1966-10-17

Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonton-Strath-cona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege arising out of statements made by the Minister of National Defence as reported in the Ottawa Journal of Saturday, October 15 under the by-line of Victor J. Mackie, the words giving rise to such question of privilege being the following:
"It is apparent that he has had second thoughts and is now engaged in the complete 'back-off' which substantiates my contention that the charge was 'spurious' designed to damage my reputation rather than to get at the facts."
Those are Mr. Hellyer's words. The minister was speaking about me and his statement clearly imputes an improper motive. His words are so strong as to impugn my very honour and integrity.
Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, the facts of the case are that I made a very serious charge against the minister, that I made it in this house in the only manner in which it could be made-that is by rising in my place and taking full responsibility for my words-and having done that, the charge is now complete and stands against the minister as it stood when I made it. Having made the charge, I could have merely sat down at that point, but naturally when very serious matters are at stake we try to assist the house in finding a way in which the matter can be dealt with.
The reason for not going further was simply the procedural difficulties which I have been unable to overcome. I would remind the house that on Wednesday, October 12 these difficulties were almost overcome but the minister, who as an honest gentleman should have been looking for a way to have the matter investigated so that his name could be cleared, was the only member in the house to refuse unanimous consent which would have made it possible for this matter to be investigated.
Then on Thursday, October 13 the minister, having barred further consideration of this matter, made some statements against me which caused me to rise on a question of privilege suggesting that he was attacking my motives. Your Honour will remember that when you dealt with this matter on Thursday the minister got up and made a statement which in my opinion did not clear the minister of imputing motives; but Your Honour, on considering the matter, said the following:
My limited experience in the house indicates that it is not per se, unparliamentary to say of another member that the statement he makes is false, untrue, wrong, incorrect or even spurious, unless there is an improper motive imputed-
Further on you said:
The minister has taken the opportunity to do what I would have asked him to do in any event, to say that he did not impute motives.
Mr. Speaker, I contend that it is no longer open to the minister to suggest that he was not imputing motives. He made the statement to the press expressly for the purpose of imputing motives.
The manner in which he made that statement makes it quite obvious that he was imputing motives.
I would ask Your Honour to rely on the statement with which you ended your ruling that I did not have a prima facie case of privilege, which appears at the top of page 8599 of Hansard:
I realize that in some instances words may be used which are so strong as to impugn the very honour and integrity of the individual member against whom the words are directed.
Now, sir, in the circumstances you did not feel that was the case; but I submit to you, sir, that your ruling cannot apply now since the minister has suggested that the charge is not well founded, that I am responsible for not proceeding with it, and am backing down. He has gone even further and said that I am proceeding with the case only to embarrass him.
In view of your remarks on Thursday indicating that the only difference between Your Honour and myself as to a proper case of privilege so the house might consider the very serious matters I raised was based on the minister's statement at that time. I ask Your Honour to rule that I now do have a prima facie case in this matter.

October 17, 1966
Question of Privilege
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Mcllrailh:: On September 7 a question was raised on this point, as nearly as I can find the precise-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the Minister of Public Works is allowed to make a statement in reply to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona I should read, for the guidance of the hon. member, a citation from May's seventeenth edition, as recorded on page 135. It refers to a procedural point which should be clarified:
When complaint is made ot something published in a newspaper or book, a copy of the newspaper or book, and when complaint is made of a letter sent to a member, the original of the letter said to have been written, must be delivered in at the table by the member who makes the complaint and passages complained of read aloud by the Clerk for the information of the house before any further proceedings are had in relation to the complaint.
I believe it is the practice of the house for the article complained of to be tabled. I assume the hon. member will have a copy, and he should table it with the Clerk. I suggest that the relevant portions be read into the record so we may continue the discussion thereafter.
The Clerk:
Ottawa Journal, Ottawa, Saturday, October 15, 1966. Says MP "Backing Down".
Nugent having second thoughts Hellyer claims.
By Victor J. Mackie, Special Journal Correspondent.
Defence Minister Hellyer said Friday that it was now apparent that Alberta Conservative MP Terence Nugent has "backed down" from his original charge against the minister of having "tampered" with evidence before the defence committee.
"It is apparent that he has had second thoughts and is now engaged in a complete 'back-off' which substantiates my contention that the charge was 'spurious', designed to damage my reputation rather than to get at the facts", Mr. Hellyer said.


Mr. Speaker:: Again for the guidance of the house I will read a second citation from May's seventeenth edition, page 143:
Where the member complained of is present when the complaint is made, or attends pursuant to the order of the house, it is the rule that he should be heard in explanation or exculpation as soon as the question on the motion founded upon the complaint is proposed from the Chair, and then withdraw, unless the complaint is founded upon a written paper or other document, in which event the member complained of should be heard as soon as the paper on which the complaint is founded has been delivered in at the table and read, and before the question founded upon the complaint is proposed from the Chair.


Mr. Hellyer:: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I did not hear that injunction.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; I did not hear what the Minister of National Defence said.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That was precisely my difficulty; I was unable to hear your instructions.


Mr. Speaker:: They were not instructions. I just mentioned that after the paper or document complained of has been filed with the Clerk of the House, if the member whose declaration is being complained of wishes to make a statement, this is his opportunity to do so. There is, of course, no obligation on the member to make such declaration.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If that is the rule I should like to make a brief statement. Unfortunately I do not have with me the statement I would have made if the hon. gentleman had proposed a motion accusing me of improper conduct.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: It did not do any good the last time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In respect to this whole matter I would like to state what I believe to be the constitutional practice in the parliamentary system in respect to departmental officials or military officers appearing as witnesses before parliamentary committees.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the minister, but I suggest that the only statement he could make at this time would be with particular reference to the document tabled. I do not think he should be allowed to make a general statement. The purpose of this is to enable the Chair to determine whether or not there is a question of privilege.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, if that is the only point at the moment I would have to wait until I have had a chance to examine the newspaper and check it against my recollection of the events.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no further comments perhaps the Chair, with very little to judge upon, should be allowed to reserve its decision. But before even having the opportunity to consider the matter I believe that after the minister has read the article he should have the opportunity later on, possibly tomorrow, to make a statement, following which the Chair will be in a better position to determine whether there is a question on which a motion might be founded.
October 17. 1966	COMMONS



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Hales.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two copies in English and French of the report of the royal commission of inquiry into fresh water fish marketing. In July, 1965 the government announced the establishment of a one man commission to consider and report on the export marketing problems of the fresh water fish industry in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario, and the Northwest Territories. George H. Mclvor, C.M.G., an outstanding authority on board marketing was named as commissioner.
The inquiry arose from recommendations made by the federal-provincial prairie fisheries committee which had been studying instability of prices and demand in fresh water fisheries products, as well as the means for improving returns to primary producers by more efficient marketing.
The report of the royal commission of inquiry into fresh water fish marketing recommends that a fresh water fish marketing board be established under federal legislation. It further recommends that the board should handle all export and interprovincial sales of fresh water fish in the designated area consisting of northwestern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
The report proposes that the board should be the sole buyer of fresh water fish from the fishermen, but that the services of the present exporters, packers and processors be utilized under contract with the board. The report is being studied by the government which will consult with provincial governments and with representatives of the trade before decisions are made regarding its recommendations.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker,
I am sure that members of the house and the fishing industry, especially that segment of the industry directly concerned, will welcome this report and will study its recommendations with interest. I think it should be
DEBATES	871T
Report Tabled on Fish Marketing noted that the designated area, as the minister has said, consists of northwestern Ontario,, the prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories.
I should like to interject at this point that the problem of the lack of bargaining power in the hands of primary producers, especially the producers of highly perishable products, is a general problem. After the government has held consultations with the industry and with the provincial governments concerned and, of course, after they have studied the report, as the minister promised they would, we will await with interest any change in government policy which may result from this report.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, we have not had an *opportunity to see this report. From the preliminary summary the minister has given this royal commission seems to have done an excellent job of investigating the problems of the inland fishermen, particularly those in northern Ontario, the three prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories. The suggestion that there be a board to market the products of these fishermen commends itself to us. We-know something of the difficulties which the fishermen have faced, and the very considerable exploitation of the fishermen. They have received low incomes over a period of years.
We want to study the report, because there are constitutional problems as to how this will fit in with the various provincial administrative bodies which have been set up to deal with this matter. Certainly in our opinion the idea of an over-all board rather than provincial boards would commend itself provided the various provincial authorities were prepared to co-operate and delegate the necessary powers. I hope that as quickly as possible the government will send this report to a committee of the house so that fishermen * can be heard, the industry can make representations, and the legislation can be prepared. Alternatively, the government itself might quickly draw up legislation and put it before the house so the house could send the measure to a committee.
I hope this report will not suffer the fate of so many royal commission reports, which contain excellent recommendations only to find they have been pigeon-holed. This is a matter which has been of concern to federal and provincial governments for many years. I am delighted that some action has.
October 17, 1966

Report Tabled on Fish Marketing been taken to ascertain the facts and make recommendations. It is to be hoped that some action will be forthcoming now.


Mr, H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: It is well known that for a number of years the price of fresh water fish caught in western Canada and the Northwest Territories has been subject to wide variations.
The findings of the royal commission indicate that this situation is due in a large measure to the uncertainty of the export market from one year to the next, or even from week to week during the season. The only major recommendation we find in the report is that a government marketing board be set up to purchase all this fresh water fish. However, this in itself would not appear to be a complete solution; it would not necessarily present the variations which are apparent in export prices.
It is well known, however, that in the past the bargaining position of individual fishermen in the industry has been very weak. If the setting up of a purchasing board could strengthen the marketing position of fresh water fishermen we would certainly give some support to such a move. At the same time we should realize that purchasing boards established in Canada are not always effective in finding solutions to problems concerning the export market.
I think the fishermen should be consulted. They should be asked whether they want to market their fish in this way and whether they are willing to submit to the regulations which accompany such a scheme, for instance quotas and market sharing by means of quotas. We should certainly support them in an effort to find ways and means of strengthening their position.



FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS CONCURRENCE IN TWELFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West) moved: that the twelfth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, presented to the house on Friday, October 14, be concurred in.


Mr. Gregoire:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What were the average salaries and wages (excluding military pay) for 1964 earned by Canada's labour force?
2.	What was the average income for 1964 of Canadian Indian families excluding general assistance and family allowances?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. The average weekly wages and salaries in 1964 (industrial composite) was $86.68. No information is available regarding the number of weeks employed in 1964.
2. It is not possible to give the average income of Canadian Indian families for 1964, but according to figures obtained from a housing survey in March 1965 estimated annual incomes of Indian families residing in Indian communities, excluding general assistance and family allowances, were in the following ranges: $2,000 or less, 22,640 families; $2,001 to $3,000, 4,929 families; $3,001 or over, 3,769 families.
The figures given in response to parts 1 and 2 of the question come from different sources and should not necessarily be construed to be comparable. Many Canadian Indians obtain non-cash income such as food from domestic fishing, meat from their hunting activities and housing provided under programs financed in whole or part from public funds. This is not reflected in the figures in part 2. In the 1964-65 fiscal year, welfare assistance amounting to more than $5,000,000 and housing assistance in excess of $4,500,000 was provided to Indian families through the Indian affairs branch. The amounts of additional payments for such benefits as family allowances, disability and old age assistance are not compiled or maintained separately for Indian families.


FORT SMITH AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Orange: 1.	For what reasons was construction of the terminal building at the Fort Smith airport not proceeded with this year?
2.	Will construction be carried out next year and, if so (a) what will be the cost (b) how long will it take to complete?
October 17, 1966


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Construction of the terminal facilities to be added to the operations building at Fort Smith did not proceed during the 1966-67 fiscal year due to heavy program elsewhere and limited availability of funds.
2. It is the present plan, subject to availability of funds, to call tenders for construction in the spring of 1967: (a) The estimated cost of the project is $275,000 including related works, (b) Construction has been phased in two stages, to keep the airport fully operational at all times. It is expected that it will take approximately two years to complete the project.


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS- NORTHERN PROJECTS
Mr. Orange: Are there any projects sponsored by the Company of Young Canadians in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories and, if so (a) how many (b) what is the nature of these projects (c) how many volunteers are involved in these projects (d) are there any plans to increase the number of projects in these areas?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: Yes. (a) one; (b) the project, in co-operation with the Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada, consists of developing a radio forum of the north; (c) two; (d) discussions about other possible northern projects are now taking place.


SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION ON INDIAN RESERVES, NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO
Mr. Reid: 1.	Has the government let contracts for the building of schools on isolated Indian reserves in northwestern Ontario?
2.	If so (a) how many contracts have been let (b) what is the value of each contract (c) what are the names and addresses of the successful and unsuccessful bidders?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes, in constituencies of Kenora-Rainy River and Port Arthur; nil in constituency of Fort William.
2. (a) 3, since April 1963. (b) Bearskin (near Pickle Crow) (Port Arthur): 2 classroom school, 3 bedroom residence and power house, $112,489.83. Grassy Narrows (Kenora-Rainy River): 3 classroom school, two 3 bedroom staff units and power house, $109,530.87. Big Trout Lake (Port Arthur): 6 classroom 23033-551
Questions
school, three 3 bedroom staff units and sewage lagoon, $435,000.00. (c) Bearskin: Successful bidder, Zelmer Construction Co. Ltd., Winnipeg Man. Others: F. W. Sawatzky Ltd., St. Boniface, Man.; A. K. Penner & Sons, Blumenort, Man.; Surety Construction Co. Ltd., St. Boniface, Man.; McLeod Construction Co. Ltd., Fort William, Ont. Grassy Narrows: Successful bidder, A. K. Penner & Sons Ltd., Blumenort, Man. Others: Harry Christianson Construction Co. Ltd., Fort Frances, Ont.; E. R. Norman Ltd., Kenora Ont.; Bergman & Nelson Ltd., Kenora, Ont.; T. Zelmer Construction Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.; Surety Construction Co. Ltd., St. Boniface, Man. Big Trout Lake: Successful bidder, B. F. Klassen Construction Ltd., Winnipeg, Man. Others: A. K. Penner & Sons Ltd., Blumenort, Man.; The Carter Construction Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.


COLOUR TELEVISION OVER RELAY TRANSMITTERS
Mr. Reid: Has the C.B.C. drawn up a schedule to provide
for conversion to colour television of the off-network relay transmitters and rebroadcasting stations which serve small communities across Canada?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. that after authority is given for this second stage of colour development, the corporation will proceed on a phased basis with priorities. In the meantime, the corporation has only tentative schedules and some preliminary financial forecasts, all of which are subject to change.


TAB CERTIFICATION FORMS, GENERAL MOTORS
Mr. Orlikow: Has General Motors agreed to complete the necessary forms for certification by the adjustment assistance board that the workers at General Motors Oshawa plant have been laid off as a result of the Canadian automotive program, so that those who are eligible may receive their transitional assistance benefits?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Yes. General Motors has already supplied an initial list of those affected by the lay-off and is assembling additional information to complete the forms. General Motors has also supplied information on the nature and causes of the lay-off. The application for certification in this case was made by the United Automobile Workers.

October 17, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry FILM ON NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Does the National Capital Commission propose to prepare and issue a motion picture film on the national capital?
2.	If so, when is it anticipated that this film might be available for distribution?
Hon, G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): 1. Yes. Two motion picture films.
2. The first film will be available for distribution early in December, 1966; the second is expected to become available late in 1967.


GUIDE TO NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Is the National Capital Commission engaged in the gathering of data for an historical guide to the national capital region, excluding Ottawa?
2.	If so (a) how is this work being done (b) when is it expected it will be completed (c) is it anticipated that these data will be published, and if so. when?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes.
2. (a) By the National Capital Commission historian from data gathered in field trips. Parts of the historical guide are submitted to local historians and historical societies for their suggestions, (b) It is expected the text will be completed by November 30, 1966. (c) The National Capital Commission plans to publish this work about the middle of 1967.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I would ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a communication from the Ottawa local and affiliates of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, asking that the Prime Minister intercede immediately so that postal workers may be granted the right to negotiate under the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, also asking the Prime Minister to accept the principle that until the report of the Montpetit commission is released, Bill C-170 be not finalized in committee hearings to enable representatives of the postal workers to make their representations regarding this matter which they consider of first importance.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I received the telegram to which my right hon. friend has referred, but I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss it with the Minister of Labour or the minister in charge of the Treasury Board. I propose to do that at once, and I hope a statement can be made on the matter very shortly.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say whether he can see any difficulty in the way of accepting this suggestion on the part of the postal workers, who ask that the bill presently before the house should exclude them in view of their peculiar circumstances?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Whether or not I can see any difficulties, Mr. Speaker, will depend on the opportunity I hope to have to look into the telegram and discuss it with my colleagues, and possibly I may make a statement tomorrow.


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the government's very regrettable decision not to proceed with the youth parliament as part of Canada's centennial celebrations in 1967, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether any further consideration is being given to staging this project, which was recommended by an all party ad hoc committee of the house, particularly in view of the fact that there seems to be very great interest among young people all across Canada in this project.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the proposal as put forward was not recommended by the centennial committee that looked into it, but the whole question that has been raised by my hon. friend of youth representation in an appropriate way during centennial year is now under consideration, and either I or the Secretary of State hope to make a statement on that matter shortly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the Prime Minister, would the government consider reconvening the all party ad hoc committee which looked into this matter, to give them an opportunity to examine it, in view of the fact that members of parliament are probably much closer to
October 17, 1966

young people in the various constituencies and might be able to make useful suggestions as to how a youth parliament might operate successfully and effectively?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall take the matter under consideration, Mr. Speaker, but it may be that as a result of the statement that will be made to the house on this matter no further meeting of this kind will be required.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the report he tabled in the house today. Is it the intention of the federal government to initiate action or to propose to the provinces that a fresh water fish marketing board be set up? If that is anticipated, would it include taking a ballot of the fishermen involved?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, it is not our
intention to make recommendations at this stage. We are sending the report out for study, and when we receive recommendations we will consider them.


URANIUM
[Stage Direction]
REPORTED POSSIBILITY OF SALE TO FRANCE On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister any information to give the house regarding a change in the uranium situation as it applies to Canada, which would cause .he recent unexplained fluctuation in uranium securities?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Speaker. I presume ;he hon. member is referring to reports that vere prevalent in the press and over the adio during the week end of an imminent ransaction between Canada and France, and have no knowledge of any developments vhich would support any such rumour. [Translation]
Later:]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, wish to address my question to the right ion. Prime Minister.
23033-551J
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could the Prime Minister inform the house as to the present situation in negotiations with the French government with regard to the sale of uranium to France, and would he be in a position to tell us if this sale is about to be made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I point out to the hon. member that this question was asked earlier this afternoon.


EXPO '67 REPORTED INVITATION TO HIS HOLINESS THE POPE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he in a position to inform members of the house whether an invitation has been extended to His Holiness to visit Expo '67 next year; and if such an invitation has been extended is he in a position to tell us whether it has been accepted?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Canada would welcome a visit from his Holiness the Pope, just as recently we warmly welcomed the Archbishop of Canterbury, and as the people of Canada would welcome any great religious leader to this country. However, I believe some of the press reports on this subject are inaccurate. It is my understanding from the office of the Apostolic Delegate that in response to press inquiries it has been stated that there is no truth to the rumours that the Pope can come to Canada in 1967.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State, and in her absence the acting minister, and his absence her parliamentary secretary, regarding a C.B.C. information services release late Friday afternoon referring to the establishment of a Commonwealth Caribbean-Canada broadcasting centre in the West Indies. It is stated in the release that the nominee for co-ordinator of the undertaking is Mr. H. G. (Bud) Walker, former

October 17, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry vice president of C.B.C. network broadcasting. Has this gentleman been released or suspended from his previous position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this question might be placed on the order paper.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It is a very urgent one, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be, but I fail to see the urgency. I suggest to the hon. member that he might indicate the urgency of the question since it is not readily apparent to the Chair.


Eric Alfred Winkler: The urgency is very evident from the controversy that existed previously and possibly still exists within the C.B.C., and it is of such urgency that I now put the question to the Prime Minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The fact that the hon. member is now putting the question to the Prime Minister does not make it more urgent. I suggest to the hon. member that the question might well be debated later on this evening.


CHURCHILL, MAN.-STORAGE IN TERMINAL ELEVATOR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say whether the wheat board has made a decision regarding the storage of grain in the Churchill terminal elevator this winter?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation from the wheat board they are now having discussions with the railway companies about the availability of cars to move as much as possible of Canada's crop to port in all directions. I further understand that at the present time there is some difference of opinion as to the availability of box cars, and this is now being discussed between the railways and the wheat board.


Robert Simpson: As a supplementary question can the minister say when the wheat board will be in a position to determine whether or not it is going to store grain at Churchill this winter?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, I am not certain about that matter, Mr. Speaker. I do know there is some difference between the board and the railway companies. This concerns matters of facts, not of opinion, and until these facts are settled the wheat board will not be in a position to make a decision.


Robert Simpson: I wish to direct one further supplementary to the Minister of Transport. Can he say whether the wheat board has been made aware of the large rehabilitation program which is planned for Churchill terminal this winter, and which can be more satisfactorily carried out if the elevator is filled this winter?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. gentleman. I did not realize that question was for me. Since the question concerned the Canadian Wheat Board, for which I do not answer, I felt it would perhaps be inappropriate for me to say whether they were made aware of it. I was aware of it. I think probably this is one of the considerations which has been brought before the Canadian Wheat Board, but I would not be able to speak for them.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware of the hundreds of thousands of bushels of grain being stored in makeshift bins across the prairies which the producers would like to get into permanent storage?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker; we are very much aware that this is the greatest crop this country ever has produced, and I imagine there will be difficulties regardless of the very great success the Canadian Wheat Board has had in selling and moving the grain.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the minister say whether the terminal elevators in both Moose Jaw and Saskatoon will be used to their fullest capacity this winter? They have not been so used recently.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the wheat board what are their intentions.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I should like tc direct a question to the Minister of Finance. 1 should like clarification of the answer he gave. When the minister answered, was it his intention to indicate that Canadian Nations.
October 17, 196G

Railways were not in a position to say definitely whether they could handle the transportation of this wheat to Churchill?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, a discussion has been going on between the wheat board and the railway companies on this important point, and neither side has satisfied the other yet.


Robert Simpson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have a definite conflict of answers coming from the treasury benches. I refer Your Honour to Hansard of Thursday last, October 13, and an answer given by the Minister of Transport who stated, among other things, that this year there are box cars available-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that it is not a question of privilege when there is a discrepancy between statements made either by two members of the government or two other members of the House of Commons. This is a point of debate which the hon. member may wish to raise in other circumstances, but it is not a question of privilege.


Robert Simpson: Then through you, Mr. Speaker, could I ask the two ministers to get together and give us an answer?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will use its good offices to achieve this.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Does he still intend to produce a baby budget this fall? If so, could he inform the house how soon it may appear?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I made the government's intention in this regard clear to the house. I have nothing to add to what I said at that time. The date has not been decided upon.


David Lewis: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is not unknown for the government to change its mind. I just wanted to know whether you were still intending to do this.


Mitchell William Sharp: The government intends to bring before parliament the guaranteed income plan. The reason we will be having a small budget is to meet the needs of this very important program.
Inquiries of the Ministry HIGHWAY SAFETY


FEDERAL REPRESENTATION AT MEETING OF PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Addison (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in connection with the meetings taking place in Toronto today and tomorrow of ministers responsible for highway safety across Canada. I should like to ask the minister whether the federal government is represented at this meeting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the government hopes to enter the motor transport field soon, does the minister not consider it would have been prudent to have at least an observer in attendance at the meeting of the provincial transport ministers today in Toronto?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the question is argumentative.


John Hollings Addison: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Transport. Was the federal government invited to attend the highway safety conference taking place in Toronto at the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer, sir, is no, the federal government was not invited either to send a representative or even an observer. If we had been invited to send an observer I think we would have done so.


John Hollings Addison: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not think that on such an important affair as this we should have taken the initiative and sent an observer?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is obviously argumentative.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of

October 17, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry State for External Affairs a question which I put to the Prime Minister on Friday and to which I understand the Secretary of State for External Affairs has an answer. In light of the fact that three of our major allies, Great Britain, the United States and the German Federal Republic, apparently are reconsidering the force goals of NATO, does the Canadian government contemplate making known to its allies any desire to alter the future role of Canadian forces in NATO?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that no country or group of countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance can take a decision which is in any way binding on all. The only way decisions of that kind can be taken is by all members of the alliance participating in the decision.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, assuming what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said was an answer, although I do not think it was an answer to my question. Is the Canadian government proposing to suggest to its allies that it might alter its future military role in NATO?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I cannot go beyond the answer I have given.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister inform the house whether he has given consideration to using the New Democratic Party program with regard to NATO as guide lines for the government?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I have given consideration to a lot of guide lines proposed by the N.D.P. and have not found too many that were worthy of adoption.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It is a repeat of the question I asked on October 7 in respect of lay-offs at the Louisbourg project because of the lack of funds for the winter works program. We had assurance from the government that the only change in the winter works program was in that part of the program affecting the bonus for winter building of homes. At that time

the Prime Minister assured me that they would do their best to see that these lay-offs did not happen. There have been lay-offs at the Louisbourg project, and I should like to ask the Prime Minister to take a very serious and fast look at this project to see that those who have been laid off will be reinstated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These are not questions; they are representations made by the hon. member, and I assume they will be taken into consideration by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Brelon Soulh):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister look into the problem immediately and have it rectified.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Fri-days's Halifax Chronicle-Herald, contained a statement by a leader of the British fishing industry, who also has important holdings in Nova Scotia, that unless action is taken soon on the implementation of the 12 mile limit, over-fishing could kill the Canadian fishing industry. Could the minister give any indication when the geographical co-ordinates will be established so that proper base lines for territorial and fishing zones may be drawn in accordance with the provisions of Bill S-17 as passed by parliament in 1964?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, before answering the question, I should like to call the attention of the house to the fact that we have a distinguished visitor in the gallery today, Mr. Louis Joxe, one of the most important ministers of the French government.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that this question has been asked. We are now discussing this particular matter with a delegation from the government of the United States. I am sure the fact that this question has been asked will impress on this delegation the great concern which the Minister of Fisheries and I have for a satisfactory solution of this problem.
October 17. 1966



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Has he received a letter from the Quebec minister of agriculture, Hon. Mr. Vincent requesting financial assistance for farmers in certain areas of the province of Quebec who are suffering considerable losses again this year due to unfavourable weather conditions?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received a brief from the Canadian Medical Association, and if so will the government consider amending clause 4, subclause (c) of Bill C-227 from 90 per cent to 30 per cent for purposes of interim coverage in accordance with the terms of the brief?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member is anticipating discussion of a bill which now is before the house, and which I am sure will be discussed later on this afternoon.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and has reference to a number of answers given to the house on Friday last by the Prime Minister to the effect that the royal coat of arms is to be removed from mail trucks, mail bags, and so on. Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether it is the intention of the government to remove the royal insignia from all government buildings, correspondence, publications, and even from the Speaker's chair?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the announced decision to remove the word "Royal" from "Royal Navy", has the Prime Minister looked up the record when a similar view was being expressed during the St. Laurent administration and it was decided that constitutionally under the British North America Act the change could not be made and accordingly no change was made at that time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Records are always very interesting, Mr. Speaker, and I will be glad to look up this one.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish you would.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister tells us that it is not the intention of the government at the present time to take such action, could he tell us when the decision was taken to take such action with regard to the Post Office?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To remove misunderstanding in this matter, Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General will be in a position to make a short statement in a day or two which will remove some of the misunderstandings that have been created.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no misunderstanding at all. It is very wrong.



EVIDENCE BEFORE COMMITTEES BY SERVING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman advise us, in view of the large number of committees which are sitting and so that members may estimate the value of evidence given, if he subscribes to the view of the Minister of National Defence that serving officers and departmental officials can only appear before such committees with the consent of the minister, and evidence given by such witnesses must conform to departmental policy irrespective of what the facts may be?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into that question, Mr. Speaker.

October 17. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



CONSIDERATION OF DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF INTEGRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister say whether today's news reports are accurate to the effect that the government is giving consideration to delaying the implementation of the integration of the armed services until there has been a further review of this question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that it is not in order to ask whether press communications or views are correct or incorrect.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, there will be no delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is out of order and cannot be answered.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since the government proposes to refer the white paper on immigration to a special joint committee for study, would the government also consider referring at the same time the two reports on immigration recently made to the government by Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C., for study?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I will take this point under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Might I say that it was a pleasure to have the minister visit our county last week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Elgin McKinley: My question is this. Many dairy farmers are wondering whether any progress is being made to speed up subsidy

payments to them and what kind of guide they might be given as to when they might anticipate receiving their cheques?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member will be pleased to hear that approximately 290,000 cheques have now gone out, totalling nearly $27 million. These cheques have gone out directly to the farmers. In regard to those areas where there has been a slow reporting by the factories, the stabilization board is sending its officers to the areas to deal directly with the factories to try to get the returns in as soon as possible in order that they may speed up the procedure in the very small percentage of areas where returns have not yet been made.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, could the minister give us some kind of guide that the farmers could go on as to when they might receive their cheques?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the second question is in order.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is a question that I thought one of my Conservative colleagues from Manitoba might ask, but as a Manitoba member perhaps I could put it to the Prime Minister. In view of Premier Roblin's declaration that the government of Manitoba is ready and anxious to proceed with medicare on July 1, 1967, will the government review its position in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this question is very similar to one that was asked earlier today. It is argumentative, and refers to a debate on a bill which is before the house at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will take part in the debate and answer the question then?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the best way to proceed with medicare at the moment is to get second reading of the bill and go into committee where the necessary amendments can be made, to ensure that it will be brought into effect as quickly as possible.
October 17, 1966


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Starr:: Talk of hypocrisy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Wouldn't the best way for it to be brought into effect as quickly as possible be to leave the bill as it is?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative.




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mac-Eachen for the second reading 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rynard.
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate on medicare. I think it can be said at the outset that every member of parliament, wherever he sits in the house, is in favour of a national health insurance scheme. As a Liberal member pointed out, it is only as to the kind of program we are to get or to have forced upon us that members of the house may differ.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It might be well at this time to review the definition of the words "compulsory" and "universal" when applied to a national health scheme. "Universal" means applicable to all, and "compulsory" means tending to compel, a compulsory obligation. It can therefore be said at the outset that the universal, compulsory medicare plan of this federal government is, under the bill which is now before us, a plan forced on all the ten provinces. Of course we have heard the Prime Minister say that amendments may be introduced between second and third reading. We do not know what amendments the government has in mind, but we may be sure that this plan will be enforced in all the provinces.
At the time of the grandiose medicare conference at Ottawa just before or after the election, when the provincial premiers of health met with the federal authorities, it became known at that time that Alberta did not wish to support a universal compulsory plan. The former lady minister of health said
Medicare
at that time, as reported in the press, that either the province will accept the national plan or if they do not they will be taxed for it anyway. That will really be the result of a universal, compulsory national health plan. Even if a province does not agree to it, the people of that province will still be taxed for it if a sufficient number of provinces accept the plan. Therefore it does seem to me that, in spite of the urging of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the first step that should have been taken was to have a meeting of the provinces whereby agreement could have been reached among them before presenting a universal plan.
This question arises: Will all the provinces succumb to this force, this duress, this compulsion? I suggest, and I think most hon. members will agree, that this sort of enforcement is a violation of the constitutional rights of the provinces because implementation of medicare is, under our constitution, under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The government is saying they will not implement the plan for two years. As I see it, the most important problem facing the government today is the high cost of living. Yet parliament is debating a plan which the government says will not be implemented for another two years, and I even question that because it is uncertain whether the provinces will agree to this plan. It seems to me that it is superfluous for us to debate the medicare plan at the present time. All we can do is to express our viewpoints on the bill which has been brought before the house even though the plan will not be implemented for at least two years.
Will this government allow some of the provinces to opt out of the plan? Will Quebec opt out of it, and will the federal government force other provinces to subscribe to it either directly or indirectly by saying to them: We now have a majority who agree to this plan? The government may say to a smaller province such as Alberta: Take it and like it. That would be a way of forcing a province through compulsion, through duress and through financial measures, to subscribe to the plan.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said the other day that he speaks for all Canadians and he cries and mourns for all Canadians because the medicare plan is being delayed for one year-of course it may be longer because in 1968 there may be a recession and not an inflation and that may be a reason for further delay-what Canadians was he speaking for? I know a number of Canadians in my own area who would not go

half the Canadian budget. Farmers are concerned about this. Office workers are concerned about it. Labour is concerned about it. These people cannot afford any more income taxes or deductions from their pay cheques or their profits.
When the hon. lady was Minister of National Health and Welfare, she discussed this plan and said that it must be realized the implementation of the recommendations of the Hall report would involve-listen to this
substantial expenditures from the provincial and federal treasuries. According to news reports the leader of the New Democratic Party said in a speech in the Pincher Creek by-election that increases in wages do not increase the cost of living and that the introduction of grandiose plans does not do so. Economists do not agree with him.
I believe it is time we put on the record what businessmen are thinking today and what our leading economists say in relation to what governments are doing not only in this nation but in other nations. We know that today Great Britain is in a mess. We have seen Prime Minister Wilson forced to change his plans to implement things in Great Britain because the grandiose plans they have implemented have forced him to bring in severe controls and go back on what he said to labour.
Here is what economists are saying, and it is time this was read to the New Democratic Party, whose members are really the socialist conscience of this nation.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Did you say "the conscience"?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right; you are the
socialists of this nation.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I thought you said the conscience.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Who said that?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say this to the hon. member, with the greatest respect, that although he may have been misquoted I read in the newspaper that he had said that increases in wages in this country do not contribute to the increase in the cost of living. This was a report of a speech he made in Alberta recently. If he denies that, I will accept his denial.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The statement I made was that the reason for the increased cost of living was not the increase in wages because wages had not kept pace with increased productivity.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I am quite willing to accept the statement that the leader of the New Democratic Party makes in that regard.

Ociober 17, 1966
Medicare
X can only say that the newspaperman on that occasion in Pincher Creek misunderstood what he was saying. Nevertheless, increases in wages, increases in profits, increases in plans that lead to higher taxes, aggravate the inflationary trend. When you get increases in wages, up go the costs the consumer has to pay and away go the increases in wages because these people have to pay more for their goods. It become a vicious circle. These high profits, high taxes, high wages and government spending for grandiose socialistic plans all increase the cost of living. I do not think anyone can deny that. This country is crying for the kind of leadership that will categorize the peoples' needs by a priority formula.
What should come now? What should we be doing? We cannot be criticial, Mr. Speaker, unless we have an alternative. I suggest that instead of introducing plans we are not going to implement for two years-this plan is universal as it stands now-we must financially assist the provinces and municipalities to escalate and accelerate educational opportunities. We will need more doctors, nurses and technicians before a universal medical plan can be implemented. Schools, colleges and universities must be built now and masses of people given an equal opportunity for an education so that they will be more productive economically and socially. Above all, we should be assisting the individual in the state to assume more of his own responsibilities instead of becoming a burden on the state, as is the case when there are a number of unemployables. We should lower the percentage of the needy through education.
Let us take a look at things from the point of view of local governments and municipalities. The leader of the New Democratic Party should know something about this because he was the premier of a province. Since 1959 local governments' costs of education in Canada has increased from $548 million to $797 million. However, this has not even scratched the surface of the need and demand for higher education in Canada. In so far as the age group from 10 to 14 years are concerned, educational opportunities are almost equal for 97 per cent of this group. In secondary schools opportunities among the age group from 15 to 19 years are not equal. Retention of students who remain at high school varies from province to province, for example, from a high 68 per cent in British Columbia, with Alberta and Saskatchewan
[Mr. Woolliams.l
coming a close second, to a low of 50 per cent in the province of Quebec. That means that 50 per cent of the people in the province of Quebec who finish grade eight drop out of school. It also means that 30 per cent of the students in British Columbia drop out and about 34 per cent in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
We are all aware that I.Q. determines retention in school to a certain extent, but lack of educational opportunity is the greatest cause of the drop-out. Let us take a look at the position in universities. In the age group 20 to 24 opportunities are not equal at universities, ranging from a high in British Columbia of 9.5 per cent to a low of 3.9 per cent in Newfoundland. With a Canadian average of 8 per cent this means that only 8 out of 100 people go to university. The minister does not have to take the blame for this, of course; I am pointing out that only 8 people out of 100 who are poured into productivity in Canada have a university education.
On top of that there is a big brain drain to the United States. I suggest that these statistics are important because I believe that education should have higher priority than the implementation of the bill now before the house. The average Canadian child receives approximately 8.2 years of schooling. The latest figures on this point are those of the last census in Canada; they may be higher now but not much. The provinces are spending from a high in Alberta of $417 per student to a low of $140 in Newfoundland.
In 1961, Mr. Speaker, Canada devoted a greater proportion of her total gross national product to health services than any other nation surveyed by the Hall commission-this in spite of what some of my hon. friends say on platforms at times-except Australia, in terms of the percentage of the gross national product spent on health. For example, Canada spent 5.8 per cent of its gross national product on health, England spent 4.7 per cent, Israel 5.1 per cent, Sweden, which has been held out as an example, 4.7 per cent and the United States 5.5 per cent. These figures were checked today.
Canada ranks favourably in terms of population per hospital bed compared with other countries, and our government can take some responsibility for that. In 1959, of 20 western countries Switzerland had the lowest ratio with 80 persons per hospital bed, followed by Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden with population ratios of 90 persons per bed.
October 17. 1966

The United States, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Norway had 110 persons per bed, and the Netherlands 130 persons per bed.
Canada's ratio of population per physician is 920, ahead of the ratios for countries that have compulsory medicare such as France where the ratio is 950 and the United Kingdom and Sweden. How long will that state of affairs last? Will there be a big brain drain of our doctors and specialists, who are among the finest in the world, to the United States if we bring in a universal, compulsory medicare plan?
The Canadian crude general mortality rate of 8.0 deaths per 1,000 of population is better than the United States where the rate is 9.4 per thousand, or England and Wales with 11.6 or Denmark with 9.3. Canada's record in regard to infant mortality is not as good as that in other countries.
Any increased health benefits to Canadians will come primarily from increasing the numbers of personnel. This demands programs to expand educational and training facilities. I say to the government that when the cabinet is considering these matters they should decide that education should have priority over this type of legislation, because it is as a result of education that we will increase the productivity of the nation and the individual's ability to assume some of the responsibility for the welfare of the country, instead of it becoming a burden on the taxpayer.
In saying that, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I said at the beginning. I, and I am sure most of us, believe in some plan to deal with this problem. The Royal Commission stated at page 14, volume 1:
The first requirement is sufficient trained personnel. This demands crash programs to expand the educational and training facilities.
What crash programs has the government instituted to date? None. There has been nothing since the introduction of the vocational training plan at the time we formed the government.
Rather at variance with that statement, at page 295 of volume 1 of the report the Royal Commission on health services stated:
. . . that in proceeding with a comprehensive program for health services a country does not have to wait until shortages of health personnel have been fully met.
I suppose those two statements are not completely contradictory and that what that means is that the shortage has been partially met. But we must have a crash program on
Medicare
education first in order to get the trained, skilled personnel to cope with the implementation of this plan and, second, the trained individuals who can take on more responsibility and increase the productivity of the nation.
Also difficult to understand, Mr. Speaker, is this statement of the Royal Commission on health services at page 10, volume 1 of its report:
However large this group may be-
That is the insured group.
-it is not large enough.
I suppose by that they are referring to the percentage of persons left out of plans. I suggest that the government take a look at this aspect because those people are in need of some plan. But why put the taxpayer, Mr. Speaker, to a cost of $600 to $800 million a year, or $4.4 billion by 1971, in order to provide a plan for people who already have a good plan? This is the point of my argument in analysing this bill at this time, which will not become law, even if the government keeps its promise, until two years have elapsed. It is indeed doubtful that any additional expenditure in the nature of compulsory health insurance will improve either the health standards of the Canadian people or increase their prosperity and productivity.
On page 135 of the second annual review of the Economic Council of Canada there is this statement:
We are not at all certain as to what further net stimulus either to national or regionally balanced growth might accrue from increased public investment in health services.
At page 90 there is the following statement:
It has been estimated that the returns on the human investment in high school and university education in Canada are in the range of 15 per cent to 20 per cent per year.
Again, at page 91 of the Council's report it is stated:
The over-all rates of return to the economy for total investment in education would be relatively high-perhaps in the range of 10 per cent-15 per cent-suggesting that relatively greater emphasis should be placed in facilitating expanding investment in education-
I suggest to the government that this should receive priority. Why does the government now waste the time of parliament on a plan that it does not intend to implement for two years, and at a time when there is the highest cost of living in my generation? The government will not measure up to its

October 17, 1966
Medicare
responsibility. Let it go to the electorate-although I do not mean that we should have another election-and find out what the people think of a government which allows a continual escalation in the cost of living and then suggests that it will bring in grandiose plans such as the Canada Pension Plan.
Education, I repeat, should receive priority and should come first. We must educate more doctors, nurses and technicians, but above all everyone must be educated to a higher level than an average of 8.2 years of schooling so that their productivity, at least in 75 per cent of the cases, will be such that they will rise above what we classify as the level of need. At the same time this 75 per cent of the population will be able to carry the burden for the other 25 per cent. Only through increasing productivity can we derive taxes to pay for these types of plans. The Utopia, of course, would be to have only 2 per cent in need, but that is more a dream than a reality.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that he spoke for all Canadians. I am not saying that this constitutes real evidence that a medicare plan was forced on the people of Saskatchewan, but I would remind the leader of the New Democratic Party-in fact, I think he would make this admission -that had he remained leader of his party in Saskatchewan and not brought in compulsory medicare the N.D.P. would still be in office in that province today. I see the hon. member smiling. I have to compliment him because, though I have been a Conservative all my life, I felt that the hon. member provided a better administration on the whole than did the Gardiner machine.
I wish to refer to page 13 of a book by Mr. Robert Tyre, and I put this on record because it has reference to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, formerly premier of Saskatchewan. It is interesting to note what is said about universal, compulsory plans. I quote:
Citizens who had not forgotten those fine promises of 1944 would find something tragically ironic in a news story that appeared in the Regina Leader Post of January 6, 1962. The story reported that a 76-year-old Regina man had collapsed and died in city police court while facing trial. The man had been charged with failing to pay his hospitalization tax in 1956. And it was the government of Saskatchewan that brought him to trial-a government that won election on a promise to provide the people of Saskatchewan with free health services.

That little story, though it may be on the fringe of what may happen under a compulsory plan, may show us one thing. It may show us what a universal compulsory plan may mean to the lives of all Canadians and to people who accept some individual responsibility. When the unions have their own plans, when the office workers have their own plans and when the farmers have their own plan, what we should be doing is helping those people who have no plan at all.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed with the manner in which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) introduced one of the most historic and far reaching pieces of legislation ever to be presented to parliament. The minister would have been forgiven if he had, with oratorical fire and fervour, dramatically ushered in this bill which has finally arrived after years of turmoil, delay and debate. Instead, in a very succinct, nonpartisan way he has launched this tremendous bill which will affect the future welfare of millions of Canadians and many generations yet unborn. I hope that further debate will be of the same calibre and that hon. members, devoid of partisan politics, will express their views forcibly but with reason and restraint.
Personally I have always supported the concept of a national medical scheme, because I feel it is simply a recognition that all of us have a collective responsibility for the hurts of others. It is as simple as that. I know many people argue that most people are already covered by medical insurance, that this measure is another unwarranted intrusion by government into private lives, that it is another example of creeping socialism which is undermining the individual's desire and ability to fend for himself and look after his own needs. I can fully appreciate the honesty and good faith with which this argument is advanced, but I feel most strongly that in a nation with our vast riches and resources every man, woman, and child as of right, regardless of income, is entitled to the best possible medical attention that science and research can provide.
On humanitarian grounds alone medicare is justified. I firmly believe that each of us is our brother's keeper and our brother's brother. By furnishing good universal medical care and relieving human agony and suffering, the government is carrying out the noblest Christian precept.
October 17, 1966

From a strictly economic standpoint medicare is certainly most desirable. It is argued that the majority of people do get good medical attention but, as the Hall Commission indicated in its report, there are still millions of Canadians living in genteel poverty who are unable to afford medical bills or medical insurance and consequently are not receiving the medical attention they deserve. Thus, although it would be impossible to guess with any certainty the amount of productive labour lost through sickness as a result of the lack of early preventive medical attention, it is well known that there is a staggering loss to our economy when incipient disease lies undetected or worsens because the individual through fear of medical expenses denies himself the advantage of prompt and thorough medical care. Simply stated, from an economic standpoint alone the health of our nation is the most precious of all our resources bar none, and a comprehensive, universal medicare scheme is the best way to husband and improve this basic ingredient of our national welfare. We must recognize the principle that, while an individual's health is a highly personal affair, in many respects his or her good health is of direct benefit to the entire nation.
I do not intend to delve into the details of the plan, but it must be constantly remembered that under our constitution health is a provincial responsibility and therefore federal initiaitve in this field is limited to encouraging provincial action. The federal proposal of offering the provinces money to support provincial medical care insurance programs which meet certain established standards is a sound one and the wisdom of this principle is amply demonstrated in the tremendous success of the provincial hospital schemes. There is nothing to suggest that a comparable plan for medical insurance will not work equally well. The four conditions to be met by the provinces are that their plans must be comprehensive, universal, government run or supervised, and transferable. All these criteria, as set out in the Hall report, are necessary if we as a nation are to achieve our objective of providing the best medical care to the greatest number at the lowest cost.
It is clearly recognized that any such gigantic scheme, with its long and tortuous history, will be beset with many serious problems. To make this scheme work with maximum efficiency we must accelerate most drastically our plans to provide more facilities for medical research, teaching hospitals,
Medicare
and an ever-increasing number of doctors without which the plan is grandiose in name but stultified in reaching its true achievements. A veritable crash program with these goals must be initiated immediately. To ensure the success of our national plan the provinces which have evinced a reluctance to participate must again be approached and negotiations continued until we have obtained their acceptance.
To make this plan a living and workable reality the most important consideration should be the role of the doctor. The medical profession, rightly concerned about its integrity and independence, must be treated with tact and delicacy, and its professional status and relationship to patients must be most clearly enunciated. It must be categorically stressed that no matter what system of financing is used there will be no interference with or compulsion in regard to the basic relationship between patient and doctor. Individuals will remain free to choose their own doctors; they will be under no compulsion to use any particular services, and an individual doctor will be free to operate outside the plan if in his judgment he can do so successfully.
In regard to the time for implementing the plan much has been said, and I do not want to burden the house with many further observations. As a staunch advocate of medicare I was disappointed when the government in its wisdom decided to delay the plan for one year, and I made representations opposing this decision. However, the government, responsible for the national interest, decided with reluctance after the most searching debate that in view of present economic conditions a postponement was necessary. Most certainly it was a difficult decision, and as a member of the Liberal party I am prepared to support the government position.
[DOT] (4:10 p.ra.)
At this time I make one plea. As a new member I have been appalled at times by the prevalance of partisan debate which has too often been indulged in for political advancement at the expense of the national interest. Repetitious, irrelevant debate has crept into our proceedings many times to poison clear thought and distort the issues.
Shining through all the smoke of this debate is one salient point. We now have before us a medicare bill which many members have pleaded for, and worked for, for years. It is the privilege and duty of those who oppose it

October 17. 1966
Medicare
on its merits to speak up clearly and forcibly. It is also the privilege and duty of those who support it, but have objections to its postponement, to use restraint and reason in their attack.
A spokesman for the New Democratic Party said that all members of that group would be taking part in the debate. I suggest that their position could be well stated by a small number of chosen advocates, thus saving a considerable amount of valuable parliamentary time for other priority legislation such as the announced government plan to provide a minimum monthly guaranteed income of $105 for our needy senior citizens. If members of the N.D.P. are sincere in wishing medicare to pass quickly and easily, the present debate would be a splendid opportunity for registering objections to the postponement of its application as concisely as possible while enthusiastically supporting the measure in principle and giving the government its proper credit for introducing one of the most progressive pieces of social reform ever to brighten this house.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr
Speaker, I gladly use my first words to give the government the credit which is its due for bringing in legislation which in my view has more importance for my constituents and for the people of Canada generally than any legislation that has come before the house in the few years during which I have been here. If I have a few slightly critical, even conceivably, partisan words to say at the end of my remarks, I hope the hon. member will forgive me for allowing a partisan note to creep into my observations.
It has always seemed to me to be plain common sense that the right to health services to minimize the ills the flesh is heir to, is a universal right. It is the mark of a civilized community to provide these scientific and healing services to all through the provision of what we now call medicare. I recall that our sister dominion of New Zealand pioneered in this field in the '30's. Many European countries have for decades regarded the provision of medicare as one of the basic functions of government. In Britain the Labour party provided for universal medicare services in the '40's in the midst-I call this to the attention of the house-of daunting economic problems caused by the second world war.
I have always been proud to be a member of the party which, when it formed the government in Saskatchewan, was the first

government in North America to provide universal and comprehensive medicare service. This was done in the face of highly organized opposition and perhaps, as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) suggested, to their immediate political disadvantage. If it was to their political disadvantage at that time, all the more credit to them that they had the gumption to bring it in.
I subscribe to the words in the preamble to the charter of the World Health Organization:
The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.
I subscribe also to the words of the Hall Royal Commission on Health Services:
The commission is convinced that quite apart from humanitarian considerations the health of Canadians is a matter of concern to us as a nation, and no enlightened government can ignore that the economic capacity of its citizens to be productive depends upon their health and vigour as much as upon their educational attainment.
I consider this to be relevant when we come to consider the postponement of this plan for so-called economic reasons.
Then there is the statement of Sir Arthur Newsholme which the commission accepted:
Civilized communities have arrived at two conclusions from which there will be no retreat, though their full realization in experience has nowhere been completely achieved.
In the first place, the health of every individual is a social concern and responsibility, and secondly as following from this, medical care in its widest sense for every individual is an essential condition of maximum efficiency and happiness in a civilized community.
I accept the recommendations of the Hall commission that these objectives of national policy can only be achieved through a comprehensive universal health services program for the Canadian people financed through prepayment arrangements. Such a plan must be comprehensive and universal and, in accordance with our constitutional situation, it must be provincially administered, though it would be financed, as the present legislation proposes, in substantial part by federal grants. I accept furthermore the sense of urgency which impelled the commission to call for a federal-provincial health services conference within six months of the publication of the report in 1964, and for prompt action thereafter.
Fortunately there is no need for us to be unduly concerned about the details of what appropriate action is needed or whether the Canadian economy is able to bear the burden
October 17, 1966

of bringing into effect the recommendations for the implementation of a health charter for Canadians. This has all been reviewed in detail by the distinguished commissioners, headed by the then Chief Justice Hall. It seems to me we are not now talking about a bold, new experiment but about action required before Canada's 100th birthday to catch up with other countries in meeting a vital social responsibility.
All these general conclusions have been reinforced powerfully in my mind by contact with my own constituents in Greenwood since I have been their representative in parliament. I have made no scientific or detailed survey of need but I have run into case after case-no doubt this has been the experience of others in this chamber-where the absence of such a plan has caused personal tragedy. I have met people whose life savings have melted away because of tremendous unanticipated expenses occasioned by illness.
I know people who, because of the illness of some member of their family, have had to "moonlight" and work 15 or 16 hours a day to make enough money to pay their bills. We all know something of the anxiety which is inevitably caused by illness. This anxiety is tremendously increased by financial worry. To the extent that we implement this bill we shall be lifting a great burden of care from the shoulders of the people of Canada.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I deeply regret that the government has seen fit to postpone the date on which its offer to the provinces to implement the legislation was to become effective, because I believe that this delay will strike at public confidence, if any remains, in the good faith of political parties. I believe that the postponement was totally unnecessary. The excuses for the delay are without substance and every possible pressure ought to be put on the government to reconsider its decision.
The decision seems to me, Mr. Speaker, not to be based on any economic necessity caused by inflation but to be caused by effective lobbies and a lack of conviction on the part of some of those dominant in the present government. The sad part of the postponement is that it may not just be a postponement, because it encourages all those opposed to this basic and beneficial plan to concentrate their fire on further whittling away and watering down the plan during the postponement period.
Medicare
It encourages every provincial government that seeks to alter the plan to bring in a partial and inadequate plan and to get such a plan established and occupying the field. Therefore the decision postpones the effective date not just for one year but very probably for a good deal longer, and no amount of lip service to the desirability of bringing this plan into effect as soon as possible will be able to eradicate the conviction many people will feel that they have been betrayed by this postponement decision.
I was afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I might take a slightly partisan view on this matter, so in my remarks I have confined myself to quotations from a well known Liberal newspaper, the Toronto Star, which certainly used to be favourable to the Liberal party, and I want to review briefly the recent history of this question of the bringing into effect of medicare.
On March 6, 1965, Mr. Peter Newman, whose means of knowledge of what goes on within the cabinet are unknown to me, wrote a very prophetic article. He wrote that massive pressure was building up within the Liberal party for a general election in June with medicare as the central issue of the campaign. He added that there was a strong lobby inside the cabinet opposed to the idea. I do not know whether he meant opposed to the idea of medicare or to the idea of an election. This plan to hold an early election on the central issue of medicare was, he said, based upon the view that a strong Liberal stand for medicare would cut the policy ground from under the N.D.P. in the campaign and presumably garner a great many Progressive votes.
On May 27, 1965, the Toronto Star reported the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro), who was then parliamentary secretary to the previous minister of national health and welfare, as saying:
The Pearson government is bracing itself to fulfil its election promise of a comprehensive medical insurance plan within the life of the present parliament.
It appears recently to have become unbraced, Mr. Speaker.
On June 15, 1965, the Star revealed that after six months of study 24 Liberal caucus members had issued a unanimous report in a three page document-and I ask the house to note these words-which urged an immediate start on a national medicare program. In June of 1965 the Prime Minister announced

October 17, 1966
Medicare
to a dominion-provincial conference that the government would in fact contribute to a nation-wide medical insurance plan.
In September of that year Mr. Norman Phillipps, a top-flight reporter, now unhappily deceased, had an article in the Star under a banner headline which read, "Medicare By '67 Appears Almost Certain." Also in September we had the announcement of the election, and on October 13 the then minister of national health and welfare, when she opened her campaign, announced in clear, positive and no doubt ringing tones-I was not there, Mr. Speaker-that the date for coming into effect of the government's medicare plan would be July 1, 1967.
On November 1 the same minister, who presumably spoke for the government on this matter at that time, speaking in French, English and Italian at Montreal, pledged the Liberal party to the introduction of medicare. "This government," she said, "will lay aside the fear all have of crippling expenses for medical care."
Perhaps most significant of all was the statement made by the Prime Minister in Hamilton during the campaign:
In 1963 I promised a Liberal government, as the economy expanded towards lull employment, would take steps to provide Canadians with medicare .... Well, we have our expansion and we have placed our national medicare proposals before the provinces, and we have set a deadline of July 1st, 1967 to start the program, and we'll do it.
Perhaps I cannot reproduce the eloquence of the Prime Minister on the hustings, but if words mean anything the meaning of this was a clear pledge by the Prime Minister, in a most dramatic way, that "this is the date, and we'll do it."
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to note the difference between what I might call the Pearson doctrine on medicare and the Sharp doctrine. The Prime Minister said we could not have a medicare program in 1963 because we did not have full employment, because we had a recession, but as soon as it was over his government would introduce such a program. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) comes along later and says: we have expansion in 1966 and it may well be that we will have the danger of inflation; therefore because of expansion we must postpone medicare.
I suppose in 1968 we may have another recession and then the Pearson doctrine that we cannot do it in a recession will come in again, and with an expansion in 1969 the Sharp doctrine will come into effect, which will say we cannot do it then either. The

people of Canada are somewhat in the position of Alice in Wonderland who, in Lewis Carroll's famous words, said, "Always jam tomorrow but never jam today." One of my colleagues says the Liberals are always in a jam. That is a pun I would not have perpetrated personally.
Private members on the Liberal side, encouraged by their leaders, made medicare by July 1, 1967 a central plank in their campaigns. I know that my own Liberal opponent, a distinguished gentleman named Martin O'Connell, I think very much in the confidence of his own party, campaigned on the basis that if his constituents wanted medicare and wanted it promptly then they must vote Liberal and vote for him and not for any other party. I do not know whether Mr. O'Connell, if elected, would have stood by his guns or caved in like some other members have done.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) is quoted as saying, and I do not doubt his sincerity:
I discussed it (medicare) at every campaign meeting. I was elected to put it into effect. I'm committed to it.
The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Macka-sey), who I believe is chairman of the Liberal party caucus, is quoted as saying:
It (medicare) was second only to national unity in my campaign. I am a great believer in medicare as Mr. Pearson outlined it last July-
Incidentally, with a target date of July 1, 1967.
I won't tolerate any watering down.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Who said that?


Francis Andrew Brewin: The hon. member for Verdun, the chairman of the Liberal party caucus. He said he was not going to tolerate any watering down, but there were other voices, influential voices, which even during the election campaign created doubt as to the determination of the Liberal party, and these voices have prevailed.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
On November 5 last the present Minister of Finance is reported as having said that the shortage of doctors and nurses could delay the Liberal government's hope to introduce a national medicare plan by July 1, 1967. I quote his words:
I don't know if we'll be able to reach that target. In any case, it is better to have a target date than a mere promise.
October 17. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	8737
Medicare
I suppose he meant that a mere promise which had been made repeatedly for 47 years lacked any electoral persuasive power, while a target date sounded a lot better and, after all, it would not be too difficult to find a pretext for changing the target date after the election.
The government spokesmen, after the election, continued to stick to what they themselves described as a pledge. In the Star of February 2, 1966 Mr. Michael Best wrote an article in which he said the Pearson government was brimming with confidence that its battle for national medicare in 1967 had been won and all that remained was a clean-up operation. We have had a clean-up, but it did not come from the right direction. This optimism was voiced, apparently, by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) who said that most, if not all, of the provinces would be in on medicare when the plan started on July 1, 1967.


An hon. Member:: That was before he became a "Sharpie" too.


Francis Andrew Brewin: On April 1 the Globe and Mail produced a story headlined "Cabinet Reaffirms 1967 Start For medicare". The story led off with the statement, "Medicare Start By July 1, 1967 Ottawa Pledge". On May 17, 1966 the Star told us that a national medicare program to start on July 1, 1967 "appeared certain today with the announcement by health minister MacEachen that health services will start no matter how many provinces are in the program by that date." He is quoted as follows:
There will be no retreat by Ottawa from either the July 1967 date or from the four basic conditions. The plan will commence on Canada's 100th birthday.
Those are the words of the present minister as recently as May 17. I say to the minister that I have a great deal of respect for him but I would have even more respect if, when his colleagues failed to live up to the pledge so clearly and so publicly made by him on their behalf, he had chosen to resign from the cabinet.
On May 18 of this year the Toronto Star, under the heading "National Medicare Proud Liberal Achievement", published an editorial in which it said:
The Liberal government's conclusive commitment to introduce a national medicare program on July 1, 1967, whether all the provinces signed up or not, redeems the pledge that has been gathering dust for the past 47 years.
Then on July 7 the Prime Minister told this house that the government would bring forward a resolution and seek approval with the least possible delay. It was only after that that the medicare bill, against the protest of the members of this party, was held over until the end of the planned recess in October.
On August 2-you will realize I am using Liberal quotations throughout-a prominent Liberal, Eric Kierans, who apparently knew something not revealed to the public, is quoted in the Star as saying:
National medicare plan may be delayed by up to four years because of indecisive federal leadership.
As late as August 3 the Prime Minister is quoted as saying that Ottawa would stand by its medicare plans. At that time he referred once again to the government's offer as being available to the provinces on July 1, 1967, although he said that that was not the deadline for provincial acceptance. Then on September 9 this year we find a headline in the Star, "Medicare Pigeonholed Again". It was neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of National Health and Welfare but the Minister of Finance who made the announcement in this house.
The Toronto Star described this in language which, coming from a journalistic supporter of the Liberal administration, is stronger than I as an opponent would perhaps choose. Under the heading "Medicare Delay Is Outrageous Deceit" the Canadian Press report said:
Canadian people have been deceived and disappointed in their expectation of health insurance by the party which began promising it in 1919. Federal medicare is to be postponed for a year on the excuse-and it is merely an excuse-that this is necessary to fight inflation. The one year postponement would be bad enough for the four million Canadians who have medical insurance coverage-the six million who have none at all. Who in view of the 47 year record of Liberal nonfulfilment of this promise, can have any confidence that the delay will only be for one year. This latest betrayal of medicare and of Health Minister Allan MacEachen, was accomplished in the manner of a Machiavellian intrigue.
Later in the article they say:
Whether the Prime Minister was in on the scheme or not, it is clear that the conservative wing of the cabinet has succeeded, temporarily at least, in sacrificing medicare on the altar of sound finance.
A day or two later members of this house within the Liberal caucus met at Peterborough and, in view of what they said at the time, it really is quite unnecessary for me to

October 17, 1986
Medicare
give my interpretation of the events leading up to postponement of medicare. This session, which the newspaper said was attended by 20 Liberal members of this house, indulged on Saturday night in what they call "a wholesale denunciation of the medicare postponement". They were very brave then. I hope they will recover their brave feelings later.
Mr. Thompson, the leader of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario, used words which I am going to adopt, although I do not always wish to adopt his words. Referring to the postponement he said:
This is a moral issue. The Liberal party went to the people and said it would bring in medicare.
Another prominent Liberal did a very good job; he is the editor of Liberal Action. He expressed the view that many delegates found it hard to understand how the medicare postponement could be an anti-inflation move. If they did not understand it then, I wonder how they can understand it now? I do not see how they could ever understand it. He pointed out that most of the money needed to finance the medicare program was already being spent on medicare. The extra spending needed would not be required until after the problem of inflation had been solved. Of course that is true. How does it make sense to say they are going to postpone something which starts in July, 1967, because of a recession in October of 1966? Any neophyte in economics knows the situation may totally change in the meantime and that this is a very feeble and phony excuse. I entirely agree with the editor of Liberal Action. He goes on to say:
The Liberals have been promising a national medicare program since 1919. The cheque the Liberals first wrote in 1919 has been bouncing ever since.
Mr. Speaker, it is still bouncing; it has not stopped bouncing in 1966. According to the Star, in discussing the same matter in Peterborough a Liberal member of parliament is said to have interpreted what happened as being unnecessary and irresponsible and a victory for the cabinet establishment which, according to this anonymous Liberal member, has long been opposed to this legislation. I do not know who the member is but I really think he had something. He went on to predict a growing rift between the members of the cabinet establishment and some members of the Liberal parliamentary wing which, he said, could lead to the destruction of the party. I do not know who this member was but I am sure the house would be interested to hear from him now in explanation of the
[Mr. Brewin.l
views that he put forward in Peterborough at that time. In what I have said I have relied upon expressions of opinion from those who have either supported or who owe loyalty to the Liberal party. I am not in either of these categories, but I say that even now it is not too late, if people of good will and conviction have the gumption to stick to their convictions, to redeem the situation.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Canada ought to have its national medicare scheme in effect on its 100th birthday, July 1, 1967, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare so eloquently pointed out to this house not very many months ago. The supposed inflationary obstacle is a complete and utter phony. I urge those in the Liberal party, and there are many of them, who clearly were elected on the faith of the promises made by them in this regard, to show good faith, or even one or two of them to show good faith to those who relied on their promises. This would do something to dispel the cynicism with which we are regarded when these pledges, made so unequivocally, are brushed aside for reasons which are so phony. If only a few of the Liberals who had this conviction, and I believe many of them had it, would stick to their conviction with determination, despite all that has happened, Canada could have this enlightened, this necessary, this urgent legislation in effect by its 100th birthday.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, when one enters a debate of this type at this stage of the game it is rather difficult not to be repetitious. A previous speaker said that this is an historic and far reaching piece of legislation. We all agree that it is far reaching, as any program is that improves the welfare of every man, woman and child in Canada. As to its being historic, I agree with the Liberal speaker in this respect because it has been appearing and wobbling in and out of Liberal election propaganda since 1919. We are faced with the fact that the plan is not going to come into force until 1968, almost two years hence, and who knows what may happen to it between now and then.
Last week I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) a question in connection with the possibility of sending this piece of legislation to a committee for study. The minister's reply was:
It is not the intention of the government to send the medical care bill to a committee for study. It is a very short bill and it speaks for itself. In my view it can properly be studied in committee of the whole.
October 17, 1966

That is quite an interesting statement. It would almost appear that this bill is just another routine matter in the house that it is a short bill and does not require a great deal of study, that having been introduced it will be carried forward without too much difficulty. I would refer the house to the description of this bill:
An act to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada towards the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
I do not think too many of us in the house object to the philosophy that if the provinces are willing to bring forward medical care insurance plans the federal government should assist them to do so. However, one section of the bill provides that the plan must be universal. It was rather interesting that when the minister introduced the resolution preceding the bill he spent so much time trying to convince us that the universality of the plan did not mean compulsion; it did not mean that everybody in Canada would have to participate. I maintain that if the minister would see fit to revise the idea of compulsion, which will interfere with the freedom of the provinces, the freedom of the individual and the freedom of the doctors, there would be very little doubt that we in this house could come to general agreement on the question of medicare.
I do not think there is a person in the house who is not in favour of medicare of some kind and its being made available to all Canadians. Such plans are available in the provinces at the present time. There are private plans in which people can participate; there are co-operative plans and plans of all kinds under which people can recieve medical attention. As the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) mentioned, very many of the organizations in this country, labour unions, manufacturers, teachers, doctors and small businessmen have medicare available to them. I am very proud of the fact that co-operative medical services plans are operated in the two counties I represent. I refer to the Wellington County Co-operative Medical Association plan and the Huron County Medical Co-operative Services plan. These two organizations have done a tremendous job in providing economical and serviceable medical care to all those within the area who wish to avail themselves of these services. I too, am interested in those people faced with critical illnesses which might use up their entire financial resources. In our
Medicare
province there is a medical care program which pretty well prevents this situation developing.
It is rather interesting to hear other people, particularly members of this house, indicating that people are just crying out for this type of a poll taken by a newspaper, The Independent Businessman. I am a small businessman and receive this newspaper and am probably more interested in it than some people. However, I was very interested in the results of the poll taken on the question of medicare. This newspaper is read by 100,000 small businessmen in Ontario. I do not know how wide its circulation is throughout the nation but it has over 100,000 readers in our province. In answer to the question, "Do you approve of medicare," only 27 per cent of these people indicated in the "yes" column that they were interested in this type of program. On the "no" side 68 per cent of the people said they were not interested in medicare, and only 5 per cent of the people polled had no opinion.
Therefore it is difficult to accept the statement that a great mass of people are clamouring at the doors of the parliament buildings asking members to bring forward this piece of legislation to relieve them of their medical cares and financial responsibilities in this connection. Apparently this is not true. In talking to my constituents over the holiday about medicare I found that a great many of them said, "I think it is about time the government quit participating in our business and let us look after ourselves. We are sick and tired of the big clubs that are held over our heads saying that we have to participate in pension plans, we have to participate in medicare, and so on." This is a popular feeling in Canada today. People are sick and tired of these social security programs. They are beginning to realize that there is no pie in the sky, that the money for these programs does not grow on trees and somebody has to pay for them. If more people realized that I think they would come to the doors of the Liberal government and say; "Take another look at this piece of legislation and see whether there are so many people interested in it."
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In the same connection it is rather interesting to read what a very famous senator who retired a few months ago said about this

October 17, 1966
Medicare
house and what is happening in Canada. He was quoted in an article in the Globe and Mail of July 11, 1966, headed, "Crerar Urges Western Liberals To Back Away From Socialism."
It goes on to say that he would not attend a party conference in Saskatoon next month where policy would be developed for this year's national Liberal convention. He said:
I would tell them they are supposed to be a Liberal gathering. They should get back to the sound principles of Liberalism, and compulsion in areas in which it is the right of the individual to decide isn't one of them.
He then goes on to speak about another piece of legislation which the Liberal party brought in and which was supposed to benefit the elderly and the retired in Canada. He said:
The only objectionable feature of the Canada Pension Plan is that it is compulsory. How you can reconcile compulsion with Liberal philosophy is beyond me.
These are the words of a man who has spent a great many years both in this house and in the other place, a man who, in spite of his years, had an understanding of the conditions prevailing in this nation, a man who was interested, as we all are, in the welfare of all Canadians.
We have an amendment before us proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) which, if it were accepted, would make this piece of legislation more palatable to all of us in this house. First of all, it deals with the co-operation of the provinces. We all realize the importance in this great nation of working in unity with the municipal, provincial and federal governments. Unless we do that we cannot hope to bring in legislation for the good of all the people. Today three provinces have their own voluntary medical schemes because they realized the necessity of making available to their people a medical plan of their own choice. Most of the provinces have medical schemes for people on low incomes who do not have the means to look after themselves. These plans allow the people to choose the plan to which they wish to subscribe.
I was rather interested in Premier Johnson's statement that he was not going to have the middle class harassed by social legislation, or words to that effect. Who are the people affected by legislative programs of this type? It is the poor people, people on minimum incomes, those on very small or no incomes who are in most cases given free
[Mr. Howe (Wellington-Huron).)
assistance. A medical care program does not mean anything to wealthy people because they have the means to look after themselves. It is the small storekeepers, the farmers, men working in the factories and professional men who are affected by this type of program.
Quite a number of the provinces feel that they cannot participate in a medical plan unless the federal government carries most of the load. Therefore it does not look as if this legislation will receive much co-operation from them.
The amendment also deals with a concept I have already mentioned, namely, the freedom of the individual to select his own plan. We have seen in this house governments who believed they could spend the people's money better than the people could themselves. I was interested to read a publication which we all received on our desks entitled "Industry", for June, 1966, published by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I quote from an article headed "Call Back Yesterday".
The following editorial first appeared just ten years ago in the June, 1956, issue of "Industry" under the caption "Worth Pondering":-
At that time the minister of finance was Mr. Walter Harris. The article continues:
Mr. Walter Harris came up recently with a revealing statement and an interesting comment, both of which deserved a good deal more prominence than they got.
The statement: "One-third of the annual income of the Canadian people is taken away from them in the form of federal, provincial and municipal taxes".
The comment:	"This is a situation worth
pondering."
There is another comment farther down which I should like to quote because it deals with the concept I mentioned earlier regarding the right which people should be given of choosing their own plan. It reads as follows:
The doctrine that governments can spend the people's money better than the people themselves is not a new one. But it remains highly fashionable. More so than ever.
Mr. Speaker, that was in 1956. You were not here then but we all remember how the front benches revelled in the surpluses which they were able to build up year after year by taxing the people for money to run the ordinary services of the country. This got through to the people and created the situation which we inherited in 1957, the tight money policy and increasing unemployment. The arrogant crew over there thought they could spend the people's money better than the people themselves. Are not compulsion and insistence on
October 17, 1966



everyone's participation in this plan an indication that the government feels that individuals are not even able to look after themselves, have no right to do so, and that this great magnificent government can look after them better than they can?
All this has happened before, Mr. Speaker. As I sit here and watch what is going on over there, I sometimes think that if those people who were kicked out in 1957 had learned their lesson they would not be saying now that they have all the answers, that this program should not go to a committee to be discussed and that this program will look after the people better than the people can look after themselves. There are a lot of people in Canada who are becoming wise to the situation and who are realizing there is no pie in the sky and that this plan will cost them money. The people of Canada want to be free and they want the opportunity to look after themselves.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The fourth item in the amendment proposed by my colleague from Simcoe East has to do with a matter which was so ably expressed by him when he spoke on the resolution. I refer to the necessity, before any such plan is implemented, of there being an adequate number of doctors, an adequate number of hospitals and an adequate amount of research to look after the people. Every effort should be made to ensure that in Canada the best type of medical care is provided for our people.
As the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie) mentioned, a plan such as this one is not going to bring the very best brain specialist to the door of every person in Canada; it is not going to bring the best heart surgeon to the door of every person in Canada. There are just not enough of these men to go around. I cite my own case as an example. I live in a village of 1,200 people and we have one doctor to look after all the people within ten miles of that village. Granted, some of those people go to other places, but they have to do so. This doctor has only one pair of hands and he can only be in one place at a time. We do not have enough doctors in Ontario or in Canada to service a program of this type at the present time. We will not have enough by 1968, the time it is proposed to start this program.
I am certainly in favour of this part of the amendment. Before we bring in any comprehensive plan we should do our utmost to see that we have the medical people and the
Medicare
medical facilities available. We should have sufficient personnel to look after all our people, and we do not have enough at the present time. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) mentioned this as one of the priorities.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the amendment mentions something we have been seeking and that is a plan to look after the people who do not have the money to look after themselves. I do not believe we have to wait for two years to implement such a plan. This is a priority and something we should be thinking about. Of course, we think of some of the other plans that were introduced and which were supposed to look after many of these people. We think of the Canada Pension Plan. We well remember that great plan which was introduced by the hon. lady and when she finished speaking she said it was a plan to ensure that all the people of Canada would be able to retire in security and in dignity. What a wonderful plan that was! It was wonderful in conception but terrible in prosecution. We know that the government has introduced another piece of legislation to remedy the deficiencies in the Canada Pension Plan and look after the very people who were not allowed to participate in that plan and who should be looked after immediately.
There is another class of people who need help, Mr. Speaker. Somebody mentioned the genteel poor. This is a class of people which is increasing day by day because of the inflationary tendencies in our economy. I have heard some people say that this great medical plan will not affect our finances so there is no reason for not introducing it now. Our experience has been that social measures cost money. We are wondering why we are having inflation. I wonder how much the Canada Pension Plan has contributed to the present labour unrest. On January 1 of this year every man working in a factory, store, foundry or mill had a payroll deduction for the Canada Pension Plan. He was probably buying a house and a car and had debts or perhaps sick children at home. He went home with less money than he had the month before. Do you not think he was provoked? He was not so worried about what might happen to him 10, 20 or 30 years from now; he had problems now. What about the manufacturer who has to pay the other half of the pension contributions? We are talking about socialistic schemes. Do you think he can afford to pay his half? Do you not think that amount was added to the price of the product he sells?

October 17, 196G
Medicare
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) made a great name for himself last week when he told the women of Ottawa how to shop. There are some women in Ottawa who are not too happy about his program and they wonder if he were doing the shopping day in and day out, whether he would do any better than they do. We have inflation in this country and many of the things that are causing inflation are things that we feel we have to introduce to look after other people. As I say, we believe there should be a program developed immediately to ensure that people who cannot look after themselves are looked after. The provinces should be assisted in this field.
There is one more point I should like to mention in connection with this plan. I have referred before on occasion to the cost of social programs. I do not always agree with the Minister of Finance but I do agree that we cannot afford this program. Many people have medical plans now which are going to disappear. I have yet to see any program instituted by a government that could not have been provided more cheaply by private enterprise. As I say, I commend the Minister of Finance for realizing that.
Let us look at one or two of our socialistic programs. We are happy about the hospitalization plan. This was good legislation but it was not compulsory legislation. The individual had a choice. I mentioned costs. In 1958, when the Conservative government instituted hospitalization, payments by the federal government to the provinces amounted to $158 million. In 1962, four years later, these payments had increased to $420 million, nearly three times as much. I was a member of the committee which discussed the Canada pension program. Time after time it was brought to the attention of the government that rarely, if at all, does the cost of a plan of this type remain stationary. We know about the United States experience and their plan has proven five or six times as costly. As one speaker said the other day, when we introduce social legislation of this type it is forever. It is almost impossible to roll back such legislation. It can be amended and changed but the principle has to be carried forward.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I sometimes wonder what we are doing for future generations besides polluting our streams and destroying our good agricultural land. Are we encouraging thrift among our young people through these social programs?

Is this program from the cradle to the grave about which we hear so much talk really good for all of us? What right have we to legislate for future generations? In fact, what right have we to discuss legislation to bring in a program like this which will not be instituted for two years? No, Mr. Speaker, I think another look has to be taken at this piece of legislation.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the amendment. I am not worried about the people who say that we are filibustering this piece of legislation. Neither am I worried about the people who say that if I vote against the legislation I shall be committing political suicide.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, because a lot of people in my area who have voted for me in a number of elections have sent me here to speak on their behalf and to see whether, if possible, I could influence the government to let them live their lives, to let them choose their own type of programs. I think that this is what I was sent here for, sir.
In closing I should like to make reference to an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette for Wednesday, October 12, 1966. It is headed "Not Just When But How", and the article indicates how shallow a lot of the discussion which has taken place on this question has been. The article is discussing the timing of this program and suggests that the debate has not indicated how it will be paid for and how much, in the final analysis, it is going to cost. The article concludes:
But the heated debates of the last few weeks have not even raised the questions, much less begun a search for the answers. The debate has been on the irrelevent question of whether the scheme should be started next year or the year after.
It may be hoped that between now and July 1, 1968 there will be more discussion about the real issues which medicare raises, and less about the secondary ones; more about substance, and less about style.


Mr. Milion L. Klein (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of medicare. I look forward to the time when the services to be provided will be increased and the members of our society who, for example, require eye glasses or dentures will be able to obtain them under this plan. When we seek to legislate we try to make improvements. We can never achieve the ideal legislation in regard to any question. As a matter of fact, even nature itself is not perfect. For example, I have never been able to understand why human beings are given a second set of teeth at five years of age; it
October 17. 1966

would have been far better had nature provided a second set of teeth at 50 years of age. But we cannot argue with nature.
As the previous speaker said and as has been pointed out, when medicare does come into force it is important that it comes into force forever. It is far more important that this legislation be passed by this house than that it shall come into effect on July 1, 1967 or July 1, 1968. The important thing is that it does become part of the legislation of this country. I would suspect that no party would be more disappointed than the New Democratic Party if in fact this program does come into force on July 1, 1967.


Mr. Scott (Danforth):: Explain.


Milton L. Klein: Very obviously, Mr. Speaker, for political reasons. They would be very happy if the plan did not come into force prior to July 1, 1968. They would be most unhappy if it did come into force before that date.


David Lewis: You are as wrong as your finance minister.


Milton L. Klein: It has been stated, that there is a shortage in this country of medical practitioners. I should like to deal with this point for a moment and to speak about the high cost of providing education, both in time and in money, to train the medical students of this country.
For example, I am told that in the province of Quebec the requirement for entry into the career of medicine is a pre-medical course of some four years duration, at the end of which a degree either of Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science is necessary. Once this degree has been obtained and the qualifications are met for entering medical school, the medical student has to spend another four years at medical school. In addition, he must then spend another year as an intern in a hospital. This means that a student who wants to become a general practitioner-the requirements are different for someone who wants to specialize in medicine-has to train for nine years.
Beyond this, Mr. Speaker, if the student wishes to specialize in any particular branch of medicine I am told that he must intern in a hospital in the province of Quebec for a further period of five years. Therefore this means that if a student wants to practise as a pediatrician or as a surgeon, or to train for a particular specialty, he must give up 14 years of his life after leaving high school.
Medicare
This would mean, that if a student of 17 or 18 enters the liberal arts to obtain a B.A. degree or a Bachelor of Science degree and wants to specialize in a particular branch of medicine, he will not be able to earn his own living in his particular specialty until he is at least 32 or 33 years of age. I am also told that the approximate cost of educating a doctor is $25,000 a year.
I would think that the conditions which are laid down for people who want to choose medicine as a career must be looked into with a view to reducing the period of time it takes to become a doctor or a specialist, as they desire. We should also use whatever influence we can to convince the medical association of this because the association itself is contributing to a shortage of doctors. The medical profession itself is creating a shortage of medical practitioners in this way.
I do not see the necessity for a person who wants to become a doctor to apply himself to a four-year pre-medical course to obtain a B.A. or Bachelor of Science degree. I think there ought to be a crash program in which the pre-medical requirements should be done away with until such time as we have sufficient doctors in this country and under which a person could enter upon medical training immediately on graduation from high school. If more time is required for training, I suggest that a student's time would be far better spent in the actual study of medicine than in the study of Keates or Shakespeare.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I believe we are coming to the time when we all want to see universal free college education or the opportunity of a free college education for all people in Canada. We are probably heading in that direction. I think we ought to establish priorities and not wait for a universal plan. For example, we cannot offer opportunities for free university education for every person in Canada in every type of profession. But in this country we are short of doctors and therefore we ought to say that we will provide free education to anyone qualified who wishes to take up the profession of medicine. Such a program for such a purpose ought to be established immediately.


An hon. Member:: Too late.


Milton L. Klein: We must persuade the medical profession to co-operate. I may be wrong in what I am about to say, and perhaps this is not so today, but in the past different associations, whether medical, legal or others, set up standards in order to prevent their

October 17, 1966
Medicare
respective professions from being overcrowded. Perhaps the whole matter needs a new look to see what can be done to facilitate an increase, particularly in the medical profession. In the present circumstances we ought to have a crash medical program, first, to convince the medical profession to lower its standards, and, second, to make the premedical course unnecessary and allow students to enter medicine immediately. Furthermore, we ought to make the course available free of charge to qualified people.
Also, I do not think that the universities are making enough use of their quarters. If in this country, for example, we need doctors, engineers, physicists, or whatever professions for which we should establish priorities, then courses such as liberal arts, commercial and the like which do not produce scientists, doctors or physicists ought to be taught at night. The building facilities should be used during the day to further the studies of those students who may now be turned away in the fields of science, medicine, physics and so on. I admit that the universities have to expand their quarters in certain instances but the need for some of this expansion could be overcome by staggering the hours at which different courses are taught.
I hope that the establishment of medicare will bring the doctor back to the patient. I hope that the medical profession will not even wait for medicare but that, for example, a pool of doctors will be established which can be drawn on in the middle of the night. If you do not have a family physician it is impossible in an emergency to get a doctor in the middle of the night. Under medicare I hope that this problem will be taken care of so that a person or a family may call the College of Physicians and Surgeons say at two o'clock in the morning when somebody is ill and in need of a doctor. From this pool of doctors it would be the duty of the college during such hours to direct a doctor to the patient.
I suggest that many of the ills a patient suffers from today are often aggravated by the fact that he has to go to the doctor's office and take all kinds of tests. In the past, when the family doctor came to his house and reassured him that his illness was of minor consequence, the patient often recovered more quickly than in these days. I hope that the human relationship that existed at one time between doctors and their patients can be re-established.

I also think that the legislation we implement with respect to medicine ought to be part of a concentrated war on poverty. Not enough effort is being concentrated in this direction. I say that because many of the persons requiring medical attention today require it because of malnutrition.
I should like to see the day when, as part of the war on poverty-and I think that medicare is part of the plan of zeroing in on poverty

we designate in certain urban areas pockets of poverty bounded by certain streets, and within those streets we ought to impose rent control. If there are other areas in a city with buildings which, for example, are classified as third class, then those buildings should also be placed under rent control.
I should also like to see the day, and I do not think it should be far off, when we can call dieticians before an appropriate committee of the house to tell us what basic nutrients a person requires in order to exist for a 24-hour period. If those nutrients constitute, for example, milk, bread, certain cuts of meat, whatever those basics are, I think that price controls ought to be enforced on such basic human needs. I am not talking about luxury items or luxury meat cuts. I am talking about basic nutrients.
The government might consider, for example, subsidizing the producers of these basic nutrients at the source of production so that the price spread between the producer and the retailer will always remain constant. I suggest that price control on these food essentials could be worked out. I do not suggest the manner in which that should be done. But, for example, when we give a franchise to a transportation company we say that the company, irrespective of any loss it may incur in providing passenger service in certain areas, must, as part of the franchise, accept the duty of carrying passengers. Before a food market is permitted to establish itself it is placed under an obligation to carry certain essential food products at a price which is controlled or set by the government -I recognize this is a provincial field-or else lose its right to conduct a food market.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Isabelle) has told us there are 24,000 doctors in Canada, only 9,360 of whom are general practitioners with the others practising in particular branches of medicine. This may account in some measure for the high cost of medical treatment in Canada. I believe that if the proportion were reversed and we had

October 17. 1966
more general practitioners than specialists, more illnesses would be treated at home and there would be less reference to specialists resulting in heavy expenses. Reference to specialists results in many cases in going from one to another.
I support this legislation. I suggest that we in this country must seek to educate the affluent society as to the necessity for such programs as this. Before the election in Quebec in 1966 one enterprising reporter predicted that it might produce many surprises. I should like to read from his article in the Montreal Gazette in which he quotes an observer as saying:
People are ungrateful. They would as soon get half what they get now with all the new programs like hospital insurance if they just knew their neighbour was not getting anything at all.
The reporter ends by quoting one man as saying:
I paid my children's way through school and now I am paying for other children. And my taxes are still going up.
I suggest we should go to the people of Canada on a non-partisan basis and say to them: we want these social programs and they are coming whether certain people like them or not. But these programs require money from taxation. In my view no political party should go to the people in future and say it can reduce taxation while increasing services. On the contrary, the people should be told that we intend to increase social benefits and that this will mean increased taxation.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: October 17, 1966
Medicare
of double taxation. We would like to be taxed only once and directly by the responsible government, which in the present case is the Quebec government. We should stop acting on the federal scene for the sole purpose of political prestige. One move by this government would settle all deadlocked discussions; it would drive away from the federal scene all those actors trying to give an impression of generosity on the part of the central government, while it is just pure hypocrisy. One move by parliament would do justice to the provinces and that is to give back to the provinces the taxation rights that belong to them, namely personal and corporate taxes and succession duties.
As I told the house, let the federal government give back to the provinces what they voluntarily lent it for the duration of the war and what it has wilfully kept for more than twenty years, thus depriving the provinces of their own taxes and causing the headaches now bearing down on provincial parliamentarians.
When you borrow, you must pay back. That is precisely what Ottawa has always refused to do and still does today. I say that is dishonest, and that because the federal government acts that way there have been misunderstandings for twenty years, and that we may have anarchy in the years to come. Will the members from all provinces realize this before it is too late? I certainly hope so, for otherwise I would prefer not to be around to witness the atrocities to come.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that as far as the Canadian community is concerned, its days are numbered unless we revert to a more honest dialogue. Federal-provincial conferences were invented in an attempt to dialogue, but one soon realizes that the federal delegates flaunt an obvious lack of good will.
Bill No. C-227 is still the best proof we have of this. Whereas several provinces have voiced serious objections to the present bill, the government proceeds as if nothing had happened, to the extent that we wonder if it really has discussed the matter with the said provinces.
Sticking to the strong central government principle, the government carries on as if provincial governments were mere vassals, or simply did not exist. And this we dare call co-operative federalism. This reminds me of popular socialist elections in Russia, where only the Communist party candidate may run for election. Thus, the Liberal party will be

able to tell the people: "As promised, we have given you a medicare bill, although we will not be the ones to give you medicare; this is up to the provinces. We will help the provinces, but on condition that they accept the conditions in our bill. If they refuse, nothing."
That is why I maintain that it would have been much more logical to simply offer federal assistance to those provinces wishing to introduce medicare for their residents, and this help should be granted in the form of new credit made available to the government by the Bank of Canada, and not by an additional tax levied particularly on Canadian workers. In this light, we would have several amendments to present to the hon. minister who introduced the bill.
I note in the bill under its present form that the expression "insured services" means:
-all services rendered by medical practitioners that are medically required-
I wonder if the government has considered all the paramdeical services. Optometrists, for instance, whose vere valuable services are required daily to care for the eyes of all our people.
Last Wednesday the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Messrs. Pearson and MacEachen) clearly stated that they would consider the advisability of including the optical services under medical services to be covered by the proposed medicare plan for Canadians. But these are only considerations, possibilities; there is absolutely nothing of a positive nature either in the ministers' words and even less in the letter of the law itself. And since our party believes only in what is written in black and white, in present laws, we urge the honourable Minister of National Health and Welfare to incorporate it in the act by an amendment, when he moves third reading, so that there may be justice for all. Moreover, the minister must have received a good many requests in this regard, coming from the optometrists themselves or from their association. For the information of the house concerning petitions, I have here an excerpt from the C.O.A. president's report in which he requests the co-operation of the members to force the government's hand.
Here is a paragraph concerning that invitation to the members of the association. I quote:
Every optometrist should make it his duty, before the fall session, to get in touch with his federal member either personally or by letter, to explain
October 17, 1966

the unfairness of such a decision or those Canadians who seek the optometrists' services and for the optometrists themselves.
The C.O.A. will make new representations to the federal government to reinforce previous representations. Provincial associations should endeavour to have their respective provincial governments specify what their position is on the matter.
At this point I should like to give just one more example of the letters received asking that the act be amended by the minister. On October 14, 1966, I received a letter from an optometrist in my district of Roberval. Here is a summary of that letter sent by Mr. L. G. Deschenes, optometrist in Dolbeau.
Dear Sir:
I gave you at my office last year a brief concerning the inclusion of services given by optometrists in the medicare bill.
Since we do not seem to get anywhere in spite of all the representations of our federal and provincial organizations, in view of the strong opposition in the high circles of organized medicine, I take the liberty once again to ask you to take part in the present debate so that our services to the people will be included as are those of the paramedical professions.
If that is not done, it will be a great injustice against us and those who come to us; in other words, for our riding it will mean that the Canadian government will pay the cost of the examination by the optician at the hospital and will not pay anything for those who will come to see us.
I am also including some literature to that effect-
And he sends me newspaper clippings. This is similar to all the other letters; it gives an idea of the letters we receive from every optometrist. The minister must have received some from the members, and I am sure that he will recall having stated that the government was studying the possibility of including services given by the optometrists.
Therefore, we hope that his consideration will be translated into an amendment to Bill No. C-227.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), National Defence-inquiry as to salary scale of naval lieutenants; the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette),
Medicare
Transportation-installation of signal lights at all railway crossings; the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), Public Service-representations respecting relief for red circled employees.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rynard.
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the amendment before the house. Before doing so, however, I should like to express what I am sure is the appreciation of all members in the house of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) and his parliamentary secretary have been present throughout this debate. We have appreciated their presence and their attention to the speeches which have been delivered in the last few days. In this debate the speeches have been of a very high calibre. I am sure the minister and his assistant on reflection and on a re-reading of the speeches will find that many of the points which have been made should be taken to heart. As a result of this they might even go so far as to postpone the implementation of this bill, or at least make several important changes.
For purposes of clarity I will divide my speech into four headings. First, why are we taking the valuable time of the house now? Second, keep out of medicare-it is none of our business. Third, the country is not prepared at this point for medicare and, fourth, it is discriminatory and it is compulsory. First, why are we taking the time of the house now to pass this piece of legislation which we are told will not come into force for at least two years, on July 1, 1968?
I think the minister might well refer to the confession which so often is read by those of all religious faiths; indeed, he might even suggest that it be read or said at the commencement of every cabinet meeting. It goes something like this: We have left undone those things which we ought to have done and we have done those things which we

October 17, 1966
Medicare
ought not to have done. I think this would be very appropriate right at this particular time. We are asked to take the time of the house to discuss this bill which, as I said, will not be in force for two years. Ask the old age pensioners what they think about the house taking up time on this particular bill at this point.
Last summer before the house adjourned, I believe about July 14, the minister made a promise that he would introduce a measure to increase the old age pension to a minimum of $105 a month. The $30 extra to bring it up to $105 is urgently needed. This becomes apparent when we see how these old age pensioners exist, the type of accommodation they have, the type of rooms in which they are living often in the basements of houses which are damp and poorly lighted, and at the same time trying to spread out the $75 to make it go as far as possible. While they are living in this manner we in this house are debating a piece of legislation which will not come into force for two years. So we come back to that great Liberal slogan of "60 days of decision". I think it is more like six months of indecision, six months of inaction, or maybe it is six months of reversals.
The latest reversal we have heard of today is that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) is being asked by his fellow cabinet ministers to reverse his decision on unification. Perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare should be asked to reverse his decision to go ahead with medicare at this particular time when there are so many other matters which should be debated in the house. There are supplementary estimates with which we should be dealing. The first thing we know we will have reached our 100th anniversary and will not have chosen our national anthem.
We have before us a bill dealing with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I do not need to remind hon. members that we need a change in the C.M.H.C. regulations so that we can get on building more houses. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) has talked about bringing people to Canada but if we do not have housing for them, why bring them here. People will be living in tents soon if we do not do something about this. We also have the export credit legislation. There is the matter of a budget and the problem of inflation. We should be dealing with all these things but instead we are spending our time on a piece of legislation which will not come into effect until 1968.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit an interruption for a moment? We have had a request that the house suspend its sitting for an hour for the purpose of a dinner break. If this is agreeable to the members of the house opposite, we have no objection on this side.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is it agreed that the house suspend its sitting for one hour?


Some hon. Members:: Two hours.


George James McIlraith: The request is only for one hour. There would be no willingness to agree to two hours.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the house suspend its sitting for one hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 6.02 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 7 p.m.
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, before the supper adjournment I only had time to introduce the four points upon which I propose to speak: first, why we are taking the time of the house now to discuss this piece of legislation that will not be in force for at least two years, if passed; second, my feeling that the federal government should keep out of the medicare business because it really is not its responsibility, up to a point; third, that the country is not prepared for medicare at this particular time; and fourth, my belief that this plan is discriminatory in its compulsory aspect.
I had dealt with my first point and now wish to proceed under the second heading, namely that I feel the federal government should keep out of the business of medicare except to the point where the federal government would pay its share of the subsidized costs experienced by the various provinces which institute a program of medicare. When we stop to look at the situation we find that the province of British Columbia has a good plan of medicare, as have Alberta and Saskatchewan. Manitoba is just waiting for the "go" sign for its plan. Ontario has a good medicare plan, and Quebec is working on a plan. Quebec is looking after the people who cannot afford a medicare plan, and the other provinces in the east are all considering a medicare plan.

October 17. 1966

I am not a lawyer, but I am led to believe that from the constitutional viewpoint the business of medicare is the responsibility of the various provinces. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that I believe our responsibility as a federal government is to pay our share of the costs of those subsidized by provinces which have a plan-and they will all have such a plan eventually. We should pay our share of the subsidized portion whereby the provinces will take care of everyone who cannot afford medicare. In other words, no one would go without medical care.
Another point is that this is a very costly proposition for the provinces and the federal government. It will be a major cost item, and the largest portion of the cost will fall upon those provinces which are objecting to the federal plan, particularly Ontario. The federal government will pay half the average cost of basic medical care to participating provinces. Ontario, which provides half the federal revenues, will thus pay half the national cost, but its own share of the cost will be larger per capita than that of the other provinces.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Basic medical costs in Ontario average about $40 while the national average is estimated at $35. Ontario would receive only $17 per capita from the federal purse and would have to pay $23 itself. The position of Quebec would be little better, and probably worse because they are now faced with the improved program of education, and with an industrial program which they find should have priority. And yet upon provinces such as Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario which together contain over half of Canada's population, the minister is trying to force an enormous and costly program. Moreover he is doing it without making any effort to determine what other needs the provinces will have to meet-for each and every province has its own obligations and problems. It would have been only right and proper for the minister to have waited for the Carter royal commission report, the Ontario committee on taxation report, and the Belanger royal commission report in Quebec, so as to give each province an opportunity to find out whether or not it could enter into such a gigantic program as this national medical plan. The minister says: "You will come in on my terms or get no help from Ottawa. While you will pay for a program you may not be able to
Medicare
afford if you stay out you will pay for those who come into the plan." These are his terms.
Medicare has not yet become legislation. It will not become so until, as I said, these taxation reports are in, at which time the provinces will have a much better opportunity to re-assess the whole situation. I feel that the various provinces are living up to their moral obligation which is the requirement to see that medicare is provided free or subsidized for all the low income or high risk groups in the provinces; this is already being done. I say we should keep out of this; we should leave it to the provinces to decide which plan they want, but pay our portion of the subsidy.
I should like to make my position on medicare clear. I am fully in support of a comprehensive health service. I do not like the term "medical service" and later on I will explain why. In my view we should use the term "health service" rather than "medical service". It should be made available to every citizen, whether his income is large or small, and both the federal and provincial governments should bring it within the reach of every family. This is what is being done under the provincial schemes. However, there are too many people who are willing and anxious to imply that a member who stands up in this house and says he is against this particular plan because of its compulsory aspects, its cost or the quality of medicare that will be provided under it, is against medicare. That is far from the truth.
My third point comes under the heading: Canada is not prepared. One could speak a very long time under this heading, but I am of the opinion that before we find ourselves in the strait-jacket of a universal and comprehensive plan of medicare we should assess the whole situation, and maybe set down some of the priorities as we see them.
Can we afford the expansion of education which our economic growth requires, as outlined by the Economic Council of Canada, at the same time as the added cost of an expanded nationalized health service? These are some of the questions we should stop and ask ourselves before we go into this plan at this particular time.
It is alarming to hear the plan being advocated as a program to provide free medical services to the Canadian people. A service does not become free simply because the government foots the bill. It is misleading to give the Canadian people the false impression that their government can take on additional

October 17. 1966
Medicare
expenditures, which will amount before too long to over $1 billion a year, without imposing heavy additional taxation at both the federal and provincial levels. It is most unfair therefore to say that these plans are free. Nothing in this world is free.
There are not enough doctors and medical facilities available to make such a program available. I will not labour this point because the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Ry-nard), a practising medical doctor who understands the situation well from his daily practice of medicine, outlined it to the house very fully and thoroughly.
All we have to do is to go into the rural area of any riding and see whether they have a country doctor ministering to them. One would be surprised to find that many villages lack a medical doctor. One does not exaggerate when he refers to the great difficulty of obtaining a room in the hospital these days. Hospitals are crowded beyond description, and neither doctors nor medical facilities are available in sufficient numbers, to say nothing about the medical science and research in this field which are badly needed. I shall not dwell upon this aspect of the matter, because this subject has been well covered in the debate.
My fourth point is that I feel this bill, if instituted, would be very discriminatory. As I said before, the title refers to the cost of insured medical services. I maintain that the word "medical" should be changed to "health" because medical care services includes only those practising medicine. What about optometrists, ophthamologists, chiropractors, osteopaths, physiotherapists, psychologists and dentists? All these people have spent years, at great cost, training themselves.
I understand it takes four years for an optometrist to learn his profession. There are around 1,500 of them in Canada, and only about 300 ophthalmologists. We therefore cannot say to an optometrist, a chiropractor or an osteopath: "You do not come into this plan because you do not qualify" because it will put these people entirely out of business.
I am sure each member has received representations on this subject. I should like to refer to a letter I received from an optometrist. It refers to clause 2 of the bill which
outlines the terminology of "insured services", and as I mentioned leaves out all these people. The letter reads in part:
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
If the definition "medical practitioner" was amended to include optometrists, opthalmologists, chiropractors, osteopaths, physiotherapists, psychologists and dentists, for the purpose of this act. the discriminatory aspect of this act would be removed.
It is unthinkable that the Canadian parliament would contemplate legislating any group of fellow Canadians out of business.
During that period 1939-1945 when the very existence of our nation was in jeopardy, optometrists served in all branches of the services. Some gave their lives, some were wounded and maimed, some merely gave up years of their lives -willingly and voluntarily in the war to "defend democracy."
Does this act, as it now reads, "defend democracy"?
I think he has put it in a rather forthright manner. This bill is discriminatory toward private enterprise. We have the Wellington Co-op Health Plan in my own riding which is serving the community very well and efficiently.
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will be voting on this amendment which is before the house, an amendment which is carefully worded so that it will secure the endorsation of all members in the house. The first part of the amendment refers to the co-operation of all provinces. I do not believe there is a member in this house who does not think we should co-operate with the provinces. Indeed, if we are going to have this great country of Canada develop the way we would like it to develop, we must have the co-operation of all provinces. This bill will not be satisfactory unless it recognizes the principle of voluntary choice by individuals.
I know our good friends down in the corner, the New Democratic Party, might find this rather difficult to get around when it comes to voting for the amendment. However I would remind them that the present plan violates a fundamental principle of a free society, namely the freedom of choice a citizen may exercise in matters relating to his own or his family's welfare. I am sure these members believe in that principle. I hope therefore that they will not fail to vote with us when the division is called on this amendment.
The amendment would make provision also for those who are unable, for financial reasons, to provide medical services now. This is something that is very important, and it is in

October 17, 1968

the amendment. I was surprised the other day-as a matter of fact it was on October 13-when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, as reported at page 8620 of Hansard:
Second, this is a sad day because the action of the government in proposing the postponement of medicare for a year is a discrimination against the needs of the people in this country, particularly their medical needs, and I refer particularly to those people who cannot afford the medical care they require.
The needs of these people are taken care of by those provinces which have medicare. Those who cannot afford medical care should be looked after by the provinces. We say that, rather than wait for two years to implement this legislation, these people should be provided for immediately. I am sure hon. members of the New Democratic Party will not find any embarrassment whatever in voting for an amendment such as we have before us now.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I must conclude, and I can think of no better way of doing so than by putting on the record these few lines which are attributed to Abraham Lincoln. We should take them as representing the viewpoint of this house for a good many years to come.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer . . .
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you can earn.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
So, I would give this warning to hon. members of this house, and to others: Let us beware of being sheep.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we are now studying a motion for second reading of a bill providing for the payment of the contribution by the federal government towards the cost of insured medical services.
Mr. Speaker, under the B.N.A. Act the field of health falls under provincial jurisdiction. Today, the federal government seems to want to meddle with another matter which is a provincial responsibility. It is very easy for it to do so, since the federal government levies the greater portion of taxes in Canada. It is
Medicare
richer and, therefore, can afford to do more. As if might were right.
Mr. Speaker, if nine provinces in Canada prefer to have a medicare program governed, administered and paid for by the federal government, I for one will not object to their wishes. If they want a federal plan well, let them have it and let Ottawa find a way to implement a federal medicare plan for the nine other provinces. But Quebec does not seem to want to participate in this federal medicare plan, and it has the right to refuse. The present Quebec premier and the minister of health have both stated that they would not submit to the terms of the proposed plan as it now stands. On another occasion, the premier of Quebec said that Quebec would have its own medicare plan.
And I will be the first to support him in this regard, if he really wants Quebec to develop its own medicare plan, since this responsibility lies with Quebec and not Ottawa. Besides, on page 8, clause 8 of the bill to come before the house, we read the following:
At least six months before the 31st day of March, 1972, the government of Canada shall review the provisions of this act respecting the amount and manner of payment of the contributions payable by Canada pursuant to section 3 with a view to formulating proposals for any changes therein that appear then to be necessary or desirable with respect to the amount and manner of payment, whether by the transfer or allocation of specified tax revenues by Canada and the making of equalization payments and other fiscal adjustments by Canada in lieu of the contributions that would otherwise be payable pursuant to section 3 or in any other manner, of the contributions to be paid by Canada pursuant to this act for years commencing after that day.
Mr. Speaker, this means that, if a provincial government refuses to take part in the federal medicare plan or wishes to develop its own medicare plan, ignoring the conditions stipulated in Bill No. C-227, then, in these circumstances this province or these provinces must pay the same taxes as other Canadian provinces, but they do not in any way benefit from the advantages of the federal medicare plan, and if these provinces have their own medicare plan, they are forced into levying a second tax in order to develop their own medicare plan.
This was also the case with the hospitalization insurance bill which was passed here, in the house, in 1957, if I remember right. The province of Quebec did not participate in the hospital insurance plan until 1961. During four years, therefore, the Quebec people,

October 17, 1966
Medicare
like all other Canadian citizens, paid taxes which were collected by the federal government for distribution in nine provinces under the hospital insurance scheme. The province of Quebec did not receive anything, but kept on paying. Exactly the same thing is happening today with regard to medicare.
If Quebec decides to set up its own medicare plan, it will pay taxes to Ottawa which will be distributed in the nine other provinces to help them establish a medicare plan, and if Quebec wants to set up its own plan, it will have to subject its citizens to double taxation.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this is illogical and unfair toward the Quebec people.
As I was saying earlier, I am not against the nine other provinces setting up their own centralized medicare plan, but I object to the province of Quebec being taxed in order to provide the other provinces with medicare. If the other provinces want such an insurance plan, let them stop taking money away from Quebec and let them seek within their own boundaries the necessary funds to finance their own medicare plan.
Such joint plans have been set up on several occasions: the technical training and trade schools assistance plan, the hospital insurance plan, the trans-Canada highway building project. The province of Quebec paid its tax share, but obtained nothing in return, because it wanted to adhere to the Canadian constitution which provided that the Quebec government and not the federal government is responsible for education, health and roads.
Mr. Speaker, if I object to that bill, it is not because I want to deprive the nine other provinces of what they are seeking. Not at all. If I object thereto it is because the legislation does not provide and the minister cannot provide for the provinces which do not wish to take part in a federal medical scheme and would rather set up their own.
There are in the house some Quebec members. They know quite well that if the province of Quebec does not take part in this scheme, it will pay taxes from which it will derive no benefit, but which will be allotted to other provinces.


Mr. Auguste Choqueite (Lotbiniere):: And
what about fiscal compensations?


Gilles Grégoire: Well, the fiscal compensation, under clause 8 of Bill No. C-227, cannot come

into force before March 31, 1972, as seen on page 8 of the bill.
I have just read it, I read this clause in full a while ago, and no fiscal compensation shall be paid before March 31, 1972, even if a province does not participate in this plan. Let us have some clarification.


Auguste Choquette: This can be improved.


Gilles Grégoire: It can be improved? Well, if the hon. member for Lotbiniere says: "It can be improved", let him rise and make it binding upon the minister to improve the matter-


Auguste Choquette: I am just a private member.


Gilles Grégoire: -or let him move an amendment. Can the minister then clarify the situation? I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) - I am not quite sure whether the minister now has his earpiece on to hear the interpretation-whether he proposes to amend clause 8 of the bill, so that, if a province refuses to participate in the plan, as soon as it comes into force, such province should get fiscal compensation? Could the minister answer yes or no whether it is his intention to move an amendment? I see the minister shaking his head. Now, this is the strongest denial thrown in the very face of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, from his own minister. Therefore, if Quebec refuses to participate in the plan prior to 1972, it will pay without getting any fiscal compensation in exchange. What are Quebec members going to do?


Auguste Choquette: The future will prove the contrary.


Gilles Grégoire: Then they may as well call the Minister of National Health and Welfare a liar.
Mr. Speaker, the minister who is responsible, who has much more responsibilities than the hon. member for Lotbiniere, has just stated that there will not be any change. Over four or five years, Quebec will pay taxes without getting anything in exchange, if it should decide not to participate in the plan. And I urge Quebec not to take part in this plan and to develop its own medicare plan.
Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances and in view of the unbending attitude of the minister, can a member from Quebec in all conscience vote for such a bill? I say no. The premier of Quebec asked all the federal members of Parliament from Quebec to unite
October 17, 1966

in protesting against the unwarranted interference of the federal government in fields which come under provincial jurisdiction, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that all the Liberal, Conservative, Creditiste and independent members from Quebec should indeed unite against the interference of the federal government in a field over which it has no jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, some wonder why the people of Quebec are not "satisfied. Well, here is striking proof of the intrusion and unwarranted interference of Ottawa in matters which are no concern of the central government.
And it not only interferes with something that is none of its business, but it also makes Quebec pay for it, so that other provinces will have their own medicare plan.
If the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet) has something to say, let him rise and say it.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Quebec East):: A yacht bought in Toronto, by an independent leader in the province of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, see how serious he is. I extremely regret that the province of Quebec should be so badly represented. When I look at the hon. member for Quebec East, I realize how poor, pitiful and small it is for a man, rising for the first time in three months or in a year, to say such a trifling thing. I think the hon. member had better remain seated, because-


Gérard Duquet: The hon. member is not often in the house, for he would know that we rise more often than that.


Gilles Grégoire: I believe I am here more often than the hon. member for Quebec East. I think the member for Quebec East had better remain seated and keep his mouth shut.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: But the government does not worry too much when it comes to introducing legislation such as this, for even their own members from Quebec, who sit on that side of the house, do not object, do not say a word. The remarks from the hon. member for Quebec East will appear in the record and people will then see the irrelevant remarks that were interjected. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I think I have sufficiently substantiated my argument, with the confirmation given by the Minister of National Health and 23033-553J
Medicare
Welfare, to the effect that the province of Quebec will be paying during four years for a plan that will bring it nothing.
Mr. Speaker, this is a glaring breach of the Canadian constitution and the first to violate it is still the federal government. In view of the fact that the taxes collected in Quebec are so badly used by the federal government, I hope the Quebec government will stand firm on its request that direct taxation, that is personal and corporate income tax and succession duties, be returned to Quebec. Then a little less of our money would be used to pay the cost of the medicare plans in the other provinces.


Auguste Choquette: But what you are advocating now is Mr. Johnson's formula. You are advocating the return of direct taxation to the provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to both hon. members that this is not the right time for a debate between the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). The hon. member for Lapointe has the floor now and he should continue his speech.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I find that there is nothing wrong with the question and I think that the hon. member can ask it.


Auguste Choquette: When he advocates the return of direct taxation, is he asking for the present quota or advocating the return of direct taxation itself to the provinces? In other words, the federal government would no longer have the right to exercise that right which is its own under the constitution, namely to levy an income tax.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that my objective goes further than that. I feel that the whole field of direct and indirect taxation should be given back to the province of Quebec.
I support the present premier's request for direct taxation only because half a loaf is better than none and we must not refuse any improvement. I feel that the return to Quebec of all direct taxation is an improvement over the present situation because the present situation allows Ottawa to levy taxes anywhere in Canada but give them back to some provinces but not to others. And that is what is going to happen with regard to bill No. C-227 on medicare. If Quebec collected all its taxes, I would say to the other provinces: If you want centralized medicare, go ahead, those

October 17, 1966
Medicare
are your taxes, this is your money. But in the present case it will be our money which will be used to pay for medicare in the other provinces.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
And nobody protests against that, not even those from Ontario. If I were in their place, if I were a member of another province, I would be embarrassed to see that taxes are collected in the province of Quebec to pay for me. One could wonder after that: what do you want exactly? What we want? We want to keep what belongs to us.
Now, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is just doing the opposite. If he provided in his bill that, in the event a province, as it is entitled to according to the constitution, rejected interference by the federal government in the field of health, it could recover, as a fiscal equivalence, the amount which it would not recover by refusing to participate in medicare, then I would not object to the bill at all. I would say to the other provinces: You want it, take it.
Now, I object because no formula is provided enabling Quebec not to take part in the plan, but to enjoy a fiscal equivalence so that it can develop its own plan. Is that asking too much, Mr. Speaker? I do not think so.


Auguste Choquette: That was done for the pension plan and that can be done for medicare.


Gilles Grégoire: But it is not provided for; the opposite is provided for in that bill. Before criticizing the bill, I asked the minister: "Is the minister ready to amend section 8 to provide for a formula enabling a province to recover the amount involved, otherwise if it does not want to take part in medicare?
And the minister answered categorically: No, nothing is provided for that. To know what is provided for now, the member has only to read section 8 where it can be seen that before March 31, 1972, provinces which do not participate in medicare will not be entitled to any fiscal adjustments; that is what is provided for.
Yet we do not ask for the impossible; it is not something illogical, irrational. We simply ask that a province refusing federal interference in the field of health can receive a fiscal equivalence so that it would not have to pay taxes twice, or pay taxes for other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, that is the point I wanted to raise during the debate on second reading of Bill No. C-227. I want to add that if I vote

against the principle of the bill, it is not to prevent other provinces from having a centralized medicare plan, if they want to. No, it simply is because the bill forces Quebec to participate in the plan or else lose a considerable amount of money and pay double taxes. This becomes discrimination, especially since health has always been a field under provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, seeing the federal government act like this now, in 1966, one realizes beyond doubt that if the Canadian confederation can no longer continue as such, it is first and foremost the fault of the federal government which has always violated it as much as possible. The federal government does not seek to correct its mistakes. Even today, in 1966, it is trying to violate the Canadian constitution. Those responsible for the destruction of the Canadian confederation will not be the people of Quebec, but the federal government which will have infringed on the rights of the provinces.
Therefore, hear this: the real responsibility lies with the federal government and not with the province of Quebec.
This province reacts to the intrusion and interference of the federal government.


Auguste Choquette: Will the hon. member agree that there are nevertheless matters of national urgency which allow the federal government to take some action, permissible under the constitution itself? I feel that the hon. member is much too radical in his interpretation of the constitution.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, this is another good question. If there is any national urgency, let the federal government institute medicare. On the other hand, if there are nine provinces which want it as is, let the program operate for those nine provinces. But as Quebec also intends to establish a medicare plan, but her very own, well, let the federal government establish a clause providing that any province, or at least the province of Quebec, if the other nine provinces are satisfied, may draw some fiscal compensation for its own medicare plan; then, should not this meet the situation of national urgency as concerns medicare? Yes, it would, completely, and without the slightest doubt, since the ten provinces will have their medicare plan, in nine instances administered by Ottawa and in the tenth, administered by Quebec, as is the case at present regarding the pension scheme and others that were in the past joint programs and are today
October 17, 1966

separate. This is our request: that the federal government have a plan for nine provinces, which is perfect, if the federal government wants interfere in that field for the nine other provinces. But, at least, let the province of Quebec free to reject this intrusion and interference. There is no-


Mr. Racine:: Can the hon. member for Lapointe tell us this, since he knows all about matters of provincial jurisdiction: provided the nine other provinces had medicare through federal channels, whether the province of Quebec would be prepared to grant the same social legislation to its citizens?


Gilles Grégoire: Actually, before the medicare plan comes into effect at the same time in the nine other provinces and in Quebec, we shall have to wait until July 1, 1968.
I think that it would be a good idea to get also some explanations from the Quebec government. I think that Quebec should also make known its priorities; I am not here to defend the opinions of the Quebec government in office at the present time. However, I believe that questions will be put to the Quebec government and that it might even be advisable to ask some in order to know when it will set up its own medicare program. However, I believe that Quebec must be assured of a fiscal equalization the day it would want to set up its own medicare program. We are asking for just that. This is not provided in the bill and the minister does not want to include it. This is why I object to the principle of that bill. And I do so on the ground that it is another interference, and because we do not want anymore the federal government to keep on interfering in matters such as those. Besides, we want Quebec to be the master of its own taxation so as to be able to administer its plan according to its wishes and its distinctive characteristics. That has always been denied by the federal government.
In conclusion, I should like to say today that instead of gradually improving in Ottawa, at least provides me, since I have openly declared myself for the independence of Quebec, with the best argument to the effect that instead of gradually improving in Ottawa, things are worsening. This debate provides me with the best argument to show my Quebec fellow-citizens that Ottawa is not only unwilling to understand, but that it is getting more involved in centralization, in the taking over of Quebec powers and privileges, and in the control of all the fields reserved up to now to the Quebec jurisdiction.
Medicare
Mr. Speaker, this further argument will allow me to show the people of Quebec that Quebec has only one solution and only one choice to make: to become independent.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Reid Scott: We have before us in this legislation what has been described as one of the most important measures to come before parliament for some time. We in the New Democratic Party have already indicated our basic agreement with the plan, subject to some reservations which were outlined earlier by our leader and which he elaborated in the debate which is to follow.
It is not my intention at this stage to go into the technical aspects of the bill. This will be done by others who will follow me. I am more interested in the change which has been made in the commencement date and the reasons advanced for such a change, together with the interesting light this casts on the sincerity of the minister, his colleagues in the cabinet and all those backbenchers who misled the country in the last election and who, by their actions now, have betrayed the promises they made.
It is unnecessary to say anything further about the need for medicare in this country. The Hall Commission adequately set out the need for this type of service. Nobody in the house has denied that there is a necessity for a plan of this kind. Some members of the Conservative opposition-it would appear from what has been said that the Conservative party is opposed to medicare-have raised the question of the cost of the scheme, and suggested we cannot have it because it will be too costly. I suggest to them that they re-read the Hall Commission report which establishes the cost of the plan, sets out the means by which it can be financed and makes the point that Canada is more than able to afford it.
Then again, Conservative critics of the bill are failing to look at the other side of the coin, which is the cost of sickness to Canada. For example, it is estimated that in 1963, the latest for which statistics are available, 100 million man days of labour were lost to our labour force through illness, with a consequent economic loss of $1,630 million or 3.8 per cent of our gross national product for one year.
All this sickness could not, of course, have been prevented by medicare, but these figures do indicate the tremendous economic loss which Canada suffers because we do not have

October 17, 1966
Medicare
an adequate medicare scheme operating in this country. This is not because we have not waited for it. The party presently in office has dangled medicare before the electorate for about 47 years. And now, of course, the legislation has been brought in, but its operation has been postponed for another year.
It is interesting to learn that postponement was not supported by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen). Indeed, with the clairvoyance which only Peter was given to possess, we were told in great detail of the anguished conversations which took place in the Chateau Laurier, of threats of resignation on all sides, of luncheons and cajoling by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to persuade the Minister of National Health and Welfare not to resign.


Mr. MacEachen:: Fiction.


Reid Scott: I thought for a moment he might be "doing a Marchand". The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) has not resigned this week, but it is still early in the week and we may yet hear one of his weekly threats to resign because something has happened that he does not like. It is becoming boring, now, though no doubt the charade will be repeated within the next few weeks.
The reason originally given for the postponement of this scheme was that we could not have it because of inflation. This was greeted by a roar of derision from coast to coast, because it is obvious that if we are trying to deal with inflation today we add nothing by postponing a scheme on which we are not going to spend any money until next July at any event. That reason did not last very long. Indeed, as my hon. friend from Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) suggested, if we accept the philosophy of this government we will never get medicare, because when we are in a small recession we cannot have medicare because we have to get the country rolling; and now, when members opposite claim they have got the country rolling, we are apparently so prosperous that we cannot have medicare because it would damage the economy.
No matter which way you go, you cannot win with the Liberal party. I sometimes wonder just how gullible the Liberals think the people of Canada are. I notice the Minister of National Health and Welfare is smiling and nodding his head. He obviously believes they are able to absorb a great deal more of the

hokum they have been getting from this government.
As I said, the reason initially given for postponement was greeted with a roar of derision from coast to coast. In a way, it is amusing, the manner in which the Liberal party has played around with this scheme over the years. But there is a more serious side to it. I am bound to think back to the period of the last election. I will not put on record all the commitments which were made but those of us who were here in 1962 and 1963 will remember the great debate we had about nuclear arms. I remember the pontifical way in which one minister after another got up to say: We must honour our commitments; the Liberal party always honours its commitments; the government is committed to nuclear arms and we must honour our commitment, above all. We heard this for days and days. It is a pathological obsession with the Liberal party that they honour their commitments-when it suits their purpose.
Well, in the last election campaign they made a pretty strong commitment. I have an article here from the Toronto Daily Star of September 23, 1965. The heading is: "Medicare by July 1, 1967, Hellyer tells Scarboro". The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) was attending a meeting at which the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) was nominated. This was a positive commitment by the hon. member for Trinity and, incidentally, the hon. member for York-Scarborough made a similar commitment. It was received, we learn, with standing ovations. Then, of course, the Prime Minister went up and down the country telling people that we would have medicare in Canada by July 1, 1967.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
The then minister of national health and welfare, the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh), went so far as to say everything was fixed, there were no problems, no hurdles, that this Liberal government had cleared away all obstructions and there was no reason in the world why we could not have medicare by July 1, 1966.


An hon. Member:: That was L.S.D.


Reid Scott: An hon. member suggests that L.S.D. was involved. I do not want to make any such allegation, but the hon. member will be speaking shortly and he can elucidate further on that particular point of view. But, Mr. Speaker, member after member after member, candidate after candidate
October 17, 1966

after candidate on behalf of the Liberal party trotted all over the country telling the people they were going to have medicare by July 1, 1967. Never was there a commitment more solemnly, more concretely made, and never was there a commitment more quickly jettisoned after the election was over.
The hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein) says some of us on this side of the house would be happy if medicare does not go into effect. That is the most spurious statement I have heard since the last spurious statement was made. We on this side of the house were pleading with the government before the recess last July not to recess the house but to stay on and pass the medicare bill. But they did not listen. They decided to recess and deal with it in the fall. Of course in the meantime the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) got his finger into the pie and great changes took place. And as soon as the announcement was made by that minister, then of course we really had a reaction.
We heard a roar of dissent from the Liberal members themselves, and everywhere one went and talked to members of the Liberal party they were saying, "Don't worry, we are not going to accept this. We, the young Liberals; we, the people of reform; we, the aggressive reformers in the Liberal party, who are its real strength and power-we are going to go down to Ottawa and face Mr. Sharp and that bunch of rightwingers who want to kill medicare."
They told me this in Toronto. Then of course we had the famous Peterborough scene, where we had all the real reformers, the people who were going to change the face of Canada, the leftists, and they were going to tell Mr. Sharp and everybody else off, everybody who was going to kill medicare. They said they were coming to Ottawa to the big Liberal convention to reverse this.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we had the charge of the bright brigade. They came charging down to Ottawa to the great Liberal convention. And what happened? They lay down like a bunch of dead dogs and rolled over, and stared in hollow-eyed admiration while the Minister of Finance crammed his decision down their throats. And when it was over they came out and said they got what they wanted. They got it all right, Mr. Speaker, but it was not what they wanted.
At that meeting they also had that other great proponent of Liberal reform, Andrew Thompson, and his story is even more tragic.
Medicare


Mr. Fairwealher:: Who is he?


Reid Scott: Is he forgotten already? He campaigned all over Ontario on this. He said this was a Liberal party commitment, and Liberals honour their commitments. He said, "I am going to head the charge of the light brigade. I am going to head off to Ottawa and reassure that the Liberal party reverses its decision." We all know what happened, Mr. Speaker. The gore was running a foot thick out of his back by the time the votes were in, and he went back to Ontario with his tail between his legs.
What I am trying to say, perhaps imperfectly, is that this is a test for all these bright young Liberal reformers who talk behind curtains month after month and tell us in the corridors, "We are the reformers, the left thinkers in this House of Commons. You are just a bunch of do-gooders over there. We are not all going to accept these decisions by the government. We are going to stand up and tell them off in caucus, and reverse these decisions that are wrong."
But what happens inside the chamber? Nobody gets up. Neither the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) nor my own member of parliament from York-Scar-borough (Mr. Stanbury)-as a matter of fact I am one of his constituents because I live in his riding-has spoken. I am now telling my member of parliament that he broke his promise, and if he persists I might not be able to vote for him next time. We want to hear from all these reform-minded Liberals whose reform stops at the curtain.
1 say to them: This is your test, you talk all the time outside the chamber, let us see you get up on your feet here and repeat the things you whisper out in the corridors. Now they tell us, "Don't worry, opposition, because we now have a commitment that will give us medicare on July 1, 1968, and this commitment we won't change. This is a firm commitment. This commitment we won't back down on. The other commitment, "which was as firm as anything could hope to be," was jettisoned because the Minister of Finance did not like it. But now the date is July 1, 1968, and you don't have to worry, because you will have it."
I suggest that the commitment for July 1, 1968, is absolutely worthless. So far as I am concerned no commitment of this government will ever again be worth anything until it is translated into legislation. Then we will believe them. But I would make a wager now

October 17, 1366
Medicare
that we will not have medicare in 1968. In fact we will not have medicare by 1970, not necessarily because we cannot train people, and not because we cannot find the help. We will not have medicare because the establishment, which really rules the Liberal party of this country, does not believe in it and does not want it, and all the hot air from all the young eagle-eyed reformers is not going to change that. But we will wait and we will listen, and we will hear what happens.
We can think about the uncomfortable position of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen). I extend him my deepest sympathy for the embarrassing position in which he finds himself. I can think back to how he introduced first reading of this bill, the eulogistic cries, the booming voice, the waving arms, introducing the greatest social measure in the history of Canada. Joy reigned supreme among the Liberal backbenchers. They thumped their desks and the house shook with the roar.
What a difference from his speech on second reading-sneaking into the house, making an apologetic, quiet restrained statement, slipping the bill before the house shamefaced and embarrassed. I can think of all the things the minister has said to us about medicare, and the firm commitment that it was going to go through. In the light of that, I think if he had any guts he would have resigned. If he had resigned he would have won the universal respect of the members of the house, and he would be well on his way to being the main contender for the leadership of his party, because he would have rallied around him all these so-called reformers.
But the minister did not do that. He swallowed the pill, and now we have this thing that is before us.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: He would have had Andy Thompson with him.


Reid Scott: I am not sure that would be any great advantage at the moment.
The other minister we want to hear from is the Minister of Finance, and we are also entitled to hear from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). They should come into this debate and tell us why they are betraying their commitment to the Canadian public. After all, Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who made the commitment. He was the one who told Canadians they would have medicare by July 1, 1967. It was not the Minister
[Mr. Scott (Danforth).1
of National Health and Welfare who changed that; it was the Minister of Finance who changed it.
Therefore we are entitled to have both these gentlemen come into the house and explain why this change has been brought about-and I do not mean the nonsense we have heard about inflation, because the postponement is not an anti-inflationary thing. Neither do we want the story that they have to prove their good faith to the business community. The business community knows where this government stands and is not worried about that at all. We are entitled to a proper explanation why this great social change has been denied to the people of this country.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In a sense, Mr. Speaker, it is symptomatic of the Liberal party which always has posed as a party of great reform; yet, what kind of a Liberal party is it, what kind of a reform party is it when, whenever it thinks something has to be done about its so-called inflation, the two things that are affected are the national medical health scheme, and research and education aid? What a travesty of a reform party that is. But where business is concerned, that is a different matter. When they want to cut down the amount of money in the economy they let business prepay some $350 million into the treasury. And then what do they do? They do not keep it; they are only going to hold it for 18 months and give it back to business with 5 per cent interest. That is a real progressive reform-minded party.
We saw again the great Liberal party in our discussions about the automobile trade parts agreement, where dislocation was brought about by government action, and where the people who paid for that were the workers. You bled their futures to pay for dislocation brought about by government trade policies. We are seeing this in the research field, where Canada is starving for research money. It is not just money these people want in the form of salary. Our country is starved for research in almost every conceivable field, and the great reformers are urging a cut-back in the name of inflation.
I think about hospital beds. When I came here in 1962 I, and most of the population, had been pleading that the government wake up to its responsibility in the field of hospital beds. We have been pointing out that it costs approximately $30,000 to furnish a bed in our metropolitan centres, and we get $5,500 from
October 17. 19S6

the province and a lousy, measly $2,000 from the federal government. The rest we have to raise by public subscription in our municipalities. The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) well knows the desperate shortage in our area. I am sure he has made representations; I am not suggesting he has not. This is just another symptom of the phony progressive Liberal party in this country. The whole medicare thing is symptomatic of it.
Who is being asked to bear the brunt of this? Not the rich and powerful, not the wealthy, not the "haves". You are asking this of the little people, the sick, those who cannot afford help but who desperately need it. They cry out to us in letters all the time saying that they are bankrupt, and are looking to us for help and aid. These are the people on whom you are putting the screws.
As I say, it is a bitter, sad, shoddy affair from beginning to end. I know how hon. members over there like to sit, laugh and pound desks when the opposition makes a plea of this kind. I do not really expect them to have a change of heart over there because of what has been said in this debate. I do not expect that anything 1 say will change their views: But I want to promise that we are not going to forgive and are not going to forget your betrayal of the people of this country. You can laugh or pound your desks all you like, but we are going to go out in the country, travel the length and breadth of the country, and expose this Liberal party, this pseudo-party of reform, for the sham and facade that it really is.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to follow the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), not because I can agree with everything he said, but because I am delighted he did say it. As a matter of fact he reminded me of a very auspicious event. One night about the beginning of September, when I was driving down Peterborough, taking my boy to school, I saw very strange portents and omens. The sky had a luminous quality. There seemed to be stars which had never been there before; other stars were falling, and there was a rumbling of strange noises. I thought something indeed must have happened. Later on that night I heard on the radio that there was something unusual-a Liberal revolt. I thought, good; it is about time the Liberal party had a revolt, not only because it is some years since they had one, but because they have so much to revolt about. I thought 23033-554
Medicare
if ever there was a chance for a political party to revolt, here was the moment. I thought, as the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) said tonight, that we would have speaker after speaker standing up expounding views on the necessity for doing something. I thought that the grass was going to overtake the brass; but we have not had it. Somewhere, somehow, there must have been a reconciliation or some strange change in the views of those who attended this historic conference.
The hon. member for Danforth spoke about the bright brigade. I suppose you could call it that, but I think the bright brigade at the Liberal convention had Sharp to the right of them and MacEachen to the left of them. This might explain the change of mind.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke extensively at the resolution stage, so my remarks tonight will be very limited. At the resolution stage I did propose an amendment which was ruled out of order. I do not intend to renew it, but I do want to mention it briefly, because I thought I made a very logical suggestion to the government at that time and they now may be able to take advantage of it. I suggested that this proposal, together with a variety of other proposals dealing with welfare and development in the country, might well be referred to the Economic Council of Canada so that there might be a careful appraisal of the economic consequences, the possibilities and the needs and so that priorities might be assessed and evaluated, and recommendations made.
Objection was taken at that time on the ground that the government cannot, of course, abdicate its responsibility. And I understand well that it cannot. But, Mr. Speaker, that was never my suggestion. It did seem to me, however, that because of the confusion, the doubt, and the obscurity which had been engendered that an objective, honest, non-political view and approach to all these matters might well be better. The result could be made known to the House of Commons and to the government. It is not that this would be accepted; quite properly of course this could not be the case, but the benefit of a study in depth of this kind could be made available so that the House of Commons, the country and the government might have the advantage of it.
This was my view. At this time, now that it appears there is going to be some serious delay between the time this bill receives second reading, is ultimately passed, and the

October 17, 1966
Medicare
time the program comes into effect, I only hope that this might in fact be done so that parliament, the government, and the country might have the benefit of the views of this body. I do not agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), who says there is an inflationary aspect to the delay. Merely because the coming into effect of a program of this kind is going to be delayed for 20 months rather than eight months, with a possibility that the moneys which will be required to pay for this program will not be reflected in the tax structure until the year afterward cannot, I think, be accepted as a valid reason or excuse for delaying the implementation of such a program as this which parliament may ultimately pass. However, if there is to be this delay I suggest that the minister and the government might well give consideration to the proposal I made.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Some suggestion was made about the reference of this bill to a committee after second reading. I note that while the minister in response to a question said this would not be done, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) this afternoon rather indicated that the bill might be referred to a committee. I have in mind however that the Prime Minister probably was not giving his attention to it and that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in his statement that there would not be a reference to a committee, was indicating what would happen.
I felt initially that reference of the bill to a committee was desirable. It is true enough that hon. members to my left have pointed out that this issue has been discussed exhaustively be a royal commission which made a complete and detailed study, and whose report is a persuasive and enlightening document. I do not necessarily accept all that is in the report, but it certainly has made a notable contribution to the social writings and philosophy of our country. But despite that, as a matter of principle it has been my view that at no time is it possible for parliament to substitute for its judgment the judgment of a royal commission. The terms of reference of a royal commission, the evidence, report and recommendations are useful and valuable material from which we can reach our own opinions, give our own judgment and assess the negative and positive values of any particular program; but I think it must be laid down as a principle that it is quite wrong to say that merely because the matter has been considered by a royal commission which has

made a report, and a good one, we must accept that report in its complete finality.
My views as to the necessity of bringing this matter before a committee have been changed since that time. We have heard in this house a statement by a responsible minister which leads me to question the virtues of the committees system, as we have been experimenting with it this year and last year. I refer to the statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), in another context, that departmental witnesses appearing before a committee only do so with the consent of the minister, and their evidence must be limited to the views of the department in question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You mean tampered with.


Gerald William Baldwin: This is a serious position. This is a very grave challenge to the value and virtue of the committees system. So long as it persists, and until such time as it has been clarified and a statement made on behalf of the government, I am reluctant to waste the time of this house by referring to any committee any matter of any consequence. Surely we are entitled to have and to demand that any witness, no matter whether he be a departmental witness, a serving officer or one who has retired, must be allowed to give evidence when subpoenaed, and his evidence must be uninhibited-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: -untrammelled and free
from undue influence or pressure of any kind. Until that situation has been clarified I suggest that it is a complete waste of time for this house to refer any matter to any committee.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right.


Gerald William Baldwin: Some mention has been made of the Hall Commission report. As 1 said, I have read it almost in its entirety and I have refreshed my memory by reading it through lately. I should like to put one or two aspects of it before the minister now, so that when he comes to close this debate he can, if he sees fit, refer to them. In the first instance 1 would refer the minister to recommendation 194 on page 88 of the report. I think this recommendation is a very sensible and salutary one. It is as follows:
That taxes collected by the federal government
to pay for the expanded health services program be identified in such a manner as to make it clear to the taxpayer that the taxes paid cover the health service benefits made available to him.
October 17, 1966

It seems to me this is plain, simple and sensible. In the past there has been a great deal of intellectual dishonesty and economic nonsense spoken about various programs of this kind. People have been deceived and beguiled, for political purposes, into believing that they can secure certain benefits without paying any compensating cost, either the immediate and direct cost or the indirect cost which is implied in the program. In many instances it is quite likely that the people directly concerned or as a whole would have accepted the cost, knowing what the program is going to do; but I think it is only fair, proper and equitable that when the government proposes measures such as this, or any similar measure or enactment they should set out wherever possible the precise cost involved.
This is what the Hall Commission recommends. It may well be that the minister feels such a provision cannot be incorporated in the legislation. This may be a matter of budgetary consideration that the Minister on Finance (Mr. Sharp) may in due course see fit to implement. However, I draw it to the attention of the minister, and hope that before the debate is concluded he will indicate that this matter will receive the attention of the government.
The other point I wish to bring to the attention of the house has also been raised by other members, most recently by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). It appears-heaven forbid-that I must agree with the hon. member for Lapointe on this particular issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: In this connection I should like to refer to recommendation 199 of the Hall Commission report:
That a federal-provincial conference be convened within six months of the tabling of volume I of this report:
(a)	to initiate the necessary planning and fiscal arrangements for the co-ordinated implementation of the program as a whole;
(b)	to reach agreement on the implementation of the health services program we have recommended.
I think this is repeated in the very first recommendation:
That the federal government enter into agreements with the provinces to provide grants on a fiscal need formula-
The type of agreement envisaged there is not the type of agreement involved when a highwayman pulls out a pistol, points it at his 23033-5541
Medicare
victim and says, "Stand and deliver." That is an agreement of a kind, but it is not the type of agreement the Hall Commission had in mind. The agreement referred to in this recommendation is one reached before the fact, and not after.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
It is notorious that the state of federal-provincial relations in this country has reached a delicate and sensitive period. In any federal system this is always the case; but it is particularly so in Canada, having in mind that federal-provincial relations today are compounded in their difficulty by a number of other situations, notably ethnic and language difficulties. At this time, surely in the name of heaven it is incumbent upon this government to exercise the utmost caution to proceed only when agreements have in fact been reached prior to the event, particularly in an area about which there can be absolutely no doubt that the jurisdiction lies completely within the scope of the provincial governments. I suggest that to proceed the way in which the government is proceeding is akin to the situation of a bull in a china shop. It cannot fail to have the effect of inflaming and aggravating the existing problems and difficulties between some of the provinces and the federal government. It is true it might have taken a little longer, it might have taken a number of conferences-I am not in a position to know exactly what the minister or his predecessor have done-but it does seem to me that it would not have been too high a price to pay to maintain an equilibrium in our provincial federal relations to comply with the explicit recommendations of the Hall Commission. I am afraid the course has been fixed. The government is determined to proceed, and when this has been completed there will be a greater degree of disruption between some of the provinces and the federal government, a situation which we can ill afford at this particular time.
Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I propose to support the amendment because I think it is a sensible one. If it is passed it will compel the federal government to seek out the provinces and to secure their individual and collective agreement to a type of program which is acceptable.
I think there is no doubt that in the not too distant future an agreement will be reached which will be acceptable to all governments and to the people of this country, because there is a need and a demand for a program providing health services for the people of

October 17, 1966
Medicare
this country. Second, it would compel the government to launch a program of research and training which is an absolute necessity and a condition precedent to the successful introduction, establishment and continuation of the measure which we all need and which, to a large extent, is covered by the Hall report. Finally, it would drive the government immediately-and I stress the word immediately-to turn its attention to the provision of medical health services for those people who at this time are really in urgent need of them, rather than to compel these people to wait for the stops and starts, the trials and errors as well as the political overtones which prompted the present bill and will remain with it for some time. I am supported in this last suggestion by a letter which came to my desk from the Canadian Medical Association and which indicates that a conference was to be held today with the minister and with the Prime Minister.
For all those reasons I suggest that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) is a very sensible and reasonable one, and merits the support of the members of this house.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say in favour of this amendment. I was glad to hear from my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that the government party have now finally been recognized as a revolting party. This evening we have been accused of being opposed to the principle of medicare. That I cannot accept. I think every hon. member in this house favours the principle of medicare and we all agree that health services should be available to all, as they are now to many citizens of Canada. Of course I think that our first concern should be for those people who cannot afford medicare, and this includes many of our older citizens. Some provinces already have medical schemes in operation and others are planning to bring their own in, while still others will require financial help from the federal government to start and maintain a medical care plan. For instance, my province of Alberta has a plan in operation which I am sure compares favourably with the plan of any province in Canada. It is not a compulsory plan and it allows free choice by the individual because private plans are available at competitive premiums. This plan provides in some cases lower premiums for the needy and the older citizens.

The federal government should not force those provinces which already have plans of their own to change them, but other provinces should be brought up to the same level of medical care. I think the federal plan should be dovetailed into the existing provincial ones.
I should like to ask the real reason why the government's medical care plan was delayed. Was the date moved ahead to curb inflation, or was the reason for its delay the shortage of doctors and related personnel and the cost of the proposed scheme? Our first concern must be for the present shortage of hospital beds and for the overworked doctors. More doctors must be provided if this scheme is to provide adequate medical care. For example, medical care has been provided in Great Britain for 20 years and yet the people there are not too happy with their national health scheme. The shortage of doctors in Great Britain has become acute. We in this country also have a shortage of doctors which is becoming more and more obvious. Recently I saw in the press that there are now many small centres without general practitioners-
Is the shortage of doctors not caused to a large extent, as it is in Great Britain, by a drain of our doctors to other countries, in our case chiefly to the United States, and also by a lack of funds for medical research? Should we aggravate this situation by bringing in a compulsory national medical scheme without adequate preparation?
If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to refer to an omission in the present bill which was brought to my attention by a letter from a constituent. I will read an excerpt from the letter, which begins in this way:
It has been brought to my attention that Bill C-227, a medical care act, discriminates against optometrists and their patients. Apparently there is also discrimination against other health professions which perform services which are also performed by physicians-
It appears that if the act remains as is, our services are being included, but we as optometrists are cut out of the bill. This could seriously affect the livelihood of the 1,500 optometrists in Canada. I feel that if a service is included in the act, any practitioner who is legally and academically qualified to provide this service should be eligible to provide that service under the legislation.
He goes on to say:
Statistics show that 65 per cent of your constituents who seek vision care, seek it from an optometrist.
October 17, 1986

There is no one else available there, Mr. Speaker. He then says:
They would not longer have the traditional right of choice of practitioners unless they pay extra for the services of an optometrist.
I feel that both optometry and ophthalmology must be included if the visual welfare of the nation is to be properly cared for.
I think this appeal deserves serious consideration.
I would also like to comment, if I may, on a statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen). I would like to read this statement but before I read it may I say that I agree with it wholeheartedly, and I think it is well said. The statement was made by the minister in a speech given by him to the Dental Association in Halifax on June 15 of this year. It reads as follows:
Good health is a national goal and the federal government has a responsibility to initiate, encourage and support programs and safeguard the health of Canadians generally.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I agree that this is a field in which the federal government has a great responsibility; however, I would like to ask a question in connection with that statement. What example are we, as members of parliament, giving the citizens of Canada? I am speaking of the members in this chamber. What provision is made, for example, to keep our bodies trim? Surely, keeping fit enters the medical care question. I should like to ask, what facilities are provided on the hill? This is the question I have wanted to ask for a long time, Mr. Speaker. At the present time in this country we provide wonderful facilities for our school children, wonderful gymnasiums. There are many in my small city, and with this I agree heartily.
But I go on to point out that those children would exercise anyhow because in most cases they have the natural exuberance of youth. You could not hold them down if you tried. But what about our lack of facilities here? Is it due to an acute shortage of funds or to a fear of public opinion? Could we not even afford a ping-pong table to relieve some of the tensions built up by sitting for hours on end? In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I may say I obviously intend to support the amendment, which I hope will make the bill worthy of support.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) mentioned
Medicare
a letter which members have received from the Canadian Medical Association. This letter was addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and copies were sent to all members. I feel the Canadian Medical Association should get an "A" for effort. In the past, they put their efforts into opposing medical care altogether. Now that the general principle of medical care insurance has been accepted in this country, they seem to be putting their efforts into making the plan as innocuous as possible. I am surprised that they still make these efforts, after all the debate that has taken place in this country and the general acceptance of it by the population. I am surprised they make these efforts in view of evidence we have had from other countries that medical care plans work very well. We hear a great deal of criticism of the United Kingdom plan. I think much of the criticism is injustified. You can turn to other countries with medical care insurance plans in effect for much longer than the United Kingdom and find those plans working very well.
Even if you ignore the experience of other countries, one finds enough evidence here in Canada that a plan with universal coverage will work very well. The Saskatchewan plan has been in operation for nearly four years. Even many of the doctors who were opposed to that plan in 1962 recognize the value of the plan today. We had an exhaustive study made of medical care by the Hall Commission, a very complete study. It would seem to me that all of the possible objections which the Canadian Medical Association and other critics could have raised were answered by that very complete report of the Hall Commission. However, in spite of all this, we still get these letters from the Canadian Medical Association asking us, in effect, to introduce something less than a complete, comprehensive plan which would cover the whole of the population.
On page 2 of their letter to the Prime Minister, the association lists seven major criticisms of the plan as outlined in Bill No. C-227. The first objection is as follows:
That the virtual compulsion contained in the bill restricts unnecessarily the individual rights of citizens to choose the insurance best suited for their needs;
This point was dealt with by the Hall Commission. They pointed out that the plan must have universal coverage in order to give Canadian citizens the best possible medical care for the lowest possible cost. The commission is speaking of health care based on a

October 17, 1966
Medicare
much wider type of coverage than is included in the private plans available in this country. For example, most plans in operation at the present time do not provide for psychiatric service. If they do, it is on a very limited basis. The Hall Commission report envisaged psychiatric coverage. This is a very important point because this can be a very expensive type of care for persons who have to receive it. The Hall Commission, therefore, did go to great lengths to explain why we had to have universal coverage.
The first objection in the letter from the Canadian Medical Association refers to the right of a citizen to choose the insurance best suited to his needs. There is a suggestion here that the private plans which are now in existence should remain in existence so that a citizen could pick and choose what he wants. This means you would have a great many insurance companies remaining in the field, and you simply could not get good health care at the lowest possible cost if you have all these companies in the field.
I should like to refer to an article which Mr. Justice Hall wrote, and which was published in the Winnipeg magazine Canadian Dimension for the months of March-April, 1965. I quote this from page 13:
Why not many carriers?
Now why not a multiplicity of carriers: because it would cost too much administratively. If one carrier is designated in each province, such as we felt could be done by some adjustments to the structure of Manitoba Medical, the annual saving would be in the order of approximately $180 million a year. In our opinion that was too much to pay for the luxury of having upwards of a hundred carriers in each province. It is either one carrier in each province, or all commercial carriers being recognized in each province. Otherwise, how could the selection he made? A free enterprise government in Australia rejected the use of commercial carriers because it would cost too much. The administrative costs of the hospitalization plan are approximately 5 per cent. The administrative cost of operating the Saskatchewan medicare program in 1963 was slightly less than 5 per cent. An average retention figure for acquisition costs, taxes, profits, etc. ... by commercial carriers is approximately 27 per cent of the premium.
So, if you allow a plan to operate with a multiplicity of carriers you are going to have excessively high administrative costs. The people of Canada will not get the kind of health care they could get at the lowest possible cost. I note the point he made there that you could save $180 million, by having a single carrier in each province.

Now, point No. 2 in the Canadian Medical Association letter to the Prime Minister is as follows:
That pressure has been exerted on provincial governments to curtail them in establishing their own health priorities, since they are required to introduce unnecessarily expensive programs when less expensive programs would suffice.
This leaves the suggestion that the type of program which would be introduced as a result of the implementation of this bill as originally drafted would be more expensive than other health plans which are now in operation. In any case, every provincial government should make health its first priority.
At a meeting which was held with the provinces to discuss this plan, it seems to me that the poorer provinces raised no particular objection. The Atlantic provinces, if I remember correctly, all agreed that they were ready to go ahead with this plan. Saskatchewan, which is in the middle ranks of the provinces so far as per capita income is concerned, has had a program in effect for several years. This leaves provinces such as Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta which could well afford this program. I suggest the government should go ahead, as the government did ten years ago with the hospital insurance plan. They should pass the bill to make the program available. If a province is ready it can come in; and if it is not, it can wait until it is ready to do so. I suggest that if the poorest provinces in Canada are ready to go ahead, the others can well afford to pay.
Now, another point raised in the Canadian Medical Association letter listing their major objections is as follows:
That the underlying assumption that a government authority can administer an insurance program more efficiently and more economically than private programs operating on a non-profit basis has not been established, and we doubt its validity.
I suggest to you that it has been established, and I quoted earlier the case of Manitoba Medical. I noticed just this week a press report from my own province. It is a Canadian Press dispatch from Vancouver dated October 15 and reads: e (8:50 p.m.)
Medical Services Inc., a doctor-operated medical insurance scheme in British Columbia, announced Friday it will abandon the field of individual medical insurance because it can't compete with the B.C. government medical plan.
About 7,500 individuals will be dropped from the M.S.I. plan when the change takes effect Nov. 30.
The British Columbia government did during the past two years eventually introduce a
October 17, 1966

medical care program which was particularly designed to cover those persons in the province who were not already covered by doctor-sponsored programs. Obviously this plan is cheaper than the M.S.I. plan, which is now being dropped. But it is not as low in cost as it could be if this bill were passed and the province chose to participate. However, the plan which is in effect, imperfect as it may be, goes to prove that the government-sponsored plan does operate more cheaply than the doctor-sponsored plan, which is now withdrawing from the field.
Item six of the major objections of the C.M.A. is as follows:
That a universal program will aggravate the existing shortage of medical and other health manpower, particularly in the field of general practice. The alleviation of these acute shortages should be given first priority in spending public funds.
We have heard this a great many times before, Mr. Speaker. It is the old argument which is raised-that we are not ready to do this. I suggest to you that if the Saskatchewan government nearly 20 years ago had not taken the initiative in the field of public hospital insurance, we would not have it yet in Canada. At that time there were not enough hospitals, or doctors and nurses and still today there are not enough almost everywhere in Canada.
I suggest once again that if the same government had not taken the initiative in instituting medical care insurance, we would not be discussing this bill today. There were not enough doctors in the province at the time and there are still not enough doctors in Canada. What country does have enough doctors?
I also suggest to hon. members that we do not stop the building of schools just because there are not enough teachers. These things have to be done. We do build schools and we do spend money to train more teachers. Some teachers come into the country as immigrants, and we get along as best we can. If we wait until there are enough hospitals, doctors, nurses, radiologists, technicians and all the rest of it, we will wait forever. We must proceed with what we have.
The ratio of doctors to the population of Canada is a great deal better than in other countries in Europe that have had medical care schemes in operation for a long time. Therefore the argument that there is a shortage of medical personnel has to be rejected.
In this connection we are making some progress. A year ago the government did
Medicare
announce health grants for medical schools. Much more needs to be done in this field, but this part of the Hall Commission's recommendations has to be taken into account and a start must be made. Let us not use this excuse that there are not enough doctors.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that not all of the horrible things that some people have said will happen in Canada will in fact occur. It has been stated that we will lose doctors as a result of the introduction of medical care. Once more if hon. members read the report of the Hall Commission carefully they will notice there is a close relationship between the income of doctors and recruitment to the medical profession. I am not suggesting that this is the only reason people go into the medical profession, not at all; but income is certainly an important factor and doctors in Canada are among the highest paid anywhere in the world.
With a medical insurance program which insures payment to the doctors, one can expect their income to go up; and I have no doubt that there will be enough young Canadians in the future who will be ready to serve in the medical profession whether or not we have medical care. However, this sort of plan and the certainty of payment which it will bring will help recruitment to our medical colleges.
As some other members have said, Mr. Speaker, we should not at this time be debating the merits of universal medical care. We have had enough debate on this subject. Enough study has been done on the question in Canada and it has already been put into practice in one province in this country. It has also been put into practice in other countries. I suppose really the government is not debating the problem either; we are now down to the question of the implementation of such a plan.
Before I leave the question of the Canadian Medical Association I want to raise one doubt which comes into my mind. The C.M.A. purports to speak for the doctors of Canada. This seems strange to me because I have spoken to a great many physicians at different times and in different provinces. Some of them support the C.M.A. official position on medical care, but many do not. I do not know whether these doctors are silent when conventions of the association are held, but I know from my own experience that there are many doctors in Canada who do not oppose the kind of medical care insurance suggested by the Hall Commission. So I really doubt

October 17, 1966
Medicare
whether the C.M.A. does speak tor the whole profession when it makes these pronouncements.
In this debate we have heard a great deal about the year 1919, the year in which health insurance became a plank in the Liberal platform. The Liberal health insurance plank was born in the same year as I was. The baby born in 1919 is now getting on a little bit, has grey hairs and recently had to obtain some glasses. All the signs of physical deterioration which come about in the mid-forties are beginning to appear. In fact, I will be well over the hill, if this government is going to stay in power, before medical insurance is ever brought in in Canada. However, we can always live in hope.


An hon. Member:: You won't live that long.


Robert William Prittie: Somebody says I will never live that long, Mr. Speaker, and that may be true.
There are two or three other members from whom I should like to hear before this debate is concluded, Mr. Speaker. Certainly the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) should speak on a matter of this importance. The subject should commend itself to him, but particularly he should take the responsibility for helping to explain why this postponement in the implementation of the bill is being made.
I also think we should hear from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) because he is the man who has told us that there are economic reasons why medical care insurance should be postponed until 1968. However, I do not accept what he has said about this because he has not explained his reasons in very much detail. Some members of his own party do not accept what he has said. I heard the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) on television last night and he did not seem to accept it. So I think the Minister of Finance owes us an explanation in detail, with figures to back him up, as to why medical care insurance cannot be introduced into this country at the present time for economic reasons. If he does not do this during the debate on second reading, he should give us a thorough explanation of this point during the committee stage.


Mr. Orlikow:: If he does not, it will not pass.


Robert William Prittie: There is, Mr. Speaker, another member of the house from whom I should like to hear on this subject, and this is the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). It was while he was prime minister that Mr. Justice Hall and the other commissioners were appointed to make this study. When the Hall Commission report came out he praised it fulsomely. Therefore I should like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition is in full accord with the items in the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), because it seems to me that at least two of those items do not square with the recommendations of the Hall Commission.
I think that on a subject of this importance we should hear not only from the Prime Minister but also from the Leader of the Opposition. He is usually quite willing to give us his views on any number of subjects, and I think we should hear from him on this particular subject too, because it does seem to be in line with what he has said in the past.
The Canadian people, Mr. Speaker, have been waiting a very long time for the implementation of the type of program that is in effect in practically all other western developed countries. There is no reason why we should have to wait any longer. We are told by the government that we must wait another year, but many of us will not be satisfied to let this debate come to a close either on second reading or in committee until the Minister of Finance has appeared and given the type of explanation we are entitled to have for the delay he is responsible for imposing upon us.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can have some sympathy for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and for his charming parliamentary secretary. As a fellow maritimer I do feel sympathy, because they fully anticipated that this season of the year would bring their moment of triumph. But, after the handling they have received from the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his parliamentary secretary look as if they could stand some medicare themselves.
The minister sat around the Chateau Laurier in the company of misguided Canadians, who had nothing to do a few days ago, waiting for an opportunity to go front and centre, grab the football and seize the limelight, only to have it snatched away from him by the Minister of Finance. Even worse than that the Minister of Finance scored the touchdown against the Minister of National
October 17, 1966

Health and Welfare, and all the time the Minister of National Health and Welfare thought they were playing on the same team. So one can be sympathetic.
I think the explanation given for the postponement of the medical care program, which has been a political football of its own kind for almost 50 years in Canada, is a cruel jest upon the poor people of Canada. Medicare is described as inflationary; yet what is inflationary about providing medical services for those who are ill? If you examine the arguments you see either that it is improper to treat a person who is ill, gravely ill, because treatment costs too much, or you do not treat that person who is ill. If it is improper to treat a sick man because he is ill, and because treating him would be inflationary as it takes money to look after him, you are really equating the dollar in a strange and unChristian way with human suffering that can be alleviated. It takes money to alleviate suffering. The thinking seems to be that above all we must protect our money, or we do not protect Canadians. I think the idea is nonsensical.
There is nothing inflationary about seeing that poor Canadians who look to society for help receive that help. I think most of us in the House of Commons would feel ashamed to think that we were a party to the sort of reasoning indulged in by the government of the day. Indeed we have two victims of this phony war on inflation. One is medical care, and the other is scientific research, which includes medical research. So shortsighted are our policies in this direction that by accepting the postponement and by accepting the very thesis of the argument made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), which is aided and abetted by the government of which he is a member, we are condemning ourselves to being a second class nation in the intellectual and research fields for decades to come. This is what we are asked to be party to.
I have a letter from the Associate Professor of Medicine at Dalhousie University, Dr. John F. L. Woodbury, and he has given me permission to quote from it. I advance his arguments as my own, where he says:
As a medical educator I am deeply concerned with the need for training and keeping teacher scientists in our medical schools. It is most disheartening to see one's colleagues leave Canada or abandon research careers in which they have invested years of training because the climate for medical research in Canada is poor.
Medicare
I interject parenthetically to say that this man knows whereof he speaks. He is associate professor of medicine. To continue:
A better climate is one of the most important considerations in increasing the number and quality of medical teachers which is, in turn, vital to produce the increased numbers of good doctors, which will be demanded by a program of health insurance.
It is therefore alarming to learn that the Minister of Finance has made a statement in the House of Commons on September 8th to the effect that "While the government is strongly in favour of increasing grants for research as a basic long term policy, we will have to exercise more restraint in the rate of increase this year than we had hoped would be necessary.
That is a remark made by the Minister of Finance. I do not find any of his colleagues opposite applauding, though.
The hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) placed on record on a previous occasion-I do not think he did this in his excellent contribution to the current debate-some of the appalling statistics that have come about because we in Canada do not take any pride in being a nation which could be an intellectual or research centre of the world. Heaven only knows, we have the wealth to do it; we could afford to put money into these fields. As the hon. member for Simcoe East said before-and he confirmed my figures a few minutes ago-our medical brain drain amounts to some 200 Canadian trained doctors per year, each educated at a cost of some $50,000 and each likely to have earned $500,000 over an average working career of 30 years.
Putting it in another way, Mr. Speaker, what does this brain drain amount to? In positive figures it amounts to a $10 million loss in the medical training that goes on in this country. That is the money spent on people who go elsewhere to practise their profession or carry on research.
In addition there is the loss of income tax. Income tax is one way by which the state can recover part of its contributions to the education of these doctors. Five hundred thousand dollars will yield a tremendous amount of income tax.
The third loss is the loss of the enhancement of the medical services we have in this country, so that instead of gaining we have to run like squirrels in a cage to remain where we are.
The fourth loss is the loss to our international pride and national prestige, coming from the recognition abroad of Canada's failure to cultivate an intellectual atmosphere.

October 17, 19S6
Medicare
One would say this is inexplicable: One also has to say that it is true.
In an editorial reprinted in the Fredericton Daily Gleaner of Saturday, October 15, the Toronto Globe and Mail put the matter in this way recently:
Finance Minister Mitchell Sharp's plea for greater restraint in the rate of research grant increases as an anti-inflationary measure might lead one to believe that in the field of medicine, for example, research could fairly be regarded as a peripheral activity in the work of providing medical care and training doctors, that it is a dispensable adjunct to the main operation and can be painlessly amputated.
The Minister of Finance amputated part of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


An hon. Member:: He was decapitated.


Robert Jardine McCleave: An hon. member suggests that he decapitated the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare had lost his head long before that.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The editorial quotes four men who have offered opinions on the subject recently-Dr. Louis Siminovitch, head of the division of biological research, Ontario Cancer Institute; Dr. John Armstrong, executive director of the Canadian Heart Foundation; Dr. John Evans, dean of medicine at McMaster University; and Mr. Edward Dunlop, member of the legislature for Forest Hill and executive director of the Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society. The article sums up their views in this way:
Four men who are, in their individual ways, concerned in medical research and training, give views which suggest that restraining medical research funds could be one of the most ill-conceived economies in the history of Canadian medicine, and that it could condemn Canada to at least a decade of second-class medical care.
Here are the words of one of these men -Dr. Siminovitch-as quoted in the editorial:
If Mr. Sharpe's announcement (concerning research funds) is followed through, and means what it says, we are in danger of dealing a mortal blow to the future of medical science in this country for many years to come.
The editorial notes what we have all noted in this house, namely that government response to the Gundy report for medical research calling for large increases in such funds has been "less than breathtaking". It says:
Partly as a result of the Gundy report, medical research grants for this year were increased by $3 million to a total of just over $12.3 million.

The report had suggested $40 million in federal grants this year rising to twice that figure by 1969-70.
The editorial ends as follows:
The government may be thinking in terms of temporary restraints on research spending but it is clear that the results in medical education and, eventually, medical care will be anything but temporary. It is an economy Canada cannot afford.
The case for all this has been put much better and more eloquently by a man who is closer in heart and mind to the need for these things-I refer to my hon. friend from Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). But if we continue to emphasize and re-emphasize in this house the need for medical and scientific research in this country, some day somebody will listen to us, or else there will be a change of government-God bring it about quickly- which will set the hon. member for Simcoe East in motion on these vital questions.
The third point I wish to make is one which has been made from time to time. Speakers in the debate have frequently quoted the statement of the royal commission that "the problem of visual deficiency is one of our most prevalent health defects." In other words, a lot of Canadians suffer from poor eyesight. Perhaps if this is repeated often enough even the government may get around to seeing. I present the plea which has been made by other hon. members that some consideration be given, when dealing with this medicare program, to those who are not of the medical profession. The optometrists of Canada, for example, will be the subject of my own particular remarks but I think we could also include chiropractors. I know this is a fearsome word to the medical profession, but a skilled chiropractor is more apt to send one home with a broken back kneaded into shape than is the surgeon who simply rushes for his knife and slices out whatever does not fit exactly.
The royal commission stated that the shortage of ophthalmologists and the long period of their training makes any proposal for restricting all prepaid eye care in the Health Service Eye Program to that profession wholly unrealistic. Mr. Justice Hall and his confreres are saying there are not enough medical men with training in eye care to go round in Canada, and some regard has therefore to be paid to the inclusion of optometrists in this program.
I have some figures to back up this assertion. They come to me from Bruce Wallace, an optometrist in Dartmouth with whom I have had the pleasure of jousting
October 17, 19S6

on Nov. 8, 1965. He has been good enough to furnish me with material and I present his arguments as my own because I think they are sound. He points out that there are some 1,500 optometrists in Canada and only 300 opthalmologists. In Nova Scotia there are a few eye doctors, to get away from that tongue twister, who serve in Halifax and Sydney. The rest of the province has to depend on the optometrists.
Then there is the report of the Canadian Association of Optometrists-I am not reading anything new to the house; we have all received these documents in the mail, and some of us have even read them. The Canadian Association of Optometrists says the bill before us would demolish, or severely interfere with, the public's method of obtaining health services from optometrists as well as from other members of the health professions, such as dentists. Then the association adds:
The bill makes it clear that all eye services will have to be included if the provinces are to qualify for the federal grant. This means that such services as major ocular examination, tonometry and orthoptics as listed in the schedule of fees of the Ontario Medical Association, will be included. These services are regularly provided by optometrists for their patients.
Optometrists are legally and academically qualified in all provinces to perform-with the exception of such services as surgery and treatment of disease-all of the services required in the major ocular examination referred to in the Ontario Medical Association schedule. Optometrists prescribe treatment if the defect is functional, which it is approximately 95 per cent of the time. If there is indication of disease, referral is made to a medical practitioner.
I suggest that the standard is just as high among optometrists as it is among ophthalmologists, that is, the patient is given the best treatment possible and the best advice possible. So I think it behooves the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) to take a serious look at this departure by his own government from a sound recommendation by the Hall Commission. It also occurs to me that the optometrist might charge less than the ophthalmologist. The optometrists have not presented this as part of their argument. Nevertheless the minister might be able to save a little in that direction and in a small way I think I have suggested a better method of fighting inflation than the minister has by listening to the siren screeches of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp).
There are two other points I wish to make. The first concerns the question as to who
Medicare
should administer the program in each province. Reading the set-up proposed by the minister I was not sure whether this could include the long established stand-bys which have been operating programs in the provinces. In the case of the province from which the minister and I come, it is Maritime Medical Care.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I think it would be a pity if these privately run schemes should be brushed aside simply for the glory of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and for the sake of building up some super-bureaucracy across Canada. Over the years these people have proven their ability to come to grips with the nuts and bolts and the collecting of money for doctors involved in medical care. I hope the minister will give an assurance before this debate concludes that these privately operated associations will be allowed to carry on.
One point made by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) concerned the 90 per cent formula in the legislation, whereby at least 90 per cent of the people of a province must be covered. This is not going to be of concern in Nova Scotia. A number of years back when we adopted our hospital insurance plan, as the result of the sensible formula devised by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, we had complete coverage in Nova Scotia. We still have the best hospital insurance plan in Canada and no one from any other province can stand up and deny that.
I am sure that when medicare comes into effect Nova Scotia will give 100 per cent coverage under it. In some other provinces, included in the 10 per cent who will not be covered will be a lot of unfortunates who will be in need of medicare. I speak strongly on this point because I believe it is an abandonment of responsibility to suggest that 90 per cent coverage is enough.
I have enjoyed taking part in this debate, which has been conducted on a very high level. I hope that wittingly or unwittingly my own contribution has not changed the level. I have enjoyed listening to the other speakers. I share the sentiment expressed by the last speaker that we anticipate hearing from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and also from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).
I began with a football analogy and I might as well end with one. Seeing the sweeps of the Minister of Finance around the Minister

October 17, 1966
Medicare
of National Health and Welfare, it must remain for that great quarterback, the Prime Minister, to come in and get all his team pointed in the same direction, and going downfield-not downhill, Mr. Speaker-at approximately the same speed.
I support the amendment of the hon. member for Simcoe East.


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Speaker, one thing astonishes me very much in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) to Bill No. C-227 on medicare insurance. First of all, it says that the bill does not provide adequately for medical research or the training of doctors and auxiliary personnel in large enough numbers.
Now, the hon. member who spoke before me sympathized with both the minister, because his bill is postponed, and the member who moved the amendment. If it is true that we are not medically ready in Canada, that we do not have enough doctors, implementation of this bill should not be postponed till 1968, but rather till 1975. As far as I know, doctors are not trained in one or two years. I think that medical studies take much longer. Thus, on the one hand, the government is blamed for postponing the implementation of that bill and, on the other hand, an amendment is moved which says in part that Canada is not ready at the present time to adopt that legislation.
Moreover, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) said a few minutes ago that the health field comes under the provincial government. I have no intention of getting into constitutional matters but there is one thing I would like to say. It is always interesting to hear experts on constitutional matters. Besides, in the last few years we have been hearing a lot about that on television and we get the impression that the constitutional aspect becomes the main problem for the citizens of the province of Quebec. I have no doubt that this problem is very important. But other problems are just as important. I am wondering if a federal member is not as concerned about the needs and problems of his electors as the provincial member for the same riding.
Mr. Speaker, in the last election we proposed to the people the same medicare plan which is submitted to the house and it might be one of the main reasons why we
[Mr. McCleave.l
secured the confidence of the electorate in, several ridings.
In our midst, several people advocated in the past that family allowances be increased and we know-it is a mathematical solution- that normally a large family is more liable to need the very legislation introduced in the house by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen).
The hon. member for Lapointe asked the Quebec members what they would do. Well, I have made my choice. I do not know if my electors will agree with me but I have chosen to vote in a humane manner, which is what he undoubtedly advocated himself during the election campaign, as did his leader. I have chosen to protect as much as possible through that legislation the citizens of my riding and I thought that if the medicare legislation was implemented in 1968, the new premier of Quebec, who asked for our help here in the house, would have more than enough time to make representations to the federal government.
In the past, we have often met with a refusal from our own provincial government. For instance, one can well remember that many family heads in the province of Quebec were deprived of unemployment insurance payments while we took a negative stand, instead of tackling the problem and discussing it. The situation was the same in the case of grants to universities and grants for the construction of the trans-Canada highway.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the time is gone when a prime minister would say that cure for disease was health. To-day, I do not believe either that cure for disease is the constitution; however, let the experts discuss the matter between now and 1968. As for me, I wish to state that I do not fear at all to fully support the bill which is before the house, and I repeat that most Quebecers wish, I am sure, to see this legislation come into effect as soon as possible and are ready to wait for a possible discussion on the constitution.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it is not my wish to show sympathy for the Minister of National Health and Welfare in closing, but I wish to state that I for one, was anxious to see this piece of legislation submitted to the house since it was certainly the issue of major interest for our people during the last election campaign. And I hope-this is my wish-that this bill will be passed as soon as possible, in the greatest interests of all Canadians.
October 17, 1966


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinlhe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I believe everyone in the house agrees as to the need for medicare. I would like to have the views of the expert on decent housing, the expert from Quebec East (Mr. Duquet), if he has anything to say on the subject. Everyone agrees upon the need for medicare, and admits it. We are told that one person out of three is unable to pay for medical treatment. This reason alone would justify the introduction of a medicare plan. But the urgency of such a plan must not lead us to forget the responsibilities and the rights of each of the participating members. We cannot ignore the rights of the provinces in this field, no more than we can ignore the priority of the provinces in the field of education. Public health, like education, is the exclusive responsibility of the provinces and, for this reason, we cannot do otherwise than recognize the fact that the piece of legislation at present before the house constitutes an infringement upon the rights and prerogatives of the provinces. This fact alone would justify immediate rejection of the legislation before us. But there are still other factors which support the objection which we may have to the bill in its present form.
Everyone knows that the present Liberal government is blackmailing the provincial governments. The present Liberal government not only trespasses in a provincial field, but takes it over and says: "Gentlemen of the provinces, here is the plan you need; this is the medicare plan which we have to offer. Take it or leave it."
Furthermore, I said that the Liberal or the central government was blackmailing the provinces. Yes, it is blackmailing them, Mr. Speaker, because it is luring them with millions which are to become theirs if they will promise to be gentle and accept the terms worked out by the Ottawa bureaucrats.
Mr. Speaker, such a situation has lasted long enough, and I think it is time we made it clear to the present ministers that they must stop this blackmail and stop treating the provinces as minors.
Mr. Speaker, less fortunate provinces certainly need assistance and this should be the starting point to determine the urgency of negotiations with the provinces.
Whoever has followed our discussions and the methods used to bring this bill before the house cannot but admit and realize that the provinces have not been consulted as they should have been.
Medicare
Mr. Speaker, as a result of Bill C-227, we are faced with an election promise made by the Liberals during the last election campaign and to prove my point, I have in hand an excerpt of the notes prepared for the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on September 21, 1965 along the same lines as the opening speech delivered by the Prime Minister at the Chateau Laurier.
On page 9 of the speech, the following can be read:
Our aim would be to have a comprehensive medicare scheme operating in Canada for the centennial of confederation, on July 1, 1967.
Other people referred to statements made by other ministers during the last election, which is evidence that that was an election promise made by the Liberals at that time. Hence the anxiety of those who have to implement this liberal promise as soon as possible. They have broken so many others that they want to keep at least a few, even if it means encroaching on provincial rights and prerogatives.
The measure now before the house is known by all. It was a cause for dissension not only within the Liberal party, but also within the Liberal cabinet. One has simply to refer to the caucus held upon the return to Canada of the right hon. Prime Minister from his trip to England to recall that the discussions between the members of the Liberal party were heated and acrid. A caucus was demanded to ask the right hon. Prime Minister for a report and for explanations as to why the implementation of medicare was delayed for at least one year.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The discussion was also bitter and acrimonious at the convention which took place last week in the Chateau Laurier. There were rumours of the resignation of some ministers. At times, it was mentioned that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) would submit his resignation. It was said also that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) would leave the cabinet, since he was displeased with the way he had been treated. In a word, this caused an uproar and a dispute beyond words among those who, in public, show a united front as if nothing had happened.


Auguste Choquette: Are you aware that there is some division inside the Conservative party?

October 17, 1966
Medicare


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes, but at least we do not profess hypocrisy as the Liberals do; we admit the fact, whereas the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) is one of those who dress up in hypocrisy to hide some dissensions between himself and some members of his party, as always, Mr. Speaker-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, a very short one.
The hon. member uses words which are not in keeping with parliamentary tradition. There are no hypocrites on this side, the only difference being that we, Liberals, are not scared stiff of our leader, we can speak to him, because he is a great champion of democracy, which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is not.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, if you find that there is a question of privilege in what the hon. member for Lotbiniere has just said, you are smarter than the rest of us. This is a senseless statement, similar to those he so often utters, and you cannot make heads or tails of it.
Mr. Speaker, all those rumours about dissension have been denied, as in the past, and all interested individuals drew in their horns. To promote the weal of the party, everyone retracted what he had said before, and nobody resigned, since this could have endangered the life of the present government.
Mr. Speaker, I said a while ago that it was impossible to ignore the views and position of the provinces in the field of medicare. It is, for instance, a well-known fact that the Quebec government is now making an enquiry in that field before committing itself completely and passing legislation providing for the necessary assistance to Quebeckers.
It is important, Mr. Speaker, to take into consideration the Quebec premier's remarks because he is responsible for Quebec's future; not later than last Saturday, as can be seen in this morning's Le Devoir, the Quebec premier, Mr. Daniel Johnson, gave a severe warning to the federal government, stating that never, for any consideration, Quebec would allow the federal government to interfere in the field of public health and education.
Moreover, someone who held an important office in the former Quebec government, Mr. Kierans, who, I believe, would have headed the Department of Health, is of the opinion that there is now in the province of Quebec a shortage of medical practitioners and technical personnel.

Another reason why it is urgent to study this question from all angles is that many collective agreements include a medicare program to which the employer in some cases contributes 75 per cent, in others 90 or 100 per cent.
What shall we do, Mr. Speaker, with
schemes already in operation and with which the workers concerned are satisfied? Shall we force these workers to spend more without getting more protection I think these workers and heads of families are now happy with their lot and would not like to see the federal government intervene in a field under provincial jurisdiction, in other words carry on with the implementation of its program, without consulting the provincial government.
When he announced that the coming into effect of Bill C-227 would be postponed for a year at least, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) referred to the threat of inflation which, as he said, he wanted to check. Now, his former Quebec colleague, Mr. Kierans, formerly minister of health does not agree at all with the federal Minister of Finance, for he was saying, himself, last Saturday, at a symposium held at McGill University, that there was no relationship whatsoever between inflation and medicare.
He said Canada would perhaps be faced with a recession next year, and what guarantee have we that the government will be in a better position then to put the medicare plan into force. No, Mr. Speaker; to be frank, the best advice we can give this government is to withdraw from a field of activity that does not belong to them. The sooner they will leave to the provinces the freedom and duty to legislate in the field of public health, the better it will be.
And the richer provinces are willing to reach agreements with a view to helping the provinces that are not as well off.
The amendment moved by my hon. friend for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) deplores the lack of co-operation on the part of the provinces. I agree fully with him. That is why, and also because this legislation constitutes on the part of the present Liberal government further intrusion in a field of provincial jurisdiction, I shall vote for the amendment, and reserve my decision on how I will vote when the bill comes for final adoption before the house. I shall most probably not change my mind between now and then. If the bill continues to encroach upon provincial rights, I shall most likely vote against it.
October 17, 1966

I am in favour of a medicare plan, but a plan that respects the rights and prerogatives of the provinces, since this is within the realm of the provinces. And I would like to have the support of the other Liberal members for the province of Quebec so that we may convince their colleagues sitting on the treasury benches that they should leave to the Quebec government that which belongs to Quebec.
If the present Liberal government really wants to establish an harmonious relationship between the various levels of government here in Canada, they must respect the rights of others if they want others to respect their own prerogatives.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will repeat to the Liberal members opposite: take the same stand as you did when you were in opposition.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, as all other hon. members have done, I want to begin with the premise that I believe sincerely in the principle of providing a medical care plan to everyone in Canada regardless of his or her ability to pay. I believe that everyone in the house is in favour of providing assistance for those in our country who are unable for one reason or another to provide for themselves and their families, particularly with medical services. I do not believe any hon. member would disagree with this principle, nor have I heard it so stated.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have to examine why there is a difference of opinion on the manner in which such a plan should be put into effect. In the first place this difference is a philosophical one existing among the parties, as to whether there should be a universal plan compulsory on everyone in the country or whether there should be freedom of choice for those who wish to provide themselves with medical services insurance.
In my own view we must first provide for those who cannot support themselves, second, for those with low income, and finally for those who can provide for themselves. I do not believe it necessary to jump into a medicare plan providing for all three strata of our economy. As I will explain later, the very fact that the government has seen fit to postpone the introduction of this plan for a further year for economic reasons proves that it could be done by degrees, and that it could be done in accordance with a plan such as
Medicare
obtains in the province of Ontario and in two other provinces. If this were done, we could have medicare by July 1, 1967 for everyone in Canada unable to provide it for themselves.
I agree with the amendment that is now before the house-and you would rather expect me to do that, Mr. Speaker. It is not difficult to do so, however, because I support it both philosophically and politically. I wish I could look for some support for the amendment from hon. members on the government side. If there are any free enterprisers left over there they have not made themselves obvious as yet although it may be that before the debate is over someone who feels strongly about it will say so. However, as far as I can gather, any free enterprisers in the Liberal party have lost the battle and they are now marching down the road with the others and with their friends in the New Democratic Party. I do hope there are some left, even if we do not hear from them.
This amendment has been described as being against medicare. In the first days it was described in one of the newspapers as a roadblock to the present bill. I think that fundamentally medical and health services are provincial matters. Medical services, medical training and the licensing of doctors, are all provincial affairs. The provision of hospitals in which the doctors train and practise is also a provincial affair. The ancillary services such as public health units, sanitation inspection and nurses' training are also provincial affairs. The provinces now provide medical services for the aged, the ill and the indigent. Four provinces are now providing prepaid medical services under individual plans in which provision is made for free medical care for those unable to pay.
It is interesting to note, as has already been pointed out by another speaker, that in spite of the fact that the present Liberal party appears so anxious to inaugurate a medical care plan in Canada, none of the four provincial plans now in effect was brought in by a Liberal administration. I presume the federal government is trying to make up for these deficiencies. Nevertheless, fundamentally this is a provincial matter and that is where these plans should begin.
Under these circumstances it seems incomprehensible to me that the government is going ahead with this biU without the full agreement of the provincial governments. If the government wishes to consult the provinces and to see medical plans established
8774	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion across the nation, it would seem reasonable for it to support each provincial plan financially. After all, these provincial plans are prepared by the elected people who are given the responsibility to bring medical care into each province of this diversified country. If the people of a province choose through their elected legislature to have one kind of a plan, why should the federal government impose another plan by the blackmail method of withholding support of those who do not submit to the plan of the government?
Finally, why do the government supporters oppose the principle of co-operation with the provinces, and the principle of immediate medical care for those who are in need, as provided in the amendment? I think that these two proposals in the amendment are worthy of consideration, and if adopted will make the passage of this bill much easier- and I say this sincerely.
If this amendment is adopted it will not kill the bill. There is plenty of time for consultation with the provinces, and there is plenty of time to put the bill on a proper basis so as to obtain the acceptance of the provinces, rather than to push it through as the government is doing now. I think the government could and should accept our amendment in good grace and say: "All right, we can accept it; it is a sensible amendment. We will consider it as our mandate to go to the provinces, and after a reasonable time we will bring the bill again before the house, after we have secured the co-operation and agreement of the provinces."
Mr. Speaker, it is now ten o'clock.
*m (10:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: What about the business for tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The business as announced Friday will be followed tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Robert Jardine McCleave: I understand that the Minister of National Defence is on his way again to partake of maritime hospitality. I am pleased to see the

DEBATES	October 17, 1956
Associate Minister of National Defence here, and I may say that the tone of my remarks will be entirely different since I have nothing but admiration and respect for the Associate Minister.
The point I should like to make deals with the pay increases that were recently announced by the minister for the category of non-commissioned officers, and the lowest rank of the officer group. If I may read these figures quickly into the record in tabular form, they are as follows:
1964	1965	1966WO 2	$6,468	$7,512	$7,836Lieutenant	$6,792	$7,140	$7,416
The point I wish to make is that up to the present a warrant officer 2, the highest level in the non-commissioned end of the service, used to be paid somewhat less than the lowest rank of officer. For example, in 1964 the difference was $6,468 as compared with $6,792. However, under the new pay scale, the warrant officer 2 ends up with $7,512, an amount greater instead of less than the pay received by the lieutenant, which is $7,140. Then, this differential is carried into the next year, which I have cited.
I think I should like to make two points to the associate minister, if I may, Mr. Speaker. The first is that a certain amount of vexation, a certain amount of friction is bound to arise when two people are working side by side in the relationship of n.c.o. to officer, especially when the officer is normally the man to give the orders and he is receiving less pay. The WO 2 may have greater experience or a longer service, but I think there will be friction when the officer receives somewhat less pay.
The second point is that in Canada for many years we have tended to look to the senior n.c.o.'s as the class of people from whom we took our junior officers in the armed forces. There was an incentive when the n.c.o. could look forward to promotion and an increase in pay. I know how much the minister and the associate minister have done in connection with assuring proper pay for all groups in the armed forces, and for that I compliment them. However, I point our there is now no incentive for an n.c.o. to advance to lieutenant, because he would be suffering a loss in pay. I can say that I had many calls from people on the evening the new pay scale was announced, lieutenants who were simply enraged because they suddenly found that they had dropped in the pay range as compared with WO 2's.
October 17. 1966	COMMONS
I think this is a very big weakness in the pay scale as announced. My final point would be that there is a danger in adopting this method of setting up two classes. First, one would go to WO 2, and there is no incentive to go any further; and the other would be a return to days which we hoped had long since gone by, when the officer class was drawn from a level of society higher than those with the humbler backgrounds, who did not have an opportunity to rise to His Majesty's or Her Majesty's commission.
This is the real danger, and I hope the Associate Minister of National Defence, in whom I have a great deal of confidence and trust, will undertake to look at the argument I have advanced here this evening.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who has just resumed his seat for the kind words he had for me. I must return the compliment, because he is one of the members of the opposition with whom it is most pleasant for me to work and I am sincere in saying it.

I have taken notice of the first question posed in the house, Mr. Speaker, and I was prepared to answer that question. However, the hon. member has now expanded it a little bit.
The prepared answer that I had ready to give relates to the question which was asked the other day, but I hope it will partly cover the subject matter which he has raised tonight. As a matter of fact, I think it does more than indicate that there is room for compromise both on the chief petty officers' side and the naval lieutenants'.
In a number of cases it is true that the pay received by a chief petty officer is greater than that of a naval lieutenant. I suggest, however, that this is not a situation which exists solely in the armed forces. I can think of many instances in business and industry where a master craftsman receives more than a junior executive.
In the case of the armed forces, a chief petty officer does not attain that rank unless he has the experience of many years of service and has achieved substantial trade qualifications. He is, if I may be permitted to make a slight comparison to industry, the master craftsman or the foreman. He has often been referred to-and I agree with this assessment-as the "backbone of the
DEBATES	8776
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion navy". He has attained the peak of his non-commissioned career.
The naval lieutenant, on the other hand, is, by and large, on the threshold of his professional career. He has received the training necessary to enable him to begin practising his profession. He has every opportunity to compete for higher rank, right up to chief of defence staff. He has the opportunity to receive far more remuneration in the long run than the chief petty officer.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the situation referred to by the hon. member for Halifax was in existence long before the recently announced changes in the pay structure. The new structure continues to reflect this principle and has in all probability enlarged the number of chief petty officers who can be given recognition for their trade qualifications and service experience.
From the reports being sent to national defence headquarters, this and the other aspects of the new pay structure have been most favourably received by the servicemen.
I want to repeat for the benefit of the hon. member-


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

TRANSPORT-LOTBINliiRE, QUE.-REQUEST FOR PROTECTION AT LEVEL CROSSING


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). I thank him most sincerely for the generosity he is showing by being here to answer personally.
This week he announced that an inquiry-on the Dorion tragedy will be carried out by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. That is undoubtedly an appropriate step.
However, I would like to make the following reservation, Mr. Speaker. I would find such an inquiry rather pointless if the citizens concerned did not appear before the board to voice their grievances and to offer solutions on the whole problem of level crossings.
If that were the case, it would be merely another of those fine inquiries whose only merit consists in providing attorneys with generous fees and which seldom results in the taking of efficient steps.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the people to appear before the board so that ingenious ideas may be voiced in such a way that we
October 17, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion may once and for all settle the problem of railway crossings.
Indeed, railway crossings are a danger in themselves. That is where the principle of maximum security comes into the picture. Regardless of what happened at Dorion, some newspapers seem to have the solution. The accident may have been caused by an irresponsible act on the part of a teen-ager. Nobody knows, but it would be unfortunate if such were the case. But that does not solve the problem of level crossings.
Solutions must be proposed, Mr. Speaker, and maximum security must be ensured now, under existing conditions. There are thousands of level crossings across the country where maximum security is non-existent. I realize that heavy expenditures would be involved, but nevertheless, realist solutions must be considered.
First of all, there is an overlapping of jurisdiction when it must be decided whether or not to install a protective system. As a matter of fact, the Board of Transport Commissioners pays 80 per cent of the cost of grade separation, whereas the railway company pays 5 per cent; on the other hand, the local authority, whether the province or the municipality which is the owner of the road contiguous to the right of way, will pay up to 15 per cent. The overlapping of jurisdiction: there is a sharing of expenses which at times prevent an efficient, positive and even immediate action, when desirable. This is why this overlapping of jurisdictions should be simplified and arrangements should be made so that a single authority will decide and pay.
In the second place, the following principle must be set. Emphasis must be laid on security everywhere. In certain places, tunnels and overpasses are necessary, especially in large urban centres where trains must travel at a rather high speed, because after all the traffic of trains cannot be stopped, trains must "travel at a certain speed to reach the end of their journey.
However, Mr. Speaker, in large communities, such as Dorion, for instance, regardless of the expense incurred, it is essential I think, that there should be tunnels or viaducts.
Third, in cases where there are signs only, I believe that this is not enough, no matter where the railway crossing is located, whether it be in a small locality, like Val Alain in my constituency, for instance a very small locality where four persons were
[Mr. Choquette.l
caught by a train-where there are signs only, barely visible at night. Then perhaps consideration should be given to installing signal lights or, if the cost is too high, there is the system of convex mirrors which has been referred to and to which We could come back later.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
That convex mirror system, Mr. Speaker, makes is possible to see the train coming from any direction. It has been studied by engineers and I have read the plan of the consulting engineers who say that its trial is worthwhile. That system is not expensive and could be used where there are signs only.
And then, Mr. Speaker, the problem of the speed of the trains should also be studied. When a train is going 80 miles an hour, there is certainly a danger no matter what small village or locality it goes through. Under the Criminal Code, a car driver who would travel at 80 or 90 miles per hour might be guilty not only of dangerous driving but probably of criminal negligence. The problem should be studied and steps taken to enforce a speed limit on all trains when they reach a railway crossing.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I come to the conclusion that the principle of maximum security is needed and, whatever it may cost, I think that in some places security must be increased, that the simple sign system must be abolished and either warning lights or convex mirrors set up; in short, steps must be taken to show that we care for human life. The minister has proved it and will do it again tonight because it is characteristic of the minister who is kind enough to answer me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to express my appreciation and, I think, the appreciation of all hon. members in our part of the house, of the eloquence and of the persistence with which the hon. member for Lotbiniere has followed up this tragic business at Dorion. I quite agree that the tragedy at Dorion, important though it was in itself, shocking though it was, is intrinsically no more important than any other accident anywhere else in which a person loses his life at a level crossing.
I can assure the hon. gentleman that if any person in this country who has any suggestion to make for dealing with any aspect of
October 17, 1966

this problem cares to write a letter to me I will undertake to see that the letter is brought before the Board of Transport Commissioners and considered fully and carefully. I do not think it is necessary to write to me, but some might feel that if this were done the letter might get more attention than if it were written direct to the board. If letters are written direct to the board I am confident they will get the same attention.
It might be pointed out that there has been a steady increase from year to year in the number of motor accidents in this country in which human beings are killed. But as far as rail crossings are concerned there has been a steady diminution in the number of persons killed in the last 10 or 12 years. I believe there were more in 1965 than in 1964; but in every other year the numbers killed and seriously injured have declined, both relatively and absolutely.
While manifestly, we are not doing everything that could be done, I think a better job is being done in preventing motor accidents at rail crossings than is being done in preventing motor accidents generally. This is some encouragement. We have spent large sums of money in this direction-about $15 million a year; and this, over 10 years, amounts to $150 million.


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



PUBLIC SERVICE-REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING RELIEF FOR RED CIRCLED EMPLOYEES

Richard Albert Bell: The answer given by the president of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) to my question about red circling appearing at page 8512 of Hansard is so unsatisfactory and so unrealistic as to lead one to the irresistible conclusion that the cabinet, Treasury Board and the Civil Service Commission are totally out of touch with conditions existing throughout the public service. Never in my experience has resentment been so dangerous and so threatening.
Throughout the public service there is seething discontent, deep-seated anger and bitterness, with the most serious immediate and potential consequences to morale.
The president of Treasury Board in his answer last Tuesday promised a review of red circling as of December 31 of this year. That is not good enough. The time for review is now-forthwith. A total change of policy

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion must be made at once if irreparable harm to the public service is to be avoided.
Red circling is the result of the classification review undertaken as a preliminary to the implementation of collective bargaining. The objective was the simplification of the structure of the service and a very great reduction in the number of grades and categories. Those whose existing position carries a higher category at present than under the new classification have been red-circled and thereby deprived of increases in salary. In some departments almost all employees in certain branches have been deprived of the increases they had the right reasonably to expect.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Sir, I laugh when I think that six months ago I had never heard of the expression red-circling. During the past three or four months more than two thirds of my working hours have been taken up by bitter and angry civil servants, resentful of their red-circling, and quite frankly it has become so bad that I sometimes think I never talk to anyone who is not angry.
I want to make quite clear that these civil servants are not in any way to blame for their plight. Their existing classifications were determined by the Civil Service Commission and Treasury Board, and it is these very bodies who now gaily say, "Oh yes, we were wrong when we established that category or grade for the job, but we will rectify our mistake now regardless of the detriment to you."
How the Civil Service Commission could have been so dead wrong in so many thousands of cases in past years, and now be so satisfied it is right at this time, I am at a loss to understand. But the fact is that either the Civil Service Commission has been dead wrong in an atrocious number of cases over the years or it is dead wrong now, and my opinion is that it is dead wrong now.
I reiterate that the individual civil servant, not in any way himself to blame, is being penalized for the mistake or default of the Civil Service Commission at an earlier time. Can anyone blame him for being bitter? Can anyone blame him if morale is at low water mark?
But the commission has now compounded its own errors. Allegedly to help red-circled civil servants, it has created in the various departments pools of red-circled civil servants who have priority in promotions. What
8778	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion does this mean? It means simply that non-red-circled civil servants are deprived of the opportunity of promotion until red-circled employees are satisfied.
In other words, there is the rankest discrimination against all civil servants, and I emphasize "all civil servants." Non-red-circled employees are held back and refused promotion for reasons extraneous to their own merit. In my opinion this is a direct breach of the Civil Service Act by those very persons who are sworn to uphold it.
What can be done, now that the cabinet and the Civil Service Commission have created this unholy mess? The only realistic answer, I submit, is to divorce the individual incumbent from the red-circled position. Because the red-circling is not his fault, the present incumbent should enjoy all the increases and other benefits which automatically would have been his if the position had not been red-circled. When the position is next filled, its new and lesser status would become effective.
In effect this is a deferment of red-circling and no individual would suffer thereby. The present incumbent keeps his old status and all its ordinary perquisites so long as he holds the position. The new status of the position would become effective when it is next filled, and filled by ordinary promotional competition, with the competitors knowing all the facts.
So, sir, in moderate but the firmest possible words I want to submit to the government that corrective action cannot be deferred. Immediate relief should be given, and by immediate I mean in this month of October. Otherwise permanent harm will be done to a very great public service.
Classification review was started as a prerequisite to collective bargaining. If the injustices are not rectified at once, belief in collective bargaining will be destroyed generality among civil servants, and at the same time morale in the public service, already endangered by the government's precipitate action in imposing bilingualism, will suffer a blow from which it will take years to recover.
So, I appeal to the government tonight for action now, this very week, and I say to it that the time for stalling, for evasion of governmental responsibility, is long past. I ask the minister, the cabinet and the commission to act.
DEBATES	October 17, 1966


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the government has long been concerned with the problem of classification in the civil service, and as a prelude to the introduction of collective bargaining the Civil Service Commission, through its bureau of classification revision, undertook to bring order into the chaos that existed.
The Civil Service Commission has done an outstanding job in constant consultation with the staff associations in an effort to reduce the incidence of protective red-circling to a minimum. When the problem first appeared in July of this year the staff associations agreed to hold a series of weekly meetings with the Civil Service Commission in order to reduce as much as possible the problem associated with pay conversions.
The number originally red circled-and incidentally I dislike that term-totalled 15,800 in the administrative support and administrative categories. Through action on the part of the government, this had been reduced by October to approximately 4,500 positions. Such schemes as vacancy preference were instituted to resolve some of the problems being encountered. It was also agreed that the commission would re-examine the whole situation if red circling had not been completely eliminated by December 31. With the announcement of the conversion for the administrative and foreign service categories in September, the incidence of persons whose present pay must be protected was once more highlighted by the staff associations. At that time the staff side conference requested the commission to re-open consultations, in order to resolve the issues involved, at an earlier time.
These consultations have been taking place and I understand that certain recommendations are now in the hands of the staff at Treasury Board for analysis. The staff proposes to have the usual consultations with the staff associations, and I suggest to my hon. friend that the normal process of consultation be allowed to take place. The government is deeply concerned with the effect that the conversion program is having on employee morale in the public service, and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) can rest assured that we will do everything possible to bring the matter to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, October 18, 1966