1957-11-18

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sidney Earle Smith, member for the electoral district of Hastings-Frontenac, introduced by Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker and Hon. Donald M. Fleming.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Argue		McBain
Arsenault		McLeod
Boucher		McMillan
Boulanger		Menard
Bryson		Michaud
Campbell	(Lambton-	Montgomery
Kent)		O'Hurley
Castleden		Olson
Charlton		Pallett
Christian		Peters
Dechene		Phillips
Demers		Proudfoot
Deslieres		Quelch
Doucett		Roberge
Fairfield		Robinson
Forgie		Schneider
Gardiner		Schulz
Gingras		Simpson
Gour		Smith (Battle River-
Grills		Camrose)
Harrison		Smith (Lincoln)
Herridge		Stanton
Howe		Stefura
Huffman		Studer
Jones		Thomas (Middlesex
J orgenson		West)
Kennedy		Thompson
Laflamme		(Northumberland)
Lafontaine		Tucker
Landry		Villeneuve (Glengarry-
Lavigne		Prescott)
Legare Macdonald	(Kings)	White-60.
(Quorum-20)
BANKING AND COMMERCE Messrs:
Christian Crestohl Deslieres Dumas Ellis Fraser Gardiner Henderson Irwin
Johnson (Kindersley) Jones
Ashbourne Bell (Carleton) Benidickson Blackmore Broome
Brown (Essex West)
Cameron
Cannon
Cathers
Chown
Coates
Lambert
Low
Macdonald (Vancouver-
Kingsway)
MacEachen
Macnaughton
MacRae
Marler
Martin (Essex East)
Morris
Morton
Pallett
Pearson
Power
Quelch
Rea
Richardson
Robichaud
Rynard
St. Laurent (Temis-couata)
Sinclair
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Stinson
Thompson
(Northumberland)
Thrasher
Tucker
Villeneuve (Glengarry -Prescott)
White
Winkler-50.
(Quorum-15)
Beaudoin
Crouse
Ellis
Habel
Hansell
Hardie
[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Macquarrie McPhillips Meunier Muir (Lisgar) Robinson Rouleau-12.
(Quorum-7)
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Messrs:
Aitken, Miss Argue Breton Cannon Cardin Coldwell Crestohl Fairfield Garland
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Pratt
Low
MacEachen
Macnaughton
Macquarrie
Martin (Essex East)
McCleave
Nesbitt
Patterson
Pearson
Herridge Holowach Jones Jung
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Kucherepa Lennard
Rea
Richard (Ottawa East) Sinclair
Smith (Calgary South) Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Van Horne White-35.
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Aitken, Miss
Barnett
Baskin
Beech
Blanchette
Brassard
Brown (Essex West)
Byrne
Cauchon
Chown
Deschatelets
Gauthier (Chicoutimi)
Gingues
Haidasz
Irwin
Johnston (Bow River) J orgenson
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
Leduc (Verdun)
MacEachen
Maclnnis
Maloney
Martin (Timmins) Martini
McDonald (Hamilton South)
Mitchell
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria)
Murphy (Westmorland)
Ricard
Richardson
Small
Stanton
Thompson (Edmonton-Strathcona)
Vivian Winch-35.
(Quorum-10)
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
MARINE AND FISHERIES	PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
Anderson
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Barnett
Bourget
Brisson
Broome
Bryce
Cannon
Carter
Crouse
English
Hahn
Haidasz
Hardie
Henderson
Howard
Irwin
Messrs:
Jung
Kirk
Lavigne
MacDonald (Antigonish-Guysborough)
MacEwan
McGrath
Montgomery
Murphy (Lambton West)
Noble
Patterson
Robichaud
Robinson
Schulz
Sinclair
Stuart (Charlotte)
Taylor Thibault-35.
Messrs:
Aiken
Beech
Bourque
Bryson
Byrne
Campbell
Kent)
Carter
Dechene
Deniset
Fraser
Houck
Jung
Leboe
McBain
McGregor
Mcllraith
Meunier
Pallett
Peters
(Lambton- PickersgiU
Richard (Ottawa East)
Robinson
Rowe
Small
Thomas (Wetaskiwin)
Thomas (Middlesex West)
Valois
Vincent
Zaplitny-29.
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
(Quorum-10)
Messrs:

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Baskin
Blackmore
Coates
Dumas
Garland
Gauthier (Nickel Belt)
Hansell
Hardie
Hodgson
Howe
Leboe
Leduc (Gatineau)
Leduc (Verdun)
Lesage
Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway)
MacEachen
MacRae
McBain
McCullough
McGrath
McWilliam
Mitchell
Montgomery
Muir (Lisgar)
Murphy (Lambton West)
Nixon
O'Hurley
Peters
Raymond
Ricard
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Simpson
Smith (Calgary South) Stick
Winch-35.
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Beaudry
Boulanger
Bourget
Breton
Bryce
Byrne
Campbell (Lambton-Kent)
Crestohl
Denis
Doucett
English
Fisher
Habel
Hales
Hardie
Houck
Kirk
Knowles (Norfolk)
Laflamme
Leboe
Lewry
Macdonald (Kings)
MacRae
Malta is
McGee
McGregor
McLeod
McMillan
Milligan
Morris
Morton
Murphy (Lambton West)
Noble
PickersgiU
Proudfoot
Regier
Roberge
Rynard
Smith (Simcoe North) Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Thomas (Wetaskiwin) Thomas (Middlesex West) Thompson (Edmonton-Strathcona)
Thrasher
Tucker
Villeneuve (Glengarry-Prescott)
Wratten
Yuill
Zaplitny-50.
(Quorum-15)
Batten	McCullough
Broome	Mcllraith
Cameron	McMillan
Carter	McPhillips
Cathers	McWilliam
Christian	Milligan
Fairfield	Mitchell
Forgie	Monette
Garland	Morris
Hales	Morton
Hansell	Nicholson
Harrison	Nixon
Henderson	Noble
Houck	Olson
Howard	Patterson
Jorgenson	Proudfoot
Kennedy	Rea
Kirk	Regier
Knowles (Norfolk)	Roberge
Langlois	Schneider
Macdonald (Kings)	Smith (Simcoe North)
Maclnnis	Studer
Macnaughton	Thomas (Middlesex
Mandziuk	West)
Martini	Yuill-50. -
McCleave	!...I.* l [DOT]
(Quorum-15)
RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES Messrs:
Barbes		Harrison
Batten		Herridge
Begin		Holowach
Bonnier		Howe
Blanchette		Johnston (Bow River)
Brassard		Kennedy
Broome		Lafontaine
Bryson		Lavigne
Byrne		Leboe
Campbell	(The	Lewry
Battlefords)		MacDonald (Antigonish-
Chevrier		Guysborough)
Crouse		Marler
Doucett		Martini
Dupuis		McBain
Ellis		McGrath
English		Mclvor
Fisher		McLeod
Forgie		McPhillips
Fraser		Muir (Cape Breton North
Gauthier	(Lake St.	and Victoria)
John)		Murphy (Westmorland)
Gauthier	(Nickel Belt)	Murphy (Lambton West)Gauthier	(Chicoutimi)	NixonGrills	O'Hurley
[Stage Direction]
Olson
Phillips
Rea
Rouleau
Small
Smith (Calgary South) Smith (Simcoe North)
Smith (Battle River-
Camrose)
Stanton
Stuart (Charlotte) Taylor
Villeneuve (Roberval)
Vincent
Wratten-60.
(Quorum-20)
Export Credits Insurance Act
Stefura, Thomas (Wetaskiwin), Valois, and Walker, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of this house as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.
Motion agreed to.
STANDING ORDERS Messrs:

[Stage Direction]
Aitken, Miss
Beaudoin
Denis
Dupuis
Hahn
Haidasz
Howard
Irwin
Johnson (Kindersley)
Loiselle
Michaud
Monette
Rochefort
Smith (Simcoe North) Stinson
Thompson (Northumberland)
Van Horne
Villeneuve (Glengarry-Prescott)
Vivian Winkler-20.
(Quorum-8)

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: 


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house has appointed Messrs. Best, Campbell (The Battlefords), Caron, Deslieres, Gour, Grills, Habel, Hales, Jorgenson, Kucherepa, McBain, McDonald (Hamilton South), McGee, McGregor, Mclvor, McWilliam, Milligan, Robichaud, Smith (Battle River-Camrose), Stewart (Winnipeg North), Stick, Studer, Villeneuve (Roberval), and Yuill, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the parliamentary restaurant, so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of this house as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.
That the standing committees of this house be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron) moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the following members, namely:	Messrs.
Barnett, Batten, Best, Blackmore, Boivin, Bonnier, Bryce, Campbell (Lambton-Kent), Castleden, Cathers, Coates, Dechene, Doucett, English, Gauthier (Nickel Belt), Gingras, Gour, Hales, Hansell, Harrison, Knowles (Norfolk), Kucherepa, LaCroix, Landry, Langlois, Lennard, L'Heureux, Loiselle, MacEwan, Maclnnes, Maltais, Martin (Timmins), McGee, Mclvor, McWilliam, Menard, Michaud, Montgomery, Muir (Lisgar), Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria), Patterson, Phillips, Raymond, Regier, Rochefort, Rowe, Rynard, Schneider, Smith (Simcoe North), Thibault, Thomas (Middlesex West), Thompson (Edmonton-Strathcona), Wratten and Yuill, will act as members on the part of this house on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.
Motion agreed to.
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron) moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house has appointed Miss Aitken and Messrs. Anderson, Barbes, Beech, Begin, Best, Blackmore, Bourque, Castleden, Cathers, Cold-well, Deniset, Dinsdale, English, Eudes, Fisher. Habel, Henderson, Houck, Howe, Kirk, LaCroix, Lavigne, Leboe, Leduc (Gatineau), Lennard, MacEwan, Macquarrie, McGrath, Mcllraith, Mandziuk, Nicholson, Nixon, Pickersgill, Ratelle, Robichaud, Rowe, Simpson, Small, Smith (Calgary South), 96698-78J
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that Her Majesty The Queen has been graciously pleased to approve the continuance in office of Right Hon. Vincent Massey, C.H., as Governor General of Canada for a further and additional period of one year from the spring of 1958. This extension of the Governor General's term constitutes a recognition of the outstanding manner in which Mr. Massey has discharged the high responsibilities of the office, with which expression I am sure the Canadian people will be in agreement.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act to increase from one hundred million dollars to two hundred million dollars the total liability that the corporation may have outstanding at any time under contracts of insurance which it is empowered to enter into under section 21 of this said act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS	public building, plessisville, que.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Campbell (The Baiilefords):
For a return showing the names of (a) all persons appointed as P.F.A.A. inspectors, since September 1, 1957,	(b) all former P.F.A.A. inspectors re-employed since September 1, 1957, in the constituency of The Battlefords.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 14-Mr. Nicholson:
For a return showing the names and addresses of all persons residing in the Mackenzie federal constituency employed by the Prairie Farm Assistance Act division of the Department of Agriculture: (a) January 1 to June 10, 1957; (b) June 10, 1957, to date.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and any provincial governments, persons, companies and organizations, since June 10,	1957, relating to the price and volume of
natural gas which may be exported to the United States.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this is acceptable, subject to the usual reservation concerning the consent of the provincial government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Benidickson:
For a copy of all correspondence between any association, person and company and members of the government and/or Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, from January 1, 1957, relating to requests for opportunities to submit tenders for construction work on the publicly financed section of the natural gas pipe line east of the lakehead.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Deniset:
For a copy of all correspondence since 21st June, 1957, between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport or other members of the government and the premier of Manitoba regarding air traffic rights at Winnipeg for carriers other than Trans-Canada Air Lines.
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, having obtained the
permission of the premier of Manitoba to the tabling of this correspondence, I have no objection to it being carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Motion No. 23-Mr. Lafontaine:
For a copy of all correspondence and telegrams exchanged with the Department of Public Works since July 3 last, concerning the proposed construction of a public building at Plessisville, Quebec, for which tenders were called and the contract was not awarded.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 26-Mr. Coldwell:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents received or sent since June 10, 1957, by the Minister of Public Works or any other minister or any official of the Department of Public Works or other government departments, concerning the dismissal of Ambrose Truman and Charles Kratzmeir from employ in the Brantford post office.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to this motion, subject to the usual reservation in the case of documents passing within a department or between departments.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion subject to the reservation stated by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 27-Mr. McCullough:
For a return showing the names of (a) all persons recommended for P.F.A.A. inspectors since August 1,	1957, in the constituency of Moose
Mountain; (b) persons submitting recommendations of persons for appointment as P.F.A.A. inspectors since August 1, 1957, in the constituency of Moose Mountain; (c) P.F.A.A. inspectors appointed since August 1, 1957, in Moose Mountain constituency, and (d) payments made to all P.F.A.A. inspectors in Moose Mountain constituency since August 1, 1957.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 28-Mr. Chevrier:
For a return showing the names of the individual owners expropriated by the St. Lawrence seaway authority under the terms of its statute together with a short description of the property expropriated, the amount of land taken and the compensation (including land, improvements, damages and of whatever other category it be) paid in such individual cases by the authority in (a) the Lachine section of the St. Lawrence; (i) as to Indian lands; (ii) as to other than Indian lands; (b) at Iroquois Point both in the town of Iroquois and in the township of Matilda, county of Dundas, in the international section of the St. Lawrence river.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the hon. member about this motion and my understanding is that he agrees to having the reference to Indian lands deleted from the motion. On that basis it is acceptable.


Mr. Chevrier:: That is acceptable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have consent of the house to amend his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion as amended agreed to.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Chevrier:
For a return showing the names of the individual owners expropriated by the Department of Transport together with a short description of the property expropriated, the amount of land taken and the compensation (including land, improvements, damages and of whatever other category it be) paid in such individual cases by the department in the city of Cornwall between the Queen's highway No. 2 and the Cornwall canal running north and south, and the international bridge and the nine mile road running east and west, in the said city.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 30-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged since June 21, 1957, between the government of Canada and any member or official thereof, on the one hand, and the government of Ontario and any member or official thereof, on the other, respecting any aspect of the reception, care, maintenance and settlement of Hungarian refugees.
Mr. Hamilton, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable subject to the usual reservation in dealing with exchanges with a provincial government.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the reservation stated by the parliamentary assistant?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 31-Mr. Mcllraiih:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Prime Minister or any minister of the crown and the city of Ottawa, since June 10, 1957, concerning the proposed new Bronson avenue bridge over the Rideau canal.
Motion agreed to.
Inquiries of the Ministry


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a question. Has the policy of the government with reference to the transfer of registry of the Canadian National Steamships to Trinidad been altered, and will the minister tell the house why the aircraft carrying Jamaican crews to Montreal were instructed to turn back?


George Harris Hees: In reply to the first part of the hon. member's question, I am not aware of any change of policy in this regard by the management of Canadian National Steamships. In answer to the second part of the question, the decision to turn back was one of the management of Canadian National Steamships.
lLater:l


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the two Trans-Canada Air Lines planes were chartered at rather high cost to the taxpayer for the transport of seamen from Trinidad to Canada, apparently to take over Canadian National steamships, could the minister give the house some information as to why this decision was made to turn back the flights?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the hon. member for Laurier, this decision was one taken by the management of Canadian National Steamships. If the hon. member wishes to ask the management of Canadian National Steamships what thinking led them to make this decision which they have taken, I would suggest he put this question to the management of that company when they appear before the special committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. This is to the government and not to the company. What labour organizations have protested to the government since the Minister of Transport announced his intention of permitting the crown company to transfer flag registry of these ships a week ago today?


George Harris Hees: The only labour organization of which I know that made a protest has been Mr. Hal Banks in person, who did so over television last Thursday night.
1224	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I would like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Does the minister think, with the use of public funds put into the hands of Canadian National Steamships, they have the right to make a decision while a plane is in mid-air or to reverse a decision without consultation with the Minister of Transport?


George Harris Hees: The management of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships is entrusted to the management of that company, and I feel sure the hon. member will have ample opportunity to question the actions of that company when the officials appear before the committee I mentioned a few moments ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Was the minister advised in any way that these planes were going to be used for the purpose of bringing in strikebreakers from Trinidad?


An hon. Member:: Who knows they were?


George Harris Hees: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. [Later:]


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to pursue unduly the matter of steamships, Mr. Speaker, but in answer to the first question I asked in connection with the alteration of government policy, the minister said there had been no change in that policy, and I had understood from his statement some time ago that the government had approved of the transfer of registry.
My question now is, am I to infer from his answer that Canadian National Steamships will still pursue its policy of changing the registry of these ships from Canada to Trinidad?


George Harris Hees: As I answered the hon. member earlier, I have no information on any plan to change the plans announced last week by the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships.


Lionel Chevrier: Your statement says it was approved by the government.


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I have given a very clear answer.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether Canadian National Steamships hired Trans-Canada Air Lines planes, or whether it was the new owners of the steamships?


George Harris Hees: It was Canadian National
Steamships.


Hon. James Sinclair (Coast-Capilano):: May
I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, based on his answer to the hon. member for Kootenay East suggesting that he should raise this question of the Canadian National Steamships in the special committee on railways and canals. How can the hon. member do this if the minister has not yet made up his mind whether or not a committee is going to sit?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I said "when it does sit".



PIPE LINES


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What steps does the government propose to take to prevent tenders for the trans-Canada pipe line construction from being called from a selected list, it is alleged, of 12 companies, eight of whom are United States companies, two subsidiaries of United States companies, and two presumably Canadian, when the financing is provided by the people of Canada?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. Tenders for the northern Ontario section of the all-Canadian natural gas pipe line are called by the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation and not by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines.
Tenders were invited from 11 companies, being all the companies at present operating in Canada who were deemed capable of undertaking pipe-line construction of the type required for the northern Ontario section. The area is divided into five sections, referred to by letters of the alphabet and known as spreads. Five contracts have been awarded. For spread V the contractor is Nelen Limited and Associates; for spread W, Morrison-Shivers Limited; for spread X, Majestic Contractors Limited; for spread Y, River Construction Corporation Limited; and for spread Z, Mannix Company Limited.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a supplementary question. Where are the head offices of these companies, or of any company of which any of them may be subsidiaries? May I say that this morning I sent the minister part of an article from the construction association bulletin in which it is alleged that there are several Canadian companies that can do this work equally well.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not had an opportunity of reading that article, but I see it is here. My understanding is that of the five I have named, the Mannix Company Limited is virtually an all-Canadian company. The others originated in the United States but have offices established in Canada.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is there a condition in the contract that Canadian labour is to be hired, and that the importation of labour from the United States must be restricted to those who have skills which are not available in Canada?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not a sample of
the contract in front of me, but I believe that to be the case. From information supplied to me, and from observations on the scene of the work which I made last September, I am aware that most of the labour on the pipe-line construction in the northern Ontario section is Canadian. It is only in certain specialized lines that skilled personnel from the United States are required.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask a supplementary question. Having in mind the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce answered verbally a question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, could I assume it is in effect an answer to question No. 138 on the order paper concerning a similar matter, which has been there for some time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That answer was ready
for tabling last Wednesday, but we did not reach the questions. I have it ready for tabling today.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Before doing so, perhaps I may be permitted to extend to him my congratulations and good wishes as he enters the House of Commons and takes on a portfolio which, perhaps I am in as good a position as anyone to know, offers him new and enlarged opportunities to continue to serve the country, as he has already done with such distinction in war and in peace.
My question is whether the hon. gentleman can tell the house if the decision of the United States and the United Kingdom governments to send arms to Tunisia was discussed in the North Atlantic council before that decision was made public.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the
first place I desire to express to the hon. member for Algoma East my deep appreciation of, and gratitude for, his kind words of welcome. I wish through you, sir, to express to him the hope that I shall be a worthy member of this house, and indeed I declare my intention to do my best to live up to its high traditions.
I am indeed grateful, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Algoma East for sending to me a copy of this question which, in effect, is: was there or was there not consultation within the NATO council before the United Kingdom or the United States took the action of sending arms to Tunisia. I have ascertained that the answer is no.


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to my friend and my enemy the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that the minister's predecessor banned his own department's blue book entitled "Pension Plans for Income Tax Deductibility", first edition, as unfit literature for certain income taxpayers to read, and in view of the promise of the former minister that another edition of this booklet would be issued after further study of the objectionable paragraphs by his officials, would the minister inform the house when the second and expurgated edition of this blue book in question may be available for general use?


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman realizes the attention which I pay to literature which requires censorship, and I presume that is why he has referred to this volume as an expurgated one. If it were expurgated I have not had the time to give the blue book the attention which I know the hon. member would expect me to give, but I have known that such a volume, expurgated or otherwise, has been prepared in draft form, is presently being considered by the officers of the department, will shortly be submitted to me and thereafter I will be able to answer definitely the question which has been put to me by my charming and gracious friend.

Inquiries of the Ministry
NEWFOUNDLAND	NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. When will the Prime Minister announce the appointment of a lieutenant governor for the province of Newfoundland?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be the day after tomorrow.


POSTAL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can the Postmaster General promise any improvement in the mail service at Grand Rapids, Manitoba, where they claim they only get mail every two months?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question was somewhat more rapid in reaching me -I got it about an hour ago. The matter is now being looked into and every effort will be made, if the facts are as stated, to improve the situation.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of the report that this morning in the Supreme Court of Canada the right of Mr. Justice Locke to sit on a certain case was challenged, and that Mr. Locke withdrew from the case? Has the minister any comment to make on what is reported to have happened, and could he say whether this is a precedent which might be followed in other courts in the future?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge whatsoever of what the hon. gentleman has in mind. I have not heard any report in that connection; therefore I am not in a position to give any answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he does learn that the report is correct, will he make a statement on the matter tomorrow?



REPORTED ABANDONMENT OF PROPOSED GREEN BELT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister based on a report which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on November 16. I may say I have not given him notice of this question, and if he wishes to let the question stand as notice I will be quite content.
My question is whether or not the government has decided to abandon plans for the proposed green belt around the national capital, or whether the government has made any changes in policy affecting the green belt and, if so, what are those changes?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is in the negative.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INDIAN AFFAIRS    INQUIRY AS TO PLACING ON AGENDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Are there any arrangements to place the matter of Indian affairs and dominion-provincial co-operation relating thereto on the agenda for the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker.
[Later:l


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question supplementary to the question I asked earlier of the Prime Minister about Indian affairs. Would the Prime Minister or the government look with favour on a request, if it were made, to place this matter of Indian affairs on the agenda of the dominion-provincial conference?


Mr. Speaker:: The house does not concern itself with purely hypothetical questions, and I think this question comes in that category.



INQUIRY AS TO LETTER FROM PREMIER OF MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister if he has received a letter from the premier of Manitoba, which has been referred to in the press, regarding

the agenda of the federal-provincial conference and, if so, would he be willing to table the letter?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries. I have no recollection at the moment of such a letter, but if there is one it will be tabled.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BRITISH COLUMBIA    INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister of which I sent him notice this morning. In view of the pledge to extend the trans-Canada highway to northern Vancouver island, made by the Progressive Conservative candidate in Comox-Alberni during the last election campaign, will the federal government proceed with the construction of this highway? Or will the Prime Minister propose this extension at the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the trans-Canada highway comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works, so perhaps I should answer this question. As the hon. member knows, this highway is being constructed as a joint venture between the federal government and the provincial governments. Any change in the terms of the agreements with the respective provinces would have to be made with the consent of both parties. As yet there has been no change made in the agreement with the province of British Columbia along the lines suggested by the hon. member.



REPORTED IMPORTATION OF UNITED STATES CULLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture of which I have given him notice. Has the Minister of Agriculture anything further to report to the house relative to the importation and sale of cull apples from the United States in Canada, and the steps being taken by his department to promote the sale of Canadian apples in Canada?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The fruit, vegetables and honey
1227
Inquiries of the Ministry regulations made under the authority of the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act makes the following provision with respect to apples being imported into Canada:
Apples shall not be below the requirements of Canada commercial or "C" grade.
The regulations further provide:
Importations from the United States of America may be considered in compliance with the foregoing if the accompanying United States government inspection certificate as endorsed by the United States inspector "meets Canadian import requirements" as follows: (a) apples shall meet the requirements of one or other of the following grades, namely, United States extra fancy, United States fancy, United States No. 1 or United States No. 1 cookers, of 21 inches minimum diameter or 234 box count size, and additionally the condition requirements of "Standards for Export" as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture-
Apples that meet the requirements for Canada commercial or "C" grade or comparable United States grade are not considered or classified as culls. Should it be found that after having entered Canada apples from the United States are below the certified or declared grade the importer or consignee is required to regrade the apples according to Canadian standards.
Recently two shipments of imported apples-and some apples given to me by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) came from one of these shipments-have been found to be below grade and have been placed under detention for regrading, but the inspection of imported apples from the United States indicates that the proportion of below grade apples is very small.
During the five crop years, July 1, 1952 to June 30, 1957, importations of United States apples into Canada averaged 744,000 bushels, while during the same period Canada exported to the United States an average of 1,493,000 bushels.


An hon. Member:: Good Liberal policy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Department of Agriculture is actively engaged in many ways in promoting the sale of all agricultural products, with particular emphasis on those which may be in surplus supply.
The 1957 Canadian apple crop is presently estimated at 13.4 million bushels, slightly lower than the 1950-1954 average of 13.6 million bushels. A sterling allocation of a dollar equivalent of approximately $3J million has been provided for importations of North American apples into the United Kingdom, and it is anticipated that a satisfactory volume of Canadian apples will be exported under this allocation. In addition, a significant volume of Canadian apples is being exported to markets in western Europe. Exports to the United States may be expected to be in the

Inquiries of the Ministry neighbourhood of 1J million bushels. It would appear that there should not be any difficulty in disposing of this year's crop at relatively satisfactory prices.



REPORTED USE OF ADDITIONAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say whether he was announcing government policy when, according to a report of a statement he made in Winnipeg, he said that the $100 million to be voted by parliament as additional money for the Export Credits Insurance Act will be used at least to some extent to finance credit sales of wheat; and was the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources also stating government policy when, according to a press report, he said the availability of this money should result in credit being extended for the sale of 50 million bushels of wheat in 1958?


William Moore Benidickson: An extension of good Liberal policy.


Mr. Fleming:: There is no such thing as good Liberal policy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two press reports here which do not seem to coincide with the one which the hon. member has mentioned. I am therefore at a loss to answer his question; but the Export Credits Insurance Act has been used for some considerable time as an assistance to exporters who enter into trading arrangements concerning the sale of our wheat overseas.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since the question of the press report has been raised, I wonder if I may refer, for the minister's benefit, to the issue of the Montreal Gazette of this morning, page 2, in which is stated, in a Canadian Press message from Winnipeg dated November 17:
Mr. Churchill said Canada may come into sharper competition with the United States in the field of grain sales on credit as a result of action now being taken in parliament.
The article goes on to say:
Mr. Churchill said the change will give the crown corporation more room to insure exporters against losses and may bring more Canadian action in the trend toward credit deals in wheat.
Was this statement made by the minister?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have now discovered the press report to which the hon. member refers, and I notice that the second


paragraph is in quotation marks as a statement of mine. The other statements are not in quotation marks, so I think the hon. member can hardly attribute them to me; they are an expression of opinion on the part of the reporter.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I may ask a supplementary question. Has the government any policy for the extension of credit sales of wheat to match the new policy announced, according to the press this morning, by the United States Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Benson, who is asking congress for another billion dollars for its surplus disposal program?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member wishes to know if we have any policy with regard to extending our credit sales of wheat. The answer is yes, and I have stated that in the house on other occasions. I do not know what is so surprising with regard to that particular inquiry at the present time.


Major James William Coldwell: and when the minister receives a report from the trade commissioner at Hong Kong with regard to the latter's recent visit to China, will he also say whether or not credits will be extended to China if China requires them in order to buy Canadian wheat in 1958?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give the house a report when I receive one from the trade commissioner.



CANADIAN SURPLUS DISPOSAL PROGRAM- REQUEST FOR STATEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jacob Schulz (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the United States just announced their fourth surplus disposal agreement with Pakistan amounting to $53 million, which brings the total of such agreements between the two countries to $186 million, would the minister be prepared to make a statement to the house at this time as to what our government is doing with regard to disposing of our surplus agricultural products?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Springfield has referred to the United States disposal program as it relates to Pakistan. I am not at all sure whether that is an outright gift or a long-term arrangement or what it is, but only recently it was announced here in this house that we have made a gift of wheat to Pakistan which is very acceptable to that country.


Major James William Coldwell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the wheat proposal a gift or was it part of the Colombo plan?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was under the Colombo plan, actually, as a gift.


Major James William Coldwell: As a gift?


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it a gift or is it something arranged to create counterpart funds?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Counterpart funds-they
might use them when they wish to. Insofar as Canada is concerned it was a gift under the Colombo plan.


Major James William Coldwell: It was part of the Colombo plan; that is the whole thing.
[Later:!


Jacob Schulz: Again I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure that he got my question last time. I was not particularly interested in the kind of deals he made with Pakistan, but with what this government is doing with regard to disposing of surplus wheat in general.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the hon. member will sit down I will answer. The hon. member wants to know what the government is doing with regard to disposal of our surplus wheat in general.


Hazen Robert Argue: We have been trying to find out for months.


Mr. Marler:: You won't know any more after this.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I regret that I did not have the opportunity to make the speech I had prepared to deliver at the second reading stage of the cash advances bill; otherwise the hon. member would have had full information. But the most energetic steps are being taken to dispose of our surplus wheat. The wheat board representatives spent about six weeks in the United Kingdom and in Europe in an endeavour to promote sales of our wheat, and I was there for a part of that time with them.


An hon. Member:: They did that last year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think substantial results will come from that. Inquiries are being received from various countries in Europe and elsewhere with regard to the purchase of Canadian wheat, and I see no reason to doubt that we may reach an export total of 300 million bushels this year. If you add that to the home consumption of approximately 150 million to 160 million bushels of wheat, and then subtract from that total the production for this year, you will And 96G98-791
Inquiries of the Ministry that we should dispose of 100 million bushels of the surplus that was handed over to us when we took office on June 21.


Mr. Tucker:: Because of a short crop; that is all.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether any further negotiations are taking place between Canada and India for the supplying of additional quantities of wheat to that country because of the very widespread and disastrous famine conditions there?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the difficulties that India is facing with regard to feeding her population. I do not think any questions should be asked, or answers expected, with regard to negotiations that may be going on at this moment with various countries of the world, because India is not the only country that is-affected by a shortage of crops.
I assure the hon. member that we are just as anxious as he is with regard to assisting any country in need.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: May I ask a
supplementary question. Is the government intending to go beyond the normal channels of trade in order to compete with the United States of America in the disposal of farm surpluses?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wish the hon. gentleman would explain what he means by "going beyond the normal channels of trade".


Major James William Coldwell: Accepting sterling.


Victor Quelch: The United States of America is using the method of barter and also the method of accepting foreign currency, and these methods are beyond the normal channels of trade.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Canadian wheat board has been accepting convertible sterling for the sale of wheat. The wheat board has not proposed any barter deals, nor has it suggested accepting local currencies that are not convertible into dollars.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Strange as it may seem, it is on wheat.
In view of the television news service and press releases that on the return from a visit to China of ten days our trade commissioner reports that there is a strong possibility of sales of wheat to China next year, has the minister any additional information that he can give on that possibility?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think this question, or one similar to it, was asked earlier today, and I said that when I receive

Inquiries of the Ministry the report of the trade commissioner who has just recently returned from China I will be very pleased to apprize the house of the facts.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister has been asked a number of questions on wheat. I wonder whether he would be prepared to have that very good speech that he could not deliver some little time ago mimeographed and distributed to the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am continually flattered by the remarks of my hon. friend on my speeches. I just recently gave another one in Regina, my hon. friend's home town, which was very well received, and he is welcome to all my speeches.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister should publish a book.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour or the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or possibly both, whether in view of the fact that many unemployed workers have exhausted their benefits unde'' the Unemployment Insurance Act, there is some reason for expecting that the province of Ontario is likely to accept the federal government's proposal for assistance to the unemployed in these circumstances under the public assistance act?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to give a categorical answer to the hon. member at this moment. I do not know what the intentions of the province are or whether it will accept the present formula.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the minister will permit a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: May I say it occurs to me that the question which the hon. member for Essex East has asked is not strictly in order, because it asks about the likely action of a government for which this ministry has no responsibility. I would ask the hon. member not to pursue this line of questioning in his supplementary question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my question was based upon a reply which was given to me in writing some days ago as to the stage of negotiations reached between the two governments in this matter, and it was predicated upon the existence of correspondence between the government of Ontario and the federal government.

As the Minister of Labour knows, many people have exhausted their benefits-


An hon. Member:: Speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the Minister of Labour would be good enough to take this very important question into consideration, because there are many people getting federal assistance, and I should appreciate it if he could give a reply tomorrow or later this week.



STRIKE OF RIVER PILOTS, KINGSTON MARINE DISTRICT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Transport a question. Is the minister aware that three foreign ships have rammed the locks of the seaway at Iroquois in the Montreal-Kingston pilotage area because according to officers- I take it of his department-they did not have pilots and caused considerable damage to the canal property as well as to themselves? Will he say whether there is any change in the negotiations between the officials of the Department of Transport and the pilots themselves? I will be glad to send this clipping over to him.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any change in the negotiations between our officials and the pilots. I was not aware that any ships had rammed this lock. I will look into it and give my hon. friend an answer tomorrow.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister been advised that on the 19th of this month the directors of the Howe Sound Company are meeting in New York to consider whether or not to close the mine at Britannia? Has the Prime Minister been advised of representations of the union, and the view that all
B.C. members in this house share? If so, is it possible for the Prime Minister to advise us at this time as to whether any action is being taken by this government to keep the mine at Britannia in operation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first two questions are concerned, I have not that information; but I know the situation generally that prevails at the Britannia mine, and in order to secure certain information and also

ascertain what, if anything, can be done, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) is presently in British Columbia.



NEW WESTMINSTER, B.C.    LAY-OFF OF SHIFT ON DREDGE NO. 322

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister aware that the Department of Public Works dredge No. 322 is laying off one full shift of crew members, effective November 30, in the New Westminster region? Would the minister indicate what is the purpose of the shut-down?


Howard Charles Green: May I take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: May I ask the Minister of Transport whether it is the intention of the government to set up a special committee on railways and shipping owned and operated by the government at the present session of parliament?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will have to confer with my colleague, the leader of the house, on that matter, and answer as soon as I can.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. May I ask the minister whether his vision is good enough to see the banner headline of this issue of the Winnipeg Tribune of June 26, which reads: "Fall Budget to Slash Taxes"? I wonder, also, if his vision is good enough to see the smiling picture of himself in the left hand corner.


James Sinclair: If the minister's vision is not good enough to see the paper held by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), he can look this way; this is the same one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Based on this press report my question to the minister is this. In view of the definite statement outside the house that there would
Inquiries of the Ministry be a budget at this session to slash taxes, can the minister not now give a definite statement inside the house as to whether or not this action will be carried through?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, to the first question the answer is no, to the second question the answer is no, and to the third question the answer is that that information will be communicated to the house at the appropriate time.


James Sinclair: He is learning.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if the minister's answer to the first question about his vision is "no", perhaps he had better see an eye doctor.


William Moore Benidickson: Smile, like in the picture.



ON-SITE STORAGE ERECTED BY FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that on-site storage for wheat owned by elevator companies and by individual businessmen has currently been approved by the wheat board, would the minister say whether an individual farmer or a group of farmers who are prepared to erect on-site storage of an acceptable standard would be given the same consideration?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question, the answer to which is as follows. The board of grain commissioners will only accept applications for on-site storage from licencees of the board. Such licencees must have adequate equipment, such as scales, to receive grain from producers and to issue the necessary documents. In other words, such on-site storage is regarded as an annex to the elevator licensed to receive grain at that delivery point.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to the royal commission on energy. Last Thursday I asked him if he could say when the first sittings of the commission were likely to be

Inquiries of the Ministry undertaken, at which time the Prime Minister replied, as reported at page 1106 of Hansard of November 14:
I will try and have that information for the hon. gentleman at the next session.
I am not sure whether or not he meant the next session, but could the hon. gentleman let us have the information today?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will try to have that information at an early date.


James Sinclair: That might be the next session, too.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege for two reasons. On Friday a report appeared in newspapers across Canada commenting on the small number of members in the house; that is my first reason for raising the question of privilege. The other reason is that I am convinced that every member of parliament will either be in his seat or where duty calls him. I rise on a question of privilege at this time to state that one reason some hon. members were absent is explained by an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of November 15, which says that 20 M.P.'s from Canada are now abroad and, Mr. Speaker, you would admit that even a member of parliament cannot be in two places at the same time.


James Sinclair: Ottawa and Toronto.


Mr. McCleave:: You've got 70 members missing today.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Ashbourne) asked me the following question:
Will the minister please look into the matter of delays occasioned to vessels loading coal at North Sydney for Newfoundland, and see if these loadings can be expedited?
The answer is as follows. Due to a wildcat strike and the 'flu epidemic there was a drastic cut in production during the past month in the North Sydney mines, causing
[Mr. Marler.l
delays in loading schooners for Newfoundland and larger carriers to St. Pierre and Miquelon. A check last night revealed there were schooners capable of carrying 3,500 tons of coal waiting in or near the port loading facilities at North Sydney.
A meeting was held this morning in Sydney attended by Mr. MacDonald, recently appointed executive vice-president of Dosco, Mr. Harold Gordon, vice president and general manager, Dominion Coal Company, Neil McLellan, chief of transportation, Dominion Coal, Captain J. L. Gullage, expeditor for Newfoundland government and schooner operators, the mayor of North Sydney and some members of the board of trade, North Sydney.
The situation was thoroughly studied and discussed, with the result that another meeting will be held this afternoon or tomorrow morning between Mr. McLellan, his operating staff and Captain Gullage and the committee of schooner operators to work out shipping schedules which are aimed at bringing shipping time back to normal by or before the end of this month.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Would the minister care to comment on the reported statement in this morning's press by the deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources that expenditures of $85 million for railway and development roads in the Great Slave and Great Bear lake areas are essential for development? Does this important statement constitute government policy for the expenditure of what is termed a "trifling amount" relative to the natural wealth to be exploited in this region?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the hon. member has given me notice of this question. Unfortunately, I received it just as I was coming into the house; therefore I shall take it as notice. However, I would point out to him what I think he knows, that announcements of government policy are made only by members of the government.



WAR DEAD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, of which I have not given him notice. If it requires it, perhaps he will take this as notice. Has the Prime Minister received, as most members of the House of Commons have, a letter from the mothers of war dead, asking consideration by the government of a financial contribution to aid in the pilgrimage of the mothers of war dead to graves overseas; and is any consideration being given to this request?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of such a request but, as the hon. member has said, it can be taken as notice and I will have the matter looked into.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of supply.


Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):: Does the Minister of Finance not care to make a statement at this moment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: From the supplementaries we have an indication of the additions to the original estimates that the minister wishes to have considered by the house, but he did give us some indication that there were in the other estimates items that he was not going to ask the house to give favourable consideration to, and there was the suggestion that perhaps he might have a list of those items prepared. It would certainly be a convenience, and it would probably make for a more expeditious consideration of the estimates, if we could have that information, if it were convenient for the Minister of Finance to have them tabulated so we could see what the general effect would be.
Perhaps when the minister closes the debate on the motion he might inform the house whether it would be possible for him to help us to that extent in the full consideration of the estimates.
I would like to make a brief statement about the attitude of the official opposition regarding this and the succeeding supply motions provided for by the rules. The house leader expressed the hope that it might not be necessary at this session to have six of
Motion for Committee of Supply those supply motions. We realize that this is not an ordinary session for which the rules were intended to have ordinary application.
In so far at least as the voting of supply is concerned, this is a continuation of the session that was interrupted by the general election. Except for the supplementary estimates, the other estimates are those which the preceding government recommended to the house at the last session of parliament and we would be quite prepared to facilitate their consideration. So far as the official opposition is concerned, we would be willing to forgo the right members have in ordinary session to six of these motions and we would even be prepared to agree to have all but one or two departments called when this motion is agreed to. The reserving of one or two departments would mean that there would have to be at least one other supply motion which would provide an opportunity to discuss whatever developments might have taken place in the meantime and would, I think, preserve the rights of parliament to retain such an opportunity for the voicing of grievances if they did arise.
With that reservation, we believe that the time of the house that can be devoted to motions to go into supply would be more profitably used in considering the estimates themselves than in a general discussion. That is all the more true in view of the fact that the time is now limited. The year for which these estimates have been prepared is well advanced and at a not too distant date we will be reaching the time when consideration will have to be given to the submission of estimates for the following year. I do not think it has ever been the experience of parliament to have two successive years' estimates under consideration at the same time.
For that reason and for the general reasons I gave when I spoke in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the official opposition intends to offer no amendment to this motion to go into supply nor to support any amendment that may come from any other quarter. The reasons, I think, are obvious. There are only four more Mondays after this one before Christmas and though these motions do not, under the rules, have to be submitted on a Monday they are drawn in such a way that they envisage the use of the two first days of a week for the consideration of each one of these motions. If two days were taken to discuss each one that would take up so much time that the reason we gave for our stand on the address could not reasonably be expected to be implemented.

Motion for Committee of Supply
We felt it was the desire of the public that the government should have the opportunity to put before parliament the legislation it felt was required to implement such of its promises as, after its experience with the responsibilities of government, it feels can be implemented at this time. Although certain of these measures have been dealt with by the house, there are still others to come forward and we think it is in the public interest that there be a fair opportunity to have these measures brought before parliament to be dealt with and to be considered and disposed of.
Perhaps the leader of the house would also consider whether it would not make for the expeditious consideration of the estimates if an estimates committee was set up to which such departments as public works, northern affairs and transport could be referred inasmuch as there are many items of more particular interest to some members of the House of Commons than to others because of their local, immediate effect. That, it seems to me, would leave more of the time of the general committee available for the consideration of the portion of the estimates that are of more general application throughout the whole country.
I can assure the members of the government that, so far as consideration and disposition of the estimates are concerned, we are prepared to proceed in such a way as to leave the government a full and fair opportunity to have the house consider whatever legislation they feel it is their duty to submit in view of the campaign they waged. In order that such legislation may receive the consideration it deserves, we will be prepared to co-operate and to expedite the serious, businesslike consideration of the estimates so that the appropriation bills can be dealt with in the proper order and at the proper time.
Of course, we wish to reserve our right to criticize the present administration of government departments, but it will be our policy to expedite that discussion and to expedite the adoption of the items required to enable the government to carry on the business of the country without any impediment resulting from the fact that Christmas is coming upon us pretty rapidly, in fact at a rate as rapid as the shortening at the present time of the daylight hours.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we of this group have already demonstrated our readiness to cooperate in placing upon the statute books such important and beneficial legislation as has been introduced by the present government. We are also prepared to co-operate in


the proper and expeditious consideration of the estimates that have been placed before this session of parliament. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared to abdicate our role as an opposition party in this House of Commons. We believe that even in a parliament made up as this one is, where no party has a majority, it is still desirable in the interests of democracy that there be a government and an opposition. If my hon. friends of the Liberal party are not prepared to be that opposition, we are.
We are prepared when there are opportunities presented by the rules of the house to state our grievances and, if necessary, to divide the house on some of these matters particularly where we feel the present government is falling down. We are amazed at the suggestion that because Christmas is coming or because new estimates may soon be prepared for presentation to parliament the time should be curtailed for the consideration of $5 billion of public money which is before the House of Commons in the form of the present estimates.


William Moore Benidickson: That was not the point at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
may be argued by both the Conservatives and the Liberals that these estimates are those prepared by the previous government. Quite true. But it is also a true statement, it is also a statement of constitutional and parliamentary fact, that those estimates were presented to this session of parliament by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). They are thus the present government's estimates. I know the minister made certain qualifications, but they are the present government's estimates. It is the present government that is administering the affairs of this country and is spending this money. We submit that members of parliament would not be doing their duty if they did not properly consider estimates involving this huge sum of money of the order of $5 billion.
We feel, Mr. Speaker, that these are important days in the history of democracy and that this is no time for an opposition in a democratic parliament to abdicate its function. I can assure you we have no intention of doing so. That is not to say we will delay unnecessarily the proceedings of the house. This does not mean we will not reach some compromise with the house leader in trying to arrange the business of the house. This does not mean that we are not prepared to surrender even perhaps some of our rights in view of the length of time that there is between now and next summer, shall I say, for two sessions of parliament. But let no

one imagine that we are going to surrender our rights in any wholesale fashion on these supply motions, nor are we prepared to agree, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) was prepared to do, to cut down to two or three the number of motions for going into supply.
We are not prepared to agree, as he suggested, to the calling of all the departments but two or three when this supply motion is concluded. Already too many grievances have piled up since this government came into power for it to be suggested that only one or two supply motions might be moved at this session of parliament. As I say, we are prepared to discuss these matters with the house leader in the usual way. It is no secret that we have already been doing that. But we are giving our pledge to the Canadian people that in so far as it lies within our power there will still be an opposition playing its role in this democratic parliament.



HEALTH INSURANCE


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group on this first motion for Your Honour to leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply to state a grievance and to move an amendment. The grievance is one which has been apparent right from the day this session of parliament opened. As a matter of fact, it was the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who got the floor just ahead of me and first drew attention to it on the second day of this session. It has become apparent to us that hon. members across the way, who last session were so keen on an early implementation of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, are now stalling with respect to the implementation of that important piece of legislation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


Victor Quelch: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it has always been understood in this house that when a subject is introduced the discussion of that subject will continue before going on to another one. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) brought up the question of procedure, and he was followed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Now, the hon. member has left that subject and is going on to another one. I merely want to stress the point that if he moves an amendment now it should still be in order to deal with the question of procedure, which was first of all introduced by the Leader of the
Health Insurance
Opposition followed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, without any other person having a chance to discuss the same matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Closure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: believe it is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that any other member would be able to comment on the question of procedure in the course of his remarks on my amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: When the debate has shifted from one grievance to another there is some question about the possibility of an hon. member reverting to an earlier grievance. However, I do not consider the remarks about procedure to be a grievance. I do not think there will be any difficulty, when it comes time for the hon. member to deal with the question of procedure, certainly not from my present point of view.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) rose on a point of order I thought I heard a suggestion from the front benches opposite that I was talking nonsense. We shall, of course, answer that charge by a number of references I shall be making to the record. Before I do so, perhaps in order to let the house know the terms of the amendment we propose to move, I might move it now. I may say that it spells out the grievance we have in mind and therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue):
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out and that the following words be substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of taking immediately whatever steps are necessary so that federal payments under the provisions of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act will be available without delay to any provinces with hospital insurance plans in operation, as a further step toward the achievement of a nation-wide health insurance plan based on federal-provincial co-operation".
In moving this amendment I want to make it clear that in our view the government has failed to take the steps that it should be taking to make sure that federal money will be available under the provisions of this act at the earliest possible date. Perhaps before I give the evidence as to the failure of the government to act on this important subject I should give hon. members a few interesting quotations from the record of the last session of parliament. This story of health insurance, and it is also true of hospital insurance, is of course a long one in the House of Commons and in the country generally. As a matter of fact, the Progressive Conservative party has had a fair amount to say about these matters for a number of years. I would say that for a few years they were a bit confused as to where they stood with respect

Health Insurance
and the senior Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Macdonnell). There you have 11 members of the present government, a majority of the present Conservative cabinet, who on April 10 of this year voted for an amendment to reduce that requirement of six provinces to something less, as a means of making it possible for this legislation to come into effect at the earliest possible moment.
At that time the premier of Ontario was saying that this was a ridiculous requirement, this requirement of six provinces. I might point out that he is still saying so, but in those days his view was being expressed here by those of us who were on this side of the house, by the Conservatives as well as by members of the C.C.F.
In summing up this part of my contention I would point out that there were three determined efforts made to get rid of this six-province requirement, one led by the
C.C.F., one by the Conservatives, and one which was a joint effort. We failed on those three occasions because of the adamant position taken by the Liberals, but nevertheless the record shows that the Conservatives were just as anxious as we were to get rid of that requirement as a means of making it possible for this legislation to come into effect at an early date.
Then the same hon. members opposite had a third point which they made during the course of that debate, which was that the coverage of the legislation should be broadened. In particular, and they agreed with us in this, they felt it should be made to cover those in tubercular and mental hospitals; and hon. members opposite, led by the present Prime Minister, who asked questions about the matter on the orders of the day, supported by others, came back to this theme, as we did, again and again. As a matter of fact, in the speech which the Prime Minister made on third reading he said he welcomed the legislation and congratulated Premier Frost on having brought the matter to a head, but that he still hoped that in the end, before the legislation was made final, it would be broadened so as to include coverage for mental and tubercular patients.
On clause 2 of the bill, as recorded at page 3239 of Hansard of April 8, the present Minister of Finance moved an amendment to change the terms of that clause so that instead of tubercular and mental patients being excluded from the provisions of the bill they would specifically be included. Likewise, on third reading of the bill, after our amendment regarding the six-province requirement had been defeated, the present Minister of Finance also on April 10, moved another amendment to refer the bill back to committee of the whole for the purpose of broadening the

clause which had to do with the extent of coverage, making it clear that the purpose of his amendment was to include mental and tubercular patients.
The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) was interested in the legislation, as well, and wanted the provisions to be broadened so as to include capital costs and depreciation as part of the shareable cost under the program. The present Minister of Agriculture made an interesting contribution to the debate with regard to the position of the Northwest Territories and, particularly, with regard to the position of Indians and Eskimos, making the point that it should be clear that they, too, were fully covered by the legislation.
In other words while there was the usual criticism which it is the right and duty of an opposition to make, though there were these amendments, and considerable discussion, the upshot of the whole debate as one remembers it, and as I have recognized again through reading it over the weekend, was that hon. gentlemen opposite wanted to see this legislation put into effect and its benefits made available to the people of Canada at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Speaker, I now come to a fourth point which hon. gentlemen opposite made in the course of that debate. Perhaps they should remember some of the things they said, to which I will now make reference specifically, when they are a bit restive under some of the critical things now being said by such speakers as the hon. member for Essex East, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) and others who have sharp tongues. Hon. members opposite kept making the point -and I will prove this by chapter and verse -that it looked to them as if the former Liberal government was insincere, as if the former Liberal government did not really want this legislation to become effective. They reminded the former government again and again, as we did, that this question had had a history dating back to 1919, and that it had taken 38 years to reach this point. They pointed out also that the government had put into the legislation certain "roadblocks" which led a number of important people opposite to believe that this legislation was just something intended for the election, something which the former government did not really want brought into effect.
I turn for a quotation in support of what I am saying first to the senior Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). I turn to the issue of Hansard of April 8. At page 3249 he said:
Why does the minister feel it necessary to have his hands tied absolutely in case his optimism is not justified?

He was referring of course to the present member for Essex East who had said, with his usual optimism, that he would get seven provinces or more, and was sure that the six-province requirement was not a roadblock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He proved to be right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. member for Greenwood continued:
The inference one would tend to draw would be that for some reason I cannot understand the minister does not want this thing to go through.
This is what a Conservative speaker said about the former Liberal administration, that is was insincere, that it did not want this hospital legislation to become effective. The hon. member for Greenwood continued:
That is the inference a reasonable man could draw, unless the minister does what he has not done yet and explains that there is some reason in principle, a more effective reason, against now arming himself as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated with a power or discretion so that if these other provinces do not come in within the next month or six weeks, the measure could still become law.
This is a reasonable man speaking, the representative for Greenwood, and he concludes:
I repeat, unless the minister gives some reason for sticking to this, which he has not done, then the only inference I can draw is that for some reason that I do not understand the minister does not want this to go through.
That is a clear charge of insincerity against the former Liberal government by a Conservative member, who said that this legislation was just window dressing and that the government of that day did not intend to bring it into effect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And they were proved wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
as recorded a few pages later the hon. member for Greenwood made it clear that this was not just something he had said by accident, for on page 3251 of Hansard he returned to the charge and said:
I want to ask the minister once more whether he is going to answer the question I asked. If he does not, I want to ask him whether he can suggest to me any reason why I should not say, and say in public, that so far as I am concerned, I can only come to one conclusion, if the minister is not prepared to answer the question, that he does not wish this bill passed.
The hon. member for Greenwood was not alone in that suggestion that the former Liberal government was just indulging in window dressing. The present Minister of Finance had something to say along this line as reported at page 3248 of Hansard of April 8, 1957. These are his words:
If the federal government had been more earnest in connection with this matter and had offered terms that were not so difficult for the provinces
Health Insurance
to meet, he certainly would have had the majority of the provinces before this time. If he really wishes to bring in the provinces, let him not insist upon such rigid terms.
There is an echoing of the words of the hon. member for Greenwood, the suggestion that if the former government was sincere in its desire to get hospital insurance implemented it could show that sincerity by cutting down on the rigidity of its terms. But let us not stop with the present senior Minister without Portfolio and the present Minister of Finance; let us see what the Prime Minister had to say on this point as to the sincerity of the present government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Present government?


Stanley Howard Knowles: am sorry, I meant the former government. The sincerity of the present government-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can now be
challenged.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -is
now in question as well, but I shall come to that later. The present Prime Minister spoke just shortly before the debate on third reading concluded. I have already quoted part of what he said in which he welcomed the legislation and paid tribute to Premier Frost for having brought the matter to a head, but then towards the end of his remarks, as reported at page 3388 of Hansard of April 10, 1957, he said this:
As I have followed the course of the legislation I have wondered sometimes whether the government really intended when it was introduced that it would go into effect, for the minister imposed a veto on its application by providing that a majority of the provinces in number and in population would have to join the scheme before the legislation would become effective. That I cannot understand. Why is there this departure from the provisions in the past for the bringing into effect of social legislation unless the reason for the imposition of the qualification in question-
Listen to this:
-was the hope that the legislation could not or would not be implemented?
There, Mr. Speaker, we have three important ministers in the present cabinet, the senior Minister without Portfolio, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister himself, on record last spring saying that in their view the attitude of the former government in imposing these restrictions and in making it difficult for this legislation to be brought into effect was an indication to them that the former government was insincere, indulging in window dressing; that it really did not want hospital insurance to become part of the law of the land. These same hon. members I have quoted together with the Minister of Transport made it clear on several

Health Insurance
occasions that in their view they were the ones who had fostered health insurance, they were the ones, led by Premier Frost, who had brought this matter to a head. All of this was designed to give the impression that if the Liberals were insincere and if the Liberals were just carrying on the long story that started in 1919, give the Conservatives a chance and something would be done. Well, what have they done?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nothing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: thought I heard the hon. member for Essex East say, "nothing". If he did not, he certainly could have said it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what I said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. member is perfectly correct, they have done nothing. They have been in office since June 21. Plans have been made for a federal-provincial conference and hon. members are aware of the difficulty we have had getting statements as to whether or not the hospital insurance program will be discussed at that conference. We were told at first it would not be, and then we were told that it might be if ministers representing the provincial governments wished it to be discussed and when we asked whether the federal government would take the initiative in pushing this matter the reply was the same, "There is nothing standing in the way; the provincial governments can discuss this matter if they wish to do so". This is the kind of answer that is coming from hon. gentlemen opposite who said that my hon. friends in the Liberal party were insincere because they had put certain roadblocks in the legislation itself.
I point out there was no mention of the subject in the speech from the throne and there was very little mention of it in the official Progressive Conservative propaganda distributed during the election. In this respect we have something to say which is a little different from what we say with respect to many other items. In many instances we are asking the present government to implement the promises it made in the election campaign but so far as hospital insurance is concerned they were careful and cautious, relying on the impression they gave here last spring, the impression that they were the sincere ones, they were the ones who wanted something done. However, in the speech from the throne there was not a word about it nor has there been a voluntary statement on the matter by any minister of the crown since this house met on October 14. They have answered questions but it has

been extremely difficult to get any proper answers to our questions on this subject.
We have ascertained by the questions we have asked that no agreements have been signed by any of the provinces although six appear to have indicated their agreement to go along with this plan and it may be that the correspondence with Manitoba amounts to the agreement of a seventh province. Nothing has been done about the contention of the Conservatives last spring that coverage should be extended to mental and tubercular hospitals nor has there been any suggestion that the legislation be amended to cut down the requirement of six provinces so the legislation might come into effect with fewer provinces signing agreements.
Perhaps the most ominous thing that has happened in connection with this matter is what I would refer to as a false interpretation that has been placed upon certain words in the act by the new Minister of National Health and Welfare. I confess that the minisister did not take much part in the debate on this question in the last session; others of his colleagues were interested in health matters and he had other interests, but it does seem to me that he should have made himself fully aware of the background of the question I asked one day as to the difference between the words "in force" and "in operation". That background is extremely interesting and very significant. When the federal government made its proposals to the provinces in January last the paragraph having to do with a majority of the provinces representing a majority of the people agreeing to the plan ended up with these words:
-to take effect when the majority of provinces have such plans in operation.
The original proposal made by the former federal government was that what amounted to six provinces representing a majority of the people had to agree and those six provinces had to have their plans in operation before any money could be made available. Likewise, when the former minister of national health and welfare placed his resolution preceding the bill on the order paper on March 4, 1957, it read, as reported at page 1823 of Hansard of that date:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize contributions to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund to provinces in respect of costs incurred by them in providing insured hospital and diagnostic services pursuant to provincial law and to agreements made in accordance with the said measure, to commence when at least six provinces, containing at least half the population of Canada, have entered into such agreements and qualified for the receipt of such contributions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that was a confirmation of the original proposal that there had to be

what amounted to six provinces; that those six provinces had to agree to the proposal, and also that those six provinces had to have their plans in operation before any single province could get one dollar of federal money. Well, if the new Minister of National Health and Welfare does not know it, other Conservatives opposite do know that that was the cause of great concern to many people in this country who were interested in hospital insurance, and it was a cause of particular concern to their own Premier Frost of Ontario. Premier Frost said-I am paraphrasing his words, but I agreed with him 100 per cent and I still do-that it was silly and fantastic to say that no single province could get a single dollar until all six had their plans in actual operation. I think I am being fair to Premier Frost if I put it this way. He said on several occasions that that would mean that five provinces could go ahead and spend huge sums of money, put up the necessary buildings, get the bookkeeping machinery ready, get contributions started by the provinces, or by the people of those provinces, with a view to starting their plans on a certain day, but if the sixth province, say Prince Edward Island, did not have its plan functioning by that same date, then the other five provinces, even though they might represent the majority of the population of Canada, would not get a dollar of federal money.
Premier Frost characterized that proposal of the former minister of national health and welfare as silly, ridiculous and fantastic, and he was right. What happened, Mr. Speaker? We debated it in the house; we had questions about it time and time again, and I give full marks to the former minister of national health and welfare for meeting the objection, for changing the legislation. When the bill was finally brought down there was wording in it that was different from the wording in the resolution. It was different from the wording in the terms given to the provinces in January. There was wording that made it clear that the plan was to work in this way. As soon as six provinces had agreed to the program, and as soon as six provinces had their legislation on the statute books, in force, such as by being proclaimed, any one province which had its plan in operation would be able to draw its share of the federal money. As I say, that was made clear by the former minister of national health and welfare in the House of Commons on March 25, on page 2680 of Hansard. This is the way he put it:
When we get to the bill we will be able to discuss it much more effectively. The answer is that there is a difference. In the original proposal we said that when six provinces representing the
Health Insurance
majority of the people had plans in operation the federal government would pay, but the plans had to be in operation. It is now proposed that once we have the necessary authority we will conclude agreements with at least six provinces. If those six provinces sign and if they have the necessary legislative authority to implement their various schemes, as some now have, and if the law with respect to those schemes has been proclaimed or otherwise in force, that will be sufficient. In other words we do not have to wait for them to be actually in operation. When we come to the bill my hon. friend-
He was referring to me.
-will have an opportunity to discuss this.
Then I said this:
I thank the minister for that statement which is the most important one he has made all day. Is it clear that if six provinces have legislation in this field which has been proclaimed it will be possible at that moment for provinces having plans in operation to start drawing money from the federal government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With an agreement signed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was evidence of sincerity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: have already said that I give my hon. friend, the member for Essex East, full marks for having done something that governments do not like to do, for having made a change in the legislation from the time it was first drafted to meet a legitimate objection that had been pressed from the opposition side.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that that change was given statutory effect in section 6(2) of chapter 28 of the statutes of 1957, which reads as follows:
No contributions shall be paid under this act until at least six provinces, containing at least one-half the population of Canada, have entered into an agreement, and the provincial law in relation to those provinces is in force.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is all the difference in the world between a law being in force and a health insurance plan being in actual operation, and the former minister made it crystal clear that that was the significance of the change that the former government made.
May I point out to my hon. friends opposite, many of whom are lawyers and must know how these bills are drawn, that the fact that there is a difference between the words "in force" and the words "in operation" is supported by this, that in the very next section, section 7, there is a provision that the money will continue to be paid so long as the provincial plan remains in operation. In other words, to start getting the money all that is necessary under the act is for six provinces to have the legislation authorizing their plans in force. Then, the money is paid to any province that has a plan in operation but, of course, you have to

Health Insurance
keep your plan in operation in order to continue to draw the money. But, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that that was perhaps the major issue in months of consideration of this matter last spring, the Minister of National Health and Welfare rose in his place in this house on November 11, in answer to a question of mine, and said that his understanding is that "in force" and "in operation" mean the same thing. What a let down for Premier Frost, Mr. Speaker! What a let down for premiers of other provinces who counted on the terms of the legislation as it was passed last spring, counted on the statement made by the former minister of national health and welfare!
In our amendment, Mr. Speaker, we express the view that this government should take whatever steps are necessary so that federal payments under the provisions of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act will be available without delay to any province with hospital insurance plans in operation. What are the steps that the government should take? In the first place, since they already have the knowledge that six provinces have agreed, those six being British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, we contend that they should make definite and positive efforts to get agreements signed with these six provinces. So far as I have been able to ascertain there has not even been a master agreement drawn that these provinces might sign.
Other steps that we think the government should take include an effort to win some of the other provinces. At the last session the Minister of Finance said that the former minister of national health and welfare might have got more provinces in if his terms had not been so rigid. I remind this government that the government of the province of Nova Scotia, which is headed by a Conservative administration, has been pleading with this government for information as to where it stands on the question of hospital insurance. The other day I referred to two letters, which are on the table of this house, from the health minister of that province, one in September asking where the government stood, and another in October asking for an answer to the letter of a month earlier. There is interest on the part of a government headed by a Conservative administration which might be turned into agreement to the hospital insurance plan, if only a little interest were shown here at Ottawa.
I submit that in Manitoba there is a new interest in this matter. I know that the government we have in Manitoba has taken a new interest in a number of matters since

the 10th of June. The political climate has changed a bit. All right, let us take advantage of it. Here is a province which, until the 10th of June, was pretty cool to the hospital insurance legislation-now on the statute books-but which is now interested in it and yet despite its interest has difficulty in getting letters from the premier answered by the Prime Minister of Canada. There are at least two provinces other than the six which have already indicated their willingness to agree, that are showing an interest that might well amount to agreement. I think Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear that it may not now be necessary to wipe out the six-province requirement because six, seven or eight provinces are ready to go along.
But what about this question of sincerity? My hon. friends across the way, speaking through the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), charged the Liberals with insincerity, with not wanting the legislation to come into effect. What have they done about it since then? What have they done to try to get those provinces that are interested to sign agreements? What have they done in terms of saying to Premier Frost, who has a tremendous program to launch that will cost a great deal of money, that if by chance there are not six they will introduce the necessary amendment to the legislation so that they can get started with fewer provinces? They took that position last spring and they took it very strongly. As I have already said, they took it three times, once on their own initiative, once when they supported us and once when it was a joint effort.
If they are sincere, if they felt they had the right last spring to challenge the sincerity of the Liberals, I suggest it is time for them to say to the house and to say to the country: We are out to get six, seven or eight provinces to agree if we can but if we cannot do that we are going to ask parliament to amend the legislation so this important program can go into effect with even fewer than six provinces. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Prime Minister should immediately clear up the confusion that was created when that fictitious interpretation of the words "in force" was given on the 11th of November. That has been a cause of concern to Premier Campbell of Manitoba, a cause of concern to Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan and no doubt is a cause of concern to Premier Frost, although I do not have a direct quotation from him on the point since November 11.
But I would point out that Premier Frost did have something pretty strong to say about this matter, as reported in the Globe and Mail

of Wednesday, October 30, 1957. Under the heading, "Frost Urges Repeal of Hospital Act Bar", I note this:
The federal government-
The reference now is to the Conservative government.
-was urged last night by Premier Frost to repeal the section of the hospital insurance act requiring that six provinces introduce plans before there is a federal participation in costs.
Mr. Frost described the requirement as fantastic and silly.
I agree with him that it was fantastic and silly when the previous government put it in the legislation. It is even more fantastic and silly for the present government to rely on something which they opposed with all their might and main.
He said that although six provinces, including Ontario, have indicated they wish to participate in a hospital insurance scheme, restrictions placed in the act by the Liberals are tying the hands of the Diefenbaker administration.
"Ottawa should throw out these restrictions and proceed on the basis of dealing with single provinces", the premier suggested. "If the act remains as it is we can go only so far. Ottawa should change the act so an effective date for starting provincial plans is established and leave it up to the provinces if they want to participate."
As the federal act stands now only four provinces-British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, which already have hospital insurance plans in operation, and Ontario, have met its requirements. Unless two other provinces adopt the necessary legislation, Ottawa cannot share costs.
In all other instances where costs have been shared, such as old age security, the federal government has dealt with provinces individually, Mr. Frost added.
"The departure from this established practice in the case of hospital insurance is a silly provision. It has no validity."
I agree thoroughly with what Mr. Frost said as reported in the press of that date. I agree with the position he took last spring. My hon. friends opposite agreed with him last spring. What are they doing about it now? It looks to us, Mr. Speaker, as though this legislation is one of the inheritances which is an embarrassment to my hon. friends opposite. Oh, they liked to talk about health insurance when they could kick the Liberals around for taking 38 years to do anything about it, but now they are in power what are they doing? Oh, I suspect that they realize that they are going to have to do something about it in due course. I suspect they realize they are going to have this legislation in effect by January 1, 1959, because Premier Frost has set that as the target date so far as Ontario is concerned.
I give full credit, Mr. Speaker, to Premier Frost. He was concerned, not only that the legislation be amended so that Ontario could count on the money when it had its plan ready but he was concerned that provinces
Health Insurance
like British Columbia and Saskatchewan, which already had plans in operation, might start right away to draw their share of federal money towards their plans. It looks as though the federal government now in power has decided that British Columbia and Saskatchewan will not get any money towards their plans which are now in operation until the last possible date, and that date has been fixed for them by the Conservative premier in Ontario.
I much prefer the view Premier Frost has taken throughout the piece. Yes, he is pressing for action in Ontario but he has also pressed the rights of the other provinces. His point in this press report is quite correct, that just as the federal government has dealt with the provinces individually with respect to other social security matters, so they should deal individually with the provinces on this important issue.
I suggest also that we have a right to be apprehensive about this matter because of certain editorials that have been appearing in some of the newspapers of the country, mostly the Conservative press but in some Liberal newspapers as well. I have in mind, for example, the Winnipeg Tribune of my own city which has cautioned the government to be careful about the Martin hospital insurance plan. In addition to that kind of thing, we have this book which was sent to all members of parliament, I presume, entitled "Underwriting Canadian Health, An Economic View of Welfare Programs", prepared at the request of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. We all received copies of this book with a covering letter written by the general manager of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Montreal. It is a book that accepts the fact of welfare programs, including health and hospital insurance, but cautions the country against going too far.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, there are forces at work on the Conservative government of the day suggesting that they have to be careful about the welfare state, careful about welfare programs, careful about getting too deep into health or hospital insurance. With voices of that kind getting, as I have no doubt they are, the ear of the Conservative government, I think we have reason to be apprehensive whether or not early action is going to be taken to bring this important piece of legislation into operation.
Hon. members know where we have stood across the years. We have contended that there should be a nationwide program of health insurance with provision for provincial participation and administration. We have moved amendments to that effect in this

Health Insurance
house time and time again. Hon. members know that we want and feel that the Canadian people are entitled to much more than just hospital insurance. We feel that the day must come in this country when the care of the health of our people is on the same basis as education, available to all our people according to their need of that care rather than to the length of their purse. We shall continue to press forward towards the realization of a full health insurance program for the Canadian people.
We recognize that what we are pressing in this amendment is only for one step in that direction, but it is an important step. We contend that it is a betrayal of the Canadian people to have even as much delay as has taken place so far as this legislation is concerned. It was put on the statute books last April. Before the spring was out we knew six provinces had agreed. We had the story in the last session of parliament of the Conservative members fighting for this legislation to be put in a form so that it could be implemented early. We think we have the right, on behalf of the Canadian people, and we do it on this motion to go into supply, to demand early action on this important matter. My friends opposite condemned the Liberals for having made an election issue out of health insurance for seven or eight elections. They condemned them for having taken so long, from 1919 to 1957, to reach the point of presenting the Health Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to parliament. They condemned them for playing politics with health insurance, and particularly with this hospital insurance legislation. But it looks to us, Mr. Speaker, as though that is exactly what this government is now doing, toying with it, stalling and trying to find new interpretations of certain words in the act; leaving it to the provinces. They are doing nothing that is consistent with the aggressive battle that they waged here last spring.
The Conservatives condemned the Liberals for having made health insurance an election issue on a number of occasions, but it looks to us as though they are planning for this to be one of the issues in the next election whenever it comes. We are quite prepared to have health insurance or even the implementation of this hospital insurance legislation made an election issue. But we want something better than just the right to fight it out at an election, which we are prepared to do from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We want action on it, and we contend that the Canadian people are entitled to that action now. That is the purpose of this amendment, to ask this house to tell

the government to stall no longer but to take immediately whatever steps are necessary so that federal money will be available to provinces like British Columbia and Saskatchewan that have plans already in operation, and to the other provinces as rapidly as they bring their plans into effect.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated I place before the house the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue):
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out and that the following words be substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of taking immediately whatever steps are necessary so that federal payments under the provisions of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act will be available without delay to any provinces with hospital insurance plans in operation, as a further step toward the achievement of a nation-wide health insurance plan based on federal-provincial cooperation."


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment, but before any other member rises, perhaps we could follow the practice in similar debates of disposing of one grievance at a time, since that tends towards the orderly discussion of the grievances. In fact, there is a precedent for the point of order which was raised by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) that after this grievance, for example, has been superseded by another subject, a member would be out of order in returning to this question which has been proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Under these circumstances, therefore, if hon. members who wish to speak on this grievance would now rise, that would meet the rules and practices in debates on supply motions.


Frederick George Hahn: With reference, Mr. Speaker, to your earlier ruling concerning the matter of procedure and the fact that we would be permitted to put forward our views on this question, may I do so now? I intend later, of course, to deal more specifically with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). With reference to the procedure, may I say that we in this group are not too happy to see the number of supply motions reduced, particularly since it was suggested also that the number of private members' days might likewise be reduced in order to complete the work of the house before Christmas. We are not particularly happy about the situation because we recognize that, to a degree, it means the termination of the supremacy of parliament.

Private members' days are the only opportunities afforded members to bring forward particular problems and grievances relating to their own ridings and to the nation as a whole. We are, therefore, rather reluctant to go along with the idea, although we do under the circumstances, fully realize that there is a difficulty at this time. This session of parliament, which is generally called the special session, has been called for the express purpose-I am not sure whether or not the express purpose is the immediate calling of an election-of introducing legislation that would appeal to the public. I would say, however, it is desirable legislation, and we have supported it.
However, we would look forward to the presentation of a budget before such a decision were made so that the people of Canada could decide for themselves whether or not we are in a position to expend $5 billion each year; whether we are going to be half a billion dollars in the red because of these particular expenditures or whether we can afford them. That is all I have to say with reference to procedure. We will go along with the idea provided we can see that the rights of the nation are protected and particularly that the rights of parliament are always protected in the future.
With reference to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I find it rather difficult to understand. As I interpret it, and my interpretation might be wrong, it reads thus:
-the government should consider the advisability of taking immediately whatever steps are necessary so that federal payments under the provisions of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act will be available without delay

I will not read the rest of it because it is that part which causes me some concern. As I interpret it, we are asking the government to accept the advisability of taking immediate steps to do certain things in respect of the act itself. I would suspect that the first thing the government would do would be to point out that the government is taking certain steps at this moment. The government has called a dominion-provincial conference and has invited certain representations from the various provinces. The government has indicated to those provinces that they are prepared to discuss the hospital insurance plan.
Under these circumstances it does seem to me that there is some redundancy in the amendment itself. If the government, of course, is not prepared to carry on and discuss hospitalization with the provinces then it is a completely different matter. One must, I know, really search to glean information
Health Insurance
on these things. It does take a considerable amount of reading and thought in an endeavour to discover exactly how the government feels with respect to discussing this problem.
Possibly the minister will be in a position to tell us more about it when he again takes his turn in this debate, as I trust he will, and will explain to us that the government is going to meet with the provinces to discuss this very problem, in which case this amendment of course would be meaningless because there could be absolutely no need for it as far as I can see. The government would have taken some action towards implementing this proposal.
This is a very important amendment, however, because it raises a problem which certainly has been discussed prior to the election, and is still being discussed today in my own province. I am sure the same is true in any other province having a hospital scheme in operation or, not having such a scheme in operation, having set up the machinery to put it into operation. It is important to the provinces to understand why the rules of the game have been changed.
For instance there is the interpretation placed upon the act, or a certain section of it, as was so well pointed out by the member who introduced the amendment. We should know why that particular rule has been changed. The implementation and bringing into force of this scheme is most important in my own province. We have in that province a hospital scheme which has been in operation for some years; we have certainly bene-fitted from the knowledge gained over those years and it does seem to me that if this scheme were made usable or operational at a very early date, before the six provinces set up their own schemes, then other provinces would gain from what we have learned in respect to the operation of the dominion-provincial scheme.
For this reason I very much favour the sentiment expressed in the amendment itself, as do all the members of this group. We are satisfied that this will probably bring to the attention of the government the need to do something more explicit, for instance by making it a point of discussion between the two levels of government in this country so that something definite can be done towards the implementation of the scheme itself across the nation.
Now with respect to the remarks made as to the sincerity of the government with respect to the setting up and putting into operation of this scheme, we can say all we like about the insincerity of the former government, but nevertheless the fact is that the act was brought into being by that

Health Insurance
government. The Conservative government of today, which complained so bitterly of the insincerity of the former government, is I would say just as guilty unless it changes its attitude in respect to implementation as quickly as possible. This point has been raised not only in the current session but also in the last session of parliament. I remember that so distinctly-as I am sure every hon. member who was in the 22nd parliament will remember without the necessity of referring to Hansard to prove the point. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) must also well recall that time and time again members from all parties doubted-possibly the Liberals did not doubt it too much-the sincerity of the government of that day with respect to this legislation. For that reason, the only way this government can prove that they are completely sincere with respect to this matter is to put it into operation in those provinces which have had the experience of running a hospital scheme. These provinces include Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
From that experience the federal government and other provincial governments would gain sufficient knowledge so that the rough spots could be ironed out and those provinces which are thinking of setting up their own schemes would be in position to determine exactly what form of premium collection should be adopted and to deal with other small problems which might arise.
It is an acknowledged fact in my own province that we collect our premium in a different fashion from the province of Saskatchewan for example, which I understand has a yearly premium much the same as used in respect of ordinary insurance. We have a 2 per cent sales tax which goes towards paying for the hospital scheme. Now certainly it should be beneficial to a province which is deciding to enter this scheme to have an opportunity of choosing which of these schemes they prefer, rather than being forced to make an initial choice and probably losing a lot of money for the taxpayers because of inefficiency which might creep in as a result of inexperience.
In my own province for instance it is a recognized fact that we began with the collection of premiums, just as is the case of Saskatchewan today, but we found it undesirable to carry on in that way because it did not apply too well in our case. It was difficult to collect premiums; we did not have the same security for collection as did the province of Saskatchewan because more people moved about from job to job. We ran into many other difficulties when

for instance we found an individual who, having moved from one job to another thinking that his premium was paid, found that he did not have his insurance paid after all, and was therefore not eligible for hospital coverage.
Now it is true that these are small problems, comparatively speaking, but nevertheless they are an indication of the type of thing which must be met in each province and which that province's government must be prepared to act upon before setting up its own scheme. I would ask the minister to consider this question when he answers to the amendment and possibly confirm that this is a matter which is going to be placed before the dominion-provincial conference to be discussed at that time. In such a discussion it will make it possible for these provinces, by bringing out a few points, to come to a definite understanding as to when and how this scheme shall be put into operation.
My own thought on this subject, and I am satisfied that the members of this group concur in this viewpoint, is that the best way of dealing with the matter would be similar to the application for unemployment insurance when in the early stages we made it applicable on a certain basis to only one particular province. I think that was true of the logging industry in British Columbia. We had one province come in, and on the basis of the experience gained in its operation there we broadened it out as the years went on.
I do not think it is healthy for the people of this country to feel that either the present government or the former government is lacking in sincerity, or that their members of parliament are not sincere in bringing forward their suggestions. I am satisfied after listening to the representations which have been made in the past four years from the four parties in this house, including our independent members, that there is a particular desire to put a national hospital scheme into effect, and that such a scheme should be brought into being as quickly as possible so that all provinces may benefit from it.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add at this time, except that I hope the minister will take this whole question under advisement, and let us know in due course during the debate whether the government has changed its mind.
(Translation):


Mr. Rene Begin (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of the amendment now under consideration to say a few words about hospital insurance.

Health Insurance
Representing as I do a constituency made up mostly of workers, I am very much interested in the adoption of legislation which came so near being passed under the Liberal government, and more particularly under the able sponsorship of the former minister of national health and welfare (Mr. Martin).
All members of the house will admit that illness is a luxury. All those who represent constituencies like my own know how many people come to them and say that they cannot afford to pay their hospital and medical bills. Illness is indeed a luxury. I could quote from memory hundreds of names of men, women and children who would need hospital care but who cannot afford it.
I therefore urge the government to implement as soon as possible this national welfare measure, and I would remind them that a young and prosperous country's greatest asset is its manpower. I do not object to the principle of the legislation, but I submit that for the middle class it would be beneficial legislation. People who have the wherewithal can get proper medical and hospital care; so can the completely destitute, but not so the middle class person of limited means, who has to pay all along the line, and this is rank discrimination. Without any partisan bias, I hope that we will very soon be in a position to endow this country with this magnificent piece of legislation.
(Text):


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I have always taken a great deal of interest in the question of health insurance and hospital insurance and I should most certainly like to add my word in support of an amendment which asks for action now, during this present session.
However, before making my comments I should like to say a few words with regard to remarks made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) who, I regret, is not in his place at the moment. Both these gentlemen began their remarks by dealing with the question of procedure, and the time available in the house this session. Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it exceedingly clear, as our party has done every since the house opened, that we are most desirous of co-operating at all times with the government with regard to the introduction of beneficial legislation, and in respect to speeding the work of parliament. We have also made it clear that we believe in principle in the supremacy of parliament
and not just in giving lip service to the expression.
Mention has been made both by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for New Westminster of the hope of getting to our homes by Christmas. It has been my privilege always to have been home at Christmas during the 50 years of my life, and I certainly look forward to being home this Christmas, but I personally-and I know I am speaking on behalf of this group-do not place being home at Christmas before our responsibilities as members of parliament and before doing the job for which we are being paid.


Mr. Blackmore:: Very likely nobody else in the house does.


Harold Edward Winch: I hear words but cannot make sense of them-


John Horne Blackmore: They were words with too much sense.


Harold Edward Winch: If the hon. member says it is good sense, then I am glad to agree with him, and I apologize if I did not understand what he said.
We have heard a great deal from the government side about the supremacy of parliament. That includes the bringing up of grievances, and it also means the discussion of estimates. I hope we can be home by Christmas, but only if the working of parliamentary democracy says we can. Not one of us was forced to run for parliament, and having done so and been elected, let us do our job.
On the amendment itself, may I say I am sure all members will agree that this is a matter of importance because it deals with a subject which, I am convinced, is uppermost in the minds of the majority of the people of this country. In broad principle, this is a question of health insurance; more narrowly, it is a question of hospital insurance. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has placed on record the attitude and opinions of leading members of the present government as shown and expressed at the last session which was held this year with regard to hospital insurance. It is obvious that at least until this amendment was proposed neither the hon. members of this house nor the people of this country knew what was in the mind of the government as far as the implementation of hospital insurance legislation is concerned, as placed on the statute books last session. From the answers we have received to various questions which have been asked since the house met, and from statements made by cabinet ministers outside it would

Health Insurance
seem a reasonable conclusion that the government has either not yet made up its mind what it is going to do about hospital insurance, or that it has no intention of doing anything about it at all.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; as a matter of fact, he did a masterful job. But strange as it may seem, I want to go a bit further than he did in making a direct statement and I hope I will not be misunderstood until I can complete what I want to say. That is, that in my estimation, having sat through the session last spring and heard the leading members of the present government, then the leading members of the opposition, express their views about hospital insurance, and having both heard and read the statements made by Conservative candidates in British Columbia in the last federal election campaign in regard to that subject, I can stand in my place here in the House of Commons and tell the members of the present government that as far as hospital insurance is concerned they are guilty of treason. Now, the reason I can use that term-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member not to use a term of that kind in connection with any member of this house because treason is an indictable offence for which a man may be executed and I am sure he does not want to impute that kind of offence to hon. members of the government. He is using the word "treason" in a loose sense and I would ask him to withdraw the use of the word "treason".


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, you will remember what I said but I do withdraw the term. This morning-now, do not prejudge me this time-I went down to our parliamentary library and asked the attendant if I could have the most authoritative English dictionary and the most authoritative United States dictionary. The attendant said the most authoritative English dictionary is Murray's New English dictionary and the most authoritative United States dictionary is Webster's International. I looked up the word "treason" in both volumes. Murray's New English Dictionary defines treason as "betrayal of the trust undertaken by or reposed in any one; a breach of faith". Webster's International dictionary describes treason as "the betrayal of any trust or confidence". Mr. Speaker, I bow to your request and I now say I charge the present government, according to Murray's New English dictionary, with a betrayal of the trust undertaken or reposed in it and a breach of faith, and according to Webster's International Dictionary I charge it with the betrayal of a trust and a confidence as far as hospital insurance is concerned. After hearing an outline

of the position taken by the Conservative opposition last spring as described by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, surely we can say there has been a breach of confidence and a betrayal of trust.
Hospital insurance which is now in effect in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan is something that is desired by all the people of Canada. Hospital insurance is a principle accepted by the previous Liberal administration and by the Conservatives when in opposition. To any fairminded, reasonable and honest person it was clear until the opening of this parliament the Conservatives believed in hospital insurance going into effect, let us say as soon as six provinces had agreed by legislation and by signature in Ottawa, and that payments would be made to any province having a plan in force or in operation, if you want to put it that way. However, no action has been taken by this government nor has any been intimated up to the present time.
I think we have no reason to apologize for asking why there has been no mention of the subject in the speech from the throne and no direct answers to any questions. This can be for three reasons only: (1) the government does not yet know what to do, as a government, as far as hospital insurance is concerned; (2) because of the partial fulfilment of promises made for increases in certain pensions the government is worried financially and wants to stall the additional cost that would be involved if hospital insurance were put into effect now; or (3) for the purpose of political expediency the government want to tie in with some other province in a provincial election and possibly in a federal election. None of the above reasons represents a sufficient explanation of the government's present attitude. Its attitude is unfair in view of the policy it enunciated when in opposition in that it is making the three provinces that already have plans in operation a sacrifice to political expediency.
As I said when I opened my remarks I have been interested in the question of hospital and health insurance for many years. In 1936 the province of British Columbia pioneered the field. A complete health insurance program was introduced in the provincial legislature by the Hon. G. M. Weir which was passed. Dr. Allon Peebles who now resides in Ottawa was made the first chairman of the health insurance commission. Although passed by the legislature the plan never went into effect because of sabotage by the medical profession in British Columbia. However this did not stop the province introducing a plan. Since that time it has

gone into the field of hospital insurance as have the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. The taxpayers of those provinces have spent millions of dollars through these plans to give the people the benefit of overall hospital insurance.
At the last session of parliament the Liberal government, the official opposition and the other two parties in this house agreed that the federal government had a responsibility in terms of the health and hospitalization of the Canadian people. The act was passed and we all expected that it would go into effect speedily. Any dereliction of responsibility in putting the plan into effect as speedily as possible is penalizing not only the provinces which already have their plans in operation but is also deterring the other provinces which contemplate a hospitalization plan. I am convinced that a province like Ontario, with the hundreds of millions of dollars it will cost them to put their plan into operation, is contemplating doing so only if they can get a 50 per cent grant from the federal authority immediately. Unless there is a clear statement from the government that their policy is that a province shall receive federal payment as soon as the plan is actually in operation I am afraid that not only Ontario but the maritime provinces, which have agreed to come in, will be deterred in their planning. But if Ontario is to be given any assurance that when their plan goes into effect in January, 1959, they will be paid 50 per cent then, Mr. Speaker, it is only right, it is only just that Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia should be paid now because they have their plans in operation.
I know what it will mean in British Columbia. Most certainly we shall carry on, but what this government is doing-[DOT] unless they now establish the policy that the money will be paid in the immediate future-is that they are stealing around $18 million a year that rightfully belongs to British Columbia in order to fulfil some of their own election promises.
Hospital insurance is an important issue, Mr. Speaker. To the provinces that have not got it it is a blessing yet to come. The provinces that have it can reasonably and rightfully expect the declaration of principle of the Conservatives in opposition, now the government, that before this session ends, they will agree to contribute 50 per cent of the cost. We also expect, sir, that what was said by the Conservatives in opposition will be outlined by them as a government in the acceptance of half the cost of the mentally
Health Insurance
ill and those who are suffering from tuberculosis.
I cannot use a certain word, Mr. Speaker, but I ask you to remember the definitions of that word dealing with breach of trust and of breaking of faith. I suggest to you in conclusion, sir, that we are not asking for anything more than the Conservatives' promises, and that they get away from the strange metamorphosis that has overtaken them since they moved from the ranks of opposition to the seats of government, that they now put into action the things they proposed and demanded when they were on this side of the house. If not, sir,-well, take the definition of the word that I cannot use- there is a penalty for them and they will reap that penalty when they go next to the polls.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on this motion because the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has, until this evening, to be somewhere else; otherwise he would be speaking at this time.


Mr. Hodgson:: He is not looking for votes already, is he?


John Whitney Pickersgill: First of all I should like to say, sir, I feel that the motion moved in amendment by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) does illustrate almost perfectly the wisdom of the stand taken this afternoon by the leader of this party, because this motion is not really, in the proper technical sense of the term, a grievance at all. It asks the government to do something by legislation which is really, in the present circumstances, quite redundant. It asks them to amend the legislation that we were responsible for inviting parliament to enact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not
necessarily.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To amend this legislation in order to accomplish something which, to all intents and purposes, has already been accomplished because, before we went out of office, six provinces had agreed to come into this scheme.
The hon. gentleman from Winnipeg North Centre who is usually very cogent, sir-I admit that-on this occasion has missed the point entirely. It seems to me he is not talking about what is the real obstacle to the implementation of this scheme. He has set up a straw man and then proceeded to tear him down. It seems to me that what the hon. gentleman was complaining about in nearly all of his long speech was not that the legislation was insufficient but

Health Insurance
that the administration of his department by the Minister of National Health and Welfare Mr. Monteith appears to be, if not inefficient at least to be something less than frank.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And with that view I am sure all of us agree, and no one more than I, because I think the hon. gentleman has given evasive answers, or no answers at all, to at least as many of my questions as he has to anyone in the house on this particular subject. But, of course, sir, there is another reason why this motion would not accomplish the object it professes to have in mind and is therefore in a strict sense insincere. I am not saying the hon. gentleman is insincere, but I am saying his gesture is insincere. I say that for this reason. Unless the government is willing to accept this motion which, as I say, is not strictly a motion of want of confidence, it would be a motion of want of confidence, the adoption of which by the house would prevent the committee from going into supply. It would force an election, and it would certainly delay, and delay very considerably, the very objective which the hon. gentleman professes to wish to attain, and for that reason alone-I am speaking only for myself; that is one of the advantages of being in opposition-I will have great pleasure in voting against this motion.
I will have great pleasure in voting against it for another reason, namely that the position taken by the government I belonged to I believe is just as right today as it was at the time it was taken.


An hon. Member:: You belong to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said "belonged"; past tense.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent), when he originally explained why the former government required six provinces to agree to this scheme before it would be put into operation, said that we as a party did not believe in taxing all the people of Canada for the benefit of a relatively small section of the people of Canada, and until a majority of the provinces, representing a majority of the population, were going to be included in such a scheme it would be doing just that. I believe that that national stand, that national outlook, was the right one and I still think it is the right one.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you put it
in legislation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The legislation is there; it is on the statute books and it will come into operation, I assume,-of course, I have

no right to speak now for anyone but myself-as soon as six of the provinces have schemes on their statute books. I certainly agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that that is what the law means. It does not mean that six provincial schemes must actually be in operation; it means that they must be on the statute books, capable of being brought into operation as quickly as circumstances would warrant. It seems to me that that is a sensible provision. It seems to me that there is not any great likelihood that that outcome will not be realized during the course of 1958. To say the least this particular motion is somewhat premature.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made a great deal of the position he was taking that there must be a constitutional opposition in this house and he suggested that my friends and I had abdicated this responsibility and that he and his friends were taking this great burden from our shoulders. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the first duty of an opposition-the most essential of all duties, historically and in every other way, of an opposition in parliament-is to criticize the estimates. What the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon was that he thought it was more important that in the limited time available-the time is limited; we cannot change the calendar or at least I do not think we are going to try to do so-in this fiscal year we would be doing our duty better and more profitably by criticizing the estimates than by making academic speeches on academic motions which, if they passed, would defeat the very object they profess to be seeking to carry out.
There is not a word that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said on the motion today that could not have been said just as appropriately on the first item of the estimates of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) although it is true that he would have had to take two or three turns to say it under the rules. He could not have monopolized the time of the house for as long as he did when he was moving a motion of want of confidence. But perhaps in the interstices he could have obtained an answer or two from the hon. gentleman who is in charge of this department, which would have been a refreshing change.
It seems to me that the government can be justly criticized on two counts. It can be criticized for being dilatory about this matter. I think the most shocking example that has come to my notice-and perhaps it has come to my notice because I pay a little

bit more attention to the province in which I spent 30 pears of my life than I do to some others-was the history of the correspondence between the minister of health of Manitoba and the premier of Manitoba and ministers opposite. According to the facts that have been brought out with difficulty, in this house this session, in July the minister of health of Manitoba wrote to the then acting minister of national health and welfare, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks), and he received an acknowledgment but no reply to his letter. On August 1 the premier of Manitoba wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and he received no acknowledgment of his letter. In September, when the hon. member for Perth was appointed Minister of National Health and Welfare, the minister of health of Manitoba wrote to him and I am not sure-I am speaking from memory-whether he received an acknowledgment or not but he certainly received no answer to the questions he raised. On October 16 the premier of Manitoba wrote a second time to the Prime Minister asking for an answer to his first letter and to these other letters.
Several days later I asked the Prime Minister whether there had been any answers to those letters and he had no recollection of it. I admit that he gave a very polite and courteous reply as soon as he had a chance to check the matter. But I say that this is evidence-and it supports the evidence which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre himself produced-of a dilatory and rather irresponsible attitude, I do not say on the part of the Prime Minister who has multifarious duties, although I would have thought that a second letter from the premier of a province asking for a reply on as important a question as this would not have been brushed aside. However, it is surely a serious charge against the Minister of National Health and Welfare that four months after the government had come into office and well over a month after he himself had assumed office he had not yet had time to familiarize himself with important correspondence with his opposite numbers in provincial governments and with the premier of a province.
But what I think perhaps is an even more serious charge, Mr. Speaker, is the charge that the government has been extremely evasive in this matter. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who is usually encyclopaedic in these matters, surprised me by failing to point out that, although the Prime Minister during the election campaign did not say much that is on the record about health insurance he did make two statements that are recorded in the press. He made a statement in Winnipeg, and because it was made 96698-80
Health Insurance
in Winnipeg I would have thought that the hon. gentleman would have noticed it particularly. He also made a statement in Saskatoon. On both occasions the Prime Minister, then the leader of the Conservative party seeking office, pointed out that mental and tubercular patients should be included in this scheme and he certainly gave every impression that if he came into office that would be done and done without any serious delay. I think at least half a dozen different members of this party and an equal number of members of the C.C.F. party have been trying off and on ever since the session opened to find out whether the government has any intention of carrying out that promise. It does not seem to me that it is an improper question or an unreasonable question or one that it should take the government very long to make up its mind about. I find it hard to understand why they are so secretive about it. I think it is within the recollection of all of us that we were obliged to listen to a great deal about secrecy when we were in the government and when hon. gentlemen opposite were sitting on the opposition side of the house.


Mr. Campbell (The Balilefords):: You
learned a lot in 22 years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there is one difference between our situations. I said this the other day, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps you will pardon me if I repeat it. There is a great deal of difference about being secretive about those things that have not been decided. Under our system it is a constitutional rule that when a minister speaks he speaks for the government and commits the government. Therefore until the government has made up its mind under our parliamentary rules a minister is perfectly entitled not to answer. But day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year we were censured because we carried out that proper rule.
But this ministry, Mr. Speaker, is different. This ministry will not even tell us about the things they have decided. This is something new. This is something we have never seen before in parliament, at least in the 20 years I have been around here. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Prime Minister would rise in his place and say, "Notwithstanding the fact that we gave a solemn assurance before the election that we would include mental and tubercular patients, we are taking a second look at the matter; we are not sure we were not imprudent", or if they would say, "We have not made up our minds yet", I think we would all say, "That is an honest attitude". I know that for my part it would satisfy me perfectly.
But the Minister of National Health and Welfare gave an extremely evasive answer to my question. He said he thought I would

Health Insurance
discover that all the Prime Minister's promises would be kept. The premier of Manitoba and the minister of health of Manitoba assumed that that meant that mental and t.b. patients were going to be included. A day or two later the Prime Minister was asked, I think by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Deniset), whether or not this was correct and he said no assurance had been given. I think a little frankness, a little straightforwardness on this question is something we are really entitled to have in this house.
I do feel, as I have said already, that there is ground for criticizing the government for the lack of zeal, the lack of interest that has been shown in this question, when compared with the zeal and the interest they professed when the members of the government were on this side of the house. To that extent, I agree with the hon. member. But I must say, that I see no point, no useful purpose that could be served by adopting the amendment itself. If carried, as I have said, it would certainly defeat the professed object-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would he explain how the passing of this amendment, and the defeat of the government if that were the result, would defeat the object of the amendment? Would it not still be possible for the government, under the legislation which is on the statute books, to take the neccessary steps to bring this hospital insurance plan into operation? As a matter of fact, would the member not agree that if the government were defeated in the house on this issue it would probably get into action on the matter rather quickly?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member has one disadvantage that I do not share with him, he has never been a member of a government.


James Sinclair: He never will be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not go that far. After June 10, I will be very chary about making predictions as to who will serve in governments. The hon. gentleman never has served, but I have served in one government and I have been rather close to several and I believe that when a government is in the midst of an election campaign-I say this not in criticism of any government-they are not apt to be devoting the same energy and attention to the implementation of policies as they would be doing at other times.

It does seem to me we can be quite assured that if the government were defeated on this issue and had to go to the country, at a time when the public obviously does not want to have an election and on an issue that I imagine would seem to most people a side issue, compared with the tremendous problems that face this country at this time, international problems and national problems, that far from accomplishing any object the hon. gentleman has in mind it would defeat that object and do a lot of incidental damage as well.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Oh, oh.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: The hon. member will be laughing on the other side of his face before long.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The incidental damage I was thinking of would be having no effective government at a time when this great NATO meeting is going to be held; at a time when things look rather dark. I was thinking also of the possibility of being in the midst of an election at a time when, as we know, there is a very serious matter in dispute between the railways and their employees. It seems to me, sir, that this is not a time to be talking frivolously about defeating governments and about having elections. It is a time to be getting on with the essential business of this country and that, sir, is precisely what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) said we ought to do by getting on as quickly as we reasonably could with the consideration of the estimates. It does seem to me that most of the grievances that most of us could possibly foresee are quite capable of being discussed on the estimates themselves.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: I wonder if I might call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this amendment I find it strange that so far we have had no speakers whatsoever from the government side of the house. As was so very capably pointed out by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in times gone by, in fact as late as last spring, in this house and indeed right across this country from coast to coast during the election campaign various members of the present government had plenty to say on this matter. Therefore, as I say, I find it rather strange that at least to date they have been silent.

I had also looked forward to hearing the comments on this particular subject of my namesake in this house, the former minister of national health and welfare. I was quite surprised, not so much at the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who spoke or at least intimated that he spoke in behalf of the former minister, as at what he had to say when he did speak. I found it very difficult to follow just what he was trying to do, whether he was trying to support the government, whether he was supporting the amendment or whether he was trying to put forth the policy of the Liberal party on this matter, if any.
Even having noted the obvious determination of the Liberal party in this parliament to support the Conservative government, come what may, I may say I was really shocked to hear the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) refer to health insurance which so materially affects the health of this nation of ours, as it is being discussed at the moment, as something frivolous. I cannot see how any member of this house can maintain that the health protection of the people of this country is a frivolous matter which should not be raised and discussed in this house. Possibly, if as he intimated he was speaking for the former minister of national health and welfare, who in turn has been responsible for putting forward the policy of the former Liberal government in regard to health insurance for Canada, then that explains the reason why we have waited 40 years for the implementation of the Liberal promise of health insurance which was first made to this house in 1919.
I would like to say in conjunction with this amendment put forth by our party that there is a definite urgency to get on with this job of providing health insurance in this country. In addition to the reasons so well outlined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I would draw the attention of this house to the fact that there are very powerful forces at work in Canada trying to stop or delay the health insurance as we now know it and to prevent it from spreading into a more comprehensive plan to cover the needs of the Canadian people.
To illustrate this point I would like to draw attention to this book which I believe was made available to all hon. members of this house. It is entitled "Underwriting Canadian Health-An Economic View of Welfare Programs", and it was done by a firm of consulting economists, William Loug-heed associates, Toronto, at the request of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and 96698-804
Health Insurance
the Canadian life insurance officers association. I would particularly like to point out an item contained in the preamble of the survey. This survey was for the express purpose of setting out:
-the urgent necessity of countering any tendency of the new hospital scheme towards "natural" growth into the areas or surgery, medicine, dental and nursing care.
Now there are scarcely two more powerful organizations in this country today than the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian life insurance officers association. In Canada they represent a tremendous amount of money, a tremendous amount of wealth and a tremendous amount of influence and I think in all fairness it can be said of both these organizations, judging from their past records, that it is business first, and nothing afterwards. I submit their primary interest is certainly not the health of this nation. As I say, their first consideration is that of their business interests.
We all know that costs in connection with health in this country are steadily rising, as they are in all other parts of the world. These costs are rising to the extent that people just cannot afford to be without health insurance and I submit that the motive behind these delaying tactics is to create a situation where everybody is going to be compelled to buy life insurance from these various insurance companies. I do not know just what costs were involved in conducting this survey but I assume that they were considerable. This survey had to be undertaken, the returns published and distributed over the wide field in which they have been distributed, and I think it is rather ironic that the money used to conduct the survey-to use its own words, "for the express purpose of stopping a national health insurance plan"-was raised from the very people who pay premiums to these very insurance companies. In other words, the people's money is being used to cut their own throats.
I maintain that in addition to the reasons previously given, these points I have here outlined provide all the more reasons for getting on with this job without further delay. In closing I might say, Mr. Speaker, I am still awaiting with interest an indication from the members of this government as to whether they hold any of the same views they expressed in this house last year and to the Canadian people just prior to election.


Mr. R. M. T. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate for several reasons. I have heard from hon. members across the way talk of "delay, dodging, stalling, and putting off". Our

Health Insurance
government has been in power tor five months; the cabinet minister concerned in this matter for three months. This government has introduced more legislation in those five months than it took other parties many years to introduce.


An hon. Member:: How do you get that?


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: The hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) has put forth amendments to the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) talked about political expedience, stalling and no government. This government comprised of 112 people, have the three opposition parties scared to death. I think it is of great benefit to the Canadian people right now to have a minority government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: It keeps everybody on his toes.


Some hon. Members:: That is right.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: Really on their toes. The C.C.F. party says it is the party of the people-no political playing or delaying. I just wonder? I have merely heard the C.C.F. members speak about communist China, wheat, unemployment and health insurance. Now probably they speak of communist China because it gets big headlines in the newspapers. As to wheat, well we know we have a surplus inherited from the Liberal party but I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) is trying very hard to sell this wheat because he knows the farmer needs the money.
Unemployment. I would talk to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). The first time he rose in this house I believe he talked about the great immigration policy of the Liberal party. Our party when we took office, tried to slow down immigration to cope with the development of this country on a delayed basis. If the Liberals had taken this development up in the early part of 1956 the unemployment they are talking about today would be much lower.
Health insurance. The Liberal party in 1919 put forth a health insurance program. They were in office through 1927-1930, the years which took us into the depression years. They had plenty of time to think about rehabilitation and health after world war I, and they had plenty of time from 1935 to the end of the last great war to im-

plement this plan. In the big money-spending and taxation years between 1946 and 1957 they did absolutely nothing with regard to putting this plan into immediate effect.
I note they say that everything is on the statute books, but it was not actually done.
I believe this government should be given its due course of time; they have done a great job as far as I am concerned.
I am not as well versed in getting up and twisting words around in my speeches but I do believe that if in this house people would think about the people first and not get up and try to twist around issues that are political footballs-


Harold Edward Winch: Does the hon. member believe that the hospital insurance scheme is a football?


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: The way
you are putting it, it is.
I see our Minister of National Health and Welfare has a billion dollar estimate to go over. I do believe this party will bring forward a health insurance program based on planning. The amendment moved by the C.C.F. to the speech from the throne seeks for social and economic planning. I think it takes more than three months for a minister oif health and welfare to plan a health insurance scheme which the Liberals could not carry out in 40 years, and I am sure that within the next little while all parties will know that this party will put forward this scheme, because all members are in favour of this scheme. If you boys will give them a chance and not push them too much they will do it. If we can push through the estimates and the other legislation I believe you will get it more speedily than if one member gets up and talks for an hour and a half.
(Translation):


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arihabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I do not share the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and, for the reasons explained by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), I will certainly not vote in favour of his amendment. This hospitalization insurance and diagnostic services legislation, put on our statute books by the preceding government, was obviously appreciated by most Canadians, as evidenced by the fact that six provinces have already entered into the plan. As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, that proposal was also welcomed by the people and confirmed by the June 10 vote.
There is no point in dwelling at length on the advantages of this social service. Most

people in this country, have studied it, understand it and would be happy to see it implemented. However, the province of Quebec has withheld its approval and for a very simple reason. The Union Nationale government of my province wants no part of it because this social security measure was originally put forward by a Liberal government in Ottawa.
That is why I would like to ask the present government, one enjoying the good graces of the Quebec Union Nationale, to use its influence to have this measure accepted. It would be a great service to our people.
On polling day, June 10, many people in my constituency came to ask me to pay their hospital bills, even before casting their votes. My answer was immediate. I referred them, with my best regards, to the proper authorities.
Mr. Speaker, I am stating these facts so that you will understand the urgency of making such a service available to the great majority of our families of modest means.
(Text):


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated a moment or two before rising to my feet because I thought it probable that the former minister of health and welfare might wish to take part in this debate and, personally, I should be very glad to hear him do so before we end the proceedings.
I was rather interested to hear the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. McDonald) come forward so valiantly to the defence of the government. Certainly it is encouraging to see him stepping in so valiantly when some of the more senior members of his party have been strangely silent so far in this debate. Perhaps they feel the references to some of their former remarks which were put on record this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) might not gibe too well with what they might wish to say at this particular time, and therefore they may be a little more reluctant to speak than was the hon. member for Hamilton South.
Actually I think the hon. member for Hamilton South may be still at the honeymoon stage, as far as his attachment to the present government is concerned, if he imagines that it is going to go charging full speed ahead without an occasional prod from the opposition. Certainly the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into a committee of supply is one of the occasions when those of us on this side of the house have the right and the responsibility to point out what we believe to be the weaknesses of the government.
Health Insurance


Ernest James Broome: They haven't any.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That is a matter of opinion. The house would be a rather dull place if we were all in agreement on that point. It is all very well for people like the hon. member for Hamilton South to suggest that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been a busy man and that we should have a little more patience than we have before bringing up such delicate matters as putting health insurance into effect. I think, however, that if hon. members on the government side were to examine a little more carefully the motion proposed on behalf of the C.C.F. group they would see that all it is proposing is that those who are now on the government side should do what they said they were prepared to do when they were in opposition, and what they were urging the former government to do as recently as last April.
It would not be in keeping with the facts to suggest that this question of health insurance is one which involves stepping into unexplored fields. After all, I remember that a long time before I was a member of this house I received a copy of a draft bill which was presented for the consideration of a committee of this house, outlining in complete detail the operation of a national hospital insurance plan.
I remember having participated in a forum with representatives from one or two political schools of thought on the subject matter of that draft bill and certainly I know that we found this draft bill was something which had involved a lot of careful preparation and study. Therefore I suggest that the amendment we are proposing is simply a matter of asking those who now sit on the treasury benches to live up to their announced belief as expressed earlier in the current year, nothing more or less than that.
When the former minister of national health and welfare sat across the floor from this group, as he probably remembers only too well, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others in this group kept urging and prodding him to move a little more speedily than he was doing. However, when he did get to the point of bringing in the hospital and diagnostic services bill last year we welcomed the fact that he was bringing it into the house although we did not hesitate to point out some of its shortcomings. I am sure the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) would not expect us to be any less diligent in prodding the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) than we were in prodding him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Poulin:: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to raise another grievance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon.
member to defer his raising of another grievance. I believe there are still members who wish to speak on the amendment which is before the house, which is the only proper subject to discuss at this moment. I call on the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Mr. T. J. Irwin (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, of course it had not been my intention to say anything about this amendment, but so far as I am concerned-and I think I can speak for my group-I am willing to go along with the amendment because all that the amendment asks for is the implementation of the intention of section 6, subsection 2 of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, which reads:
No contributions shall be paid under this act until at least six provinces, containing at least one-half the population of Canada, have entered into an agreement, and the provincial law in relation to those provinces is in force.
I do not think this is too much to ask. I do not think the government can accuse us of unnecessarily prodding it when we ask it to implement something that is already on the statute books, because any statute is the business of any government, no matter when

Health Insurance
it takes office. That statute is already there, and we are asking them now to put that part of the statute into force at once.
The province of British Columbia was ready for this section of the statute long before April 12, 1957, because when I look at section 5 of the same act I find it contains the terms of the agreement with the provinces. Subsection 2 reads:
In every agreement, the province shall covenant and agree
(a) to make insured services available to all residents of the province upon uniform terms and conditions.
I submit right now, Mr. Speaker, that British Columbia is the only province that complies absolutely with this condition, because any person resident in British Columbia for one year is covered by the hospital insurance act in that province. Every single person in that province is ready now to take advantage of anything that the federal government may see fit to do to make things a little easier.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) quoted the Canadian Labour Congress' memorandum of October 21, 1957, but he did not read quite far enough. Let me take up where he left off:
Since they (the province) have been shouldering the burden for some years without assistance (apart from health grants), they should immediately get the benefit of the act. Anything else is less than fair. Furthermore, to make these grants available to them now would undoubtedly cause the more laggard provinces to get their own legislation into effect all the sooner.
Then a little further on we find the following:
We think the government agrees. Certainly the Conservative party in opposition voted to censure the late government for not announcing legislation for this purpose. Again we hope that what the party voted for in opposition it would carry out in office.
When the present government were in opposition they voted for this hospital insurance scheme. They voted for subsection 2 of section 6. What we are asking them to do now is to implement it. There is no reason why it should not be implemented.
May I say that I have another reason for saying a couple of words in support of this amendment.
One of the reasons I am supporting this amendment is that I should like to smoke out into the open the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith). I have an idea that the gentleman in question is quite willing to go along with this matter. I have an idea that he is quite willing to go along with it and that the government is willing to go along with it but I should like him to say now whether or not he is going to do it. If he does not say he is going to do

it now, we will know that he has no intention of doing it now or probably at any other time.
As to my friend the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee), he spoke for a moment or two about what this government had done with regard to old age pensions, old age assistance, disabled persons and blind persons in the legislation they brought down for them. That is fair enough as far as it went but it has nothing to do with hospital insurance; not a thing in the world. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is time this government got around to implementing all these things that it was so anxious about in previous sessions and at least to implementing the suggestion that was brought forward 40 years ago and for which we are looking now. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment should carry.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, before discussing this particular matter, I might take advantage of this the first day in the House of Commons of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) to extend to him a very sincere welcome. I do so for, like the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), all former students of his, I have a special reason for being particularly proud that he should become a member of the House of Commons. I cannot extend to him wishes for a long tenure, but I can say to him quite sincerely that we are indeed proud that he joins the ranks of the class of 1928 serving this country in the parliament of Canada.
I must take issue with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who, speaking of the opposition sitting to your immediate left, Mr. Speaker, said that we had apparently abdicated our role as an opposition. The hon. gentleman, of course, did not expect to be taken too seriously when he made that observation because he knows that in this session the real opposition of the government has been that led by the right hon. gentleman who is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent). Likewise he said that we had apparently, because of the statement of the Leader of the Opposition, given indication of an abdication on our part to discuss the estimates. That, of course, again is a statement that I know he does not wish any of us to take seriously because it is in no way in accord with the observation made by the Leader of the Opposition. We shall exercise our right of constructive criticism.
What we are concerned about here at this time is to see that in the present unusual situation this government is given an opportunity of carrying out its election promises at the earliest possible moment. It is because

of that consideration that we have taken the stand which was stated by the Leader of the Opposition today and which has governed our conduct in respect of other matters involving amendments and other moves in this house that would have led to no other course than a dissolution of this parliament at this time.
I do not think anyone should be misled by the terms of the amendment before us. On its face it looks like an innocent amendment and I have no doubt that it will be used by hon. gentlemen to my left in the far corner as an indication that only they and those who supported that amendment really are interested in seeing that hospital insurance in this country is furthered. I am sure that statement will be made by hon. gentlemen at what they regard as appropriate moments. But let my words now be associated with such declarations when I say that this amendment would be a very effective way of further postponing the day when we can have a real advance made in the matter of hospital insurance. What would be the consequence of it? The consequence of the acceptance of the amendment in this form would mean that this government would be defeated. That would mean that there would be no federal-provincial conference. That would mean that this government would not be in a position to carry on the kind of negotiations with the provinces that are necessary in furthering hospital insurance in Canada. That is what this amendment would mean. Instead of this amendment being a positive step forward for the implementation of hospital insurance, it would be a step that would at least suspend any of these negotiations which are necessary to the ultimate adoption of hospital insurance in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would my hon. friend permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did he discontinue negotiations with the provinces after	parliament	was	dissolved
last April?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I certainly did not, as I will indicate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then how does my hon. friend make the argument he is now advancing?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is quite a different matter. Our government had declared its policy. This government has not yet declared its policy. That is the difference. I am glad my hon. friend has recognized in his amendment the indispensable position of the provinces in this matter. If I may say so, he has not always taken that position.
Health Insurance


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, we have.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says, "Yes, we have". I do not want to do him an injustice but my impression is that in former declarations and submissions that he has made in this house he has given the impression that this particular kind of matter depended entirely upon actions of the federal government. From the terms of this amendment or from the implications, at any rate, we can see that he now recognizes that a matter of this sort depends upon cooperation of the provincial governments as well. If this amendment has the faults which I believe it possesses, it nevertheless serves the purpose which I am sure really was in the mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely to join with the Liberal opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Murdo William Martin: -in bringing to the attention of the government the importance of doing something about this matter.
What are the facts? Shortly after the speech from the throne was read I took advantage of the opportunity, on behalf of those of us who sit in this group, to inquire of the genial Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) why he had not seen fit to put in Her Majesty's mouth words that would express the intention of the government in the matter of hospital insurance. In the speech from the throne nothing whatsoever had been said about health insurance. Then, as the house knows, shortly thereafter I took advantage of a motion somewhat similar to this one to urge on the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith)-I think in the presence of the Prime Minister-the desirability of an early statement by the government of its position with regard to health insurance. I pointed out that there was a great silence on the part of members of the government with respect to this matter. I noted, of course, with satisfaction, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, when he had taken office, made a public statement in which he said that one of his intentions was to further the establishment of hospital insurance in Canada. I again acknowledge his statement. But his has been the sole voice of those sitting on the treasury benches.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister made many speeches. I have carefully examined the many varied and interesting utterances of the Prime Minister and I find it difficult to find that he made many references to hospital insurance. I think the

Health Insurance
only reference he made that I recall at the moment was a somewhat abbreviated reference, if I may use the term, to hospital insurance in the city of Winnipeg.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Also Saskatoon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) points out the Prime Minister also said something along this line in Saskatoon while he was near home. I suppose that was a good place to say something that was obviously popular in Saskatchewan.
There are good reasons, therefore, in the face of this silence on the part of the government for those of us in the opposition to conclude that the government, if interested in hospital insurance, at any rate has not given great evidence of this interest or of its intentions. I feel that this particular debate today will serve the purpose of giving us an opportunity of urging the government to make a statement of its intentions, both as to Bill No. 320 as it now is on the statute books, and as it might be in the light of any changes which, in view of the position government members took from this side of the house, they might want to make.
The fact is that the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the various provincial premiers indicates that at the coming conference on November 25, understandably a fiscal conference, there is going to be little opportunity, if any at all, for a discussion of hospital insurance. Hon. members will recall that I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) on several occasions whether or not an opportunity would be afforded at that conference for provincial governments to discuss hospital insurance. The minister indicated that there should be no difficulty in having some kind of discussion with the provinces. But the correspondence between the provinces and the Prime Minister of Canada does not support that view. This correspondence clearly establishes that in the mind of the government this conference on November 25 is to be a conference dealing with fiscal matters and with fiscal matters alone. Of course, if a province wants to bring up the question of hospital insurance incidentally, in so far as it involves a very considerable expenditure on their part as well as on the part of the federal government, there could be no objection to that, I take it from reading the correspondence. However, the correspondence does not give any basis for discussion of further demands by the provinces on the federal government, for concessions or modifications in the existing law, except in a letter written to the premier of Manitoba on

October 29. Then, the Prime Minister did say there would be an opportunity at the dominion-provincial conference for discussing hospital insurance.
This letter preceded the letter that was sent to all the provinces later. We have to ask the Prime Minister which letter is to govern the situation in so far as this conference is concerned, the letter that was sent to Premier Frost and all the other premiers or the first letter sent only to the premier of Manitoba? The provinces are vitally interested in this. Manitoba is not one of the provinces that has, as yet, agreed to come in on the basis of the bill which was passed at the last session. Premier Campbell has said that because of the failure of the Prime Minister-undoubtedly a busy man-to answer his correspondence the acceptance of hospital insurance in Manitoba has been delayed. But for that delay there would have been progress made by that province in the matter of accepting the general offer laid down by the federal government in Bill No. 320.
Then we had a further complication that obscures the picture, or at any rate fails to give us a clear indication of what the government really intends to do about this matter on November 25. One of the members on this side, I think it was the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare if the t.b. and mental health patients were to be included in the coverage. The minister gave a reply that I think would lend itself to the interpretation that that might be done.


Mr. Monteith:: Just like yours.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says, just like mine. If they were like mine, they were unequivocal. Then the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Deniset) asked the Prime Minister the same question on another day, and the Prime Minister said there was no commitment. On the one hand, we have a statement from the Prime Minister, and on the other that of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now, the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not misunderstand me if I say that, much as I have respect for him and his authority as minister, I am bound to recognize that any declaration made by the Prime Minister must be regarded as having primacy in so far as declarations of policy of the government are concerned.
We have, therefore, these various contradictions which serve as a background for the building of a vacuum in so far as knowing what the intentions of this government really are. We do not know, for instance, whether or not they have abandoned the position that

they took when Bill No. 320 was under consideration, that the bill was acceptable, that the bill was a forward step but it was wanting in many particulars. The Minister of Finance, it will be recalled, moved an amendment to the effect that there should be included in the provisions of the bill certain features that were not included. We were told, not in an amendment, but in a whole series of speeches by hon. gentlemen when they were in opposition, that in addition to not covering tuberculosis and mental illness the bill was wanting because it did not provide for sharing alike with the provinces in the matter of depreciation. There were many speeches made by hon. gentlemen opposite that, in addition, the federal government should share in the cost of administering the scheme.
Now what is the attitude of the government with regard to these questions? Have they now decided, confronted with the responsibility which is theirs, that they do not propose to accept in government what they urged when they were in opposition? What is the reason that provinces like New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are not in the scheme? The situation before the election was this. Six provinces had accepted the federal proposal; they were the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, Ontario and Newfoundland. The governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were in intense negotiations, not only with the officers of the department but with myself. In answer to the question put by the member for Winnipeg North Centre, may I say that after the dissolution of this house and during the course of the election, I took advantage of my unsuccessful mission to certain parts of Nova Scotia to discuss with the premier of that province matters having to do with the acceptance by Nova Scotia of the hospital insurance proposal the federal government had made.
I can say that the negotiations I had with Premier Stanfield resulted in marked progress, and I had reason to believe that there was a likelihood of that province coming in. As a matter of fact the next day the premier of Nova Scotia made a statement in which he said there was no question that the Nova Scotia government would accept the proposal put forward by the federal government. Later I saw the minister of health for Nova Scotia and the minister of health for New Brunswick in Montreal, again during the course of the election, where I had a more successful mission, incidentally. They both indicated, in the presence of each other, the great likelihood of their provinces coming in. Now why have Nova Scotia and New Brunswick not come in since June 10; what reasons have they in their minds today for not having 96698-81J
Health Insurance
accepted the proposal to which, at that time, it was evident they were giving favourable consideration?
Is it because this government has now taken some steps which are not acceptable to either one of these provinces? I do not know; we have had no statement on this matter from the government. We do know, however, that the government of the province of Nova Scotia has set up a second body to study from the point of view of Nova Scotia the advantages of this particular hospital insurance proposal of the federal government which is now part of the law of the land.
Has something developed in the meantime which causes them to feel they could not get from this government, under this law, the same kind of deal, for the extension of which the previous administration had received the approval of parliament? Do they feel that possibly because they share the same political conviction or ideology with the present government they might get a better deal? If that is the case then there should be no difficulty in the way of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) telling us just what is the situation.
However, here is the picture today, and it is a serious one, in so far as implementing this measure is concerned. Premier Frost has indicated that he proposes to bring in his act on January 1, 1959. It will be recalled that last winter the Prime Minister of Canada, in correspondence with the premier of Ontario, urged that premier to bring in his scheme at an early date and, while the then prime minister recognized that this was a matter exclusively within the control of the province of Ontario, he wanted Premier Frost to know that if he could bring in his measure before January 1, 1959, he would have the support of the federal government and, providing the necessary conditions embodied in the legislation were met, the federal government would be prepared to share with the government of that province the cost of hospital insurance in the province of Ontario.
Now Premier Frost has indicated the rates which will be charged to insured people in Ontario under his plan. That of course is a matter over which this parliament has no control or authority, but it does indicate that he is moving along with his scheme. Furthermore I know from my own conversations with Mr. Swanson, the head of the hospital insurance commission in Ontario, that the authorities were making and are making every preparation for the implementation of their measure-so far as they are concerned [DOT]-on the date Premier Frost has set for himself. But, under the act-and this is

Health Insurance
what the government must bear in mind-if when Premier Frost comes to set in motion his measure there are not the number of provinces with schemes in force, not in operation as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre properly pointed out no payments will be made by the federal government to the province of Ontario. No one would quarrel with the government of that province if there was a delay in the implementation of its scheme if they could not count on the federal government paying its share of this very laudatory but expensive proposition respecting the health of the people of Canada. So for that reason hon. gentlemen on this side of the house have every justification in pressing the government and prodding the government into action so that there will in fact be no delay on January 1, 1959, in the implementation of the scheme in the province of Ontario or in any one or other of the other five provinces.
Now the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says, as he said last year and on other occasions, that there is a way out of that situation. That way, he says, is for the federal government to pay money to any province which has a scheme in being. Now that looks like a very attractive proposition but I think, on analysis it is one that really cannot stand up. I say this because in British Columbia they have had a hospital insurance scheme for a number of years; they have had a hospital insurance scheme for a longer period of time in the province of Saskatchewan, and that argument would have applied equally four, five and ten years ago as well as, it is urged, it applies today or as it did when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made it last spring. The refusal of the federal government in that particular is based upon the sound proposition that it has no right to ask all the taxpayers of Canada to foot the bill for benefits-no matter how good they may be- for a minority section of the people of the country with respect of a particular provincial enactment. That is the principle behind our proposition and if it should eventuate that this present government changes its position in this particular, then I think other provinces will be in a strong position to say "Well, what you have done"-let us say Ontario-"you should have done for us a long time ago."
It is for those reasons that this government owes it to the house to tell us what negotiations have been carried on since they came into office, if any negotiations have in fact been carried on. We were told by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that his officers are ready at all times to discuss

these matters with the provinces. Well I say to him, of course the officers of the public services are ready at any time to discharge their duty, but that was not the question and it is not the question. What is this government doing to see that it makes itself available and what is it doing and what is the minister doing to further these negotiations with the provinces? That is the real question and unless we get a satisfactory answer to this interrogation we have the right to conclude that this matter of hospital insurance is going to be very considerably delayed indeed.
That is the proposition of which the province of Ontario should be aware, as I am sure it is, because last April in another room in this building I sat with my officials and those from the Department of Finance and from the province of Ontario, and it was pointed out by the provincial treasurer of Ontario at that time just exactly what the position would be in which Ontario would find itself unless we were energetic in our negotiations with the other provinces in getting them to accept the terms of Bill No. 320. The provincial treasurer said, "We will have taken great steps in regard to other insurance schemes with labour, management, insurance companies and so on and there will be nothing but confusion in the province of Ontario unless we have some assurance at some stage"-which would have been about the month of September last-"that we can expect payments to be made by the federal government."
Now that was the position at that time and we therefore sat down with the provinces to discuss with them the terms of the kind of master agreement that we would want to conclude between the provinces on the one hand and ourselves on the other. What progress has been made with regard to that kind of agreement?
When we left office we had exchanged the terms of the proposed clauses with various provinces. What has happened since that time? Has an agreement with Ontario been signed. We certainly would have signed an agreement, I am sure, by the end of June and certainly not later than the end of July.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well some hon. gentlemen say, "oh, oh". I am saying I know whereof I speak. When I talk about these matters I can talk, as hon. members in this house know, about something into which this party and I have put our best endeavours over a long period.
What is the situation in regard to Saskatchewan? Saskatchewan has had hospital insurance for some time. There would have

been no difficulty about an agreement with Saskatchewan, and, but for one point-that was the question of residence-I do not think there would have been any difficulty in connection with an agreement with the province of British Columbia. What has happened with regard to those two provinces? What negotiations are taking place? What is the state of participation by those two provinces? These are surely legitimate questions which one should, and can, put with propriety tonight to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
What about the province of Prince Edward Island? Have officials of the department gone down to Prince Edward Island within recent months to discuss the terms of the main agreement? Have there been any preparatory steps taken in that or any other province which has already consented to the scheme? These are questions the answers to which will be the kind of argument or the kind of evidence which will establish in our minds and in the minds of the people of this country whether or not this government really intends to bring in hospital insurance at all.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. gentleman allow a question? I followed his statement with great interest, and I should like to ask him this: if the answers he receives are not satisfactory or adequate, does he still intend to follow his leader in a vote of confidence in this government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. Prime Minister is too experienced a lawyer to expect that a catch question can fool me. I do say this: from the public life of my leader I do not find much difficulty in following him anywhere and, secondly, if the answers are in the negative I will continue to prod the right hon. gentleman as strongly as I can. He knows perfectly well that if the answers are in the negative the acceptance of this particular amendment does not further the matter one way or another; all it would mean is that the right hon. gentleman would no longer enjoy the great luxury of being Prime Minister of Canada.
It should not be forgotten, Mr. Speaker, that this bill was put on the statute books at a time when it did not have to be put on the statute books, in conformity with the announcement of policy which had been made in regard to this matter. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will, I am sure, agree with me in this, that when we met the provinces we said that once six provinces had expressed their intention of accepting the proposal of the federal government we would take the necessary legislative steps to implement our end of the bargain. The hon. member and his leader nod their heads. We introduced this bill in
Health Insurance
parliament when we did not need to introduce it, in accordance with our declaration of policy. At that time only five provinces had accepted. Nevertheless, as an earnest of our intention-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And in response to pressure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, I am not going to deny that the hon. member does serve some purpose in this house on some occasions; that is why he is here. But the fact is that we put the act on the statute books before there was any requirement on our part to do so. Hon. gentlemen criticized us, and they continue to criticize us, for maintaining the principle of acceptance by six provinces. I explained at that time-and I have evidence to confirm this-that, first of all, we did not believe that in a matter of this sort, where there is divided opinion, it could be justified that all the taxpayers of Canada should be called upon to pay for something for a minority group, and if we had not insisted on the principle of six consenting provinces we would not have this approximation tonight of a national hospital insurance scheme or, rather, of a scheme which would be nationwide in its scope. We would not have had certain provinces in it. We kept saying that in this house; we kept pressing that on the provinces in the negotiations in which I took part in every province except one, where we got the required consent. Not that my participation brought about specific agreements, but it was an indication of the determination of the government of which I was a member to do everything it could to persuade the provinces to accept a measure which we believed to be in their interest.
Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt about the importance of this question. This is a matter which has required careful collaboration between the provinces and the federal government. It is a matter which is going to involve an expenditure of considerable sums of money, roughly half the cost being shared by the federal government. It is true that some provinces, the wealthier provinces, are receiving less from the federal government than others, but we developed a plan of financial assistance which took into account the needs of the poorer provinces. Assistance in the case of Nova Scotia would amount to well over 70 per cent and in the case of New Brunswick close to 70 per cent. It would seem, therefore, that there can be no legitimate reason for those provinces, having in mind the great financial benefits to them, not coming into the scheme unless this government sitting on your right, Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Health Insurance
Speaker, has put some obstacle in the way which is not yet apparent to us or to the people of Canada.


Mr. Maclnnis:: The people of Nova Scotia never accepted anything from you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member was never more correct in his life. They did not.


Donald MacInnis: They never accepted it from you. It was only acceptance in principle. There was nothing definite.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member has not followed too carefully what I said. But I say this to him: his constitutents-the men who work in the coal mines-are the ones who in Nova Scotia are asking that the government of Nova Scotia should accept this.


Donald MacInnis: You are wrong there.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Have you followed some of the reports of our mine workers union with regard to this?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member indicates that perhaps they are not anxious. He sits on the government side. He is now indicating that this government has some doubts about this hospital insurance bill. If that is the case, then I hope the government will soon acquaint us with an intention which, apparently, the hon. gentleman has just now revealed. Apparently this government does not feel so sure, if what the hon. member said is right, and if the indication given by the hon. member is correct, perhaps this government is now taking a second look at this measure and thinking now that we have increased old age pensions and brought in these other social measures we cannot go any further. I don't agree with that position, of course.


Robert Muir: On a point of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. gentleman knows he cannot interrupt to ask a question unless the member who is speaking yields the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I yield the floor.


Robert Muir: I was just wondering if you had followed some of the reports from our mine workers union and so on with regard to this question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I have. The mine unions, I know, want more than this. But I have not yet seen any mine union or any union which has not joined with the Canadian Congress of Labour in the tribute it paid to the former government for bringing in this particular measure.


Donald MacInnis: There is definitely no affiliation between the miners' locals and the Canadian Labour Congress.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope that as a result of the action already taken by the government involving well conceived modifications of social measures introduced by those who sit on your left, Mr. Speaker, we are not now going to be told that because of the financial implications of these measures we cannot expect action on the part of this government with regard to hospital insurance.
This measure is now the law of the land. If we had been sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker, there could be no doubt but that we would have made and concluded agreements with all the consenting provinces, and if we had not we would not have come back to this house and placed any province in the embarrassing position like the one which unless something is done, is bound to confront the province of Ontario. I therefore say with confidence that this is a measure which will mean a great deal to the people of Canada. This is a measure that will provide for individuals receiving at the hands of the taxpayers of Canada, and through their own contributions in the provinces as well as their own participation in the tax loads imposed on them by the federal government, benefits that will be of the greatest social significance and it would be nothing short of a tragedy if this government, now reluctant to commit its opinions to this house and to the country, were to take any steps or avoid taking any steps that would delay a measure which means so much to the people of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why don't you vote the way you speak?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all, of course, take great pleasure in setting at ease the mind of the former minister of national health and welfare (Mr. Martin). He seems to be so concerned-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Jay Waldo Monteith: -as to just what is the purpose of this government. I think I can assure him before I conclude my remarks that we have been progressing very favourably and I venture to say just as rapidly as he could progress in this position if his government had been returned to office on June 10.


Some hon. Members:: Much more so.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Due to the complexity of the agreements and the need for consultation with the provinces and so on I am quite convinced that no agreements could have

been concluded and actually signed prior to this date. During the course of my remarks I will endeavour to point out to the hon. member for Essex East just what stage of development these agreements have now reached. Before doing that, however, I would like to remind hon. members that this is a want of confidence motion. As a consequence, without any further remarks and just to show how silly the situation is, I believe I could sit down at this moment and the government would be definitely sustained.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Trained seals over there now.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, but they are not all on this side; there are still trained seals in the other parties.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Some of them are pretty slippery.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Despite all the talk, as a result of such a vote a majority in this house would indicate that they believe we are taking whatever immediate steps should necessarily be taken to implement hospital insurance in Canada. There can be no other interpretation. As I said, this government would be sustained on a vote and without any discussion whatsoever. As a consequence, a majority in this house believe that we have been taking whatever immediate steps should be taken despite the terms of the amendment.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about it, then.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, we are as well aware of all the points brought out by the previous speakers as they are. We have been studying this act and the implications of it as well as the future agreements with the provinces. I would remind the house that this legislation was passed last spring and incidentally it took the present chief opposition party the period of time that has elapsed since 1919 to get around to bringing in this legislation.
I wish to point out some of the steps this government has taken since it assumed office in the field of health insurance. First of all, all the interested provinces have been visited by the officials of my department for consultation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When?


Jay Waldo Monteith: A few weeks ago the minister of health of Newfoundland was here in Ottawa consulting with me. Only last week the newly-appointed chairman of the hospital services planning commission of Nova Scotia, Mr. Black, visited me in Ottawa. Next week there is to be a meeting between the officials of the department of health of Ontario and
Health Insurance
my own department. These are only a few of the over-all meetings and consultations which have been in progress over the past few months.


George Carlyle Marler: Has there been any action?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Plenty of action, more than there would have been if you had been in power. In the last two weeks I have personally met with the medical advisory committee of the Canadian Medical Association, the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges which represents the deans of all the medical colleges in Canada, the Canadian Hospital Association and the Dominion Council of Health. As I say, that was within the last two weeks. All these associations are definitely concerned with the application of our hospital insurance scheme in terms of how it is going to benefit Canadian citizens. All these bodies expressed their wish to cooperate with the Department of National Health and Welfare and also with the provincial authorities concerned. I would like to stress here that this is a co-operative enterprise in conjunction with the provinces. We, as the dominion government, are not forcing the pace.


George Carlyle Marler: That is true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Ah, ha!


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is a matter of cooperation and we are taking the provinces into consultation and working closely with them. That is the only way success can be achieved. We are not forcing something on the provinces. The provinces are moving forward with their plans and we are assisting in whatever way we can. We are always available for consultation and assistance.
On November 13 in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said in effect that if the premiers of the provinces wish hospital insurance matters to be discussed at the forthcoming conference on November 25 and 26 an opportunity would be given to discuss these matters fully.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But
what was the question?


Jay Waldo Monteith: You asked the question, you should know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member asked if an opportunity for discussion of hospital insurance would be provided at the first opportunity. My department is arranging a conference of provincial technical officials in December to assist in ironing out any differences of opinion, regulations, etc. The hon.

Health Insurance
member for Winnipeg North Centre appears to believe that this is an extremely simple matter. I would simply like to mention a few of the issues which have to come up for discussion at this time and I hope he will see, as I hope all other hon. members will, that this is a most complicated situation. I am quite sure the hon. member for Essex East will agree with me that he had not any idea when he was minister of this department that the whole thing could be put into force overnight. We have never said we would put it into force immediately. I have never taken any other stand but that we would put it in force as soon as we conceivably could.
Amongst the considerations which have to be discussed at this conference of technical officials of the provinces and my own department in December are the following: draft regulations, the draft agreement, the details required of provincial schemes for administration, medical problems related to the program, nursing education, the method of sharing calculated costs, the nature of reports and statistics and discussion with regard to certain groups now covered by the federal government.
Maybe it seems easy. Maybe, at one time, when I sat over there, I thought these things were easy; but I am sure the hon. member for Essex East will agree that these things are complicated; they do require consultation. We have acted in complete co-operation with provinces which are interested; we have followed through; we have wasted no time whatsoever.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about Manitoba?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, Manitoba, too; we have wasted no time there at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Two months to get an answer to a letter.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that we are acting promptly, and we intend to come up with a hospitalization scheme which is possible of implementation in cooperation with the provinces and for the betterment of all Canadians.
I should like to say a word about the interpretation of the term "in force". The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me a question on November 11 last. There were two or three questions. The final question on his part was as follows, as reported at page 942 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary question? In view of the fact that that is not the interpretation that was given to the last house by the former minister of national health and welfare, would the minister have appropriate inquiries made as to what is the legal meaning of those words?

My answer was:
Mr. Speaker, in my studies at the moment concerning the act I have every intention of doing that.
I have done that; I said I would study this. I have, and I have had a legal opinion. I should like to read section 6 subsection (2) of the act:
No contributions shall be paid under this act until at least six provinces, containing at least one-half the population of Canada, have entered into an agreement, and the provincial law in relation to those provinces is in force.
The legal opinion I have is as follows:
As a general guide I should think that the provisions of subsection (2) of section 6 as quoted above would be satisfied if the provincial statute has become law notwithstanding that the payment of benefits thereunder may by the terms of the statute be postponed to some future date.
Now, that simply means, I presume, that when it has become law in the province, no matter if they do not undertake to make a payment until some months in the future, it is still considered to be in force.
May I point out that some of the provinces have not reached the stage of development of their legislation where the question of being in force is at all pertinent. They just have not reached that stage. In an important matter such as this any final decision can be reached only after the actual legislation of the provinces concerned has been reviewed. Some may have to be amended; others, of course, have not got their legislation on the statute books yet.
There has been a lot of talk today about our being dilatory in pushing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I can only say that we have been pushing this legislation with every intention of getting it into force as soon as possible. Let us remember that there are still many important points to be decided. Most of those important points must be resolved in consultation with the provinces. We have to work with them. We do not settle these things alone; they must be settled in consultation with the provinces.
All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that we are going forward with this legislation very rapidly. We have every intention of following it through without delay. We are going forward orderly but hastily. We do intend to come, and will come to a satisfactory and a beneficial conclusion which will react to the benefit of all Canadians.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend asked me a question at the outset, and my answer-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Did I ask you a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I understood the minister to ask me a question.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I did not.


Murdo William Martin: I understood the minister to ask me a question. My hon. friend says no. The reason why we are taking the position we are is that, as he knows well, if this government were defeated on this measure we would be delaying the implementation of hospital insurance for some months.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand your excuses.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We do not understand your excuse.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a subterfuge of the first water.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house and the country is indebted to the usual diligence of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for having brought this matter before the house and the country at this time. It has had at least this much effect, that for the first time since this house went into session we have had a statement from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) as to some of the steps that have been taken to bring this legislation into effect. We have been told at least this much, and I am sure it will be of great comfort to the provinces that the government is available for consultation.
The spokesman for the official opposition in this matter, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), in his contribution was almost amusing because it occurred to me that he was under great difficulty in making his presentation; and the great inconvenience under which he was working will be realized when we know that he had to check on his speech with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) before he chewed the heck out of the government. As he went along he tried to leave the impression that in this case the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was in some strange and weird way joining with the Liberals to do something. Now what would he be joining with them to do? On this question the government has been giving us nothing but profound silence up until now, and the only thing in which we could have joined with the Liberals in this matter would be to make the silence more profound because they had nothing whatsoever to say about it until the amendment came before the house.


Murdo William Martin: Oh, yes.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: As a matter of fact, as the hon. member for Essex East went on with his speech one could not help but get the impression that he was quickly reaching the
Health Insurance
point where he was almost saying "I wish I had moved that amendment myself".


Murdo William Martin: If it were not for the peculiar situation in which we are I certainly would have.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: But there were two statements, one by the hon. member for Essex East and the other by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) to which I must take issue on a matter of principle. Both of them stated that in their opinion the chief reason why the government could not move until they had six provinces in agreement on this matter was-and I think I took the words down correctly- that in principle they object to all the people of Canada paying for something of which only a minority of the people could take advantage. When you lay that alongside the attitude of the same members of the previous government-and we remember the attitude they took with relation to the Trans-Canada pipe line, where they were quite prepared to have all the taxpayers of Canada contribute very handsomely to a few Texas millionaires who were going to have all the advantage,-then it is a little difficult to follow them in that principle.
The reason why I intervene in this debate at all, Mr. Speaker, is to try to get an answer to something which we have endeavoured to find out from the government, and which the minister in his reply has not yet disclosed.
The question is where the government stands in relation to its pledge made before and during the election campaign that, in their opinion, tuberculosis and mental illness should be included under this legislation.
We have a particular interest in this matter in the province of Manitoba because for some time it was given out to us in Manitoba by the provincial government that it was on this matter they were trying to make up their minds; in other words, that that was the reason for the delay by the province of Manitoba in declaring its intention as to participation under this legislation. Only very recently, according to a report in the Winnipeg Free Press, the minister of health and welfare in the province of Manitoba had something to say about this matter. I will quote from the report which reads in part as follows:
Hon. W. Bend, Manitoba health minister, said Wednesday Prime Minister Diefenbaker laid it down as "a matter of principle" for the Conservative party that national hospital insurance should cover TB and mental patients, and he added that the Prime Minister "cannot break faith".

Health Insurance
Those last three words are in quotation marks, "cannot break faith". It is not clear whether those last three words are a declaration of confidence or a veiled threat. But in any event in the opinion of the minister of health of Manitoba this present administration and the party that is in power is firmly committed to the inclusion of tuberculosis and mental illness under this legislation. On various occasions since this house met we have endeavoured to find out from the minister what the situation is and in the answers given, we have a contradiction which I should like to point out and I hope that some other member of the government,-perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself- will stand up before the debate ends and clear up this matter once and for all. I find that on October 31 as reported at page 599 of Hansard, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether it is the intention of the government to carry out the promise made in Winnipeg by the Prime Minister to include mental and tubercular patients in the federal hospital insurance plan.
Here was the answer given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will find that it is the intention of the government to carry out all its campaign pledges.
He might have made that statement on the spur of the moment and he may have been trying to be facetious about it but I can assure him that that answer was very carefully noted in the press in western Canada and, as a matter of fact, as a result of that answer it was stated by the premier of our province and the minister of health in our province that they accepted that as a clear indication that it was the intention of this government to include tubercular patients and mental patients under this legislation.
But I find that on November 4 I addressed to the Prime Minister a question which arose out of actual reports in the Winnipeg newspapers saying that at last the government has announced in the house officially through its Minister of National Health and Welfare that it intended to include those two categories of illness under the act. I addressed the following question to the Prime Minister on November 4, as reported at page 701 of Hansard:
Has the government given a firm commitment to the province of Manitoba that tuberculosis and mental illness will be included in the federal government's share of the cost of the public hospitalization plan? If so, when was this commitment given and in what form?
The Prime Minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, there has been no commitment, direct or indirect.
[Mr. Zaplitny.l
At the time I wondered why he added those last three words "direct or indirect", because he could have argued there was no direct commitment in the sense that neither he nor any minister of his government had officially communicated with the government of Manitoba to inform them that the government had now adopted as a policy the inclusion of those two categories of illness. But when he said "direct or indirect", it could have had only one implication, namely that he was repudiating the answer that had been given by his own minister on October 31, wherein the minister had said it was the intention of this government to carry out all its election pledges; and in the context of that answer he was referring particularly to the question of the inclusion of those two categories.
It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that what the Minister of National Health and Welfare said on October 31 was contradicted or repudiated by the Prime Minister on November 4. That is the only impression that was left in my mind and that was the impression that was left in the province of Manitoba. That leaves the government and the people of Manitoba in exactly the same position they were in when they started. They still do not know what the position of this government is with regard to the inclusion of tubercular patients and mental patients. It is a matter of interest not only to the people of Manitoba but to all the provinces across this country. It is a matter which will have to be taken into account in the setting up of the legislation which the provinces will have to put on their statute books to deal with this matter, in the calculation of the cost, and in the calculation of what premiums if any they will have to pass on to the individual under this scheme.
I see no reason whatsoever why the Prime Minister, in the course of this debate, cannot rise in his place and clear up this one simple elementary question: Is it or is it not the intention of the government to do something during the course of this session to implement the promise which they so clearly made on many occasions to improve the present legislation by including tuberculosis and mental illness under the act? If the government will not disclose their stand on that question today, then the only inference we can draw from that fact is that they are backing away from the election pledges which they made and we even have reason to be suspicious, along with the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), that the government is backing away from the whole proposition of a national health insurance plan.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think this debate today has served a very useful purpose. I think the debate has forced the hand of the minister. It would suggest to me that, in view of his statement in this house on Monday last, he has made a great deal of progress. In addition to noting his remarks at the end of his statement on Monday last in which he referred to being quite prepared to take this question of definition into consideration, I think one should also have on the record his remarks in answer to the question asked by the hon. member by Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as to the definition of "in force". At one point the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) replied as follows, as reported at page 942 of Hansard:
I think possibly the only answer to that is the interpretation of "in force".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister not make clear what he understands by the words "in force"?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes. My understanding as of the moment is that "in force" is implied to mean in operation. Whether or not that is a correct legal opinion, that is what I am given to understand as the implication.
So I suggest that this new legal definition which the Minister of National Health and Welfare gave to the house tonight is sufficient reason or sufficient accomplishment to warrant the debate that took place in the house today on this very important question.
I am indeed surprised that a party which earlier this calendar year was in such a hurry to have a national hospitalization program should now be so slow in advancing the date of this program coming into effect. As has already been stated, last session the hon. member for Lanark, Dr. Blair, moved a motion which I think was an excellent one putting the position of the official opposition at that time, namely that a scheme of hospital insurance should not have to wait until six provinces have their plans either in operation or in force, but moneys made available by the federal government should be available to one province that had its scheme in operation.
I certainly do not agree with the statement of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) that it is always necessary for a federal government to wait until the majority of the provinces comprising a majority of the people of this country are prepared to advance legislation before the federal government should be prepared to give a lead. It has been suggested to me by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that that was not the suggestion in the old age pension plan; that was not the suggestion in the amendments that were made in this very session to statutes
Health Insurance
that required contributions by the provinces. Instead the government said that any time a provincial government was prepared to match such things as disability pensions, then the federal government was prepared to pay the money for the additional amount that could be provided. Even this government does not always wait until a majority of the provinces containing a majority of the people of this country are prepared to act.
I do not see that that is the role of the federal government, that legislation necessary to the welfare of the people of this country should wait until the provinces with a majority of the population are prepared to go ahead in a certain direction. Indeed, the former government, of which the hon. member for Essex East was a member, has not always taken that attitude. They did not take that attitude with regard to unemployment insurance. They did not adopt that attitude with regard to the trans-Canada highway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unemployment insurance is a national scheme, and always has been.


Hazen Robert Argue: We have heard for so many years that the provision of benefits to take care of the unemployed is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Was he perhaps confusing unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance, because there has never been any provincial unemployment insurance of which I am aware?


Hazen Robert Argue: I was not confusing them at all. The party, of which the hon. member was a minister, said for so many years that the providing of assistance for the employable unemployed was a matter for the provinces. Finally the former Liberal government said that even if the provinces do not like what we are doing we are going to give leadership and we will go so far as to not ask them for one dollar of contribution to this scheme. I say, therefore, the position now taken is going backwards when it is stated we must wait until six provinces have schemes in force. My hon. friends did not take this attitude last spring.
There is one reason, though, which I can understand, for their change in position. It might be possible that they do not know from where they are going to get the money. They are hoping privately, in the recesses of their minds, that they are not going to have to pay any money under this act in 1958 and that it will be January 1, 1959 before they are called upon to pay any money. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), therefore, will not have to meet this problem in this

Health Insurance
calendar year. He is grinning right now. I think the Minister of Finance should not always be retreating. When he was in the opposition he was in favour of a much wider and a much faster health program than he is today. I should like him to take part in this discussion and tell us why this government, now that it is in office, has not taken exactly the same position it took when in opposition, namely that the provision of a hospitalization program for the people of this country was so important that federal money should be paid immediately to any province, even though it was paid to just one province, if that province had a suitable hospitalization plan in operation.
On motion of Mr. Argue the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I assume the house will proceed with this debate tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: We shall continue with this debate tomorrow, and if we get into supply we shall take the estimates of secretary of state, mines and technical surveys, veterans affairs-


Lionel Chevrier: In the same order as given on Friday night?


Howard Charles Green: No, the order is changed, and then fisheries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
would that be the order for Wednesday?


Howard Charles Green: I expect so, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.