1966-12-02

AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house of appointments to the Canadian Dairy Commission. The three commission members will be: Mr. S. C. Barry, presently deputy minister of agriculture, Mr. Jules Thibaudeau, a dairy farmer of Thurso, Quebec, and Mr. L. A. Atkinson, Vancouver, general manager of the Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association.
Mr. Barry will serve as chairman. He and Mr. Atkinson will of course be resigning from their present posts to accept the commission appointments.
The commission will take up its duties immediately. Its headquarters, as provided by the Canadian Dairy Commission Act, will be in Ottawa.
I wish to inform the house also of appointments to the consultative committee to the commission. These are: Mr. P. Pariseault, Granby, Quebec; Mr. J. L. Dewar, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Mr. Leopold Harvey, Saint Coeur-de Marie, County Lac St. Jean, Quebec; Mr. Ulysse Bernier, Bedford, Quebec; Mr. G. R. McLaughlin, Beaverton, Ont.; Mr. Ellard Powers, Beachburg, Ont.; Mr. W. T. Murchie, Toronto, Ont.; Mr. J. S. Turnbull, Regina, Sask.; and Mr. J. L. Bailey, Clover Bar, Alberta.
I attach particular significance to these appointments by reason of the fact that this is the first attempt of the government of Canada at the national marketing of agricultural commodities save and except the Canadian Wheat Board. This commission will be both the model and the crucible for future national marketing of agricultural commodities, and while there might have been considerable cynicism with regard to public affairs over the past years I wish to commend these men who have agreed to serve on the commission and on the consultative committee.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
Many of these people find time scarce and are busily occupied, but they feel, as I do, that this is a matter of extreme importance to our agricultural community and have thus agreed to serve in this interest.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time I wish to announce that the Agricultural Stabilization Board has completed calculations for the deficiency payment on the 1965 sugar beet crop and that the total deficiency payment will amount to $6.38 per standard ton, which includes the interim payment made in the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta of $2 per ton earlier this year. Cheques will be sent to producers as soon as final data is received from processors, who are today being informed of the level of payment. It is anticipated that cheques will be issued within a week or ten days.
I also wish to announce that the formula that will be used in computing deficiency payments under the 1966 sugar beet support program is being sent immediately to producer groups and processors. As was announced on April 7 of this year, the support level for the 1966 crop was established at $14.35 per standard ton announced at the time because of difficulties associated with the change in the method of reporting and the low level of the London daily price for raw sugar. The Agricultural Stabilization Board has also been authorized to make interim payments under its 1966 support program.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we on our side might divide our comments on this particular subject into two sections. The minister made two distinct announcements on motions and I should like to deal briefly with the announcement concerning the Dairy Commission while my colleague from Kent county (Mr. Dan-forth) will deal with the sugar beet prices arrangements.
In regard to the announcement about the Dairy Commission, I do not think that anybody in the house who is familiar with the names of those who have participated over the years in the development of a dairy policy will take objection to any one of the names announced by the minister. It is clear that the

December 2, 1966
Agriculture
advisory committee has been judiciously mixed, consisting of those who are producers and those concerned in the processing side of the industry, in order to try to give the Dairy Commission balance between the respective interests of producers and processors.
There is one matter that he mentioned near the end of his remarks that I should like to underline, and ask the minister to take under serious consideration, Mr. Speaker. He mentioned something about scepticism and cynicism in the handling of dairy problems. I think it is fair to say that, next to the problem of the vast number of farmers in Canada who have still not come up to the minimum standard of living for Canadians is the problem of the dairy industry.
The fundamental problem that is facing this industry is the divided jurisdiction between the federal government and the provincial governments. The key to the problem will be in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Because of the fact that goods can flow back and forth between those two provinces so easily, one of the priority tasks of the Dairy Commission will be to get the two provinces which are the major producers of dairy products to agree on some form of marketing arrangement whereby liaison between these two provinces is sufficient to extend the same conditions to producers in both provinces, and to work together to resolve the general difficulties of marketing on the whole of the national scene. The Dairy Commission itself by its very nature should consider this a prior task.
The minister also indicated that one of the jobs would be the handling of the marketing throughout the world of dairy products produced by the industry in Canada. This is of course the major weakness of the dairy industry today in Canada. Traditionally the industry launched its markets toward the cities around which were the milk sheds. This orientation toward the city markets is long overdue for change. The world is in desperate need of proteins, and if the industry is organized properly these proteins can be sold on the world markets. Instead of the dairy industry going downhill, as it has been going for many years, that industry could be one of the main weapons of the Canadian people, using our tremendous production potential to feed the hungry peoples of the world. That objective should be one of the major tasks of this Dairy Commission.
I think the minister is quite right, and I hope he has repented of his sins when he

implies that there should not be political concepts in the resolving of the dairy industry's difficulties. If you bring partisan politics into the problem of resuscitating and rebuilding this important industry, every move is doomed to fail. This is not an area in which to start fights on this subject among provincial ministers of agriculture, or between provincial ministers and the Minister of Agriculture.
This subject must be dealt with on a purely economic basis, not only for the good of the milk producers in Canada, but for the good of the task that we all have, which is to help to feed the hungry world which desperately needs the proteins of this industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) rising to comment on the second statement made?


Mr. Danforlh:: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am wondering if this is the most orderly way to do it. Because the minister addressed the house in a certain way, I presume it is correct to recognize the hon. member for Kent (Ont.).


Harold Warren Danforth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The announcement made by the minister this morning shows more clearly than anything else the need for an international agreement between nations to establish a price for raw sugar, so that the beet growers of this country will have some idea of the minimum and maximum price of sugar.
This government has been promising for many years a sugar policy which, it was understood, would be incorporated in an international agreement. From the announcement made this morning, certainly the growers will welcome the additional $4 subsidy being paid. This amount, with the interim payment of $2 a ton, will make the total $6 a ton, which will be very welcome to the industry. But, Mr. Speaker, I take strong exception to the cheques not yet being in the hands of the growers. The minister says that it may be ten days or two weeks yet before the growers receive those cheques. These are cheques, not on the 1966 crop but on the 1965 crop. It is strange indeed that not until the middle of December will the growers have received the cheques this year. In 1965, the election year, all these cheques were in the hands of the growers in the first week of November, three days before the election.
December 2, 1966

The government is establishing a policy for the 1966 crop now, a crop that has been planted and harvested, and it has said that the formula will be sent out to the interested groups. We have had no indication this morning as to what this formula will be, only that it will involve $14.35 a ton, which was the basic price for the 1965 and the 1966 crops. The government has also stated that there would be an interim payment. The growers came down many months ago seeking to have an interim payment made. There was no indication this morning when this payment would be made, or whether it would be in the 1966 or 1967 crop.
The government either does not understand the problems of the Canadian sugar beet industry or it is not interested enough to bring its policy affecting the industry up to date. The farmers should not be worrying about a 1966 crop: They are worrying now what the policy will be for the 1967 crop. I hope the government will take immediate action to let the Canadian sugar beet industry know what is ahead for it in 1967. That is absolutely necessary so that the industry and the growers can make plans for the coming year.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: The members of this party welcome the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture regarding the appointment of the Dairy Commission and the advisory committee. All the names he has given to the house are those of men who are admirably suited to discharge the responsibilities being placed on them. We wish them well in the monumental task they are assuming.
We in this party have long advocated the establishment of a national marketing board, and agencies for the marketing of agricultural products. The wheat board is an outstanding example of what can be done in this regard. Now a further step is being taken in connection with dairy products. We are all hoping, as is the minister, that this will be an outstanding success and that as a result of the work of the National Dairy Commission, with the consent and co-operation of the provinces, we may move into the field of livestock marketing by setting up a national livestock commission.
I am confident we shall never resolve the problems of the farmers in this country who produce livestock until a livestock commission and livestock marketing board have been established. We recognize of course the difficulties inherent in the fact that some of our
Agriculture
provinces are exporting provinces, while others are importing provinces. Then again, there is the division of jurisdiction between the federal and provincial authorities. Nevertheless I hope the minister will be able to work with the provincial ministers of agriculture toward the next and, I think the most essential step-grappling with the marketing of livestock and poultry produced in this country.
With regard to the announcement about the deficiency payment on sugar beets I think the statement we have made about the need for a national sugar policy is something which cannot be emphasized too strongly. About two years ago I pressed the present Minister of Finance, then minister of trade and commerce, to consider doing what Great Britain and other countries have done, namely to enter into long term agreements for the purchase of sugar.
At that time the minister felt the world price was too high. The world price today is lower than it has been for almost 100 years. It seems to me that this is the time to be drafting and enunciating a sugar policy, first estimating how much of the sugar market in Canada we can supply ourselves, and seeing to it that the sugar growers will be guaranteed prices which will induce them to stay in sugar production, and then entering into longterm agreements with sugar exporting countries for the balance of our requirements at some agreed range of prices over a given period of time.
I am sure that this would not only help the sugar beet producers but would be of tremendous advantage to the housewives of this country, who have always found that when the world price is high they are required to pay exorbitant prices, and that when the world price is low they still pay prices much higher than are justified.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to hear the Minister of' Agriculture (Mr. Greene) announce the creation of a Canadian Dairy Commission. The dairy industry is one of the most important sectors of our national economy. The minister is justified in saying that the time has come to remove political cynicism from agricultural administration. I trust the appointments that have just been made do not reflect partisanship on the part of the government.
As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) said a while ago, the commission

December 2, 1966
Agriculture
can accomplish a lot. If political interference is done away with-in the final analysis we must admit that the dairy industry does not concern only the members of the present government, but each and everyone of us in this house-regardless of our political ties, we can then deal objectively with Canadian agricultural problems and particularly those of the dairy industry.
Now, with regard to another matter, namely sugar beets, additional payments have been made to the growers. We too, in the province in Quebec, in eastern Canada, have sugar beet growers. The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth) mentioned that the present government promised, years ago, to formulate a "sugar policy", as he called it. I should like to point out to him that the present government has only been in power since 1963, whereas the government of my hon. friend was in power from 1957 to 1963. They did not see fit at that time to adopt a "sugar policy" when they had every opportunity to do so.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as two Conservative members pointed out earlier, we must remove politics from those pieces of legislation in order to give as much attention as possible to our farmers and producers. And it is by taking objective measures, as I said, that we shall succeed in putting forward a sound farming policy, in stabilizing the life of our Canadian farmers. In addition, the matter should not be restricted only to one part of the country, because farming, which concerns all Canadian provinces, should be handled in the same manner from Saint John, N.B. to Vancouver, B.C. Our farming policy should be consistent throughout the country so that our farmers will be treated equally and equitably everywhere in Canada.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that my remarks this morning will be very brief. I should like to associate the members of this party with those who have expressed appreciation for the announcements that have been made this morning by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene). We all recognize the importance of the dairy industry to this nation. I particularly appreciate this announcement because I come from one of those areas of this great country which is supported mainly by the dairy industry.
The commission that has been appointed has very important work to do, and I am sure its success will depend upon the activity and the

influence of those who constitute the consultative committee. My first reaction was one of disappointment in that no one from the province of British Columbia had been appointed. I then remembered that Mr. Atkinson, general manager of the Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association, is going to be a member of the commission. This assures the province of British Columbia adequate representation on this important organization. We wish them well in this very important task.
Had my colleague, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), been present this morning he could have dealt more adequately with the sugar beet announcement but in view of the fact he is an observer at the United Nations he is not able to be present.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
However, on many occasions he has mentioned the importance of a national sugar policy. I should like to urge that this matter be given continuing and urgent attention in order that this objective may be reached.



RESEARCH


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, since 1957, by statute, the Canada Council has had the national responsibility to support research in the humanities and social sciences-economics, political science, sociology, history, literature and the like-in the same way as the National Research Council and National Medical Council have had in their respective fields. Until this year, the assistance which the Canada Council has been able to afford for research has been far less than that of the other two councils. Even now after the $10 million grant of March, 1964, both the ratio of Canada Council awards to applications and the size of these awards themselves do not match those of the natural sciences.
The government is convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this situation requires remedial action. Canada faces major problems of an economic, political and sociological nature which can be met only through adequate research-and this research must be done here in Canada. If we are to succeed in solving the social problems peculiar to Canada, we must ensure that we obtain the knowledge essential to grapple with these problems.
In order to rectify the situation the government has decided to recommend to parliament a system of annual grants for the Canada
December 2, 1966	COMMONS
Council. Parliament will be asked to appropriate about $17 million lor use by the council in the fiscal year 1967-68 and to increase this base figure in the two succeeding fiscal years in accord with a percentage increase to be recommended to parliament for the other two major research agencies. This should enable the Canada Council to make a new and even stronger contribution both to the knowledge of our social and human problems and to the development of our national cultural life.



PRODUCTS WEIGHT AND PRICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Patrick Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe)
asked leave to introduce Bill No. C-250, an act concerning weight and price of products.
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that in retail sales of domestic commodities, according to the definition given therein, the price and weight should appear on a label affixed to the product.
The consumer would thus be in a position to compare the actual price of two similar products made available in different sizes by different companies.
This will facilitate the task of the consumer and will enable him to select the prime quality product for the best price possible. In addition, I am convinced that this will enable him to make some rather substantial savings each week.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the roar of applause from the government side, could we have unanimous consent to deal with this matter now?



VISITING FORCES ACT


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. S-50 (from the Senate), respecting the armed forces of countries visiting Canada.
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister give us a brief explanation of this bill?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is in respect of visiting forces, not only those from NATO and the United States, but all visiting forces.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 26(1) I request leave to move the adjournment of this house to discuss an urgent matter of public importance, namely the work stoppage which is tying up shipping on Canada's Pacific coast.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member address the house and the Chair on the question of urgency of debate?


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on the question of urgency, last August this entire parliament was called into emergency session to pass legislation to end a work stoppage which was threatening the economy of the nation. Today we have another work stoppage, further removed from Ottawa, which is again threatening the economy of the entire nation. Representations have been made in this house for the last few days concerning the growing seriousness of this stoppage. By the end of next week 10,000 forestry workers in the province of British Columbia will be laid off. The fruit industry has wired the Prime Minister and various other ministers to the effect that it is imperative the federal government intervene without further delay to prevent disastrous financial losses to that industry, which has suffered natural losses in recent years.
We are informed that this case is before the courts and that there is a possibility the Maritime Employers Association may obtain compensation for their losses. But who will compensate the fruit grower, the logger, or any other citizen whose income is curtailed and whose livelihood is threatened by this stoppage? If legislation is necessary, let the government bring it in as it did to end the rail strike. If the Canada Labour Relations Board requires additional powers, then let us grant those powers. The vacuum which exists in labour legislation, and which is demonstrated
10644	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute by this strike, is an invitation to anarchy, and a temptation to extremism. It poses a threat to the entire economy of the nation.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to object to this motion. This involves a matter of public importance and urgency and I hope you, Mr. Speaker, will be able to make your decision without delay.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is agreement, as there would appear to be, on the part of all hon. members that adjournment be granted, this of course greatly facilitates the task of the Chair, and I certainly will not use the rules to stand in the way of the unanimous desire of hon. members. This being the case, I will allow the hon. member to proceed with his motion.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, in the last few days in the province of British Columbia a situation has developed which I am sure is exasperating to all Canadians, and is producing not only in that province but throughout this land a feeling of despair, and a fear that there is a gap in the legislation of this country so wide that work can be stopped without a strike and without a lockout.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
We have here a situation that is indefinable and apparently cannot be dealt with, but which functions to stop work and prevents the shipment of the produce of this country to foreign markets. This is a situation which even this parliament seems helpless to deal with, and I do not believe it can be tolerated.
I do not speak just for the people of my constituency who, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, have the keenest concern in this matter.
I received yesterday a copy of a telegram which reads in part:
-have firm orders with letters of credit apples and pears many offshore markets some now being cancelled account Inability to load also advised today several ships planning sail without our cargo. Have already incurred considerable expense in arranging some loading other ports. This open defiance of national interests totally irresponsible and prejudicial to interests Canadian ports as well as industry.
I believe this situation must be corrected forthwith. I urge that steps be taken to this end and I trust that this debate will have some effect in ending a situation that is, I am sure, the most serious strike with the frailest excuse that has been presented to government, labour and this country generally.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition.

DEBATES	December 2, 1966


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, if the minister wishes to speak now, I would like to hear him first.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. gentleman for yielding the floor. It may have the effect of shortening the debate, although certainly I do not want to curtail it in any way. I quite agree that this is a very important and urgent matter. It is one that has been constantly in my mind for several days past, particularly in view of the deterioration that has developed during those few days.
I should advise the house, pursuant to an undertaking I gave when in Vancouver on Saturday last, that if a request was received that I intervene again or interest myself in the matter directly by my presence on the west coast, or by assigning other officials of my department to associate themselves with those who are now on the west coast, I would do so. Such a situation has arisen. Not only have I been invited to return to the west coast, but developments yesterday, or perhaps I should say within the last two days, with an international aspect have warranted my going back to the west coast not later than today in any event. The diversion of ships bringing goods into British Columbia ports, to the United States and perhaps elsewhere, is a matter of grave concern. More than once during the last few days I have wished that the estimates of the Department of Labour were still before the house, in order that we could have had a discussion such as we are now having.
This most regrettable situation on the west coast is an extraordinary one, as I have said on at least two occasions in the house. It is not an ordinary labour-management dispute; it is an extraordinary one. To some extent the responsibilities of parliament itself are involved. Parliament in its wisdom, and I think it was very wise in doing so, some years ago established the Canada Labour Relations Board. The board is a representative board, with four representatives from labour and four from management, with an independent chairman and an independent vice chairman neither of whom is appointed from either group. I might say that the vice chairman acts only in the absence of the chairman, of course.
I believe that on the whole over the years the record of jurisprudence shows that this board has performed very valuable services for the Canadian people. It has crossed labour and management lines in many of the decisions it has reached. I have had occasion to study its work as far back as its predecessor
December 2, 1966	COMMONS
organization, the Canada War Labour Board.
I have studied the functioning of the board since that time and have been most impressed with the thoroughness and fairness of the manner in which the members of the board have done their work. They have shown themselves to be impartial.
In this particular situation a question of principle has arisen. There are on the west coast, associated with the eight or more stevedoring companies in operation, I believe upwards of 250 foremen. Over the last three years an increasing number of these foremen have formed themselves into a union. There is no doubt that, if you respect the working man's right to join any lawful organization of his choice, these foremen had the right to form such a union. They have seen fit to do so. I would not be frank with the house if I did not say that suggestions have been made that pressures have been used to induce at least some of the foremen to join this union.
I am not in a position to judge the truth or otherwise of that statement, and I would not want to do so in view of the course upon which I have decided.
The foremen have this union or local which I think has among its members 75 per cent or 80 per cent of all the foremen on the west coast. I might say that there is a great divergence of opinion between them and the other 20 per cent or 25 per cent. The question of principle is this: If a foreman is a supervisor and performs supervisory functions, can he serve two masters? Can he serve the union and the employer at the same time?
I had a very interesting debate last week on this question with three groups of longshoremen. Some of the spokesmen of the group said to me: If it had not been for this strike, our views might have been different than it is today. If there was any question about whether our duties were supervisory or otherwise, or whether we are part of management, we have had the opportunity to demonstrate this. We have had not just to suspend but to dismiss people who we were convinced, from personal observation, are not performing their functions, and there is a slow down of work in progress.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
I will not judge the merits of this contention but these people put forward what to me seemed to be a convincing argument. One man, who said that he had been a card-carrying member of one of the longshoremen's unions for many years and at one time had actually been a member of their bargaining
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute committee, had been promoted to the position of a foreman some years ago. He had tried conscientiously to discharge his duties as a foreman and he thought he had done so reasonably well; but now he has reached the stage at which he has to decide whether he can support the view taken by the union, in view of the decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board, or to support management. He said: "I now feel I am part of management, and this has been recognized by the Canada Labour Relations Board. That being so, I am performing managerial functions". He then turned to me and said: "Mr. Minister, you are a member of the government. Can you be a member of the opposition at the same time?" I found it a little difficult to answer his question.
These men are struggling with their consciences. There are some 200 of them or so who have formed the local and who feel they should have the right to bargain collectively, not just with their individual employers but with the group of employers with whom they are associated. A smaller number feel differently.
This question, very properly, came before the Canada Labour Relations Board some time ago. Both sides were well represented in the hearings before the board. Two philosophies were put forward as to whether a managerial or supervisory group could be designated as an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining with employers. Of course the employers took a different stand from the local.
The Canada Labour Relations Board questioned the representatives who appeared before them. In the very early stages one of the people who appeared for the unions before the board said: "We admit to the board that foremen do have supervisory functions and in that sense are part of management, but we still feel that we should have the right to bargain collectively." The board, to whom parliament has delegated this responsibility, decided that since they were part of management they should not have the right to bargain collectively in anticipation of situations such as have developed within the last 10 days. It has been extremely difficult for the officials of my department, for me and for others concerned, to know just how far we should go. Neither the minister nor the government is empowered to overrule the decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board. Maybe there should be a review by the governor-in-council, although I am not prepared to say this now.
10646	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute
As was mentioned by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, (Mr. Johnston) the wisdom of a review of pending legislation has, I think, been demonstrated more than once during the period of nearly 12 months that I have been Minister of Labour. As you know, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has set up a task force to study the problems and to make recommendations on what, if any, changes should be made in the existing procedures. We know from discussions which the Prime Minister, I, and others have had with the head of the task force Dean Wood, that he may be able to make an interim report in six months; but it will take considerably longer than that-in fact it might take a year or more-to give us the objective conclusions on which we could base recommendations to lay before parliament. In the meantime we have had to invite parliamentary action on two occasions, one was in connection with the decision to establish the commission to inquire into the working conditions on the docks in the three St. Lawrence ports, and the second was the return to work railway legislation. We nearly had to ask parliament to intervene in a third major dispute.
In the frank and full discussions which I had in Vancouver last week I assured both the longshoremen and management that I would not disclose the names of any individuals or the statements made by any individuals, that each talk would be a conference held within four walls. However, I stated that I felt I should be free to announce the conclusions or the recommendations which I might have to make to my colleagues in government, or eventually in the house based on our talks. We proceeded on this basis and there were worth-while discussions.
The lines are still drawn. All the stevedoring companies to whom I was introduced feel strongly that foremen, or people with the right to discharge and dismiss and to perform other managerial functions, should not be part of a truly bargaining unit, while a union may have this right of association. They are pleased with the decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board on this important point; but naturally the workers feel equally strongly that they have a question of principle-not all of them, but at least 75 or 80 per cent of them, and in a democracy these proportions are very important. They feel that they should have the right to bargain collectively and,

DEBATES	December 2, 1966
though not in Canada but in some other jurisdictions, the right of a modified type of bargaining has been granted to supervisory personnel. I would not be frank with the house if I did not say that.


John George Diefenbaker: Where is this right granted?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In the United States foremen have been given that right, by agreement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They have been given this right by legislation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am not sure of that, but I do know that in some areas at least it is done by agreement. I have been assured that with regard to longshoremen on the west coast of the U.S.A. it is done by agreement or otherwise. However, the lines are drawn.
I listened to the arguments, and I tried to act not as an advocate but as an interpreter, who explained to one group and to the other the views of their opponents. The atmosphere was such that they were not meeting very regularly to exchange ideas among themselves. I asked both sides whether they felt any useful purpose would be served by my continued presence there at that time. I think there was a consensus, if not a unanimous feeling, that there would be no point in my remaining there. I did say-and I advised the house of it on my return-that if circumstances changed and, more particularly, if I received a specific request, I would go west as quickly as I could. Last night I reached the decision that I should do so. I telephoned the Prime Minister early this morning-some time before I received notice of this motion and he immediately agreed that, if this were my decision, he was in full agreement that it was the right course to follow. I am therefore proceeding west this afternoon.
During the past week some suggestions have been made to me that we may be able to explore and which may solve the situation. I am not saying that we will achieve an immediate return to work, and I am not saying I may not have to recommend a certain course of action to the government or perhaps even to parliament; it is too early to say exactly what should be done. I am anxious to get west in view of the developments which took place late yesterday. I am taking with me my assistant deputy minister, the former director of industrial relations, Mr. Bernard Wilson, whom I think is generally regarded as one of the most experienced men in Canada in this field. I expect to be on the coast for the next
December 2, 1966	COMMONS
few days, if necessary, and even if I should return after two, three or four days, Mr. Wilson will stay there as long as it is necessary for him to do so to try to resolve this matter.
[DOT] (12 noon)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the right hon. gentleman permit me to express a hope. While I welcome this chance to put forward my feelings at some length in this matter, I hope that after members of different parties in the house have had the opportunity of fully expressing their views they will not feel it necessary to adjourn the house after the debate has concluded. Once there has been full discussion on this subject I hope the house will get back to the other matters set down as the business for today.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have had an unconcealed admiration for the minister in his capacity as an advocate. He was a distinguished member of the bar of British Columbia in the days when I was actively engaged at the bar. I would invariably look through the reports to find his name, for I know that wherever his name appeared there would be an interesting judgment. Because judges are only as effective and as good as the counsel who appear before them. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have had an example of an unusually able piece of advocacy. However, that advocacy has been in support of postponement and delay, another four or five days of uncertainty, and a failure to act.
It is not for me to say whether or not the law at the present time covers the situation in British Columbia. If it does not, it should. I suggest that this parliament should not wait around while our expansion is being challenged in the way it is by what is happening on the Pacific coast. There is no reason we should not act now. I think the house as a whole would agree to accept an amendment dealing with the situation to which the minister has referred during the course of his argument.
The minister says that he would not expect a report, even an interim report, for a period of six months. A final report would take a year. Parliament cannot permit any such delay, or anything approximating it.
Whatever the merits of the situation, Mr. Speaker, what is happening in Vancouver has all the appearance of an invasion of Canada's sovereignty as result of the action of Harry Bridges, a man who dominates the labour
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute front in certain fields in San Francisco. Bridges shall not blow the whistle for Canada; let that be clear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This is what he has been doing. He did it successfully in the United States. We are having regular examples of invasions of our sovereignty. In today's press despatches there is another example: The United States government has seen fit to tell the government of Canada what the parliament of Canada should do in respect of the legislation before parliament in connection with the Mercantile Bank. This country cannot allow itself to be pushed around in the exercise of its sovereign rights.
The minister has an unusual capacity for discussion and for seeing both sides. Today, Mr. Speaker, he acted the part of a judge, listening to arguments on both sides and then deciding nothing could be done except to listen.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that this will be corrected on my next visit.


John George Diefenbaker: How can we hope for
correction in the next few days when there was no correction when the minister made his last visit to the coast? What has taken place on the coast which leads the minister to believe that his powers of mediation, if I can use that expression, have suddenly reached a higher degree of fruition than was the case when he visited the coast a week ago on the same mission? At least, Mr. Speaker, it was not quite the same mission; there was a game on at the same time. Vancouver had an unusual attraction last week and various organizations found it necessary to be out there just at that time.
I suggest to the minister that because he apparently believes that there should be a right of appeal against an order of the Canada Labour Relations Board-I think an appeal to the governor in council was mentioned-why not bring in the necessary legislation and let the house agree to it? The legislation could be brought in today by consent. I take it that if the minister did have the right of appeal he would recommend to the governor in council certain action which would end this serious situation on the coast.
It has often been said, Mr. Speaker, that parliament does not operate effectively, that it delays too long. Parliament cannot delay for six months for an examination of what might or might not be done, and of what has been
10648	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute done in other countries. If the minister feels that if there were a right of appeal he would act, then in the interests of the Canadian economy I say, let him do so.
The minister says that a mediator would not be effective. I suggest he appoint a mediator. Others have made this suggestion. But the minister has answered categorically that a mediator cannot do anything. If a mediator cannot do anything. Mr. Speaker, then what is the minister going to do? The minister has been to Vancouver and seen the people involved. Some labour officials must have been dealing with this matter over and over again in the last while, but their dealings have been totally ineffective because the parties cannot be brought together. The minister says that he has no power today to take action. I say that Canada's economic security comes above other considerations.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) followed today a course that could have been helpful in other cases, namely of allowing an adjournment for the purpose of discussing this question. But nothing will result if we just talk and discuss: Let us act.
We will support forthwith-and I hope the hon. gentleman will accept this suggestion, Mr. Speaker-action taken to permit of appeals so that the minister will be empowered to make recommendations to the governor in council, who can act immediately to meet this problem. Certainly there can be no drastic objection to there being a right of appeal from a decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board. If they are right they have nothing to fear. If they are wrong in their decision they should welcome an appeal.
I know that sometimes judges take the strongest possible objection to being reversed on appeal. We have often heard counsel arguing a case in the Court of Appeal. Then finally the Court of Appeal say to him: "Well, surely counsel is not going to continue that argument, which deals with a matter which is fundamental. Does he not expect this court to have some appreciation of a matter of fundamental law?" Then the classic answer is: "My Lord Chief Justice, that is the mistake that I made in the court below".
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Appeals are too often denied in too many fields. An appeal against an order of the Canada Labour Relations Board can hurt no one. The government would not act in a way that was contrary to justice and equity in reversing a decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board. Are we to allow Canada to

DEBATES	December 2. 1966
be paralyzed economically because the law as it now stands denies the possibility of action being taken? It is as simple as that, and I should like to hear the Prime Minister on this.
Never before has there been such a necessity for co-operation. The economic security of the country is at stake. You can play around with a problem and say that you believe in mediation and in other devices. Thus we talk about Harry Bridges and others under his direction, and about certain employers who are not showing the responsibility they should. There is wrong on both sides. If the wrongs can be cured without injustice by the right of appeal, then bring it in.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, anyone who listened to the minister this morning must have been disappointed at the tepid, timorous approach he takes to what now constitutes a national emergency. No one hearing the minister, and unaware of what is going on would have realized that at the present time the ports on the west coast are completely tied up. The reports in this morning's press indicate that all three railways-the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Pacific Great Eastern Railway-have placed an embargo on grain cars coming from the prairies to be loaded at the ports of British Columbia. In addition to this the last reports show that between 45 and 50 ships are standing in Vancouver harbour, many of them loaded with perishable commodities such as mandarin oranges. Other ships have had to go to Seattle to be unloaded, to have their goods brought by truck to Vancouver. Affected also is the fruit crop of British Columbia, which must be moved because it is perishable. A large part of that is immobilized. Forest products are piling up on the docks, resulting in the announcement made yesterday by MacMillan, Bloedel and others engaged in the forest product industry that 10,000 men in the sawmills and logging camps will have to be laid off in the next few days. This, for the western provinces, is a national emergency. All we have had from the minister is a recital of the difficulties which he has faced, about which so far he has done absolutely nothing.
The minister reviewed what happened and I want to take a moment or two to recapitulate that. The difficulty arose, as the minister said, because the foremen of the work gangs on the Pacific coast asked to be certified as a local, known as 514, for the purpose of bargaining collectively about their hours, wages and conditions of labour. The minister put the
December 2, 1966	COMMONS
question whether such men can serve two masters, the union and management. It seems to me that the question the minister put to the house is academic. The men are not asking to join the union of the men they are supervising. They are asking to have a bargaining agency, and that agency can be completely different from the workmen's union. Or it could be a local of the same union to which the workmen belonged, or it could be an entirely different agency. The foremen do not insist that their organization be part of the longshoremen's union; but since there is no other way at the present time to implement their wishes they are willing to be a local attached to the International Longshoremen's Association.
The foremen have certain supervisory powers. I do not think the minister is right when he says they have the power to hire and fire. They have limited powers, and mainly their job is to supervise the work of the crews coming under their care.
The request of the foremen, the straw bosses as they are called in the industry, to be allowed to organize to bargain collectively is not unusual. In the union to which I belonged in my youth, the International Typographical Union, the foremen belonged to the same union to which the men belonged. That sort of thing is not satisfactory to some employers but I understand that in the United States, supervisory personnel coming under their labour relations act are allowed to form their own agencies to bargain collectively. The foremen there do not join the union of the men they are supervising. The foremen have their own agencies and their own organization for the purpose of collective bargaining.
What the foremen here are asking is what has happened in other industries. Here, since the men have a union to bargain for them, as their conditions improve, the level of conditions for the men keeps getting closer to that of the foremen. The foremen have no one to bargain for them, because they are dependent entirely on the generosity and gratuity of the employer. They have no spokesmen; they have no leader, and they ought to have some organization.
I do not agree with the decision of the Labour Relations Board. If, however, the board is correct in the judgment it renders, then certainly I think an amendment to the act is called for to make it clear that supervisory personnel, up to a certain level, should be allowed to form their own agencies to bargain collectively.
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute
The minister said that though the employers did not agree to bargain with these men, and they could have done so, the decision of the Labour Relations Board did not preclude such bargaining. The decision said only that the employers did not have to bargain. But the employers could have bargained with the foremen of Local 514, and the matter could have been settled. Instead, the employers refused to do that, and the foremen went on strike. It was at that time that the minister should have stepped in and appointed a mediator.
The foremen were not asking for wages or for set conditions of labour. They were only asking for a certain type of collective bargaining. They said they were prepared to continue work if the employers would agree to negotiate with them. That was all they asked. It seems to me that at that time a mediator could have persuaded the foremen to keep on working if the mediator had promised that he would do everything in his power to persuade the employers to sit down and bargain with the foremen.
Since nothing was done by the Department of Labour, since no concession was made by the employers, the men went on strike. The matter was taken to the courts. They were ordered to stop picketing, which they did, and when they removed their picket lines the longshoremen went back to work. The foremen obeyed the law, and the longshoremen who had refused to cross the picket line went back to work. Then followed a chapter which the minister never fully explained. The stevedoring companies contended that there was a deliberate slowdown of work by the longshoremen. The men, on the other hand, contended that there was complete chaos on the waterfront because without the foremen to organize the work there was no proper supervision, and this led to hazardous working conditions.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I am not in a position to say whether the employers are right and there was a deliberate slowdown, or whether the men are right in saying that the slowdown was due to poor supervision and hazardous working conditions. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. I do not know; but the minister should know. He could have appointed someone and sent him out there to gather the facts and place them before him, and if necessary before parliament.
This, we do know: whether or not the employers told the men not to come back, they
10650	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute have refused to call out the gangs and they have refused to do so since last month. I am told that out of 4,000 longshoremen only 200 were called back.
Yesterday, the minister said the men were still working. My information is only 200 are working out of 4,000. These men are not staying away from work; the employers have refused to call them. When I was a boy, this was called a lockout. It seems to me it constitutes a lockout when an employer says; "Do not report for work." It is true, as the minister said, that the proviso was added "You can report for work if you are prepared to give a good day's work for a good day's pay." The men claim they are endeavouring to do so, but are prevented because the work is not well organized and because conditions on the waterfront are hazardous.
The minister says, quite properly, that this is not a strike. It is not a strike because the men, with the exception of the foremen, are not withdrawing their services. The minister also said-I do not agree with him-that it is not a lockout. I think it is, when nearly 4,000 men are told not to report to work. If it is not a strike and if it is not a lockout, what is it? The farmers of the prairies, the fruit farmers of British Columbia and the people of the lower mainland will tell the minister what it is: It is a mess. It is a mess for which this government must accept full responsibility.
We have been trying for nearly two weeks to get the government to take some action, to appoint a mediator to try to solve the difficulty which has arisen in connection with the foremen; to appoint a mediator to try to get the company to agree to call the men back to work, or at least to appoint a mediator who would investigate the conditions which obtain on the waterfront to ascertain whether or not the employers are right in saying there is a deliberate slowdown, or whether the men are right in saying the slowdown is due to the lack of supervision.
A mediator could have ascertained the facts.
A mediator might have been able to bring the parties together on the understanding that the government would set up an investigation into the whole question of whether or not the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act should be amended so as to provide supervisory personnel with the right to bargain collectively.
But nothing has been done. Day after day for an entire week we have been asking the minister to do something. The minister, and

DEBATES	December 2, 1966
yesterday the Prime Minister, have persistently refused to take action until the whole of the west coast is tied up. Ships are not moving grain. Fruit is not being shipped. Forest products are piling up and cargoes are not being unloaded from ships waiting in the harbour. This is an appalling situation and in my view the inaction on the part of the government cannot be too strongly condemned.
It is difficult to understand why the government has refused to act in this regard. When the longshoremen in Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres went on strike the government appointed Judge Lippe as mediator. They could not have appointed a better man; he did an excellent job. When there was a strike on the seaway, the government appointed Senator MacKenzie, who also proved to be an excellent mediator. When a strike was threatened in the postal department, they appointed Judge Montpetit, an excellent choice because of his familiarity with conditions in the postal department. Faced with a serious labour situation in connection with the railways, they appointed Mr. Goldenberg, a well known and highly respected negotiator. In each of these instances when the government thought the public interest was endangered, they appointed someone in an endeavour to ascertain the facts and discover whether there was an area of agreement likely to lead to the parties to the dispute being brought together. Why has not the government followed the same course in this instance? Why has nothing been done about this conflict on the west coast? Now that the strike has moved into a lock-out there is all the more reason to take some action. The government's present state of complete immobility appalls me and leaves me wondering what the underlying reasons are.
It is not enough for the Minister of Labour to sit day after day in splendid isolation reading press releases from the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association and passing them on to the House of Commons in answer to questions. This is a situation which should be thoroughly investigated.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Will he tell the house of a single instance, of any occasion on which the Minister of Labour read such a release?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I refer the house to the hon. gentleman's replies, and his replies in every case sounded as though he were an advocate for the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association.
December 2, 1966


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member please answer my question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The statement I made was perfectly true. I said the minister was sitting in splendid isolation reading the press releases of the employers association and passing them on in the form of answers to the House of Commons at question time. That is exactly what he has done. The information he passed on to this house is information which, in the main, has been received from the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a question of privilege. I absolutely deny that statement. Just as much information has been forthcoming from a number of sources. It was certainly not only from the employers associations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am prepared to leave it to any impartial reader to go over the answers by the minister during the past two weeks and determine whether those answers have not always been coloured by the minister's prejudice in favour of the employers association.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is no doubt about it. Let anyone read the statement the minister made today as to whether or not the foremen could serve two masters-whether they ought to serve the union or the management. It was irrelevant to the point under discussion, which is whether any group of workers, supervisory personnel or not, should have the right to bargain collectively in connection with wages, hours and conditions of labour.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I should like to know first whether or not the government is prepared now to appoint some outstanding Canadian as a mediator, who will have the respect of both parties to this dispute. He could investigate all the facts, endeavour to bring the parties together, and make a report to the minister and the house as to what hope there is for an immediate solution. I appreciate that the minister is going out to British Columbia himself, but the minister was out last week end and that visit was not very productive of results. Someone ought to be sent there who will be able to investigate in detail that is the real source of the trouble on the waterfronts in British Columbia and make a report to the minister as to what ought to be done. Long before that, such a mediator would have considerable success, I am sure, in bringing both parties together and getting a resumption of work.
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute
The second thing is, I believe this matter could be settled very quickly if the Minister of Labour or Prime Minister were prepared to say today that legislation will be brought in to amend the Canada Labour Relations Act, whereby supervisory personnel up to a certain level would be allowed to bargain collectively by forming their own association and by forming their own collective bargaining agency. This would go a long way toward settling the problem, and I assure the minister that if he wants to bring in such an amendment today he will have the support of the members of this party in giving that legislation first, second and third reading in the house. Even if the government announced that it intended to bring down such legislation I think the dispute would end very quickly and result in getting the parties concerned around the negotiating table.
I do urge the government to stop shillyshallying, to stop doing nothing and to face up to what is a national emergency. The government must take some steps now to get shipping resumed on the west coast before any further hardship is imposed upon the people of that area and upon grain producers in western Canada.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join with previous speakers in urging the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) and the government to take a real hard look at the problem which exists on the west coast in respect of shipping, and the effects it has had and will have on production, particularly in western Canada. Production is backing up all across Canada because of this tie-up, and the country is crying today for some kind of labour leadership from the government. I do not think anyone could go back through history and find another year in which the country has been so designed by one strike after another.
During the minister's remarks today he more or less pleaded with the house to tell him what to do. He said he had tried this and that and now was at a loss as to how to solve this problem. He told us he had been out on the west coast last week, had asked one party concerned whether he should stay, and was told that he should not. He then asked the other party and was also told that he should not. There seemed to be almost a unanimous feeling that he should go back to Ottawa. He is now telling us to have hope because he is going back out again.
The minister has told us that there is no strike and no lockout. Never before has there been a labour situation in Canada where it

10652	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute was so obvious a negotiator or mediator should be appointed. Why was a mediator not appointed immediately to end the slow down and tie-up that is confronting Canada? As the previous speaker suggested, this situation is in fact creating a national emergency.
I read in an article in the Globe and Mail today that box cars loaded with wheat are backing up all across the prairies, and that all the sidings are becoming filled. I have heard reports that perishable goods are not being unloaded and that there are 45 ships tied up at docks on the west coast, either loaded or empty. One report recently said that ships had arrived on the west coast to pick up grain but left because they could not afford to be tied up there.
The Western Producer of November 10 reported that the wheat board is having to pay huge demurrage charges because boats are not being loaded and facilities are not being used to capacity. In recent years the Vancouver port has become a very important one in respect of our export commodities, particularly grain. Last year something like two thirds or half of Canadian wheat exports moved through that port. In spite of these facts the minister and the government plead with us to have patience; yet they do not know what to do.
The last time the minister was out there he was told to leave, but he is going back out again. I believe that to be a typical decision on the part of this shilly-shallying government. When it took office it was suggested that we could expect 60 days of decision. During that time they made so many mistakes they decided not to make any decisions after, and have made none since. The minister now asks us how he can appoint a mediator. A year ago when we were faced with a dock-workers strike in Vancouver we argued in this house and across the country that a transport mediator should be appointed to facilitate, organize and co-ordinate transportation on the west coast. After that strike was settled and grain started to move the government thought it had done the right thing.
While the government did appoint a transportation co-ordinator and sent him to the west coast to bring some efficiency to the handling of grain out there, they did so two or three months late. Three weeks have now passed since this tie-up began and we now urge the government to take action at this time. Let us not wait until we are two months too late.

DEBATES	December 2, 1966
The export of grain is of tremendous importance to Canada's balance of payments, to world trade and to farmers throughout western Canada who depend upon the shipment of grain. I do not wish to sound like a western farmer who is concerned only with the movement of grain, but we know that the export of wheat in the past few years has been of tremendous help to Canada's trade position. We also know what this has done for Canada's balance of payments position. During the last five years the sale of wheat has bailed the economy of Canada out of difficulty.
The minister says he is sorry but he does not know what to do. Never before has it been so obvious that a mediator should be appointed. Representatives of the Canada Labour Relations Board have suggested that this union cannot be recognized because foremen belong to it, yet union representatives say they need these foremen to organize their operations.
A commission should be appointed at this time to examine the act setting up the Canada Labour Relations Board and decide whether it should be changed. Something must be done immediately to get these men back to work so these boats can be loaded and unloaded. Until that happens our economic condition will not be normal. The minister can say that the employers told him he was not needed, and that the employees told him he was not needed, but let me tell the minister that the Canadian public needs him. We need his efforts to keep our economy in balance.
Either the minister or an appointed mediator should have stayed on the west coast last week whether or not the employers and the employees agreed. These people should have been brought together and kept together in order that a solution could be found. The minister should have indicated that the labour relations act was to be amended. The minister should not have just given the impression he is trying to settle a little dispute. Naturally the parties told him to go back to Ottawa. The Canadian public I am sure wanted him to stay and the Canadian wheat farmers wanted him to stay, or appoint someone who could get these two sides together.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
The Canadian public and the Canadian Wheat Board would have said, "Stay there, and get a mediator who can bring the two sides together". They would have offered to amend the act setting up the Canada Labour Relations Board, because we cannot afford to have an economic tie-up at such an important
December 2, 1966	COMMONS
shipping port as Vancouver. In today's Globe and Mail we read that MacMillan, Bloedell have stated that they will have to lay off 10,000 men unless once again pulp and pulp products start to go through that port. Here are two industries, the lumber industry and the grain industry, and one has to look only at the Canada Year Book to see that these two industries are at the top of the list in respect of our total exports. Perhaps in the last few years wheat has surpassed lumber, but here are two of the major exporting industries in Canada; both are tied up, and the minister says that he did not know just what to do. He said that he spoke to the Prime Minister last evening and that he hopes the house will have an opportunity to debate the matter so that perhaps someone will tell him what to do. He really does not know.
The whole country is crying for leadership in the labour field. The year 1966 will go down in history as one in which the government has shown no leadership whatsoever in labour conciliation or anything of that nature. We have had one strike after another, beginning as the minister said with the dockwork-ers at Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec city, and then the St. Lawrence seaway. There has been no real leadership shown-unless the government wishes to assume that their action in giving a 36 per cent increase was leadership. Is this the only leadership they have to offer? It is a pretty weak excuse for conciliation, and is a pretty weak excuse for leadership in one of the main economic fields in this country. The government must manage its personnel and labour so that we have a reasonably smooth economic growth, and reasonably smooth production of the goods we have to sell.
In this case the government has failed miserably. In this particular instance the minister has shown a complete lack of leadership even in recognizing the fact that here we had an obvious instance where a mediator should have been appointed three weeks ago so that th grain would not have been allowed to back up into the prairies, and so that no harm would have been done to the largest segment of the lumber industry in Canada. Because of the lack of action we now are in the position that unless pulp products begin to move immediately 10,000 men will have to be laid off. The minister is in some doubt as to what action he should take. I urge him to go out there and if both sides tell him to go home, then I suggest that he should appoint a mediator who is capable of getting along with, and
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute is acceptable to, both sides. He should appoint this mediator and urge him to bring the two sides together and if necessary say to them, "We will amend the act. We cannot afford this tie-up; we are prepared to show leadership, and we will change the Canada Labour Code if necessary. We will change the Canada Labour Relations Board if necessary, because we want this very important port to function at top speed and at top efficiency." I urge the minister to take action in this regard.


Mr. Laing:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly.


Arthur Laing: I am quite certain the hon. member would not wish his remarks to be interpreted as being a criticism of the efficiency of the port of Vancouver or the labour there. If so, I think I could convince him that over the years at this port we have had the most efficient labour and highest use of capital investment for the handling of freight. I would hope the hon. member would agree with that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly I have no complaint to make concerning the efficiency of the labour, but in order to do the job efficiently you must have the tools. The Vancouver port is not working and has not worked efficiently. All one needs do is take a look at the proceedings of the committee on transport and communications, and the remarks of a witness representing the National Harbours Board who appeared before that committee. He mentioned that a great deal of modernization would have to take place to bring about the efficient operation of the port of Vancouver. Certainly the minister, who is from British Columbia, as well as other hon. members, should know that the port of Vancouver in many instances is poorly organized. The transportation into the port is poorly organized and the handling facilities at that port in many instances are poorly organized. One only has to look at the records of the transport and communications committee to be assured of this.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston) in moving this motion to adjourn the house had done a decided service to parliament and I hope, if the government takes effective action, a decided service to the country, because he has brought about an opportunity to discuss not only the tie-up at British Columbia ports but also

December 2, 1966
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute the implications that now are revealed by that tie-up. I do not think it could be denied that the situation which has brought about this emergency and this discussion discloses two things, both of which are urgent and require immediate and effective action.
The first is the mess in our labour relations laws and in the government's labour relations policy. This year, as other speakers have pointed out, we have had a series of strikes and near strikes in respect of the transportation and shipping facilities of this country which have created the greatest turmoil and confusion and, certainly in so far as this situation in British Columbia is concerned, the greatest hardship within the country in one calendar year.
One would have thought that as they went along the government and the minister would have learned one lesson at least; that is, that you cannot leave situations until they reach emergency crisis proportions, and then bring about a solution without a distortion of the economy and in many respects the labour laws generally. But once again the government has allowed a crisis to develop. In respect of the situation in British Columbia, as other speakers have outlined, the signs have been there, but the minister and the government have shown an inability to make a decision and an inability to intervene effectively. They have also demonstrated an inability to exercise their responsibility in this field. This indicates pretty clearly that not only is the government delinquent in facing up to these problems and in acting in individual cases, but that in fact there exists no effective machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes in these essential industries. That is a fact which the government must face up to without delay.
The second point that the situation illustrates and emphasizes is that there is urgent need for attention to the matter of the docking facilities and the whole operation of the ports on the west coast of Canada in British Columbia. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) a moment ago asked the hon. member for Acadia a question. I am amazed at the question and the implications in it, to the effect that the operations of the port of Vancouver are efficient. There can be no question about the quality and skills of labour at that port. There can perhaps be no question about the innate ability of the shipping and stevedoring companies to operate. But as to the inadequacy of the facilities and the lack of co-ordination generally there can equally be no doubt. This has

been demonstrated in increasing measure, particularly in the last two or three years. There has been difficulty in getting railway cars there, turning them around and sending them back for further loads. There has been difficulty in sustaining a rapid and efficient movement of commodities through that port. There has been a lack of co-ordination between rail and road facilities into the port of Vancouver to take advantage of the magnificent harbour area. There has been a lack of facilities at the dockside to unload the cars and trucks that do get in, put their cargoes on the ships as soon as possible and enable the cars and trucks to turn around and go back for further cargoes. There has been a bottleneck in this port, as is established by the evidence contained in the testimony of the representative of the National Harbours Board and the record of the congestion of ships and commodities in the Vancouver harbour area over the past two or three years.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
While understandably we tend to concentrate, on the Vancouver harbour area, we must remember that there is a great and growing movement of commodities from Canada to the Pacific area. Th s demonstrates quite clearly the necessity of the development of alternative and additional harbour facilities, and the planning of a communications system which will enable the goods produced in Canada to reach Pacific coast ports and be loaded on vessels as quickly as possible in order that they may be taken away in the growing trade and commercial stream which Canada is developing.
We in this party have for some years been emphasizing the necessity of a Pacific policy, one essential feature of which would be the development of a co-ordinated rail, road and harbour facilities network. Not only is such a policy necessary in order efficiently to handle the wheat produced on the prairies, and our lumber, but the increasing quantity of mineral products mined in the interior of British Columbia, the petrochemical products coming to the Pacific coast for shipment, and the vast deposits of potash now being developed in Saskatchewan requiring shipment to the Pacific area. The fact that Canada is a Pacific nation, that two thirds of the world's population live in the Pacific area and there is here growing commerce which is bound to increase, make it essential that we develop a shipping and transportation policy to serve this area adequately. There has been almost total neglect in this respect. The particular
December 2, 1966	COMMONS
crisis that has brought about this debate demonstrates the necessity for action with respect to such a policy.
We have here a national emergency which requires immediate action and solution. It has been described by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) as a mess. I think it could be described as an unholy mess which precludes any further delay. I recognize that you do not always get, and in fact perhaps you seldom get, the most acceptable solution in the long run when you settle a dispute in a crisis atmosphere. I have already said that part of the government's great responsibility for this crisis was in allowing it to develop into crisis proportions, instead of dealing with it effectively before it became a crisis. But we now have a crisis which requires immediate solution. The minister has told us it will be six months or a year before we get the report of the task force which has been set up to study Canada's labour laws. We cannot wait that long. We cannot wait for a full legislative answer, the answer to all the problems by way of a comprehensive overhaul and amendment of our legislation in this field.
I submit that action is therefore necessary at least to the extent suggested by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker); that is, the government must decide whether changes are required in the law setting up the Canada Labour Relations Board, and what changes are required now to solve this crisis. We have not yet had an assurance from the minister that he will bring back from Vancouver an answer to that question, or even that he is going out there in the frame of mind that would enable him to get it. I suggest we should have that assurance immediately-that as a result of the minister's visit there will be at least an immediate recommendation or submission of legislation to amend the act in order to arrive at a solution of this crisis.
In addition, of course, there should be the immediate appointment of a mediator who will stay there permanently until the crisis is solved and the movement of shipping in and out of Vancouver and the other B.C. ports is resumed at full scale. Third, I suggest we are entitled to the assurance at this time that steps will be taken at once to develop an over-all policy with respect to the co-ordination of rail, road, shipping movements and harbour facilities not only in Vancouver but on the whole Pacific coast.
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute
I submit that parliament should be given these assurances immediately. While one appreciates the minister's desire that at the end of this debate we will go quietly back to work, I suggest that he is not entitled to expect this unless parliament receives these assurances now. The opportunity has been presented to us by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke to demand and receive these assurances without which, in my submission, this motion will not have served its purpose.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, especially when you see that for once parliament is unanimous in its wish to serve the Canadian people. I wish it were always so. The present situation is a serious one. It is easy to blame the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) for the crisis, but I am sure nobody in this chamber would want the Canadian people to think that all the blame lies on his shoulders. The difficulties which have arisen in labour relations in this country are a long story. In the labour press I have been called an enemy of labour. I do not know where they got that notion, because I have always had to work for a living and have the greatest sympathy for the working man. At times I have spoken against the abuses committed by certain sections of the labour movement, perhaps that is why I get the reputation. I wish to put that straight.
I believe that what is wrong is the almost complete breakdown in a rational approach to this whole problem. I shall not bother explaining what they do in other countries in this regard. This is our personal problem, our own homework. I suggest that we have to set up in the very near future-I should like to think we will begin today-a system whereby in the interests of Canada we can bring labour and management together. I think this can be achieved only if both sides take a new look at this problem.
Labour is always saying that management is wrong. For a few moments I will show where I think management is wrong in certain respects. I do not think management takes the proper, long look at these problems, and that this is the cause of some labour strikes. Most strikes are caused by low wages and the rising cost of living; they are caused by poor living conditions and lack of housing. They are caused by the fact they do not have year round employment and, on the other hand, perhaps they are caused by abuse of the bargaining powers by the unions themselves. What should management do about this? I
10656	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute think that not only should a comprehensive labour code be set up but I would also suggest that management all across Canada should form some sort of organization which would seek to establish a code for employers in anticipation of problems which might arise in the future. This action would eliminate the need for working men in Canada to strike in order to get a living wage.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
I will now take the side of labour and ask: "What is labour doing?" I do not think the average working man in Canada wants to strike. He certainly does not want to strike for nothing, but he feels that this is his only weapon. In a great many cases the worker strikes because he is forced to do so by his union and sometimes the unions are controlled on the other side of the border. I would say that parliament is the last court of appeal to which labour and management can come. It is up to us to give them leadership in solving these problems. I do not think it is the sole responsibility of the Minister of Labour or of the government to put an end to strikes, but it appears that parliament is fed up with costly strikes and is fed up with piecemeal solutions to our problems.
We should get down to the fundamentals and set up a proper labour code, the keystone of which should be the right to vote by secret ballot in the election of union officers. The labour force has no real power over the unions. The worker becomes a double slave; he becomes a slave of management and a slave of the goons in the labour movement. I suggest that most of the abuse in the labour movement comes from unions controlled outside of Canada and therefore I think that the secret ballot would enable the workers in Canada to pick the union officers of their choice. Without a secret ballot an election can be absolutely meaningless.
I think there is a danger in the closed shop practice. In the present strike on the west coast, the foremen do not know whether they belong to labour or management or whether they should belong to a union. If they had the right to resort to the use of a secret ballot perhaps they would not have to join a union at all if they felt they did not feel at home in it.
The second matter which I think should be contained in the labour code is a provision ensuring Canadian control of our unions. I mentioned that some of the abused were created by forces outside Canada, and I would

DEBATES	December 2, 1966
suggest that Canadians would not be controlled by these forces if our unions were independent. As regards the strikes, it seems to me that a great many workers in Canada feel they are fairly well paid and are willing to carry on their work, temporarily at least, if they had the power to decide, again by secret ballot, whether or not they want to strike.
I think that we should include in the federal labour code a provision stating that the federal government will not do business-and they are the big employer-with any person who has been convicted during the last five years of certain crimes against the person and the state.
With reference to the present crisis, I think that if a labour court had been set up in Canada long ago we would have avoided many of the strikes which have taken place. We should appoint to such a court members from the labour field and from management, and arbitrators as impartial as we can get them. This should be a permanent court which, when it is not occupied with settling strikes, should devote considerable time to research in the field of labour-management relations. The law should provide that strikes could not legally take place until due notice had been given to the labour court to enable it to come up with an equitable solution. In this way many strikes would be averted. The points of the labour code which I have enumerated would ensure that the best interests of labour and of the whole country would be protected.
As regards the immediate crisis with which we are faced, parliament has given a blank cheque to the Minister of Labour to take immediate steps to protect the economy of Canada and put these people back to work, while offering them an opportunity to reach a settlement. However, unless something is done along the lines I suggested with reference to the Canadian law, and workers are guaranteed the right to pick their own leaders, I do not think we will solve the predicament in which we find ourselves. I would hate to see the year 1967, the year of our centennial, taken up with an increasing list of strikes. Our birthday party will give these disgruntled labour people a wonderful opportunity to put us in an embarrassing situation, and the criminal elements in our labour force-and there are such elements-will take advantage of this. If we plan now, we will be able to take action which will give the people of Canada the right to work under proper conditions.
December 2, 1966	COMMONS
I wish to conclude my remarks on a very serious note, and I address myself to management. The Canadian people are tired of management which forces the workers to strike. The postal employees and other civil servants should not have to organize themselves in unions. Parliament should be their union; we are their advocates. Surely, parliament does not need a hold-up in our Christmas mail to bring attention to the fact that every government employee in Canada is entitled to a good living wage. This is what encourages people who are not government employees to go on strike. I foresee that if something is not done to give the low paid school teachers and nurses proper wages and living conditions they will be forced to form unions. A hundred years ago labour had very little voice. Parliaments were usually drawn from men of private means. But to day parliament is composed of men who are acquainted with the working people and their problems. We have no right to neglect any longer putting on the statute books of Canada legislation which will protect the little man. This little man has the right to work even though he belongs to a union which, over the years, has improved his working conditions but today may be abusing its powers.
Unless we give this man a secret ballot and give him the right to control his own affairs and his own right to work, we will fail in our important mission here in the house.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, there are a few ' remarks I wish to make in this special debate which has been allowed in order to discuss this question of vital national importance. It is reassuring to know that there is in this house general concern over the situation presently existing on Canada's west coast. Sometimes there is a tendency in that area to feel isolated, to feel that the rest of Canada does not understand our problems or that the rest of Canada does not concern itself too much with our needs. Therefore we appreciate the fact, as I said, that here in this house today there is unanimous and mutual concern at this unfortunate situation which is having such serious effects on the economy in the west and, of course right across the country.
I think we ought to express our appreciation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), for his ready agreement that this matter was of sufficient importance to warrant debate if Your Honour saw fit to rule that the requirements of urgency were satisfied. We also 23033-6741
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute thank Your Honour for recognizing the urgency of this matter by the ruling you gave.
I think it is evident from what has been said in this debate that there is, in fact, a matter of extreme concern facing us at the present time, not only in its effects on the economy of the area on the west coast, but also as something that will have a very detrimental effect on the economy of the entire nation.
In the course of this discussion speakers have pointed out how this situation is affecting various primary producers. My colleague from Okanagan-Revelstoke, who moved this motion, referred in particular to the plight in which the fruitgrowers are finding themselves as a result of their inability to move their fruit to the markets. We all know that this is a perishable product and the situation cannot be allowed to continue for very much longer.
Some of those whose interests are primarily in the prairie provinces have pointed out the effect the situation is having on the grain trade and how the boxcars loaded with grain are now backing right up across the prairies. We all know that for a considerable length of time there has been difficulty moving their grain under ordinary circumstances. Therefore, when a situation such as this arises we can readily understand their additional concern and their desire that this matter be resolved at the earliest possible moment.
In the province of British Columbia, the lumber and wood products industry is one of our major industries. As has been pointed out, companies engaged in this industry are now stating they will have to lay off thousands and thousands of employees if this state of affairs is allowed to persist. So I think in the over-all picture, considering the matter from these points of view, it can be readily seen this is a problem that demands urgent attention and an immediate solution.
There are those in the other allied employee groups, Mr. Speaker, who are also seriously affected by this dispute in which they are not directly involved. I think that we have to consider the effect of this dispute on the entire employment picture on the west coast and in the rest of Canada.
I do not think that recriminations are going to contribute to the solution of this problem. There have been some rather violent recriminations hurled at the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) in the course of this debate. I do not think this will assist in the solution of the problem. We appreciate the fact that the minister does not desire to intervene in a situation
10658	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute involving management and labour until every opportunity has been given to arrive at a settlement without his intervention. But, Mr. Speaker, having acknowledged that fact, we must state that we believe the time has now arrived when definite action must be taken. This action cannot be postponed; we cannot wait for the ordinary methods and means of negotiation and conciliation to take their course.
As has been pointed out this morning on a number of occasions, one of the main problems is the absence of established procedures to solve these disputes in vital industries of this nation. This is something to which attention must be given. I do not believe we can afford to wait for this question to be worked out and for the matter to be discussed.
Suggestions have also been made that the minister ought to go out to the west coast and appoint a mediator immediately. I do not think we can even wait for that. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the time has now come-as the time came in other disputes-when legislation must be introduced. Unless this matter is resolved immediately, legislation must be considered so as to get the ports of the west coast opened again and shipping once more under way.


Mr. G. L. Chatlerfon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate will be very brief. I listened to the very reasoned argument of the minister, who I have always found to be a reasonable person. But he did not give me the impression he considered this a matter of the utmost importance- as a matter of fact, as a crisis.
Other hon. members have described the effect of this strike or lock-out whatever you want to call it, on the prairies and on the fruit industry of British Columbia. The wood products industry of British Columbia has already suffered a serious set-back this year because of the tight money situation. In fairness I should say that their problems are not just the result of the tight money situation in Canada but also in the United States; but they are certainly contributed to by the tight money policies of the present government.
Because of these set-backs, Mr. Speaker, according to yesterday's Province a spokesman for McMillan Bloedel Limited said 500 employees at Alberni Pacific sawmill division in Port Alberni and 1,235 workers at the Vancouver plywood division have been told production will halt today and that they will be laid off. B.C. Forest Products Limited last

DEBATES	December 2, 1966
Wednesday ordered partial closure of its pulp mill at Crofton. The situation is getting more serious by the day. Certainly I did not detect in the minister's statement any recognition of the urgency of the situation or of immediate action. According to yesterday's Province, 1,600 of the dock workers met on Wednesday night, but it seems that both sides were adamant in their positions.
As the minister indicated, there is apparently no instrument or mechanism within the existing legislation whereby he can intervene. If I may quote further from yesterday's Province, only one ship out of 50 was worked in the port of Vancouver on Wednesday, and that was a potash ship at one of the bulk loading wharves. So that is the situation that obtains today.
What will be the situation, Mr. Speaker, say three days from now or seven days from now or ten days from now? If the minister can assure us that there is a clear indication that the situation might be resolved by Monday, then it might not get out of hand. But there is no indication that it will be solved in the very near future.
The minister has said this is an extraordinary situation. Therefore, I think he should recognize that it requires extraordinary action. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker) has made a suggestion in this regard. Parliament has acted to the extent that it can act, and I commend the Prime Minister for agreeing to this debate today. But there is nothing parliament can do now beyond this point, except at the initiative of the government.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is clearly up to the minister and to the government to take initiative action, and this has been requested by the B.C. division of the Canadian Manufacturers Association. If I may quote yesterday's Province, the chairman of the B.C. division of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association said:
Surely the government can still intervene in a situation which threatens loss of employment to thousands of B.C. workers and, if allowed to continue during the protracted course of a lawsuit, will have disastrous effects on the economy of B.C. and Canada as a whole.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
I urge the minister seriously to consider the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition. As far as this party is concerned, and judging by the statements made on all sides of the house, parliament would be prepared to act today were the minister ready to submit
December 2, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	10659
legislation to solve the difficulties of the extraordinary situation now existing.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the members who have directed their remarks to the subject matter of this debate have said about all that can be said. I wish to make one particular appeal relating to the situation prevailing in my part of the country. I have received a number of letters and telegrams-I received the last two today-about this matter. The grain farmers of northern Alberta and British Columbia are critically affected by what is happening. Because of adverse weather conditions they had a poor crop last year. This year the crop was better, but because of adverse weather conditions much of the crop harvested was tough and damp. If the normal flow of grain from the areas I have mentioned to the west coast ports is not allowed to continue, millions of bushels of grain will be lost and the tough and damp grain will go bad. I do not know whether the minister is aware of the situation in my part of the country and elsewhere. Judging from the answers he has given to questions in the house, I am sure he is as concerned as anybody else about such matters.
Going through copies of Hansard, reading the answers to questions the minister gave yesterday, the day before that and the day before that, it seems to me that one of the problems in the minister's mind is the propriety of acting while court proceedings exist. The minister's position is a difficult one, but sometimes I think that in this house we have been too sensitive about that sort of think. There is a rule of debate which prevents us from referring to matters in respect of which court proceedings are pending. But if court proceedings exist in connection with a situation such as this, involving a strike, nothing in the rules of the house or in the constitution prevents this government and this house from acting, and saying, "We shall legislate". Litigation may be all very well, but legislation always supersedes litigation. This is a Rubicon which has to be crossed, and we must know that it is wise and proper to do so.
Not in every instance can parliament and the government go rushing in to settle litigious proceedings, no matter how serious are the matters involved. Parliament can only do that when it is quite obvious that no other reasonable method exists to dispose of the matter, when the matter in question is of national urgency. After all, we represent the people, and their interest is supreme. The people as a
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute whole look to us to see that their interest is upheld.
I am sure the minister has been told by his advisers that it is always possible, if the suggestions from this side of the house are followed and the government decides to intervene through legislation, to let the rights of the parties come before the courts. Those rights, as I read the minister's answers, relate entirely to damages. Judging from the minister's answers to questions posed to him, the employers were taking proceedings which sounded as though they were framed to recover damages.
Any legislation enacted can be so framed that it is without prejudice to existing rights between the parties. The proceedings in court can be insulated. In other words, we can deal with this as an emergent situation and legislate in such a way that we do not interfere with the rights of the parties to damages. That can be done by framing the terms of the bill in a certain way.
I have been trying to find, by reading the press, what proceedings are being undertaken on the west coast. It may be that the proceedings go to the root of the problem, and deal with labour relations as well as damages. Certainly, it is not beyond the capacity of the government to frame legislation to solve a national problem in such a way that the legislation in no way impairs or affects the rights of the parties before the courts.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: wish to make a few brief comments on this serious subject. As a representative of the Vancouver area I am aware of the difficulties existing there, but those difficulties are not confined to that area alone. The grain cars are backing up, affecting our friends from the prairie provinces. Other industries throughout British Columbia, as we all know, are threatened at the present time. Perishable goods in Vancouver harbour are not being unloaded.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston) moved the adjournment of the house this morning. Some of my colleagues and I had been considering the same action. We thought it would not be amiss to leave the situation alone over the week end to see if any settlement were arrived at. We felt, had there been no settlement of any kind by Monday, that it would be timely for us to act.
The matter is complicated, as the minister has said. There are applications before the courts. Be that as it may, the minister must realize that despite any action before the
10660	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute courts at the present time the situation cannot be allowed to continue for much longer. I suggest if there is no settlement of this matter by no later than the beginning of next week, the government should consider appointing an administrator of the port of Vancouver to take control of its whole operation. He should control the companies as well as the union to alleviate the present emergency. At the same time, mediation ought to be carried on.
This type of suggestion was made last spring at the time of the St. Lawrence seaway difficulties. I am the last person to suggest action like this were the situation not as serious as it is at the present time.
If, by the beginning of next week, no resumption of work or no settlement has taken place this government ought to consider appointing an administrator who would take charge of the port of Vancouver, of the operations of the companies and of the union in all aspects, while mediation is carried on.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Coming from a great grain growing province, Saskatchewan, I feel impelled to join with other hon. members in this debate on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke to adjourn this house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance.
As other members have said, many sectors of our economy have been adversely affected. In Saskatchewan we produce about half the exportable wheat of Canada. A great bulk of our grain is in our elevators, on the farms, and as has been mentioned, in grain cars which are backed up from the west coast to Saskatchewan.
I join with other hon. members in urging the government to consider this as a matter of great urgency, not only, as the hon. member for Acadia said, for the grain farmers of Canada, but for all sectors of our economy; the forest products industry of British Columbia, the fruit growers, and for all those industries which seek to move commodities to market positions. The workers are involved, as are the transport companies. There is difficulty transporting goods, performing services, and people will be laid off with a resulting loss of wages.
Should this dispute continue, it is my belief that the Minister of Labour will have no alternative but to take immediate action. It is interesting to note the alacrity with which the government was ready to accept the motion of urgency by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, because only yesterday or the day
I Mr. Prittie.]
DEBATES	December 2, 1966
before, the Minister seemed not to heed the pleas of the opposition.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
I think the readiness of the Prime Minister to allow this motion to come before the house was in itself an indication of the importance of finding a solution to this situation which has developed on the west coast. I agree with those who have suggested that a mediator be appointed. If we follow this course, I suggest a time limit should be set, possibly a week. If at the end of this period no positive results have been achieved, this house should set about amending the labour relations act so as to provide a solution not only in respect of this occurrence but in respect of similar occurrences which are likely to arise in the future.
As has been pointed out, this country has been plagued with labour troubles for the last several years. It is high time the government took positive action to show the people of Canada that they were being led by a government of decision, not by a government of indecision and indiscretion, examples of which have been so frequent recently. I certainly support the contention of previous speakers that the government take immediate action to help straighten out the situation which has developed on the west coast.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaxmo-Cowichan-The Islands):: As one whose constituency is directly affected by the situation, I feel I should say a few words on this motion. I should like, first of all, to support the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Burnaby-Coquitlam that the method by which the government could at least temporarily resolve this situation might be by the appointment of an administrator until the matter could be settled between management and labour.
I think we must realize, however, that we are concerned today with a situation of a type which will occur with greater and greater frequency in cases where industries vital to the economic health of the country are involved. In recent months we have had the experience of the railway strike, the St. Lawrence situation and, only last week the Air Canada strike. It occurs to me that while attending to the immediate problem here, perhaps by the method suggested by my hon. friend, the government should also be considering a much broader policy approach to labour disputes in industries which are essential to the welfare of the Canadian community.
We have to face the fact that it is intolerable that their operations should be suspended
December 2, 1966	COMMONS
but at the same time we must not place all the burden of continuing operations on the shoulders of labour or even, for that matter, on the shoulders of management. There must be a development of decision sharing between management and labour in these essential industries. It should be the purpose of government to develop the mechanism by which this decision sharing would be brought about, so that management and labour are each involved in a joint operation for the benefit of the Canadian people, with an equal share of responsibility for decision-making in the area of wages and working conditions.
We cannot expect labour to accept a government ukase that they should go back to work on dictated terms. Similarly, I think it is only fair to say that we cannot expect management to accept terms imposed on it by the government. But it is fair to expect that both sides should go on conducting these essential services in the interest of the whole of Canada. If there is to be a fight, it must be a fight within the confines of an operating industry.
I hope the minister will move swiftly to solve, even if temporarily, the deadlock which has been reached. The government must move to resolve this labour-management situation if we are to avoid these crippling interruptions of the economic life of our country.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has already taken part in the debate and, of course, he cannot speak again unless he has the consent of the members of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for their consent. When I rose it was to ask for such consent.
My remarks will be very brief. First, let me say I am encouraged by the observations that we have just heard from the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron). I think all hon. members will recall that I was the first speaker during the present session of parliament to deal at any length with the disturbing situations which had arisen or might arise as a result of crippling work stoppages affecting essential industries in this country. When I introduced the estimates for the Department of Labour last spring I referred to some of the situations which existed then and to others about which we had been warned. I invited suggestions from members of the house regardless of party, and from the public generally, as to
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute what might be done to find the correct solution. Certainly, what has happened in the intervening months has confirmed me in the view I took at that time. I am delighted at the support I have received along these lines from the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands as well as from others.
As to what was said by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam), I do not want this house or the Canadian public to be left with the impression that the Minister of Labour or the government have been indifferent to the serious situation on the west coast. If he would read the statements that I have made both in and out of the house during the past ten days he would reach the conclusion, I am sure, that no fair minded person could suggest the minister has shown indifference. I said on my return from Vancouver when I spoke in the house on Monday, and I have repeated it since, that there is a time when action can be taken with hope of success, and a time when it cannot. Anyone who has had experience in labour matters-and I had appreciable experience in this area before I entered the political field-knows this to be true. I told the house that when the time for action arrived I would be quite prepared to return to British Columbia. I believe the developments of the last 36 hours indicate that now is an appropriate time to do so and perhaps some results may be achieved.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
In the course of this debate I received information which leads me to think that the atmosphere, while perhaps not right, is at least a little more encouraging than it was even a few hours ago. Word has been received, for instance, that some of the ships which have cargoes of fruit from the Orient and which were being diverted to other ports but might not be unloaded there, causing such a perishable commodity to suffer, may be unloaded. I have been advised that the president of the longshoremen's union has said the longshoremen will unload these oranges and that certain foremen have offered to work even without pay. That is an encouraging sign. Information has been received regarding other developments which justify and support the conclusion I reached last night that, with the assistance of the assistant deputy minister, who has broad experience in these matters, I may again intervene to advantage.
On the whole the suggestions made by hon. members have been constructive, but I should not want to leave the impression that at anytime I said the appointment of a mediator

December 2, 1966
Pacific Coast Longshoremen Dispute would not help. If I failed to convey to members what I meant to say, perhaps that failure arose because I did not take enough time when answering questions asked during the question period to fully explain. What I meant to say was that the difficulty involved in appointing a mediator arose partly because a mediator cannot overrule a decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board. Lines have been drawn in this situation and both sides have taken stands on a matter of principle. The introduction of a mediator into that atmosphere at an earlier date might not have been too helpful.
I did not say that an amendment to the Industrial Disputes and Investigation Act giving the right of appeal from decisions of the Canada Labour Relations Board was necessarily the answer to this problem. I suggested that it might be one avenue which should be followed or at least one which certainly should be given serious consideration.
The suggestion has been made this morning, and repeatedly during the past few months, that we may have to change the rules or criteria under which the labour board operates. That is a much more serious matter because it would affect not only this dispute but others that have been referred to in this house. All these factors have to be considered and the introduction of legislation to provide for appeals from decisions may be only one possible way of bringing about a solution. That may be an important step, but I think it might well be only one in a series which are needed to correct the situation to which the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and others have referred.
The last point on which I wish to comment is that referred to by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). He suggested I had not explained the actions of the employers in regard to call-outs. I do not think it is up to the minister to explain any such thing, particularly why the employers have acted as they have or why the employees have acted as they have. These actions are matters for their own consciences. I reported to this house the facts of life, and the facts which now exist.
The employers have stated to me, and publicly, that while there are certain longshoremen continuing to work others have not been called out because the employers cannot afford to pay them unless they receive a reasonable return for money being paid. That is the position they take and they have every right to take it in a free country, just as the workers have a right to take other positions.

The problems involved are very difficult and will not be resolved overnight. They will only be resolved in the right atmosphere and at the appropriate time. I hope that appropriate time will be within the next day or two, or sooner if possible.
Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances and in view of the debate that we have had I hope the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston) will feel he has accomplished a very worthwhile purpose in bringing this matter to the attention of the house and will now withdraw his motion.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, would it be helpful if the minister indicated today that he was prepared to consider the introduction of an amendment to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act? That might be an inducement to the parties to the dispute to get together over the week end.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thought I had dealt with that point in my opening remarks when I said we were considering a number of alternatives, including the one referred to by the hon. member.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention in moving this adjournment nor the intention of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) in seconding it, to make impossible demands on the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) or the government. We felt that a useful purpose could be served by airing this entire problem in this house. I believe now that when the minister goes to Vancouver he will know the temper of this house and through the elected representatives, the temper of the country. I hope he will take with him the variety of interesting and profitable suggestions which have been put forward during this debate. I assure him that we wish him well in his important task. In view of what has taken place and in view of the intervention promised by the minister, I now ask that the motion be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have leave to withdraw his motion?


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


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Speaker, before we start orders of the day, in order to allow the anchor men, if I may use that expression, to return to the house, perhaps we should adjourn for half an hour.
December 2, 1966


Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Speaker, some of the ministers will be leaving shortly. Many of them are here now, in fact even more than will be available later on. Perhaps we could proceed at this time with orders of the day.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormision (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Labour is still in the house I should like to ask him whether any ruling has been given regarding a retroactive increase for Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railway workers who resigned or were laid-off between January 1 and September 2 of this year?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. This is a question that can only be answered by the Minister of Transport or his associate, the Minister without Portfolio after inquiry as to facts. Neither of those gentlemen is in the house but I can assure the hon. member I will take his question as notice and ask one of them to reply at the next sitting of the house.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance. Can he inform the house whether it is correct, as has been indicated, that the government of the United States has exerted diplomatic pressure on the government of Canada to change certain provisions of the bill to revise the Bank Act now before the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs? I refer to the provisions which will limit the growth of the Mercantile Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of the First National Bank of New York. If in fact pressure has been exerted will the minister indicate to the house the nature of the response of the Canadian government?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we have received two notes from the United States government relating to the proposed changes to the Bank Act, however, it is not the intention of the government to reveal their contents as they are privileged 23033-675
Inquiries of the Ministry documents exchanged between our two governments.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Without revealing the contents of the notes can the minister indicate whether the communications received from the government of the United States are of such a nature as to require very serious consideration?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada always gives serious consideration to representations from the United States government, just as we hope the United States government does in respect of representations from us.


George Louis Chatterton: Is it possible for the minister to reveal whether this concerns the Mercantile Bank?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the representations do include reference to the Mercantile Bank.


Colin Cameron: Could the minister tell us whether the government of Canada still is maintaining the position which he announced I believe at the time of the introduction of the resolution preceding the Bank Act?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is a member of the house committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, and I do not think he has seen any evidence of any proposed changes in that act or any announcement of any proposed changes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was not in the house when questions were directed to the Minister of Finance with regard to the most unusual action of the United States State Department in communicating with the Canadian government regarding legislative policy. The minister has stated that he is not going to give any information concerning the reply, and I am not going to argue that question at the moment. I should like to ask him, however, in view of such an obvious invasion of Canadian sovereignty, carrying the threat that unless Canada conforms there will be the possibility of legislation by the United States, whether the minister can give to the house this one assurance, that once parliament has decided-a decision having first been made by the government-Canada will follow the

December 2, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
course outlined and stand Arm, rather than he will remain to guide the destiny of this capitulate to intrusion in our affairs.	world organization.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman knows, it is not inappropriate of course for the United States government to make representations about legislation that may be pending in the Canadian parliament. It is not unusual for the Canadian government to make the same sort of representations about legislation pending in the United States Congress or proposed by the United States government. I am sure the right hon. gentleman does not think that is inappropriate. I should like to say to him, however, that the government will make its decision in the Canadian interests, and I am sure this house will do likewise, without any pressure from any outside source.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the general purport of the minister's answer. But does he not remember that when we had these difficulties it was said a new day and a new dispensation would arrive for Canada, with the present government's arrival in office?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: That is true, too.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with what the right hon. gentleman has said.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question, but I am not sure to whom I should direct it. I had intended directing it to the Prime Minister, but perhaps I might address it to someone acting on his behalf. Could the house be advised of the success or otherwise of attempts to persuade U Thant to accept a further term as Secretary General of the United Nations organization?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary General has been asked by the Security Council to continue in this important office. He is to make a formal reply today. The Canadian government, through the Prime Minister and through myself as Secretary of State for External Affairs, has on several occasions urged him to stay on. I saw him at the United Nations last Thursday and renewed this plea. I hope his reply today will be that



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. I might say that I gave him due notice of my intention to ask this question. In view of the need to develop the agricultural industry in Newfoundland, would the minister consider continuing the cattle raising project started by western cattle ranchers and the Atlantic Development Board in the Burin peninsula as a research program of the federal government?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The project to which he refers has of course been discontinued. I understand that the cattle herd was taken over by the banks as collateral and disposed of. I would not regard the reactivation of this operation as being a research project. My department has for some years been engaged in research at Colinet on the use of bog lands for beef cattle. This includes work on bog drainage and grass development. In association with that, my department carries a small herd of cattle on the land, which at present is 40 head.
My impression is that the necessary research for carrying beef cattle is well in hand and that its commercial application is a development program, rather than one of research.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I ask this question because a number of persons have expressed concern about reports that the conference on pollution in our environment held recently in Montreal has cost the federal government millions of dollars. Would the minister mind informing the house what the total cost of this important conference was to the federal government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for statistical information which
December 2, 1968

I suggest to him cannot be requested at this time. This is the type of question which should be placed on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, having received a very welcome procedural tip from the government side of the house, I wish to rephrase my question addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is it true that the government of Canada spent millions of dollars on the conference on pollution in our environment, recently held in Montreal?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that many small contractors have not as yet been able to get money through private insured loans, would the minister keep the situation under review having in mind the possibility of making more direct loans available this year to those contractors who did not get such loans before?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, within the last few days I answered a similar question. It is extremely doubtful whether there will be any change in the policy during the year 1966; but for 1967, which is less than a month away, this suggestion will be given serious consideration.



C.M.H.C.-POSSIBLE REDUCTION IN DOWN PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I may not be here on Monday-I hope I will be, but I may well be detained longer than Monday- I should like to answer two questions that were asked. One is by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). He was in the house earlier, though I notice that he is not here at this time which is understandable.
On November 29 the hon. member put a question concerning down payments on houses financed under the National Housing 23033-6751

Inquiries of the Ministry Act. I might say that no change is contemplated in either the loan-to-value ratios or in the maximum loan amounts on new houses financed under the National Housing Act. I think perhaps I should add that the ratios under the National Housing Act for home ownership are 95 per cent of the first $13,000 and 70 per cent of the balance of the lending value up to a maximum of $18,000. For rental loans, the ratio in the recently passed legislation has been increased from a maximum of 85 per cent to 90 per cent. Since we are trying to make maximum use of such funds as are available for loans, and more particularly direct loans, I should think it is better for us to start at the lower levels rather than at the higher levels.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: should like to deal with a question which has been asked twice in the last two weeks by the hon. member for Gaspe. He referred to certain changes which he understood were going to be made in the regulations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. He referred also to a discussion which had taken place in this house in August. I thought he was referring to the change in the unemployment insurance regulations to take care of agricultural and horticultural workers and I stated that those changes had been made by regulation. A close study of Hansard and of his second question indicates that the hon. member was referring to an earlier development, a suggested change of regulations relating to woodworkers. I might say that what troubled me was that such a change took place prior to August and was actually gazetted on August 10. I had thought he was referring to something since that time. What he is asking for actually took place nearly six months ago.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether the order in council to which he referred yesterday, extending the date for the mediation of the dispute between the railway companies and the unions, was agreed

December 2, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry upon after consultation with the unions concerned, or was it arrived at without such consultation?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made it clear that the bargaining representatives of one of the four unions involved had joined with the two railways in a request that the mediator be given an extension. A settlement having been agreed upon in principle with one group representing 22,000 workers, and another group representing approximately the same number having urged that mediation should continue, with the possibility of the resumption of negotiations with one or perhaps both of the other two groups, the government took full responsibility at the request of just one union group, of the railways and the mediator.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister whether he will give consideration to another extension when this period has expired, if the mediation has not resulted in a settlement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the distinct impression that this is a hypothetical question.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour in his capacity as the minister answering for C.M.H.C. He mentioned a few moments ago that a certain policy with regard to C.M.H.C. has not changed. I should like to ask whether the policy with regard to the appointment of lawyers acting on behalf of C.M.H.C. has changed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think we have followed the course that was followed by the government of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and other governments.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Not quite.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is it true, as suggested in a morning news column, that the minister now considers the bagpipes to be an ill wind that no one blows good?
[Mr. Orlikow.)



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture based upon his statement this morning regarding sugar beets. The minister stated that an interim payment has been approved for the 1966 crop. Can he indicate at this time the amount of the interim payment, and when it is expected that this payment will be made?


John James Greene: We are not prepared to indicate that today, Mr. Speaker; but I will take the question as notice and give the hon. member an answer as soon as possible.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, is the Solicitor General, after the passage of a week, now able to furnish the house with information secured from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as to whether United States police officers are operating in Canada in search of United States draft dodgers, without being accompanied by members of the mounted police?
Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not able to respond earlier to the right hon. gentleman's question. I must advise the house that, notwithstanding an extensive investigation in the city of Vancouver, the results have proved inconclusive. The R.C.M.P. interviewed the people who made the report, but no one was able to confirm as a fact that any members of the United States authorities have been in the city of Vancouver. We are now continuing the investigation elsewhere.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister knows, of course, that one of the sources was an article in the Wasserman column, and he stated that this was being done. Was there any communication with the F.B.I. in Washington, to ascertain whether any members of their forces are operating in Canada? This is something that certainly should not take place. It would be very simple to find out whether it has taken place, by communicating with Washington and ask'ng them: Are any of your officers snooping about in Canada?
December 2, 1966


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have there been any cases of young Americans who have refused to serve in the United States forces in Viet Nam having come to Canada and asked for political asylum on that ground? If there have been such cases, has political asylum been granted?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know of no such case, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister look this up, because it has been advertised in the press over and over again that there is a group in British Columbia, and I think one in Ontario, whose object it is to welcome draft dodgers? Will the minister find out why these people, not being willing to assume the responsibilities of their own citizenship, should be welcomed as good citizens here?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I will be very glad to look into the matter, Mr. Speaker. I doubt very much whether there is any foundation for the original question.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister, of course, has been abroad engaged in audacious proceedings, and has not been reading the press.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I have generally found there a greater and more valuable foundation for questions asked in the house, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: That does not apply to your answers.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard  Johnsfon@Okanagan-Revel-sloke: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister tell us whether he has received any report from the important conference taking place between Prime Minister Harold Wilson of Great Britain and Prime Minister Ian Smith of Rhodesia?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: According to our knowledge of the timetable there has been one meeting between Prime Minister Wilson and Mr. Smith. The Prime Minister and I met this morning with Mr. Garner of the Commonwealth Relations Office, but we are not yet in a position to report on the first day's conversations.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the seriousness of the problem raised by water pollution in several of our rivers, will the minister tell us if the government intends to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the resolutions of the Montreal conference on pollution in our environment are now being brought together. A meeting of the resource ministers council will follow to study those resolutions and, personally, I hope that additional measures will then be taken to solve the problem described by the hon. member.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
When does the hon. minister expect to receive the report of the survey on this question of water pollution?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This report is being drawn up at present, and I understand it will be ready at the end of December or early in January.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of his indication yesterday that he intends to proceed with an amendment having to do with the exclusion of certain optometric services from Bill C-227, would he

December 2, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry now consider tabling in the house the documents which I requested yesterday namely correspondence on this one particular point?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have not had an opportunity to consider this question and to examine the correspondence since the question was asked yesterday, and therefore I am not in a position to table the correspondence now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister consider it if, perchance, we have not passed this clause by the end of today?



DISCUSSION RESPECTING ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY IN CAPE BRETON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberi Muir (Cape Brefon North and Victoria):: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. May I ask the hon. gentleman if as yet he has been in a position to make his delayed visit to Halifax to confer with Premier Stanfield concerning the coal problem in Nova Scotia, and if so, is he in a position as yet to make a report to the house?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I had the pleasure of meeting Premier Stanfield yesterday and we agreed to tell the hon. member that it was a very successful meeting.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State which she might take as notice and answer on Monday. Will the minister inform the house why competent returning officers with years of experience are not being reappointed for the new constituencies? New appointments are being made daily and these experienced people are being dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts as to whether this question can be asked at this time.


Robert William Prittie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today the hon. member for Grey-Bruce asked the Minister of Labour about appointments of lawyers to the

C.M.H.C. If this question cannot be asked at this time, when can it be asked?


Mr. Speaker:: It can always be asked at ten o'clock.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) may I direct a question either to the acting minister or to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that the joint committee on the public service of Canada is getting along pretty well with the bills which have been referred to it, will the minister reactivate his consideration of a term of reference for that committee to enable it to study the question of the pensions of retired civil servants when we have completed the other legislation?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: I will make a particular point of bringing this to the minister's attention.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I would have directed it to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) but I think his heart is hardened on this point and it is useless to appeal to him. I will therefore ask the Acting Prime Minister the following question: In view of the evidence submitted by the head of the Economic Council before the prices committee that we have passed the inflationary period, can we expect in this session legislation to implement the 10,000 scholarships program which has been dangled before the students of Canada during two successive elections?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will refer this question to the very generous-minded Minister of Finance.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 1, consideration in committee of Bill
December 2, 1966
[Stage Direction]
No. C-227, to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 3-Contribution payable.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening, clause 3 of the bill was under consideration and the hon. member for Lapointe proposed an amendment to it. I will now read the text of the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Lapointe. It reads as follows:
-that, after the words "by Canada", in the first line of clause 3, the following words be added:
"or a fiscal compensation is made by Canada at the discretion of each province."
May I suggest to hon. members that before a decision is rendered expressions of opinion be voiced regarding the validity of the amendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a very brief submission with respect to the acceptability of the amendment. My submission is, of course, that the amendment is not in order, first of all and principally because an amendment on precisely the same terms was moved to incorporate the principle of fiscal equivalence and was defeated by the house. The amendment we are now considering is the same. Aside from this point, I doubt whether this particular clause is one to which any amendment can be moved if the other obstacle were not in the way.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, apparently the hon. member for Lapointe is not present, it being Friday. Would it not be appropriate and proper that this particular clause be held over to give him an opportunity of being present? I would think that this would be the essence of courtesy, particularly to one who has been such a faithful ally of the government.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that this clause be stood?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take part at any length in this procedural debate, but there is one point which I should like to make.
I might say at the outset that I have very grave doubts about the validity of this amendment, but I do not think the Chair should rule
Medicare
it out of order on the ground that the same matter was the subject of an amendment to the motion on second reading. Generally, our rules provide opportunities at various stages to take votes on the same question. This is my only concern. Mr. Chairman, you are free to rule the amendment out of order but do not rule it out of order on that ground.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Last night, when clause 3 of this bill was being discussed by the committee, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) asked leave to move an amendment.
Clause 3 reads as follows:
A contribution is payable by Canada to each province in accordance with this act. calculated for each year in respect of the cost of insured services incurred by the province in the year pursuant to a medical care insurance plan of the province.
The hon. member for Lapointe asked leave to move the following amendment:
-that, after the words "by Canada", in the first line of clause 3, the following words be added:
"or a fiscal compensation is made by Canada at the discretion of each province".
After consideration of this amendment, and having listened to the arguments presented by two hon. members, the Chair has come to the conclusion that, for several reasons, it cannot be accepted.
During consideration of this bill in committee of the whole, the Chair stated many times that an amendment must not infringe upon the the financial initiative of the crown.
Citation 246, paragraph 3 of the 4th edition of Beauchesne states the following:
An amendment Infringes the financial initiative of the crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the comunication by which the crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
The resolution preceding this bill, agreed to by the house on July 12 last, reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
The Chair considers that the amendment proposed would introduce an entirely new principle in the bill. Therefore, the amendment constitutes, because of its nature, a substantive motion and is not relevant to the bill nor to the preceding resolution.
The Chair draws the attention of the committee to a vote taken on that matter earlier in this session.

December 2, 1966
Medicare
Referring to page 886 of the Votes and Proceedings of October 20 last, we notice that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), seconded by the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), had asked to move the following amendment to the motion for second reading of this bill:
That all the words alter "That" be deleted and replaced by the following:
"this house, although of the opinion that the necessary steps should be taken to ensure that appropriate medical services are made available to all Canadians, nevertheless believes that no legislation providing for insured medical services in Canada would be adequate unless it provides for a system of fiscal compensation for any province desiring to set up its own autonomous medical insurance plan."
The Chair feels that this amendment contains essentially the same question as the amendment the hon. member for Lapointe now asks leave to move.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seemed to indicate this was not a major reason to rule the amendment out of order. The Chair takes the liberty of drawing his attention to citation 194 of Beauchesne which stipulates the following: A motion or amendment cannot be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has already been decided, because a proposition being once submitted and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house.
For those reasons, the Chair regrets to rule the proposed amendment out of order.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Criteria to be satisfied by plan in respect of which contribution payable.
Maurice Rinfret: Before we proceed with this clause, may I ask the committee whether it intends to proceed subclause by subclause and paragraph by paragraph, instead of considering the clause as a whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments that I wish to move to clause 4. I have no objection to the procedure you outlined, but perhaps my colleague the Associate Minister of National Defence could move the amendments.
My first amendment is really a change in verbiage because the principle was accepted yesterday by the house and it may not raise an important issue. The amendment is:
That clause 4 of Bill No. C-227 be amended by substituting the expression "contribution commencement day" for the expression "1st day of July, 1967" where it appears in paragraph (c) of subclause (1) thereof.
It is the same point, really.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are still against it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate that, but I was hopeful that the opposition would not be so eloquent as yesterday. As I say, it is the same point, and if this amendment can be moved and disposed of I have another amendment which may be of greater interest to the committee. Could I have this first amendment moved?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, where do we stand with regard to the suggestion made by the Chair and the suggestion which now comes from the Minister of National Health and Welfare? I may say that I have an amendment to move to clause 4 as well. It is no secret what it is; my amendment would be that clause 4 be amended by deleting therefrom subclause (2). The minister says he has another amendment and the hon. member for Simcoe East told the committee a few days ago that he had two or three amendments. Are these amendments which we are making to the clause as a whole or to the subclauses or paragraphs? Could we have the direction of the Chair?


Maurice Rinfret: Following the remarks made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre we will proceed to subclause (1) and I will ask whether consideration of this subclause has terminated. We will then proceed to paragraph (a) and then the amendment can be moved as the question presents itself.
Has consideration of part 1 of clause 4 terminated?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when you say part 1 you are simply referring to the six lines at the bottom of page 2 of the bill?


Maurice Rinfret: Exactly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the preambulatory part of this clause.


Maurice Rinfret: I will now call paragraph (a).
On paragraph (a)-
[The Deputy Chairman.]
December 2, 1966

Medicare


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to this paragraph as follows:
That paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 4 of Bill C-227 be amended by deleting lines 1, 2 and 3 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
(a) The plan is administered and operated on a non-profit basis by an authority approved or designated by the government of the province
My reason for this amendment is that if any other step were taken it would constitute gross interference on the part of the federal government. It would put the authority operating the plan in a strait-jacket. The plan is going to be operated on a non-profit basis, so I think the wording should be changed and I so move.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we are not only against this amendment, we think that what it provides is already in the bill in subclause 2 of clause 4, and we are against it there as well. As a matter of fact, I have already indicated that at the appropriate moment I shall move, as an amendment to clause 4, that subclause 2 be deleted.
If I may describe the situation as I see it, let me put it this way. On page 3 and 4 of the bill we have spelled out the four criteria that the government announced in the summer of 1965 as the basis of its medicare legislation. These criteria were that the plans were to be carried by a public agency; that they should provide wide coverage, that they should be universally available, and that coverage should be portable. We are now dealing with those four criteria, one after the other.
In my view the government has retreated from the position it took in July, 1965, in providing through paragraph (a) that the carriers of this insurance in a province shall be of a public nature, by modifying that paragraph with the provisions of subclause 2 on page 4 which says that a province does not have to abide by paragraph (a). The province is free to designate a private carrier to handle this insurance, provided that carrier does this on a non-profit basis and has its books subject to inspection by a public body.
It seems to me what the hon. member for Simcoe East is asking is already in subclause
2.	I want to make it clear that we are against this either way. The hon. member for Simcoe East may feel that he has to make doubly certain of the point, but in either case we think this house should oppose this proposition. As I say, we of this party accepted with
as much enthusiasm as we could feel for anything coming from the Liberal party, the announcement of July, 1965, concerning medical care legislation. We liked the four criteria the Prime Minister laid down. It is my contention that at least three of these criteria are being watered down, though at the moment we are dealing with this one before us. Certainly, my understanding with regard to this one criterion was that a plan to satisfy the terms of the federal legislation was to be operated by a provincial government or an agency of the provincial government.
As I understood the Prime Minister's statement, private carriers were not to get into this picture at all. Now, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, by subclause 2 of clause 4, and the hon. member for Simcoe East by his amendment to paragraph (a) say that it is perfectly all right for private insurance companies to carry the medical insurance of the province, provided those companies do it on a non-profit basis.
This may sound very plausible. It may sound as if we think insurance companies are very generous when we talk about a public scheme being carried by private carriers on a non-profit basis. I suggest that it will not work out that way. In the first place, the bookkeeping difficulties are tremendous as between what portion of a private company's business is profitable and what portion is nonprofitable. There is also what is known in business as providing loss-leaders. I can see private insurance companies welcoming the chance to carry this kind of insurance for a provincial government on a non-profit basis so that these companies will be in a position to go to the persons who carry this insurance and say to them, "We are providing this part of the insurance; we are the ones to sell you additional insurance", and so on. I suggest there are all kinds of unfair complications such as that which can develop. In principle, it is wrong to have a public scheme such as this set up in such a way that the private carriers can operate it. The suggestion that they do it on a non-profit basis is hollow so far as we are concerned.
We do not know what you will do about this amendment, Mr. Chairman. You may decide that it is in order because it provides what is provided in subclause 2 or you may say it is out of order for that reason. Either way, we are opposed to it, and we shall go all the way, at the appropriate time, in moving that clause 4 be amended by deleting therefrom subclause
2.	We think that the principle set out in paragraph (a) as it stands, which provides for the

December 2, 1966
Medicare
insurance to be carried by provincial governments or by agencies of provincial governments, should stand. We think there should not be this wide loophole that the minister has put in this legislation, in subclause 2.
We are back again at the question of the government standing by its commitment. We feel that in the summer of 1965 the government took a very good position when it announced the four criteria which would have to make up a medical care program. We felt the government went one step farther, and we approved when in the fall of 1965, particularly as the election came round, it made a firm commitment that a plan based on these four criteria would be in effect by July 1, 1967.
One by one the five cardinal points, the effective date and the four criteria, are being watered down and we do not think that is good enough. We are therefore strongly and vigorously opposed to the amendment of the hon. member for Simcoe East. We shall also move later for the deletion of subclause 2.


Mr. Forrestall:: Referring to the background of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East, I should like to review briefly the minister's position as it affects clause 2. At page 7548 of Hansard for July 12 the minister, in dealing with the principles inherent in the bill as a whole reiterated the third principle as follows:
The third principle which the federal government considers to be essential is that of public administration. It is obvious that when the federal government makes substantial financial contributions available to the provinces, a provincial government must be capable of taking full responsibility for the use to which these contributions are put.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The provincial plans should be non-profit and subjected to public audit, and the administrators of the plan should be answerable to the public through the provincial legislature.
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing wrong with that. It does not in any way offset or undermine the intention of this amendment. The only thing wrong is that the minister went on to make several other statements qualifying and requalifying what he had said. As reported on page 7548, he goes on to say:
Once more I would like to point to the experience we have had in hospital insurance, which is as relevant to public administration as to universal coverage. Hospital insurance programs, without exception, are administered by the provincial governments, either directly by departments of health or, alternatively, by commissions established by provincial governments specifically for this purpose.
I believe I am correct in saying that there is no jurisdiction in this country which has had reason to regret this method of administration.

As to the first point, the minister is, indeed, correct, but he is also aware of another set of circumstances. He knows that in the province from which he comes there were no established and proven bodies which could have taken over this load on behalf of the government. There had to be some bureaucratic system set up. Fortunately we come from a province which has an excellent hospital insurance basis and if we had a similar basis for medicare, I am sure this matter could have been handled in that way.
Later, as reported at page 8611 of Hansard for October 13, the minister said in part, referring to an earlier discussion of the four principles involved in medicare:
I would particularly draw the attention of members to the added flexibility which has been incorporated in the principles concerning universal coverage and public administration. This has been done without eroding the purpose for which these principles were set out.
In the course of the same speech the minister shifted his ground slightly and said:
Other questions raised by provincial governments related to the principle of public administration of the program. Here, too, it will be noted that flexibility has been built into the bill. The bill requires that a provincial plan must be-
Then, he went on to quote the relative clauses.
Notwithstanding this assurance of flexibility, I suggest that the provincial ministers of health, after consultations with the attorneys-general of the various provinces, are convinced that the possibility of provincial authorities using public bodies which have already been formed, for example, doctor-administrered insurance programs, is ruled out on legal grounds. The doctors are not sure that the bill, as it now stands, is sufficiently flexible to permit this type of administration. In spite of the assurances given by the minister on at least three occasions, their fears have not been allayed.
As reported, again, on page 8611, the minister says:
The bill also makes provision for circumstances in which the province may authorize an agency, such as an insurance carrier, to carry out certain responsibilities on behalf of the provincial government, provided, of course, that the principles relating to public administration, including the nonprofit principle, are adhered to. Where such carriers are appointed as agents by the provincial authority, then the carrier may be empowered to receive premiums from subscribers, but such premiums must be remitted by the carrier to the provincial authority.
Similarly, the carrier may be empowered to receive accounts with respect to insured services
December 2, 1966

from doctors or from patients, but in these circumstances these accounts must also be passed on to the provincial authority. The assesment and the approval for payments of such accounts remain the responsibility of the provincial authority.
We are beginning to see a pattern developing after reading the minister's words. I hope I am not taking them out of their context; that is not my intention. I simply wish to remind the minister that in spite of his assurances he has not yet succeeded in clearing up the doubts which exist in the minds of several of the provincial ministers of health. They still fear that co-operative medical care plans and doctor-administered medical insurance groups will be "blocked" by the wording of the bill as it now stands.
I was surprised by the objections which the previous speaker raised. It is hardly necessary for me to remind him, or the minister, that the pilot program for schemes such as this, whether in Canada or in the United States, was initiated in Swift Current, Saskatchewan. I ask the minister whether he has fully considered the position of these health regions, as I believe they are called. Has he fully considered the effect of this clause of the bill, if it is permitted to stand without amendment, upon the autonomy of such groups?
All this amendment does is return to the provinces a responsibility which should be theirs. It simply states that plans should be administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a provincially appointed authority. The picture is not substantially changed, yet the provincial authorities are given a latitude which I am sure it has been the minister's intention to provide under this plan from the beginning.
Perhaps I might quote the minister further. After all, he is the best authority I can find. Further on, as reported at page 8611 of Hansard for October 13, he had this to say:
As in the case of hospital insurance, it is probable that different provinces will administer their public medical care programs in different ways, depending upon their own philosophy and particular circumstance*.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The federal law has been drawn up in such a way as to make such differences possible while at the same time ensuring the ready availability to all residents of all provinces of medical care services administered without charge by a body directly answerable to the provincial legislature. Thus the responsibilities of the provincial authority in relation to administration are set out in the bill.
That is not what the amendment seeks to change, it seeks simply to allay the fear that
Medicare
exists in the minds of provincial authority. It has not been clearly or satisfactorily stated that flexibility is not only inherent but apparently inherent in the measure as it now exists.
The phrase that causes much of the objection is to be found in paragraph (a) of clause 4 and it is "public authority". As long as that phrase remains, there will be a continuing fear and doubt on the part of certain provincial authorities as to how they can get around it. In Nova Scotia, as the minister is well aware, there is an excellent agency to which the government could immediately turn for assistance in carrying out this proposal. As long as this phrase remains, the province will find it difficult to utilize this built-in record of achievement, efficiency and basic knowledge as to the medical needs of the people of Nova Scotia.
I should like again, I hope for the last time, to quote the minister's words as they are recorded at page 8611 of Hansard for October 13. Toward the bottom of the page he was referring to what the Prime Minister had said, and the minister is recorded as follows:
He said that the federal government's contribution initially would be based on the costs of physician's services. He said that there would be nothing to prevent provinces providing additional benefits, either at first or later, and he agreed, and 1 quote his words as follows:
'-if there is a consensus on the timing of further stages, the federal government will consider enlarging appropriately, and in due course, the scope of the services to which it contributes.'
I think the operative words here are "if there is a consensus on the timing of further stages". I hope I interpret those words correctly in my belief that the Prime Minister was telling the people of Canada that once the provinces are in a position financially or otherwise to move ahead with the expansion of these services the federal government will follow provincial initiative. He is saying the provinces are responsible. All the present amendment does is give expression to that desire on the part of the government.
The point of view expressed by the minister in the words I quoted is valid only so long as provincial authorities are satisfied in their own minds that the word "public" is not restrictive. Perhaps all that is involved is a clear interpretation or definition of the word "public". What does the minister mean by that word? A simple definition might be the answer to this problem, but it will not answer the difficulties created by the criteria set forth in respect of any extension of services and where the ultimate responsibility lies. Perhaps

December 2, 1966
Medicare
an explanation or definition would be sufficient to satisfy two or three ministers of health in those provinces of Canada which are having some continuing difficulty in this regard.
If the administrative agencies to be set up in relation to this program are public in the sense that they are crown agencies I would object on the basis that, as God knows, the government is now controlling enough of what we do. Surely, there must be some point at which we must cease to rush headlong into a state of bureaucratic control. We must avoid the creation of further great governmental giants.
It is difficult to understand where in Nova Scotia we could find the manpower to establish a brand new agency to administer this plan. The minister is well aware of some of the difficulties we had in finding top-notch help for the administrative body of the hospital insurance program. Under the present set up the minister is restricting us in the courses open for the proper implementation of a medicare program.
Let me again ask the minister to adhere to his own words. Everyone I am sure will agree that the method of administering the hospital insurance program is quite excellent, but it must be remembered that this resulted from a situation which was incidental. There were no large private organizations engaged in the field of hospitalization, apart from a few insurance companies. I hope the minister keeps this fact in mind, because it is a valid point in favour of the amendment.
The minister should satisfy us as to the absolute protection of these autonomous groups, and I remind him again of the pilot program set up in Swift Current, Saskatchewan. Is the minister satisfied with what happened to the autonomy of that group, which has worked very well since its inception some time back in the 1940's. I suppose the whole world knows who set up that pilot program.
There is a real fear that unless this measure is amended, it will seriously affect these autonomous programs and insured medical care services generally in Canada. We want to know whether, in spite of the use of the word "public", the government will recognize the autonomy of provincial authority. I suggest the Prime Minister has said so, as has the Minister of National Health, but we ask that this be guaranteed in a straightforward manner by amending this measure.

[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe East and supported by the hon. member for Halifax. I should like to express my dismay and surprise that, in moving their amendment, they advance arguments which first of all ignore completely the recommendations and the basic thinking which have been expressed so often during all stages of the debate. They have ignored completely all the experience which we have gained since the implementation of the hospitalization programs. They have ignored completely the actions of the former Conservative government which did so much to actually implement the hospitalization program. They are asking the house to adopt an amendment which, if implemented, would permit the kind of operation in respect of a health insurance plan which was prohibited in the operation of hospitalization plans.
Let us take a look at the history of hospitalization in this country. Universal government hospitalization plans were implemented first by the former government of Saskatchewan. The former Liberal federal government brought in a hospital insurance act. I think it was introduced by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, who was then the minister of national health and welfare. Under this legislation, the government agreed to participate in the financing of hospitalization in respect of any province which implemented a universal hospitalization plan. Unfortunately, the former Liberal government wrote into its legislation the principle that the plan would not become effective until a number of provinces representing half the people of Canada agreed to participate in the plan. The plan did not become operative until the Conservative government took office and made an offer to implement the plan for any one province which was ready to agree to the provisions of that plan.
I well remember, Mr. Chairman, that the present premier of Manitoba, who was then the leader of the official opposition, was extremely critical of the hospitalization plan as proposed by that legislation. He suggested that all that would be required would be to let the existing voluntary non-profit agencies continue, and the government could cover the balance of the population which had not joined a plan such as the Blue Cross, either because they could not afford it or did not realize the value of it, by paying their premiums. The Minister of National Health and
December 2, 1966

Medicare
Welfare pointed out very eloquently that to have a plan in a province with more than one agency would lead to unnecessary duplication and an increase in the administrative cost. That was turned down by the former Liberal government. When the Conservative party took power, under the present Leader of the Official Opposition, it implemented the plan. That government made the plan a living reality by saying to each province, "As soon as you are ready to go ahead with the plan under the legislation as enacted, we will pay the 50 per cent which we are committed to pay". So, within a very short period each province accepted the plan and had its hospitalization costs covered by the public sector of the economy.
Not one single province, including those provinces such as Ontario which are administered by Conservative governments, adopted in respect of hospitalization the proposals which we have heard day after day from the representatives of the official opposition. The provinces, when faced with the realities of administering a hospitalization program, realized this would not work or if it did work would work with a great deal more difficulty and a great deal more expense. There is another objection to what the members of the official opposition are proposing. What they are proposing essentially in their amendment is that we let the provinces decide who shall act as agencies under the plan. What will happen in this case will be that the provinces will say, as the Ontario government said under its OMSIP plan, that the people may be covered under the plans of private insurance companies, or non-profit plans sponsored and to a large extent administered and controlled by the medical profession, as is the case in Manitoba and Ontario. In other words, there will be a variety of agencies.
I am surprised that the hon. member for Simcoe East, who is a doctor, would make the proposal he is making. What has happened in every one of the provinces where this kind of situation exists? I can tell you what has happened in my province of Manitoba. The nonprofit private plan was begun at the suggestion of the medical profession of Manitoba. It has been quite substantial and has been one of the best of the voluntary plans in this country. It is, however, in constant difficulty because the private insurance companies are following a deliberate policy, referred to by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a few moments ago, of loss-leaders. They go to the various employers who have
large groups of employees who are relatively young and say, "Do not belong to the Manitoba medical service; we will offer you a better deal by cutting the rates". The private insurance companies are cutting the heart out of the doctor sponsored plans. I am surprised that the hon. member for Simcoe East who is a doctor, would sponsor an amendment which in effect would make a gift to the private insurance companies at the expense, not of the government or the people, but the doctor sponsored non-profit plans. I think, these plans have played an honourable role in this country, for which the doctors of this country deserve a great deal of credit.
This is precisely what the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe East would do. It would divide the agencies operating in each province so that the administrative costs would be increased. It would be a bonanza for the accountants, because we would need an army of accountants to ensure that the private insurance companies, in fact, run non-profit plans. I am not suggesting that the insurance companies are doing anything which is wrong morally. The insurance companies are not in business for any reason other than that for which any other business establishment in this country is in business. The insurance companies are in business to make money for the companies and their shareholders. Why would any member in this house or in any provincial legislature believe the insurance companies would wish to participate in a medical insurance plan from which they would not make any profit? It is obvious that they would not want to participate and would not participate, unless they could see a way to make a profit either directly or in some indirect manner. I suggest we would need an army of accountants to make sure that the insurance companies, in fact, operate their part of the health insurance plan without profit.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
For these reasons I oppose the amendment. I oppose it also because everything that has been said in its support flies in the face of the arguments advanced so well, so clearly and so unequivocally that there is really no answer to them, by the Hall Commission. Before concluding I wish to place on the record a few paragraphs from the official press release of the Royal Commission on Health Services, dated June 19, 1964. I remind the hon. member for Simcoe East, who introduced the amendment, that the Hall Commission was appointed by the former government; that the

December 2, 1966
Medicare
findings of the commission were greeted by the Leader of the Official Opposition as being among the most important of any royal commission appointed in this country. I will read what the commission said with respect to the need for a universal plan. I quote from the official press release as follows:
The commission recommends that the objectives of the charter be achieved through the development of a comprehensive health services program universally available to all Canadians regardless of age, condition, place of residence or ability to pay.
The commission then said:
The commissioners, after examining various alternatives for providing Canadians with health services, recommend that the health services program be made universally available. They recognize that many Canadians have availed themselves of the benefits of health prepayment plans but these are principally those who can afford protection or are employed where health insurance is provided or subsidized as a part of working conditions...
After prolonged study and investigation the commissioners conclude that coverage of all, or virtually all, Canadians could not be achieved through the voluntary system and that only a universal program could achieve maximum coverage. They recommend against the adoption of the Alberta and Ontario plans in their present form because they are too restrictive and they fail to reach a great percentage of the population who need protection more than anyone else. In order to spread the risks over the whole population, rather than only those who chose to insure voluntarily, all Canadians should be covered by health insurance.
I think it is obvious from the few passages I have read from the Hall Commission's press release that the commission envisaged provincial health insurance plans much the same as the present hospitalization plans, in which in each province there would be one agency and not a multiplicity of agencies. Certainly we should not permit the private insurance carriers to come in under any circumstances. We should get on with the job of guaranteeing to every person in Canada that they will no longer have to worry about the crippling cost of medical bills.
For these reasons, it seems to me that the amendment moved by the representative of the official opposition was contrary to the recommendations of the Hall Commission. It is contrary to the very fine experience with the hospitalization plans, which have worked so well. All that would be accomplished, if we were to accept the amendment, would be to permit a proliferation of agencies, with the consequent deterioration of the service and an increase in the cost. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to vote against the amendment.


Mr. Enns:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks in support of the amendment. I do not intend to take up very much of the time of the committee in so doing. In the past year or two there has crept into the language of government spokesmen the word "flexibility". No less distinguished a minister than the Minister of National Health and Welfare has used this descriptive word. The Minister of Finance has also used it. I suggest that the amendment we are now discussing simply gives an added dimension to the medicare bill, namely, flexibility. It in no way affects the universality of coverage and does not affect the question of portability in any way. I suggest, rather, that it provides an avenue in which the experience of tried and proven methods of private schemes can be used to assist in the provision of medical services to all Canadians.
It seems a shame that the wealth of experience of professional co-ops and the various provincial medical organizations which have so long, in a spirit of public service, voluntarily provided non-profit coverage for medical services, will be excluded by the retention in the clause of the word "public", unless "public" can be otherwise defined. Surely the controlling word in this clause is "non-profit". It should not matter to the minister, to the government or any of us in parliament, whether it is a private body or a public body that administers this scheme, so long as it provides the service on a non-profit basis.
Another controlling feature already in the bill, and we are not suggesting this should be changed in any way, is the call for the designation of the organization by the province concerned. The provinces need not allow insurance companies to run loss-leader items, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North suggested, or offer package deals of pensions and other services in order to provide low-cost coverage in medical schemes. If the provincial governments believe this is happening, it is within their power to revoke the charter or the authority of the insurance company.
I suggest that the amendment is eminently worth while and should commend itself to members of the committee, because it will give the plan flexibility and Canadians will benefit from the experience of private agencies. These private, professional organizations have already contributed so much to the high quality of medical service available to Canadians.
There has been reference to the fact that our party was instrumental in setting up the

December 2, 1968

Hall Commission, and it has been said that we are now ignoring certain recommendations of that commission. I point out to those hon. members who have suggested this, that many other recommendations of the Hall Commission are not being incorporated in this bill. Of course, the report of the commission is a guide, a very welcome and worth-while one. One cannot speak too highly of the excellent work and research this commission carried out in the field of providing medical services to all Canadians. The Hall Commission is to be highly commended in this respect.
However, Mr. Chairman, in all sincerity and with every respect for those hon. members who have spoken in opposition to the amendment, I would invite them to consider the one feature of the amendment that is so important, namely, that it would provide flexibility. Also, we would be able to bring into the plan the experience of tried and proven organizations. I suggest that the quality of service would thereby be improved. In my opinion, the amendment does not include the threatening factor of insurance companies running loss-leader insurance plans. The provinces may designate that only public authorities or provincial agencies run the plan. This is the decision of the particular province. It may well be that there will be a combination of a public authority with a tried and proven professional organization. The government of a province should have the freedom to make this choice. As the clause now stands, with the retention of the words "public authority" there is taken away from the provinces this essential right.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
We need not therefore, be afraid of the ogre of the great insurance company coming into the picture. This can still be controlled at the provincial level. I simply plead with members of the house to support the amendment which, I feel, commends itself.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, I have not taken part in this debate so far but there are several things which I should like to say in regard to the bill.
First of all, I must say that I cannot support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East. I have no doubt that his intentions are the best, but this is a very important matter to us in this group and it is one which goes very deeply indeed into the whole subject of a medicare plan. The clause which we are now discussing has two important ideas in it: the non-profit basis of the
Medicare
plan and its administration by a public authority. Some of us were very keen to allow the provinces to decide on what should be included in the health services and on other matters having to do with the details of the plan, but the provinces should not be left to decide as to the criteria laid down in the bill. These are certain conditions which the government has laid down and which the provinces must observe if they are to participate in the plan. This is not a matter which should be left to the provinces because we are formulating a Canada-wide scheme. If we are to provide a medicare plan at the lowest possible cost to all Canadians, we have to take into account what the Hall Commission report says about costs.
This Commission discovered in their investigations that it cost the province of Saskatchewan 6 cents out of every $1 to administer a public non-profit medical scheme. Evidence was given that it cost private insurers about 28 cents out of every $1 to administer their plans for purposes other than paying benefits. So that if we are to consider the provision of a nation-wide medicare scheme for Canadians, for which they can afford to pay as taxpayers, we have to consider costs. The Hall report has brought forth conclusive evidence to show that only a plan administered publicly by non-profit organizations can reduce the costs.
The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa, for whom I have the greatest respect when it comes to social aims and objectives, has indicated his belief that if we were to insist on the administration of this plan by public nonprofit organizations-and this is written into the bill-we would thereby exclude such organizations as co-operatives. This would not be the case because co-operatives do not operate on a profit making basis.


Siegfried John Enns: May I ask the hon. member a question? Can such an agency be described as a public authority?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, if it is given such status by the provincial government.


Siegfried John Enns: That is my point.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Then, it would qualify as a non-profit making agency. If such is not the case, I would be very pleased to be corrected by the minister. But according to my understanding of the bill, a co-operative is a non-profit making organization and can be dealt with as such by the public authority. This cannot be said of

December 2, 1966
Medicare
private insurance companies. When the minister was before the health and welfare committee last July, we questioned him on this particular matter. In my opinion, his answer, did not satisfy us that the wording of the bill would bar private insurance carriers. There is no sense in saying that one can exclude the profit making element of the private insurance companies and still allow these companies to become carriers under this scheme because one cannot separate their profit making from their non-profit making activities. They, themselves, do not attempt to do so and neither can anyone else.


Siegfried John Enns: May I ask the hon. member another question? Surely, if the amendment is lost then even the co-operatives which the hon. member favours would be prohibited from operating.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
would be very pleased to hear from the minister with regard to the status of the co-ops under the legislation.
A good deal has been said about the flexibility of the plan. On October 12, in dealing with this particular clause, the minister spelled out the criterion on which it is based and said that flexibility has been built into the bill. He went on to say:
The bill also makes provision for circumstances in which the province may authorize an agency, such as an insurance carrier, to carry out certain responsibilities on behalf of the provincial government, provided, of course, that the principles relating to public administration, including the nonprofit principle, are adhered to.
I would be very glad to receive from the minister an explanation of how an insurance company can become a non-profitmaking agency so as to accord with the terms of the bill.
These are points which I may not have expressed in very technical language but about which the people of this country are concerned because, while flexibility has been built into the bill, so has profit making been built into it. We have discovered that the administration of this scheme by insurance companies will raise the cost. Do not forget that the Hall Commission report has demonstrated that in order to reduce the cost of such a scheme to the maximum extent it has to be administered by a public, non-profit making organization.
Now, I will refer to figures which have been quoted by the minister and other people indicating how many people are involved. The Toronto Star of September 9 printed a table
[Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1
which showed that at present four million Canadians have inadequate medical coverage and six million have none at all. These are very rough figures. This leaves only half of the Canadian population with medical coverage, while the other half of the population are completely dependent on the enactment of legislation to bring them any medical coverage whatsoever. I wish to say that the postponement of the medicare has been a particularly bitter pill for the Canadian people to swallow. When we are whittling away at these criteria, as they have been whittled, the bitterness is being multiplied. When this legislation reaches the Canadian people-and there is no guarantee that it will reach them in 1968 because ways and means can be found to postpone it if such is the desire of the government-it will not be the medicare which was held out to them for all these years. It will not be a universal plan that is administered by the public agencies in a non-profit way, with broad coverage and portability.
In any case, the people of Canada will not get this kind of legislation. We in this group are trying very hard to ensure that we get the kind of legislation which was recommended by the Hall Commission, and there is no doubt as to what the Hall Commission wanted. My colleague from Winnipeg North Centre quoted the Hall Commission report. I should like to read a brief statement made by Mr. Justice Hall:
We should move immediately to mobilize the nation's resources to establish efficient, universal, comprehensive health services program in all ten provinces and the territories.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Then the commission suggests that this should be put within a national framework.
These are some of the matters I wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman. I should like the minister to tell me first of all, if he would be good enough to do so, how he proposes to bring in private insurance companies and still place them within the definition of public, non-profit agencies. Second, I should like to hear his explanation as to what is going to happen to co-operative insurance companies which wish to participate in this plan. For the reasons I have given and for a number of others as well, I cannot support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe East. We in this group want public, non-profit administration of medicare.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East, if accepted, would have a very important consequence. It
December 2, 1966

would remove an essential element of the medicare proposal, namely, the necessity for designating a public authority to operate the plan on a non-profit basis in any given province.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your subclause 2 does that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When we come to this point I will be happy to debate it, but the effect of this amendment would be to remove the public administration aspect in the sense that public administration is provided by a public authority. It is true that the amendment implies the existence of an authority or agency designated by the provincial government concerned, but under the amendment the authority itself need not be a public authority. This is an important difference in concept, and in my view it is certainly not an acceptable change to the government.
The hon. member for Halifax spoke about the role of physician-sponsored agencies under any provincial medical care plan. Two of the paragraphs of clause 4 relate to the point which has been raised. One of them is subclause (1) (a) which establishes a public authority.
We have considered within the department and in consultation with the Department of Justice the possible role of a physician-sponsored plan and we think that within paragraph (a) a physician-sponsored plan would be acceptable if it came under the aegis of a public authority. It would require action by a provincial government to enable a physician-sponsored plan to perform its functions as part of a public authority.


J. Michael Forrestall: By public authority you mean the department of health?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The form of the public authority would be up to the provincial government. It might be a department of government or it might be a special commission. But a physician-sponsored plan could provide services as part of the public authority and would retain the kind of role that the medical profession and certain provinces wish to maintain. We have discussed this question and I do not see any insurmountable problem under paragraph (a) of clause 4.


J. Michael Forrestall: May I ask the minister a question for clarification purposes? Is the minister suggesting that the provincial authority would be able to utilize the existing infrastructure of the department of health, for example, in the province of Nova Scotia as the
Medicare
vehicle representing the public authority without the department having to go outside to set up a further extension of that public authority? Would that be acceptable to the government? Failing that, would a two- or three-man commission be acceptable?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What constitutes the public authority is a matter for the judgment of the provincial government, provided, however, that the provincial public authority meets the criteria set out in clause 4 (1) (a).


J. Michael Forrestall: You are contradicting yourself.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Chairman, there is no contradiction. The answer is that if a provincial government designated its department of health as the provincial authority, or it was so designated by provincial law, or a commission were designated the provincial authority, and it was non-profit making and met the other conditions and so on, then this would be fully consistent with this bill.


J. Michael Forrestall: It sounds to me as if the minister is prepared to accept the principles contained in our amendment. If he does not like the way it is framed perhaps he would assist us by offering to change the amendment to the extent that suits him.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the amendment as it is now worded were accepted, the provincial government could turn over to any body, including commercial insurance companies, the function of operating and administering a medical care plan. That is the effect of this amendment.


Philip Bernard Rynard: No.


Siegfried John Enns: Surely the provincial government still has control over recognition of the authority. If it does not wish to recognize an insurance company, it need only keep insurance companies out of this scheme.


Mr. Lewis:: But it could recognize it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, it could if it wished.


David Lewis: That is the point.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I think the minister agrees in principle, even though he is rejecting my amendment. It puts me in mind of the Pharisees of old following the written law. I am sure all parties in the house realize that the provinces have had more experience in medicare than the federal government. The

December 2, 1966
Medicare
province of British Columbia has had a medicare plan for years and has amassed a great body of knowledgeable personnel who have worked on insurance matters. The province of British Columbia has a tremendous amount of experience in this field, and other provinces are willing and able to participate. For example, what about the Swift Current plan? The minister now says that as long as a public authority operates the plan he will trust the province. But the effect of what he is saying is that he will not trust the province with the fiscal responsibility of giving the people the best deal in any medicare plan. He doubts the ability of the provinces to give the people what is best for them.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
No other interpretation is possible. If this matter is followed to a conclusion and the plan is administered by a public body excluding everybody else, then the minister loses the experience of the co-operatives, P.S.I. and the insurance companies which are doing such a good job in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and in other provinces that have similar organizations. Surely this is a ridiculous position to be put in. I am sure the minister agrees that this amendment ought to carry.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, let me repeat what I said earlier. Acceptance of the amendment would make it possible for a provincial government to turn over to anybody, for example, insurance companies, the operation and administration of this medicare plan.


Philip Bernard Rynard: It is up to them to decide.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What I am recommending to the house is that any plan in a province to which parliament will be asked to pay a contribution must be operated and administered by a public authority, in other words, by an authority which is a part of the provincial government. Those arguing for the amendment say that the effect of the medical care proposal is to extinguish physician-sponsored plans, co-operatives, and commercial carriers. We have, in the later paragraph to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre takes exception, provided a role for designated agencies. It is a limited role but there is still a role. The function which these designated agencies will not be permitted to fulfil is the assessment of accounts and the determining of the amount of accounts. That is a crucial limitation. Within that limitation private insurance companies can operate.

I shall argue later, when we come to my hon. friend's amendment, that this is precisely the approach taken in Saskatchewan. I shall argue that what is in the bill is fully consistent with the approach taken by the Saskatchewan plan, and I shall name the commercial carriers performing a limited role under the Saskatchewan plan. That this is so is fact and history. Mind you, the commercial carriers will not be permitted to assess accounts or to determine amounts of accounts. That function must be performed by the provincial authority, and the co-operatives, though they can be designated, will not be able to assess or determine the amounts of accounts.
We have been attempting to meet the difficulty of physician-sponsored non-profit plans and how they can be integrated within this proposal and continue to operate for some time. Specifically I think of the Swift Current plan. Under clause 4, subclause 1(a) a nonprofit physician-sponsored plan is given a limited role within the provincial authority. That role would be determined by the provincial government, but the physician-sponsored plan would have to offer its services under the provincial authority. It could not be designated as an agency to take on other functions that we think ought only to be contemplated as being discharged by the provincial authority.


J. Michael Forrestall: I'll bet you a dollar you cannot repeat that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If I understand it I could, and I think I do understand it. I want to make it perfectly clear to the hon. member for Halifax that the point he has raised is very important. When we talk of physician-sponsored plans we have, for example, the maritime medical care plan in Nova Scotia, and the Swift Current plan in Saskatchewan. The concern has been that our proposal would extinguish the functions of these physician-sponsored plans, and that among the functions which might be extinguished would be the capacity which those plans now enjoy to assess and determine accounts to be paid. We say that where such a role is to be undertaken it can be undertaken only under this clause as part of a public authority. We do not see any basic impossibility in using the services of these physician-sponsored plans, in using their expertise and their professional judgment, as part of a public authority. But we do not see a role for them under the designated, limited role of the limiting paragraph.
December 2, 1966


Philip Bernard Rynard: It seems that the minister is about to accept the amendment up to a point and then he goes on talking and I wonder how much he accepts. I am in the quandary of not knowing what he means. I know the minister is in a very difficult position, but it seems to me that what he is saying is that he will not trust the provinces to control their own destiny under the medicare plan, even though they might feel that fiscally it would be much better to have a plan carried under a public authority without profit. In other words, the minister is using a big stick and I do not think he should use it, because I am sure that every province will give to its people the best form of insurance that can be given. I am not one of those who believe that a civil servant brought in to do a job will do much better than somebody with years of experience who has kept books in an organization handling medical plans. Possibly, in the long run all these people might be taken into the government; they may all become civil servants and everybody will be working for the government. This is a big danger. I say to the minister that he should leave it to the provinces to determine what they must do.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: I want to ask the
minister a question or two about paragraph (a) of subclause 1 of clause 4. If we in this party interpreted the bill as it now is as the minister claims it should be interpreted there would be little disagreement between us. But I do not think the wording of the bill expresses the point of view that the minister maintains it does. I should like the minister to clarify this part of the bill. I should like him to state clearly the point of view he expressed a few moments ago.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This paragraph talks about two different things. The plan is to be operated on a nonprofit basis by a public authority. That is obvious. We have no quarrel with the provision that the plan must be "administered" by a public authority. But when it is also said that the plan must be "operated" by a public authority, what exactly does the paragraph mean? To the average person it means that all the work done under the plan has to be done by public employees. That is our interpretation of what it means. Therefore we assume that if the bill is passed in its present form the various organizations to which the minister has referred will be extinguished. If the minister can assure us that this is not the case, our objection will be in great part removed. But I should like to see it more clearly specified in the bill, so that the impression he
Medicare
has given us will be in accordance with a correct legal interpretation and so that when we speak about a plan being operated by a public authority it does not necessarily mean that all the operations under the plan are carried out by public servants.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate that this is a difficult point. It has long been a difficult point for those of us who have been working on the bill. The bill stipulates that there shall be a public authority designated or appointed by the provincial government. As to the details, that is a matter for the provincial government and legislature concerned. The provincial government could designate a department to do this job. It could designate a commission or it could designate a doctor-sponsored group as the public authority. Provinces may not want to do this, but if they do we would not object.
In trying to meet the desire of at least two provinces to integrate within their programs existing doctor-sponsored plans we did examine this paragraph carefully, and we say it is quite possible under the terms of this paragraph for a provincial government to use a physician-sponsored group as part of a public authority, or use the facilities of a physician-sponsored group within the public authority designated. That would be a matter for the province to determine.


Mr.   Paiierson@: The minister has referred to physician-sponsored plans whose facilities could be used. Is he saying that individuals who belong to such plans will be included in the percentage required under the terms of this bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is a different question. If a physician-sponsored plan were incorporated within the public authority, the number of persons enrolled within that plan would contribute to the proportion to be reached under one of the criteria.


J. Michael Forrestall: One further inquiry to satisfy my mind; I am beginning to understand what the minister is driving at, although he seems disinclined to follow the simple procedure I have outlined. Would the minister consider a briefer amendment, one which would simply delete the word "public" in the second line?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Delete the word "public"?


J. Michael Forrestall: Simply delete the word "public". There is a fear in the provinces of getting wrapped up in red tape and cumbersome administrative procedure. This is causing them a good deal of concern.

December 2, 1966
Medicare


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not want to speak for the provinces but I would think that in imposing this stipulation we are making life much easier for them. At any rate we are doing this because we think the administration ought to be public in view of the great amounts of public money involved.


J. Michael Forrestall: No one is objecting to that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is what we are saying. The provincial legislature, presumably on the recommendation of the provincial government, will designate a body as the provincial authority. That is their business. I was asked whether there was a role for physician-sponsored plans. In my judgment, and after careful consideration of the legal situation, the answer must be yes.


John Angus MacLean: The minister says he has been advised that doctor-sponsored non-profit organizations can legally operate in this field if approved or designated by the provincial authority as an agency. Will the minister say that it is the intention of the government that this should be so? In other words, was it the intention when the bill was drafted that these organizations of which we are speaking would be allowed to continue to function if it were the wish of the authority of the province that they should do so?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I think we tried to produce a bill which would make it possible for provinces wishing to do so to use an organization such as a physician-sponsored plan. This could be done in a limited way under subclause 2 of clause 4. But for the full range, in other words, a role as great in a sense as the role of the provincial authority, it would have to be part of the provincial authority that is under 4(1) (a).


Philip Bernard Rynard: We realize the difficulty with which the minister has to contend. In view of the very strong liking we on this side of the house have for him and since he has met us half way and in the interest of getting along with this bill, I will withdraw the amendment. [DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


The Chairman:: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Do I understand correctly that the hon. member wishes to withdraw his amendment?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes.
fMr. Forrestall.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We consent to his request to withdraw.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We also consent.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the hon. member have leave of the committee to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does that complete the discussion of paragraph (a) of clause 4?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: We will now consider paragraph (b) of clause 4.
On paragraph (b)-


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that I should be moving this amendment during our consideration of paragraph (b) because so far as the amendment relates to that paragraph it is not substantive. We simply wish to remove the semicolon at the end of the paragraph and insert the word "and". Perhaps I should go ahead and move the amendment so that it will become apparent to the committee what we intend. I move:
That subclause 1 of clause 4 of Bill C-227 be amended as follows:
"By inserting the word 'and' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (b); by deleting paragraph (c), and by renumbering paragraph (d) as paragraph (c)."


Herman Maxwell Batten: In view of the fact that this amendment relates to paragraph (c) and the renumbering of certain paragraphs, I suggest that we conclude our discussion on paragraph (b) before proceeding with the amendment.


J. Michael Forrestall: I accept your advice to the effect that we defer any reference to renumbering until we get to paragraph (c). Perhaps I should simply ask that paragraph (b) be amended by removing the semicolon at the end and by inserting the word "and".


Herman Maxwell Batten: I suggest to the hon. member that he withhold his amendment until we complete our discussion of paragraph (b).


J. Michael Forrestall: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I fail to understand your advice fully.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am suggesting to the hon. member for Halifax that since his amendment relates to paragraphs (c) and (d) we complete our discussion on paragraph (b) and then permit him to move his amendment.
December 2, 1966


J. Michael Forrestall: I accept and thank you for your advice on the understanding that I will be permitted to amend paragraph (b) in the way I have indicated at the conclusion of our discussion.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Have we now completed our discussion of paragraph (b)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On paragraph (c).


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, subject to your earlier advice I now move:
That the semicolon at the end of paragraph (b) be removed and the word 'and' he inserted therein, that the entire content of paragraph (c) be deleted and that paragraph (d) be renumbered as paragraph (c).


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment in the sense that if it were accepted it would remove the necessity of any proportion of a provincial population being included in a provincially administered medical care plan. As I understand the amendment, if 10 per cent or 15 per cent were covered by a provincial plan it would be eligible for contributions from the federal government.
We have put in the proportion of 90 per cent as a start, rising to 95 per cent, because in this higher range of proportion of the population exist those individuals most in need of medical care insurance. As we reduce the proportion requirement we reduce the effectiveness of the plan. The maximum effectiveness exists at the maximum proportion of participation.
I do not wish to detain the committee on this point but we did debate it on second reading. The universality concept is contained in this paragraph and if the amendment were accepted this concept would be completely destroyed. I have a number of procedural objections I could present but I will not mention them as it might be better to have a vote on the substance of this concept rather than having the amendment ruled out of order on the basis of a procedural argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I point out very briefly that we are also opposed to this amendment. As the minister has pointed out, this is the paragraph in the bill which carries out the government's commitment that coverage shall be universal. While we quarrel a little with his definition of "universality" because of his 90 per cent and 95 per cent figures, we do not register a strong protest in that respect. Certainly 90 per cent or 95 per
Medicare
cent is closer to 100 per cent than the zero per cent which might be possible as a result of the amendment. We feel that one of the cardinal principles of a plan like this must be its universality. Therefore we feel paragraph (c) must remain and we shall oppose any amendment to delete it.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, it seems obvious that the amendment will be defeated but before the discussion is terminated I should like to say a word or two. I agree that the objective we all have in mind is something which approaches universal coverage. We all realize that complete coverage is probably an unattainable objective and that we must settle for 90 per cent at first and 95 per cent later. However, this creates an anomaly because the remaining people who are not covered are in a sort of official limbo. Why should we ever be satisfied with anything less than 100 per cent coverage and why are the people left out not as important as the 95 per cent to be covered.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The minister no doubt recognizes that this is an impractical objective and therefore he compromises, puts in 90 per cent and then says, "So far as universality is concerned we will be satisfied with that". It is too late now, but I suggest to the minister that instead of having this sort of thing it would have been more sensible to say that the federal government and the people of Canada are prepared to make their contribution to all interested persons in a province under an approved plan and so on, over the first 5 per cent. Then you would have the incentive to try to achieve 100 per cent instead of having the arbitrary figure of 90 per cent or 95 per cent and saying that for the purpose of this bill so far as we are concerned we will consider that for the time being to be universality.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on this point. Instead of the 90 per cent I believe we could, if necessary, start at a lower figure. In the province of Ontario now I understand that 90 per cent of the people are covered by insurance of one type or another. I do not know why we have to be so dictatorial and say that 90 per cent of the people have to be covered right off the bat or there will be no plan. I do not think this is right. I think some leeway should be given. The minister knows that in the long run the people are not going to pay for a plan-and they will be paying for it because the federal government will be paying part of it-and not reap the benefits.

December 2, 1966
Medicare
Why do we have to have the arbitrary figure of 90 per cent? Surely we should operate the plan in a little different way. As the hon. member for Queens said, you will have 95 per cent because in Ontario now 90 per cent of the people are in their plan. It is only a matter of time before they will come in. Why do we not make it 80 per cent and say, We will give it to you because the others will all come in since they are paying for it.


J. Michael Forrestall: In respect of subclause (c) there are some things to which there must be a natural objection or a natural reaction. The first, as pointed out by the hon. member for Queens, has to do with the arbitrary figure of 90 per cent and after the third and each succeeding year thereafter 95 per cent. I think what you are doing here is removing the flexibility. This makes it extremely difficult for the provinces to underwrite and bear the cost because of the rigidity involved. Indeed, I do not know why there is any figure contained here. I believe that the principle of absorbing an equal portion of the cost I should be the operative factor and not the percentage of people involved. As an example, in the maritime provinces I am sure when the act does come into effect it will be totally universal. There will be no arbitrary figure in respect of who is or is not covered and there will be no arbitrary date as to when a certain percentage may have to be covered to qualify and so on. This is inherently wrong. As a matter of fact it is so wrong that instead of the date being July 1, 1967, the date should have been January 1, 1966. It should have been extended at least to people who require this type of care immediately such as the indigent, the chronically ill, those on fixed incomes, and so on.
I say that this provision is arbitrary by nature and is arbitrary with regard to the date by which the universality of participation must grow. This universality leads to the imposition of difficulties on provincial authorities, not to mention costs. Subclause (c) goes on to deal with the date when the plan becomes applicable. I understand that once we finish this the minister will introduce his own amendment based upon yesterday's action regarding the date. One of the reasons we wish to do this first before the minister moves his amendment is that we want to point out as forcefully as we can our rejection of and reaction to, first of all, the delay in the date and, second, the matter to which I previously referred. The whole process must be viewed

with considerable alarm by those provinces which are not yet deeply engrossed in a medical care program. Indeed it has been said by many of them that they welcome the delay because it gives them time to understand their own position better with relation to the federal authority. It gives them time to set up their own criteria for advancement, time schedules and so on.
The objective of the amendment to delete this subclause has everything to do with this. Without going too deeply into his words, I might say that the minister has spoken at great length on many occasions about the responsibility of the provincial authority. In nearly every subclause in this bill so far he goes against his natural inclination and whittles away the authority and responsibility which he wants to leave with the provinces. He does this by such arbitrary measures as the number of people who must be involved in order to qualify and, second, by the arbitrary establishment of a date on which the universal acceptance involvement figure must increase. Perhaps I am too conservative in these things. Perhaps I still feel that people are entitled to make up their own minds once in a while about health problems. We have moved the amendment and I would hope that the minister in his wisdom would accede to it. [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to state briefly that, as the minister said himself, the proposed medical care plan must be universal.
I think that a national medical care plan should apply to the entire population and not only to 90 per cent of the Canadian people. It might be a good thing to know what the minister means by insurable resident. The entire population is insurable, after all, under a national medical care plan. Why lay down a principle requiring that the percentage must not be lower than 90 per cent and then increase it to 95 per cent three years later? In my opinion, the purpose of this bill is to provide medical care for every Canadian without exception, children, old people, middle-aged people, in a word, for the entire population.
Now, in most Canadian provinces at the present time, there is, for example, some medical insurance plan for the needy. With their social welfare card, they receive medical care paid for entirely and completely by the provinces. In some other provinces where a
December 2, 1966

medical care plan exists, as in Alberta and British Columbia, 83 per cent of the people are covered. The purpose of the scheme introduced by the federal government must be, it seems to me, to insure the entire population and not merely 70, 80, 90 or 95 per cent. I would like the minister to tell us why 10 per cent of the people are set aside when the plan is initiated in a province and why is a 5 per cent increase required after three years? Then, it would perhaps be advisable to know the exact reason for such provisions. In my opinion, it is a kind of discrimination against those who are prevented from enjoying the benefits of a medical care plan.

Amendment (Mr. Forrestall) negatived: Yeas, 18; nays, 39.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: I declare the amendment lost. Does this terminate the discussion of paragraph (c)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: Mr. Chairman, I move-


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, you did say, did you not, that paragraph (c) is carried?


Jean-Thomas Richard: I did
not say that.


David Lewis: I thought I heard you say it.


Jean-Thomas Richard: No.
That was wishful thinking on the hon. member's part.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 4 of Bill C-227 be amended by substituting the expression "contribution commencement day" for the expression "1st day of July, 1967" where it appears in paragraph (c) of subclause (1) thereof.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is the
committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment Mr. Cadieux, (Terrebonne) agreed to: Yeas, 32; nays, 30.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I declare the amendment carried.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, we would have preferred to see the amendment to paragraph (c) moved by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall) carried. But as it was
Medicare
not carried I should like to move the following amendment to paragraph (c):
To amend clause 4 (1) (c) to read "80 per cent" for "90 per cent" in the phrase "not less than 90 per cent of the total number", and to strike out all the words following the word "province" in the fourth line.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is the
committee ready for the question?


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, we have had assurances from the minister that the bill will interfere to the smallest extent with the provincial health schemes now operating. It seems to me that one way to integrate this plan with the provincial plans with the smallest amount of interference and interruption would be to carry this amendment.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is the
committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Johnston) negatived: Yeas, 15; nays, 40.
Paragraph (c) agreed to.
Paragraph (d) agreed to.
On subclause 2-Responsibilities of provincial authority in relation to administration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, subclause 2 deals with the carriers. Since we have already had a debate on this issue it is not necessary for me to make an extensive speech at this time. We think that the latitude set out in paragraph (a) of subclause 1 is quite wide enough. We do not like the additional latitude contained in subclause 2 because we think that it is under subclause 2 that private commercial insurance companies can be introduced. I would therefore like to move the following amendment:
That clause 4 of Bill C-227 be amended by deleting therefrom subclause 2.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a brief word on this subclause. This subclause makes it possible for a provincial government to designate an agency or agencies in connection with a medical plan to be entrusted with the payment and receipt of accounts. In other words, it makes it possible for a provincial authority to designate a commercial insurance carrier or a co-operative for limited purposes with respect to the operation of a provincial medicare plan. The functions which would not be acceptable would be the assessment of the accounts and the determination of the amount to be paid with respect to these accounts. This responsibility will be carried out by the provincial

December 2, 1966
Medicare
authority. However, the designated bodies, including commercial carriers and co-operatives if they were so designated, could play a limited role. This is in accordance with the practice which exists in the Saskatchewan plan where at one point commercial carriers did play the limited role of collection, and I believe it gives an opportunity for greater flexibility without removing any of the advantages of the plan. I would therefore suggest to the committee that it defeat the amendment.


David Orlikow: Can the minister explain what useful purpose the private carriers could play if they were permitted to play a part in the administration of this plan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: For example, it would be possible for a provincial government to allow them to continue their present work involving the collection of receipts, premiums and so on, while the assessment of the accounts and the determination of the amounts to be paid with respect to these accounts would be undertaken by the provincial authority. It might be possible for this role to be usefully played by commercial insurance companies and by cooperatives in certain instances. I had argued that this was the case in the Saskatchewan plan and I went to some pains to investigate it. I have found this to be the case. I want to assure my hon. friend that there is no need for him to be concerned because this is well in accord with the best possible public approach to medicare.


David Orlikow: I should like to ask the minister one more question. Will the use of a number of carriers rather than one agency not increase the cost of administration?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We, as the federal government, are not proposing to share in the administration expenses. It will be obviously in the interest of the provinces to bear the least possible administration costs. If that leads them to a single system, then, of course, this is possible for them, but it is up to the provinces to bear those costs. We are sharing the costs of insured services, not of the administration of the plan.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) obviously smacks of socialism. Its object is to deny the provinces the right to appoint the agent of their own choosing to collect the contributions to the plan. Yet, my friends of the N.D.P. have repeated time and time again that the rights

of the provinces must be respected. I do not believe that having several collecting agencies would increase the costs of provincial medical care recognized by Ottawa. On the contrary, we may see agencies compete with one another and offer provincial governments preferential rates in order to collect the amounts the insured will pay.
Mr. Chairman, as we want the provinces to have as much latitude, as much freedom as possible, we are going to vote against the socialist amendment moved by my friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, let me say one word on this. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare is right that it is part of the Saskatchewan plan. It was one of the concessions wrung out of the government in July, 1962.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Let me point out that the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North is perfectly relevant. Let me inform the hon. member for Villeneuve that if he looks at the Hall report he will find-I am sure I am paraphrasing the situation correctly-that the administrative cost of private plans is approximately 28 per cent of every dollar. The administrative cost of the Saskatchewan plan is six and a fraction per cent of every dollar. In every province where some public supervision has already been introduced, namely, in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, the administrative costs of the plans are below the 28 per cent which was found by the Hall Commission to be the cost of private plans. So that the cost of administration of these plans by non-profit organizations through non-profit public agencies is a very real saving compared with the cost when administered in another way.
The minister is right about the concession made in Saskatchewan. I know, as he does, that among ourselves we refer to these various insurance companies as post offices which collect the premiums and hand them on to the medical care insurance commission of the province. I gather from the hon. member that that is what he thinks should be done here.
I suggest that another reason this subclause ought to be dropped is, in my respectful submission, that it is redundant. If the hon. member wants to use these private agencies merely as post offices to collect premiums and to hand them on, enabling these private agencies
December 2. 1966

to participate in the health field and provide supplementary insurance to the basic insurance provided under the plan, then all of this can now be done under clause 4 (l)(a). There is no need in the bill for this additional subclause, which seems to suggest that the door should be opened to authorities other than the pubhc authorities which were defined earlier.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say only one thing after the remarks we have just heard from the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who said that I was taking the side of the big interests in Canada.
I would like to point out to him that Alberta has a medical plan and that 83 per cent of the people of Alberta are insured and benefit therefrom at the present time. When the hon. member says that the administration costs of that plan in Saskatchewan amount to 6 per cent out of every dollar, he should add that Saskatchewan is enjoying at the present time the strongest taxation system of all the Canadian provinces, precisely because money collected in other fields is allocated to the medical care plan. The Saskatchewan plan is clearly inferior to that which the people of Alberta enjoy today, and the hon. member for York South is perfectly aware of that. Of course he is.


David Lewis: No, no, the facts are not like that at all.


David Réal Caouette: If the hon. member is not aware of it, he should go to Alberta and see what is going on there. In Alberta, there are joint programs; private enterprise, in co-operation with the government, has set up a medical care plan which is clearly superior to any other now in force in Canada.


David Lewis: That is not a plan, it is a nightmare.

Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived: Yeas, 7; nays, 48.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I declare the amendment lost. Shall subclause 2 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Subclause agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall
clause 4 carry?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I intend to move an amendment to clause 4 which deals 2303a-676
Medicare
with one aspect of the problem facing the committee. We have had a series of amendments to extend the coverage of this bill to a variety of additional professions, including the profession of optometry. It is a fact that under the terms of the present bill eye examinations, for example, which are performed by a medical practitioner or an ophthalmologist are an insured service, while eye examinations provided by optometrists are not an insured service. There is a difference of treatment both with respect to the practitioners and the patients of each.
One proposal that has been put forward is to include immediately all services of optometrists under the bill. That situation, of course, could not occur because as a government we are not prepared to recommend to the house at the present time that additional services be included, and other efforts to do so have been abortive because the terms of the amendments went beyond the scope of the resolution. I am going to propose an amendment that will make it possible at the option of the provinces to exclude, if they wish, eye examinations from those services.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hon. gentlemen earlier expressed their disapproval of this approach, but I want to put it forward because I think it is a useful step to take, one which would be appropriate during the period of time that the whole of the profession is not included within the scope of the bill.
I have under consideration a way in which it might be possible to meet some of the points made with regard to the inclusion of additional health professions later, with the federal and provincial governments acting together on the question. In the meantime I propose to move this amendment in order to meet this particular problem. Perhaps it will be useful for me to have a decision of the committee on it today so that it may assist me in my deliberations over the week end with respect to the other problem.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, does the minister propose to move the amendment now?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment:
That Bill No. C-227 be also amended by adding the following paragraph to clause 4:
"Uninsured services
(3) In the application of this act to a plan set up under an act of the provincial legislature, an eye

December 2, 1966
Medicare
examination performed by a medical practitioner to fit glasses or other devices so as to correct or improve an eye defect will be considered as an uninsured service if it is so stipulated in the provincial legislation."
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Eric Alfred Winkler: What a shame. What a shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I want to express very strong opposition to this amendment and I say to the minister that he has no right to expect a decision on this matter today, as he put it. After all there are only six or seven minutes of government time left.
In particular I remind him that I have been asking for a couple of days for the tabling of the correspondence he has had with representatives of the optometric profession on this point. I know the minister will say that he has been considering the point, that we have kept him busy so that he has not had a chance to reach a decision, but I do think we should have before us the opinions which have been expressed on this point by the representatives of this profession.
Let me make it clear that I am not now asking for the opinions of the optometrists on the question of whether they as an entire profession should be included, because the minister has already said "no" for the time being at least. I am asking, rather, for their opinion on this move in the other direction.
When you first look at it you could think that the optometrists might say: Well, if we cannot be included we think that the ophthalmologists and others who do get covered should also be denied that coverage. My information is that the optometrists are not taking that dog-in-the-manger attitude. Their view is that as much as possible this bill should cover the services that our people need. I think the least we should have is evidence on the table of where these people stand. One of the reasons I am concerned about this is the impression gained from something the minister stated the other night. I know what he said and I understand what he said but the impression has gone out that, because the minister said he had letters from optometrists approving of this course, somehow or other this is the view of the optometrists and of their association. I think this ought to be corrected.
As I say, I am not asking for all the letters the minister has had from the optometrists. I am not asking for their views on their desire to be included. We know those views and we support them. But we are asking for the optometrists views on this subsequent proposal
[Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne) .1
the minister is making which, as my leader put it the other day, is progress backwards. I think it is quite out of keeping with the position taken by the Prime Minister in July, 1965, when he gave as one of the criteria coverage of all physicians' services. The minister has made much of what was made clear by the former minister of national health and welfare, the present Secretary of State, that there might be some modification. The only modification mentioned in early discussions dealt with cosmetic surgery, or whatever the phrase is. The minister seems to have a new idea. He thinks that since he cannot meet the wishes of the optometrists he will go in the other direction.
The other night when the minister announced he would take this course he said he would also look at the position of oral surgeons. He did not say he would treat oral surgeons as he would treat optometrists. In fact, he did not tell us in what way they are to be treated. We feel disappointed enough that the government is not willing to go farther in providing coverage, that the government has interpreted as narrowly as it has the Prime Minister's commitment of July, 1965, that there would be coverage of physician's services involved, but to go in the other direction and take out some of the services that until now have been included is going too far.
We have had the date put off for one year; we have had private carriers brought in; we have had universality defined as 90 per cent. If this bill is around much longer not much of it will be left. So I shall sit down to let somebody else who is against the measure speak. If there is nobody else from another part of the house, there are people in our group who will speak. I want the minister to think about this over the week end, and I want the correspondence tabled so that we know where the optometrists stand.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, during the brief time before five o'clock I wish to say a few words. I am not too happy with the amendment in that it restricts rather than enlarges the bill. It obviously cuts down services which can be called insured services. I am rather happy, however, that the minister has included in the bill a clause which suggests that he recognizes certain rights of provincial governments. The minister also said during the course of introducing this amendment that at some later stage an additional amendment might be moved which might go some way to meeting the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Ontario. If that
December 2, 1966

is so, the present amendment may not be as important and significant as it might otherwise be.
I suggest to the minister that he consider standing the present amendment until he is ready to bring in the other amendment so that we may look at both together to see where we stand. It may well be that the effect of the other amendment, if it is brought in, will be to make the present amendment comparatively unnecessary. It may not be of consequence.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills and private bills.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the house leader at this time what the business of the house will be on Monday.


George James McIlraith: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall announce the business for Monday now. We would propose to call first the resolution, item 111 on the order paper, preceding the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act and providing for supplementary payments. At the conclusion of that, if there is any time left, we will continue with the medicare bill again.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand there is some agreement that public bills will stand today? Does the house give unanimous consent to stand all public bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now proceed to the consideration of private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Bert Leboe (Caribou) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. S-16, to incorporate Bank of British Columbia.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few brief remarks on this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion that the Speaker leave the chair is not debatable.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Private Bills
On clause 1-Incorporation.


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I say to the committee that under this particular bill in the list of private bills there is a note reading: "Text of amendments printed in Votes and Proceedings of October 25, 1966, at pages 922-923." If some hon. members do not have copies of Votes and Proceedings, there is a small number here available for distribution.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to say that this bill has been before the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. The proceedings of that committee are reported in report No. 16 covering Tuesday, October 18 and Wednesday, October 19, 1966. As Your Honour has mentioned, Votes and Proceedings No. 140 contains the amendments which were made in committee. These amendments were of a minor nature. In general, the bill follows the pattern of one which was passed earlier this year, namely, the bill establishing the Bank of Western Canada. It is some time since Bill S-16 was before the committee but if there are any questions I can answer in connection with it I shall be happy to try to do so.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief remarks on this bill because it is a bill of particular interest to the people of British Columbia. A bill of this type was first presented to the Senate, I understand, in 1964 under the sponsorship of the government of British Columbia. I am told that at that time the representatives of the government of British Columbia proposed that the government of that province should hold a certain percentage of the shares in this bank.
Earlier this year the proposal was presented to the other place in an amended form. It was discussed there. I have a copy of the minutes of the banking and commerce committee of the other place containing the record of an interesting debate. Later this matter was considered by the standing committee of this house on finance, trade and economic affairs. The report of that committee is an interesting document too. I see that the witnesses who were called before that committee included C. F. Elderkin, Inspector General of Banks;. V/. G. Burke-Robertson, Parliamentary Agent; H. B. Elworthy, W. C. Mearns, J. A. C.. Wallace, F. H. Dietrich and E. M. Gunderson,, provisional directors of the Bank of British. Columbia.
I understand that when this measure was before the standing committee on finance.

December 2, 1966
Private Bills
trade and economic affairs certain amendments were proposed, the text of which can be found in Votes and Proceedings of October 25. I believe these amendments which were put forward by certain members of the committee changed the bill to assure the members of the committee that this bill will really provide for a Bank of British Columbia, not one entirely under the sponsorship of the government of the province. Having considered this bill and the amendments printed in Votes and Proceedings I have reached the conclusion, after conversations with members of all parties, that the measure in its present form has widespread support. People have said to me that it would be political suicide to vote against this imaginative piece of legislation. I have met prominent Liberals in my constituency who take the same point of view. However, I believe there were one or two supporters of the government on the committee who did not altogether agree with the point of view of their friends in the constituency I have the honour to represent.
Naturally the Social Credit members I approached were enthusiastic in their support for this bill. I found the same general support for it in my own area. I believe this support was based largely on two considerations. First, the headquarters of all the banking institutions in Canada have in the past been located in the eastern provinces. I believe this had some effect on public opinion. Again, there is a certain pride among the people with whom I spoke in feeling that for the first time there is a Bank of British Columbia, even though it will be a private bank operated as such. So I have no hesitation in supporting this bill.
That is all I wish to say except to ask the sponsor a question. Can the sponsor assure the committee that as sponsor of this bill before the committee and the House of Commons he has not received, either directly or indirectly, any emoluments for his services in this connection?


Bert Raymond Leboe: May I assure the hon. member that I have not received anything in any way, shape or form. Incidentally, I am not a lawyer.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up much of the committee's time but I should like to point out that this is a bill to incorpo-

rate a chartered bank under the same provisions that all other chartered banks were incorporated. The feature to which exception was taken in the other place was removed. I am not at all sure it was justifiable to remove it, and I am not at all sure that by its removal those who were afraid of a provincial government having shares in a bank have actually covered all the loopholes. As I remarked to one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, it appears to me that the power to withdraw deposits is probably a very forceful weapon with regard to the bank's policies.
Having regard to another amendment, as my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned, one clause was deleted because it was clearly in contrad'ction of the proposed amendments to the Bank Act. That was the provision which made it mandatory that all directors of this bank should be residents of British Columbia. As the inspector general of banks pointed out, the Bank Act leaves the choice of directors entirely in the hands of the shareholders without any conditions. Presumably if the shareholders are largely British Columbians and they wish to ensure that the operations of the bank will be located mainly in the province of British Columbia they will exercise some care in the selection of the directors.
The other amendment was one which prohibited officials of either the government or any of its agencies from being executive officers of the bank. Two amendments were proposed at that time. One prohibited any such persons from being directors of the bank and the committee wisely, I think, defeated that amendment. The committee, however, passed an amendment wh'ch prohibited officials of the provincial government or any of its agencies from being executive officers.
I supported the latter amendment on the ground that any such person could not do two jobs effectively. If I were a provincial premier I would perhaps be very much in favour of having one of my officials as a director of the bank because that would be more or less a part-time occupation, but I would have the strongest objection to a civil servant being a director because I would expect him to be doing another job.
With those words let me say that I support this measure to incorporate this bank in the hope that it will overcome some of the alleged difficulties created by the fact that the head offices of most banks in Canada are located in the cities of Montreal and Toronto.
December 2, 1966

Perhaps the people of British Columbia will receive something other than the alleged discriminatory treatment they receive from the banks now in operation. It may be difficult to prove that because the head offices of the banks are located in Montreal and Toronto the development of other parts of the country has suffered, but this fact does give rise to the suspicion that that may be the case. For that reason I am pleased to support the bill in its present form. The bill was examined with great care by the committee and I think hon. members can be assured that there are no points which were not subject to searching scrutiny.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I have been interested in the stormy course the Bank of British Columbia has followed in its attempt to become incorporated. In view of the amendments that have been made to the original bill I have some sympathy for those in British Columbia who originated the concept of a provincial bank, because they now find they will have nothing more than just another bank. This bank will not serve the purposes that the government of the province of British Columbia originally had in mind. In fact, I do not believe it will serve any purpose that could not be served by banks now in existence.
It is interesting to note the change that has occurred in respect of clause 5 of the bill, which originally provided that the majority of the directors had to be normally resident in the province of British Columbia. I presume the reason behind that was the belief that greater sympathy would be given to requests for loans and assistance in floating bond issues for government projects if the directors of the board were also resident in the province. If there is any truth in that concept, then presumably the people of Ontario are very fortunate in that the majority of directors on the boards of existing banks live in the city of Toronto. This may have some effect because we in northern Ontario have always felt that Toronto has had a great advantage in the way of loans and assistance.
Another clause of this bill originally suggested that 25 per cent of the capitalization of this bank would be put up by the government of British Columbia and that government officials could be directors. I understand they can still be directors but cannot be executive officers. Having had some experience with bank directors I would suggest that executive officers would be more valuable to the government. Because of the amendments I presume
Private Bills
that the original purpose behind the establishment of a bank in British Columbia has failed so far as the government of that province is concerned. This is just another bank.


Mr. Byrne:: It will not be socialized.


William Arnold Peters: I was never really of the opinion that the Social Credit government intended to socialize this bank, but there is a similarity between controlling and owning it. Presumably the Social Credit philosophy is that a satisfactory situation would exist if the government could control this bank by putting money into it and having its officials appointed to the board of directors. That is a philosophical argument, but I do not think even the government of British Columbia would be prepared to admit that is the reason behind the establishment of this bank.
I know we are not allowed to refer to other bills passed by this house, but we should keep in mind that the Bank of Western Canada was recently established by an act of this parliament. We have all recently read the financial pages of our newspapers and have seen indications that this newly established bank is already in serious trouble because of the shaky position in which an outside company now finds itself. That company had a great part in the capitalization of this bank. I am sure everyone is aware of the difficult position in which many Canadian financial institutions find themselves because of the bankruptcy of the Atlantic Finance Corporation. Many established banking institutions are experiencing serious difficulties as a result of the losses which occurred following the bankruptcy of that corporation. We are also aware that the bankruptcy of another financial institution is likely to have a great impact on other financial institutions. While we all hope this is not so, it is an indication that the problem of our banking system is not the extension of the number of banks but rather some of the operations in which they engage.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
In my opinion our banks have not been what we in Canada assume they should be, the rock of financial institutions, the exemplar of proper financial conduct, the conservatives of the financial world. Quite often this has its disadvantages for the Canadian public. I do not think we are going to gain anything for the people of British Columbia by this bank. I do not think they will gain anything which has not been provided for them by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Toronto-Dominion

December 2, 1966
Private Bills
Bank, or even the Mercantile Bank which is in serious difficulty today.
We are finding that our friends south of the border who are interested in our financial institutions are putting on the largest financial lobby they have ever conducted in any country. They are using such things as direct mailings to many sources asking for support and carrying an open threat. We learn from our local newspapers that a similar lobby also is being conducted by some of the institutions controlled by the banks.
It is not really the extension of banking that is necessary in Canada. I am sure it was the wish of those who were interested in the Bank of British Columbia that they would have in this particular organization a bank which would be sympathetic to the people of British Columbia and would be oriented particularly to the specific problems of British Columbia. It would seem to me that with the removal of clause 5, whether or not it was necessary, a great deal of the purpose of this bank has been eliminated. In a subsequent clause, clause 11, I believe, we took away any other advantages that might have accrued to the people of British Columbia.
I am not a member of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs and, as one of my colleagues says, "Perhaps that is a good thing; it is confusing enough now". That also may be so. I believe, however, that originally there was some merit in this proposition. I do not think it is unlike the proposition that was originally put forward in respect of some of the provincial banks. It is interesting to note that in respect of the provincial banks across Canada there never was enough money available so that the banks could be anything but savings institutions. Because of the competition in terms of the interest rate being paid on deposits, banks such as the Province of Ontario Savings Bank, the Post Office banks and banks of that nature really never influenced in any way the financial capacity of this nation in its ability either to gather or distribute wealth.
In respect of the Bank of British Columbia it seems to me that while one may or may not agree with the purpose or the methods used, I think one may agree with the object they had in mind because I believe it is safe to say that in many areas the policies of the chartered banks we now have work a greater hardship on specific areas than they do on other areas. I am aware, for instance, that a number of years ago in northern Ontario, in fact before the depression of the early 1930's, the Canada

Permanent Trust Company had lent a great deal of money in northern Ontario. As the depression developed the loans were called and the loss suffered by the Canada Permanent Trust Company at that time has prohibited it ever going into that part of the country to make loans again. I think this has reflected also on the banks. It is interesting to note that agencies of the government such as the Farm Credit Corporation underwrite land values at such a low figure that it is very difficult to borrow an amount of money which has any relationship to the selling price of the property. In northern Ontario it costs $50 an acre to clear land and yet the Farm Credit Corporation allows only $25 an acre in respect of loans.
This has been the policy of the banks and I see nothing in this bill which would indicate that there will be a change in British Columbia in what I consider to be a regional problem, the problem the banks have in getting together to make a decision with regard to whether or not an area should be supported. In the last few years British Columbia has had considerable development. I am sure this has created in British Columbia a need for greater sympathy from the lending institutions of the nation. This sympathy has not been exhibited by the chartered banks. I am aware of the fact that when British Columbia decided to build the Peace River dam it had considerable difficulty in raising the very large sums of money necessary for that project. I think one could honestly say-


An hon. Member:: They got them from the United States.


William Arnold Peters: My colleague is suggesting that they borrowed the money from the United States. The government of British Columbia should be able to look to the banks in Canada to borrow that money instead of having to sell out the Columbia River project and some other things in order to arrange large borrowings in the United States.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I must rise on a point of order. The hon. member is misinformed. The government of British Columbia received certain sums for the building of certain projects on the Columbia river. It did not borrow this amount of money.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I should like to say that the hon. member is misinformed on another point when he says that we sold out the Columbia river project.
December 2, 1966


William Arnold Peters: I am glad that my colleagues agree with me in some instances. Instead of having many valuable projects they now have debts in respect of these projects. In respect of this bill I think we should give very serious consideration to the fact that we are not meeting what appear to be the needs of the people who sponsored it. If you read the report of the board of directors you will be well aware of the fact that in appointing, for instance, Mr. Gunderson, as an executive of this bank, they were in effect asking that this bank be established on-


Mr. Howard:: A friendly basis.


William Arnold Peters: -a farsighted exploitation basis. I am sure everyone will agree he has been connected in one way or another with most of the development which has taken place in that province. In appointing him I am sure they were looking to someone who would be sympathetic to the future expansion they wished to make in the field of credit. So I am very surprised that the hon. member for Kootenay West, the hon. member for Cariboo, the hon. member for Fraser Valley and others now agree that this bill should pass, because I do not think it does anything. This policy may result in new banks being built in Toronto and Montreal, but now that there is no obligation for the executives of this bank to be British Columbia residents, oriented to the west coast and the peculiarities of that former colony, in my opinion we are doing nothing more than adding another bank.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In our previous discussions with regard to the other chartered bank incorporated by parliament the same arguments were put forward. We have now had a period of time in which to evaluate the influence that has been exerted by that bank. We find it is pretty well a Toronto-oriented bank controlled from Toronto. No particular advantage has flowed from its establishment. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe that in this instance we are failing to do what the people of British Columbia indicated they wanted in the establishment of this bank, and in my opinion we are just creating another bank.
I have always been of the opinion that the committee which is now reviewing federal legislation governing banks should be charged with making a recommendation whether additional chartered banks are necessary. I have found that banks are not competitive. If you cannnot get a loan from one bank, my experience has been that there is no point in going
Private Bills
to the other banks in town because all the managers have got together and made decisions on the type of loans they will make that month. Therefore, if the money you require does not fall into that category of loan, there is no point going to different banks to obtain money. There is no competition in this field.
I am aware that personalities enter into the question of whether one is granted a loan. Some bank managers are nicer than others. But I have found that when you go to borrow money this difference is not so apparent. In the main there is no competition in the rates the banks charge. There is no difference in their trust or respect for the individual. It is a hard, cold, cash-on-the-barrelhead proposition. They are giving out the money and you have to establish a case. If the case you put forward does not meet the criteria of the time, the bank does not make the loan. I think this will be true of the Bank of British Columbia.
In the back of my mind there is already the fear that if we create a large number of these banks we will raise the operating costs of banks to the detriment of many communities in obtaining an adequate level of service. It is quite true that in a small town with two or three banks people will change from one bank to another. It may be that in British Columbia everyone will support this bank because over the doors it will have the name "Bank of British Columbia". This may impress people. It has not impressed me in Ontario. I have never been into a Province of Ontario Savings Bank. In fact, I asked today just what its purpose was. I know they have a branch on Sparks Street in this city. Perhaps it serves some function; I do not know. I do not see the people of Ontario rushing madly to that bank because it has the name of the province over the door. The situation may be different in British Columbia, because I have found that residents of that province are quite parochial, and if they can keep their money at home they may patronize this bank.
The reasons given a year ago, when this bill was first introduced, for the creation of this bank are pretty well nullified by the amendments that have been made to the bill. I believe there is little advantage in passing the bill. Therefore, unless the committee is prepared to turn down the amendments the bill will not meet the needs of the people of British Columbia or the aspirations of the government of that province.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.

December 2, 1966
Private Bills


Mr.   Pailerson@: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make just a few observations in connection with Bill No. S-16, an act to incorporate the Bank of British Columbia. If we follow the history of the application to create this bank we see that it has had a rather uncertain voyage. But we are pleased that at last the bill has reached committee stage in the house. Some time ago applications were before the house in respect of other banks and the application by British Columbia was stalled in the other place. We therefore felt it necessary to delay the passage of those other bills until this one was given some assurance of approval.
Political considerations have to some extent entered into the picture. Certain individuals objected violently to the idea that British Columbia was making application for a bank charter. They objected because the provincial government was to have the privilege of being a shareholder. Groups of people took exception to the incorporation of this bank. Even the Minister of Finance stated that the passage of a bill such as this would be a repudiation of the responsibility of the federal administration in the field of banking. We have never subscribed to that theory. We have never agreed with that argument, and I believe there are many ways in which we can prove that it is not well-founded.
The incorporation of this bank would not interfere with federal jurisdiction in the field of banking, and we are pleased that the bill has reached this stage. I believe it is desirable that there be competition in the banking field. This fact was recognized by the Royal Commission on Banking. It is desirable that there be competition among banks, even though the hon. member for Timiskaming is of the view that if we have a multiplicity of banks it does not mean that we have competition. I believe it is possible that if we have enough banks there will be some competition in this area.
The residents of the province from which I come look forward to the establishment of this bank. I believe it is desirable that there be a decentralization of banking institutions so far as their head offices are concerned. I do not think it is right that all head offices of banks should be located in the central part of this nation. We should recognize the fact that all of this great nation of ours is a single entity and therefore there should be decentralization so far as the head offices of these institutions are concerned.
I believe it is desirable to have the head office of this bank in British Columbia. We all
[The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard).]
know that large loans must be approved by the head office, and there is always the possibility that if the head office of a financial institution is located in one area it could react adversely on the service offered to other sections of the country. Looking at this question from another point of view, I believe that people could find themselves in a squeeze in endeavouring to obtain development capital because if the head office which gives approval is located in the central part of Canada it could have an adverse effect upon those people living in the outlying areas of this nation.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Reference has been made to the amendments to the original bill. I do not think they were all desirable. I think that some of the provisions in the original bill were perfectly satisfactory and legitimate and I do not feel they should have been deleted. However, that was done, and we have reached the point at which the bill to establish this bank has received general approval. We anticipate that our province and Canada as a whole will greatly benefit thereby.
The hon. member for Timiskaming expressed his surprise at the support of the bill as it stands by hon. members from British Columbia. He referred to some of the original provisions in the bill and he indicated that the deletion of those provisions from the bill has watered it down to the point that it will cease* to be of great value to the province of British Columbia. We have discovered in the house that one cannot expect a whole loaf of bread all the time and in fact one does not usually get it. Sometimes one has to be satisfied with half a loaf and sometimes with only one slice. Nevertheless we believe that the bill as it now stands is better than no bill at all and that the Bank of British Columbia operating under the provisions outlines in the bill is better than no bank at all. Therefore I am very happy that the bill is before the committee and I trust it will receive unanimous approval.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 5-Directors and executive officers.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee on finance, trade and economic affairs recommended that clause 5 be deleted. Is the amendment agreed to?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. You asked the committee
December 2, 1966

whether they agree to the amendment which consists of deleting the clause in its entirety. I submit to you that the proper procedure is to have a vote on clause 5 as it stands at present and if there is a desire to delete it then the vote would be in the negative. This is the only way in which it is possible to deal with the situation. We cannot have a negative motion. I may add that when we vote on the clause I will vote to retain it as it stands at present.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that we can follow two courses. First, if the sponsor of the bill wishes to withdraw the clause the committee can agree to that or, alternatively, if he does not wish to do so we can follow the proposal just made by the hon. member for Skeena and vote on the clause.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The difficulty is that the bill comes to us from the other place. It has been passed in the other place and amended by the committee. In actual fact we do not have clause 5 before us since it has been deleted.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, are you saying that the standing committee which considered this bill has usurped the authority of the house by deleting a clause therein? If such is the case there is no purpose in having the bill before us at the present time.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I should point out to the hon. member that the committee had the right to delete the clause and that when the report of the committee was brought before the house it was concurred in.


Frank Howard: In that case, why did you put the question, Mr. Chairman?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 5 was clause 6 in the original bill. Shall this clause carry?
Clauses 5 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 13-Powers and liabilities.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 13 is a new clause.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have waited until we reached this clause because the importance of the bill is such that we should not delay its passage or allow it to fall to the bottom of the list. I want to submit once again that the procedure followed by the committee has been incorrect. When I raised my original point of order on the proceedings on clause 5 the Chairman first put it in the form of an amendment. Then I understood Your Honour withdrew the question from the committee 23033-677
Private Bills
and ruled that in fact there was no clause 5 because the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs had reported to the house, recommending the deletion of clause 5, that report being adopted by the house.
From my reading of the Journals for October 25 there is no indication that the house adopted the report of that committee. All it says with regard to the report is:
Your committee has considered Bill S-16, an act to incorporate Bank of British Columbia, and has agreed to report it with the following amendments.
The amendments are then recited. But there is no indication in the Journals of the house that the report was adopted. I submit the report is only a proposal and that what we have been doing here has been incorrect.
I am raising this matter at this time only as a guide for the future. I submit that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka was correct, that there was one of two ways of proceeding. But we did not do this, though we can correct the situation on third reading when the house adopts the report of the committee of the whole on the bill. This will regularize everything. But up to now we have been wrong in proceeding as we have.


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I read to the committee citation 408 of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
The committee can so change the provisions of the bill that when it is reported to the house it is in substance a bill other than that which was referred. A committee can negative every clause and substitute new clauses, if relevant to the bill as read a second time. If it should happen that alterations made by the committee were so extensive that the bill was widely different from the one which had received second reading, the practice has been to withdraw the bill-
The other part of the citation does not apply. Perhaps I should tell the hon. member that the information I gave him when discussing the old clause 5 was not correct. But I should say to him that although the committee has deleted clause 5 it would be within the competence of any member of this committee to move that the clause be restored. Perhaps I should also point out to the hon. member that I was in error when I said that the report of this committee had been concurred in by the house. I understand that was not so, that it was presented but not concurred in. If the hon. member has in mind the restoration of clause 5,1 would be prepared to listen to him.


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Chairman, we are past clause 5. I only wanted to indicate my views with respect to it. I think it should have

December 2. 1966
Private Bills
stayed as it was, but I do not want to return to it. As a guide for the future, some of this confusion may be cleared up if we change the procedure of doing things so that when a committee reports and suggests amendments to a bill the recommendations are incorporated into a new bill. We would then have before us what the committee has recommended, which is what we do not have at the moment. I might record my objection to clause 13 as well while I am on my feet.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 13 carry?


Frank Howard: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bert Raymond Leboe: the third reading of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, prior to the bill receiving third reading we do want to emphasize that the members of this group would have preferred the bill which was originally presented and sponsored by the government of British Columbia. However, we have supported this bill because of the difficulties encountered and we trust that it will be of value to the development of the economy of our province.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 5, 1966