Harry Cruickshank HARLEY

HARLEY, Harry Cruickshank, M.D.

Personal Data

Halton (Ontario)
Birth Date
June 4, 1926
Deceased Date
September 27, 2014

Parliamentary Career

June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
  Halton (Ontario)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
  Halton (Ontario)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
  Halton (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 19)

June 14, 1966

Mr. Harley:

I shall end shortly, Mr. Chairman. The abstract continues:

One-half of those who took further postdoctorate training in the United States are currently living in the United States, compared to 15 per cent of those who received all their training in Canada.

In other words, if we train these people in Canada they will remain in Canada. This brings me back to the idea of providing facilities for postgraduate training in Canada and providing these people with better wages while they are here.

The fifth point I want to make is that we have been talking a great deal about the provision of federal money for medical research. We are always told in this chamber that health facilities and health care are a provincial matter. Therefore I suggest that the provincial governments give consideration to providing funds for medical research in addition to the funds provided by the federal government.

My sixth point is that I agree with previous speakers that we in Canada should provide more federal and provincial funds for medical research in keeping with the findings of the Woods-Gundy report recently tabled in the house. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for allowing me extra time to conclude my remarks.

Full View Permalink

June 14, 1966

Mr. Harley:

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to participate in this debate. First I want to say a few words about the brain drain that is concerning many people in the country.

Looking at the figures from various departments and from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics we find that 117,000 immigrant professional workers came to Canada between the years 1946 and 1953. Graduate nurses formed the largest proportion, numbering one in every six persons who came to Canada as immigrant professional workers.

I shall relate my figures to four classes of people with whom we are dealing. They can all be classified as health personnel. I shall quote statistics with regard to dentists, laboratory technicians and assistants, graduate nurses, and physicians and surgeons. In the years 1953 to 1963, 420 dentists, 4,428 laboratory technicians and assistants, 15,359 graduate nurses and 5,032 physicians and surgeons came to Canada as immigrants. It is

Health Resources Fund interesting to note that the doctors and dentists usually came from countries other than the United Kingdom or the United States while laboratory technicians and nurses came mostly from the United Kingdom.

Moving to the question of emigration, which concerns people in Canada even more than immigration, we find that of the professional workers leaving Canada one-quarter are graduate nurses. Using the same four groups of people and the same years, 1953 to 1963, we find that 104 dentists, 3,390 laboratory technicians and assistants, 13,963 graduate nurses and 2,630 physicians and surgeons emigrated from Canada. Therefore, out of the total number of professional emigrants from Canada almost 25 per cent were graduate nurses, 6.1 per cent were laboratory technicians, and almost 5 per cent were physicians and surgeons. We see from the figures the gradually increasing numbers of doctors who are emigrating to the United States. In 1953 doctors represented 4 per cent of professional emigrants and in 1963 this figure had risen to 7 per cent.

Comparing the figures of immigration to Canada and emigration from Canada one sees that there was a net outflow from Canada to the United States in all of the above occupations. Therefore Canada has been losing to the United States but fortunately, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Saskatoon, Canada has been gaining back these groups in that more have emigrated from other countries in the world at large. If one takes the net inflow of these occupations to Canada and subtracts the people in these groups who leave this country to go to the United States, it will be seen that in those years Canada has actually gained 316 dentists, 1,038 laboratory technicians, 1,396 graduate nurses and 2,402 physicians and surgeons.

It is interesting to note that the figures show that one out of every five doctors practising now in Canada is a foreign born, post-war immigrant, as is one dentist out of every 20 and one graduate nurse of every eight. Bringing the value of all this education down to dollars and cents, the figures would indicate a value in the neighbourhood of $450 million.

The brain drain is of great concern to the people of Canada and to the government. I can only reiterate what the hon. member for Saskatoon has already said, that without immigrant doctors coming to Canada our medical profession would have been stretched very far and thin.

June 14, 1966

Health Resources Fund

Interestingly enough, the educational level is higher among the people coming to Canada than among those who are leaving. It should also be noted that Canada gains a great deal from Canadians who are studying abroad as more Canadians study abroad than people from abroad study in Canada. This situation, however, is rapidly reaching a balance.

One of the things we must concern ourselves with is why Canadians with professional training emigrate to the United States. Generally speaking, if one delves into the reasons why people wish to emigrate to the United States one finds that the reasons given are, first, the climate, second, larger incomes in the United States and, third, the fact that some immigrants use Canada as a stepping stone to get into the United States because that country will not allow them to come in directly from their own countries.

For the professional groups the reasons for emigrating are somewhat different. The first reason is the better opportunity in the United States, both in terms of salary and the research facilities which are available; second, because of the free flow of skilled people between Canada and the United States it is often easier for those people to move north or south than it is to move east or west and remain in Canada and, third, again there is the question of climate. Unfortunately we do not have very much control over that. The brain drain is very serious and we all hope that the provisions made by the government in the measure before the house will tend to reverse the trend.

I now want to talk about doctors who are trained in Canada. The medical association is greatly concerned with problems related to this matter and a short time ago published two special editions of their journal which were devoted to medical education. I should like to quote an abstract from "Medical Education, Part I", found in the Canadian Medical Association Journal dated April 2, 1966.

Enrolment in the 12 Canadian medical schools in 1965-66 reached a new high of 4,023, an increase of 3.8 per cent over 1964-65. The percentage of women among medical students (11.4 per cent) was close to that for the preceding two years. The decline in the numbers of students from outside Canada continued into the present year; in 1965-66, 9.1 per cent of medical students were non-Canadian. This decline has been primarily in the number of students from the U.S.A. The number of students from commonwealth countries has shown a steady increase over the seven year period under review; in 1965-66 they make up nearly one-half of all nonCanadian students. It was noted that 27 per cent

of overseas students came to Canada under governmental or intergovernmental sponsorship. Of the Canadian students, 95 per cent came from the "home" provinces of the medical schools.

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)

It is interesting to compare standards of training in Canada with those of the United States. It is apparent that one of our needs is a better staffing of medical faculties. A comparison between the student-faculty ratio in Canada and the United States reveals a sharp contrast. In the United States there are 6.6 faculty members for every student while in Canada the ratio is 1 to 2.2. Thus the United States has roughly three times as many fulltime faculty members for every student.

It has been said in various publications that a student taking a medical course should have an I.Q. of between 120 and 125. This would encompass approximately 6 per cent of Canadians. I should like to refer to another interesting statement in the Medical Journal. It is from an article entitled "Canadian Applicants For Medical Schools in Canada, 1965-66". The conclusion reached by the author of the article is that it is erroneous to believe there is a surplus of well qualified Canadian applicants at the present time.

I find his conclusion surprising because I had thought there were more well qualified Canadians wishing to take up medicine than were able to do so in the light of our limited facilities. Approximately 10 per cent of all medical students drop out before graduation. There are now 12 medical schools in Canada and two are in the course of construction, in Sherbrooke and Hamilton. It is estimated that we need 440 new doctors each year in order to keep pace with our population growth. We need another 400 to replace doctors who die, retire or fall ill. This means we must find a total of 840 new doctors each year, and we graduate approximately 850 a year. This number is, therefore, only sufficient to keep pace with events, which is not good enough for a country that boasts of an extremely high standard of medical practice, especially bearing in mind recent developments in technology.

Another difficulty which is becoming apparent concerns the role of the general practitioner. In Canada the general practitioner seems to be disappearing. Some people predict he will eventually disappear completely. General practitioners now account for approximately 40 per cent of the total number of doctors, the remainder being specialists of some kind. However, I am glad to say that

June 14, 1966

Health Resources Fund

general practitioners usually spend more than one year at the present time in postgraduate training. In fact, the average is two years.

This brings me to the special concern felt because of the shortage of doctors in rural areas. Not only are more specialists being trained today but general practitioners are increasingly being drawn to practices in well established urban localities rather than in rural areas as was the case years ago. It was common to find efforts to attract doctors to rural communities. A community would provide rent-free facilities and other benefits of a fringe nature to encourage doctors to come to the area.

In 1960 the ratio of doctors to patients in Canada was approximately one to 904. Some people think this ratio should be one in every 750. The ratio of dentists to patients is roughly one to 3,000 and most dental authorities think it should probably be one to 2,000. There is one nurse for every 260 of the population and most authorities think the proportion should be one to every 200. So there is a need to train more and more people in these fields and we certainly welcome the grants which the federal government intends to make available to help provide training facilities.

It has been estimated, I hope accurately, that with the help of the increased facilities provided by the medical schools the medical student population should double by 1970. This should be the aim, and if it means the spending of even more money by the federal government then I would certainly support it.

One important aspect of this whole subject concerns wages and salaries. In the last Civil Service Commission circular, a copy of which goes to members of parliament, I noticed an advertisement for an elevator maintenance and inspection officer for which post the salary offered was $9,000 a year. But for chemists, bacteriologists and pharmacists the salary offered was approximately $7,000 a year. I am not against paying a reasonable wage to an elevator inspector or maintenance officer but I suggest that a qualified chemist, bacteriologist or pharmacist should certainly command a higher salary than persons in that category. I am sure the hon. member for Simcoe East could give even more surprising examples. When I graduated from the University of Toronto in 1951 the salary paid to junior internes by the Toronto General Hospital-it was not even called a salary; it was called an honorarium-amounted to $100 a year, the price per day of a pack of

cigarettes for a person in a highly responsible position and on call 24 hours a day.

I am glad to say that the situation has altered. Nevertheless, salaries have still not reached a level appropriate to the work these doctors are doing, the hours they must put in and the responsibility they carry. The same is true of nurses and other trained personnel.

Before closing I should like to make six recommendations. I am aware that most of them do not fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government but I put them forward, in the hope that those concerned will take cognizance of them and follow them up in order that sufficient health personnel may be available in Canada when we put a full medical care scheme into effect.

My first suggestion, to which I have already referred, is that higher salaries be paid to doctors and nurses in their training period. Though Canadian hospitals may pay $100 a month, one can pick up journals carrying advertisements for positions in the United States where internes are paid $5,000 and more. If we are to have Canadian doctors we must encourage them to stay in Canada.

[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)

My second suggestion is that refresher courses be made available for general practitioners. More and more general practitioners are taking advantage of such facilities as now exist. In fact, it is now insisted that doctors in general practice should devote a certain amount of time to training each year. I should like to encourage the further training of general practitioners in the practice of medicine before they actually go out into practice, and this again means giving these people a reasonable wage while they are taking this extra training.

The third point I wish to mention is that I notice that in the Hall commission report and in other reports there is reference to dental and nursing aides or assistants. Certainly in the field of dentistry a dental aide could buff teeth and do other jobs that take up so much of a dentist's time, and many of the duties of nursing could be performed by a nursing aide. I would like to see medical technicians trained to do the relatively simple medical tasks that are time consuming for a doctor or a graduate nurse. I speak of such things as vaccination procedures, taking blood pressures and blood samples. These could be done equally well by trained aides as by graduate doctors and nurses.

June 14, 1966

Health Resources Fund

My fourth point is that we should encourage more postgraduate training in medical science. In this connection I would like to read from a Medical Journal abstract under an article headed, "Canadian-Trained Basic Medical Scientists", in the issue of April 9. 1966:

Questionnaire returns from doctoral degree holders revealed that citizenship status at the time of graduation is positively related to migration; migration rates were lowest for Canadian-horn and highest for landed immigrants and foreign students. Geographic mobility during training was also found to be a significant factor which increased the propensity to migrate.

Full View Permalink

June 6, 1966

Further to question No. 994, what are the working classifications of the total number of Canadian employees as shown in column 1 of the answer (a) professional personnel (b) senior administrative staff (c) senior staff level (d) junior staff levels (i.e. clerks, secretaries) ?

Full View Permalink

May 25, 1966

Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton):

Mr. Speaker, I do want to make a few remarks at this time but I shall be brief. I really want to deal with another aspect of the matter which has not been discussed here. I should like to deal with the health point of view rather than the economics of the situation which seem to have taken the time of most members of the

house. I noticed that in the brief presented by the Consumers Association of Canada there is reference to the fact that the main function of such a group would be safeguarding the economic tradition of consumers.

I only have one minute left so I will restrain myself to the discussion of one point, namely, labelling. During the last session of parliament a special committee on food and drugs went into this question, particularly the marking of insecticides, pesticides and drugs. One problem that has cropped up now has been the labelling of foods. We hear a great deal from people who suffer from allergies and who have to be on special diets, such as egg-free diets, gluten-free diets and sugar-free diets for diabetics. A great deal of material is being circulated to the end that such people will receive some assurance that the label on every food product will indicate the content of that product. I believe everyone in this house would agree with that principle.

I am pleased to see that the bakery products business, as the result of a voluntary approach by the food and drug directorate, is now labelling at least 50 per cent of the products now on the market by listing the total ingredients.

Full View Permalink

May 5, 1966

Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate briefly in the debate on the auto agreement because in my constituency of Halton is one of the largest auto manufacturers, the Ford Motor Company of Canada. If we look back to the minister's statement on the introduction of this trade agreement, we will see that the statement said it was a program designed to achieve a substantial expansion in production and employment, and to promote improved competitive efficiency in this important sector of Canadian manufacturing.


Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement

I think everyone in this house will agree that the automobile manufacturing industry is one of the backbones of Canadian industry. This pact will give the Canadian automobile industry free access to the huge United States, or really the huge North American market. What we really are hoping to accomplish in this agreement are three things primarily: first of all, increased production and a larger share of the North American market; second, increased employment in Canada; third, to improve competitive efficiency as reflected in the cost of automobiles to the automobile buyer.

I think, because the program has been in effect since January 1965, we now at this time can decide whether this to date has been a successful program. Under the first heading, increased production, we have, or have plans for, 69 new plants, and 136 plants which are planning expansions. The value of the capital investment in Canada in respect of these new plants to be constructed is $400 million approximately, and for those which will expand their facilities an investment in Canada of capital of more than $335 million.

In the Toronto-Hamilton area, which is relatively well within the reach of my constituency, we have 25 new plants, and 38 which are expanding their facilities, a total of 63 plants with a capital investment of something in the neighbourhood of $75 million. As was mentioned earlier, there is no question but that the production of commercial vehicles in Canada has been rising steadily. As an example, in 1965 our production was up approximately 28 per cent from 1964. Reference already has been made to export and import of cars. Car parts and accessories, both exports and imports, are up. I think it is encouraging to all of us to know that the rate of increase of exports is greater than the rate of increase of imports. We certainly hope those two lines would meet.

[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)

The second factor, increased employment, has truly come about. There were approximately 57,000 people employed in the automobile industries in Canada in 1963; there were 66,000 in 1964 and 77,000 in 1965. I am pleased that approximately 1,700 additional workers have been employed in the automobile industry in the Toronto and Hamilton area of my riding, and that in the entire industry, as the minister mentioned earlier, there are something in the neighbourhood of 10,000 new jobs which have been

[Mr. Harley.l

DEBATES May 5, 1966

created, with a potential addition of 7,000 in the foreseeable future.

Several members have already made reference to the comparative costs of automobiles. We have been pleased to note in the last car price list for 1966 models that there has been a narrowing of the gap between the United States and Canadian prices. We expect and hope that this trend will continue until there is equality in these prices.

It would appear that as a result of the conditions laid down at the time of the introduction of this automobile agreement we have been very successful. The things we hoped would be accomplished by this agreement appear to have been partially accomplished and I am sure that this trend will continue. Let me illustrate this success by reference to certain things which have happened in my riding.

In 1964 the construction of a $25 million truck plant commenced. Recently it was officially opened. An additional shift has been instituted at that plant and at this time 400 trucks per day, through a two-shift program, are being produced. It is interesting to note that this truck plant is designed to produce as many trucks per year as were sold in 1965 by the entire Canadian industry.

This year the Ford Motor Company announced another $13 million program to modify and re-equip a passenger car assembly plant in the Oakville area. As we are all aware, other changes are taking place at Windsor and Talbotville, to which reference will be made by other speakers. These facts reflect the boom which is taking place in this area, with attendant improvements to all sectors of the economy.

The hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) referred to the closure of the purchasing department of the Ford Motor Company at Oakville. I should like to elaborate on that reference and point out that a portion of the purchasing department has remained in Oakville, while part of its operations have moved to Windsor and part to Dearborn, Michigan. It is my understanding this change was contemplated long before the automotive agreement came into effect. While the signing of the agreement may have advanced this move, it was one that was due to take place in any event. As a member of parliament for that area I received only one telephone call in protest of this change. To my knowledge the employees transferred were given equal or better job opportunities. The

May 5. 1966

company did not force these employees to move, but allowed them to remain in Canada at Oakville, if they so desired.

I feel very strongly that this automobile agreement has been advantageous to Canada. Unlike the hon. member who just resumed his seat, I feel the government should consider implementation of similar agreements in respect of other industries, provided safeguards are included to protect Canadian industry. I feel that if the program is successful in one area it should be successful in other areas. I am strongly in favour of this agreement because I think it has been of advantage to the Canadian industry and Canada in general.

Full View Permalink