1966-12-01

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether any assurance has been received from the C.B.C. that the lewd and pornographic program called "Sunday" will not be repeated? What is the attitude of the C.B.C. in this regard? If there is not to be any action by the C.B.C. to protect young people from this type of program, will the minister give consideration to investigating whether the Criminal Code contains regulations which might be effective against those who apparently will defy the law?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not hear the whole of the right hon. gentleman's question. This morning there was a meeting of the broadcasting committee at which officials of the C.B.C. were heard.
Several members of the house who are not members of the committee attended this meeting, and although I have received only a very sketchy report of it, I am afraid not all the members who attended that meeting were able to ask the questions they had planned. I have not had the opportunity to discuss this personally with the president of the C.B.C. but I shall be glad to do so either today or tomorrow.
With respect to the Criminal Code, it is my understanding that matters involving breach of the criminal law are the responsibility of the provinces and of attorneys general. I would be glad to discuss the matter with my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin), but while I have not looked into it in particular, that seems to be one of the generally
accepted rules. I think that if there were a self-evident breach of the criminal law, any interested individual might himself lay an information in the normal way and cause a prosecution to be launched. However, in the very slender job which parliament has given me to do with respect to the C.B.C. I would hate to have to add to that burden the responsibility of having to police the corporation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would never want a finer policewoman than the hon. lady. I am sure if she were in that position we would all be protected against grave injustice. However, I suggest the matter be looked into because Canadians have a right to a greater assurance than that given today by the president of the C.B.C. that this production was a mistake. There are too many such mistakes.


Mr.   R.-E. Regimbal@Argenfeuil-Deux-Montagnes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the manager of CKMI-TV in Quebec city has taken the commendable initiative of henceforth checking personally the contents of the program "Sunday" before its presentation to the public, could the hon. Secretary of State inform the house if, to her knowledge, managers of other stations have indicated that they intend to exercise similar control?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, I have not heard of this being done, and while I have never seen an agreement between a C.B.C. affiliated station and the C.B.C. I would think they might be in breach of it if they did so.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: On a
further supplementary, Mr. Speaker-and I ask this question not too facetiously. I wonder whether the minister would consider taking into consideration the possibility of appointing the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) to the position of director of programming in the C.B.C.?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Already this has occurred to two of you.
December 1, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



PACIFIC COAST LONGSHOREMEN DISPUTE-DISRUPTION OF SHIPPING AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask if his attention has been drawn to the tie-up in the west coast ports arising from the fact that the Maritime Employers Association has refused since Monday to call the longshoremen to work on the ground of an alleged work slowdown? Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that some 45 ships with perishable goods aboard are tied up in Vancouver harbour, that grain cars are backing up to the prairies, and close to 10,000 men are going to be laid off in the lumberyards, the sawmills and logging camps in the course of the next few days?
Does not the Prime Minister consider that the time has now come for the government to intervene and perhaps appoint a mediator in the hope of bringing the parties together? I say that since this is not a dispute over wages but rather about whether or not this is a lockout or a slowdown in work.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I have been in touch with the Minister of Labour almost hourly in this matter, but I have nothing to add to what the minister said yesterday. If he can make a supplementary statement at this time I know he will be very glad to do so.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of Transport and the Minister without Portfolio I wonder whether I could ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that a few hours ago the last boat left the Queen Charlotte Islands, and that in all likelihood if the strike or lockout, or whatever it is, continues the people on these islands will be deprived of mail, food, medical supplies and all other commodities which normally reach the islands by ship. Would the Prime Minister contact the Department of Transport to see whether or not an airlift arrangement might be made to service those and other communities in a similar position?


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious situation developing with regard to the marketing of our wheat, 1 wonder whether the minister has

anything to report to the house on the possibility of a settlement of this strike.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot hold out much hope at this time for an immediate-settlement. I think the house should know that the people who have not been called out from work, according to my information, are the ones who were dismissed for the alleged slowdown tactics which are the subject of the proceedings in the courts. Some longshoremen are working. It is unfortunate that the number is very small, but some are working as my latest report shows.


John George Diefenbaker: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister is a very good lawyer who has done well as Minister of Labour, and I would ask him to give us a further statement. Surely with a national emergency developing, as it is, in consequence of this situation the time has now come, if it is not overdue, to appoint a mediator. How long must the producers of wheat suffer and our wheat contracts be held up because of failure to act?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have some suggestion as to just what should be mediated. There is no question here of wages, fringe benefits or anything like that. Parliament has vested the Canada Labour Relations Board with a certain jurisdiction. A group of supervisory personnel, so declared, applied to the Canada Labour Relations Board for certification. The Canada Labour Relations Board has decided that they are not an appropriate union to carry on collective bargaining, but that they are part of management. This was their decision, not the government's.
In view of that, Mr. Speaker, the employers concerned feel that they have certain rights and they are insisting upon the enforcement of those rights in the courts while on the other hand, the employees are taking another stand, which it is their privilege to do. I certainly do not feel in view of the situation which now exists that the federal government should intervene at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister two supplementary questions. Can he tell the house roughly what percentage of the longshoremen have not been called back? I think the major part of them have not been called back. Second, would it not be possible to appoint a mediator in an endeavour to bring the parties
December 1, 1966

together? As the minister said the other day, while the foremen could not qualify under the Canada labour act in constituting a collective bargaining unit, there is nothing to prevent the employers from bargaining with them if they so choose. Could not a mediator try to resolve that point and in the meantime get the men back to work by getting the company to call the work gangs?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thought it was understood that the company had called out the work gangs, and they are still willing to take back any of the employees who have been dismissed by some of the foremen, and otherwise, for allegedly not performing their duties. The company says that if the men are prepared to give a full day's work for a full day's pay, it will be glad to take them back. There is no dispute about that.
Answering the second part of the question-and while in Vancouver last week, I passed this information on to local 514 and to the international and local officers of the I.L.W.U. in British Columbia-that each one of the stevedoring companies had said it is quite prepared either collectively or individually, to deal with the foremen in their own employ, but the management of one company does not want to deal with the foremen of another company. That is the position being taken by the employers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would not a mediator find some solution to this point?


Mr. Speaker:: That question, I suggest, is argumentative.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister of Labour is having problems with this matter, would he not agree that if some of the stevedores are affected that is proof that no strike is in motion, and that a lockout is the only other possible description of what is happening?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, no one has suggested, except in questions put by ill informed people, that there is a strike. But there has been the suggestion of a lockout. However, the employers say, "I am prepared to take men back if they are prepared to give a full day's work in return for a day's pay," so what proof is that of a lockout?


Malcolm MacInnis: When the employer says that he will bring men back
Inquiries of the Ministry to work if they give a full day's work for a full day's pay, is he not imposing conditions of employment that can only be determined when the men are on the job?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure all hon. members agree that we have had ample questions and answers, and perhaps a debate, on the subject. It might be time to go to another subject matter.


Frank Howard: I posed a question to the Prime Minister about the specific aspect of an emergency, and an airlift to isolated communities. I wonder if the right hon. gentleman could reply.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I apologize to my hon. friend; I had not realized at the time that the question was addressed to me. In view of the very serious aspect of the situation I will certainly take his comments under consideration.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
In view of the bankruptcies declared in Ontario, for which the Prudential Finance Corporation Limited and its subsidiary companies are responsible-which bankruptcies involved the loss of some $60 million-can the minister inform the house if he has received from one Mr. Gruberg, of Toronto, representations accompanied by affidavits, with regard to the fact that this company had committed certain irregularities? If so, does he intend to take the necessary steps so that an inquiry may be made into the matter?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: I really cannot see that it has very much to do with the Minister of National Revenue if a firm goes bankrupt-unless, of course, they go bankrupt paying their income tax. I have not received any such representations to my knowledge.

December 1, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



REPORTED PARTIAL AGREEMENT IN NEGOTIATION OF RAILWAY DISPUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that last night, at midnight, the second deadline set for mediation following the recent rail strike expired, is the minister in a position to make a report on the state of these negotiations?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The mediator did report to me early this morning. There were four groups of unions involved in the mediation proceedings. The report is not a long one and perhaps it would be as well for me to read it.
First, agreement on terms of settlement has been reached between the railway companies and the negotiations committee of the ten railway shopcraft unions. The terms of settlement, subject to ratification by the membership, involve a three-year agreement which covers, among other matters, improvements in wages and fringe benefits, a differential in skills and a provision for negotiation to finality on the adverse effects of technological change.
That, I think, calls for some commendation of the mediator, because of the important part which the Freedman report has played in these negotiations. At least there has been agreement by the parties to work this thing out to finality. If this is done there should be no need for legislation as suggested in the report.
The second group of employees, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, is still in negotiation with the companies. These employees have asked the mediator to advise the Minister of Labour that they desire to continue these negotiations under his auspices. An order in council was passed this morning pursuant to that request and mediation will continue with a further direction to the mediator to report not later than December 17.
Negotiations to date between the railway companies and the residual non-operating railway employees have not resulted in any agreement, and as I have previously mentioned, the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers withdrew from the negotiations late last week without notice to either the railway companies or to the mediator.


Hon. Michael Starr (Oniario):: Since the Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General workers has withdrawn from the negotiations, being unwilling to continue under the mediator, may I ask whether the clause which provides for compulsory arbitration will now be put into effect as far as this group is concerned?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In view of the request which has been made and the decision of the government to extend the mediation period it seems highly desirable that as many of these issues as possible should be settled before reference is made to an arbitrator, should it be necessary to resort to compulsory arbitration. I do not think any decision on this aspect should be taken until the results of this further mediation process, which constitutes genuine collective bargaining, are known.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I did not
quite understand the minister's explanation of the state of these negotiations. Where agreement has not been reached, is mediation now ended by virtue of the fact that the extension was granted only until November 30? Or is the minister taking some other step at the request of the mediator, or either of the parties?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: We have extended the term of the mediation to include all groups, even though only one of them has completed an agreement. Encouraging progress has been made in the case of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, furthermore the residual non-operating group is meeting in Montreal this afternoon. I am hopeful that negotiations may soon be resumed under the guidance of the mediator.
In regard to the Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, again many of the items there are common to the other three, and I think in the long run we would be better off if we defer making any decision with respect to arbitration. But let us hope it can be avoided by an agreed settlement on the eve of Christmas.


David Lewis: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, the minister used a term which got me a little confused. He spoke of the terms of mediation. Did the minister mean the terms of the order in council passed this morning include all these groups?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is an extension of the original order that was passed back in September.

December 1, 1966



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, in reference to a number of questions I asked in the house a couple of weeks ago, concerning the possible redemption of the 3 per cent perpetual bonds. Has the Prime Minister as yet had an opportunity of discussing with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, any possible methods or procedures for redeeming these 3 per cent perpetual bonds which have been held by many Canadians in good faith, as a saving and investment, for many years?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Finance.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, there was a little confusion in the house and I did not quite hear the Prime Minister's answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Finance, who may be in a position to say a word or two about it now.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a number of representations in the house and many hundreds by mail. We have examined the problem very carefully and we cannot see any more equitable way of dealing with it than the decision that was made by the government not to redeem the bonds.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As a supplementary question, would not the Minister of Finance give consideration to some methods whereby these bonds could be redeemed from those who have held them in good faith and as a saving for many years? Surely some administrative procedure could be found to redeem the bonds held by these persons?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have answered a number of questions on this point during the last two weeks. To redeem only the bonds held by those who have held them until now would do a grave injustice to those who sold them at big discounts, and altogether I can find no answer to this problem that is any more satisfactory than the decision to allow these bonds to be what they are, namely perpetual bonds, and not to take advantage of the
Inquiries of the Ministry occasion that arose to redeem them. To redeem them would have given a large capital gain to some people and would have been an injustice to those who sold them early.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is the Minister of Finance not concerned that since there is so much public interest in this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: -this decision may seriously disrupt the sale of future bonds?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this supplementary question is not in order.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, as a further supplementary to the Minister of Finance, does he not think it would be a good idea to do something to restore confidence in these bonds?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the house may know, there has been no effect whatever upon confidence in Canadian government securities. Indeed, when the Canada Savings Bonds were issued recently we had a record sale, and I am sure all members of the house are satisfied with the result.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is he aware that a Canadian missionary, Father Almanzard Menard, o.m.i., is reported to have been carved up alive in Lesotho, in the south of Africa, during a ritual murder? Will he check those facts and, if need be, demand that such barbaric acts be never perpetrated again?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that.
When we heard that Father Almanzard Menard, of the Oblate Order, had been assassinated on June 30 in his mission near the
December 1, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry capital of Lesotho, formerly Basutoland, I instructed our embassy in South Africa to make an investigation.
Our embassy immediately got in touch with the police in Lesotho, which confirmed that Father Menard had been stabbed several times and that this murder had been committed during a burglary involving a certain amount of money. We are told now that four Basutos, who had been arrested by the police in Lesotho last September with regard to Father Menard's death, have been formally charged with that murder and that the case will be heard by the High Court of Lesotho early in 1967.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the speech from the throne in Quebec today it was proposed that legislation be introduced asserting "exclusive jurisdiction by the province over old age security within the province"? I ask him whether there has been any discussion on this matter between the government of the Dominion of Canada and the government of Quebec, and has this departure from the legislation passed by parliament and approved generally by the provinces, been decided upon as a result of agreement and consultation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have an opportunity to see the speech from the throne in question, delivered today in Quebec. I have not yet had that opportunity and I prefer not to comment on any part of it until I have a chance to read it.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the Prime Minister if there has been any discussion between these two governments on this matter, or is the government of Quebec acting unilaterally in stating this legislation is going to be brought in?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there has been no discussion on this matter in the terms in which my right hon. friend referred to it as being in the speech from the throne.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nofre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, or in his absence to his parliamentary secretary. Would the minister tell the house whether he has received reports that several Canadian ship-pern, including Du Pont of Canada, are switching their shipping business to the port of New York from the port of Montreal because the port of Montreal has failed to introduce certain efficiency measures that are required?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to have the departmental officials look into this matter at once.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that it takes a period of two weeks by mail for the Western Catholic Reporter to arrive in Nova Scotia from Edmonton, and that the Canadian Register takes 7 days to reach Nova Scotia from Kingston, Ontario, would the Postmaster General be so kind as to investigate the reason for this rather poor service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The minister has noted the representations, but I do not think the matter can be raised as a question at this time.


Robert Muir: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate your remarks, but with all due deference to you, sir, a few moments ago we had a number of questions on bonds which I presume were purchased over a period of time. This is a question that has been brought to my attention not only by the clergy but by a newspaper in Nova Scotia which printed an editorial about it. It is something that is current and I think is rather important.


Mr. Speaker:: 

NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) raised a question with respect to a film produced by the National Film Board, and quoted a story in the New York Times. His complaint was that a film had been produced by an agency of government, the National Film Board, and had been shown for the first time in the United States.
I have now ascertained that the facts are as follows: The film was premiered in English on the C.B.C.'s English television network on May 15 last, and in French on the French network on May 29. Twenty nine English prints have been in circulation since June in Canada, and 16 French language prints since July. The occasion to which the hon. member referred was perhaps the first private showing to a private audience in New York, and I am informed that the attendance included the Canadian Consul General. However, the film has been widely released in Canada for over five months.
As to the film content I am informed it is not a racist film. It was built around a Toronto man who was interned in concentration camps during the war, and who took his son back to the camps on a pilgrimage to expose him to the horrors which took place there. The film is called by a very learned film viewer, Pat Pearce of Montreal a "philosophy on film". It has been entered in international film festivals at Venice, San Francisco, Montreal and Vancouver and has won a prize at each.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that most of my letters regarding taxation problems in respect of woodlots, gravel pits and lakefront lots have been answered with the suggestion that the Carter commission report may contain recommendations in this regard, and in view of the fact that my questions before the committee have been treated in the same way, I should like to ask how soon we can expect the Carter commission report to be completed.
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I am still unable to answer that question. I indicated the other day that some parts of the report were now in the hands of the printer, but I am really not in a position yet to forecast the date we will receive it.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-FEDERAL FUNDS TO ASSIST IN BUILDING PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['No, Mr. Speaker, I have not.']
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has received any further requests from the premier of British Columbia for federal financial assistance in the building of public projects in that province?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I might say that the requests we have received were fairly large in themselves.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has received any communication regarding the statement of the new prime minister of Barbados about taking the initiative in joining the O.A.S., and the relationship of this decision to Canada? If not, can the minister make a statement regarding Canada's policy in this respect?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
In view of the results of the vote taken by C.B.C. French network employees could the minister tell us whether he intends to leave the decision arising out of that vote in the hands of the Canada Labour Relations Board or whether he intends to have a special investigation on the vote and to take the necessary steps to accede to the requests of those C.B.C. French network employees?
December 1, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the official result of the representation vote, that was ordered by the Canada Labour Relations Board in respect of the application of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, has been or is being sent out to the parties involved. I might also say that it has been reported to me that the result of the vote is being challenged in advance by the applicant. The matter is receiving consideration by the board and until I have a further report I can make no additional statement.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Would the minister tell us whether he intends to let pass all the decisions taken by the C.L.R.B. or whether he proposes to have a special investigation made by his department into the problem created by that vote?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the minister endeavours to follow the provisions of the statute which refers certain things to a board rather than to the minister. When a matter falls within the ambit of the minister's jurisdiction or the responsibility of my department, we try to do our duty; but when it falls clearly within the ambit of or the jurisdiction of the board, the board must deal with it, not the minister.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. A couple of days ago he indicated that Judge Montpetit had been asked to mediate in the dispute between the government and the Public Service Alliance regarding a pay increase for civil servants in group D. Can the minister say whether any progress has been made in connection with this matter?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, since yesterday Judge Montpetit has been meeting with representatives of the Treasury Board, myself, and representatives of the Public Service Alliance. A meeting was held this morning and I think I am at liberty to say that an agreement has

been reached whereby an interim increase of 7 per cent for the remaining employees in group D, other than postal workers, has been agreed upon by the parties.
I should make it clear that this is an interim increase as of last October. After we get into collective bargaining any further increase can be dated back to October of this year, whereas the settlement with postal workers at approximately 10.5 per cent was a final settlement for the ten month period.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister as yet had any word on the progress of talks between Prime Minister Wilson of the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Smith of Southern Rhodesia?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think they have met as yet.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance and it is based on a news item which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail regarding some negotiations that appear to be going on involving the British International Finance Corporation in Toronto. Mr. S. M. Stevens, who is one of the principals of the organization of the Western Bank of Canada, has this to say:
Mr. Stevens said the various reorganizations will result in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot ask a question in that form.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, this news item reports that a British financial organization is, by a rather devious method, apparently about to obtain 50 per cent of the stock of the new Bank of Western Canada. The reason I ask the question is that this appears to be an ingenious method by which a foreign investor can evade the legislation that is now before the committee-
December 1, 196S


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member ask his question as we now have only a few minutes left for the question period.


Colin Cameron: Can the minister tell us whether he has seen this report and, if so, is he going to take any steps to see whether this evasion of legislation now before the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs is constitutional?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have not seen this item, but I will certainly look into the matter. The Bank of Western Canada has not yet been given a certificate to begin operations.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I was not sure that I was hearing correctly yesterday, but I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees with a statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs which is recorded in Hansard at page 10553 as follows:
-the Canadian initiative at the United Nations during the past few days is generally regarded as being one of the factors that has now moved the United Nations from the immobilism of the last 16 years.
Does the Prime Minister agree with that statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unnecessary for me to say that I agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.

Can the Minister of Labour tell the house whether a man by the name of Dick Hoo-gendoorn has been fired after ten years of service with the Greening Metal Product and Screening Equipment Company of Toronto for having refused to pay his syndicate fee to the United Metal Workers of America because this syndicate supports the N.D.P.?
Medicare



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Pritiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister regarding the subject of capital punishment. Is the government bill for the abolition of capital punishment now being prepared and, if so, when will it be placed on the order paper?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this whole matter is still under consideration.



CANADIAN ECONOMY

[Stage Direction]
IMPOSITION OF CEILING ON FOOD PRICES On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Has he considered the possibility of imposing a ceiling on food prices in 1967?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is of a very general nature and I do not think that the hon. member can ask it at this time.



PENITENTIARIES

[Stage Direction]
REPORT ON MAXIMUM SECURITY UNITS On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he has yet received a report from the committee headed by Mr. Justice Ouimet to deal with the problem surrounding maximum security in special detention units and, if so, when he intends to make it public?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have received the report and I expect to meet with Mr. Justice Ouimet and other members of the committee next week in this regard.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-227, to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1966
Medicare
provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On subclause C£)- "Medical practitioner".
The Chairman:: When the committee rose yesterday afternoon it was considering subclause (f) of clause 2 of the bill.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, it has been said several times that, because of its importance and scope, we must give the bill under consideration much attention and study it in detail. Once again I want to remind the minister that because private health insurance plans now in force are ignored, the employees concerned and the workers in general will surely suffer.
Barely a few minutes ago I was speaking with one of my former fellow workers at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in Saint-Hyacinthe and he pointed out to me that the 700 odd employees of that plant have their own insurance plan which gives them satisfaction. It is interesting to know, for instance, that the whole premium is paid by the employer; the employee does not contribute anything. Participation in the plan guarantees to all the plant workers a $2,000 life insurance payable at death, and medical-surgical insurance, if my memory serves me right, of up to $600 a year. The children and dependants of the worker are insured. All this is covered by negotiations between management and labour when the collective agreement is reviewed every two years.
To my mind, the hon. minister should not take these facts lightly; on the contrary, he should give them serious consideration.
May I repeat again, Mr. Chairman, that the amendments we are now proposing, the pressure we are bringing to bear on the minister so that he may accept them, do not stem from political interest or a desire to filibuster. We have but one goal, and that is to make this measure as nearly perfect as possible and to ensure that the greatest possible number of Canadians are covered. May I repeat also that the purpose of the minister should be to alleviate as much as possible the effects of poverty for, in the case of large families, medical and surgical care has become prohibitive. It is common knowledge that when the time comes to pay medical bills, the father of a large family, whose income is relatively low, always has problems.
Several of the former speakers have pointed out one aspect in particular to the minister. I

should, in turn, like to urge him to include optometrists' care in the plan. I have on hand two telegrams received today. The first reads as follows:
We urge legislators to include in Bill No. C-227 (medicare) visual services performed by optometrists to do justice to our graduates who undergo specialized training which is highly appreciated by the public.
The telegram, Mr. Chairman, is signed by Mr. J. A. Messier, director of Montreal university's school of optometry.
The other telegram reads as follows:
The College des optornctristes of the province of Quebec, through its president, strongly protests against the exclusion of optometrists from Bill C-227.
The college has not been consulted in any way and, on the contrary, it denies the statement of minister MacEachen assuming that our optometrists are satisfied with his amendment.
To exclude optometrists from Bill C-227 would be prejudicial to the greater part of the Quebec population and particularly to that of Canada, which is larger.
And this telegram was signed by Mr. Pierre Crevier, O.D., president of the C.O.P.Q.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to repeat to the hon. minister that, by ignoring representations made to him by medical practitioners, here in this house and by spokesmen for the Quebec optometrists, he is doing the population a disservice. Eye specialists have a heavy agenda with appointments made weeks ahead of time. By refusing to acknowledge the services rendered to the people by optometrists, we are discriminating against this profession and we are also placing large families, more particularly, in an unfavourable position. If the minister and the government really have the interest of Canadians at heart, they can no longer stand against including in this bill the services referred to.
In closing, I ask the minister most earnestly to acknowledge the services given by optometrists.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Chairman, I do trust that the minister, having celebrated the feast of St. Andrew, will demonstrate greater flexibility in the continued debate on the bill than he has previously shown.
The Minister of Health and Welfare has been firm regarding the definition of a "medical practitioner" as a doctor of medicine, and the definition of "medical services" contained in the resolution, as only those medical care services which are rendered by a
December 1, 1966

doctor of medicine. Not only has the minister been firm in his position but also very unreasonable. He has flatly stated that only doctors of medicine perform medical service, indicating thereby that the provincial statutes of Canada and the state laws in the United States-where licensed doctors of surgical podiatry and doctors of podiatric medicine treat foot diseases by medical and surgical means -are meaningless and that only his definition is correct.
He suggested to us that if a doctor of medicine reduces a fractured bone in a foot and puts a cast on it, this is medical care service. Yet, if a podiatrist does it, it is not.
He also said that if a doctor of medicine makes an incision in a patient's foot with a scalpel, removes tissue or bone and then closes the incision with sutures, this is medical care service, but if a podiatrist were to make the same incision, remove the same lesion and close the incision with the same sutures, this is not medical care service.
The minister said that if a doctor of medicine administers or prescribes an antibiotic for the treatment of an active infection in a patient's foot, this is medical care service, but if a podiatrist administers or prescribes the same antibiotic for the treatment of the same infection in the same foot, then this is not medical care service. The minister's unreasonable position is absolutely incomprehensible, devoid of common sense and impossible to analyse.
The minister must acknowledge that there are two groups of professional men who are granted licences to treat feet. The licence of the doctor of medicine permits him to treat the whole body, medically or surgically, the podiatrist's licence permits him only to treat the foot, medically and surgically. It is for this reason he is often referred to as the physician and surgeon of the foot.
Since the podiatrist is a foot specialist he is expected to be, and generally is, more knowledgeable and proficient in the care of the human foot and its afflictions than is the general physician and surgeon. However, this is not what is under debate, since the number of podiatrists on the staffs of hospitals in North America could well be an indication of the efficacy of that line of thinking.
The minister may choose to ignore this, but he cannot ignore the fact that both doctors of medicine and doctors of surgical podiatry are licensed by law to treat feet. He cannot brush aside the fact that by excluding licensed podiatrists from the bill he is discriminating
Medicare
against them and committing genocide of the profession of podiatry in Canada.
How can anyone compete with free care? How can doctors of surgical podiatry, if excluded from coverage and thereby forced to charge their patients for services rendered, compete with doctors of medicine who, being included, can provide the service free of charge?
If the minister does not wish to discriminate against legally qualified and licensed podiatrists, and at the same time does not wish to include podiatrists in the bill, then he must remove from the list of compensable services under medicare any form of care or treatment of feet by anyone. If the minister wishes to do this-which I certainly do not think would be advisable, but we know he has the power to do so-then, at least he cannot be accused of committing professional genocide or of discrimination.
However, if he feels as I do, that the care of the human foot is vital to the health of its owner, then he must recognize the right of Canadian citizens to choose freely whatever licensed practitioner they wish to treat their feet. Any other action would demonstrate a total lack of concern based on chimerical thinking and the reluctance to face true facts.
The ways and means committee of the United States Congress has prepared a recommendation which will be presented to the Congress when it reconvenes after the new year. It included under compensable services the services of licensed doctors of surgical podiatry who qualify under the definition of the term "physician" and sets out the functions which they are legally authorized to perform by the state in which they practise.
To my knowledge no recommendation of the ways and means committee has ever been rejected, and there is no reason to believe that this one will be. Are the citizens of the United States so much better than the citizens of Canada that they deserve the services of foot specialists under their medicare plan while our people do not? Is it the intention of the minister to withdraw the services of podiatrists under the bill? If this is to be done, then the people of Canada will only receive partial medical services. Is this the objective of the bill?
What is the minister's position on this matter? Are "all medical care services" as indicated in the bill, to be covered, or are they not? Surely the minister is aware of the increasing incidence of foot trouble and the resultant increased demand for care. Such a

December 1, 1966
Medicare
common problem should surely be covered by medicare. Would the minister be good enough to explain his position clearly in this matter?


Herman Maxwell Batten: 
Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a comment regarding subclause (f). I have been advised by the president of the Nova Scotia Dentists Society that the recommendations of the Hall royal commission provide a solution which we have all been seeking.
The problem we have been facing is how to provide these other services under a proper definition. Unfortunately, I have only been able to glance rapidly through the volume which was sent to me and I cannot find the specific recommendation. The minister will undoubtedly be able to find it since I am sure he has seen the Hall royal commission report. I understand that the applicable recommendation is recommendation 213.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is subclause (f) agreed to?


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Brand:: Is it possible to have a vote on this subclause?


Herman Maxwell Batten: I can say to the hon. member for Saskatoon that we have before the committee one clause.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
While for convenience the committee has agreed to go through the clause paragraph by paragraph, I think it might be better to vote on the clause as a whole rather than on each paragraph. This is why the Chair has asked whether this completes discussion on the paragraph, rather than carrying the paragraph.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to detain the committee for long.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; is the hon. member speaking on subclause (f) or on subclause (g)?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On subclause (f); I should like to make one comment before the clause passes. I hope the minister will not carry out the proposal he made the other evening when he said that in order to remove what appears to be discrimination between optometrists and ophthalmologists he would ask the provinces to refrain from providing eye refraction services under their programs when provided by ophthalmologists. I have already expressed

my opinion, as have the members of this party, that eye refraction services should be available to insured persons both from optometrists and ophthalmologists. If the minister is not prepared to take this step in respect of services provided by optometrists, I hope he will not use any pressure on the provincial governments to persuade them to discontinue including these services when provided by ophthalmologists.
Eye correction is a very important service, particularly for children. It seems to me that if this service is taken out it will very considerably weaken the purpose of this bill, which is to provide insured medical care services.
I am sure that many provinces will resist such a proposal. I think the minister will run into a good deal of unnecessary opposition. Naturally, I regret that he has not accepted the amendment which I proposed, which would have allowed the Governor in Council to include paramedical services. However, as I say, I hope the minister will not restrict the services now envisaged in this measure and that eye refractions will be a service which insured persons can receive from ophthalmologists. Such a step would be a retrograde one, and I hope the minister keeps this point in mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, in this connection I wonder whether the minister would consider tabling, when Mr. Speaker is in the chair either today or tomorrow, the correspondence that he has had on this matter. The other evening he said he had received communications from some optometrists supporting the change at which he hinted. I wonder whether he would also table letters or communications he has received with respect to that position from the optometric association, giving us that association's official position on his proposed change.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, following up the comments which have just been made by the previous two speakers may I say there are many overlapping instances of health care provided under the minister's definition of medical services, which if restricted solely to those rendered by a medical doctor, affect other professions in addition to that of optometry. If the minister is going to table the correspondence he has had from the optometric associations or other individuals, would he also table the correspondence received from the chiropractic associations and individual chiropractors, from dentists and the dental association and from those of the podiatry profession and its association?
December 1, 1966

105SX
All of this relates specifically to the principle involved here, as the minister defines the strict limitation of the term "medical practitioners" and "medical services."
May I also say in this regard that I hope the minister will give very serious consideration to reversing the stand he has taken on this question. One hon. member used to word "retrograde". I think that this particular decision of the minister is an extremely narrow and unfortunate one. Certainly, his definition of this term Which requires the bill to be limited in this way will result not only in hardship being worked on the sick people in Canada but it is also unfair and unjust.
If we are to have a medicare program to take care of the cost of services rendered by doctors, it is imperative that it cover the very widest scope of services available, instead of being limited to one particular service. Not only is this unfair but, in my opinion, it just does not make sense.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Chairman, I posed two questions to the minister and I am wondering whether he could answer them before this clause carries.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman asked some questions which I did attempt to answer earlier in the committee. We have taken the view that contributions will be made to the provinces for medical services performed by medical practitioners. It will, of course, be the responsibility of the provinces, within their own boundaries, to designate the medical practitioners concerned. For that reason and because of that approach it is quite true, as my hon. friend has stated, that we do not propose to insure services of other health professions, including podiatrists.
We have taken the view that the provinces may wish to add additional professions on their own account, and as a consensus develops the federal government will consider sharing with the provinces the cost of these additional professions at some future time.
A great point has been made in this committee that the omission of certain health professions from the provisions of this bill may be very damaging to them. May I remind the members of the committee that in the four public plans established in the provinces none of these professions is presently included. For example, optometry is not included in any public plan, including the OMSIP plan of Ontario and the Saskatchewan plan. It is true that in Alberta limited services provided by optometrists are included. To my knowledge, 23033-670
Medicare
in none of these plans is the profession of podiatry included. So, in this regard we are following practices established by the provinces.


Robert Norman Thompson: Why do you not lead them
in this field?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Indeed, Mr. Chairman, we are leading in establishing or laying the foundations of a system of medical care insurance in Canada. We have always stated that our program will be limited to services provided by physicians at the initial stage, and this is what this bill provides.
If my hon. friend has any further questions I would be happy to answer them if I can.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: May I just ask the minister whether he would agree that podiatrists, as I pointed out, are licensed in the same way as are doctors.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
They perform the same operations. A podiatrist performs operations that a doctor performs on certain parts of the body. I cannot for the life of me see how the minister can discriminate between optometrists and ophthalmologists. They are both licenced to carry out the same procedures. I should like to know how the minister can discriminate in this way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
minister to comment on my request for the tabling of certain correspondence? I do not wish to prejudice the position of the hon. member for Red Deer in asking for something of wider range, but because the minister has said that he might bring in an amendment having to do with optometric services would he consider tabling the documents that bear on the very point he has raised, the possibility of introducing exclusions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I will consider whether this letter can be tabled. I want to see whether one letter from an optometrist is written in a personal or confidential way, before tabling it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do I gather that the minister has had only one letter in support of the exclusion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I made it perfectly clear, not trying to misrepresent the attitude of the profession, that the profession wanted inclusion of the services. In a letter from the

December 1, 1966
Medicare
profession, alternatives are set out. The desirable alternative of course from the profession's point of view is inclusion. I must look at this one letter, however. There has been a great deal of correspondence. In any discussion with individual optometrists that I have had, they have accepted the idea that the proposal is a workable solution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the minister will table sufficient documents so that we can see what the view of those optometrists is, and whether it is the view of individual optometrists or the view of the association.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The official view of the profession is, of course, that the profession should be included. I would not want to misrepresent that in any way.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, that is the point I wanted to make, because the minister said on November 29, as recorded on page 10540 of Hansard, that giving the provinces the right to exclude eye refractions-[DOT]
-is not the most desirable move from the point of view of the optometric profession, but I have had letters from members of the profession saying that this would be an acceptable solution for them.
By those words the minister created the impression that spokesmen for the profession had indicated this would be acceptable. I am sure other hon. members are in the same position I am, receiving a host of telegrams from all over the country from coast to coast.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In both languages.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In both languages; my telegrams included one from the president of the British Columbia Optometric Association, and one from the president of the Canadian Association of Optometrists. Both telegrams stated that what the minister had said was contrary to the views of the association. Perhaps I might read this telegram from the president of the Canadian Association of Optometrists:
Exclusion of eye examination from Bill C-227 as prepared by health minister MacEachen is not in public interest and Canadian Association of Optometrists reiterates its position in urging government to amend bill to include optometric services which are the same as those performed by opthalmologists.
It is therefore clear that the views of spokesmen for the optometric profession, including those from the national association and others from coast to coast in Canada, are contrary to those of the minister.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, as we pointed out yesterday, the minister's proposal is a retrograde step, a step of the most extraordinary illogicality. The minister says, here we have a bill to give comprehensive medicare coverage on a prepaid insurance basis and then says we are going to remove from the bill what is undisputedly an essential medical care service.
I suggest to the minister if he gives the provinces the option to exclude optometric care, and if he does not include other services which are on occasion performed by people who are not qualified medical doctors but who are nevertheless persons providing medical services, he is being not only illogical, but inconsistent with the assurances given by the Prime Minister in 1965 when he outlined to the provinces the scope of the coverage of this bill.
On July 19, the Prime Minister said this to the provinces at the conference, as set out in the release of July 20, 1965:
I said that the plan should offer all services provided by physicians, both general practitioners and specialists. In practice, there probably would be 2 exceptions to this:
(a)	services for which there is entitlement under other federal or provincial legislation, such as the hospital insurance and diagnostic services act and Workmen's Compensation.
(b)	the certain limited types of services might be excluded. I have in mind, for example, cosmetic surgery unless it is required as a medical necessity.
The Prime Minister went on:
Physicians' services, apart from such special exclusion, seem to us to be the minimum scope of benefits which would qualify as medicare.
The Prime Minister then indicated that the only type of medical exclusion contemplated -or the only type of medical service which might be excluded-was cosmetic surgery. There is no hint that optometric services, even though performed by physicians, would be excluded.
But not only does the minister now stubbornly refuse to extend the definitions of "insured medical services" or "medical practitioner" to include the kind of service, which, though a physician's service, can be performed by others, but he even proposes to exclude other services from the bill.
There is clear evidence that the kinds of services given for instance by chiropractors are also the kind of services given by medical practitioners. Qualified doctors are being provided with a diagram reproducing a chart showing the treatments performed by chiropractors many years ago. Comparing such
December 1, 1966

charts of the past with charts now issued by the medical profession, one sees that doctors are providing precisely the same service that was provided by chiropractors. To exclude these related services is indeed to exclude what are properly defined as physicians' services, which the Prime Minister said:
-seem to us to be the minimum scope of benefits which would qualify as medicare.
Not only is the minister taking this extraordinarily illogical step, bringing the whole effect of the bill and its surrounding atmosphere into disrepute, but he is going back completely on the assurance given to the provinces by the Prime Minister of Canada when he first outlined the proposed coverage under the government's medicare bill.
I join with those who urge the minister to reconsider his position, to be consistent, and to play fair and square with the Canadian people and with the provinces of Canada.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, as one fellow Scot to another, from the same island-[DOT]


Stanley Howard Knowles: A tight little island.


Robert Muir: Yes. We have a tight little minister who does not want to include these other professions in the bill. I should think, as a Scot, he would want to include everything he can for his money, or for the people's money, in the bill.


Mr. Davis:: You do not sound like a Tory.


Robert Muir: That interjection was made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano?


John (Jack) Davis: The interjection, so that you may hear it, was, "You do not sound like a Conservative".


Robert Muir: I shall reserve a fuller reply to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano for another occasion.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
However, he was closely involved with the Gordon royal commission and that commission did not have anything good to say about the maritime provinces or the maritime people. The suggestion was that we should get out of Nova Scotia and that no attempt should be made to establish industry, or anything else, there. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano was one of the sponsors of this crazy report, and I hope that what happened to the 23033-6701
Medicare
former minister of finance will happen to him. Is there anything else the hon. member for Coast-Capilano wishes to say?


John (Jack) Davis: Since the hon. member has invited me to comment, I will simply say that if his reading of the bill presently before the committee is as bad as his misreading of my work in connection with the Gordon commission, then God help us.


Robert Muir: That is just what I might have expected. It is hard to get new wine out of an old bottle. Perhaps the hon. member for Coast-Capilano will advise us that he was only sharpening pencils for the Gordon royal commission.
The hon. member for one of the Ottawa constituencies asked a question the other day. That was his maiden speech in the house. I would ask him to relax for a moment while I say a few words to the minister.


Mr. Tardif:: Your speeches do not give me any inspiration, I must say.


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I remind the committee that the question before us now is paragraph (f) of clause 2?


Robert Muir: I will be glad to comply with that expression of your views, Mr. Chairman. We will leave the hon. member for Russell to remain seated on what little brains he has.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Robert Muir: The hon. lady from Westmorland is shocked, I see. She made a howling noise. Let us hope she does not get too worried before I am finished.


An hon. Member:: She is thinking of her lunch.


Robert Muir: We will ignore those remarks from the other side.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Postmaster General feels left out.


Robert Muir: Let me say that the Postmaster General, to my mind, has always been a gentleman. I can only speak of him as I find him, in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
To return to what I began to say, I should like to impress upon the minister the importance of including optometrists within the

December 1, 1966
Medicare
scope of this bill. I am sure no one will understand better than he does that their exclusion would bring about great hardship in his own area as well as in Nova Scotia in general and, would think, throughout the country. These men are doing good work. I am really surprised that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough has not risen to espouse this move to have them included in the bill. I am sure optometrists must perform as good a service in Antigonish county, as they in other parts of the country.
The hon. member for Red Deer and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had something to say about the tabling of documents and representations. I have great respect for the medical profession, but I wonder whether in this connection the minister would consider tabling any correspondence he has received from the Canadian Medical Association; I am interested in finding out whether the association has made any statements opposing the inclusion of optometrists within the terms of the bill. Perhaps the minister would advise the committee whether he has received representations directly or indirectly from members of the Canadian Medical Association opposing the inclusion of optometrists. This might throw light on the situation. I may be wrong and, if so, I stand to be corrected, but I have the impression, and I have been informed, that opposition to the inclusion of optometrists has come from the medical profession. As I say, I hope I am wrong. I hope my information is erroneous.
Next, I should like to impress upon the minister the importance of including chiropractors in the bill. The hon. gentleman will know from personal experience that many coalminers undergo manipulative treatment at the hands of chiropractors. I have been treated myself by these doctors, and there are many like me in this respect. The minister must know this, because he has come into contact with coalminers in his own area on many occasions. I am sure he realizes the importance of this profession to men who have been broken up in the coal mines and who experience relief as a result of these services of chiropractors.
May I read into the record at this point a telegram which has been received by my hon. friend from Simcoe East from D. C. Sutherland, Executive Secretary, Canadian Chiropractic Association? It reads:
Proposal to remove eye refractions from Bill C-227 would open way to serious abuse and is no solution to problem. Representative of physical medicine asked Ontario Royal Commission on

Workmen's Compensation Act on October eleventh 1966 to recognize chiropractic vertebral manipulation when performed by a physician.
This is direct overlapping. Grave injustice to include one profession but not the other in bill C-227. If eye refractions removed then vertebral or spinal manipulation by physicians must be removed, however this discriminates against patients requiring these services. Paramedical services already being included in provincial plans and should be included at federal level.
As I said, this telegram as signed by D. C. Sutherland, Executive Secretary, Canadian Chiropractic Association. Having regard to this telegram and to the many other representations which I presume the minister has received, I hope that not only optometrists but chiropractors will be included in the provisions of this legislation.
In closing, I can only re-emphasize the importance of optometry, particularly in the maritimes.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I am sure the minister is so fully aware of this that he will reconsider and try to make some changes. I hope he will definitely state whether representations have been made by the Canadian Medical Association, directly or in some other manner, that optometrists should not be included. As I said before, I hope I am in error but I would like to have that clarified.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, there have been representations from the profession itself urging the inclusion of optometry. I do not remember getting any representations from the medical profession, either in writing or by word of mouth, asking that members of the optometric profession be not included in the bill.
We have taken the position that we should begin with medical practitioners. I appreciate the comments that have been made by hon. members with respect to the contribution made in the health field by optometry and, undoubtedly, as these plans mature in Canada additional professions will be added as insured services. The fact that optometry and a number of other professions are not included is not to be regarded as any indication that their services are not valuable.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the view expressed by the minister now, and expressed by him when the resolution was before the house, to the effect that other professional groups and other services would eventually be included in the general term medical care. May I ask him why it would not be advantageous from his point of view, as
December 1, 1966

well as from the public's point of view, to include these services now and to give the Governor in Council a free hand to bring these services into effect as the situation warranted and in the light of the experience when the federal and the provincial governments found it advisable to do so?
I understand the minister to be saying that this narrow and restrictive interpretation of medical care services is going to stand now, and that later on if it is found advisable to add other services, then the legislation will be amended. Surely, the minister knows that to get a bill through parliament takes some time. Would it not be better from his point of view, and from that of the general public, to have these services provided for in this bill and then give the Governor in Council authority to bring these services into effect by order in council, whenever it is deemed advisable to do so? Does the minister not think from his point of view that this would be a much happier way of proceeding?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam was carefully considered. I personally felt there was a great deal of merit in his proposal but we were in the position, on the ruling from the Chair, that the amendment went beyond the scope of the resolution. If there were some way to overcome that difficulty I would still at least consider the possibility of doing something along the lines suggested by the hon. member.
That is the only point of difficulty with respect to his proposal. It seemed to me that it went beyond the scope of the resolution and, after reading the relevant article in the B.N.A. Act, I was quite worried that any expenditures made pursuant to the inclusion of a profession later on might be held to be unconstitutional.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does the minister envisage that there will be a series of dominion-provincial conferences from now on dealing with medicare, and that these conferences will be asked to recommend adjustments in the plan both to this parliament and to the legislatures of the provinces? Is that the only way we will be able to make the changes and additions that we have been talking about for several days? It seems to me that we will have a very rigid scheme that can be adjusted or changed only with extraordinary difficulty, by legislative enactments rather than the making of regulations.
Medicare


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the hon. member for Halifax has described the situation accurately, when he says that any further additions or inclusions of professions would require amendments to this bill or new legislation. I am quite sure that as time goes on there will be additions, and that provinces undoubtedly will want to extend the scope of their plans. We have stated that as a consensus develops among the provinces for additional services, then the federal government will consider sharing the costs of including additional professions and additional services.
Under the legislation as it now stands, to include further groups would require legislative amendments. We have already had at least three federal-provincial conferences in this general field. We are now having careful discussions with at least two provinces with respect to their future planning. Officials from my department and from the province of Saskatchewan have had discussions. We have also had discussions at the official level between the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia. That province now has an advisory health commission, if that is the correct expression, studying this bill and it is considering how a plan could be developed within that province to take advantage of this bill.
I am not trying to declare policy for the government of Nova Scotia, except to describe that there is very close consultation now with respect to how a plan might be developed in that province. I hope to have a chance, possibly at the week end, to meet with some of the officials in Halifax who are working on this matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: December 1, 1966
Medicare
include these other professions, as experience indicates they are warranted.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the minister for his explanation as to the procedure which would have to be followed in order to amend this bill and bring about changes.
One real danger which we now face is that changes can be made only as a result of an agreement between 11 authorities, that is the parliament of Canada and ten legislatures, yet any important change to this medicare legislation can be vetoed by any one. That is what bothers a number of members on this side of the chamber.
In my earlier remarks I referred to paragraph 213 of the recommendations of the Hall royal commission on health services as providing a means of solving our dilemma. I apologize for misleading the committee by referring them to this recommendation which seems to deal mainly with the title "doctor". The point I wish to make is that the recommendation in respect of the subject we are now dealing with is to be found at page 32 of the first volume of that royal commission report. The recommendation is No. 30 and it reads:
That the medical services benefit include the services of general practitioners and specialists, provided in the office, hospital, patient's home, and group practice clinic.
The medical services benefit should incorporate the following insured services:-
I will not quote them all because they run from (a) to (o), but included among them in (m) is a reference to podiatric and chiropractic treatment prescribed by a physician. This is one of the points we tried to make, albeit unsuccessfully.
The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria referred to certain situations in the Cape Breton coal fields. These services are prescribed by a physician but carried out by experts in various fields such as chiropractry and podiatry. I wanted to indicate that recommendation No. 30 is very clear in this regard.


Mr. Madill:: It is my feeling, Mr. Chairman, that when legislation in respect of universal medical services is brought into effect it should be as good or better than those plans already in existence in various parts of Canada underwritten by insurance companies and co-operative associations. I include in this category P.S.I.

P.S.I. first came into existence in the town of Orangeville, in the county of Dufferin in the province of Ontario. If the plan now before us does not provide as many services as are provided by the various plans to which I referred I think we should change it now.
As we all know, osteopaths and chiropractors work with physicians and surgeons in treating veterans in our military hospitals. Our county doctors and nurses, under our school health plans, check the general health of our students including dental health and eye conditions. When these doctors recommend that a student should go to a dentist or an optometrist, I believe those services should be covered. Now, while this bill is being considered clause by clause, is the time to incorporate some of these services. I hope the minister will compare this legislation with some of those plans which have been pioneered and reviewed from time to time in order that all services can be covered by the present legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairm'an, I should like to thank the minister for his kindness in replying to my earlier remarks. He stated that no representations had been received along the lines I suggested from the Canadian Medical Association, and for this I am grateful. I should like to ask him at this time whether he feels that optometrists and chiropractors are providing necessary services in this country, and particularly in the area of Cape Breton island.
The hon. minister is from that area of Canada and has a great deal of experience, having travelled extensively in the area and consulted with the people. I am sure he knows the people there face a situation somewhat similar to that referred to by the hon. member for Kootenay West. These people will have to travel many miles to obtain the services they require under the provisions of the legislation now before us.
Will the minister relent in respect of the two absolutely necessary services provided by optometrists and chiropractors? I am sure there is no part of this country more important to the minister than Cape Breton island, and I realize that I am being parochial in my approach to this situation. Surely, the minister must realize the hardship these people will have to face if these two services are not included. The professions involved will feel discriminated against.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam hit the nail on the head when he suggested
December 1, 1966

that the minister, the cabinet and the minister's officials should have the power to include extra services when in their good judgment and wisdom-assets that are lacking in the two hon. members who interjected previously-they consider the time is right. Perhaps there is a financial difficulty involved in including them at this time, but at some later date they could be included on a gradual basis. I realize there will be competition as to which should be brought in first, but I do not understand why that difficulty could not be ironed out.
Before I resume my seat, let me say that I would greatly appreciate it if the minister would outline his own feelings regarding the services to which I have referred and their importance in the area from which we both come. I ask him to do this, as one member to another, knowing that we both understand the day to day situation which exists there.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, undoubtedly the services provided by optometrists and chiropractors are important services in the health field. There is no doubt about that and we all accept that view. As I stated earlier, with the passage of time, undoubtedly it will be possible to include these services when a consensus or agreement is reached with the provinces. We are taking a very big step in providing prepaid or insured medical services rendered by medical practitioners.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
That is a big step. It is a costly step for both the federal treasury and the provinces. It will be a big job at this stage for provinces to introduce plans to provide even medical care services.
We have always stated that we would begin with physicians' services. If, at this point, we were to consider, as the hon. member suggests, bringing in further services, unless we adopted an entirely different approach it would be a question of deciding what the next service should be. Should it be dental care for children, or the provision of prescription drugs? Should it be optometric services, or should it be chiropractic services? What is the next order of priority? This is something quite important in the health field.
We have stated as a government, and I think the provinces agree, that the first order of priority is the provision of physicians' services to the Canadian population. In an ideal world it would be possible, I suppose, to bring in the whole health field. May I just mention, however, that the Hall commission did make
Medicare
some comments about optometry and suggested that consideration be given in 1968 to including optometry. In the field of dental care, they set an even later target.
I think it has always been understood that we would move on a gradual basis, on a stage basis; and the first stage is the provision of insured medical services. To the extent that other health professions are not covered, of course the plan is an incomplete one. I think no one has attempted to conceal that fact. At the federal-provincial conference the Prime Minister spoke clearly and said the purpose was to provide, broadly, physicians' services with the possible exclusion of particular items. One example was given, namely, cosmetic surgery, which would not be included.
My predecessor, now the Secretary of State, had discussions with the provincial health ministers as to the possibility of optionally excluding eye refractions as an insured service. There were one or two other services discussed, but this was the principal one discussed with the provinces as a possible optional exclusion.
I can only repeat what I said earlier, that undoubtedly the services rendered by the other health professions are valuable and worth while. We recognize that. The fact that at this stage we are not including their services in the bill is not to be taken as any lack of appreciation for the contribution they are making to the health of the Canadian people.
Mr. Scot! (Victoria (Onl.)): Mr. Chairman, I should like to address a few remarks to the minister in respect of Bill No. C-227. I received a number of letters today from people in my constituency complaining about the omission of optometrists from this bill. I represent approximately 54,000 constituents, and in my area we have four optometrists and one eye doctor. I believe, as do my constituents, that a great injustice will be perpetrated if optometrists are not included in the bill.
Many of our people who should probably have the services of an optometrist will not take care of their eyes because this service will not be an insured service. For approximately every 15,000 people, we have two optometrists. I believe optometrists should be included in the bill because so many people today are compelled to wear glasses.
I congratulate the minister upon his wider view in respect of Bill No. C-227, and hope he will see fit to include in it not only optometrists but chiropractors. This is a field of medical treatment which is becoming more popular all the time. Some of our medical

December 1, 1966
Medicare
doctors are providing chiropractic services within their offices. I believe this matter deserves the consideration of the minister. As we approach our centennial year, I think we should be far enough advanced in our thinking to include these people. The rest of the world would know that we look to a bright future for Canadians if we included chiropractors and optometrists. Many private medical schemes in Ontario offer these services at the present time. I think we will be very lax if we do not include them in Bill No. C-227. I hope the minister will consider including them.
I am very fortunate, as are many members of this house, in that I am not forced to wear glasses. Many service clubs throughout Canada make provision for the care of the eyes. I believe we will be very lax if we do not include optometrists in this bill, in view of the fact that service clubs include them in their welfare programs. They believe this service is very important to the people. In my view, it would be only fair and just if the Canadian government saw fit to include optometrists in Bill No. C-227.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, I have not taken part in the discussion this afternoon because it has been concerned mainly with optometrists and chiropractors, and I expressed my views on these services earlier. I support all the arguments advanced in respect of the inclusion in the bill of these professions. I should like to return to a subject about which I spoke earlier, namely, the inclusion of podiatrists in the definition of "medical practitioner" in the provision of insured medical services.
I know that under the rules of the house I cannot refer to the amendment I made earlier, but I can refer to the remarks made today by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac in support of podiatry. He repeated the arguments advanced for the recognition of podiatrists as medical practitioners. The hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac referred, as have other hon. members, to the training of podiatrists. He also referred to the services provided by podiatrists, such as the medical and surgical care of the feet.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The podiatrist is a trained medical specialist in diseases and ailments of the foot and, as others have said, if podiatrists are not included under the term "medical practitioner" this would be a discrimination against a legally licensed branch of the medical profession. I think others have referred to that as professional genocide.

I do not intend to repeat many of the arguments which have been advanced. I will only quote a statement made by Dr. J. H. MacDermot in an editorial which appeared in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It reads:
He is really a trained specialist, a trained medical specialist, in diseases of the foot.
Farther on, referring to podiatrists, he said:
-medical practice in a limited field ... an important branch of medicine. . . a necessity, an important branch of the medical profession.
I speak of this because of my personal experience with the work of a podiatrist.
While the minister is in the house I would like to ask him a couple of questions.
He stated that any province is free, on its own responsibility and at its own expense, to add under their plans the services of any specialists they choose. He held out the hope that perhaps at a later date the federal government would consider the addition of other professional services. May I ask the minister whether he has received strong representations from the Canadian Podiatric Association requesting the inclusion of that profession under the term "medical practitioner"? If so, have these representations been fully considered?
Another point which I should like to make is that this bill will come into effect not later than July 1, 1968. If the provinces make representations regarding the inclusion of other medical services, such as services rendered by podiatrists and oral surgeons, will the minister consider making the necessary changes in the bill before it becomes law?
In this regard, I certainly support the argument of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that some changes should be made in the bill which would enable rapid amendment by the governor-in-council if the provinces requested the inclusion of extra services and were able to convince the minister of the need for them.
That is all I wish to say, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac advanced the same arguments I had voiced at an earlier date, and I trust the minister will take these into full consideration.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of sympathy for the minister in view of the problems in which he finds himself entwined because, as we look across the Dominion of Canada today, we find that various provinces have set up differing regulations for insured medical services. For this reason I
December 1, 1966

recognize that the minister's position is a difficult one. Nevertheless, I think we must agree that we must go further than the provinces in providing medical care to Canadians. To give an illustration, the province of British Columbia includes the services of chiropractors under its medical care program. In the province of Alberta, other health care is included in the program of that province. In the province of Ontario, we find that the services of podiatrists are paid for under the Workmen's Compensation Board. Surely, this points out the great discrepancy which exists among the provinces. I can appreciate the difficulty of bringing all those points of view together. We, in the committee, must come to some decision because the Hall commission report includes within medical services the services of dentists, optometrists, prescribed drugs, prosthetic services, home care, dental and oral surgery, physiotherapy, podiatric treatment and surgery, and chiropractic treatment.
It seems to me that we must keep in tune with most of the provinces in Canada, and to do this we should provide more services than are included under the provisions of this bill.
As I have said to the minister, I can appreciate his difficulties. I hope I have pointed out the great variation which exists in the services covered under various provincial plans, and the fact that a great many of these services are paid for by co-operative insurance plans. Surely, we in the house should set an example to the provinces and keep up with the thinking of the foremost provinces in the Dominion.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I have not participated in this debate but I have followed it intently. I find that the committee has reached an impasse as far as medical care services are concerned. The minister has his own reasons for not wishing to change the provisions of the bill. Amendments have been submitted and ruled out of order. I think that some way must be found whereby the government may be free to negotiate with the provinces regarding the inclusion under the medical care program of other health services. There might be provinces which do not wish to include certain medical services provided under the bill. In view of this, I wonder whether an amendment which I wish to submit will be acceptable to the government. Unfortunately, I have not made copies of it nor did I have an opportunity to have it translated into French but I will submit the following amendment 23033-671
Medicare
for the consideration of the minister and the committee. It reads as follows:
Delete all words after the word "person" in line 5 and substitute the following:
"who by agreement between any participating province and the federal government is accepted as a person entitled to practise medicine for the purposes of this act".
This amendment does not commit the government to any further expenditure except by agreement between the provinces and the federal government. It seems to me that such an agreement is necessary prior to the enactment of the bill. Surely, a conference must be held so that an agreement may be reached whereby the participating provinces may alter or change their plans in accordance with the bill before us which would make them eligible for federal financial participation in their programs.
I so move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe East.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Ontario has proposed the following amendment:
Delete all words after the word "person" in line 5 and substitute the following:
"who by agreement between any participating province and the federal government is accepted as a person entitled to practise medicine for the purposes of this act".


Michael Starr: Instead of the word "medicine", it should read "medical care services", if you would correct that.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether the precise wording proposed by the hon. member for Ontario fits the language of the clause, and I do not know how the minister intends to treat the proposed amendment, but may I rise to support it and to urge the minister to give consideration to the amendment? It seems to me that it is not open to the objections raised to the previous amendments on the part of the minister and confirmed by the Chair. It is merely a different definition rather than an expansion of the services and would at least give the minister a little flexibility in the case of each particular agreement with each particular province.
It does not accomplish, Mr. Chairman, what most of us had hoped might be accomplished, and that is to persuade the minister to give himself sufficient room to expand the services as the provinces one by one decide to expand them. It does not accomplish that purpose and I do not intend to go back to that part of the discussion, but it does seem to me to make a

December 1, 1966
Medicare
very constructive suggestion, and I congratulate the hon. member for Ontario for making it. It does not tie the minister's hands or expand the services which were framed within the resolution; it merely leaves the final definition to be provided in the agreement made between the federal government and each of the provinces concerned.
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, this would give the minister just a little more flexibility, and I hope that what I said the other night was his argument of obstinancy has now gone, and that he will look upon this proposal with favour.
As I said at the commencement of my remarks, I am not at all sure that the wording proposed by the hon. member for Ontario is necessarily the best wording to fit in with the bill, but I am sure the hon. member would be very pleased to let the minister discuss the wording with his legal advisers so that an amendment along the same line but in other language can be put forward. I very much hope the minister will consider this very constructive and limited suggestion favourably.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I should like an opportunity to consider this amendment. I do not have a copy of it yet, though I have read it and listened to it being read. I should like the opportunity to consider it and I will let the committee know later on exactly what the situation is.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I might say that I did not have the opportunity to word the amendment properly. If any help can be rendered by the legal adviser, subject to the approval of the minister, of course, a differently worded amendment would be acceptable provided the meaning was the same.


Maurice Rinfret: Since the wording of the amendment has been changed, I think it would be desirable for the Chair to read the amendment again:
Delete all words after the word "person" in line 5 and substitute the following:
"who by agreement between any participating province and the federal government is accepted as a person entitled to practise medical care services for the purposes of this act".


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, could we agree to stand paragraph (f) so that we can start to make some progress? Then the minister after, I hope, a dinner adjournment, can tell the committee what he thinks of the proposed amendment.


Maurice Rinfret: Is the committee agreeable to standing subclause (f) of clause 2 and proceeding to subclause (g>?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On subclause (g)-"Minister".


Maurice Rinfret: Does this conclude consideration of subclause (g) of clause 2?


David Lewis: May I facetiously ask whether in this case the bill really means the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or is the Minister of Finance likely to interfere?
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Beaulieu:: Mr. Chairman, I must say, at this stage, that like all other members of this house, I am in favour of the principle of this bill. All members have emphatically supported the provision of medical care for the entire Canadian population. If, at this stage of our discussion, it is difficult to move amendments, it is because the minister has consistently maintained that only the government can determine the amounts to be provided under the legislation and that the house cannot add anything to the commitments of the government.
Mr. Chairman, I find that argument quite weak, because the minister, as he will admit himself, does not know what the national medical care plan will cost the federal government.
The opening of the legislature took place today in Quebec city. The scheme has not yet been initiated nor brought before the house and the government of Canada is telling us: "We are undertaking to pay 50 per cent of the costs." Consequently, we must admit that the present government, which does not know exactly what will be the cost of its 50 per cent contribution, cannot logically maintain that when a definition such as that of "medical practitioner" is amended, we are increasing its undertakings while it is ready to pay any amount, provided that it does not exceed 50 per cent of the services included in the federal legislation. As the cost remains unknown, how can it be maintained that such a thing will be done, when an amendment is merely moved to define the word "medical practitioner" as the one who must provide care and to ask for the inclusion of all qualifications of those who are supposed to be members of the medical profession? I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that anything which is not mentioned in a piece
December 1, 1986

of legislation is consequently excluded therefrom.
When the government says: We will agree, subject to examination by the provinces, to pay 50 per cent of such expenses as have been incurred by the province itself, here the government declares explicitly that the resolution did not set any maximum amount, and, in this instance, when the definition of the term "medical practitioner" comes up for consideration, we are not necessarily adding to the commitment which the federal government has just made.
I happen to know that this matter is being considered at the Quebec legislature. We must not forget, Mr. Chairman, that the province of Quebec-of which I am one of the spokesmen in this house, being member for the Saint-Jean-Iberville-Napierville riding -numbers 6 million people. Now then, there is a clause in this bill which stipulates that 90 per cent of the insurable persons must be covered, and that the books will be audited. How will this be carried out, Mr. Chairman?
Second, the definition of the term "medical practitioner"-that is, the person who is to perform medical services-not being specified clearly in the bill, as the member for Simcoe East has urged it to be on several occasions-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I believe we are considering paragraph (g) of clause 2. The hon. member is referring to one of the subsequent clauses.
I believe the hon. member should limit his comments to paragraph (g) of clause 2, which reads as follows:
"Minister" means the Minister of National Health and Welfare:


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Chairman, referring to your remarks may I point out that the voting on clause 2 is on the clause as a whole. It is only by agreement in this committee, as the Chairman pointed out earlier, that we are moving from one paragraph to another on clause 2. On this basis, it is unequitable to confine a person to one paragraph when we are voting on the clause as a whole. The hon. member should have the right, as has been pointed out in this committee, to refer to other paragraphs in the manner in which the hon. member has referred to them.
23033-67H
Medicare


Maurice Rinfret: The Chair understood that we were discussing each paragraph, and after studying each paragraph we should have a general discussion on clause 2. I thought it would be better as much as possible to limit the discussion to paragraph (g).


Jean-Paul Beaulieu: You can see, after hearing all the speeches, that until now the discussion has been somewhat general and I am simply pointing out certain parts of what was said; I am referring to certain clauses of the bill and reading previous paragraphs and others, like the clause covering the 90-95 per cent feature, which will come later on.
But I want to say that the federal legislation will not be effective if the government does not realize that by failing to give a clear definition of the terms appearing in clause 2(f) or to define more clearly the clause referring to the 90-95 per cent feature, all sorts of difficulties will crop up when the time comes to settle accounts with the provinces. Those which already have their own health insurance plan, like Quebec, where an hospital insurance plan is in force, should know in advance the precise amount they can rely upon.
Now, 50 per cent today is 50 per cent of nothing, because there is no act. But 50 per cent tomorrow may be 50 per cent of $200 million or $300 million. And, this bill specifies that the portion to be refunded shall be determined by the provincial auditors.
Now, for a province such as ours, for instance, the contention has been, in the last several days, that it is important to define what a medical service is. It is a fact that Quebec does not give legal recognition to chiropractic services, while other provinces do. This means that some provinces can claim 50 per cent of all expenses incurred, while this will be impossible in other provinces.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, with a clear-cut definition, everybody would know where he stood and federal contributions would be made without any complications, and the provinces, knowing what amount they can count on, could prepare their budgets accordingly. For a small province, such amount may not be large-I have in mind a province with a population of 400,000 or 500,000. But for a province such as Ontario, which has seven and a half million people, and for a

December 1, 1966
Medicare
province such as Quebec, with six million people, both of which must set up entirely new schemes to assist all people who become sick, who will be in hospital, it will be quite another thing and nobody knows exactly who will be covered under this bill. And when the act comes into force, complications and disputes will arise when the provincial governments claim their 50 per cent. It will be contended that some claims are not acceptable. In some cases, there will be complaints that the act does not cover 90 per cent or 95 per cent of insurable residents. Some provinces will get to wait months for the federal contributions, which will jeopardize the financial position of several provinces.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In any event, as concerns the province of Quebec, I was amazed to hear the minister mention the British North America Act to say that he could not amend his resolution. But to mention the British North America Act now, when all the members of the government and the minister himself admit that medical care is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces, is to give a strong argument to the provinces who maintain that very thing. They say that the federal government often levies more money than it needs and feels it should give some back to the provinces to be used either for education or for health.
I think this question of principle is a powerful argument given to the provinces for future relations. But, for the moment, what I find even more interesting is that the principle, as has been admitted, is fundamentally good, and excellent from the social point of view. I shall vote in favour of this legislation.
I foresee complications for the minister when the time comes to settle the accounts with the provinces, because I know that the government of the province of Quebec, during the session which begins today, will introduce a bill. However, I believe that some delays will occur, precisely because the definitions are not clear and technocrats, businessmen and financiers, in brief, those called upon to control the expenses of the province, will ask themselves on what they can reply, coming from the federal government.
This is the reason why, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the minister was wrong in refusing the amendments, for I do not think that these amendments were to interfere at all with the introduction of a supply bill

by the government. I understand that only the government can initiate a bill which results in the expenditure of public moneys. However, a piece of legislation like the one introduced involves no fixed amount, the amount remains changeable or approximate, no particulars being given, the federal government does not know if its share will be $100, $200, $300 or $400 million, it will all depend on what the provinces will do and on what they will claim, and I feel that in the interest not only of the present government, which is initiating this legislation, but also in that of all the provincial governments, the amendments should have been accepted instead of being considered as going beyond the ability of the opposition and coming into conflict with the responsibility of the government in office which has to administer public funds.
In this case, because no amount has been set, the legislation is flexible, allows for a clearer definition and is in no way binding on the government to spend more, because it has already stated that it would pay 50 per cent of anything. It might be 50 per cent of nothing, 50 per cent of $100 million or $500 million. Since no limit has been set as far as the contribution of the federal government is concerned, I feel that the amendments should have been accepted by the minister and thus the chairman of committees would not have been obliged to intervene and argue that we cannot amend any of the articles in the bill, especially when it is only a matter of clarifying a definition. I submit, like other hon. members before me, that it is splitting hairs.
In any case, the principle of the bill is good and I will vote for it.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member for Saint-Jean-Iberville-Napierville tell me if he did say that the present minister was wrong in not accepting the proposed amendments? Is that what he said?


Jean-Paul Beaulieu: I said that the minister had argued during the debate, that the bill should be initiated by the government and that the government alone was responsible for a money bill, and that he had asked the chairmen of committees to settle the matter. And the ruling coming necessarily from the chairman, at the request of the minister, who did not want an amendment to intervene with regard to his legislation-


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: To pursue the same matter, Mr. Chairman, if I am not mistaken, it is
December 1, 1966

because one of the proposed amendments meant to extend the medical services to include those rendered by chiropractors. Well I think there is some confusion, because the present government is simply entering into a financial agreement with the provinces when it says that it will reimburse a province 50 per cent of the costs for medical services incurred by its inhabitants when such services are rendered by practitioners or, if you wish, physicians.
Now, how could an amendment possibly be accepted to include chiropractic in this bill when that is illegal in Quebec? Can you imagine the position of the federal government if it offered to subsidize 50 per cent of expenses for care which in fact is now considered as illegal?


Jean-Paul Beaulieu: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall answer that. In those provinces where chiropractic is legal, the people would be paid, whereas in the province of Quebec they would not make any claims. It is just as simple as that.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: That is precisely why this bill is justified throughout Canada; that is what I wanted to hear from the hon, member.


Mr. Otto:: I should like to take part in the debate on this clause, and I intend to confine my remarks to its contents. I should like the minister to know what my views are in connection with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ontario, an amendment which the hon. gentleman indicated he proposed to consider.
It seems to me to have been inferred that there was some hesitancy on the minister's part to allow any amendments because of commitments he had made to the provinces. That is understandable. We do not want to get into a wrangle at this point with the provinces; what we want, first of all, is to get the bill accepted and put into force.
I do not know whether the wording conveys the meaning correctly, but we all know what the intention of the amendment is. The interpretation of the term "medical practitioner" will be left to the provincial governments.
What is involved here is a debate between medical practitioners, who call themselves professional people, and optometrists or others who are, supposedly, not quite qualified. I wonder whether we in this house should get into a debate of this sort. I recall the day when one could buy a pair of glasses at the
Medicare
five and dime store. Great pressure was exerted by the optometrists to get those glasses out of such stores. Now we have a debate between medical practitioners who practice ophthalmology, and optometrists. Medical practitioners say the others are only businessmen, tradesmen.
My view is that both groups are tradesmen. The idea of professionalism has long since disappeared. Lawyers and doctors are primarily concerned with the business of making money under the guise of public service. It is in this light that I should like to express my views to the minister. As I say, I cannot see why we should get into this debate here. In any case, we would have to go back to the committee which originally considered this bill in order to find out who is right in this particular argument.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Ontario seems to be an appropriate one; it seems to offer a solution. If the minister does not accept it, it would appear as though the provinces have said to him: "You may not change one word of this bill without our agreement." I do not believe the government should be placed in such a position. So, while the minister is deliberating, I should like him to be aware of my views on the subject.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does this complete the discussion of paragraph (g)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now proceed to the discussion of paragraph (h).
On subclause (h)-Participating province


Mr. Baldwin:: This paragraph gives us an opportunity, for the first time, to deal with the whole question of federal-provincial relations both with regard to the legal position and also with regard to the wisdom of the federal government attempting to do what is being done here, bearing in mind the precarious state of relations between the two senior levels of government.
To consider this subject adequately, we must take into account the background picture of relations between the federal government and provincial governments as they have developed over the last two or three years. I will simply say, in passing, that the attitude of the present government in that period has been so sinuous and winding that it would break a snake's back to follow it.

December 1, 1966
Medicare
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
First, firm action was taken. Then came co-operative federalism, which really was another euphemism for complete yielding whenever a crisis situation arose, whenever there was a conflict. Finally there came the last stage, which we are in now, this apparent determination to intrude into matters which are strictly ones for the provincial governments.
I am not suggesting, and I do not want my argument to be taken as suggesting when looking at the definition of "participating province", that essentially a scheme of this kind might not in the final analysis be best under the control of the federal government. If the founding fathers, 100 years ago, had any idea as to the extent to which it would be necessary to interfere with social and economic conditions of people, I am quite certain they would have allocated to the federal government the sole responsibility in matters of this kind. But they did not, and we have to deal with this matter as it now stands. We have to consider whether "participating province", which leads us to a consideration of clauses 3 and 4, is something which should be dealt with in the context of this bill.
I point out to the committee, Mr. Chairman, that there is first the direct conflict, the constitutional issue per se. The minister yesterday quite properly said to me, when I asked him a question following his intervention on a point of order, that he would deal with this point in its proper place. I suggest this is the proper place to put on the record his views and the views of the government. But, as a brief foundation for what he might say, I want to point out that I do not think it is a subject which is entirely free from doubt.
The nearest approach to a scheme of this nature, I think, is the scheme with regard to payment of family allowances. This was tested in the courts, so far as I can recall, on one particular occasion, as a matter of fact when the government was introducing its legislation in connection with student loans. At that time I approved the attitude and the actions of the government. I spoke on the resolution stage, and on the bill itself, and I referred the house at that time to this particular case, which was a Quebec case, and which I think was a judgment of the Supreme Court.
I do not think the decision was appealed, Mr. Chairman. It was held to be entirely within the jurisdiction of the federal government, through the exercise of its tax levying powers,

to bring funds by these means into consolidated revenue and then to distribute those funds as it saw fit It was on this fairly narrow basis that the judge came to his conclusion, but I suggest there is a marked difference in this instance.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, this is not a forum in which we should argue these difficult points of law, but I do feel we would be derelict in our duty if there were doubts aroused in our mind and we did not put them before the minister and the government to obtain their answers to them. It is in this sense, not attempting to argue a point of constitutional law but raising it as a doubt, as a situation which requires an answer, that I raise this matter. I suggest there is an onus on the government to justify its action in this regard because certainly the indirect effect of this legislation constitutes a violation of subject matters which either directly or by implication under the constitution have been assigned to the provincial authorities.
I say either directly or by implication because of the constitutional provisions first with regard to the question of health itself. Second, there is the constitutional right of a provincial legislature to incorporate associations of professional people, to indicate the extent of the responsibilities, of the right to practise and of the type of practise which may be engaged in by those professional associations. In this way the province makes certain that the operations of these professional people, so far as their economic conditions are concerned, so far as their right to deal with the people in a province is concerned, are laid down within the four corners of a provincial chartering act.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the net result of this legislation is bound to have an eroding effect on many of these professions which, as has been pointed out in the arguments advanced by members of this party, including the hon. member for Kamloops, and by members of the N.D.P., come within the real definition of those people who are engaged in providing medical health services. As I say, the net result of this legislation, if and when it is finally passed, will be to erode the opportunities and the rights of these professional people, and certainly if this is the case it constitutes an invasion of provincial jurisdiction.
There is, of course, the other question of the indirect effect which was adverted to by the hon. member for Saint-Jean-Iberville-Napierville. I do not intend to enlarge on that. However, there is no question but that when
December 1, 1966

this legislation is enacted it will have the effect of inducing-I will not use the word inducing because it is too mild-of bludgeoning provincial governments, compelling them to come into these schemes whether they wish to or not, whether they like what they see or not, whether or not they feel the terms should be greatly enlarged. They are compelled to come in, and there is no question about that, in order to derive the financial assistance which is referred to in the bill.
We have seen a recent example of this. Today, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a measure which apparently is to be introduced into the Quebec legislature, a measure which is referred to in the Quebec speech from the throne. This measure would suggest that here is one province which, because of the continued intrusion by the federal government into fields into which it has no business, unless by complete agreement with the provincial governments, feels it is entitled to retaliate and is taking the action suggested in its throne speech.
This can have no other effect than a continued deterioration in federal-provincial relations. I understand and appreciate the difficulties which confront the minister. He has to negotiate with ten provincial governments. He has to try to work out the terms of a scheme which will be satisfactory to all, and I suggest he should have waited until he had done so. As a former minister of labour who is experienced in the art of collective bargaining he must know this is the kind of scheme where collective bargaining between the federal government and the provincial governments should have been the order of the day.
It is my strong belief that the insistence of the government on proceeding in this way can have no other effect than the erosion of the very delicate state in which federal-provincial relations now exist. I feel, under those circumstances, that there is an onus cast upon the minister, either at this time or later, to meet this argument, to give us the views of the government with regard to its legal position. As I said before, there is an onus on the minister to deal with the wisdom and propriety of following the course which is envisaged in this legislation.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does this complete the discussion on subclause (h)? The committee will now proceed to a discussion of subclause (i).
The committee will now proceed to a discussion on subclause (j).
Medicare
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
On subclause (j)-"Resident".


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. minister would explain this paragraph which states:
'resident' of a province means a person lawfully entitled to be or to remain in Canada, who makes his home and is ordinarily present in the province, but does not include a tourist, transient or visitor to the province;-
In view of the portability of this scheme as covered by clause 4, I am wondering whether there will be any interference with that portability since transients and visitors are excluded. In other words, if someone from Ontario goes to another province on a holiday and becomes ill will he not be considered a visitor and therefore not covered under the bill? That is the situation about which I am not clear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Chairman, this would not interfere with portability of benefits which we regard as an integral part of our proposal. The definition of a resident of a province is precisely the definition used under the Hospital Insurance Act.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, having regard to this definition of a resident, how long must an immigrant, for example, be in the country before he is recognized as a resident?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: To answer this question I think one should have a detailed knowledge of the Immigration Act. I do not possess that detailed knowledge, but a resident of a province means a person lawfully entitled to be or remain in Canada. Presumably, that would be determined by either citizenship or immigration status.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, surely the minister is not importing the requirement of citizenship into this bill because in clause 4 he is asking for no minimum residence requirement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am referring to the citizenship or immigration laws, because the laws permitting a person to be or remain in Canada are not determined by this act. That is the point I was making.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Have we now completed our discussion on paragraph (j)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: We will now consider paragraph (k).

December 1, 1966
'	Medicare
On subclause (k)-"Year".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried, as is.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate the hon. member's reaction to this paragraph.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely the minister is not going to hold up his own bill by moving an amendment to paragraph (k).


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I indicated earlier that I would be asking one of my colleagues to move an amendment to paragraph (k). I have copies of the amendment in English and in French which I should like to circulate among members of the committee.
Before asking the Associate Minister of National Defence to move this amendment, I should like to point out that its purpose has already been explained. The effect of the amendment may not be fully satisfactory to certain members, but it is to include a new paragraph (b) with this definition:
-'contribution commencement day' means the 1st day of July, 1968, or such earlier day as the governor in council may fix by proclamation, being a day not less than six months after the day the proclamation is issued;-
The inclusion of this additional paragraph obliges us to renumber paragraphs (b) to (k) to paragraphs (c) to (1) respectively. We add as paragraph (b) the definition of "contribution commencement day" and substitute the letter (j) for the letter (i), and substitute the expression "contribution commencement day" for the expression "1st day of July 1967" where it appears in paragraph (i) thereof.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean paragraph (1).


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, thank you.


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 2 of Bill C-227 be amended
(a)	by renumbering paragraphs (b) to (k) thereof as paragraphs (c) to (1), respectively, and adding as paragraph (b) thereof the following:
'Contribution commencement day, (b) 'contribution commencement day' means the 1st day of July, 1968, or such earlier day as the governor in council may fix by proclamation, being a day not less than six months after the day the proclamation is issued;'
(b)	by substituting the letter '(])' for the letter ' (i)' where it appears in paragraph (c) thereof; and
(c)	by substituting the expression 'contribution commencement day' for the expression '1st day of July, 1967' where it appears in paragraph (1) thereof.
[The Chairman


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I point out to the committee that paragraph (c) and others are mentioned in the amendment presented by the associate minister. Earlier during the discussion of these paragraphs, paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) were stood. Hon. members will find this reference in Hansard for Monday at page 10461. It might well be convenient before dealing with the amendment to go back and consider paragraphs (b) and (c).


David Lewis: I think only paragraph (b) was stood because it referred to paragraph (i) which will now become paragraph (j).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could try to sort this out. The reason this amendment refers to paragraph (c) is that if this amendment carries, the old paragraph (b) will become (c), so the paragraph (b) we stood on Monday, if this amendment carries, will become (c), see?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, when the minister introduced this amendment a few minutes ago he did not tell the committee the reasons for this change of date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The reason is just coming into the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance himself.


David Lewis: I wonder whether, before we enter into debate on this amendment, either the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Finance will tell the committee why, in their opinion, this amendment is necessary as of December 1, 1966.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the question raised by the hon. member for York South is obviously a pertinent one. The Minister of Finance stated some days ago that when the house was in committee on this amendment he would be making a statement to the committee. This is the reason the minister has just come into the chamber; I gather he will be making the statement.


David Lewis: I am sure that members of the committee join me in welcoming the minister of health and medicare execution to his seat. I hope the minister will make his statement now, before we enter into debate on this matter. Perhaps he will be able to persuade us of the necessity of this reprehensible amendment.
December 1, 1966


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I always respond enthusiastically to invitations like that. First, may I say that I am one of the strongest supporters of medicare on this side of the house, and my recommendation to the government for the postponement of the date was dictated by my interest in the success of medicare and in the welfare of the Canadian people generally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: Let me recall to the committee the terms of the announcement I made on behalf of the government on September 8, 1966, as reported at page 8217 of Hansard. I will read half a dozen paragraphs to remind the committee what it was I said on that occasion. I said this, in part:
The development In the economic situation since the time of the budget indicates the need for a stronger fiscal policy, taking into account what I have said about excessive reliance on monetary policy. May I say in this connection that this is a complaint that is equally applicable in many other countries of the world, particularly in North America. In the United States monetary conditions are even tighter than they are in Canada, and the President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury have, like myself, admitted that there has been too great reliance on monetary policy.
I then went on to say:
When we have before us, perhaps in late October, the measures to authorize the increased revenues made necessary by the income guarantee plan we will be able to review our general fiscal position and consider what changes are desirable in the light of the economic and financial situation. Until that time I will not endeavour to be more precise as to magnitudes nor announce any decision as to the nature of the measures that would be most appropriate. Needless to say, one can never anticipate tax changes.
In order to keep future tax increases to a minimum and still contain the inflationary pressures, the government has decided that it must moderate the rate of increase in expenditures, deferring some programs already planned, terminating others, and putting restrictions on still others. We are having a long and painful review of these expenditure programs with this in mind.
I then said:
We have decided that we must defer the commencement of one major program that is already before the house. Many of the provincial governments have indicated that they feel we are attributing too much urgency to the introduction of full medicare programs right away, and they do not feel prepared to proceed to put such programs into effect next summer as provided for in the bill before the house. We therefore propose to defer the effective date of the plan for a year until July 1, 1968. The legislation will be proceeded with in the house as a high priority item when we
Medicare
reassemble at the beginning of October. The government has no intention of changing the substance of the bill other than its effective date.
Obviously this decision on medicare was a difficult one for this government to make because we have been, and remain, so strongly in favour of this major social reform. We feel, however, that the delay will help to meet the immediate financial problems of both the federal and provincial governments and contribute to the ultimate success of the program.
That was the substance of the statement I made to the house on September 8. Hon. members will see from what I have read from Hansard that in postponing the implementation of medicare the government had in view four considerations: First, the need for a stronger fiscal policy so that there would be less reliance on monetary policy; second, the need to keep future tax increases to a minimum; third, the containment of inflationary pressures; and fourth, the views and the financial problems of the provinces.
Reviewing these considerations today, I see no reason to recommend a change in the decision that the government made on September 8. Even without the additional expenditures involved in medicare, the projected increase in government expenditure for the coming fiscal year is very substantial indeed. I expect to be recommending some increase in taxes at least in order to finance the guaranteed income supplement plan, and I do not think it would be wise or acceptable to the public to introduce in a few months another massive program involving expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars which would require another substantial tax increase to finance it.
In other words, the government is still of the view that it would be in the interests of the country as a whole not to try to do too much too quickly. Nor do I think it would have been wise to introduce medicare on July 1, 1967, and to decide now not to raise taxes to meet the cost. As I said on September 8, it is highly desirable that there should be in the future less reliance on monetary policy, which means that we should not attempt to offset inadequate fiscal policies by a tighter rein on the money supply. Moreover, if it does become desirable to budget for a larger deficit in the future, there is adequate leeway to achieve this purpose by deciding not to raise taxes to meet other planned increases in expenditures.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The temptation before all governments, not only this government but the governments of all countries, has been and remains not to tax too much but too lightly. This is one of the problems the consequences of which we are

December 1, 1966
Medicare
now lacing up to in the world as a whole, namely that governments have not been prepared to take the necessary action to keep their financial house in order and have therefore been forced to rely more than they should have upon monetary policy, with the result that we see all around us, not only in Canada but throughout the world, interest rates higher than we would like them to be.
Nor did the recent federal-provincial conference lead us to believe that it would have been wise and in the interests of the provinces, the federal government or the taxpayers generally, to have held to the July 1, 1967 date. Federal, provincial, and municipal demands will be very heavy indeed in 1967, as the provinces said so clearly during our October federal provincial conferences, and as our own plans for federal aid to higher education and for higher old age pensions testify. To meet all of these demands without an adequate increase in taxation-that is, to meet them by very large government deficits -simply would not be warranted, even in the event of a moderation in economic activity in 1967. So something had to be postponed.
It may be-and this is something that we have always acknowledged-that circumstances will change, and notwithstanding what I have said, which is based upon our assessment of the situation in September and now, it would be possible and desirable to add substantially to provincial and federal government expenditures in time for the provinces to introduce medicare before July 1, 1968.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister of Finance a question? This might be termed a hypothetical question but we are now dealing with a hypothetical situation. If the situation were exactly the same as it is now on July 1, 1968 or just prior to that date, would the government proceed with the program?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will deal with this point a little later because I think it is a substantial point. I will continue with my statement now.
As I was saying, notwithstanding the analysis we made of the situation in September, which I feel is still generally valid today, it may become possible and desirable to add substantially to provincial and federal government expenditures in time for the provinces to introduce medicare prior to July 1, 1968.
I recognized this from the outset, and so did my colleagues in the cabinet. The proposed amendment which has been put forward by my colleague the Minister of National Health
[Mr. Sharp.l
and Welfare, makes it possible to introduce medicare before July 1, 1968 if circumstances change in this way, although we do not foresee this likelihood now. We have, therefore, put into the legislation what I have always considered to be a very desirable degree of flexibility, because I would be the first to admit that one cannot exactly foresee what the circumstances will be in the months ahead. The government's present intention-as it was on September 8 when I made my statement-is to introduce the program on July 1, 1968. This is our firm intention but, if circumstances should change, we have in the legislation the desired degree of flexibility. I think this is quite proper, and, as far as I am concerned, I have never resisted the idea. It was a difficult amendment to draft because we had to be clear in our intention, otherwise it would have been charged in the house and throughout the country that the government could not make up its mind.
We painstakingly canvassed every possible way of meeting both our commitment to medicare and our responsibility for the stability of the economy and the soundness of our finances. The conclusion seemed to us to be inescapable. It did not appear to us that we could pay for medicare, for the guaranteed income for the aged and the other established programs of the government, as well as extra assistance for higher education, in the same year. We had to observe priorities, and we still have to observe them.
It is unfortunate that the medicare plan seems beyond our fiscal capacity if it is introduced in July 1967. But we shall, in the meantime, be adding the guaranteed income plan to our social security system. I am satisfied that in the years to come the people of Canada will applaud us for having had the courage to pace our progress. We can do all of the things we want to do but we cannot do them all at once.
The hon. member for Ontario asked me to explain how we could fix the date of July 1, 1968 when we could not fix the date of July 1, 1967. The answer is that now we have firmly determined that on July 1, 1968 we will proceed with medicare, and we have accommodated all our other decisions to that point. It would have been undesirable and contrary to the public interest to have piled medicare on top of the guaranteed income for the aged.


Michael Starr: Even though the situation might be exactly the same in 1968 as it is now?
December 1, 1966	COMMONS


Mitchell William Sharp: No. Now we will accommodate our other programs, if necessary, to the introduction of medicare. Now this has first priority. If I may put it in another way, after considering the position carefully we have decided that the first priority acceptable to the Canadian people and to the provinces-and it seems to us to be in the general interest -should be accorded to the guaranteed, income plan for old age pensioners. I think this is a view which will have widespread support throughout the country and, I hope, in the house.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six
o'clock?


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being six o'clock and in order that the house may proceed to consideration of private members' business, I do now leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), labour relations-the C.N.T.U. and the French Canadian employees of the C.B.C.; the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), Canadian labour (standards) code-deferment of part applicable to shipping employers; the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Robert Muir), Post Office Department-delay in delivery of publications.
It being six o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions (papers), public bills and private bills.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that requests have been made that we proceed directly to private bills and that the item "Notices of Motions for Production of Papers" stand. I understand that there are certain private bills, which will be indicated in a moment, that the house will be willing to deal with in lieu of the motions for production of papers. These bills could be dealt with rather promptly, and then there will be a request for a dinner adjournment.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I am involved in this question might I indicate what I think is the sense of what might be agreed to. An order of the house could be made to proceed to private bills, as mentioned by the house leader, and then we would proceed to consider in the following order private bills Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 11 and 16.
While our original discussions concerned an adjournment for supper for one hour, it has been suggested latterly that upon the conclusion of our consideration of those six private members' bills the house adjourn until eight o'clock.
The reason I selected those six bills, after some discussion, was that there was excellent grounds for believing that if we proceeded to any other than those six bills none of the bills would pass during this evening's consideration because there are some reserved opinions about them.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, that is a correct statement of the situation, subject to one point. The arrangement was that the adjournment would be for one hour, because we are rather anxious to get forward with the medicare bill. I believe it would be more acceptable to adjourn from the point indicated for one hour. Since that was the understanding I make that request to the house.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition on this side is willing to co-operate with the government and expedite some of this business. The house leader is beginning to get a little obstinate and too firm in his decisions, if I may say so with all respect. I think if we get through these six private bills which have been listed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the house could rise until eight o'clock. I suggest he give this proposal serious consideration and not be too stubborn in his attitude.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the references to my own character, but the simple truth of the matter is that I expressed what had been agreed to by the opposition parties. If they now wish


Michael Starr: By whom?


George James McIlraith: By the house leader for the official opposition.


Michael Starr: I agreed to what?


George James McIlraith: I am agreeable to this suggestion, but I do not believe it is helpful, in
10610	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion what are difficult circumstances in arranging these matters, to make the kind of personal reference that has been made.


Michael Starr: I did so kindly, having all respect for the hon. gentleman.


George James McIlraith: I hope we can arrive at a better basis for dealing with public business. These measures are not government measures, and the government is making a considerable concession-in the circumstances I believe properly so-to private members. But I do not like these statements about the government house leader going on the record which are not in accordance with the facts.
In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, and in order to prevent ill-feeling we will agree to an eight o'clock adjournment; but I do plead again with hon. members to get on with the important piece of legislation that now has been occupying the house for four days.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let these remarks go without having something to say about them. We are getting along. I realize that the house leader has other onerous duties to perform in his post as Minister of Public Works, but we are getting along and surprisingly better than he thinks. I can assure him that spending three or four days on an important bill like this medicare bill is not taking too much time, in view of the fact that it will not come into effect until July 1, 1968.


Frank Howard: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, because I guess I started all this, I first want to thank the house leader for agreeing to the adjournment until eight o'clock. I point out that it was my error in that initially I suggested in our private discussions that we adjourn for one hour. Having discussed this with the house leader, it was only after he had left my presence to talk to others that somebody suggested to me that perhaps eight o'clock would be the better hour because it used to be the normal hour for resumption of business. I apologize for causing confusion and I thank the hon. gentleman for this co-operation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to stand the three notices of motions for production of papers?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Frank Howard: Might I make the request that the house consider, inasmuch as items 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all listed as house in committee, going into committee on the four bills at once? 
DEBATES	December 1, 1966


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that I do now leave the chair so that the four bills mentioned may be considered in committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-ll, to incorporate Income Life Insurance Company of Canada-Mr. Macaluso-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 8-Power to acquire rights, etc., of a certain insurance company.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, before this clause carries there is a requirement in subclause (2) to the effect that no agreement between the company which is seeking to be incorporated and the provincial company which already exists which provides for any acquisition or amalgamation shall become effective until it has been approved by Treasury Board. On the surface, Mr. Chairman, this seemed to us on an earlier occasion in the proceedings to have been rather a strange requirement and we were wondering why it was that Treasury Board was involved in the private affairs of insurance companies. It was this wonderment on our part that occasioned the postponement of this bill until this time.
We have subsequently been advised that this matter is a requirement of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, and even though it does seem strange, it is a requirement under public law and to that extent is acceptable.
However, Mr. Chairman, I urge on those who are responsible for developing public law from time to time that they look at this requirement and see whether or not some other body can be given the responsibility of approving such measures and acquisitions instead of Treasury Board. After all, Treasury Board has a lot more important things to do than fiddle around with the relationships of private insurance companies. Therefore I urge the government to take a serious look at this question from the point of view of trying to make some alterations in the general law at some time in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
December 1, 1966
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Maurice Rinfret: Perhaps we should wait until we come to clause 3.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rintret):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Macaluso moved: the third reading of the bill.


Frank Howard: I have one brief comment to make on third reading of this bill. The hon. member who is sponsoring the bill may be pleased to hear that my hon. friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is unfortunately not here today because of illness. He did speak of the possibility of moving an amendment to rename this company the Macaluso Insurance Company of Canada. But we shall be spared that amendment.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I just want to thank the hon. member for Skeena for his kind thought. However, I am happy that the bill will be passed with the title of the company as it is at present.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-12, to incorporate Income Disability and Reinsurance Company of Canada-Mr. Macaluso- Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on bill No. S-8, respecting General Mortgage Service Corporation of Canada-Mr. Cameron (High Park)-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, I have been asked by the hon. member for High Park to act in his capacity, because he is unable to be here tonight.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Could I ask the hon. member to tell us about the amendments that have been made to this bill?
On clause 1-Change of name, in English.


Frank Howard: I know the hon. member for York Centre is at a disadvantage, subbing for the hon. member for High Park, but can he tell me whether on the board of directors, among the officers or as an active participant in the company there appears the name of one E. Davie Fulton?


David James Walker: I have no details in the file of the personnel on the board of directors. I shall endeavour to get this information for the hon. member, and I or the hon. member for High Park will be in touch with the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Existing rights saved.
Maurice Rinfret: This is the amended clause. The text of the amendment may be found in Votes and Proceedings of June 27, 1966, at page 695.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, very few of us have old Votes and Proceedings with us at the present time. Some of us have just those from the beginning of the session.


David James Walker: Perhaps I can help. The amendment was simply a tidying up of clause
3.	Rather than saying that nothing in sections 1 and 2 of this act shall in any way impair, the amendment says that nothing contained in sections 1, 2 and 4 of this act shall in any way impair. It is a tidying up, because there was a consequential relation between that clause and clause 4. Nothing affecting the principle of the bill is in the amendment.


Frank Howard: I want to deal with the amendment in a broad, general sense, since this is a situation that has arisen with other private bills, and it will occur again in the future.
It seems to me, especially when there is a long lapse between the time when a particular standing committee reports any proposed amendments and when the house gets round to considering them, that we are not able to find the amendments because they are hidden in the Votes and Proceedings of some time in the past. I do not know to whom I should direct these remarks but I wonder whether we might not in future have a procedure whereby a proposed amendment of the committee to any particular bill is available with

December 1, 1966
Private Bills
that bill, in a sort of amended form, so that the amendments are immediately available to the committee as it proceeds on a clause by clause study of the bill.
What has happened is not the fault of the hon. member for York Centre, or anybody else in the house. Perhaps this is a responsibility of the Chair, or of Mr. Speaker, because it relates to our procedure.
I simply put my thoughts on the record knowing the degree of interest that you take, sir, in these matters. I am sure you will see that this proposal gets to the proper authorities.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
On the title:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the hon. member sponsoring this bill in the present situation assure the house that no member of this house has received any fee or compensation, directly or indirectly, for its introduction?


David James Walker: I am sure the hon. member is aware that I am in no position to answer such a question. I can speak for myself, and I can give him the assurance he asks, when I speak for myself.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I realize that the hon. member's contribution is purely voluntary.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When shall Bill No. S-8 be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


David James Walker: the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-13, respecting Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation-Mr. Cameron (High Park)-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 1-Name in French.
Frank Howard: May I ask the hon. member for York Centre whether he has information available in the documents relating to the bill

in his possession-I also asked this question with respect to Bill No. C-8-showing that on the board of directors, among the officers or shareholders of the company appears the name of one E. Davie Fulton.


David James Walker: As in the previous bill, I can assure the hon. member that I will inquire into this matter. The details he asks for are not in this file. I, or the hon. member for High Park will most certainly pass on any information we obtain to the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When shall Bill No. S-13 be read the third time? By consent, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David James Walker: the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Would hon. members agree that orders Nos. 5 to 10 be stood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)



LEAGUE SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE COMPANY

Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-30, to incorporate League Savings and Mortgage Company.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I was about to give a short, terse explanation of this bill. I am glad to be associated with the hon. Senator Connolly of the other place who introduced this bill there. He is a notable Nova Scotian, and as a Nova Scotian myself I feel privileged to be able to sponsor this bill in the House of Commons. If passed, it will create a company which will operate as a loan company under the Loan Companies Act. However, it is by no means an ordinary loan company. It represents a further and important development in the growth of the credit union movement in Nova Scotia. I am sure hon. members will be interested in a brief history of this movement and
December 1, 1966

the reasons for the incorporation of this company which I now propose to give.
In the depths of the depression, the people of Nova Scotia turned to self-help as a means of improving their position. Under the leadership of the late Monseigneur Coady of St. Francis Xavier University at Antigonish, the people of my province turned to the co-operative movement as a means of working together for the improvement of their economic and social position. From the very beginning, particular emphasis was given to the development of credit unions which, as hon. members are aware, were originally developed in this country as a caisse populaire under the leadership of Alphonse Desjardins in the province of Quebec at the beginning of this century.
Nova Scotia was the first English speaking province to enact a Credit Unions Act providing for proper incorporation of credit unions in 1932. The development of credit unions was rapid and by 1938 they had become very numerous in Nova Scotia. These unions came to realize that they had common problems and aspirations which made it advisable for them to pool their knowledge and their resources in a central organization.
In that year, 1938, the Nova Scotia Credit Union League was incorporated by special act of the Nova Scotia legislature. The purpose of the League was originally conceived as providing a meeting ground for all the credit unions in the province and a source of educational, advisory and other technical services for these credit unions. At an early stage it became apparent that the League could do much more. It was found that from time to time one credit union in the province might have surplus funds when another credit union and its members had need for funds. The League, therefore, made arrangements for the deposit of surplus funds of credit unions and the loaning of such funds to other credit unions in the province. The result of its operations has been to strengthen credit unions all across Nova Scotia and to enable them to provide a more effective service for their members.
Ordinarily and traditionally, credit unions made personal, short-term loans to their members. This is necessary because they must always maintain themselves in a good liquid condition in order to be in a position to honour their obligations to their depositors. From the beginning, the credit union movement in Nova Scotia realized that one of the greatest needs of the people was for funds for mortgage lending on real estate. This need is greatest in the rural areas of the province
Private Bills
where conventional mortgage companies do not ordinarily operate.
This is the most important part of the bill, to make possible the provision of mortgage moneys in areas of the province where conventional mortgage companies do not operate.
Many years ago the credit unions of Nova Scotia decided collectively that the making of mortgage loans was beyond the resources of local credit unions. However, they have made available to the Nova Scotia Credit Union League certain surplus funds beyond the requirements of their immediate operations and these have been available for mortgage lending by the League.
Since the first mortgage loan was made by the League in 1940, more than 700 mortgages have been placed by it in all parts of Nova Scotia. The financial record of these operations has been excellent. In addition, the League and its member credit unions have the satisfaction of knowing that they have provided mortgage services in rural areas where, as I said a moment ago, mortgage loans are not ordinarily made. The League has also developed a reputation for fair dealing with its borrowers. Because of the close personal ties which bind members of credit unions, the League has been able to take account of misfortunes which have fallen upon individual borrowers and adjust their mortgages, without loss to itself, in a way which gives the borrowers a chance to protect their properties and their investments in them. While these instances have not been frequent, they are an important part of the total story of the service provided by the League in mortgage lending.
At present the Nova Scotia Credit Union League and its member credit unions are in a position where almost all their available funds are fully employed in traditional credit union loans. There is no great surplus available for mortgage lending. Since all the credit unions and the League are operated on an extremely prudent basis, they cannot and do not wish to commit too high a percentage of their funds to long-term mortgage loans.
At the same time, the need for mortgage lending by the League is very great. I have been advised that almost daily, the League has to turn down applications for good mortgage loans because it has no funds available. The League and its member credit unions are most anxious to service this need which, I repeat, is felt most acutely in those areas of the province where conventional mortgage lending services are not available. This is the reason for the introduction of this bill.

December 1, 1966
Private Bills
The new company, League Savings and Mortgage Company, will become a subsidiary of the Nova Scotia Credit Union League. The League and its member credit unions will take full responsibility for its operations and this gives the house every reason for confidence that they will be carried on, as before, on sound business principles. The League will provide adequate initial capitalization for the new company. The great advantage of the new company will be that it will be in a position, as is the case with all loan companies, to raise funds by the sale of debentures and otherwise, as permitted by the Loan Companies Act, which can be made available for long-term mortgage lending. Through the operations of the new company, the credit union movement of Nova Scotia will be placed in a position where it can provide the necessary mortgage lending service required by its members.
At all times, the credit union movement of Nova Scotia and the League have attached the greatest importance to sound business operations and to public confidence.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
This is the reason incorporation is being sought federally. The new company will be under the excellent supervision of the federal Department of Insurance. Strict examination and inspection by this department will be welcomed by the new company and will contribute to its success as well as to public confidence in it.
This bill provides for another important stage in the development of the credit union movement in Nova Scotia. We are not here dealing with the creation of an impersonal financial institution. Rather, we have before us a petition for the incorporation of a loan company which will be owned in effect by all members of credit unions in Nova Scotia and will be operated for their benefit and for the benefit of the province as a whole. I am sure hon. members will join with me in welcoming this development, will wish to facilitate the incorporation of the new company, and wish it success in its operations.
On moving second reading, I am conscious that members may have questions to ask about the new company but these, in accordance with the usual practice, can best be dealt with at committee stage when officials of the Nova Scotia Credit Union League will be available for questioning.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, because the credit union movement in Nova Scotia had one of its principal bases in the constituency I have the honour to represent, I am in a general way concerned to see this bill pass. I want to thank my neighbour from Pictou county for undertaking to sponsor it in this place. As you know, sir, my role as a parliamentary secretary makes it impossible for me to take on what would be a very pleasant task. I want to thank him for speaking so courteously about the proposed company and I want to thank the house for the careful attention it has given to his instructive disquisition on this important proposal.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively new venture so far as a credit union movement is concerned. I might say at the outset that I have been a credit union and co-op member for many years and endorse completely the philosophy of the credit union movement and the co-operative movement because it provides one of the few opportunities for people collectively to own and control their own means of production, distribution and financing. I think that the development and enhancement of the credit union movement, so far as the present structure of society and of our economy is concerned, are the only avenues now open for people to wrest control of their financial affairs from the banks, finance and insurance companies, and I would like to see a tremendous increase in credit union activities in order that people may get this control over their own financial affairs.
It is rather regrettable that at the national level we do not have a governmental promotional scheme to give credit unions the necessary impetus to form branches all across this nation and to develop those which presently exist. I find myself in a bit of a quandary, Mr. Speaker, because in essence there is a pretty serious conflict between the philosophy of the credit union movement and the principle contained in the Loan Companies Act, which is the federal public statute that will govern the operations of this company which seeks to be incorporated.
One of the principal points in the credit union and co-operative movement, which is of paramount importance for the members in controlling their own affairs, is that the movement is based upon the principle of one person, one vote. In other words, it does not matter if I have 10 shares in a credit union or 100 shares, I still have only one vote as one
December 1, 1966

human being. I am equal with all other members, regardless of their shareholdings, borrowings from, or interest in the union. But the principal point in any private company, which in essence is what this will be, is that ownership and voting control of the company is based upon investment. If a person owns one share he has one vote; if he owns 100 shares he has 100 votes because in incorporated private companies you vote your money control, you don't vote as a human being.
It is this basic conflict between these two approaches to ownership and control of our own resources and finances that puts me in a bit of a quandary in giving full and complete endorsation to this bill, even though I laud the announcement made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan) and agree with the things he said.
Upon passage of second reading, I hope that the committee which is charged with studying the bill in detail will seek some way or means of providing within the company itself the principle of one person one vote, and not the philosophy of private enterprise. I hope the committee which deals with it will look seriously at that question to see whether or not we can write into the bill some guarantee that this will remain a loan and mortgage group which is controlled by the credit union movement for the interests of credit union members.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say how much I appreciate the delightful mutual admiration society that this bill has engendered. It is quite a new mood and new atmosphere, and I hope it continues. I endorse in general the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) with respect to the application of this bill and the difference between a credit union and a company incorporated under the Loan Companies Act. This indicates the need for federal legislation respecting the incorporation of credit unions on a national basis.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Pursuant to standing order 105 the said bill stands referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
Is it agreed by hon. members that orders Nos. 12 to 15 inclusive be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Private Bills



THE EVANGELICAL COVENANT CHURCH OF CANADA

Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl-Tis-dale) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-38, to incorporate The Evangelical Covenant Church of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Scott (Danforth):: Could we have a short explanation from the sponsor?


Reynold Rapp: The purpose of this bill, which seeks incorporation of the Evangelical Covenant Church of Canada, is to assist, maintain churches, build congregations and promote religious organization.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I hope this will be the last time, or one of the last times, when this house will be considering the incorporation of organizations such as this.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I am sure the house will recall that on previous occasions members of this party have voiced an objection to parliament being asked to concern itself with the organization and structure of private organizations, particularly of a religious character. We objected on a sufficient number of occasions to cause the government to take the step it has in introducing into the Senate, and subsequently here, Bill S-51 to which I should like to make a passing reference.
When Bill S-51 is passed by this house and becomes law, organizations such as the Evangelical Covenant Church of Canada will be permitted to incorporate by letters patent rather than by an act of parliament. One of the prime sponsors of this proposal was the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), whom I said earlier was absent today because of illness. That hon. member deserves at least a passing expression of gratitude for having fought so hard to made it easier for organizations such as this to become incorporated in another way, relieving parliament of this task and permitting us to spend the time we would otherwise spend on these matters dealing with more important things.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous and private bills.
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1966
Medicare
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Is it
agreed that the remaining private members' business be deferred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill 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.
Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that the sitting be suspended until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member for Simcoe East.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some remarks on the speech made by the Minister of Finance before the dinner hour. I understood him to say that medicare was being postponed because of Canada's financial position. I find that very difficult to accept, even though I have a high regard for the minister. This country has been in a period of boom since 1960; we have had prosperity such as we have never known before. Yet the Minister of Finance stands up and says that we cannot afford medicare. He says this in respect of a country with more natural resources per capita than any country in the world.
I should like to mention a few of our resources. In the field of agriculture alone, last year the government had a billion dollars poured into its coffers because of wheat sales. Then we must consider our great forest resources. In this connection we must remember that 50 per cent of the world's newspapers are printed on newsprint made from Canadian pulp.
In spite of these facts the Minister of Finance says we cannot afford this plan at the
IMr. Howard.]
moment. What is wrong? Has there been mismanagement somewhere? I ask the minister whether he will not admit that there has been pretty bad housekeeping in this country. Never before have we had such high taxes. Income tax has been increased. The Canada Pension Plan has been instituted: almost 4 per cent comes out of the wages of Canadians and from industry every month to pay for this plan. This money is collected from industrial and individual workers. The sales tax has been instituted under this government.


An hon. Member:: And wages are up.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes, wages have gone up, but taxes go up every time wages increase. The minister says he has not the money to put the medicare program into operation until July 1, 1968. He says we must have priorities in these matters. What are those priorities? The minister says that the old age pension should be increased. I do not think anybody in the house would disagree with that. The old age pension should have been increased a long time ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And without a means test.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Without a means test, that is correct. When the minister says we must find the money to implement these programs, I wonder whether he will tell us where the $400 million in the old age pension fund has gone? I should like an answer to these questions because the senior citizens of Canada are asking for answers.
I should like to know why the Minister of Finance is so sure that the medicare program can be put into effect on July 1, 1968. He has made a firm commitment that we will have medicare by that date. The minister says that the government is faced with a lot of priorities but there will be enough money to institute medicare. Perhaps he will have second thoughts about medicare. Is he sure the economy will keep on rolling despite the commitments that are made? I think the minister will agree that $145 million-I read last night that this was the amount-went out of this country to be invested in securities in the United States in the last ten months. This amount is three times-the minister can correct me if I am wrong-the amount invested in the United States last year. If this pattern continues, perhaps the minister will have to have second thoughts about medicare. That is what bothers me. He was so sure that July 1, 1967, would be the effective date and now he says he is equally sure that it will be July 1,
December 1, 1966

1968. How can he be so sure when his certainty about July 1, 1967, has proven to be wrong?
The minister has put forward other excuses for not proceeding earlier with medicare. He says that one of the reasons for its delay is the financial position of some of the provinces. I agree that the provinces are in debt. The province of Ontario is in the situation of deficit financing; they are in debt. Mr. Robarts, the premier of Ontario, has said that the federal government is denying him $280 million over the next two years, and his government will have to look at health, welfare and education to see whether they cannot pare some of their expenditures.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I want to say to the minister, and I want to say it with all seriousness, that when he tells us he is pouring $500 million into the health resources fund he knows very well that the provinces have to put up half of that sum. How can they afford to put up the buildings needed, start doing research in the medical field and provide training for doctors whom we need so badly in Canada to give the Canadian people the medical care they deserve? How does he equate the two?
I am sure the minister is well aware that provincial and municipal debts and taxes are increasing at a far faster rate than federal taxes, and that in the foreseeable future they will continue to increase at a much faster rate than federal taxes. If the minister does not supply more money to the provinces he will never get the doctors and encourage research and we will be a second-rate country medically.
The Canadian Medical Association came to Ottawa to ask for a partial medicare plan to cover the 30 per cent of the people who are needy. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that it was a great disappointment to him that they were not being covered. Today four provinces, representing approximately half the population of the Dominion of Canada, are covering these people. What the minister has done is to exclude the people in the maritimes and Newfoundland. Are they second-rate citizens? I am sure there are many problems posed by lack of skilled medical manpower, but if the minister cannot provide us with a full medicare plan why did he not at least say: "We will give you this partial plan which will start on July 1, 1967, which will give you time to work out the kinks and loopholes and will give the medical profession time to arrange
Medicare
their house in preparation for the full medicare plan?" But he has to go whole hog or not at all. He did not even accept the plan requested by the medical profession which would be acceptable to all of us because we all want the needy covered.
There is great urgency in covering those in need. The province of Ontario has recognized this. I wish to say to the minister that he has to face either of two facts: either we are neglecting the needy people, or it would not increase our taxes to cover them under a medicare plan. He cannot have it both ways because if these people are being looked after at present somebody must be paying for it. This is not a legitimate excuse.
I will not continue to speak on the subject at length but I hope I have set the record straight. There is no financial reason which might not exist in 1968 for not going ahead with this program now because as I looked at the financial record last night I was made aware of the large sums of money which are going out of the country. I would like to ask the minister whether he has any ideas on how to stem the outflow of funds from this country at a rate three times faster than last year. If this rate of outflow continues the minister will not be able to introduce medicare on July 1, 1968, or else he will tell us that other important programs will have to go by the board. In view of the signs of a deteriorating economic situation, how can the minister stand in the house and tell us that we will have the medicare program? I ask him, why he did not go ahead with the partial medicare plan for which the Canadian Medical Association asked him and, I believe, asked the Prime Minister? They said: "Give us this partial plan and we will try to work in the doctors and set it up so that when you are able to bring in the full plan we will at least have ironed out the kinks, and in the meantime the needy people in Canada will be covered".
We have to face two facts: either we are providing medical care for the needy people of Canada or we are not covering them. If we are covering them, then our taxes should not be increased one cent by introducing a partial medicare plan.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, some of us in the committee had hoped that in view of the developments in the economic situation in Canada since last September the Minister of Finance and the government would decide to reverse their position on the postponement of the effective date for medicare. However, they did not. I say that the amendment before us is

December 1, 1966
Medicare
a heartless amendment imposed by a Minister of Finance who is governed by typical, orthodox penny-pinching of the kind which has always bedevilled society and done great harm to people who need help from the government.
I ask you to note, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Finance made a statement which made it as clear as carefully chosen words could that the supposed flexibility in the amendment is sheer, meaningless, cynical window-dressing. In two places in his speech the minister underlined that he did not see any reason for changing the date from July 1, 1968 to an earlier date, that, as far as he could now foresee, July 1, 1968 will be the date on which the program is to start but that nevertheless, if the situation should change, there was a possibility of putting it into effect at an ear her date. However, it was clear from his words that he knew of nothing in the likely development of the economy during the next 12 months or so which would cause him to change the date from July 1, 1968 to an earner one.
While he was speaking I was waiting for him to indicate what feature, element or factor he expected would bring about a change enabling him to implement this weasel amendment. I say to him and to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the insincere words contained in the amendment might have been enough to heal the rift in the caucus of the party which the government represents but it is not enough to fool any other member of the house and I venture to suggest that it will not be enough to fool anyone in Canada outside the Liberal party. If the government was firmly decided on the date of July 1, 1968 it would have been a great deal more honest and better for Canada if the Minister of Finance had held to his statement in his September speech that this was going to be the date. The gentlemen opposite papered over the cracks in their party by holding out a carrot to the Canadian people that something may happen, all the while knowing perfectly well that, as far as it is humanly possible to foresee the situation, it is not likely to happen.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Would he prefer that there should be no flexibility so that the plan could not be introduced earlier if circumstances change?
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


David Lewis: As the minister knows perfectly well, I would prefer that the original date remained. But none of the reasons he gave

today, any more than the reasons he gave in September, has the slightest validity in logic, in economic theory or in practice. I will suggest to him later what I think are the real reasons for this postponement.
However, if the plan is going to be postponed I would much rather the minister be honest and straightforward about it and let the Canadian people know exactly what he intends, instead of introducing what he calls flexibility, knowing perfectly well that there is nothing foreseeable by way of economic developments to justify changing the position from what he so clearly stated it to be. Therefore we have to discuss this amendment on the assumption, which he stated as well as implied in his statement, that the effective date will be July 1, 1968.
He summarized his reasons, Mr. Chairman, under four heads. If I am doing the minister any injustice I should be grateful if he would interrupt me and by questioning or otherwise correct me. Essentially, what he said was that in order to have medicare in Canada it is necessary to raise additional revenue. I agree with him about that and I will return to that point in a moment. But the minister prefers to raise the revenue in two bites: one increase in taxes related to expenditures for our elderly citizens and increased expenditure for education either this fall or in next year's budget or perhaps both, and another increase in taxes in the spring of 1968 for medicare instead of a larger increase in the spring of 1967 to cover all these expenditures at one time. This is really what his speech amounted to.
I would ask the minister what changes he expects to take place in the economy. It seems to me you do not have to be an economics expert to understand that only one of two possibilities can occur. One is that the economy will continue to expand at the same rate or at a slower or at a higher rate. The Economic Council has suggested that our rate of growth has probably slowed down a little, and the Minister of Finance probably thinks that for a while this is not a bad idea because it relieves the country from what he calls inflationary pressures. Alternatively, we may enter upon a deflationary period.
If we are going to have a deflationary period and if in July, 1968, the economy is not expanding or is expanding only very slowly, then the minister will be much less able to raise the required revenue and much less justified in increasing taxation, because at that time it will be his concern to increase purchasing power rather than reduce it. If, on the
December 1, 1966

other hand, the economy does continue to expand either at relatively the same rate or a little faster or a little slower, we will have precisely the same situation on July 1, 1968 as we will have on July 1, 1967.
So I ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, what change he is looking to. What possible situation in our economy can be more appropriate for the introduction of medicare than an era of expansion? What possible situation in the economy can be more appropriate for the necessary tax revenue than an era when per capita income is increasing, as I hope it will continue to increase? No member of the New Democratic Party has ever suggested that we can have a medicare program without raising the required revenue, whether through general taxation under federal income tax or by the two or three ways it is done provincially.
Let me tell this committee, Mr. Chairman, that a tax for the purpose of supporting the expense involved in a medicare plan is a most desirable form of taxation, one which I suggest would have minimal effect both on the people concerned and on the economy as a whole. All such a tax would do to me as a taxpayer is this. Instead of my paying a very considerable premium to a private insurance company through the particular group plan under which I am now insured, I would pay a tax to the federal government in a much smaller amount, unless, of course, the minister taxes me generously as I hope he will tax people with similar incomes to ours. But unless he taxes me sufficiently the result will be that I will actually pay less. Also, the worker in the factory employed under a collective agreement whereby an amount is deducted from his wages and paid into some kind of health plan will probably pay less under any just taxation plan than he is paying now. So the argument about taxes is, I contend, an invalid and phony one.
Furthermore, the people of Canada would understand and approve of such a tax which gave them in return a very definite and defined service for which they now pay either in the form of a premium to an insurance company or in the form of payment directly to the physician. In either case I venture to suggest that people with average incomes of between $5,000 to $6,000 a year pay a great deal more annually for the medical services they require now, whether through some plan or directly into the pocket of a doctor, than they would pay under any just taxation system which would require them to contribute to medicare.
Medicare
Moreover, the minister knows perfectly well that the effect of such a tax on the economy would be practically nil. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, when speaking on the resolution on July 12, informed us that estimates showed that there was now expended on medical doctors' services in this country approximately $600 million annually and that the total cost of medicare would amount to an additional $80 million, for half of which, $40 million, the federal government would be responsible in a full year assuming that all ten provinces enter the scheme on July 1, 1967. Between July 1 and March 31, the nine remaining months of that fiscal year, the involvement of the federal government would only be a total of $30 million, three quarters of the $40 million, again assuming that all of the ten provinces enter the plan immediately on July 1, 1967, an assumption that is not justified. The minister knows perfectly well that pumping into the stream of expenditures an additional $10 million, $20 million or $30 million in the course of the remaining nine months of that fiscal year would have as much effect on inflation and inflationary pressures in this country as a bucket of water has on the Atlantic ocean. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, his reasons, I submit, have no validity whatever.
When he talks of the views and the financial problems of the provinces, I am just as little impressed by crocodile tears of that sort. First, the bill before us is concerned with the share of the federal treasury in plans introduced by the provinces. If a province finds it impossible to introduce a plan on July 1, 1967, then the minister is not responsible for sharing in any cost.
The fact of the matter is that some provinces, both large and small, already have plans. Saskatchewan has a full medicare plan and British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario each has a plan. I do not approve of the plans of these latter provinces. I do not think they are the right sort of medicare plan. Nevertheless, they are plans which cost the governments concerned very considerable amounts of money. They are plans for which the provincial governments pay all; they pay the total amount of the cost of premiums for their indigent people.
I have not made any calculation, and I should like to know whether the minister has, of the net difference to Ontario, for example, between the expenditure under OMSIP on the part of the provincial treasury and the expenditure they would incur on the introduction of

December 1, 1966
Medicare
this plan with the federal treasury paying 50 per cent of the cost. I venture to guess that the difference would not be such as to cause Mr. Robarts and the members of his cabinet very great anxiety. This would be true of every province that now has a plan. Those provinces that have no plan are the provinces which can least afford any plan whatever until such time as federal assistance is available. [DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
What the Minister of National Health and Welfare has allowed himself to agree to is that the part of the country from which he comes will not be in a position to have any medicare plan at all until July 1, 1968. Instead of enabling the have-not provinces, which need medicare more than any other section of this country, to have medicare at the earliest possible date, this minister who represents the Atlantic provinces allowed himself to be pushed into the position of saying to these provinces: You will have to wait for another year before you can have any medicare plan at all. What kind of justice and equity is that, Mr. Chairman?
In his speech on the resolution the Minister of National Health and Welfare said, as reported on page 7549 of Hansard:
Members of the committee may be interested in knowing that some 6 million Canadians still lack any medical insurance coverage, and 3 million more have only limited coverage. Probably not more than 10 million Canadians at the present time have what could be called adequate comprehensive coverage. Those without adequate coverage include primarily residents of rural areas and people with moderate or low incomes, unable to acquire low-cost group Insurance.
The government's postponement will not hurt me, it will not hurt hon. gentlemen opposite, it will not hurt their friends, it will not hurt the organized worker who makes $2.50 or $3 an hour, though but a small proportion of our workers make that much, it will not hurt the self-employed person who has a good business, but it will hurt for another year the people of moderate and low incomes who cannot afford low-cost insurance.


An hon. Member:: A year and a half.


David Lewis: For a year and a half. It is those people who are being hurt by this penny-pinching, invalid postponement. If the Minister of Finance is sincere, as I am sure he is when he said in his opening statement that he is all for medicare, let him show it now. Every time over the years when a social security measure has been proposed and it has been either postponed or whittled away, the person

doing so always has beaten his breast, saying: "I am as good as you are; I am as concerned about the welfare of the people as you are; my heart bleeds just as badly as yours, but I am not going to do anything." This is precisely the kind of thing the Minister of Finance was guilty of this afternoon. He said he would like to have medicare but he is not going to allow it.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he knows of any other government that in three and a half years has done as much to improve its social security system as we have done in Canada?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is an old story.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I am sure I could easily find that if I were to look into the records of other countries and compared them with this country. May I also remind the minister that a good many of the things he no doubt has in mind are still on paper or on the order paper and have not yet come into existence.


Mitchell William Sharp: They are in existence.


David Lewis: Let me tell him, without becoming as partisan as one is tempted to become, that if he feels proud of his record he is doing a terrible injustice to himself as well as to his record by destroying that record with this penny-pinching, invalid postponement.


Mitchell William Sharp: I can think of nothing that would do more to destroy this country than to engage in irresponsible actions which might destroy the welfare of the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: I am grateful for the minister's interjection because it exposes his thinking, attitude and philosophy more than anything I could have said. To talk about the introduction of medicare as an irresponsible action is precisely a characteristic of the financial reactionary that he has shown himself to be.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. friend again, but the philosophy I put forward, and which I would defend in this house and on the election platform, is that it is very much in the interests of this country that we should not do too much too quickly. We should not run the risk of destroying the finances of this country and exposing the poor, weak and defenceless to the results of
December 1, 1966

inflation. I suggest to my hon. friend that his party is guilty of irresponsibility from time to time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: I do not know whether one should be as courteous as I have been to let the minister make another of his speeches in the middle of mine. However, I am glad he made his little speech because one cannot help but be shocked by the way he thus exposes his insincerity by the statements he makes. I have shared television programs with the Minister of Finance in Toronto; I shared political platforms with him during the campaign of one year ago, and if that is what he meant he had a duty to tell the Canadian people so a year ago instead of promising this medicare program immediately as he then did. More than that, his government came to this house and gave us a date, as a birthday present to the Canadian people, and then postponed it for a year for reasons which the minister cannot defend, except by this portentous, self-righteous, scandalous, sanctimonious nonsense, saying, "We cannot do too much at the same time", to which he adds all the other traditional gibberish in trying to defend the indefensible.
He has to prove that we cannot do these things at the same time. It is not enough that the Minister of Finance makes these assertions and tries to convince us of the truth of something that is invalid. I say to him that there is nothing in the economic situation in Canada which prevents him from introducing this measure on July 1, 1967. I say to him that a tax for the purpose of medicare in the next budget would have not the slightest effect on the economy of Canada. It would mean the transfer of payments which are being made in one way to another way. It would mean an increase in the take-home pay of the lower income people, and the higher income people would pay a little more in order that the people of Canada would have available to them medical services which the Liberal party has promised them for decades.
The people of Canada should have been entitled to those services by July 1, 1967. There is not an atom of reason or validity in what the Minister of Finance has said. The reason he postponed medicare for one year is entirely different from the reason he gave. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the economic establishment of the country, the investment dealers, the people who are concerned with the kind of thing they bring to
Medicare
the minister daily, are the ones who do not want this "expenditure".


An hon. Member:: Come, come.


David Lewis: The minister yielded to the pressures of the financial community and not to any logic in any economic analysis of what is happening or is likely to happen in Canada.
Let us for a moment see what is likely to be the situation in July of 1968 as compared with the likely situation on July 1, 1967. The minister says that they have now made a firm commitment. Medicare will be brought in on July 1, 1968. What are the circumstances that enable one to foresee any changes in the situation on July 1, 1968? The minister will still have the large expenditures, as he calls them, for old age pensions, the supplementary pensions, the expenditures for education and the expenditures on other matters that so worry him.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
What will change? What will change is that he will be able to satisfy certain of the financial circles of this country that he is a "responsible" Minister of Finance. I am not concerned about satisfying those particular groups in the community, nor, I suggest to him, should it be his concern. The time to introduce a program like medicare, the time to bring about improvements in old age pensions, the time to increase expenditure on education, the time to increase expenditure on research, the time to do all these things is precisely now when the economy is expanding at a regular rate of growth. If it expands at more than the present rate, the minister will have the pleasure of reducing taxes in 1968. If the situation is one which requires deficit financing he will have the pleasure of reducing taxation for that reason, and since we will then be closer to an election I suggest the minister is making a political mistake as well as a mistake in economics.
I do not want to detain the committee any longer. I maintain that the reasons given by the minister for postponement do not stand up to objective analysis for one single moment. This is an action typical of the penny-pinching, orthodox financial reactionary for whom it is never time to do this kind of thing. He cannot do it when the economy goes down; he cannot do it when the economy goes up. He can never do it. When pressure from the community becomes so great that it cannot be ignored, the best he can do is postpone taking action. He must come to it eventually but he

December 1, 1966
Medicare
will come to it as late as he possibly can rather than as early as he should.
The result of this postponement is that for another year those nine million Canadians who are unable to afford decent medical coverage, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare told us, will be without such medical coverage. I know of nothing that is more reprehensible, more shameful or more irresponsible.


Robert Muir: May I ask the hon. member whether he noted that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the minister from Nova Scotia, was thoroughly enjoying the tonguelashing the hon. member gave the Minister of Finance?


David Lewis: I am not given to taking notice of that kind of thing and I do not intend to comment on it.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us provides for the contributions to start on July 1, 1968 instead of July 1, 1967, or earlier if the governor in council decides otherwise or if the economic conditions which prevail at the present time in Canada should improve.
Mr. Chairman, I listened with great attention to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who told us that the Canadian people would not mind a tax increase to benefit from a medical care insurance plan as soon as possible. I do not agree at all with the hon. member for York South when he says that the Canadian people would be happy to pay more taxes to benefit from a Canadian medical care plan.
However, when he claims that the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) is under pressure from a financial group in Canada, I do not have any doubt about that. However, I feel that at the last federal-provincial conference, that plan was discussed and since some provinces cannot at the present time contemplate additional expenditures to set up a medical care plan, those provinces have undoubtedly put pressure on the Minister of Finance and Receiver General to postpone the implementation of his plan. There is no doubt that this does not suit the citizens who want such a plan.
However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to repeat tonight what I have said before about that medical care plan. The Creditistes members would like to change it into a health dividend. And instead of talking about a tax

increase, as the minister is doing, let us talk instead about the possibilities which exist in Canada to get medical care and assume the cost by using the services of our national bank which is called the Bank of Canada.
On August 31, 1966, I read in Montreal's La Presse the following article:
Medical care insurance costs less under a voluntary competitive plan.
The administration costs of any medical care plan are related to the efficiency of its directors and they will he lower under a voluntary competitive plan than under a government plan, said today John S. Arthur, director of sales and group insurance service of the Prudential of America.
Mr. Arthur was taking part in a seminar of the educational conference of the National Foundation of Health, Welfare and Pension Plans Inc. "The administrative costs are not arrived at by magic, he said; they depend on the efficiency of the directors and it seems more likely that a voluntary plan which must fight to survive is a little better administered than a monopolistic public plan responsible only to the electors.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
He emphasized that the advocates of full socialization persist in comparing the yearly premium of $24 in Saskatchewan to the premium for other provincial schemes and private insurance companies without taking into consideration that this premium covers only a quarter of the total cost of the scheme; that personal and corporate taxes of that province-
In Saskatchewan.
-are the highest in Canada and that physicians' fees are 85 per cent of the rates in force before the implementation of the government's scheme.
Mr. Arthur emphasized that according to the constitution, the federal government has no right to dictate to each province the terms of their medical care program and questioned its right to do it indirectly through substantial grants, provided the provinces comply with federal requirements.
He stated that the private voluntary schemes now cover 72 per cent of the population in connection with certain forms of medical care and that in British Columbia, in Alberta and in Ontario where government and private insurance companies operate jointly, the schemes cover more than 83 per cent.
Among the other reasons he quoted for keeping voluntary agencies in the field of medical care, Mr. Arthur mentioned that, in some industries, the employees participating in collective schemes receive benefits comparable to those offered by the various provincial schemes and that the employers pay the premiums in whole or in part.
That was with respect to the pension plan. In the case of medicare, the government clearly should have submitted a bill having greater respect for private enterprise. And when we of the Ralliement Creditiste suggest to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General the creation of a health dividend by means of which the government would pay
December 1, 1966

part of the cost incurred by the head of a family or by a bachelor, who is on his own, who lives by himself, so that everyone may be covered and receive medical care, hospital treatment, etc., this would cost the government less than the implementation of a plan such as the one provided for in Bill No. C-227.
And when the minister-coming back to his statement-claims that he has no money or that he cannot, because of inflation, proceed with medicare or the creation of a health dividend before-in his opinion-July 1, 1968-maybe earlier if economic conditions improve-the member for York South was right when he said that present economic conditions are good. Why, then, come and tell us that there is a threat of inflation and why, if our economy is buoyant deprive the population of a service which they need?
Let me give you an example, here. The history of our country-a relatively young country-brings back many events. Personally, I remember back in 1929, on the eve of the depression, there was a kind of inflation prevailing in Canada,-at least that is what we were told. And, between 1929 and 1939, we experienced an economic depression because the people who were in control curtailed the supply of money and credit and imposed restrictions. Hardship was a way of life during those ten years.
Now, in 1939, through some magic trick or other, the then minister of finance-I believe it was hon. Mr. Ilsley-found all the money needed at the outbreak of the war. This evening, I dare the Minister of Finance to deny the fact that, if war broke out somewhere in the world, tomorrow morning he would be able to find the billions of dollars required to set the wheels of war industry a-rolling in Canada, so that we might lack nothing to meet our obligations or to cope with the emergency.
Mr. Chairman, if for the sake of national urgency, the hon. Minister of Finance wants to use financial means other than those he is already using, to loosen credit, to give the Canadian people the means to get medical attention in case of illness, to give them a health dividend, he can do so without causing inflation. There is inflation when purchasing power exceeds available goods by too much. When there is an abundance of goods and purchasing power runs low, then we have deflation.
The hon. Minister of Finance should go and find out amongst his own electors whether they have too much or too little money. He
Medicare
will find out what the answer is. And the same applies throughout Canada.
Mr. Chairman, the government can act sooner and set a target date earlier than 1968. They can also lighten the burden of the provinces. The Minister of Finance knows that the provinces cannot afford to set up medicare at the present time. That is why he is postponing its application to 1968.
Mr. Chairman, even after the plan is approved, other federal-provincial conferences will be held and the provinces-not only Quebec but the others-will come to Ottawa and ask the federal government to increase the equalization payments and to give them back their taxation rights.
Mr. Chairman, Bill No. C-227 does not solve the problem. Postponing the implementation of the plan from 1967 to 1968 does not solve the problem. I repeat that the problem is financial, as much for the provinces as for Ottawa. The minister said that he cannot do certain things because the financial means are lacking and the same is true for the provinces.
Instead of passing the buck, instead of blaming the others, steps should be taken to put our financial house in order; finance should be put at the service of the provinces and the Canadian government and a health dividend should be paid to our people. It can be done.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me I should not endeavour to defend the theory of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), as I believe he can do that himself, but, as I must speak, because of something which occurred during the day, I should like to allow myself to state my personal reactions to some of the arguments put forward, against the proposed amendment, namely the postponement until July 1, 1968 of the implementation of this bill.
I listened with special interest to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), because I agree with all other members that the hon. member for York South is an extremely brilliant attorney, an impressive one, not only on the merits of his arguments but also the vigour of his dialectics and vocabulary. As a criminologist, I believe he must be extraordinarily successful; as an economist, I doubt that he would get such good results. For the time being, he is not responsible for controlling the country's finance. Therefore, I think the wisest course is being followed by placing confidence in the minister, who assumes the responsibilities and defends them, even

December 1, 1966
Medicare
against his interest from the election standpoint, if I believe what was said a while ago by the hon. member for York South, who, during his speech referred to a political error being made by the Minister of Finance.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
If the Minister of Finance makes a political error, if he ignores the repercussions which his attitude on medicare may have, on future elections I say he rises in my estimation, for it shows he is a man of courage, that he is not impressed by election considerations and that he performs his duty to the end. That is something that impressed me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I confess that I for one, know for a fact that one must have a certain amount of courage to hold one's own against election fever, to perform one's duty to the end. In his case, his duty is precisely to try and control the Canadian economy, to prevent a greater evil for all taxpayers. I certainly give him the benefit of the doubt, because he is as sincere as we all are about this matter; he must be as anxious as we are to provide all Canadians with the medical services they need, but not at any price, at the price of a heavier fiscal burden, for instance.
When the hon. member for York South mentioned that the minister had refused to mention here certain differences of opinion within the liberal caucus between certain ministers and private members, I was much amused at first, and then I was impressed, because if differences of opinion are still possible in the caucus of the Liberal, Conservative or New Democratic parties, I am comforted and reassured, for it means that democracy still exists in our country.
Both sides should afterwards make concessions to find an acceptable formula, this is also a democratic procedure. I do not think that this argument could reflect on the cause of the Minister of Finance. Now the member for York South has stated that the minister has yielded to the pressures of financiers.
Mr. Chairman, I am one of those who carefully study the philosophy of the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, because I am also one of those who feel sorry for the poor. Up to now, I have not been convinced that there is a cure-all for all those things and as long as I am not convinced and I have not obtained incontrovertible evidence, I prefer to trust the present state of affairs-I refer to the financial situation-and remember that those who pay our
salaries, who find us employment and finally who control the economy are those who usually are quite disdainfully called the financiers. We would wake up in a bad fix one of these mornings, if all those financiers decided to withdraw their funds from the economic machinery of Canada and merely enjoy the income which their money could yield. I wonder also how many salaries would be sacrificed.
Therefore, I say that the views of Canadian financiers should not be lightly condemned and fustigated, before having, of course, found something better. When the member for York South says that the minister is unfair, his arguments are totally inconsistent. I think that was the criminal lawyer speaking, knowing well that he was exaggerating the facts, but some of them are nevertheless obvious.
Four provinces have now their own medicare plans and even those four provinces do not agree on all the terms and conditions. Six provinces have yet to establish one, because many of them hesitate to embark upon such a scheme. Therefore, it would probably be wise to postpone the implementation of the program, to afford all the provinces the opportunity of getting together once again to discuss the matter and try to find a compromise. What purpose would it serve to put the plan into effect before them, I wonder.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member for Villeneuve was somewhat inconsistent tonight-it must have been a slip, because he very seldom is-when he said, for instance, to the minister that our growing economy was healthy. If that is the case, then why delay putting the plan into effect? At first, I thought he had said that the minister had probably found a good reason for the postponement when the provinces objected to the plan. That is a fact, an important fact, and I believe the hon. member for Villeneuve was right in this respect. If all the provinces, or most of them, are not ready to accept such a plan, then why force it down their throats?
Then, there is this other argument which is obvious to everybody: the hon. member for Villeneuve was right when he said our people do not like to pay taxes. If those who voted for the hon. member for York South like it, well then there are some wonderful voters in this country, and I congratulate them. Our people do not like to pay taxes. But now they know taxes will go up so as to check, at last, the danger of inflation and also to provide for the increase in the old age pension.
It would probably not be wise to expect too much from them at a time, and the imposed

December 1, 1966

delay may be abundantly justified. At least this is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, and the reason why I thought I should support the government proposal.
Now I would not want to make the same mistake as those who suggested amendments here; given a free hand, they would have extended the bill to cover all miracle-mongers, quacks, masseurs, masseuses, faith-healers, gifted seventh sons of the seventh son, fortune-tellers, and the like. After all, the line must be drawn somewhere. The fact remains, Mr. Chairman, that several speakers said that the time should probably be extended.
I suggest to the minister that, during the period preceding the coming into effect of this bill, certain categories should be added, just as I said at the beginning. I should like to put on record a letter sent to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) by some professional people in my constituency. I mention it because it is not a confidential letter, and anyhow I was asked to bring it up. I think this will answer the wishes of quite a number of members who have suggested that certain categories be added. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall quote the letter:
The bill respecting medicare submitted to the House of Commons on July 12, 1966 was intended to authorize the payment of contributions by the government of Canada toward the cost of insured medical services incurred by provincial medical care plans.
Whereas the bill moved:
1.	Does not take into consideration the qualification of the dentist or the oral surgeon;
2.	Provides that only physicians should be considered as participants to this plan and therefore should be the only ones to be paid for surgery which comes within the competence of dentists or oral surgeons;
3.	Specifies that the physician is more qualified than the dentist and the oral surgeon to perform intrabuccal surgery, while dentistry deals exclusively with the mouth;
4.	Brings about necessarily a discrimination against dentists, since patients will be treated where it is less expensive.
5.	Denies the free choice of a therapeutist for economic reasons.
6.	Will affect the professional training of dentists and especially of oral surgeons because it will no longer be necessary to train qualified specialists in this field if their services are not recognized by medicare;
7.	Will affect the teaching provided of certain subjects in dentistry schools by compelling them to withdraw these subjects from their curriculum;
8.	It is likely to deny to the public the right to receive services to which they were previously used to get.
23033 -6725
Medicare
It is therefore proposed by the dentists who wrote me:
1.	That this bill be amended to eliminate the discriminatory clauses against dentists, oral surgeons and their patients;
2.	That our taxes should pay for oral and jawbone surgery performed by dentists and oral surgeons in the same capacity as physicians who perform the same surgery;
3.	The qualifications of dentists and oral surgeons be recognized or acknowledged for the treatments involving oral surgery;
4.	The above-mentioned amendments be integrated to the bill still under study.
This document is signed by a prominent dentist in my constituency, Dr. Vincent Dontigny, and I know that Dr. Dontigny speaks on behalf of all his colleagues.
Now, Mr. Chairman, even though I do not wish to delay the passage of this bill with my suggestion, may I recommend to the hon. minister, as many other members have done, that between now and the coming into effect of the legislation, conferences be held with the provincial authorities concerned, and perhaps also with representatives of professional medical associations in all branches of medicine, in order that we may succeed in adding the class of medical practitioners which has just been mentioned, as well as some others the need for which is imperative, and that it would be useless to name one by one again tonight.
In conclusion, I may say that probably we would act wisely in speeding up the debate, in order that the bill, which is liable to be amended within the foreseen time-limit, might come into effect as soon as possible, and that we might deal with other subjects as important as this one.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago, the hon. member was mentioning that quacks, healers, masseurs and masseuses would like to be included in the bill. Would the hon. member favour for instance, the inclusion of optometrists and podiatrists. Can he answer me on that particular point?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is the only one who did not understand that I was trying to be funny, when I spoke of quacks, masseurs and masseuses. I have no objection at all; on the contrary, I did mention there were other classes, other medical professions that should be added to the bill; I agree with the hon. member and I even favour the inclusion of podiatrists, Mr. Chairman-

December 1, 1966
Medicare


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Cadieux) moved:
That clause 2 of Bill C-227 be amended,
(a)	by renumbering paragaphs (b) to (k) thereof as paragraphs (c) to (1), respectively, and adding as paragraph (b) thereof the following:
"Contribution commencement day", (b) "contribution commencement day" means the 1st day of July, 1968, or such earlier day as the governor in council may fix by proclamation, being a day not less than six months after the day the proclamation is issued;"
(b)	by substituting the letter "(j)" for the letter "(i)" where it appears in paragraph (c) thereof; and
(c)	by substituting the expression "contribution commencement day" for the expression "1st day of July, 1967," where it appears in paragraph (1) thereof.
The Depuiy Chairman: Is the house ready for the question?


Maurice Rinfret: Is it the wish of the committee that we now consider paragraph (f) of clause 2?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, it would be preferable from my point of view if we could stand this clause until tomorrow. In connection with this clause an amendment to paragraph (1) is being considered by the Chair. I wonder whether the committee would agree to deferring consideration of the clause. Perhaps we could move from this clause to other clauses and come back to it later, maybe tomorrow.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the minister has any idea how the Chair will rule on this amendment. I think the first thing to do would be to ascertain whether the Chair is prepared to rule on the validity of the amendment before proceeding with the clause.


Maurice Rinfret: The Chair is not prepared to rule on the amendment yet. Is it agreed by the committee that we now proceed to clause 3?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
IMr. Mongrain.]
On clause 3-Contribution payable.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put some questions to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) regarding section 3, which 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.
Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the government in Ottawa, under Bill No. C-227, intrudes and enters quite noticeably into a field coming under provincial jurisdiction by virtue of the B.N.A. Act namely the field of health, and, by the same token, seeks to impose rather drastic conditions to provincial governments, by refusing to give them a free hand in the choice of insured medical services but, on the contrary, by including some insurable medical services and suppressing others, as was seen in section 2, when he refused to include the services of dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, etc., I wonder whether the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen)-I am not too sure which one is involved, but I rather think it is the Minister of Finance-would not be ready to amend section 3 so as to pay a fiscal equivalent to the provinces which so desire?
If a province wishes to get a fiscal equivalent, either because it finds the federal plan inadequate or because it feels the federal government should not intrude in the field of health, is the Minister of Finance ready to grant such a request by handing over to that province a percentage of the personal and corporate income tax? Then, those who claim that this legislation violates the B.N.A. Act would perhaps be satisfied. Such a fiscal compensation could satisfy those who contend, rightly, that the federal government is allowing no discretion at all to the provincial authorities in the health field, whereas health, under the British North America Act, comes precisely under provincial authority.
I am wondering then whether the hon. Minister of Finance and Receiver General would be ready to answer to this immediately and would agree to replace the words "A contribution is payable by Canada" with the following "A tax credit will be allowed by Canada to each province, etc.".
I am directing that question to the hon. minister in the hope of getting an answer.
December 1, 1966


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that a proposal to this effect was made on second reading and was turned down by the house. Therefore I think it would be out of order to discuss such an amendment now. In any event, in answer to the question put to me directly I would say that it is not the intention of the government to agree to pay fiscal equivalence to any province.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, could the hon. minister tell me what the provinces which already have medicare, such as Alberta, a province which supplies quite extensive medical services, will have to do once Bill No. C-227 is passed, and especially clause 3. Will the province of Alberta have to devise a new medical care plan to comply with the standards set by the federal government or will the federal government respect the plan which is now in force in Alberta, or in British Columbia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be appropriate for such questions to be answered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare rather than myself. I answered the question put by the hon. member for Lapointe because he put the question in a form that perhaps made it appropriate for the Minister of Finance to reply. But this is a question that ought to be directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I am sure he would be happy to answer it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, any provincial plan, whether it now exists or will be brought into existence as a result of this bill, in order to qualify for contributions from the federal government must meet the criteria set out in clause 4. In the case of Alberta or any other province, if the provincial medicare plan meets these four principles it will be eligible for contributions from the federal government.


David Réal Caouette: Let us take the example of Alberta which has had a plan in effect for quite a few years. Will they be obliged to withdraw their plan and conform to the criteria laid down by the federal government so as to become eligible for partial contributions from the federal government or will the federal government contribute to the plan now in existence in that province? What is the minister's intention in that regard?
Medicare


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The plan must meet the criteria set forth in the bill, namely, the range of coverage of physicians' services in proportion to the population, public administration, and portability. These are the principal criteria and the Alberta plan would have to be changed according to the degree to which it does not meet these criteria in order to become eligible for the contributions.


David Réal Caouette: Has the minister received any indication from the government of Alberta that, for instance, they do not wish to subscribe to the federal plan but will continue their own plan? Has the minister received any such representations from Alberta?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have had discussions with the provincial ministers of health and on the occasion of the last meeting the minister of health from Alberta expressed his views with respect to our proposals. I believe it is well known that both the premier and the minister of health of that province have not enthusiastically endorsed the principles of the bill.


Mr. Fullon:: The minister is saying now that in order to qualify provincial plans must conform absolutely to the four criteria laid down in the bill. He is also saying that he absolutely refuses to contemplate any change in those criteria. Let me ask the minister why he is so determined that no further change will be made in the criteria when, on the other hand, in the announcement he made on November 29 in which he expressed his readiness to agree to exempt eye refractions he changed one of the criteria laid down by the Prime Minister in July, 1965. In other words, the minister has made a substantial departure from the principles of coverage laid down by the Prime Minister.
Why does he insist now on being stubborn and say that he will accept no other change? Why will he not accept a change to bring the federal plan into conformity with provincial plans? If he wants to get a medicare scheme going in Canada why does he not do the sensible and flexible thing and say: "We will supplement provincial plans"? Why this stubbornness on this point when he has shown himself to be so ready and so illogical as to exempt eye refraction services from this scheme contrary to the criteria laid down by the Prime Minister in July of last year? Can the minister answer this question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I disagree with the hon. member's contention that

December 1, 1966
Medicare
the option of the exclusion of eye refractions departs from the principles put forward by the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister stated that, broadly speaking, the plan would cover physicians' services and he did refer to the possibility of limited exclusion. An example which he used was cosmetic surgery.
Later, in discussions with the ministers of health my predecessor, the present Secretary of State, did discuss with the provinces the possibility of limited exclusions, one of which was eye refractions. The reason that I am putting forward this proposal for the consideration of the committee is to meet the particular situation which exists with respect to services performed both by ophthalmologists and optometrists. We do not consider that this represents any departure from the original proposals because the Prime Minister made reference to the possibility of certain limited exclusions, and this is merely one of several optional limited exclusions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I thought we had talked the minister out of going ahead with the amendment providing these exclusions. Is that not so?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, this is not the case. I wish to put this amendment before the committee in order to give the committee an opportunity to make a judgment on how to meet the problem posed by the optometric profession.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the minister indicate to what clause in the bill he will be making this amendment? Since he says he wants the committee's judgment, will we have a free vote on it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I propose to make the amendment to clause 4.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the minister admits flexibility with respect to certain provisions in the bill, why does he not admit flexibility with respect to other provisions? In other words, the government's mind is not fixed and immutable. Is that what he is telling us?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the proposal I have in mind to change clause 4 is fully in accord with the original statement made by the Prime Minister. The criteria that are set forth in the bill are the very heart of our proposals and are the very essence of the plan that was put forward. We had quite a discussion on second reading and on that occasion I attempted to set forward the reasoning behind

the government's decision, for example, to ask for 90 per cent and ultimately 95 per cent coverage of the provincial population. We regard these criteria as the very heart of our proposals and certainly I could not recommend any changes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on this point I will make further remarks when we get to clause 4. In the meantime I suggest to the minister that since he has shown a readiness to make exceptions in one case he must be consistent and agree to make exceptions in others.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have directed a question to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) on section 3 and have asked him if the federal government was ready to grant a tax credit instead of a contribution payable by Canada and I pointed out that under section 92 of the B.N.A. Act, health comes under provincial jurisdiction. And we have heard, Mr. Chairman, a statement of no more than three sentences made by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General to the effect that he assumed the right to violate the B.N.A. Act, whenever he chose to do so.
I was just looking up the B.N.A. Act, Mr. Chairman, and in the preamble it is stated that such an agreement arrived at by certain provinces, and British colonies would contribute to the welfare of those provinces and promote the interests of the British Empire.
Accordingly, the provinces got together and came to an understanding. And it so happens that 100 years later, just as everyone is getting ready to celebrate the centennial of that particular agreement, the Minister of Finance and Receiver General rises in his seat and, in less than three minutes, takes the liberty to throw in the wastebasket all those things agreed upon in 1867 to make a mockery of them and to laugh at them. And then they will ask Quebec people to celebrate 100 years of Canadian confederation. Well, Quebec will call that 100 years of injustice and, as they are already doing in any case, they will say: 100 years during which federal ministers of finance, like the one we now have, made a mockery of and laughed at the agreements reached in 1867. Therefore, how can the Minister of Finance and Receiver General ask us to celebrate those 100 years when he is the first to laugh at and violate the agreements reached 100 years ago?
December 1, 1966

Well, I say, precisely because there have been so-called Canadian citizens like the present Minister of Finance and Receiver General and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) who thinks nothing of approving all that in his bill and lightly betrays the agreements made in 1867, let us not be asked to celebrate the centennial, because we would be celebrating the violation of the agreements then made.
And this applies not only in the field of health but also in that of education and several others as well, where the federal government took it upon itself to trespass, because it had managed to steal away some of our taxation rights at the time of the war; those fields come under provincial jurisdiction as defined by the B.N.A. Act.
If the federal Minister of Finance and Receiver General wants to read it, I have the French text here and we can send for the English one on the Clerk's table he can then see what those agreements were all about.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe and maintain that clause 3 violates and denies all agreements concluded in 1867, when health was considered a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
We ask the Minister of Finance and Receiver General to agree to a fiscal compensation to the provinces instead of interfering directly in that field, that is that the province of Quebec be allowed to levy its taxes if it does not want to participate in that scheme. If other provinces do not want to join, let them receive a fiscal compensation, let them levy their own taxes, instead of having them levied by the federal government.
With those taxes, the province of Quebec will have the necessary funds to provide health services for all its citizens, and that is more necessary and important that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has sought to impose conditions which were rigid-


David Réal Caouette: Dictatorial.


Gilles Grégoire: -probably dictatorial to the medicare scheme, refusing to accept suggestions which respected the rights and decisions of the provinces. How is it that the provinces, which have jurisdiction on health insurance, cannot decide that dental and optometric care will be included in that medicare program? No, even if that is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, the provinces have no say in the matter; Ottawa is the one that takes the decisions and yet Ottawa pays only 50 per cent of the amount.
Medicare


David Réal Caouette: This is an autocratic government.


Gilles Grégoire: But Ottawa has control or, at least, feels authoritarian because it levies all taxes; it stole the taxation fields belonging to provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: True.


Gilles Grégoire: Exactly, it is a theft and those whom I hear muttering-I think they were not all here then-will remember the speech where Mr. Mackenzie King said that direct taxation was a provincial source of income which the provinces could recover after the war. It was never recovered-


An hon. Member:: Yes, it was.


Gilles Grégoire: Tell us how the provinces recovered it. It is still the federal government that levies the greater part of taxes and it is with those taxes that medicare insurance will be imposed on the provinces according to very strict, very restrictive provisions, and under conditions which they have no business to accept if they know how to stand straight and with pride. But, that field of taxation has never been given back to the provinces; the federal government has kept it like a thief; it has refused to hand back what it has stolen under certain pretences.
Mr. Chairman, I say that it is due to attitudes such as the one taken by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that there is increasing dissatisfaction in the province of Quebec.
The booklet entitled The Last Chance written by my hon. friend, the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), and published in 1963 bears witness to what I am saying.


Mr. Boulanger:: How many copies did you sell?
The hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) asked me how many copies I have sold. I can tell him one thing; he would not even be capable of writing one two pages long.
Mr. Chairman, this pamphlet is entitled The Last Chance and I agree with what my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, was saying at that time, that is that the federal government had managed to take over matters under the jurisdiction of the provinces. In conclusion, the hon. member said:
Let us at least before 1967-

December 1, 1966
Medicare
This is the last sentence of the pamphlet.


Prosper Boulanger: Have you read it, at least?


Gilles Grégoire: I can assure the hon. member for Mercier that I have read it, only I was looking for that line.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Here it is, the last line of this pamphlet written by my colleague:
Let us at least before 1967 be charitable enough to try one last time.
This last try, for the member for Sherbrooke, since he wrote it, is to be before 1967. I would remind my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke that he has 30 days left. The year 1967 begins in 30 days; today is the first of December 1966, and 1967 begins in 30 days.
For the last five years, Mr. Chairman, I have been charitable enough to try, but I realized before 1967 that it was useless to try to remind the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare of the respect which is due to the Canadian constitution. Today, one month before the date fixed, the date which the hon. member for Sherbrooke fixed himself, we realize that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare are refusing to understand one word of what the hon. member for Sherbrooke said in his pamphlet entitled "The Last Chance". I think the hon. member for Sherbrooke will join in my appeal to the Minister of Finance that in this month of December, in this last month before the dead-line set by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, before the beginning of 1967, the Centennial Year of what has been called the Canadian Confederation, he and his colleagues of the federal cabinet will not persist in transgressing the spirit and the letter of the constitution.
I ask them, at least in this last month of
1966,	before heralding the celebrations of
1967,	not to persist in encroaching upon provincial jurisdictions as recognized by the British North America Act. If the Minister of Finance is going to prove once more that the federal government does not intend to live up to its agreements, I ask my colleague for Sherbrooke to denounce in no uncertain terms this confederation which has only been a series of actions taken unilaterally by the federal government always encroaching upon Quebec jurisdiction as set out in the British North America Act.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, the text, the substance and the contents of clause 3 of the

bill before us, and the government's refusal to grant tax credits, as in the case of other federal acts-since precedents have already been set and that here, in Ottawa, precedents are highly valued-are, to my mind, rank discrimination against taxpayers of a non-participating province.
When I speak of the province of Quebec, which is about to establish an independent medical care plan,-I do not know if there is discrimination here, but I refer to the province of Quebec because the authorities of that province have, until now, declared publicly that they intended to make use of their full constitutional responsibility in order to implement for the benefit of the population of that province a fully autonomous medicare scheme-


David Réal Caouette: Would the hon. member permit me to clarify one point?
I appreciate his interest for the province of Quebec, but I point out to him that medicare plans are presently in operation in Alberta and in British Columbia, and that those provinces are not at all in favour of the federal government's present proposals. Therefore, I feel we should be fair toward other provinces who are seeking the recognition of their autonomy, just as we are.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, the remark made by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is very appropriate. When I spoke about the province of Quebec, I wished to give only one example, for at the very beginning of my observations, I said clause 3 was discriminatory and unfair toward taxpayers in the non-participating provinces, and in the other six provinces of Canada, that cannot or do not want, because it is not in their best interest, to participate in the federal medical care legislation, and that, on account of the same grievances we are raising.
The hon. ministers facing the fire of arguments concerning this bill in the house are obviously disregarding the Canadian constitution, as pointed out by the hon. member for Lapointe, (Mr. Gregoire).
Section 92 of the Canadian constitution, not only in its letter, but mainly in its spirit, put under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in 1867-and the word "exclusive" is in the wording of the preamble to section 92. During our school days, when we scrutinized the meaning of words, we learned that the word "exclusive" meant an absolute right, a right which belonged to us in an absolute way, which could not be taken away from us
December 1, 1966

neither directly nor indirectly, and that we could not be forced to share with somebody else the authority or responsibility in regard to all questions of local, regional, social, civil, family and professional character.
Mr. Chairman, when we take the trouble to read the 1865 debates on confederation-I am convinced that if many members have read them, they must be much less numerous on the government side-though the book is available in the Library of Parliament, we see in this 450-page volume what the legislators of the time meant by apportionment of responsibilities in the case of federation they were about to establish between the central government and the provincial governments.
Mr. Chairman, these responsibilities were given over entirely to the provinces, not only following the spirit and the letter of Section 92, but in all proceedings and debates on confederation, in 1865.
But now this government is scorning this more every passing day; the present administration has entered, in turn, the race to centralization. It was a disgrace from a constitutional standpoint, to hear the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) state, early in September or October, when we were talking of fiscal compensation in the field of medicare insurance, that he found very amusing to see honourable members raise constitutional matters; for him, it was useless fuss.
Mr. Chairman, if there are Canadians who believe in written texts and in the good faith that must unite all Canadians from coast to coast, we have no right in this country to go on blindly, beating around the bush constantly, and living in the constitutional chaos in which this government has thrown us.
We had the finest example of this at the federal-provincial conference when the provinces expressed their dissatisfaction to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) who carries tremendous responsibilities in this country, as well as to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. But no the provincial and constitutional responsibilities are being pushed around.
Mr. Chairman, the taxpayers of a non-participating province, such as Quebec, under this Article 3, will have to pay taxes to the central government, part of which will be used to pay the cost of federal medicare as it will apply in the nine other Canadian provinces, rather in seven other Canadian provinces. At the same time, Quebec taxpayers will pay taxes to their provincial government 23033-673
Medicare
which government will set up its own autonomous medicare scheme; they will thus be forced to pay double taxes in a field which, according to the constitution, falls strictly under provincial jurisdiction.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Allard: If the Canadian constitution no longer makes sense, if the present government wants to continue to make light of a whole history of questions, of findings, agreements and accords reached by the two great nations which made up our country in 1867, let them be honest enough to say so, that those who still believe in that document might know where they stand.
Mr. Chairman, that legislation and that clause 3 constitute serious discrimination against the taxpayers of a non participating province. Even at the last federal-provincial conference, the federal government did not want to give back to the provinces the fiscal fields which belong to them and which, as pointed out by the hon. member for Lapointe, were taken from them during periods of economic recession and war. In that respect, I would like the hon. members to refer to the statement made by the late senator Jacob Nicol on April 13, 1959, in the other place, and I quote:
It is stealing and not borrowing to keep permanently something borrowed.
Therefore the provinces' taxation right is being stolen from them.
Here is a man who, of his own free will, maintained and said to the same government which had appointed him to the Senate that it was stealing the rights of the provinces, which is what the present government keeps on doing thanks to the slackness of the government members.
Mr. Chairman, the time has come to protest in this house against this slackness which allows the Canadian constitution to be violated. That legislation is unsatisfactory. Ottawa wants to meddle in everything and it cannot do anything properly. It wants to take over medicare throughout the country and does so in a discriminatory fashion. It assumes part of medicare and forgets about optical and dental services. Of course, we have to look after everything and when such things are not our concern, we do it poorly. That is why that legislation is unsatisfactory.
Once again I want to object to it in this house and blame the government and all those

December 1, 1966
Medicare
who support it because through that legislation the province of Quebec will lose over $300 million from January 1, 1968 until January 1, 1972. I cannot understand how the government members from the province of Quebec can afford to vote for a discriminatory legislation through which their province and their people will lose over $300 million.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I feel bound once again to support the remarks of my colleague from Sherbrooke. Of course, what is involved here is a matter of principle, an important constitutional matter and, in the circumstances, I feel we cannot allow the action now being taken by the federal government to pass unnoticed.
My colleague from Sherbrooke has raised another point which is worth mentioning. If a province refuses to participate in the medical care plan now proposed by the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare and decides to set up its own health insurance plan, the taxpayers of that province will then find themselves subjected to double taxation in order to benefit from only one health insurance plan.
Is this logical, Mr. Chairman? Can the Minister of Finance give us only one good reason-and I am asking this of all my Quebec colleagues in this house-why the Quebec government could not set up its own health insurance plan? Is it not allowed to do so, under the constitution? Has it not the authority and the possibility of doing so?


An hon. Member:: It has the right to levy taxes.


Gilles Grégoire: It has the right to do so. Now, I would ask my Quebec colleagues, in case Quebec decided to do so, whether they would accept that their fellow-citizens be taxed once for the Quebec scheme and once for the Ottawa plan? Are my Quebec colleagues in this house ready to accept that? That is the question I ask them.
Well, if they are ready to accept that Quebec citizens be subjected to double taxation to obtain a single service, I leave it to the Quebec citizens to pass judgment on their conduct. Are they ready to recommend at least that Quebec citizens be not placed in that position? The Quebec government is not made up of my colleagues here, in the house, no matter which party they belong to. We are not the heads of the Quebec government. It was elected democratically to legislate. If the people of Quebec are not satisfied with it, they
can overthrow it. But as things stand now, it was elected democratically. And if the Quebec government decided to institute a Quebec health insurance plan, it would do so under the authority it received from the people at the last election.
The problem, for us, is this: Should we, as representatives of the people, allow our people to be put in the position where members elected in Ottawa decide to institute a medicare plan while members elected in Quebec city choose to exercise their right and also decide to establish a health insurance plan? One government has the right to do it, but both decide to do it. Quebec citizens can take advantage of the services but once, but they have to pay twice.
Then, our proposal is the following. Should the Quebec government decide to introduce a medicare plan of its own, as it has the right to, we do not want Quebec citizens to pay taxes twice. Is that reasonable? What we are asking for is a fiscal compensation for the provinces that will decide to introduce their own scheme. If a province decides to introduce a plan including a greater number of services, it is free to do so.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: May I ask a question of the hon. member?


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Clause 3 of the bill 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.
Therefore, if the hon. member reads the whole bill, he will find that this is not a federal health plan, but merely a contribution to the cost of provincial medicare plans. The federal government is not establishing medicare, they are simply sharing the cost of provincial plans.


Gilles Grégoire: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I want the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) to tell me something. Let us say that the Quebec government decides to implement its own plan and include optometric, dental, podiatric and other services. Will the federal government contribute in this case?
IMr. Allard.]
COMMONS DEBATES	10633
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
December 1, 1966


An hon. Member:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: There you have it. No, I am told. The answer is no. Therefore, it is a federal plan with legal strings attached. If the minister will permit me to continue-because I have an amendment to move before ten o'clock-I will answer any question he wishes to ask, but first I would like to point out to him the purpose of our intervention so that he may formulate his questions in accordance with this amendment.
Therefore, I move, seconded by my friend the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard):
-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.
With this amendment, clause 3 would read as follows: A contribution is payable by Canada or a fiscal compensation is made by Canada at the discretion of each province in accordance with this act.


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Chairman, it is ten o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if I may call it ten o'clock, I will resume my comments tomorrow.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we shall continue the discussion of the medicare bill in committee of the whole, to be followed by order No. Ill, the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act. If by any chance that is finished, we shall consider item No. 100 dealing with scientific research.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
23033-673|

Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on November 22, 1966, I put the following question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson):
Since a great number of C.B.C. employees of the French network-
And you will note, Mr. Speaker, that this was before the taking of the vote at the C.B.C. with respect to choosing their negotiating agent. I therefore asked the following question:
Since a great number of C.B.C. employees of the French network have chosen the C.N.T.U. as their negotiating agent, even though the latter is not recognized by the C.L.R.B., could the Minister of Labour tell me whether the C.N.T.U., even if not participating officially in the vote secured the majority of votes of C.B.C. employees of the French network, would be recognized by the Department of Labour as the agent of those employees?
Mr. Speaker gave me the following reply:
I wonder whether the question as put by the hon. member is not hypothetical.
Well, what appeared as a gratuitous assumption to many proved to be true to a great extent. The vote took place on the English and the French networks of C.B.C., to see who would represent C.B.C. employees in their negotiations with their employers. Only two unions were allowed to take part in the vote, both of them responsible to the C.L.C.
Now, the votes were inconclusive on the French network of the C.B.C., as well as in the C.B.C. in general, because about 250 C.B.C. employees, all belonging to the French network, wrote on their voting paper "Confederation of National Trade Unions", thus stating that they wanted neither the
I.A.T.C., nor the Canadian Union of the Public Service, but wished to be represented by a union responsible to the C.N.T.U., the Confederation of National Trade Unions.
Today, we are facing a dead-lock. The
I.A.T.C., which used to represent the C.B.C. employees from coast to coast, is far from having had the majority since it came third, that is after the Canadian Union of Public Service and far behind the Confederation of National Trade Unions.
It so happens, however, and that in accordance with the law, that the rival union, not having obtained 50 per cent plus 1 of the votes of the registered employees, the former union continues to represent all C.B.C. employees.
10634	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that, faced with the facts and with the clear and distinct manifestation of the wishes of the C.B.C. French network employees, the present government must assume its responsibilities and respect the clearly expressed desire of the C.B.C. French network employees, by allowing them to choose a union they will accept. When as many as about 250 employees of the French network-264, I am told by my colleague from Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard)-clearly express their wish to become members of the C.N.T.U., then it is not for the Canada Labour Relations Board, nor for the government, to deny them that right.
The C.B.C. is now in a dilemma. Their English network employees want one union; those of the French network want another. But the Canada Labour Relations Board denies them the right to choose their union freely.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Minister of Labour to reconsider the matter, to consider the fact that national labour unions are not the only ones that matter, that there are also the natural unions which are close to the employees and which can provide them with similar if not more services.
The problem facing the C.B.C. today will arise in many other fields, but the federal government must not, through the Canada Labour Relations Board, force Quebec employees to join either an international union or a Toronto union. If Quebec employees want to be represented by a Quebec union, they should be allowed to do so. They must not be forced to join either an international union or a Toronto union. That would be respecting individual freedom. If the government does not give free choice to Quebec employees, it will show discrimination and destroy the latter's efforts to emerge, to really benefit from their culture and fulfil their ambitions by joining unions of their own.
No one has the right to annihilate a whole racial group by forcing it to belong to international unions or Toronto unions.
Mr. Speaker, to allow the C.B.C. French network employees to join the union of their own choice is to recognize a basic freedom. Now that the vote has been taken, that an imbroglio has resulted and that these employees have clearly indicated their wish, I ask the federal government what it proposes to do. I hope it will respect the free choice and the right to self-determination of the C.B.C. French network employees.

DEBATES	December 1, 1966


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke with his usual strong language and said, for example, that the government should not use the Canada Labour Relations Board to annihilate a whole race. It seems to me that the hon. member sets up straw men on occasions and windmills on other occasions in describing situations that really do not exist.
The Canada Labour Relations Board does not make decisions based on race, creed or religion. It is a board set up by parliament for the purpose of acting in a fair and responsible manner. In light of the situation now existing in the province of Quebec a cabinet committee is making a thorough study of the whole matter and it will be reporting to the cabinet in a very short time.


Gilles Grégoire: When?



CANADA LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE-DEFERMENT OF PART APPLICABLE TO SHIPPING EMPLOYERS

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I desire to raise a matter of extreme importance to shipping industry employees and which has ramifications affecting other industries and other employees. It is regrettable that neither the Minister of Labour nor his parliamentary secretary are here this evening to comment on this vitally important subject.
When the Canada Labour (Standards) Code came into effect it imposed upon industries under federal jurisdiction certain hours of work. One part of the act made it possible for the imposition of these limited hours of work to be deferred for a period of 18 months to permit a formula to be worked out. That was the spirit and intention of the law. Section 53 of the act is worded in such a way that if any person makes application for deferment of the law the imposition of limited hours of work becomes almost indefinitely deferred until the minister makes an order putting into effect certain hours of work or rejects the application to defer that section.
In August of this year meetings were held with employers in the shipping industry. They were held on August 17, and on August 19 meetings were held with union representatives. It is interesting to note that the meetings held on August 19 with union representatives present were held under the auspices of George Haythorne, deputy minister of labour. These meetings were of such a nature that a
December 1, 1966	COMMONS
representative of the employers was in attendance listening to the proposals the unions made in respect of hours of work. But no mention was made of the fact that the employers had made their presentation two days before, and no opportunity was given to the unions to hear what the employers had suggested in order to deal with the hours of work problem. That smacks to me of a little bit of favouritism on one side.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The unions wrote to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) about this matter on September 29 this year. The minister replied on October 13. I will not read his letter in its entirety but will merely make reference to the fact that the minister suggested that the employees and the employers get together and work out some mutually acceptable formula for the application of the hours of work section in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. The minister said that, if necessary, his department stood ready to assist in any way to bring about such meetings. In fact, one of the paragraphs of the minister's letter says that further meetings are planned with both groups in the shipping industry soon in an endeavour to arrive at a satisfactory accommodation on hours of work. I submit that that statement is incorrect. No such meetings were planned and none have been held to date under the auspices of the Department of Labour.
Armed with that letter from the minister saying in effect, sit down and work it out for yourselves, the unions wrote to the Dominion Marine Association, the employers' association, and said, "Let us sit down and work out the hours of work as they apply to the shipping industry." They received a reply on November 23 signed by Philip Hurcomb, general manager of the association, the same individual whom George Haythorne, the deputy minister of labour, permitted to be in attendance at the meeting when the unions made their presentation on August 19. He stated that he had received the letter in which the unions said they would like a meeting in order to arrive at a sensible conclusion on matters set out in the code. He went on to say:
We have today-
November 23, 1966.
-made certain representations to the Minister of Labour as to what steps we consider should be taken . . . Our view in general is that this is a matter for the executive decision of the minister.
In other words, he was saying, it is up to the minister; we are not interested in meeting
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion with you to work out this matter and come to any sensible conclusion. The employers are refusing this meeting because they have made application for deferment. The employees have received almost a life sentence of exemption from the hours of work provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. There is one element in this situation that can bring about some order and that is the government. I submit that it is the direct responsibility of the government, especially when the minister promised in his letter of October 13 that the department and the government would assist in arranging meetings between the parties to see whether they could work out a mutually acceptable formula, to take steps immediately to do so.
It is now 18 months since the act came into effect in July of last year. A principal provision of the act is that no deferment shall take place for a period longer than 18 months. I hope, even though the Minister of Labour has not seen fit to be here this evening and his parliamentary secretary is not here, that somebody on the government side of the house will take this message to the government: For heaven's sake, get off your fanny, get cracking and arrange these meetings in order to bring the full benefits of the law to the employees working in the shipping industry of Canada.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize on behalf of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) for his inability to be here this evening to hear this very important question. However, I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that both the minister and the departmental officials have not been idle over the past several months. They have had much to keep them busy in the way of labour-management difficulties. The minister himself has been working 16 to 18 hours a day and regrets that he is unable to be here this evening because of another engagement.


Frank Howard: Longshoremen also work 16 to 18 hours a day.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: In so far as the deputy minister, George Haythorne, is concerned, I have worked with him for several years and know him to be a man of complete impartiality and one who is held in very high regard both by the labour force and by management. The delay is regrettable but I think the hon. member, himself a trade unionist, realizes as I do that schedules for continuous operations are very difficult to work out. If it were simply a matter of saying that overtime shall be paid at

December 1, 1966
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the rate of time and a half, double or triple time, as the case may be, then of course it would be very simple. However, this again would add greatly to the cost of shipping and would bring forth complaints from farmers on the prairies and various other shippers if rates were to escalate as a result of such a settlement of schedules. Of course the deferment will stand until a schedule has been worked out, and the minister is hopeful that there will be some solution to this problem before too long.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-DELAY IN DELIVERY OF PUBLICATIONS

Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I posed a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. C6te) with regard to what I termed rather poor mail service in the province of Nova Scotia. At that time I referred to the fact that the Western Catholic Reporter takes two weeks to reach Nova Scotia from Edmonton, Alberta. This is what has been happening in the past. Also, the Canadian Register has taken seven days to reach Nova Scotia from Kingston, Ontario. This has been brought to my attention by members of the clergy and others concerned.
Someone may say that this is not very important, but I consider it important and I am sure the Postmaster General does also because of the fact that we, as representatives of the people, have a right to bring before this chamber their problems. This is what I am doing at this time. In fact one of the clergy advised me that one issue of a newspaper printed three weeks ago had not arrived yet. He had written the editor of the newspaper in Kingston and in reply was told that it had been mailed very early.
Rather than go into great detail I should like to read an editorial and put it on record. It appeared in the Antigonish Casket, a newspaper published in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, on November 24,	1966. It is entitled
"Threatened Postal Strike" and reads as follows:
Most Canadians must have breathed a sigh of relief last week when the threatened postal strike was averted. We have maintained before, and we repeat our belief, that postal workers have a right to strike even if this should mean considerable disruption in the lives of all Canadians. We do, however, feel that there is something gravely wrong in the Canadian postal service.
Our own experience would indicate that the department spends far too little money to provide a really adequate postal service in the province of Nova Scotia. With practically all of the mail within the province transported by truck rather than by

train, the trucking service is entirely inadequate both as far as accuracy of sorting and frequency of deliveries are concerned.
Before the trucking service was introduced one New York magazine-not a news magazine incidentally-used to reach Antigonish on Monday following its Saturady publication date. Recently, however, we received the November 5 issue of this magazine on November 12, it was followed on November 14 by the issue of October 29 and on November 15 by that of November 12. To take another example, our copy of the National Catholic Reporter of November 2 reached us on November 15; the copy of November 9 arrived on November 16.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Another very notorious example of the complete inadequacy of the present system is the delivery of the Sunday New York Times. This used to arrive in Antigonish on Tuesday almost without fail. Now we hardly ever get it before Wednesday; very often it arrives on Thursday; occasionally it comes on Friday. Surely we have occasion to complain when a newspaper takes from Sunday to Friday to come from New York to Antigonish.
As far as letters mailed within the province are concerned we have equally grave objections. For news stories from the Cape Breton area we rely on telegraph service, but occasionally we need pictures from the Sydney area rather urgently. A picture mailed in the main post office in Sydney on Saturday, however, usually is not delivered in Antigonish until the following Tuesday. A letter mailed Monday morning at the Sydney post office very seldom makes our printing deadline of Tuesday noon.
The root cause of the whole problem is that the Post Office Department will not spend enough money to provide adequate service in Nova Scotia. As in so many other things. Nova Scotians are being shortchanged by their government in Ottawa,
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to pay particular attention to that sentence in the editorial, which I should like to repeat:
As in so many other things, Nova Scotians are being shortchanged by their government in Ottawa.
It is of great importance that Postmaster General Cote and his staff recognize the problem, and to do something about the postal system that is crumbling-at least in Nova Scotia.
I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, knowing the Postmaster General as I do and, as I said this afternoon, having always found him a gentleman in all matters, that he will give this matter his serious consideration and perhaps investigate the problem. I wish to thank him for doing me the courtesy of remaining in the house this evening. I know he is a busy man and could possibly be doing other work but it is an indication of how serious the minister feels the situation is. I hope he will say a few words with reference to this problem so that I can reply to the publishers of this editorial in the Antigonish Casket, as well as to the clergy and other subscribers affected.
December 1, 1966	COMMONS


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Poslmasler General):: Mr. Speaker, first I must say it is always a pleasure lor me to answer a question from the hon. member lor Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) because to me he represents his constituency and the region from which he comes well. He can be assured that all problems regarding the mails are very important to me. Since he asked me this question I have obtained some information about the Western Catholic Reporter in regard to its mailing and the complaint about the tardiness of its delivery.
First of all, I must say that these publications are all sent second-class mail and they are all moved through the country by the railways or by truck. The normal time for delivery of this publication from Edmonton to Nova Scotia should be approximately four to five days. The reason for this is that it is sent from Edmonton in a mail bag labelled "Province of Quebec and Eastern Provinces". The mail bag takes about three days from Edmonton to Montreal, where the mail is then sorted and sent on to Halifax by train, which takes another 24 hours. It is then sorted again in Halifax and put on trucks for delivery to the different mailing points, which would take another day. If this mail is sent from Edmonton on the Monday there is a possibility that it will arrive in Nova Scotia before the week end. On the other hand, if it is posted on Thursday or Friday it could be delayed because it has to go to Montreal on the week end. The men do not sort mail on Saturday or Sunday, even though there is always a group on duty during the night.
My department received only one complaint relating to the Western Catholic Reporter and this complaint came from Sister Lydia K. Tyszko of Cody International Institute in Antigonish. This complaint was in respect of a
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion non-receipt. I have asked the department to look into the complaint to see why the sister did not receive her publication.
The same problem arises in regard to the Canadian Register. This publication is posted apparently on Thursdays and the mail bag is labelled "Province of Quebec and the Eastern Provinces". It takes about two days to reach Montreal and the mail is then sorted, expedited to Halifax by train and dispatched to the different mailing points by truck. Because of the fact that this publication is mailed on Thursday it can be delayed on Sunday and in addition it might lose another day in Montreal.
There is another reason for mistakes happening in certain types of mail. Because of a relatively small mailing, mistakes can be made when, mistakenly, small mailings are mixed with third-class mail and left aside to be sorted during the week end.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret to interrupt the minister but the time allotted to him has expired.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: May I say one more sentence?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: On the
other hand, it is unusual to give more time to answers. It has been decided that seven minutes shall be allowed to the one asking the question and three minutes to the person answering in the name of the government. I regret that the rule must be applied.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday. December 2, 1966