the summary at page 342, he will see that there is something like $1,600 million in the estimates, of which $132 million are to be voted. The remaining amount is statutory. I suggest also that we might look at the expenditures under the old age security fund which are to be found at the bottom of page 5 in the estimates and which are fairly substantial. There is a total of $1,581 million. It is very interesting to note that the leading spokesmen for the opposition parties dealt in general terms with what they thought the function of the department should be and where additional priorities should go. May I suggest that their statements were in rather marked contrast to the tone of the exchange between the President of the Privy Council and the Leader of the Opposition which took place later in this debate. The earlier speeches were concerned only about areas where the department should spend more. The later statement concerned the bud get and other commitments of the department.


In particular the hon. member for Simcoe North in a statement which I am sure we all enjoyed very much, referred, for example, to the fact that the department is not doing enough in the field of mental health. In his remarks he overlooked the mental health grant which has been administered by that department since 1947. I presume he was referring to the lack of a general extension of federal activity in respect of the sharing of the costs of mental institutions. This has reference to the operating cost and not the capital cost. A number of references were made to the need for additional research. Some very strong remarks were made about the lack of research in the field of ways in which to deter people from smoking, such as showing the harmful effects of one type of activity or another. There is no question but that members on all sides of this house are most anxious that the areas to which the hon. member for Simcoe North very ably pointed should receive high priority in the budget and should receive additional sums, wherever this is possible.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre went very much further and indicated that he thought there should be priority in respect of research, and such matters, as to what is an adequate pension, and what are appropriate measures to compensate for inflation, and so on.
This calls to my mind what I think is really the major limitation of the group of which the member for Winnipeg North Centre is a member. He and his group are very good when it comes to distributing wealth. The whole emphasis of their platform and political organization is based on terms of where additional money should be spent for a number of measures that certainly would be beneficial; but there is much less emphasis on how to create wealth. In the total disposition of the estimates, members of this institution must be responsible and must look at the total spending picture.
I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is going to say that the country can always afford these expenditures. At various times there is a solution which comes from that hon. member and other members of this house which goes something like this: Expenditures on health and welfare are an investment. Then, somehow, automatically these expenditures are not inflationary because they generate increased productivity in proportion to the amount spent, and there
October 18, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	1557
Supply-National Health and Welfare
is no net inflationary aspect. This is their argument.
I listened to the hon. member debate a private member's motion by which he was going to increase pensions immediately to $125 per month without a means test, and incorporate the guaranteed supplement into the basic pension. He was going to reduce the age for payment to 65 immediately. By my calculations-I have not done the refinements that may have been done by the hon. member, and there is no amount in the supporting speech by the hon. member for Perth, a former minister of national health and welfare- it amounted to something like $750 millions of additional expenditures. I can see that the hon. member does not apparently quarrel with the estimate I am presenting.
Expenditures from the old age security fund amount to something like $1,500 million, and this would add something like a 50 per cent increase to these expenditures, in one bite. Mr. Chairman, we have to bear in mind the point of priorities, and I submit to you and the members of this house that the program the member for Winnipeg North Centre and members of his group have placed before us is a program of inflation. In the next breath they talk about programs of research to find a means of establishing adequate pensions and how to counter inflation.
Research does not have to be that extensive, if you listen to the speech made yesterday in Victoria by Mr. Rasminsky, governor of the Bank of Canada. He pointed to the very imminent dangers of inflation and the need for responsibility in respect of fiscal matters by the government.
This is considered to be right wing. There are various other references that can be pointed to when you have to think of inflationary consequences and the government at this time has to put forward a program which does relate to inflation. May I submit that the program which the hon. member put forward was the equivalent of throwing gasoline on a fire, in the theory that this was the way to put it out more quickly. Certainly with this program, which he and his group have put before this house, if it were adopted at this stage the inflationary consequences would be very serious, indeed. The need to have more and more research, to find more and more measures, to provide a basic pension and to compensate for inflation would become greater. This is a difficult and vicious circle. There appears to be no end to it.
There is no question that in concentrating on the methods by which social welfare and health benefits should be looked after, and we all agree that they should be-we are not complacent about these matters-we must consider the inflationary results. We do not suggest that the program we have presented is the complete answer. We all know that much more has to be done.
No one is a more vigourous spokesman on this behalf than the minister himself, when he spoke in introducing the estimates before this house. There is no magic by which we can produce $700 million to cover the costs of the suggested resolution, which the hon. member put forth in good faith. There is no means by which we can touch on all the programs very ably described by the hon. member for Simcoe North. There is no means by which we can do the very many things we want done and still meet the requirements of the President of the Treasury Board which have been placed before this house, particularly on the basis of what the governor of the Bank of Canada has said about this stage in the development of our Canadian economy. This is true of the advice in respect of measures that must be taken on the broader front of balancing incentives for growth, and the increase of national income in this country, and some measures which may reduce inflation and restore price stability.
In the course of the last election campaign in my own constituency the positions taken by my Conservative opponent and by my New Democratic opponent were almost precisely the same on this matter. They both agreed on the kind of resolution which was presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, supported by the hon. member for Perth. That hon. member defended that resolution before this house not very long ago. They also said at the same time they were against inflation. They said they were going to fight inflation. They said there should be tremendous energy and resources used to bring stability to the economy so that the older people who were living on fixed incomes and retirement pensions should not have to suffer this grave injustice and the erosion of their standard of living because of increased prices. In the very next breath they advocated programs which would contribute to inflation to a degree which would be almost unbelievable.
In looking at the estimates which are before us, please remember that we cannot be schizophrenic about this matter. We cannot
j 558	COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare have one group of speakers come forward and say we should spend more here, that we should spend more there, that we should do this here and that we should do that there, that we should do more for old age pensioners; that we should find more ways of helping these people. All these things are desirable. We then have the next group of speakers at a different stage of the debate and in a different context criticize the government because it is spending too much money and creating inflation.
We cannot do this and split ourselves into little packages, hoping that the packages are never put together in a way which will make things very embarrassing. I believe that the estimates now placed before this house and the program we are now considering represent considerably less than many of us would like to see. There is no question about that. But like many other things that come before us, this is a compromise and the result of many considerations the government must face. It is a responsible presentation on behalf of the department whose employees, I am happy to say, well deserve the tribute paid to them by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. For some years I have had the privilege of joining with those employees who prepare these estimates and I am glad the hon. member said that. He went on to say he regretted I had left that service and presented myself as a candidate for public life. To return the compliment, if I may, much as I respect the way in which he has contributed his concern and interest to government expenditure, I cannot thank him for the interest he has taken in the measures the government is proposing in respect of fiscal stability.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare I am aware of the tremendous change that has taken place in our social attitudes to health and to various forms of social services. Society, from its very beginning in time, has been concerned with some type of community health service. Indeed the very wealthy people of last century discharged some of their social awareness by donating large sums of money to hospitals, and other institutions which provide service to needy people. Illness often affects those of the aged who are unable to earn money and have no resources of their own.
The medical services in Canada in the first part of this century were largely the result of

DEBATES	October 18, 1968
private initiative. Most people paid their doctor and hospital bills if they could. If they could not, the bill was either not paid or it was absorbed by an institution as a charge on those who could pay, or it was subsidized by the community by donations or government subsidy, local or provincial.
The government has increasingly become involved in the health care field. At the present time there is little health care which does not involve the government in whole or in part. This is in line with the experience of almost all the countries of the western world. The sophistication of the health resources of the various countries of the western world, especially in the west, largely depends on the general industrial development of the country. In the North American continent there has developed a very high level of medical service and care, and the volume of research and knowledge emanating from the medical complex of the U.S.A. and Canada far outstrips the whole of the rest of the world. However, there have been arguments that this medical knowledge and these medical resources have not been applied as well as they should be, to give the general public the service that modern medical science has evolved for their care.
This discussion has been centred on the fact that, as many of the health services were paid from the patient's own resources, the individual did not have the necessary income to maintain proper health care, and that if these facilities were taken over by the government with the institution personnel being paid directly by the government, these people would have proper medical care.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The aim of this is laudable, and there is agreement that the best health services should be available to all, regardless of the ability to pay, or the circumstances. However, this in effect is far too simple, because the mere allocation of money does not procure health service for an individual. When the patient paid for his health services out of his own resources there was an automatic barrier beyond which he could not go, or he had to depend on charity for the provision of these services.
Now that the government has entered the field and has made available to its citizens most, if not all, of the health services, various and important problems have arisen, and decisions have to be taken as to how much care and to what extent health services
Ociober 18, 1988

should be provided. Much has been written and said about the right to health. This I feel has clouded the discussions and arguments on the vital points as to how much health care the community's willing to provide. In essence the term "the right to health" is one used by the general public. We would be better served if the phrase was "the right to the best available care" in the circumstances in which the individual finds himself.
The individual may have the right to remain young forever, but there is no medicine in the world that can guarantee this. Health care, leaving aside the infectious diseases that affect the whole community, is largely the care of one's own self. In other words, like grooming, health care is of little interest except to the individual or his immediate family. Indeed, much of the major health care is directed to looking after and making confortable the elderly section of our population who are nearing the end of their lives and for most of whom their productive days are over. Nevertheless, as a society we do our utmost for these people and most workers in the health field follow the principle of doing the most for as many as possible.
Government having largely taken over the health care field, whereby health care is free at the point of usage, has created enormous difficulties and problems with which we are only now coming face to face. What is perhaps not generally understood is that the scope of health care is so vast that all the resources of the community, all the productive people in a community, could be involved and there would still be a great deal of work left undone. When the individual paid for his own health care there was a limit beyond which he could not go, or charity could support him. Similarly there is a limit to where the nation can go in the health care field.
It is interesting to note that it is estimated that the countries of western Europe and North America spend about the same percentage of their gross national product on health care. The U.S.A. spends the largest amount and is generally conceded to have the most people still buying their own medical care. With this in mind, it is obvious that health care must be rigidly rationed in some manner. If it is not rationed by the patient's pock-etbook, it will be rationed in some other way, usually by a queue. When medical care is free at the point of usage, most of this rationing occurs at the two main introductions to health care facilities, that is, at the doctor's office
Supply-National Health and Welfare and in the hospital. The problem that arises is, what care should the doctor provide for his patients at this point of entry, and how and under what terms of service shall he function?
The physician gives to his work knowledge and experience, but the most important commodity he sells is time and attention. It is, for instance, generally considered that a doctor should provide somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15 minutes for the average consultation, but the demands on his time are so great that he may have to spend much less time with a patient, and in some cases two or three minutes is all that a patient will receive on an initial visit. The doctor, being true to his professional code, must within limits see all those who wish to see him, because the last patient of the day may be the one who most needs his services.
A similar situation exists at the hospital level, should a patient wish to be admitted to hospital. No one needs to be admitted to hospital, or all can be admitted to hospital, depending on the point of view taken. Hospital needs in the past have been based on the number of beds required when people had to pay for them out of their own pocket, but now the hospital being free at the point of usage, it is overcrowded, long waiting lists have developed and many patients who would benefit from hospitalization have to be refused admission.
Of course various methods have been developed to attempt to curtail these admissions and to arrive at a decision as to what is right or needful, but this is extremely difficult and hard to assess and in the main it is largely catch-as-catch-can, particularly in some phases of illness. Coincident with the overflowing of hospitals there has been a marked rise in the number of employees per bed. In the case of hospitals my experience was that .9 employees per bed was considered adequate before government hospitalization. Now it is up to 2.5 employees per patient. It might be considered that this would increase patient care, but an analysis will show that the employees are largely employed in areas outside patient care, that is, in the field of housekeeping records and administration. Indeed, it often seems that the demands of administration and records are so great as seriously to compromise patient care.
Automation may be taking over in some fields, but in the health care field there is little or any of it. The cost of health care is growing rapidly, much more rapidly than our
1560	COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare general economy. Decisions will shortly have to be made to limit health care in some manner. The recent introduction of utilization fees by provinces for obtaining care indicates some evidence of a return to having the patient pay to some degree for the protection of his health.
Indeed it has been argued that a patient should pay something at least, because he is receiving food while in the hospital. The imminent introduction of medicare has created considerable discussion as to the effect of our health facilities, especially when at this time, with costs a matter of increasing concern to all Canadians, the government is proceeding, in the face of provincial objections, on a set medicare course. The federal government has often accused the provinces of overspending, but in this field at least the provinces have been reluctant to enter medicare on the basis established by the act. As the federal government intends to opt out of the medicare plan in five years, and leave the provinces to their own resources, it appears that their objections should be taken into account.
At this time I would like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, a newspaper that has been markedly Liberal in its leanings:
H Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and Mr. Benson are in a mood even to contemplate cutting existing programs-and they have hinted they are-then they have no honest recourse but to postpone medicare. Anything else would be a betrayal of the provinces-most of which don't want it at this time anyway. It would be to say, in the cruel language of dollars and cents at a period when tax burdens are already excessive, that it is the federal intention to start programs which it knows the provinces cannot afford to finance alone and then-having accustomed the electorate to their benefits-to load the whole burden of them on already overburdened provincial treasuries.
A better means of further embittering federal-provincial relations could not be designed.
With that in mind, I would hope that the health minister, meeting with his counterparts the federal and provincial finance and health ministers in Ottawa on November 4 and 5, will give this matter of medicare urgent consideration, and it is to be hoped that a program which will be acceptable to the provinces can be worked out.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, in a moment I want to ask the minister about several specific matters, and I hope he will be available to take note of my requests.

DEBATES	October 18, 1968
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I want to take just a few moments first to say that I am very hopeful that the new minister will live up to the hopes and aspirations some of us have had for him. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated this morning, we had the idea in the last parliament that he was a man who would be able to withstand pressure and to hold firm to a course which now has been decided upon.
Perhaps it would not be correct to say that I was upset-because it did not surprise me- but I have found it very distasteful, and somewhat alarming, to hear an attempt made here this afternoon to sabotage medicare on the excuse that it would be an added expense to the taxpayers a large section of whom, may I say, can afford to pay taxes. We have already heard this attempt in the last parliament, but in spite of difficulties this house had the courage to put medicare on the books. The program was researched exceedingly carefully, was discussed, and a royal commission was set up to study it. It was proven over and over again beyond the shadow of a doubt that medicare is literally a life saving necessity for people in this country who cannot pay their own medical bills.
If medicare were not implemented, these people would have to suffer various stages of misery and distress, with no means of alleviating it. This has now been proven. I am pleased to note that the minister was one of those who held firmly to the belief that medicare was necessary and who helped to get the legislation through. Now we find here in the house spokesmen of a very unholy trinity of big business, big medical and big political concerns, which are determined to sabotage this piece of legislation which is already on the statute books, which two provinces have already implemented, and which two more have signified their intention of implementing. So far as I can see, the strongest pressure comes from the province of Ontario, and I deplore it. It means that we are willing to pass a language bill which speaks about the need of building one Canada with equality of opportunity for language and culture, while at the same time there are some provinces which are wealthy and better off than others whose spokesmen say they do not wish to join the medicare program because they would have to bear more of the share of the costs. So they want to sink medicare before it gets under way.
October 18, 1968

In my view it is deplorable that we should pass a language bill on the one hand and on the other destroy any opportunity for equality of the health and well-being of thousands of Canadians. I do not think there is any justification for this. Once the Canadian people realize what is going on they will not be slow in making their feelings felt about medicare.
This trend is not new. When I heard the hon. member on the government side who preceded the last speaker refer to this subject I wished he had looked up some of the records in the history books of this country. He would find that a former minister of labour, when he had the plight of the unemployed people drawn to his attention, made the statement that it was quite impossible to put the unemployed to work, that it would bankrupt the country and would cost millions of dollars. He said we could not afford to do anything to prevent people from rotting in idleness. Adolf Hitler did, by making us go to war. When war was declared, we discovered that in a country which could not afford to keep the young people working, happy and well, where there was no money to provide a decent civilian job for our young citizens, we could spend $28,000 to train an aeroplane pilot and $25,000 to train a navigator, as many of them as we needed. We could also find sufficient money for war equipment and defence because, we knew we had to find it.
I find that a great many people in this house-I see some of them in front of me and some to the side of me-do not know yet that we have to plan for a healthy and industrial population, for a population that has some faith in this country, or else we shall have to pay a price that no country can afford. If we do not pay the price of keeping people healthy through medicare we will not have a healthy population, because a very large percentage of our people are not able to bear the costs of their own medical bills. If we allow our population to suffer poor health and misery we shall find ourselves in a situation similar to that which is to be found among the Indians, whose health standards we are desperately trying to improve and bring up to the standard of the rest of the country. Although our health standard is far above that of the Indian people, it too is in jeopardy today because of the attempt to kill the medicare program.
If we can afford to look after people in their old age, we could also save in medicare costs by giving people enough to live on, and remain self respecting. Surely we are not in
Supply-National Health and Welfare such desperate straits as to say, as some hon. members have said in effect today, that we cannot afford to care for sick people in Canada, that there is just not enough money to look after them, that those people who can afford to pay for a doctor can keep well, but let the other people stay sick or in a state of ill health indefinitely. We have heard some hon. members say today, in effect, that we cannot afford to look after old people: Let us sweep them under rug or put them away somewhere, where it will cost very little and thus rid ourselves of the whole problem, because we cannot afford to give them enough to live on. When I hear people complaining about the enormity and atrocity of asking for pensions of $125 a month I am reminded of the Canadian welfare council which said three years ago that the minimum on which a single individual could live in health and decency was $138 a month.
Surely members of parliament should not be abdicating their responsibility in this fashion, because if they do, then they are betraying the trust which was put in them by the electors of this country. It is true that we have in our ridings many affluent taxpayers, but there is not one of us here who has not also large numbers of people in his constituency who depend on what we can do co-operatively through medicare, old age security and other forms of social security.
I say that some of us here are not asking for anything out of the way. We are simply saying that, either we have a government which will ensure that people will have what they need in the way of social security, and which will ensure that we have the industry for the gross national product necessary to finance these measures, or else we must resign ourselves to a divided population half healthy and half sick, half free and half slave. I do not think there is any way around that equation. I, for one, am not going to try to shove Canada back into the nineteenth century. There are too many people who want to do just that; but some of us have to try to keep moving forward, toward the goal which most people want.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I was interested in one member from the other side who said that this party seems to have a lot of experts in such matters as health and welfare. We are not experts. However, we have a lot of people who are concerned about people and the things that people need. We believe that these things should have a high priority. It is all very well
October 18, 1968

Supply-National Health and Welfare to have one's heart bleed, and bleed in public, but if one does not make the necessary arrangements to achieve the goal of social well-being, all of that blood is wasted.
I should like now to deal with two or three specific matters upon which I should like some information from the minister. The first of these is the Canada Pension Plan. Other members will have similar cases to the one I am going to cite. This man worked for 27 years for a large company on the west coast, and he has qualified for the Canada Pension Plan. As a matter of fact, he had a good pension plan with this company, but it was integrated with the Canada Pension Plan. This has resulted in his pension being decreased somewhat. For the past year he has been laid off as the result of a stroke, and will never work again. He has a little investment income and would like very much to be able to pay in to the Canada Pension Plan in order to build up his pension. I know he cannot do so under existing Canada Pension Plan regulations. However, I wish the minister would explore ways and means of caring for people who are in this position. Here is a man who has paid into the Canada Pension Plan in good faith and who, because of an accident over which he had no control, now finds himself in a position where he will not receive the pension he thought he would receive. This man wants to build up his pension by his own efforts.
There is another feature about the Canada Pension Plan that I should like to mention. I do not know how the minister can work this out, but I wish he would explore the possibility with some of his officials. I have had many, many cases of this kind. There is a cut-off date, and a person must have paid into the Canada Pension Plan for three different years in order to qualify. Hon. members would be astonished if they knew how many people die before they can qualify, and whose dependants therefore are unable to qualify.
I know that if people do not meet the deadline and qualify, you cannot include them in the scheme without destroying the scheme. Surely, though, there should be some way of protecting the interest of a person who almost qualifies; there ought to be some special emergency fund or some way of meeting that situation.
Another point I want to raise is connected with the food and drug directorate. On several occasions a group of women from the Ottawa area have approached me with a problem, and this goes back to the minister's

predecessor. These women assure me that there are pills being distributed in the Ottawa area which are supposed to induce an abortion, and which do no such thing. The pills are being distributed by physicians, whose names these women have. They want these pills analysed by the food and drug directorate because it is felt the women ought to be advised that the pills do not induce an abortion. These women have checked and the pills have not brought on abortions. They are afraid the pills may have a very deleterious effect on body tissues or on general health. I should like to find out whether it would be possible for the food and drug directorate to make an analysis in such cases. It seems to me if there are such things being done and these women assure me they have documents to support their contention the food and drug directorate ought to be available to analyse the pills so the women could be told whether they are safe or harmful.
I have one more suggestion to make to the minister, which is not going to cost a great deal of money to the department or anyone else but would make a great deal of difference to the elderly people in this country. I know elderly people who are still vigorous enough that they desire to do small jobs such as babysitting or working around gardens. They do need every bit of extra revenue they can get. It seems to me that individual initiative would be encouraged if the means test ceiling were removed. If these people earn enough extra income to get into the category of regular taxpayers, then by all means tax them, the same as anybody else. However, over and over again people come to me and say, "I cannot take this job; if I do my pension will be cut."
The same situation applies to veterans and their dependants. It seems to me also that we waste a lot of money on social assistance because we will not allow these people to get off social assistance by their own efforts. We may say we do not have to pay social assistance because it comes out of the provincial treasury, but in the final analysis this money still comes from John Q. Public and Jane Q. Public. Why do we not remove this ceiling, so these people can go out and do whatever chores they can perform. Then, if they earn sufficient to get into the regular income tax bracket, just tax them the same as anyone else. I believe this makes good sense.
The government talks about making Canadians into first class citizens, and cutting
October 18, 1968	COMMONS
out this business of fencing them behind provincial walls or language barriers. I want this income barrier taken down. It seems to me this is a logical step toward a just society. We should let people exercise their initiative and earn what they can, then let them pay taxes the same as anyone else. Our attitude indicates the survival of the old poorhouse mentality. It is bad enough to have people who are elderly and poor without reminding them they are second class citizens. I would appreciate a reply from the minister on these points.


Mr. Perrault:: I believe hon. members of the house, on both sides, Mr. Chairman-and this has been expressed in recent hours-are impressed by the minister and his approach to the problems of health and welfare of the Canadian people. All of us have great hopes for health and welfare in this nation, under the direction and guidance of the new minister. I find myself in sympathy with some of the problems raised by members on both sides of this house during the discussion of these estimates. In my opinion, one of the great tragedies facing many Canadians today is the diminution in the purchasing power of the dollar, and the disastrous effect this is having on those living on fixed incomes, namely retired civil servants, retired members of the R.C.M.P. and other pensioners. These people put their dollars away in savings, having earned their salaries at a time when a dollar was worth a dollar in terms of purchasing power.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
They now find, Mr. Chairman, after years of being good citizens and taxpayers, that they are receiving dollars that simply do not purchase the means to maintain a decent standard of living. This is a matter that should be the concern of all of us, regardless of party; it is not a partisan question. We should do everything in our power within the ability of the nation to improve the level of compensation for those on pension, regardless of where they live in the country and the amount of pension they enjoy.
In actual fact, Mr. Chairman, all of us have a responsibility to these people, who in a sense, have been legally deprived of their means. If they had had money stolen from their bank accounts, then this would have been an indictable offence. But society has condoned and given a kind of legal sanction to the diminution of the purchasing power of
DEBATES	1563
Supply-National Health and Welfare the dollar. We all bear a collective responsibility to help these people within the ability of the economy to provide for them.
At the same time, Mr. 'Chairman-and this was well stated by the hon. member for Ottawa West-if we provide increases in social welfare payments, with an utter disregard for the state of the economy and the effect that such increases may have upon inflation, then it could well be that many of these increases would be self-defeating, that any increase in purchasing power would be illusory and be eroded by inflation. I think that all members of the house are sympathetic to the problems of our elderly people, our senior citizens, many of whom are suffering from physical disability. We should be very mindful of their plight.
Shortly, Mr. Chairman, we are going to engage in our quadrennial orgy of selfrecrimination about our failure at the Olympic games. Every year we undergo an exercise in national anguish when we stumble at the world hockey tournament. On a cyclical basis we engage in breast beating about our commonwealth games humiliations. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we have to do far more to extend assistance to health and welfare programs in the area of athletic development and physical fitness.
On looking at the estimates for this year,- and I say this not by way of criticism-I find that we are budgeting for an increase of over $3 million in grants to the Canada Council. The level of support for fitness and amateur sport remains exactly the same. The total dedicated to the Canada Council is $20.5 million; the amount to fitness and amateur sport is the same. I am not opposed to the advancement of culture in our country, Mr. Chairman, but I am one of those critics, I am afraid, who does not think that public funds are being well spent when we import people from New York to smash pianos in Vancouver and pour blood over the result. This, Mr. Chairman, is supposed to provide some sort of experience for the audience. As I say, this is not money well spent.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that what we have to do, as far as our young people and society generally are concerned, is to invest more money in a positive program to promote and advance the intellectual, cultural and, yes, the athletic development of our youth. I think this would be worth a hundred times as much as any expenditure for the creation of
October 18, 19G8
1564	COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare new facilities to incarcerate youthful adventurers. Government estimates across the country, whether provincial or federal, show a vast increase in the amounts budgeted to imprison youthful offenders. Yet we seem to hold the line in almost every level of government on programs to rehabilitate our young people and prevent social problems before they begin. I think that this situation is really scandalous. We intend to invest $5 million in the promotion of fitness and amateur sport, an amount equivalent to that which would be required to construct five miles of roadway in the Fraser canyon in the province of British Columbia. This, Mr. Chairman, is not good enough.
A nationwide fitness program, a program of physical development to promote amateur sport, entered into in conjunction with provincial governments and local organizations, is one of the best areas in which to invest our money. I believe that the national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport should be granted powers beyond its present limit of merely being an advisory body. The council should become semi-autonomous. What we need is the establishment of a Canada-wide sports foundation. This should act as a depository for individual donations for the advancement of 'Canadian athletics, such donations to be deductible for income tax purposes up to a certain figure.
Every time Canada fails at the Olympics, Mr. Chairman, there are people who say that the game is the thing, that it really does not matter who wins. This is nonsense, and we really do not believe it at all. We should like a Canadian hockey team to win an international competition once in a while. We have sent our valiant athletes to Mexico City-and they are valiant, Mr. Chairman, because in order to get them there we had to have a tin can collection in Vancouver. We had to beg people for their assistance in getting our athletes to Mexico City, and this is why they are valiant athletes. These men and women are racing down there and carrying the flag of Canada under the most difficult possible conditions.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we need a semi-autonomous body to promote fitness and amateur sport. Specific programs should be directed to the promotion of competitive athletics. A general fitness research program for the country, a program to promote useful leisure time activities and recreation, should be a separate program under the minister's department.


As I say, at the present time the national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport is an advisory body only, not an action-taking body. I hope the minister will change its status. All of us are encouraged by the fact that a study of sport is now under way in this country, and it is to the minister's credit that he supports and sponsors the study and has made a number of announcements about it. We need a semi-autonomous body to direct and administer a program based on policies that are recommended by the advisory council and approved by the minister. We need long range planning and the establishment of goals. We need an adequate budget for this competitive program and for the general fitness program.
When we talk in terms of $5 million for fitness and amateur sport, Mr. Chairman, I am impressed by the fact that, according to some figures given to me, Canadians from coast to coast spent the sum of $1,129,310,000 on alcohol, wine and beer and other spirits. A fantastic amount, Mr. Chairman: Over $1 billion is spent on booze. Yet $5 million appropriated to fitness and amateur sport, money spent to help people direct their efforts into constructive channels, is the limit of our capability.
The tax revenue received by the federal government in 1967 by way of tobacco sales tax amounted to $461,266,414. I am not indicting the federal government or the minister; he is just starting out with this program. However, we do need an entirely new approach toward our priorities. For example, figures are presented each year in the province of British Columbia showing the profits derived from the sale of alcohol. Last year the premier of British Columbia said that the province had made a profit of $40 million from the sale of liquor. Yet alcohol in the province of British Columbia causes $85 million worth of social damage each year.
If we project that situation into the national scene we find we are heavy losers in the whole area of alleged "revenue" from tobacco sales and the sale of alcoholic beverages. Surely some of the profits that are derived from such sales should be spent to a greater extent on the promotion of fitness and amateur sport. I hope that the department engages in a far more vigorous program of education in the months and years to come.
A few years ago in Manitoba a study of alcoholism was conducted. May I quote from
October 18, 1968	COMMONS
page 66 of the report of the royal commission on the health of the Canadian people:
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
*-it appears to be firmly established now that further progress can be made and lasting success achieved only, as in the case of smoking, by an effective educational campaign. As the Honourable John Bracken recommended in a personal addendum to the exhaustive report of his commission inquiring into the use of alcoholic beverages in Manitoba in 1955:
The part that follows is a quotation within a quotation. The words are taken from the 1955 report in Manitoba, and are as follows:
Make known the truth about liquor and thus explode the myths and folklore and unfounded propaganda on both sides of the liquor problem .. . Maintain an informed public opinion based on the lessons of experience and the facts of science; a restoration of faith in what is said about liquor is overdue.
This is not a call for prohibition. It is a suggestion that we ought to examine social ills like these and see what can be done about their amelioration by the federal government. It seems to me that we ought to be devoting millions more dollars each year to providing constructive programs that will prevent social ills, such as the ones I have talked of, from arising.
Earlier I said that I believed the government ought to provide tax credits for individuals who contribute money for the purposes of amateur sport. We must have facilities that will promote fitness, during the leisure of our people. Right now our fitness and amateur sport programs seemed to be tailored to the production of athletes; our facilities do not benefit those people who wish to take up fitness and amateur sport activities in their leisure. The present act must be fully implemented if we are to have amateur and recreational sports. We must concentrate our programs in such a way that they will benefit our national athletes. Our programs must benefit those who take part in hockey tournaments, in the Olympic games and in activities such as the Pan-American games. Our Canadian athletes must have opportunities to compete equally with other athletes of the world.
Problems to do with recreation in sport ought to be handled differently than at present. In order to implement our programs to their fullest extent there must be co-operation between the appropriate levels of all provincial governments. Last year under our fitness and amateur sport program we spent, on amateur sport, a total of $3,465,222. Approximately $2 million went to the Pan-American
DEBATES	1565
Supply-National Health and Welfare games in Winnipeg, a very successful endeavour, and, under federal-provincial cost-shared programs, $669,289 went to all provinces taking part in that program, with the exception of Quebec. The province of British Columbia in 1966-67 received $88,000. I do not think these figures are adequate, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the minister feels as I do. I hope that under his direction grants for the purposes of fitness and amateur sport will be increased.
Many in Canada believe that the government ought to match contributions of provincial governments in the building of facilities to be used in sports. If we are to produce outstanding athletes in this country we must have the facilities in which they can be trained and in which they can compete.
Let us remember that last year $188,675 went to 110 university students in postgraduate bursaries in physical education and recreation. That is not enough, when one considers the enormous profits derived from the sale of tobacco, alcohol and various substances, the consumption of which gives rise ultimately to social problems.
We invested $153,995 among 586 students in undergraduate scholarships and bursaries with respect to physical education and recreation. That amount is one-tenth of the cost of constructing one mile of highway in British Columbia. I do not wish to dwell on the point at length. I hope I have made the point that we ought to do more for fitness and amateur sport in this country. I know that if the minister is anxious to bring about reforms in this area he will have the support of many members in this house.


John Howard Lundrigan: Though it is close to five o'clock, may I say that I have enjoyed listening to hon. members. I have not all the time at my disposal I should have liked to have, nevertheless, that will not prevent my congratulating the minister on his appointment to a most challenging portfolio in national health and welfare. As one of the new members of parliament, I have been most impressed by him, and I feel that he will acquit himself well in the challenges he is facing.
If there had been time I should have gone at length into the question of improvements in social welfare programs. There are some in this country who have not benefited as much as they might from our social welfare programs. I am thinking of those who may be too old to be employed by private companies and too young to benefit from some of the government's old age programs. There are quite a
1566	COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare number of Canadians in this category who have been left out in the cold, so to speak, and I commend them to the government for its consideration.
I also wish to speak of certain people who, because of certain physical characteristics or handicaps, are not able to be fully or adequately employed. I expect many members ran into this situation when campaigning in their ridings. If I had had time I should have dealt at length with the plight of these people.
Also, if I had had time, I should have wished to talk about our young people who, because of special disabilities, need special training. I know that $40,000 is being allocated in these estimates to the Canadian Association for Retarded Children. If I had had time to question the minister I imagine I would have been told of the ways in which, through the media of hospitals and other institutions, the federal government is helping disabled or handicapped people to become useful members of society. I urge the government to consider ways and means of helping our disabled people make their way through society.


Albert Béchard: Order, please. The time being five o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, before the committee rises, may I make one or two more comments?


Albert Béchard: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Howard Lundrigan: I wanted to ask the minister whether he would consider, through his department, assisting with respect to the construction of the hospital in St. John's, Newfoundland. I hope the matter of the hospital receives the minister's consideration.
My last point is-and I do not wish to abuse the privilege extended to me-that I hope the minister's estimates pass the committee. So far as I know there are no major objections to them. We have made our points, and we wish the minister well in the consideration of his estimates.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate

DEBATES	October 18, 1968
informing this house that the Senate has passed the following bills to which the concurrence of this house is desired: Bill S-4, An Act respecting the marking of articles containing precious metals; Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Customs Act; Bill S-6, An Act respecting The Canada Trust Company; Bill S-7, An Act respecting The Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation.
It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely public and private bills.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Speaker, I have standing in my name on the order paper item No. 9, Bill No. C-16, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (students' franchise) and I understand there may be a disposition on the part of the house to go ahead with that bill today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed that orders Nos. 1 to 8 shall stand, by unanimous consent, at the request of the government?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Grant Deachman: the second reading of Bill No. C-16 to amend the Canada Elections Act (students' franchise).
He said: The little bill which I am presenting to the house today asks for a very simple amendment to the elections act for the purpose of seeing that university students entering university at the time of the issue of a writ of election are not in the situation in which students were put in 1965, when many thousands of them moving from their homes to other constituencies where they would be residents in universities found themselves disfranchised. At the time the election writ was issued on September 8 many Canadian students-and I am thinking particularly of students in small communities-were moving to university cities and university constituencies. If they were not in residence and registered at the university at the time of the issue
October 18, 1968

of the writ they were deprived of the opportunity to vote in the election in their university constituency, although they might have arrived there only a few days after the writ was issued, indeed while the lists were still open and while, under the elections act, there were opportunities for them to be enrolled.
This is the result of an anomaly in the elections act which deprives many young people of their vote for the first time when a situation such as the one which occurred in 1965 arises at the time of a general election. In my own constituency is located the University of British Columbia which today has a student enrolment in excess of 20,000 in regular courses during the winter months. At the time of the election of 1965, enrolment was in the neighbourhood of 16,000 students and we estimated that between 2,500 and 3,500 of them lost their votes because of the peculiarities of the elections act, to which I have referred. Today of course, with an enrolment in excess of 20,000 the number would be even larger, and across the country the number of students disfranchised would naturally be far greater still.
It is a peculiarity of the elections act that commonwealth students attending universities in Canada did, in 1965, have an opportunity to vote in that election, while many Canadians moving from their homes to the universities, did not. The circumstances are that commonwealth students, once they have gained residency after six months or a year-I do not have the act in front of me-are permitted to vote. Also it is the habit of many commonwealth students not to return to their home countries while they are pursuing their studies but to remain in this country for several years. So Canadian students saw their colleagues from commonwealth countries enfranchised, while they themselves were denied an opportunity to vote.
I wish to deal with what the act presently provides in the cases of clergymen and teachers, in respect of whom this problem has already been recognized. I refer to chapter III of the Canada Elections Act, revised statutes of 1952, section 16, subsection (7) which reads as follows:
[DOT] (5:10	p.m.)
For the purpose of a general election, any of the following persons who, in the interval between the date of the issue of the writ of election and polling day, changes his place of ordinary residence from one electoral district to another, is if otherwise qualified, entitled, if he so elects, to be included in the list of electors for the polling division
Canada Elections Act
in which he is ordinarily resident at the time of his application, and to vote at the polling station establish therein, if,
(a) being a minister, priest or ecclesiastic of any religious faith or denomination, he is in charge of or permanently attached to an established place of worship or recognized mission of his church situate in the electoral district to which he has removed; or (b) being a teacher, he is employed under a contract with the appropriate educational authority and is engaged in teaching at a school situate in the electoral district to which he has removed.
So, the act already recognizes the problem in the case of ministers, priests or teachers who move from one electoral district to another to take up a new post. It is under subsection (7) that I believe we can make a very simple amendment which would take care once and for all of the problem of disfranchised students. I brought this little bill into the house after the incident of 1965, and it was debated in the house. I made every effort to determine whether or not this little amendment could be passed. Unfortunately the bill did not pass at that time. There was some debate about it and a number of bills were referred to the committee on privileges and elections.
Time has passed however, and here we are in another parliament. Nothing has been done about enfranchising the students. Therefore I am presenting my little bill again, one which contains a simple amendment. I am sure this amendment would not rock the boat of the chief electoral officer. I am also sure that it would correct the problem which faces students at the time of a September election.
I should now like to read to hon. members how I believe subsection (7) of section 16 could be amended. It would be necessary simply to add after the end of paragraph (b) another paragraph (c) which would read:
(c) being a student, he is duly registered and in attendance at a recognized educational institution, and for the purpose of this subsection such student shall be deemed to reside in the electoral district in which he has temporary residence and not in the electoral district in which he would otherwise have his ordinary residence.
This is a very simple amendment which could be made to the Canada Elections Act. I submit that it would not bring down the wrath of the Almighty on our heads, or cause any harm, and that, at last, it would allow students, after the procrastination in respect of the disaster of 1965, to be enfranchised. That is all I am pleading for this afternoon. In closing I should like to say that the Canada Elections Act is a curious old antique. It was written in the days of our fathers when

October 18, 1968
Canada Elections Act
they campaigned by buggy in the snow and ice of Ontario and Quebec during elections of that period. It has been updated very little since that time. It is rather like the rules of our own House of Commons, very slow to yield and very slow to change.
I should like to suggest that there is an easy way in which we could bring about improvements of this kind to the Canada Elections Act, without having to procrastinate and pass them along from parliament to parliament. We should include in it a clause which says in effect that in the first session following a general election the Canada Elections Act should be referred to the committee on privileges and elections of the House of Commons, and there be amended and updated.
There are no people who are more concerned, and more able to deal, with this piece of legislation than the members of the House of Commons themselves. They are the ones who are affected. They are the ones who understand what the act is about and who understand what happens in respect of the votes of the people when the act is not properly amended and updated. I submit that legislation such as this, in our changing times, should, for the protection of the electorate of Canada, have built into it a clause of this nature so that the act would automatically be referred to the committee on privileges and elections in the first session following a general election. If this had been done, for example if this little clause for which I plead had been passed during the parliament of 1965-68, I am sure we would not be here this afternoon pleading for this small amendment. If you, sir, were to pick up the routine proceedings and orders of the day and look at the public bills that are before the House of Commons today you would find a number of them on the subject of changes to the Canada Elections Act. These are all good bills which contain good proposals, requiring the attention of the house for the purpose of improving the Canada Elections Act.
My plea, therefore, is that we find a way automatically to upgrade this act at every election. My specific plea this afternoon is that we settle now the problem of these students by inserting this clause in the Canada Elections Act, so that the students will be able to vote during the next election, if it happens to be called at a time when they are moving to the universities.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon.

member for bringing to the attention of the house in this private members hour a matter of great importance. I recall very well the disappointment among the university community during the 1965 election. Many of our young people were disfranchised. It is unfortunate when any Canadian, student or otherwise, is disfranchised and unable to cast his vote. It is particularly regrettable when young people, who would otherwise be casting their first vote, find that they are prevented from doing so, as was the case during the election of 1965, one which was hastily called to bring about a certain desired situation which it did not bring about.
One aspect of the hon. member's bill which comes immediately to mind is that it is a suggested amelioration, and a good one; but as with so many aspects of the electoral machinery it is merely a stop gap. It is a bandaid where we need a significant restructuring of the whole organism. I realize also that every session in preceding parliaments we have had a number of private members bills which have suggested changes to the Canada Elections Act. Many of them have been good; many Of them have been overdue. I would suggest, however, that while there is merit in making some improvement, we must face up to the fact that the Canada Elections Act is in basic need of overhaul, redrafting, amendment, and revision.
To be specific, I suggest that the hon. member's suggested improvement could add a safeguard for students at Canadian universities. But there are many students who are not studying at Canadian universities. A student who is taking postgraduate work at McGill University would be protected by this legislation, but if he happened to be at the London School of Economics or Harvard University he would be disfranchised.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I mention these facts to indicate that we are moving toward some basic improvement in our election machinery, but we are constantly going to discover after the fact, or after an election, to be more precise, that certain segments of the Canadian society have not been able to cast a vote.
These things have been tried in other jurisdictions and they have worked, but there are measures whereby the broadest possible participation of the potential electorate may be guaranteed. One of these is the system of absentee voting. Under such a system a student at Harvard would be entitled to cast his
October 18. 1968

vote, whether or not he happened to be in the middle of an academic year or within the confines of the Dominion of Canada.
I suggest that the absentee voting system is the kind of thing that would embrace all of these categories of people. It strikes me that we suffer gravely from a lack of attention to the Canada Elections Act. Some of us during the preceding two parliaments have suggested and requested that the committee on privileges and elections consider amendments to it. Every election brings out all sorts of problems in respect of the machinery, and after three or four elections it is now time to consider seriously substantial amendments to bring this act up to date.
The hon. member is concerned about what happened to students in 1965; but there are other problems. We must look at the whole question of permanent lists. I do not believe the absentee voting system can work unless there is a permanent list. It is our job as legislators to be observant and to make sure that when an election is held it is held under circumstances allowing as many Canadians as possible, and without hardship, to exercise their franchise. Elections should be free and they should, in the sense of participation, be full. There is much we can do.
We must make improvements. We now have provisions whereby young men and women in the military forces may vote in any part of the world where they are stationed. It is suggested that this should also be true of individuals in the Department of External Affairs stationed outside the country. Why should these civil servants be disfranchised when people in military forces are able to cast a vote? This is an anomaly which can be corrected by the use of an absentee voting system. But this should not only apply to civil servants and military personnel, it should apply to people who are employed by companies such as Brazilian Light and Power, and stationed abroad. If they are still Canadians they should be able to cast a vote.
While I like what the hon. gentleman has suggested-and if a miracle happens and it comes to a vote I will vote for it-I am inclined to think he is moving one step in a direction in which we have to take several giant steps. I hope he will use his great influence within the Liberal caucus-perhaps within a committee of 35-to see whether we can get the Canada Elections Act referred to the appropriate committee. After the last election, when these things are fresh in our minds, we should give appropriate attention
Canada Elections Act
to a thorough consideration of this act and the machinery provided by it.


Grant Deachman: I hope the hon. member
will not mind my reminder that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in support of what I think is a rather innocuous amendment, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and indicate that he has my complete support. One of the difficulties of being the third speaker is that the ideas one wishes to express have usually been expressed before. This makes these expressions redundant and repetitive. Perhaps this is not true of a new member of the house, or at least that is as it has appeared to me since my arrival.
I thought the mover of this bill was going to be guilty of talking it out, but he did give us a very thorough explanation as to why this amendment should be made. He also suggested that because his riding embraces the University of British Columbia this matter was of particular concern to him. He referred to the disfranchisement of students on that campus, where the enrolment is between 17,000 and 18,000.
The hon. member felt there was an anomalous situation in that many of these young persons who were eligible to vote for the first time were deprived of that privilege. I support him, in that some arrangement might be made so that university students away from home may vote at election time, between the date of the issuing of the writ and the election date. They should not be deprived of this right, and something should be done to correct the situation.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra seemed happy to think that most of these young people at the university would vote for him. I know I will be forgiven if I suggest that a great number of them may vote for the N.D.P. candidate. I am sure the hon. member will not criticize me for taking this view.
He mentioned the 1965 election, which was held on November 8, and suggested that a calamity occurred at that time. A great number of university students were disfranchised at that time because they had moved from their homes to the university for the purpose of registration. A similar problem occurred during the last election. On April 23 the writ was issued and a number of students were at university at the time of enumeration. They were deprived of their vote because of the

October 18, 1968
Canada Elections Act
difficulty involved in travelling to remote areas in the provinces on election day.
There is another matter of concern to me in this regard, a problem which involves fishermen. A great number of them have been disfranchised during the years because there is no provision for absentee polls, except in the case of servicemen. There is no transferring of a ballot to take care of the situation which exists when people are required to be away from home on election day. Certainly the advance poll system is a step in the right direction; but in this day of great mobility many people other than clergymen are obliged to move around the country.
We should always be concerned about any move which will increase participation in the election process. My colleague, the hon. member to my right, has just handed me a note which would indicate that because of the provisions of the Canada Elections Act he was deprived of his vote during the last election. I do not suppose he minds too much, because he received a vote of confidence in that neighbouring riding.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Another thing we might look into when we are examining this whole aspect of elections, as was suggested by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) in his very articulate and eloquent manner, is the matter of election expenses. I think we should do a great deal more in this regard. While we are discussing generally the provisions of the elections act, it seems to me-and I certainly agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) on this point-that many of our procedures under the act are anachronistic. One that comes to mind, and there are a number of problems associated with it, is the matter of a poll clerk being required to live in the riding in which he acts on election day. This causes a great deal of difficulty, and the chief electoral officer has refused to issue warrants in order to pay poll clerks who worked on election day but were not resident in the riding.
Once upon a time, when everybody knew everybody else in the rural areas, the matter of identification was important. I think it is irrelevant in an urban riding. I shall not prolong this line of argument, Mr. Speaker, because I see you are getting ready to call me to order. I shall get back to the central point on the bill, because I think it would be in order to proceed with this matter forthwith. It appears to me that there is unanimous, or almost unanimous agreement on both sides of

the house that this small step might be proceeded with, and with the utmost despatch. I close by saying that I hope there will be no further speakers on this bill and that it will be allowed to come to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mark Willson Rose: May I also say that as a new member of parliament, with minimal experience here, there seems to be a great deal of wasted effort associated with private members public bills. While we are considering a review of our parliamentary procedures I think we might also consider the question of the disposition of these bills. Many of them are very interesting and enlightening, but it seems to me that the only prospect for most of them is to be talked out. If we are looking for one way in which to improve our parliament, it might be to suggest some disposition of private members bills other than that of being talked out. I hope the question will be called on this bill and that the house will pass it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the mover of the bill a question. What does this bill do to a college student who is resident at a college or university at the time of enumeration, who completes his session at the college before voting day and in the ordinary course of events would return to his home constituency and would not be at the university or college on election day? What would this bill do, if passed, in such a situation?


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the hon. gentleman's question correctly, we are dealing with the case of a student who has been enumerated, whose term ends and who then returns to his constituency. I think when we reverse the process of what we have been discussing this afternoon, we find that the student has been, under the act, as would be the case following my amendment, registered to vote at the university and not at his own residence elsewhere in the country. In that case he would find himself again disfranchised, I presume. All the amendment does, as I see it, is to provide the simplest way of enfranchising those who were disfranchised by this peculiar situation in 1965, by including them as a class with clergymen and teachers moving to new positions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am very happy to participate in anything to enfranchise students who were disfranchised in 1965, but I am very unhappy to be asked to take part in passing a
October 18, 1968

measure which might disfranchise students at the next election, when they have a vote under the existing arrangements.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I find this is not the first time I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman). I think this is a good bill and I am going to vote for it. However, before I resume my seat-and I shall take only a few minutes, so that the bill may come to a vote-I would like to point out that there are a number of other amendments in the Canada Elections Act which also bear consideration and should be revised in the very near future. Some of these have been mentioned in passing by other speakers, but I believe they bear repetition.
With regard to people who happen to be in hospital, surely in this day and age we should be able to find some means of allowing them to vote in their home riding and not in the riding in which they happen to be in bed. I believe a study of this situation could resolve the matter and an amendment could be incorporated in a revision of the Canada Elections Act.
Then there is the matter of absentee voters, people who will be out of the country and know ahead of time that they will be out of the country at the time of the election. It should be a fairly simple matter today, particularly when we have the advantage of computers and every other known mechanical device, to register these people to enable them to cast their vote before they go away.
I come now to persons-and I am not exactly sure of my ground in this case-on embassy staffs abroad. I know that servicemen abroad are permitted to vote, and so are their wives, but I am not absolutely sure of the status of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I must tell the hon. member that the bill under study deals with the franchise of students. The hon. member must restrict his remarks to this point.


David Walter Groos: Thank you for bringing my attention to that, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking, of course, of students at embassies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Walter Groos: I would also like to mention the question of servicemen, many of whom are also students, I might say, and their wives.
Canada Elections Act
When they return from abroad, the husbands having carried out the duty required of them by their country, they find they are not permitted to vote unless they have been back from abroad for the minimum period of six months. I believe this matter bears looking into. I agree once again with the hon. member for Hillsborough, and I shall not oppose the passage of this bill. I shall vote for it. However, I believe the complete Canada Elections Act is in need of something more than the bandaid repairs to which the hon. member referred, of which this bill is but one example.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan).


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, could I offer the floor to my colleague, who was on his feet before me?


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon because it is not very often that I can support a Liberal bill. I want to congratulate the hon. member who introduced it, and it will certainly receive my support, because I believe it is very important. In what I shall have to say I shall require only a few minutes.
As has been said, this bill is very important not only to the student population but to many other people in this country. We often speak about young people and we want to get them interested in Canadian affairs. We want them to play a more active part in Canadian politics, and yet we prevent them from voting. This is not justice. Students would be a lot more responsible if they were allowed to vote. It is perhaps through lack of interest in Canadian politics, or because they are not allowed to vote in some instances, or maybe because of a lack of understanding that students have turned to other ways of participating, such as demonstrations. It is through voting and through exercising their franchise that students can become more responsible and more interested in Canadian affairs and politics. This is great, so let us allow students to exercise their franchise.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark and Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make but a couple of points. I do not think what I shall say has been underscored by anyone who has taken part in the debate thus far. I shall get

October 18, 1968
Canada Elections Act
directly to my first point, that I wish to support the bill because I think its merit must be obvious to all.
However it seems to me that the main urgency of a bill like this has to do with the fact that it appears to many of us, among whom I wish to be counted, that within a very short time we will be lowering the voting age in Canada to below the present level of 21. If and when we should do this it seems to me that, whereas there are some thousands of people now who are able to vote while they are at university since many go to university at the age of 17 or 18 it is obvious that many thousands more of them are involved. Therefore this bill takes on an even greater urgency and seems to me to be even more important. I think all members of the house will agree that this is a most desirable measure on two counts, the first of which is that we enable as many people to vote as possible, especially the younger people, and second, that if possible we lower the voting age.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), who introduced the bill, referred to the Canada Elections Act as an antique. It seems to me that antiques are something that should be placed in museums and looked at but not handled, used and worked with. AH hon. members know that the whole point of the Canada Elections Act is that it shall serve a useful purpose, not only in the present but in the future. Therefore I am concerned that this bill is a rather small item in what seems to me to be a very large cause. In other words, we should be entering into a rather significant revision of the act rather than altering a small section of it.
The third point I want to make is this, that to be against this bill would make one seem to be against youth, and in a culture such as ours to be against youth is rather like being against motherhood. Everybody is for youth. I will therefore underscore the fact that we must continually do what we can to give all young people in Canada a sense of involvement.
Earlier on in the day reference was made in the house to the very outstanding speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare on October 9 in the city of Hamilton, one that I would urge all hon. members to read if they have not already done so. In it the minister spoke about the sense of isolation, of phoniness and of meaninglessness that is especially common to young people. It seems to me that this is not new, because it was brought out as long ago as in 1951, when

Salinger's book entitled "Catcher in the Rye" came out and caused many lifted eyebrows. The whole point of the book was that a young man by the name of Holden Caulfield perceived the essential phoniness of the society surrounding him. Anything we can do in the parliament of Canada that wiU say to the young people, come and share with us in shaping the destiny of our country, in becoming involved and committed, I think is a good thing.
It is only on rare occasions that I agree with the approach of the government of the province of Alberta. However, I believe there is one useful thing they have done, and that is to establish a department of youth within that province. The second of their aims and objectives reads as follows:
To stimulate interest in youth training for leadership in social, cultural, business and public affairs.
I wish to emphasize particularly the last term "public affairs" because it seems to me to be one of the paramount purposes of parliament, namely to encourage greater interest in public affairs among the young people of Canada. And I think this measure goes a long way toward doing that. This is a small bill and it does not do enough of what needs to be done to the Canada Elections Act, but it is useful and in a sense it honours youth. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member opened a tin of worms when he brought up today the matter of the Canada Elections Act. In the few weeks recently when I was engaged in electioneering I do not think there was anything which came to my attention as frequently as the matter of the Canada Elections Act, which gives the Canadian people the right to vote, to elect their representatives and to choose a form of government.
I think the whole business of people who are in the process of moving from one place to another should receive attention through amendments to the Canada Elections Act. I remember that during the last election quite a few construction workers in my constituency who had moved into the surrounding communities were disfranchised as a result of not being able to get back home in the few hours in which they were relieved from employment that day. Quite a number of people in the maritime areas are at sea during periods of elections. Again I say that if one were to review the Canada Elections Act in detail he
October 18, 1968

would find that people who are hospitalized during elections find great difficulty in voting.
I would not like to make a guess as to the political leanings of students at the University of British Columbia. However, I would say instead that in our Newfoundland and east coast ridings students are very adept at judging the political affairs of the nation, and I would have no reluctance in allowing these people to vote in any riding in which I might be represented.
I would not like to say that the particular amendment to the act which we are considering was precipitated by any selfish motive, because I am quite aware that the hon. member who sponsored the bill is very interested in trying to promote student franchise across the whole dominion. However, I am not quite certain that the sole criterion of residence will in any way be a solution or even a major step on the thousand mile journey referred to by the hon. member. I found that one of the major problems of disfranchised students during the election was with regard to people moving from university back to their places of residence.
As we all remember, in the last election many students found themselves back home on June 25 after having left the university. This was the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and I think this is one of the major points which should receive consideration with regard to any amendment of the act governing the affairs of students. If we were to appoint a committee, it would have to spend a year going into all the numerous ramifications of student voting privileges, and even then we would have difficulty in resolving our problems.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I am sure the minister is very concerned about bringing in changes which will benefit students. My only criticism is that I do not feel all the factors governing student voting have been taken into consideration. For example, if I were introducing such an amendment or trying to change the present elections act to bring it into the twentieth century-right now in a good many respects it is mediaeval-I would like to get the opinion of students across the dominion. I should like to know the feeling of students on some of the amendments they would like to see introduced. I do not believe I would fool anybody if I were to stand here today and try to point out to students the way in which the elections act should be modified in order to
Canada Elections Act
help some of the people in my constituency. I feel therefore that the opinion of students should certainly be sought in trying to bring about the changes we deem necessary.
In view of the interest the hon. member has in student voting, I would recommend that perhaps he begin to move in the direction of seeking the advice of students right across the whole dominion. He could point out the nature of the present Canada Elections Act and ask for recommendations from student bodies. It has been my experience in dealing with student bodies in universities that the young people have a good deal of knowledge about the voting privileges of Canadians. The young people in the universities are quite aware that some of their rights are being trampled upon, and some of the benefits which should be enjoyed by all Canadians are being taken away from them. You must seek the advice of students in order to clarify some of these issues.
My only comment, Mr. Speaker, is that I feel with this particular amendment we are leaning in the direction of greater benefits for students in Canada. My criticism is that I do not feel we are going far enough. I would have been much happier if the amendment had been more general in nature. Right now one can think of points across Canada such as Edmonton, Calgary, the University of British Columbia and many eastern communities in which there are 10,000 or 12,000 university students.
I do not know all the ramifications of this particular amendment, and I should like a bit more investigation to be undertaken. We should initiate some kind of program which would gather a consensus from the thousands of students across Canada as to the changes they feel should be brought about in the Canada Elections Act. If we did so, we would be heading in a much better direction. We feel that this amendment and other general amendments should be referred to a committee so that this matter could be settled. I should like to say this is a step in the right direction, but certainly it is not going to satisfy many of the students I know.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I think it is evident, Mr. Speaker, from certain questions put by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house that there is no unanimity on the subject matter of the bill. I feel it would be useful if the question could be studied further. My suggestion therefore would be that instead of passing second reading of this bill,

October 18, 1968
Canada Elections Act
we should refer it to the standing committee on privileges and elections in which we will, later on, begin consideration of the elections act in general. Perhaps this suggestion in this bill could be considered in connection with certain other suggestions we will be receiving in respect of the elections act.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Will the minister permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes.


Donald MacInnis: I have listened to remarks of hon. members in support of this amendment this afternoon, and they made no mention of being against this particular move.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think the hon. member in back of the hon. gentleman expressed some doubt about it. In addition, I may say the hon. gentleman's leader has a certain hesitation about the bill.


John Howard Lundrigan: It was quite obvious from my remarks I was expressing, not reluctance but support for the hon. member, it was equally obvious that I said this was a good beginning. If the minister checks the record he will find I said it was a good beginning, but will have to be taken further. I am all for making good beginnings.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Nevertheless, I think I am right in saying there is a certain number who would like to refer the subject matter to the committee. I should like to move, therefore:
That Bill No. C-16, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be not now read a second time but that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before this motion carries, and we hope it will, may I ask the President of the Privy Council if he will give an undertaking that he will also be referring to the committee on privileges and elections at this session the elections act itself, and the report of the committee on election expenses?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have already indicated to the hon. gentleman's house leader that the government will be making a statement in that regard. I hope the committee will also give consideration to the not inconsiderable number of bills introduced by other private members of the house, some of which will not have the benefit of debate as this one has.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the President of the Privy Council be big enough also to include in such consideration the electoral boundaries as well, since there are two or three private hills concerned with this matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is a very useful suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hour for the consideration of private members business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps before the house adjourns I should indicate, for the benefit of hon. members, that the business for Monday will be as announced yesterday, namely second reading and committee stage of the bill to amend the Post Office Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: On Monday?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was the order for all next week, I take it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, that is the order for Monday; the farm bills will be dealt with on Tuesday.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 21, 19G8