1966-10-14

FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Second Report of Standing Committee.
Mr. Herbert Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the second report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, in English and French.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table today a white paper on Canadian immigration policy. It is bilingual and probably multicultural. In doing so I would like to express my sincere appreciation to those who have worked on the preparation of this document; some have done so not only this year but also during 1965 under two of my predecessors.
No one who understands the immigration problem will be surprised that this white paper could not be produced quickly and easily. Immigration policy depends on a complex interrelationship of economic, social, humanitarian, legal and international considerations. There are few issues, indeed, that bring into play so comprehensively all the delicate balances and tensions of our Canadian society.
Our problem is to avoid the ill consequences of these inevitable complexities. Immigration policy and procedures have to adjust to changing circumstances. The natural tendency, when the issues are so difficult, is to make the adjustment by small, partial, ad hoc modifications. And as these accumulate, immigration procedures tend to become complicated, confused, uncertain, even contradictory.
I hope we can all recognize this problem without partisanship. The difficulties I am talking about have been at work under all governments, irrespective of party label.
We will cure them only if we are prepared from time to time to take stock, to reassess our policy and sort out our procedures, to develop a new synthesis as the basis for an immigration policy suited to contemporary needs.
The white paper is an attempt to do that. I do not expect it to be accepted without criticism. Immigration touches too many emotional issues to be clarified without dispute. I believe, nevertheless, that most people will find that the synthesis we have developed in this white paper meets the main needs of Canada today while taking reasonable account of all legitimate special interests.
I would like at this stage merely to draw attention to three main features of the policy I propose. First, it is expansionist. It seeks to establish the basis for a steadily active immigration policy adapted to our manpower needs, a policy that will assist Canada's growth by bringing here every year a good number of people able to adapt to our society and qualified to contribute to our economy.
Second, it is non-discriminatory. It establishes principles and procedures that can and will operate entirely without regard to race, colour or creed. I do not mean that it is in our power to ensure that geography will make no difference at all to people's chances of coming to Canada. We have to take account of the differing attitudes to emigration among other governments and peoples. There are practical limitations on our side. We cannot afford to establish the same facilities to assist immigrants in countries where the facilities will be little used as we have in countries where they are in heavy demand.
These, however, are practical problems, to be treated as such, to be overcome as much as possible. There will be no discrimination by principle and no practical differences that are within my department's power to remove.
Third, the white paper policy establishes, for the future, a new balance between the claims of family relationship and the economic interest of Canadians as a whole, which is that immigrants should generally be the well

October 14, 1966
Immigration
qualified people for whom employment opportunities are increasing.

Where there are at present some anomalies in the range of relatives who may be sponsored, these will be corrected by broadening the range. Canadian citizens, and other people who are already here as landed immigrants, will be able to sponsor everyone they now can, and a few additional classes of relatives, with the one reservation that those who are going to be entering the labour force must have either some needed skill or the equivalent of an elementary school education.
The effect of this limitation will not be to reduce the number of sponsored immigrants entering Canada. Its purpose is only to remove from the sponsorship system its present potential for explosive growth. If that were not done, we would face the danger of admitting to Canada an ever-increasing number of people for whom our economy will offer not more but fewer employment opportunities.
The sponsorship rights of Canadian citizens will for the first time have full legal recognition, with an appeal board that can over-rule the Minister's decisions. And, of course, the new immigrant will be able to bring to Canada, without waiting for his citizenship, the members of his immediate family who are or become dependent on him.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the house will wish to explore these proposals with care and consideration. I would therefore say that I intend to propose that the white paper be referred for study to a special joint parliamentary committee which would be able to examine the issues in the depth that their importance requires.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, this white paper has had a very difficult and very tardy birth. Conceived by the Prime Minister as long ago as December, 1964, and promised before the next following session of parliament, it has taken 21 months and three ministerial midwives to bring it to delivery today. Can hon. members detect anything in the minister's statement so novel or startling, any such great policy innovation, as would have required this inordinate delay? I have difficulty in believing from his statement that the white paper lives up to all the trumpeting advance notices which there have been.
[Mr. Marchand.l
Indeed, as I listened to him what I feared was that what the minister gave in the white paper with one hand he took away with the other. I want to put it straight to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that Canada needs a dynamic, positive immigration policy. A passive immigration policy is self defeating; and pious expressions, window dressing or lip service will not serve the national interest. This country must recognize the economic and social advantages, both immediate and long range, of a sustained high level immigration inflow. I am personally an unrepentant expansionist. The minister today tells us that this policy is expansionist, but then he enunciates what I suggest is a policy which will not bring any additional immigrants to this country.
Obviously a white paper of this size and this basic significance will require detailed study before comprehensive and perceptive comment may properly be made upon it. But the real test, I want to say, will come when the government introduces, as I hope it will do at the earliest possible date, a complete revision of the Immigration Act. Then we will see if actions equal professions. We on this side are anxious that immigration be sustained at a relatively high level, a uniform level, and become a permanent instrument of national economic policy designed to give stimulus to all facets of the economy. We seek to end the feast and famine, tap on tap off, approach which has been a curse in the past.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
The minister has said a great deal about this policy being non-discriminatory. I am sure his objectives in that respect will receive the hearty endorsation of all members of the house, though I am compelled to say that the way this country renounces discrimination reminds me of Mark Twain swearing off smoking. He said that it was easy; he had done it scores of times. In my view the greatest milestone of real advance in non-discrimination was the new regulations which were introduced four and a half years ago by Hon. Ellen Fairclough, one of the great ministers of citizenship and immigration.
I agree with the minister that in this age there can be no tolerance of any discrimination on racial, religious, colour or national grounds. But it is not enough to end it in theory; it must be ended in practice. I point that it is not just a matter of admission. The real essence of non-discrimination is to make every immigrant feel that he can become a
October 14, 1966

full and equal Canadian; that there are no master races in Canada. The full potential of this nation will be built upon the strength of immigrant peoples; and for all of them, from whatever shore they come, there must be full and absolute equality as Canadian citizens, not some secondary status which is subordinate to people of other origins.
What the minister has said about sponsored immigration causes me very considerable concern. The minister stated that he was making some basic changes, but what he said sounded to me excessively restrictive. It is clear that he has introduced into sponsored immigration the whole question of skills.
In order to get sponsorship on a balanced basis from all continents, what he has done is to take away from some. He said he has made no change. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when you examine his statement carefully it becomes quite clear that he has severely restricted sponsored immigration from certain of the countries where it is now at a very high level. If I understand the minister aright, and I think I do, there will be many heartbreaks and much anxiety and unrest over this new policy.
The minister during the last week publicly made some very inconsistent statements about skilled and unskilled immigration. Our immigration cannot be restricted solely to skilled persons. I wonder how many ancestors of the members of this house would ever have entered Canada if admission had then been restricted to skilled persons. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we must be realistic about this question of skills and sponsorship. There is a role for persons without special skills, and we must not by selective standards or restrictions on sponsorship discriminate in fact against admissions from many countries in the world.
I hope that in the committee there will be an exhaustive study and a vigorous discussion of the white paper. I also hope there will be vigorous discussion of this white paper by informed persons in all parts of Canada. But I suggest to the government that they should now introduce the bill to revise the Immigration Act so we would have it before us in the committee as well as the white paper. This would enable knowledgeable persons to be heard as witnesses and all would be given a chance to make a contribution, not only to the development of this policy but to its implementation, in a fully revised immigration act.
Immigration


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party welcome this white paper. If I may adopt the metaphor used by the hon. member for Carleton because of the very long period of gestation we would have been inclined to welcome it even if we had thought it was an ill favoured document. However, I must say that it is a white paper which should not be so described. I cannot help recalling that the various Conservative midwives failed to produce any white paper at all.
We promise and urge the most intensive scrutiny of this at the earliest possible time in the appropriate committee of the house, for the earliest possible embodiment of some of the proposals in the white paper in legislative form. We say this because we believe this bill may foretell a very serious and important improvement in immigration procedures in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we welcome, first of all, the fact that this white paper is expansionist in outlook. This is as it should be. This country in the future, as in the past, must depend for its growth and prosperity on the welcome and intelligent expansionist policy in Canada to those whom we can attract to this country.
Second, we welcome that part of the bill which is non-discriminatory. This is very important to the good name of Canada, and this is something we have not achieved in the past. It is very important that we not only change the regulations in regard to sponsorship which the white paper suggests, but we should go further and change those provisions in the act which lend themselves to continued discrimination. Also, while mentioning this subject of sponsorship, there are some matters here that we want to look into very carefully.
I also notice in one part of the paper relating to this matter that it is suggested that non-citizens who are permanent residents will have the same sponsorship privileges for the next six years, but thereafter non-citizens may sponsor only dependent relatives. This seems an odd compromise. If it is a good policy it should not be for six years but should stay indefinitely. If it is bad policy it should not be in for six years. This is a compromise. We want to look into the sponsorship provision very carefully, because it is important to get skilled people here, and skilled people will not come to Canada unless they are given reasonable opportunity to sponsor their relatives into this country. We want to make sure we are not being discriminatory in that way.

October 14. 1966
Immigration
One last point I want to make is that unless effective changes are made in procedure, the whole thing may be illusory or delusory. Today we have quite a fair immigration act and quite good regulations. The minister and the machinery exist. But if by a simple fiat people can be and are excluded, the administrative machinery can defeat the best intentions. We propose during the scrutiny of these matters to make sure that the procedures coincide with the basic principles of elementary justice, which has not been the case in the past. We invite the co-operation of all members of the house. This part is not too clear, but we want to make sure that it becomes clear.
Finally we welcome the fact that the white paper proposes a change which we feel is essential; that is that the minister's discretion, which cannot but be exercised from time to time on political grounds, is now to be handed over to a judicial tribunal. There is a necessity for discretion, and no amount of rules can get over the human complexities of the problem, no matter how well worked out those rules may be. But the right of exercising discretion should be in some entity other than the political authority. Many of the scandals and difficulties of the past have arisen because of our failure to regard this rule.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, we welcome this white paper, and we offer the full cooperation of the members of this party, some of whom have had experience in this matter over the years. We do this in the hope that this white paper is not a stillborn child. We hope it will grow into an effective change of policy.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, our group wishes to congratulate the minister for speeding up as much as possible the tabling of that white paper.
Of course, like any other citizen, the minister must base such policies on human principles. I note that the minister stated, not only in the highlights of his plans about immigration but also in his remarks a little earlier, that the Canadian policy on immigration did not discriminate with regard to colour, race and religious beliefs.
The minister could just as easily have said that, from a humanitarian point of view, there are no frontiers, all people are equal.

However, Mr. Speaker, any organized society is governed by regulations, and frontiers may be said to represent the scars of living history, both present and past. In a society of this type there must be regulations.
And I see that government policy tends to bring down as many barriers as possible to do a service not only to the Canadian people but also to citizens from beyond our frontiers.
However, Mr. Speaker, we should not act hypocritically when I hear the minister talk about allowing a greater number of skilled immigrants. Nor should we apply any discrimination. And here perhaps I see a problem. The Department of Immigration and the government in power at any given time will be faced with a problem dealing with underdeveloped countries and it will be impossible for us to invoke hypocritically the following saying or principle: Let us serve ourselves by helping others, or by serving others. What I mean by this is that there are underdeveloped countries with which we exchange students in order to give them at least skilled labour, and very often we find that those people return to their countries and immediately apply for residence in Canada as Canadian citizens. Therefore, in the long run we are not helping those underdeveloped countries.
In our immigration policy, we must also consider the humanitarian angle. If we help them today, let us make sure that we will never lose sight of the reason why we did it. The minister will admit that, under the circumstances, a problem might arise. Of course, in such a bill it is one out of thousands which will come up. On the other hand, I am happy that, with his new immigration policy, the minister seems to realize that the people are a country's true wealth and that he will try more and more to bring human capital to Canada, which will truly develop our nation from all points of view and I hope that, in due course, he will try to keep foreign capital away, because the true wealth of a country is its human capital and its productive value. Such a policy does not mean, for instance, that we will open the door to everyone. Let us welcome suitable people and try to keep out the undesirables.
And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to insist on the fact

I do not see it in the white paper and, of course, I have not had time to study it thoroughly, but that will come when the bill is introduced in the house-that as much as possible the provinces should have a say in the matter, the federal parliament should not
October 14, 1966

behave as lord and master but ask the advice of the provinces, and find out what their needs are. If they have no need for it, let us not overlook the governments dependent on this one; I mean the provincial and municipal governments, the school boards or any organization which might be interested in immigration, either directly or indirectly. I think that the minister did not mention, at least not explicitly, his intentions on that score. However, I know the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and I am convinced beforehand that he has already thought about that problem. It would prevent a lot of discussion on the matter, which is so complex, if we sought more and more the advice of the provinces where those immigrants would live.
I see that the minister has given himself a trial period of six years. Anything can be expected. In the meantime we must keep our eyes open, make the necessary changes and come up in the end with an immigration policy which will benefit our country and all mankind.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: We in this party congratulate the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on having brought in this white paper. I think we all realize it has been a long time coming, but it certainly fills a vacuum which has been developing over the years in this field.
I am particularly pleased with the last paragraph of the minister's statement in which he says it will be necessary to explore these proposals with care and consideration, and that to assist in doing so a special joint committee will be set up to study the white paper before any legislation is drafted. I think this is a wise move, and I hope the minister will see that this committee is set up as soon as possible so there may be additional opportunity for a thorough study before legislation to change the present immigration laws is brought in. There is a great deal of urgency in this regard.
Without going into the details of these recommendations, I would say that the program is expansive in its concept and deals with very important aspects of immigration. History shows that our greatest periods of prosperity as a nation have been those periods when there have been great numbers of immigrants. Certainly we cannot but give our full support to the non-discriminatory aspects of the proposals.
Inquiries of the Ministry
As far as sponsorship is concerned, I think there needs to be further discussion of this topic. Whether it is going too far to allow non-citizens, for a period of six years, to sponsor immigrants other than direct dependants, might be questioned. However, as I say this is part of a problem which should be discussed further in the special joint committee.
Therefore, without going into detail, but emphasizing once more our satisfaction that this white paper is before us, we urge the minister to have this special committee begin its work as early as possible, and to bring in legislation as soon as that committee has completed a reasonable amount of study.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister received notice of any revision in the timetable of the world conference on water called by President Johnson for next May?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: First I want to say that we have not yet received a formal invitation to the conference. As the hon. member read in the press, congress has refused to vote certain funds for the organization of the conference. However, my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs has written to Washington expressing our desire to co-operate, as well as our concern about the timing and procedure of the conference.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: As a supplementary question, aside from the letter which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has written, has there been any other protest or objection filed concerning the pressures placed upon Canada by the time of calling, and by the President's accompanying remarks?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, in the letter which the Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote he offered a few suggestions as to the timing and the procedure to be followed.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the
October 14, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister. In view of his statement that the bilingual proposal was simply a resolution passed at a political conference, may I ask the right hon. gentleman whether this applies equally to the other resolutions passed at the recent Liberal convention, and particularly does it apply to the resolution expressing the hope that medicare might be introduced prior to July 1, 1968?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend will know from his long experience with conventions of his own party that resolutions serve as a guide, and we on this side take them very seriously as a guide to policy. But resolutions themselves do not establish policy, and in respect of the resolution on bilingualism, which we undoubtedly will consider, I would like to point out that the policy of the government on that matter was laid down in the house on April 6.
That policy provided for bilingualism in the civil service being achieved under conditions which would be fair to all concerned and not prejudice the position of those who do not have the good fortune to be bilingual. We treat that resolution seriously. We treat all resolutions seriously because they are guides to policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then as a supplementary question may I ask the Prime Minister whether the resolution suggesting that medicare would be introduced prior to July 1, 1968 represents government policy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As soon as we are fortunate enough to reach the committee stage of the medicare bill my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is responsible for the bill, will be making proposals which I am sure will satisfy the hon. member in that regard.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) a supplementary question to that put by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) on bilingualism.
Could he tell us when the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism will submit its report and whether he has heard anything about that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to report. I have tried to keep in touch with the commission from time to time, expressing the hope that they will be able to make a report without undue delay.



INQUIRY AS TO ARRANGEMENTS FOR CROP MOVEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance who answers in the house for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the very large crop, the harvesting of which has just been completed in western Canada, and in view of what appear to be very favourable marketing conditions for this crop, have there been any meetings between the minister and the wheat board and the railways to establish targets for the amount of grain to be shipped during this crop year, as was done last year? If so, what targets or goals have the railways accepted for this shipping period?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As a supplementary question I would like to ask the minister whether the railways have given any commitment as to the amount of grain they would be prepared to move between now and July 31 next, such as they gave the year previously?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have not discussed specific targets, Mr. Speaker. We are quite satisfied that the amount of wheat or grain they will move will be far larger than ever before, and we do not want to limit them by putting a target on the total.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in the minister's discussions with the railways was he able to find out whether there will be more box cars available this year than last year, and whether the railways have succeeded in reducing the number of Canadian box cars which are located in the United States?
October 14, 1966


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall take notice of that question.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Has he initiated any talks with the elevator and terminal companies with a view to improving their facilities for handling additional quantities of grain over what they have been able to handle in the past?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the wheat board is engaged in this endeavour every working day.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. As a result of the United States defence department deciding not to buy the F-5 is any reconsideration being given by Canadian defence authorities with respect to the acquisition of similar aircraft for Canadian forces, either in the present quantities suggested or in reduced quantities?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker. We were quite aware of the feelings of various people in the department of defence in Washington at the time our decision was made. Our decision was based on the needs of the Canadian armed forces and not on the needs of the United States air force.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then in what way does the minister justify his original statement that his decision was based on the decision taken by the United States forces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That supplementary question is argumentative.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the projected costs of the bilingual and bicultural commission, which I understand were recently calculated by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), as possibly totalling as much as
23033-547J
Inquiries of the Ministry $7 million, and in view of the minister's desire to cut down expenditures, would he disband that commission now and save the taxpayers an additional $3 million?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



COLUMBIA RIVER-SALES TAX IN EFFECT WHEN TREATY SIGNED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs which intrigues a good number of us. Can the minister inform the house whether the 11 per cent federal sales tax on machinery was in effect when the Columbia river agreement between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia was signed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This intriguing question should be placed on the order paper.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should answer a question asked a few moments ago by the hon. member for Kootenay West and addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The answer is yes.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport if he would use his good offices to expand and increase the services of Air Canada between Ottawa and Toronto.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was good enough to give me notice of his intention to raise this matter, which I believe is of concern to many hon. members who, I am told, are having considerable difficulty getting to Toronto on Fridays.


Mr. Churchill:: And other days as well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall bring these representations to the attention of Air Canada in the hope that something can be done to improve the situation. Of course the hon. gentleman knows I do not direct Air Canada;
I merely report for it.
8658	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



DORION, QUE.-INVESTIGATION INTO LEVEL CROSSING ACCIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I wish to answer two questions which were asked me yesterday. One was by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, who asked about the matter of a public inquiry and the way in which it would be set up, into the regrettable Accident at Dorion. Until the preliminary investigations are completed and the inquest has been held it would not be proper to set any date for the inquiry, but as soon as it is proper public notice will be given, and every person who has written to the board will be advised by letter.
I might also say in reply to a related question asked by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi that I am told there have been some discussions between the Board of Transport Commissioners and the municipality about an overpass or underpass, but according to my information, up to the present time there has been no formal application.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of the recommendation of the Carrothers commission on the Northwest Territories that the capital be designated by the government, when might we expect some decision on this matter of importance to the people of the Northwest Territories?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to discuss the matter with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who is out of town today, and perhaps he could reply to the question next week.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious hospital situation at Gleichen, Alberta, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the Alberta provincial government has approached the federal government for

DEBATES	October 14, 1966
the usual federal grant of $2,000 per bed to help build a hospital there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to intervene at this point because I realize this matter is of great interest to the hon. member, but it seems to me the type of information he is seeking could be obtained in some way other than by asking a question at this time.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is he in a position to confirm or deny reports that the royal coat of arms which appears on all mail trucks, bags and other things used to move Her Majesty's mail is to be removed and replaced by another symbol?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are going to adopt an emblem which will represent a truly Canadian post office and which will give a real interpretation to the Post Office Act.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Postmaster General not feel that a matter of such importance, involving a symbol of such long standing tradition, should have been discussed in committee or by this house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The suggestion made by the hon. member is argumentative.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We would like an answer.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to infer from the minister's decision just announced that in the view of the government the mail is no longer to be Her Majesty's mail?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: The mail has never been Her Majesty's mail, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a supplementary question to direct to the Postmaster General. In view of his statement that the mail has never been Her Majesty's mail, will he explain the significance of the use of the initials "O.H.M.S." and indicate what his department intends to do about the use of these initials?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
October 14, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	8659
Inquiries of the Ministry
IMMIGRATION	LABOUR CONDITIONS



INQUIRY AS TO REVISION OF APPEAL PROCEDURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Now that the white paper has been produced is the minister prepared to bring forward a new immigration act? Let me give him an example of what I wish to bring to his attention. When an inquiry takes place to determine the right of a foreigner to remain in Canada, if he is arrested and bail is refused by an inquiry officer the minister's department now takes the position in no uncertain terms that the individual has no right to appeal to a high court. The result is that in some cases men and women from other lands remain in jail for as long as 80 days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I could not determine whether the hon. member was making a statement or asking a question. If he is asking a question perhaps he will indicate what it is, and indicate its urgency.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The urgency of this matter relates to the fact that there are a number of men and women from other lands in jails in Canada under the provisions of the Immigration Act. My question was very simple. Is the minister prepared now to bring in a new immigration act which will rectify the situation to which I have referred? I should like to hear from the minister in this regard.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is now a bill before this house relating to the board of appeal. I believe that when this bill is adopted by the house these new immigrants will have the right to appeal and decisions will be made much sooner than they are made now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question. This bill will be discussed at a later date, but I should like to ask the minister to consider this situation because there are men and women incarcerated in jails in Canada without any right to bail, while awaiting long inquiries to be made by his department.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the situation.



MALTON, ONT.-LAY-OFFS AT DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question posed yesterday by the hon. member for York South concerning a situation at the Douglas Aircraft plant at Malton.
The company says that it is a coincidence that a shortage of parts has necessitated the lay-off of assembly workers under training just prior to the arrival, on October 25, of a group of skilled immigrants recruited by the company in Britain. If that is so the coincidence is certainly unfortunate. Officials of my department are keeping in close touch with the situation and with the Ontario government, which supports the on the job training program at the plant. I will inform the hon. member what action, if any, is called for as soon as I have the full information needed to make such a determination.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of, the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is designed to be cooperative and constructive, and I should like to address it to the Minister of National Defence. It relates to a very serious matter. In view of the criticism, confusion and turmoil relative to the policy of integration and unification of the armed forces, will he now reconsider his decision not to have the defence committee meet until government policy in respect of the proposed legislation has in principle become a fait accompli?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have been giving this matter a great deal of consideration, and one of the points that arose in my mind was the responsibility that this house has for taking decisions on principle. I also considered the fact that the government in presenting legislation is accepting a responsibility for the principle that it espouses.
In view of those circumstances I feel it would be an abdication of the responsibility of government and of this house not to deal with the matter in principle. For that reason I believe we should follow the normal course. I can assure my hon. friend that I will be
8660	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry prepared to produce the information and evidence required to satisfy the majority of the members of this house that the policy is indeed good and progressive, and will meet the needs of the military forces of this country in the future. In so far as any details are concerned, they will be made available by the military staffs at the time the bill is being considered by the standing committee on national defence.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a supplementary question. In view of the emphatic and point blank answer given by the minister I should now like to ask him what I believe is a logical question. Does he take the position that the defence committee of this House of Commons is merely a rubber stamp in respect of government policy and legislation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. My belief is quite to the contrary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the supplementary question asked by the hon. member is argumentative.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I listened to the minister's answer with great interest. Can he explain why the government is going the other way around in respect of its procedure on the white paper immigration policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: To my knowledge that is not the case, Mr. Speaker, but I will refer that question to my colleague who is responsible for these matters.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question I intended to direct to the Secretary of State, but in her absence perhaps I should direct it to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader. When does the government intend to introduce the promised legislation on broadcasting?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the white paper has to be considered by the standing committee first. I do not believe this legislation will be brought forward for some time, for the additional reason we have quite a bit of legislation on the order paper

DEBATES	October 14, 1966
which we have been trying to deal with first. We lost a couple of days last week. We hope to move ahead with the broadcasting legislation as soon as the committee has dealt with the white paper.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister indicate whether it is intended to bring this legislation forward at the present session of parliament?


George James McIlraith: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State answered this question yesterday. I will look up that answer and repeat it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a related question I should like to direct to the minister who acts on behalf of the Secretary of State in her absence. I was wondering whether the minister would convey to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the suggestion that the program "Preview Commentary" might be more properly entitled "Liberal Commentary".



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now that death on the highways is considered to be Canada's No. 1 health problem, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell the house to what extent the grant to the Canada Highway Safety Council will be increased?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the most recent grant made by the department to the council was greater than the previous grant. We have the representations of the council under consideration and if there is any further change in the extent of the grant, it will be announced in the house.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the widespread interest in the information being collected by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics about the operation of foreign corporations in Canada, can the minister say if this work is now completed and
October 14, 1966	COMMONS
whether it is his intention to make this information available to the house?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, a great deal of valuable information is being obtained. We are now learning more about the operations of subsidiary companies in Canada than we ever knew before. Much of the information is being submitted on the understanding that it will be kept private, in that it has a bearing upon the competitive position of the companies. The information is now being assembled, and to the extent that I can do so I will be glad to make it available to hon. members of the house when my estimates are under consideration.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the great interest and the need of people carrying out studies of this kind in Canada, will this information be collected in a form that will be available to the economists who are working in this field?


Robert Henry Winters: To the greatest extent possible, consistent with the secrecy aspects of some of the information.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who I see has left the house. I gave him notice of the question. I should now like to address it to the Prime Minister. In the light of the reported discussion between the President of the United States and the Chancellor of West Germany relating to a searching reappraisal of the threat to Atlantic security and the existence of a three nation-that is, American, German and British-study of changed force levels in NATO, does the Canadian government contemplate taking any steps to notify the representatives of these three governments of a desire to alter the future role of Canadian forces in NATO?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty far reaching question. I know this matter is under discussion not only by the three members concerned but by the NATO council. Before I say anything more than that I think I had
DEBATES	8661
Inquiries of the Ministry better discuss the matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who I believe was prepared to answer the question but was called out of the house.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can he say what consideration is being given to the request of the pensioners and senior citizens federation of Canada that the old age pension of a deceased pensioner be continued for six months in order that the surviving spouse be enabled to meet debts incurred by terminal illness?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am just wondering whether this is not the type of question that should be placed on the order paper.


Barry Mather: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN INITIAL PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister reporting for the Canadian Wheat Board. I would ask the minister if he is now in a position to say whether any decision has been taken relative to the proposal that the initial payments on western wheat, oats and barley be increased.


Mitchell William Sharp: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance following the question asked by the hon. member for Springfield regarding the initial prices of wheat, oats and barley. Does the Minister of Finance, like the Prime Minister, take seriously the resolutions that were passed at the recent Liberal convention? I believe there was one involving this particular matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is repeating a question that was asked earlier today.
October 14, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



REPORT OF INQUIRY INTO FRESH WATER FISH MARKETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric Siefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister received the report of the Mclvor commission and, if so, when will it be made public?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the hon. member that the report has been received by the Prime Minister. The translation is expected to be completed today or Monday, and it will be tabled early next week.



REQUEST THAT ELECTIONS BE NOT HELD ON SUNDAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister assure the house that in any legislation arising out of the report of the committee on election expenses no consideration will be given by the government to holding federal elections on a Sunday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should be asked to give an assurance of that kind, though personally I would not hesitate to do so. The report of the committee will be submitted to a committee of this house. I think it is a parliamentary matter even though it is also a governmental matter, and before the committee has had a chance to examine it I should not like to say anything more.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Should a democratically elected Quebec government proclaim the independence of Quebec, would the federal government use the army to prevent the province's independence, as stated by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard)?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is highly hypothetical.


Gilles Grégoire: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. As he will recall, two or three times in the earlier part of this session he indicated that he was personally agreeable to the idea of enlarging the terms of reference of the joint committee on the public service so that it might consider the question of the pensions of retired civil servants. Can the minister say whether the necessary motion to enlarge the terms of reference accordingly has yet been drafted?


Hon. E. J. Benson (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has not been discussed further with my colleagues than was mentioned in the house. I expressed a personal opinion at that time. However, I should like to say that we are most anxious to have this committee complete the work it has before it at the moment in order to get the collective bargaining legislation before the house as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not recall that the request was that this matter be dealt with after the collective bargaining legislation had been concluded? Would he therefore keep the matter in mind?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question is argumentative; the hon. member is asking whether the minister recalls or does not recall something which he may or may not have said before. That is not a proper question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure he does recall it.



GATT-SUGGESTED INSTRUCTIONS TO CANADIAN NEGOTIATORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce the urgency of which I think is apparent from the limited time left for the negotiations under the Kennedy round on tariffs. In view of the resolution passed recently in this city, will the minister instruct the negotiating team to take a more liberal policy with regard to the negotiations in Geneva, or is this just another resolution?
October 14, 1966	COMMONS


Robert Henry Winters: I think all hon. members know that Canada is in the forefront of those nations seeking a liberalization of trade, and we will continue to be so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the continuing unrest among postal employees about the conditions under which they work, when can we expect the tabling of the Montpetit report?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet received the Montpetit report. We were expecting it on the 13th of this month, but my most recent inquiries reveal that it will be received definitely by the 18th. So it will be Monday or Tuesday at the latest.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compton-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Considering that the government is trying its utmost to bring the income of elderly citizens in line with the cost of living by guaranteeing a minimum of $105 a month instead of $75, could the minister tell us whether or not he intends to increase, in the same proportion and for the same reason, the family allowances of $6 and $8 a month paid to Canadian children under 16 years of age?


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put his question on the order paper.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, representing as I do a riding with the heaviest ethnic grouping west of Toronto,
I claim your indulgence to allow me to direct
DEBATES	8663
Inquiries of the Ministry a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the principle in the immigration policy which he announced verbally and in the white paper of non-discrimination on the basis of race and colour, I would like to ask him whether this will be the policy followed by his department prior to the introduction of the new legislation.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, right now there are differences between the sponsorship rights of Europeans and those of Asians. This is in our law and of course it cannot be changed before the law itself is changed.



INQUIRY AS TO SALARY INCREASES FOR CLERICAL STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he would undertake to look into the long delay in the salary increases announced under class B, which includes the secretarial staff of the House of Commons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Without accepting the preamble to the question, I will be glad to look into the matter.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill 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.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night, I was dealing with the excessive cost of such a medicare plan. It is expected that in 1971, it would cost $4,481 million, of which 85 per cent would be paid by the various governments. It must be emphasized that governments would then have to seek additional revenue without, for all that, crushing the taxpayers, who are already overburdened with all kinds of taxes and contributions.

October 14, 1966
Medicare
Countries where such programs were established without preparation or adequate planning were faced with financial problems bordering on disaster. In England, the national health service was supposed to cost $390 million per year. After one year, however, its cost exceeded $1 billion. In 1960, it had reached almost $2 billion.
In Sweden, the initial cost of compulsory insurance, forecast 14 years ago, went up by 500 per cent. In France, the social security deficit reaches the fantastic figure of 1 billion N.F. The plan for the modernization and increase of hospitals and research laboratories in France is 30 years late, due to a lack of funds. Out of 150,000 hospital beds, 140,000 were provided before 1940. At the Lariboi-siere hospital in Paris, there are only 13 showers-one for 71 beds-150 basins, 56 water closets-one for 17 beds.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are a few considerations which indicate the complexity of a medicare scheme and the minister or the government should prove that governments are now in a position, considering present and future economic and financial conditions, to meet such obligations. But no explanation has yet been given in that connection. Indeed, that is why provincial governments have been protesting so strongly and so bitterly in the last several months. As a matter of fact, eight provinces have demanded a revision of Bill C-227, not only as far as the principle is concerned but also the provisions, the priorities and the phases to establish.
Ontario and Alberta have objected to the criteria, to the four conditions required by Ottawa. Manitoba has also made reservations. The three maritime provinces which took part in the meeting asked for improvements to this legislation, Bill No. C-227.
Even Mr. Ross Thatcher premier of Saskatchewan, a province already enjoying a provincial plan, has asked for a review of the bill before us because important things were left out for instance, the administrative costs. The province of Ontario has requested a revision of Bill C-227 for several reasons which are reflected in the amendment moved by the Progressive Conservative party. And the province of Quebec, through the hon. Jean-Jacques Bertrand, said that it would never accept the condition imposed by Ottawa.
Such is the situation. That is the spirit in which we consider this bill which is refused or criticized by eight important provinces in our country. But in spite of those protests,

those warnings, those anxieties, the government is going ahead. It continues to increase the pressure, the confusion and the disagreement between the central administration and the provinces.
Ottawa must be strong, and have a strong government which must crush all the provincial governments, without any regard for their aspirations, their administrative wisdom, their social and economic environment, the characteristics of the people living in those provinces whereas in 1867, the Canadian constitution entrusted all those regional and local matters, including health, to the provinces. This is the course followed by the present government.
I appreciate that this is not the first time I raise the question, somewhat like St. John the Baptist who was preaching in the wilderness. I will not stop as long as the people of the riding of Sherbrooke will send me as their representative in this house, to defend the rights of the provinces and of Canadian citizens, and to warn the federal government, which is Liberal at the present time, to stop it omnipotence, to stop poking its nose into fields of all kinds, especially in fields where it has no business.
The present government advocates a very vicious principle. Let them remember a statement by a great Liberal of the past, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said that it was absolutely wrong and unacceptable that this Canadian government, in a well-conceived federalism, should levy taxes which through distribution to other governments, would be spent by them.
Fundamentally this is extremely vicious. And this statement, this idea of federalism originated in the mind of a great Liberal of days gone by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The present Liberal government is devoid of consideration, of tactfulness, in short its members have no idea of true federalism. We are in a constitutional chaos, Mr. Speaker, a chaos which must be denounced because it goes against the aspirations and the wishes of the provincial governments.
What will be the outcome if the present federal government continues to push its way around in all fields? We will have a Unitarian system of government, because the provinces will withdraw. Is this what the present government wants? No, but it refuses to meet with the provinces again in order to reach an agreement concerning the different standards.
Mr. Speaker, some provinces have made a list of priorities. For some, health is the most
October 14. 1966

important consideration, for others it is education or sectors of the economy. But the present federal government disregards all this. It wants to pass legislation on a national scale with regard to the economy and in all other fields, which is contrary and destructive to the principle of federalism and which emphasizes disunion and pressures in the country. The government is responsible for this. It does this with a sort of unconcern which is entirely reprehensible.
I say it is an extension of co-operative federalism, of centralization. It is another example of the famous co-operative federalism some members of the government talk about in various parts of the country.
Mr. Speaker, in 1919 Ottawa first passed an act to help fight venereal diseases and create a public health department. Then, in 1944, the federal government established the Department of National Health and Welfare. Followed in 1948 a national hygiene and health program providing 13 subsidies. Later, in 1957, it passed the act on hospital insurance. Those are all matters belonging to the field of health and social welfare which, according to the spirit of the constitution, were to fall exclusively within provincial jurisdiction.
And this is extended further today; naturally, the tentacles reach further. Now we have medicare. Co-operative federalism has become, facts prove it, coercive federalism. Four conditions are laid down, then the provinces are told: accept that, launch your own medicare program, and we will pay so much provided you meet our four requirements. Well, that is not co-operation; it is trespassing, coercion.
Moreover, it is not true that the federal government can spend as it sees fit. It must have sufficient revenues to provide for its responsibilities and jurisdiction as outlined, amongst others, in section 91 of the constitution. But it is erroneous and malevolent to maintain that the government in Ottawa can levy most of the taxes in Canada, spend the money according to its own wishes and invade provincial fields of administration. The interest the federal government may have in a problem does not allow it to legislate on such matters as are the express responsibility of another government.
The present federal government is concerned about health and sickness problems in Canada. But other governments have dealt with those problems before, namely in Saskatchewan and Ontario. Just because the 23033-5481
Medicare
federal government decides one fine day to do something about it, because its coffers are full while those of provincial governments are almost empty, does not give it the right to meddle with problems which fall within provincial jurisdiction and responsibility. Interest in the matter does not create a right.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question of the hon. member? Does he think the provinces to which he has referred would object because the federal government, as a result of its interest in health, through ancillary legislation paid half the cost of maintaining the good health of their citizens, as I understand this bill seeks to do?


Maurice Allard: Would the hon. member repeat his question? I had a bad translation here.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the hon. member's remarks relating to the lack of authority of the federal government in this field, and in view of the national interest in health, does the hon. member feel the provinces he mentioned would object to the federal government paying half the cost of maintaining the health of the citizens of those provinces? Would you object, or do you think the provinces would object?


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand very well what the hon. member wants to say by relying on the interpretation. It might be better for me to listen first to what he has to say in his mother tongue, if he is kind enough to repeat his question in English.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of what the hon. member said before I took it that he was objecting to the federal interest in the health of the people because that comes within provincial jurisdiction. Does the hon. member consider that there should be objection by the provinces when the federal authority, in an ancillary manner, is prepared to pay half the cost of the medical requirements of the citizens of a province? Does he object, as well as expressing the view that perhaps the provinces would object to this financial assistance?
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Maurice Allard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I explained a while ago that I object to this measure simply because the federal government does not give back to the provinces an adequate share of the amounts collected in these taxation fields.

October 14, 1966
Medicare
The government keeps in its coffers the revenues collected in these taxation fields to deal with all kinds of things, namely medicare. I think, however-and I am not alone in thinking that way-that the provinces can very well look after this matter. Besides, some provinces have already started to do it successfully.
Another point, which explains my objection to this bill, is that a province which will not participate in the medicare program, according to the provisions of Bill No. C-227, will not receive fiscal adjustments before 1972. This is a serious discrimination, because we know that the province of Quebec will opt out of the national medicare program and that until 1972, it cannot receive, as in other fields, any fiscal adjustments. This is discriminatory because the taxes paid by the Quebec citizens to the central government, will help provide funds for a national medicare program, but these same Quebec citizens will also, through a portion of taxes they pay to the Quebec government, pay for a provincial medicare program. This is unjust and discriminatory; it is a serious matter which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) and this government should have agreed to negotiate and discuss with the Quebec government. He knew very well, as he knows now, that the Quebec government with its self-governing policy and its special hospital and health condition, would not be interested in participating in a national medicare program.
In clause 8 namely, the minister should have provided for fiscal adjustments for this first term until 1972, expecially to exclude such discrimination and injustice to Quebec citizens.


Harold Edward Winch: Why the interest then? [Translation]


Maurice Allard: We, the Quebec people, (I wonder whether the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), can understand that it is not because of a lack of interest in Canada) want to mind our own business and administer the areas under our jurisdiction. We do not want our own responsibilities to be taken over by another government, it is as simple as that.
And this is why when we agreed to a political system in 1867, we quoted, as we often do, the provisions of that 1867 constitution which put into the hands of the provinces, in section 92 and others, in view of its structure and its wording, all the social, civil,

local and regional matters and professional problems. This is why, when we speak here we take our stand on the constitution, and I do not think that we are foreigners in this country, but we want to look after our own business. This does not mean that we have a grudge against the other citizens of our country; on the contrary, we like them, we appreciate them, we like to meet them, to visit them, and we consider ourselves Canadian as much as anyone else in this country. We want to administer the fields coming under our jurisdiction, but we would be loath, however, to give anybody the impression that we want to be difficult and that we do not consider ourselves as 100 per cent Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, it is on these particular grounds that I object to this bill and that I shall vote against it. If all other hon. members vote in favour of this bill, there will at least by my own objection, since I do not favour the bill, mainly for the reasons I have indicated.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the debate thus far has brought forth suggestions from several hon. members who have participated to the effect that unfortunately the implementation of this important legislation has been surrounded by an atmosphere of electioneering. I think the hon. member for Dollard raised this point.
At the outset I should like to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a new phenomenon. This has been the atmosphere that has prevailed, as our friends in the New Democratic Party keep insisting, since the subject was first raised back in 1919.
The first statesmanlike approach to the problem of the urgent necessity of providing Canada with an adequate health care program was the appointment of the Hall royal commission in 1960. This enabled the subject to be raised from the level of electioneering and political cut and thrust and to have an objective and comprehensive look taken at the whole situation.
Hon. members on all sides of the house have agreed that the report of the Hall royal commission more than justified its appointment. It has laid down a health charter which, if implemented, will provide Canada and Canadians with the best possible health care program. When I say a health care program I do not limit it to the medicare scheme presented to us in this Bill No. C-227. I think one of the basic criticisms that can be made against the bill is that it moves only to
October 14, 1966

deal with a small segment of the whole problem of health care in the modern state.
It is not necessary for me to review the basic recommendations of the Hall commission report. I think it is obvious to all-and this view has already been expressed during the debate on second reading-that the present bill falls far short of implementing many of the objectives of the Hall commission report.
This has resulted from the government's failure to carry out adequate consultation with the governments most concerned, namely the provincial governments. When the legislation was first mooted the former minister of national health and welfare who is now Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) indicated to the provincial governments that there would be, as had been recommended by the Hall commission report, a federal-provincial health conference which would make it possible for the governments most concerned to bring their representations, which were based on the report, to the attention of the federal authority.
As I recall it, Mr. Speaker, one of the meetings held along these lines was attended by the former minister, and the next meeting was attended by the new minister, who presented to the provincial health ministers a fait accompli. He laid down a rather rigid set of criteria comprising four points that are well known to the members of this house, and created a sense of frustration in governments at the provincial level which has resulted in the present difficulties which confront us in considering this legislation.
There was a great desire on the part of the government to get the legislation before the house. It came up first of all last July when we were anticipating a summer recess, and an attempt was made to complete second reading at that stage. I was bold enough at that time, Mr. Speaker, to prophesy that the target date that was laid down by the minister, of July 1, 1967 for implementation of medicare, would not be met. I know it is not perhaps quite the thing to quote your own speeches, but as reported at page 7589 of Hansard for July 12 I was bold enough to say:
I scarcely believe, however, that on the basis oi past performance, at least during the 15 years I have been in this house, we are going to have a comprehensive and absolutely complete program in operation as early as the beginning of our 100th birthday.
Medicare
In other words, on the basis of the past performance of the government we could have anticipated that the target date put forward by the minister was not a realistic one in many respects and would inevitably have to be altered. And this has been the case; there has been a postponement.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I do not think it is adequate, Mr. Speaker, for a government charged with the responsibility of implementing a health charter of the quality of the Hall commission report to operate on the basis of electioneering propaganda. The hon. member for Dollard indicated that the opposition groups were operating on this basis. I think it has become crystal clear in recent months that this piece of legislation, along with other basic matters in Canada, has become part of a game of oneupmanship which is being used by responsible ministers to establish their claim to succession in a perpetual and perennial Liberal leadership race. The headlines in the daily press talk about the contest of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) v. the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon). At one time the Minister of Finance is in the lead; at another time the member for Davenport is in the lead. At other times it is a contest of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) v. the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer).
I had the impression, when the minister endeavoured to rush this legislation through last July, that it was his contribution to the game of oneupmanship. Then if the program does not proceed according to the schedule recommended by the minister there is the constant threat of resignation. That is a confusing and awkward way to run a country, I suggest.
Providing a comprehensive health insurance program for Canada is not an item in the leadership race. This is an opportunity to provide adequate health care, as set out for us in the Hall commission report which, I reiterate, goes much further than the concept of medicare as laid out in Bill No. C-227.
It is for this reason that the members of the official opposition have seized the opportunity, made possible by the government's delay in implementing the legislation, to bring the health care program more closely into line with the recommendations of the Hall commission. After all, it was the Conservative government which set up this royal commission in an attempt to get the subject out of the realm of politics and perpetual

October 14. 1966
Medicare
electioneering. That is why I am happy to be the seconder of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard).
In the field of health care medicare is not a new concept. In fact it goes back to the last century, to Chancellor Bismarck of Germany. It is very interesting to hear the various parties in this house competing with one another for the distinction of being the fathers of medicare. Most countries other than Canada and the United States of America, as North American countries, already have programs in operation.
I do not think it is a fact unknown to most members in the house that these programs have developed serious problems. The United Kingdom program, for example, has headed inevitably into the difficulties of bed shortages and personnel shortages which threaten to become chronic. Sweden, which has often been pointed to as the paragon of the socialist paradise, particularly by members of the New Democratic party, has run into even greater difficulties in the operation of its scheme. There is such a shortage of personnel that they have to close down many of their hospitals during the summer. The latest figures, as I understand, indicate that some 4,000 Swedish citizens are on the waiting list for operations. The problem is not only financial, Mr. Speaker. It also involves, as has been amply demonstrated by experiences in other countries careful planning and co-ordination.
It is not good enough for hon. members in this house to say that they accept a bill-any bill-that purports to deal with this urgent problem. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that his group would vote for any bill which gets Canada started in the direction of medicare. I think that is hardly a responsible position. If there were great urgency, or if the scheme were to be implemented within the few months as originally indicated, namely by next July, perhaps there would be justification for that position. But here we have almost a two year interval, and we are debating the issue now. We are rushing into it as part of a game of oneupman-ship. I suggest that the delay initiated by the government itself makes it possible for hon. members of this house to deal adequately, thoroughly and responsibly with the bill so the obvious gaps I shall point out in a moment can be dealt with.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), intervening in the debate yesterday, suggested that in putting forward amendments members of the Conservative

party are against the bill, and that they are endeavouring to kill the bill. It has virtually been killed by the government's delay. I repeat what I said at the resolution stage, that rather than being against the bill it ought to be remembered that the present action was initiated by the former Conservative government, when it appointed the royal commission to deal comprehensively with this matter.
In the remaining time at my disposal I wish to deal with three major areas of deficiency. First of all, the bill does not avoid the obvious pitfalls of similar schemes in the United Kingdom and Europe. Second, it does not meet the requirements of the Hall commission report for a comprehensive health care program, as opposed to a medicare program. Third, the bill has already run into very serious criticisms from most of the provinces. This means that we are running into a major difficulty right at the outset.
That is so because under our constitution it will be the responsibility of the provincial governments actually to implement the legislation. The provinces have been placed in a federal strait-jacket by the fait accompli criteria which has been laid down by the federal government. Though it is said that there is flexibility with respect to time no flexibility has been allowed with respect to these criteria. They still exist and provide for physicians' services only. This will have a serious disrupting influence on programs already operated by provincial governments, particularly with respect to groups such as optometrists which, as I read the legislation, are excluded from the provisions of the bill. The 90 per cent participation requirement at the outset of the scheme means the interpretation of the word "Universal", in the bill is compulsory.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Everyone agrees, of course, that benefits should be portable; and as for the final criterion "operated by government or an agency of government", I do not think anybody has too much quarrel with that. Our amendment deals with the basic question of provincial co-operation, and it also attempts to deal with the Hall commission recommendation that there should be a comprehensive health care program as distinct from a restricted medical care program.
First, as to provincial co-operation, I will refer to the province of Manitoba because that province has made special recommendations in this respect. When the bill was first
October 14, 1966

before the house the government of Manitoba suggested that the requirement for participation at the initial stage be relaxed to 80 per cent rather than the 90 per cent level. This was a reasonable request, and it would seem to fall within the principle of universality endorsed by the Hall commission. Telegrams were exchanged and the federal government insisted that the original 90 per cent participation figure should remain.
This makes it impossible for a province such as Manitoba to institute the program, which was already in effect as a voluntary scheme, in the form of legislation. The word "universality" is being interpreted by the federal government as meaning "compulsory". It is the provinces which must impose this compulsory feature. While Ottawa takes any political kudos which may result from the implementation of this scheme, it is the provinces which will have to bear the political difficulty of imposing a compulsory scheme in many areas of Canada where there is considerable resistance to this feature. Manitoba is not alone in this regard; the province of Alberta is even more forthright in its protestations.
I suggest to the minister that in the interval between the passing of this legislation and its implementation some two years hence it would take none of the lustre from his leadership campaign if he were to reconvene the federal-provincial conference on health care so these difficulties could be discussed with the provincial ministers and the launching of the scheme assured by the reconciliation of the policies of the two levels of government.
Another matter is coming to the fore. Again I cite the case of the government of Manitoba, which has always insisted on a system of priorities both in the general legislative field and in the field of social welfare. A number of hon. members have suggested that, to judge from their mail, people are not so much concerned with this medicare bill as they are with the situation in which old age pensioners find themselves. I can testify that my own experience is the same. I have not had a single letter concerning medicare and the need for rushing this legislation through at the present time. My correspondence on the subject of social welfare priorities all centres upon the necessity for dealing as a matter of urgency with the situation of our senior citizens.
Medicare
There are several governments, including the government of Manitoba, which are ready to come forward now, not in July, 1967 or in July, 1968, to deal with one of the areas of greatest need, the provision of adequate health and medical care for our senior citizens, provided they can get the agreement of the federal government to make this possible.
Only yesterday the government of Manitoba issued a statement urging Ottawa to move forward immediately to make it possible for those who really need medical help because of restricted income-and this concerns old age pensioners in particular to obtain the necessary assistance. The statement calls upon the federal government to proceed immediately to implement such an aid program as is suggested in our amendment. Here is a real priority; here is a real need, and I am sure it is one which will receive the backing of all hon. members in this chamber.
The second point of concern in our amendment has to do with medical education and the provision of the necessary services. My hon. friend from Simcoe East dealt with this subject quite adequately in his presentation. I shall merely refer to it in passing, and perhaps make a few additional points. The medicare program proposed in this bill will precipitate a crisis in the field of medical services. The experience of the United Kingdom and the experience of Sweden will be mild by comparison.
This crisis will not be met by the health resources fund which this House of Commons has already approved. Here is one of the greatest weaknesses of this legislation; it deals with one small area only, medical care and physicians' services. It ignores the paramedical services and all the ancillary services which go to make up an adequate health care program as set out in the recommendations of the Hall commission.
In addition it will disrupt the worthwhile experiment which is just beginning in the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario. I refer to programs of home care designed to relieve the growing pressure on hospital bed accommodation across the country. These deal with one of the most pressing aspects of any health care program. The hospital insurance program and many others of a voluntary nature already in existence are dealing satisfactorily with the basic needs of in-patient accommodation. Most of the medical needs of patients can be met under such schemes. The real cost arises after the patient has been

October 14, 1966
Medicare
discharged, particularly where his case is a chronic one and has to be taken care of in a home situation. There is absolutely no provision in this bill to meet this difficulty. Indeed, its restrictive terms will seriously interfere with the home care program experiment already under way in several provinces.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
There is another matter to which I would like to refer before concluding my remarks, and that is the failure of the bill to follow the recommendations of the Hall Commission with respect to mental health. The commission was quite specific in this regard and pointed out that the treatment of mental illness in Canada has not moved much beyond the ghetto approach that has existed since the nineteenth century. The present program is one that segregates the mentally ill from society and aggravates the problem by such a ghetto approach.
Medical science has made remarkable progress in psychosomatics, the approach of treating the whole patient, yet very few of the psychiatric insights provided by the social scientists have been implemented in overt policy. The cost per day per bed of a mentally ill patient is around $5 or $6, which indicates that the total treatment services available must be strictly limited. In contrast the cost for the physically ill is somewhere about $30.
Mr. Justice Hall was quite specific in the recommendation made, and the first page of the summary which was provided in connection with the publication of volume I quotes from the report in these terms:
The commission recommends a complete reorganization and reorientation of mental health services.
Recommendation No. 29 reads:
That henceforth all discrimination in the distinction between physical and mental illness, in the organization and provision of services for their treatment, and the attitudes upon which these discriminations are based, be disavowed for all time as unworthy and unscientific.
The summary adds that this:
-may be said to keynote the commission's views in the field of mental health.
A deficiency of this kind more than necessitates the careful reconsideration and review that has been recommended in the amendments put foward by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). This also applies to the field of public health services which have not been taken into consideration under the bill, and which are basic if we are going
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
to have an adequate health care program for Canadians.
I have already mentioned that the bill ignores the services of such groups as optometrists. They are going to be completely excluded. This is something which deserves consideration by the government, and by all hon. members if they are given an opportunity to hear further representations.
On the question of a voluntary program and freedom of choice, again the Hall Commission report was quite specific. I do not think I need to underline that point any further, but I think I should refer to a speech made by Mr. Justice Hall which was published in the September-October issue of the Canadian Tax Journal. In his speech he made this point:
This measure of governmental participation in the financing of health services is not socialism. We are convinced that Canadians are opposed to the concept of state medicine. We have urged Canada not to become involved in a battle of semantics. In recommending the program we have proposed, we have steered clear of the views of those on the extreme right or extreme left. We are opposed to state medicine, a system in which all providers of health services are functionaries under the control of the state. We recommend a course of action based upon social principles and the co-operation and participation of society as a whole in order to achieve the best possible health care for all Canadians, an aim that Canadians by their individul efforts cannot attain.
Such action, we insist, is based upon freedom of choice on the part of the citizen, and on services provided by free and self-governing professions. By safeguarding these elements, so vital to a free society, we believe we have avoided the difficulties inherent in a program which attempts to nationalise the services which one group provides for others.
I believe that this fundamental principle has been violated by the legislation before us and by the restrictive four points that have been put forward by the government
Let me conclude by saying that those of us on this side of the house are concerned, in approaching a matter as important and as serious as adequate health care for Canadians, that it be taken out of the realm of electioneering, of leadership, oneupmanship, and that as responsible members of the House of Commons we regard this as an opportunity to implement the best possible health care program.
From the medical standpoint Canada today leads the world in the quality of its medical care. We can only continue to do so under a program that will not disrupt the facilities that have already been established, because we have already moved a long step forward to
October 14, 1966

resolve many of the difficulties. Provincial governments have been active in the field, and if we are going to continue in a positive direction, now that the federal government at last is intervening in this field, let it be in the spirit of co-operation rather than in the spirit of controversy which has been the response from most of our provincial governments in reference to the bill before us.
The government has decided, for reasons known only to itself and obviously as a result of internal politicking within the cabinet, that the original target date will be postponed one year. We are discussing this legislaton early in the resumed session. It has been placed before us ahead of many more urgent matters that will be implemented long before 1968. Let the government use the time that has been afforded by the delay to have this matter referred to the federal-provincial conference on health care, and to have it referred to our house committee so that we can begin the program in a spirit of harmony and co-operation rather than in the spirit of controversy which at present prevails across the country.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity of speaking in support of the motion introducing the second reading of Bill C-227 which will provide federal financial contributions toward the cost of insured medicare services of provincial health insurance plans. I am sure most of us in the house were eager and happy to approve the resolution several weeks ago and to give first reading to this medicare bill last July 12.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
However, after hearing the speeches during this debate, and especially those of the Conservative spokesmen, I must say that this is a puzzling experience. After hearing the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) I do not understand the position taken by the official opposition. It is regrettable that the amendment now before us was not withdrawn, and for this reason I must deplore the fact that we have to continue to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard).
This amendment will serve only to delay indefinitely a comprehensive and universal health insurance plan for th.e people of Canada. The amendment is puzzling and even self-defeating because the sub-parts are in conflict with the preamble. However, more
Medicare
disturbing was the deplorable statement made yesterday by that leading Conservative spokesman, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I should like to refer to page 8634 of Hansard where he is reported to have said that this medicare bill should be killed and buried. This attitude is disappointing, I am sure, to all of us and will be disturbing to the people of Canada when they learn about it.
The first part of the amendment asks the federal government to obtain the co-operation of the provincial governments. In this era of rapid progress and increasing demand for social justice, no provincial government would want to deny to its citizens a basic human need in the form of readily available adequate health care. In spite of the reported reluctance of some provincial spokesmen to subscribe to the basic conditions of the federal medicare scheme, I am confident that at this time of federal-provincial co-operation this reluctance will fade away and with good will the difficulties will be be met and solved satisfactorily.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley Haidasz: I will answer the hon. member's question after I have completed my speech.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: How many provincial governments have brought in medicare plans-


Stanley Haidasz: I should like to finish my speech, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. The hon. member for Parkdale has requested that questions be deferred until after he has concluded his speech.


Stanley Haidasz: The present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), announcing the Liberal medicare policy in Toronto last year, said:
We cannot impose policies and programs on provinces in respect of matters within their jurisdiction. And we will have to be increasingly careful in participating in joint federal-provincial programs in which all provinces do not participate. On the other hand, we will not forgo our right to make grants to provinces to help them in programs such as medicare which are provincially administered; and our right to relate such grants to the acceptance of certain principles which, in our view, justify the expenditure of federal funds for provincially administered schemes. It is then for the provinces to decide whether they wish to cooperate on this basis.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a most reasonable and fair approach. It ensures federal initiative and invites provincial co-operation to fill a need of the Canadian people.

October 14, 1966
Medicare
This federal program with its universality feature will also bring social justice to all Canadians. It is welcomed by our citizens and by welfare organizations, and praised in editorials across the country. Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, chairman of the royal commission on health services, has refuted the arguments made by some provincial authorities and some critics in this house who want to postpone indefinitely a national medical insurance plan in favour of education by declaring in Ottawa last November:
There cannot and must not be any question of conflict or of priority between the needs of better education and good health.
Furthermore, not only social justice but also economic progress could be served by the early implementation of a national health insurance scheme. It is estimated that in 1965 illness caused a loss to our economy of approximately $630 million. I am certain that much of this loss might well have been prevented if adequate health services had been available. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to deny or postpone indefinitely in Canada an adequate medical insurance plan.
The other parts of the objectionable Conservative amendment can also be shown to be without a sound foundation. The present federal scheme does recognize the principle of free choice in the doctor-patient relationship. The scare of state medicine of socialist countries cannot be justly applied to the federal scheme we are debating.
The third part of the amendment crying for adequate prior provision for sufficient medical research and training of medical and paramedical personnel appears to forget the steady progress in this field since the introduction by a Liberal government in 1948 of the national health grants which poured out millions of dollars for public health facilities, professional training, research and hospital construction. This was continued during the administration of the right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). This part of the amendment also overlooks the further increase in health facilities and personnel provided by Bill C-199, the health resources fund, which will provide $500 million over the next 15 years. I cannot understand the forgetfulness of the opposition with regard to such a recent act passed by this house on June 27 of this year.
The last part of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, is also untenable. Our provinces have for many years financed the cost of

medical services for persons on public assistance and those in need. The outpatient departments of our hospitals and the public ward beds are filled with patients who receive adequate medical care free of charge or at a very minimal fee. Furthermore, this type of need is now being provided in greater measure by the Canada Assistance Plan also introduced by this government and enacted by this parliament last July.
Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act in 1956-57 and 1958 objections similar to those we hear now from opponents to medicare were heard. But parliament, in its wisdom, passed that bill providing universal hospital insurance. True, there were differences, difficulties, objections and problems but parliament did not wait for perfect circumstances to institute the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. It was passed in 1957 and since that time we have learned many lessons, gained much experience and satisfaction.
The goal of an effective hospital insurance program was achieved by the co-operation of the governments, hospital trustees, doctors and the public. With diligence, dignity and understanding on the part of all parties concerned, a universal hospital insurance plan initiated by the federal government became a success. I believe that no Canadian today would wish to be without our hospital plan. I also truly believe that the majority of Canadians do not want to be without a national health insurance plan.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
Many remarks have been made by hon. members since the commencement of this debate. Most of them were very favourable and included interesting suggestions and constructive criticism. After all, in our parliamentary system it is customary and useful to test in the crucible of debate whether good legislation can be improved. The majority of Canadians, approximately 12 million, are fortunate in having some form of prepaid or government subsidized medical plan. However, today approximately 7.5 million Canadians have no medical insurance except for the medical diagnostic services provided by the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act which was introduced in 1957.
But every day now in Canada more and more Canadians have access to health insurance because of the introduction of provincial medicare plans which are now available in
October 14, 1966

Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. It is of interest to note that the earliest health services plan was Newfoundland's cottage hospital medical plan, which dates from 1934. The Saskatchewan medical care insurance plan began in 1962, the Alberta medical plan in 1963 with extensions in 1966, the British Columbia medical plan in 1965 and, of course, in my province the Ontario medical services insurance plan began in 1966. The Saskatchewan and Newfoundland plans are universal in coverage; enrolment in the other plans is on a voluntary basis. Together, these five provincial health insurance plans cover about 4 million Canadians. In particular, approximately 1,700,000 people are enrolled in the Ontario medical services insurance plan, or 25 per cent of the population of Ontario.
From the British North America Act, Supreme Court decisions, declarations of royal commissions and federal-provincial arrangements and negotiations, we regard health matters today as mostly a provincial responsibility. But since it has been customarily the primary objective of the federal government in the health held to assist with the development of vital and essential services on a nation-wide basis, this government's action in offering financial contributions to provincial health insurance plans is most welcome. This federal initiative will also meet, I am sure, the need to develop comparable standards of health services across this vast country.
May I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, the accepted principle that adequate standards across the country should always be maintained as much as possible. Not all the medical plans now operating provincially provide the same benefits. The British Columbia plan, I learn, provides such additional services as physiotherapy, special duty nursing, chiropractic and naturopathy services without additional charge. May I add that I have received many communications from my constituents that there is a great need also for insured ambulance services. But above all, the great discrepancy in premiums is a serious complaint that is often heard from our constituents.
In Saskatchewan, a province less affluent than Ontario, the premium, which covers about 25 per cent of total costs, is only $24 for a family. In the affluent provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario the family premiums are in the order of $150 per year. I again ask the question: If the federal government is going to pay half the cost of
Medicare
provincial health insurance plans, why could not the provinces reduce the annual premiums of their plans?
Mr. Speaker, I know it is very difficult to satisfy everybody and that no plan is absolutely perfect, but in trying to produce a health insurance plan for Canadians we should strive to come up with the best possible plan. Therefore I appeal to all members to support this bill. We should all be proud to be part of this federal parliament which has been given the privileged opportunity to make available for Canadians a national comprehensive health insurance plan.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the address of the parliamentary secretary to which we have just listened was obviously made to support the government's position because of the embarrassment which they feel, and what he said is in no way realistic so far as the Canadian people are concerned. The hon. member mentioned at length the plans that exist in the provinces. He even referred to how they were instituted. I remind him immediately that there are now four plans in operation and not one was instituted by a Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that not one was instituted by a Liberal government, and I dare the hon. member to deny that statement. What is more, a fifth plan will be in effect soon and it will be instituted by a Conservative government. I believe that such nonsense as was delivered by the hon. member demands an apology even to us on the opposition side of the house. When I think of the things from which the Canadian people have benefited in the course of this year, 1966, because of the action of the opposition, I sometimes wonder what this government is doing.
I believe that some of the ministers of the government are afraid to come into the house. Last night I tried to get the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) into the house in order to learn his position with regard to milk subsidies. He would not come and sent his parliamentary secretary. I think of the position in which he has put himself with the farmers of this country and I have come to the conclusion that the government will find itself in exactly the same position with regard to medicare.
The previous speaker said he cannot understand the position of the opposition because

October 14, 1966
Medicare
of some of the arguments we have put forward. I tell him right here and now that so far as the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) is concerned, I am not too far away from his thinking. I can morally vote against the bill as it stands, if the government does not accept our amendment, and can certainly make my position clear so far as my constituents and the people generally are concerned.
Can we not have universality without compulsion? Certainly we can. Can we have a comprehensive plan without compulsion? Certainly we can, and hon. members opposite know it. I give the minister credit here because I believe he is changing his views slightly in this regard. I do not say that in a deprecating way but, if he will allow me to do so, in a flattering way.
I do not know why so much concern was expressed by the previous speaker, in view of the fact that we will have to wait such a long time before the plan is instituted. Hon. members opposite will be lucky if every province does not have such a plan by that time. I know there are a few provinces which are not in a fortunate enough position economically to institute such a plan.


Stanley Haidasz: What is the target date of your plan?


Eric Alfred Winkler: If the hon. member had listened to us he would know that for 30 per cent of the people who need it would be January 1, 1967. Let there be no mistake about that.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
Subparagraph (d) of the amendment reads:
(d) immediately provides for those persons who are unable, for financial reasons, to provide medical services for themselves.
We mean that. As a matter of fact, the hon. member may well justify his position as a doctor by supporting this amendment, and I think he knows it. When the hon. member tells me that he hears a lot of complaints from his constituents about the diversification of the various plans now in effect, the inequality of coverage, the difference in premiums and so on, let me tell him one thing. I come from a rural constituency which also has a reasonable amount of manufacturing industry. I have worked in that industry and I have been a member of their union. These men are telling me: "15 years ago our pay cheques used to have a little stub at the end showing deductions. Now our pay cheques have still another deduction. Tell the government to keep our pay cheques and tell us

how much we can spend." That is the state to which you have brought these people. These people have bargained for some of the medical protection they now have. I am not so sure they want the plan that is now being offered.
I also find there is a great deal of reason behind the thinking in the province of Ontario because I do not believe anyone in the house will deny the fact that the taxpayers of the provinces of Ontario carry a substantial burden in this country. I have said this before and I say it again with pride. They are prepared to say: "All right, put your plan into effect. Give the provinces the rights that are constitutionally theirs, but for heaven's sake do not make us pay for something we do not want." I think the hon. member subscribes to that very statement, unless I am wrong, but of course all members on that side of the house will stand up and vote for the bill whether it is right or wrong.
I believe that the principle of freedom of choice in the plan is an extremely important one, and I say that with all deference to the people in the profession as well as to those who will be covered by the terms of this bill.
Furthermore, I hope I do not have to remind any member of the house of the effort and time spent in trying to bring the government and the minister to the realization that the necessity for increasing old age security pensions at this time is equally important. It may be even more so when we realize we have to wait for two years for this piece of legislation to become effective at a time when the people who need additional money because of inflationary trends-I do not have to remind you who is responsible for them

require this money for the basic necessities of life. I believe that my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), will join me in our combined fight for increases in old age security payments. I do not think he has changed his view and I certainly have not changed mine.


Stanley Haidasz: Your filibuster is only prolonging the delay.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I remind the hon. member that it will be pretty difficult for us to talk for two years. You do not have to worry about that. If the hon. member is referring to increased old age security payments, then let his party postpone this bill and we will give them our approval in a hurry. I can assure him of the support of our caucus for that piece of legislation.
October 14, 1966

I have in my hands an editorial from the Toronto Globe and Mail dated October 12 and outlining in detail the editor's point of view in regard to medicare. I will read for the record the last paragraph of that editorial because it is very relevant. It reads as follows:
This is what can happen when a timetable is given priority over circumstances and judgment. It is not the best way to ensure that Canadians get the best medicare available.
With that I agree. However, this is prefaced by the errors which the government made in instituting the Canada Pension Plan. I am not very proud of standing here this afternoon and saying that I voted for the Canada Pension Plan, and if I had to do it again I would vote against it, proving the truth of the article.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I was somewhat dismayed to read the article in the Globe and Mail this morning headed, "Medicare Bill Runs Into Tory Roadblock". If our position in regard to medicare is a roadblock, then I think the author of this article had better read Hansard and take a look at our amendment which is a constructive one.


David Orlikow: It is a killing one.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It is not a killing one. As I stated before, if you want to bring medicare in immediately we will support the date of January 1, 1967. I have the support of every member of the Conservative party on that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government postponed it for two years but you are postponing it forever.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Of course that is totally wrong. The hon. member just has to look all across the country wherever medical plans are in operation, and I think my hon. friend knows that very well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member a question?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am always delighted to have the Minister of Transport ask me a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the hon. gentleman tell us whether this is his bid for leadership?


Stanley Haidasz: Fulton killed his last night.


Eric Alfred Winkler: My aspirations in political life are to serve Canada and all its people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That sounds like a leader.
Medicare


Eric Alfred Winkler: I will put it this way, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister of Transport feels that the need for a leader in his party is that great, I will certainly cross the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't you think they have enough Tories over there already?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I believe that initially the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) brought in this plan at the time he felt most appropriate to get the support of most of the provinces. Today we know that most of the premiers do not particularly favour the plan which the minister has presented. I am not saying this in a political vein; I am being practical about it. Then we had the innovation whereby the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) delayed the plan until mid-1968. If it has been delayed for economic reasons, and it may well have been so, then I think the government should re-examine its position in regard to other projects which have been mentioned by the government such as the scholarship plan which was also withdrawn.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
I do not see how the withdrawal of the scholarship plan would affect this particular piece of legislation now that it is delayed until 1968. Indeed, the Liberal government is considering many other expenditures which might well be deferred, and although the minister made a remark on the position taken by Mr. Hall I still think that the money allocated to education and to the implementation of this legislation should have priority. This has not been done and therefore we can only conclude that the Minister of Finance made his decision very hastily and probably without the agreement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I do not think that it was for personal reasons, although I must admit that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is beginning to look a little better every day as the weak ones fall by the way. He is coming forward in great style. I do not believe that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) was serious when he made those remarks a few moments ago. I think that the Minister of Finance is proceeding well in the right direction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Yes.

October 14, 1966
Medicare


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is he suggesting he would like to have the Minister of Finance as leader of the Conservative party?


Eric Alfred Winkler: You can make your own suggestions and I will make mine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is where he belongs.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I return to the medicare proposal before us. I agree with those who have referred to the important factors of training of personnel and the availability of beds and the fact that the current level of federal support for construction of hospital beds is totally inadequate. I believe it was pointed out by someone that the capital grants supplied by the federal government have not increased since 1958, when they were increased 100 per cent by the then Conservative administration. I say to the minister that consideration ought to be given to increasing those grants again by 100 per cent.
I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, what changes have taken place in medical practice. I should like to know, for instance, what changes have taken place in Saskatchewan and the other provinces so far as general practitioners are concerned since the introduction of medicare. What movement has taken place? Have these men gone into institutions to operate in a combined way or is the trend still for the general practitioner to stay in private practice, particularly in the smaller municipalities and in the rural areas? I believe this trend is becoming very apparent across the country and the people of Canada will find increasingly that they are not going to have the personal type of service to which they have been accustomed in the past.
As a result the cost of the program is going to be great, I believe above the level of which anyone is thinking in 1966. Why is this so? It is so because doctors will not make themselves available beyond ordinary working hours except, as I said, on a co-operative basis. One can hardly blame them, since the government would be controlling their lives. I say to the minister, therefore, it is more important than ever before that he consider freedom of choice from the doctors' point of view as well as from the taxpayers' point of view. I beg the minister as well as the government to see that this principle is maintained, no matter what happens to the bill.
I should like to say one more thing with regard to practitioners. I believe that any professional man who is capable of supplying

a service, which service is covered under the terms of the bill, should be allowed to render that service in the same way as if he were entirely eligible under the bill. As an example, I would cite optometrists who would be able to offer certain services, which I understand would be available under the bill but only through an ophthalmologist, at less cost and on a wider basis than the medical profession. The service could therefore be rendered in smaller areas. I should like to see that principle carried through as far as possible in every application of this bill. If we are going to offer the maximum amount of service to Canadians, I think we should involve the maximum amount of Canadians in offering that service because they may well perform certain functions that are necessary under this legislation.
So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by saying to the minister and the house that it is not the intention of this party in any way to stop the bill, as someone on my left has suggested. This is far from our minds. We believe that the terms of the amendment before the house are good ones. We believe that they are worthy. We believe, first and foremost, that with two years to wait it is the responsibility of the government now to call the premiers of the provinces back to Ottawa to find a common denominator on which they can agree so that the bill will be a truly national bill, so that the constitutional rights of the provinces will be maintained and so that we as federal legislators will have done our duty to the people of Canada.


Mr. Keith Hymmen (Waterloo North):: wish to make a few remarks, Mr. Speaker, on the second reading of Bill No. C-227. It is not my intention to delay the passage of the bill because it is, of course, a very important piece of social legislation which will be added to the many other pieces of such legislation on our statute books, most of which were introduced by Liberal governments. I might qualify that remark because I am well aware of the fact, as many other members are, that the previous Conservative government did finalize the hospital services bill, a bill which was conceived by the previous Liberal government.
I know what the hospital services bill has meant not only to the province of Ontario but to the people of Canada in providing additional facilities for people who are in need of hospital services. Having served for some time at a much lower level of government, I know what the hospital services bill has
October 14, 1966

meant to the municipalities. Prior to the passage of this legislation there was a continual charge on the municipalities for operating services. Now, under the provisions of the hospital services bill, hospitals are able to pay their own way with some small provision for capital expansion.
During this debate several members have raised the question of additional allowances for hospital beds. This, of course, is a very important matter and was introduced yesterday by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). Some references were made yesterday and today to a certain meeting in Ottawa. I should like to identify that meeting. It was the 1966 convention of the national Liberal party whose delegates, 1700 in all, overwhelmingly endorsed the responsible decision of this government.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
While the delegates and the members on this side of the house were disappointed at the delay of medicare, which was to have come into effect on July 1, 1967, the centennial year of confederation, it has only been delayed until July 1, 1968, one year later, and will be implemented earlier if possible. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the official delegates of a political party to a national convention have accepted the responsible decision of this government, 1 feel that the people of Canada, both those who support the government presently in power as well as those who do not will certainly recognize and accept that a responsible decision has been made.
Many other matters are involved in addition to the $40 million which it is estimated it will cost the Dominion of Canada to finance medicare. We are in a time of unprecedented prosperity which contrasts strongly with the situation we had just a few years ago. Even though we have so much and are producing so much, sometimes we have to sit back and, irrespective of promises which were made in good faith, decide whether or not in the interests of preserving the growth and development of this country we can afford to implement this legislation at this time, albeit an important piece of legislation.
I referred to the address given yesterday by the hon. member for Simcoe East, who I know conscientiously represents in this place not only his constituents and the people of Canada but also his profession. This is true of other members of the medical profession such as the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hai-dasz), who has just spoken, the hon. member
Medicare
for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe) and many others. We need the co-operation of the medical profession which, according to standards of comparison, is a very excellent profession. Within its limited facilities it has provided over the years great service to the people of Canada, has assisted in research development, and has brought forward new ideas and new cures for the sick.
I mentioned that this was a very significant piece of legislation, as is other legislation such as the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, unemployment insurance, youth allowances and many other acts, all of which have provided much to the very fortunate people of this very wonderful and prosperous land. Perhaps I am a bit too realistic, but among many letters I have received from my constituents is one asking for additional assistance for people receiving old age assistance and who require additional help. The day after I received that letter I received another from a constituent who wanted a great deal more assistance for underdeveloped countries, a plea which was very eloquently expressed by one of the speakers at the convention held this week to which 1 have referred. Some members of the Canadian community are concerned about others and are very critical of what we do for our own people. Conversely, some people want everything for themselves and have no concern at all for less fortunate people.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at great length on this matter. I was sorry I was not able to hear the introductory remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare yesterday because I always enjoy hearing him. Unfortunately I was called out of the house at that time. But I should like to congratulate him on bringing in this legislation and on the very co-operative stand which he has taken under circumstances which were rather difficult.
When this legislation becomes law, Mr. Speaker, it will provide complete medical service for all Canadians. As I said in connection with the previous bill, this bill is not designed for a great many people in my constituency in the province of Ontario but for those who never have had and never would have had an opportunity to obtain even minimal medical assistance in this country, a country where every citizen should receive this assistance as a basic right and be provided with medical services whenever they are needed.

Ociober 14, 1966
Medicare


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, when this medicare legislation was introduced last summer we in this party welcomed it very enthusiastically as something long overdue and very much to our liking. We felt it was sure to be welcomed very much by everyone across Canada. It is a curious thing that today we are now playing the role of trying to save this legislation. The government is playing the role that for purposes of propaganda only it is going to submit the legislation to the house and then turn around and by making amendments kill it, ably assisted by members of other groups in the house.
I want to make abundantly clear that we in this party recognize what is going on for exactly what it is-a betrayal of medicare. I also want to say that people across the country in their thousands are going to recognize this for what it is-a betrayal of medicare. The bill as it will be sought to be amended by the government will not provide genuine medicare of the type we were going to support and for which we were going to vote. It will have been mutilated in three or four respects, thus depriving the people of Canada of what they need. The biggest mutilation of the bill is that it is not going to come into effect until at least a year later than it was supposed to become effective, namely, not until July 1, 1968.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
I was very much interested to discover that apparently the government has taken the precaution of obtaining the signature of the finance minister to the provision that the bill should come into effect not later than 1968. I remember it was also necessary to obtain the signature of a prime minister of this country much earlier in time so as to make it possible to get on the books the first social security legislation providing old age pensions. For some years the Liberal party had been promising old age pensions but nothing had happened. It was only when a couple of members representing labour obtained the signature of Prime Minister Mackenzie King that finally there was leverage enough to obtain passage of the old age pensions legislation. It is interesting to note that this time it is the Liberal party itself which has taken the precaution of obtaining the signature of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), who is quite evidently the strong man of the cabinet today, to try to ensure that medicare will not be delayed even beyond July 1, 1968. It may be

that this will not be sufficient to prevent yet another sell-out.
This manoeuvre on the part of Liberal governments of promising, promising and promising, getting elected on promises and then discovering suddenly that economic conditions unfortunately will not let them carry out their promises, is nothing new. In my province of British Columbia we have had Liberal governments too, and they have promised at elections that medicare would be brought in. It was called health insurance in those days. During the 1930's the promise was made by the Liberal party, as it ran in successive elections, that we should have health insurance. Each time we were told, as an explanation of the failure to implement it, that "regrettably this cannot be done at this time". The members of the Liberal party in that legislature fell into line just as those of the Liberal party in this parliament are falling into line.
During an election in 1936 they had to go so far as to put health insurance legislation on the statute books of British Columbia. In my hand I hold an act, not a bill, to bring about health insurance in British Columbia. This measure was passed, signed and assented to by the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia in 1936. But it has never been proclaimed by a Liberal government since that time. So, Mr. Speaker, some of us are understandably dubious whether even the signature of the Minister of Finance on the dotted line will ensure enough leverage to get this measure through by 1968. The date of the act in my hand is April 1, 1936 April fool's day. That was a cruel April fool's joke if ever there was one. I think that what is being perpetrated at this time is a Halloween hoax which may go on for a few years yet. I say that because each time in the past, despite honest intentions here, there and everywhere, it has been discovered by the government that conditions would not permit the passage of a genuine medicare bill.
Was the situation different this summer for the people across this country who voted for the Liberal party in the last election? Again, I have one of the party's big advertisements before the last election. Here is the Liberal party's plan for medicare, setting out the four solid points. People voted in the innocence of their hearts believing that the Liberal government, when it said it would do something, would in fact do something. That is the Liberal party for you. The people voted for medicare as set forth in this advertisement. I
October 14, 1966

believe that the people this summer thought, as we thought, that at last there was to be an honest fullfilment of election promises. We saw in the Minister of National Health and Welfare a man of new ideas who recognized that medicare was a necessity now and should be proceeded with. He had the four solid points of the medicare legislation in mind and he was backed solidly by the Prime Minister. Neither one of them could be shaken either on the date or on the principles underlying this bill. The date was always to be July 1, 1967, Canada's 100th birthday, and the principles were always to be foursquare.
We saw the Minister of National Health and Welfare giving the most precious and the most needed thing to our country at the present time-leadership. But this fall we saw that minister crumple up under the pressure of the Minister of Finance who had emerged as a power with the backing of the big, vested financial, insurance and professional interests in this country which do not want medicare now nor for a long time to come. They do not want genuine medicare. They will never want it. We saw the Minister of Finance simply pulling the rug from under the Minister of National Health and Welfare by saying that medicare could not be brought in this year. There he stands today-I am referring to the Minister of Finance-a russet lion rampant barring the road to medicare. The Liberals behind him are torn between two leaderships.
During the recent convention they did not try to disguise the fact that they are a party not without leaders but with so many leaders that they are riding off in all directions at the same time, getting precisely nowhere. That is a fact that cannot be disguised. As a matter of fact, we have the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the one side, the Minister of Finance on the other, and between them the mass of jellyfish Liberals who wish they had the strength to stand by their principles but who are afraid of the Minister of Finance who is backed by the pressure groups of this country which do not want medicare.
This is the situation as we in this party see it. We have no intention of doing what we are asked to do. We are being asked to rush legislation onto the statute books now when it is not intended to be brought into effect for at least a year and a half. The legislation may never go into effect without being watered down so much that it will not be
Medicare
genuine medicare, and would not be recognized as such by Mr. Justice Hall who has been quoted so often in this house. We will debate this legislation which the people want. Having given the impression that this is the legislation under which it will operate, the government is proceeding to mutilate it and will put on the books something that is completely different, something with the principle of universality undermined. Much worse than that, the government will be opening the door to all the profit-making insurance companies to enter in and destroy the very basis of complete health coverage for everyone, making this measure into some sort of profit-making vehicle, as they have done with other things.
It is perfectly naive to say that these profit-making insurance companies have certain departments which do not operate at a profit, which are loss leaders and gimmick affairs, and that under this heading the insurance companies will be allowed to come in as provincial carriers. The operations of the insurance companies cannot be separated. They are still profit-making institutions and will destroy the basis of any genuine medicare if they are permitted under the legislation to come in as carriers.
In other words, we are being asked to help to murder medicare and then to build a mausoleum to its memory. We will not do any such thing. We support genuine medicare legislation, and we will certainly have nothing to do with the mutilated version which will be trotted forth by this government and put on the statute books.
The people voted for medicare, they intend to get medicare, and the members of all parties in the house know this. Members of all parties, except those of the party to which I belong, have been wriggling, squirming and twisting the meanings of words to prove that medicare will make a pretty corpse, a dead duck, as a member of the party to my right described it last evening. They have mutilated it in this house while posing as its friend. I think it is worse to have it done to death by enemies who pretend under a cloak that they are friends than by outright enemies, because at least you know what you are dealing with when are dealing with outright enemies.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Each speaker opposing medicare has prefaced his attack by professing his undying devotion to the principles of medicare and to the contention that everyone in this country has the right to full coverage. Then each one

October 14, 1966
Medicare
has gone on to do his level best to prevent medicare coming into effect. The Progressive Conservative party to my right has introduced provisions in its amendment which it knows will delay medicare until after the millennium if the Liberals are left to introduce it.
I suggest though that there are provinces in this country whose governments have not dared to wait until the Liberal party or, for that matter, the Conservative party, is prepared to take action. The minister and Liberals across the way like the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), who spoke last evening, have attacked medicare by first of all watering down its principles and then by endeavouring to have it postponed indefinitely.
Members of the official opposition have attacked medicare by sheltering behind the undoubtedly serious shortage of doctors and the fact that the premier of Ontario does not like the present legislation. Mr. Justice Hall has often been quoted during this discussion, but there is one statement of his in particular which has not been given, and I intend to read it now because it underlies so much of the report. I read now from Volume I, the first report of the commission, page 91:
While we are aware that shortages of physicians, dentists, nurses, and other paramedical personnel will make it difficult to establish the full personal health services program our charter envisages, nonetheless the fact that there are shortages must not be used as an excuse to delay initiating programs and plans.
Mr. Justice Hall was appointed by the Conservative government. His name has been used today to prove that medicare should be delayed. It has been used by the Conservative party for this purpose. But Mr. Justice Hall has said that the fact that there is a shortage of medical personnel must not be used to delay the institution of medicare. I commend this section of the report to those who sit in the Conservative party to my right.

The Creditistes base their attack, just like the Ontario Conservatives, on the fact that the premier of their province does not like the federal bill. Therefore, they oppose it too.

Social Credit members do the same thing only in their case it is the premiers of Alberta and British Columbia who are mentioned. I do not think they should be too sure about Premier Bennett. He has a well known habit of opposing a certain measure until he

finds out that the people are likely to change the government if he does not himself put it into effect. Then he takes up the measure as if it had been his own plan from the beginning. As soon as public opinion in British Columbia in favour of medicare becomes stronger, and it is growing stronger every day, we shall find Mr. Bennett preparing to advocate medicare as a plan which has been his baby since the beginning of time. That is the way he does things in British Columbia.
So many people pretend to be friends of medicare, those who would water it down, those who would delay it, those who shelter behind the shortage of doctors, those who shelter behind the fact that provincial premiers do not want it. In the meantime they are killing it by whatever means they can.
I say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that had the federal government acted years ago we would not have experienced this difficulty with the provincial premiers. It is because the Liberal government refused to take action that the provincial premiers, one after the other, have been obliged to do the best they could according to their lights to meet the needs of the people in their provinces by bringing in what they thought would be a stopgap measure until such time as Ottawa moved. Had the government in Ottawa moved years ago to bring a proper scheme into operation we would never have been faced with the 67 varieties we now see scattered around the provinces. The longer hon. gentlemen opposite postpone the implementation of a genuine medicare program the greater their difficulties will be, because other provincial premiers, according to the resources available to them, will build the best things they can into their schemes and every one of these variations will have to be interpreted and dealt with separately. It will be exceedingly difficult for the federal government to undo the harm which its procrastination has made inevitable.
There is one province in this country which believes in genuine medicare and which has proven its belief in medicare by instituting it. That is the province of Saskatchewan

I do not intend to be modest about it. Saskatchewan was the first province to introduce medicare, back in 1962, and, if there is no other memorial to my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), the fact that this program was first introduced in a province which is not one of the wealthy provinces, not one having the largest number of medical personnel, not one with the largest
October 14, 1966

number of hospital beds, will be a memorial to be proud of. In that province, the C.C.F. government of the day, the forerunner of the N.D.P., had the courage under the leadership of Premier T. C. Douglas to institute a system of medicare identical with the one proposed in the Hall report. The scheme is based on the principles of that report. There was no promising, promising, promising. It was promised before the election and it was instituted immediately afterwards. There was none of this talk about building flexibility; there was action to fulfil a promise.
That government had to fight against all the pressure groups concerned, because they knew it was the first pilot plan in the country. That government had to lose its life in the process because it was the fight over medicare which in a large measure enabled the marshalling of all the forces opposed to it. But that government which lost its life in the process brought new hope and new help to the people of Saskatchewan in doing so.
If there be any in this house who still think that medicare in Saskatchewan is an evil thing or that it is likely to be displaced in the near future, I should like them to tell me how it is that the premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Ross Thatcher, a sworn foe of public medicare for a long while, has not dared to repeal the legislation.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Hon. members to my right have talked about all the difficulties and trials of the national health scheme in Britain. Undoubtedly there have been difficulties-trials and difficulties of all kinds. I would like to ask how it is that several Conservative governments have been in power in Great Britain since the time medicare was instituted there and yet they did not repeal this "terrible" piece of legislation? The answer in both cases is the same. Neither in Saskatchewan nor in Britain would a Liberal or a Conservative government dare to repeal medicare because the people, having once tasted of medicare, would have no more of this housebroken variation that is being trotted out before elections by our Liberal friends and carefully tucked into mothballs afterwards, ready for the next election campaign.
How is medicare getting on in Saskatchewan? To answer that I quote briefly from a
Medicare
dispatch of the Co-operative Press Association issued in September, 1966. The facts in it can be easily checked. It reads:
Opponents of medicare, who prophesied that the costs of a comprehensive plan, like the one set up by the former C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan, would steadily mount, are being confounded by the facts. The costs of the medicare plan in Saskatchewan are now actually going down.
The Liberal government of the province, upon taking office, raised the premiums without waiting to find out from experience if it was necessary, but they have found no reason for any further increase and have announced that the premium rate for 1967 will be the same as for 1966.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, other things will go up, the things that are run by private business, but medicare premiums in Saskatchewan will be same in 1967 as they are in 1966.
When the C.C.F. government first set up the plan the rates for combined hospital and medical insurance were $72 for families and $36 for single people. After the plan was well launched the C.C.F. reduced the premiums to $52 for families and $26 for single people. When the Liberals took office in 1964 they almost immediately raised the rates again to their original level. Now they are making money on the plan and may have to face a public outcry for a return to the lower level set by the C.C.F.
These are the facts when one gets done with all the windowdressing, electioneering and all the other things that go along with a lack of will to institute medicare.
We hear much about the terrific fight which the Canadian Medical Association put up against the institution of medicare in Saskatchewan. Members of that association did, but even for them the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The strongest indication that the plan was being successful in every way came at the time of a meeting of the general council of the Canadian Medical Association in Edmonton this summer. At that time Dr. E. W. Barootes of Regina, who had been one of the most vigorous leaders of the opposition to medicare, told his colleagues that some of his profession's fears about medicare had proved unfounded.
Dr. Barootes made a courageous admission when he said:
Some of the qualms we have had have been disproved and some of us should revise our thinking.
The idea that total medical care results in constantly mounting costs has been shattered.
Then he went on to say that the fact is that the total cost of Saskatchewan medicare dropped last year by $500,000 from $23 million to $22J million.
He said in an interview later he could not explain why medicare costs have not shot up as he and other doctors had predicted. He said it may be

October 14. 1966
Medicare
because Saskatchewan residents have been saturated with medical service-that they now have been treated for all the ailments that, before medicare, went untreated.
That is one of the things I would like to
stress today. It is said that medicare will cost more and more and that doctors are opposed to it. Well, Mr. Speaker, do you know one of the things doctors in Saskatchewan fought the hardest for was to get the right to practice outside the plan? Having secured that right, during the first year of operation in Saskatchewan only 6 per cent of doctors' patients sent in bills separate from the medicare plan. Only 6 per cent of the doctors exercised the option to go outside the plan. Even the doctors are coming around to the idea that medicare is something which is good and valuable for the people of Saskatchewan.
Last evening my colleague from Hamilton South spoke about the costs of administration. In the Saskatchewan plan the cost of administration has been about $6 out of every $100, just 6 per cent, but the Hall commission report shows that private insurance plans in Canada use 28 per cent of every dollar for purposes other than direct aid and benefit to patients. To any government that was in earnest about medicare these facts would speak loudly enough for it to implement the scheme. The pilot plan has shown that it works. Nothing is lacking today except the will to proceed with the scheme.
The scheme could have been proceeded with if the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) had had the strenght to stand up against his colleagues in the cabinet and against powerful lobbies across the country. It could still be proceeded with if those in the Liberal party, occupying both back and front benches, could only see the handwriting on the wall before it is too late. I say, and say strongly, that the people of this country want medicare and they don't want it in heaven; they want it now and they are going to get it.
The next place where the government is going to get a very rude jolt is in the Ontario elections when they roll around next spring, because I prophesy now that government members will discover that the people in the province of Ontario are not satisfied with the makeshift medicare plan there which does not incorporate the foundations of universality and complete public administration of the program.

I cannot conclude without giving another quotation from the Hall report, a report which has been much bandied about, with bits taken out of it here and there that do not reflect the whole spirit of that report. This is from page 18 of Volume II where Mr. Justice Hall says;
The right to education is one now universally recognized in Canada. It is an entrenched right which no one would dare to challenge. It is now beyond question that all our young people must be better educated and more competently trained if Canada is to survive in this highly competitive age of specialization and automation. It is equally true that health services are as much an investment as education. Health services and education must now be regarded as twin endeavours, advancing mankind. Neither will attain its full potential for good if one is allowed to lag behind the other. Progress in one must be paralleled by progress in the other. The fruits of this progress must be available to all-not just to those whose incomes are high enough to pay the permiums demanded to provide coverage against expenditures for physicians services alone, but to everyone, and for the whole range of health services, including hospital care, dentistry, drugs, home nursing, and optical services.
I say that that also includes optometrists, chiropractors and other health service people who are not yet being let in under the wire of the physicians' profession. This is what Mr. Justice Hall has recommended, and I firmly believe that the people of Canada are determined to have medicare and will not wait for it forever. After what has happened, their feeling now is that they have been duped once more.
[DOT] (2:30 pjn.)
If the government is not going to give it to them, then they will elect a government that will. In my province we have a premier who manages to do quite well about staying in office. Before elections he opposes new policies violently and says they are impractical. Then he turns around when he sees the strength of the opposition and spends his time implementing the impossible policies of his opponents in order that they will not replace him at the next election. I commend this recipe for longevity to hon. gentlemen and the hon. lady opposite. Unless they implement medicare and get it into operation very shortly their chances for survival not only as the government but as a party across this country are very bleak indeed.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it would be rather academic at this time to discuss the fact that the medicare program has been delayed. I am prepared to accept the government's word that there are
October 14, 1966

adequate reasons for delaying it, but I am rather disturbed by the fact that promises in respect of medicare have had a very serious effect on the thinking of some our people, particularly at election times. I have in mind particularly the experience of my own province where a provincial election was held this summer during which time promises in re-pect of medicare were blatantly flouted. It is my conviction that this did have quite an influence on the voters and that partially as a result of their belief that medicare would be put into effect they elected a Liberal government in Prince Edward Island.
It is also rather interesting to note that after the results of that election had been declared the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) told the people of Prince Edward Island that medicare was coming into effect. He had just made a trip to Newfoundland and he decided to visit Summerside to congratulate the new Liberal premier. During the course of the conversation with Mr. Campbell I understand he said: "We cannot stay too long; we are in a hurry to get back as we are putting through medicare tonight." That was on July 13, but apparently "tonight" is not going to arrive until July 1, 1968.
It is also rather surprising that the government and the minister have not consulted to a greater extent with the Canadian Medical Association before the introduction of this bill for second reading. I understand the minister promised the executive of the Canadian Medical Association that before this bill was presented for second reading in this house he would confer with the executive officers of that association. I understand this association asked for this conference just days before the bill was actually introduced, and it was set for October 17.
Let me make it abundantly clear that I believe in the principles of medicare and it is most unfair of any member of this house, including the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), to suggest that merely because we stand up on this side to propose what we feel are improvements to the bill we are against medicare. Because we on this side suggest how we think the bill could be improved does not necessarily mean we are opposed to the principles.
I am in favour of the principles of medicare because I think it is in the public interest that medical service insurance be made available to Canadians. However, I cannot go along with the inflexibility of the
Medicare
requirements for participation as outlined in the bill before us.
A statement made by a past president of the London, Ontario, chamber of commerce impressed me and I should like to repeat it at this time. He said:
A little flexibility in the federal government's approach to a nation-wide medical care scheme would enable the provinces to develop plans best suited to the needs of their own people.
That seems to sum up the situation very well. There must be a more rational approach which will allow provinces to decide the form of the plan they wish to introduce. That is particularly important in those provinces which feel at the present time that they cannot afford to institute a plan to cover all their residents. The minister recognized this problem when he spoke in the house on July 12, 1966, as reported at page 7546. At that time he said:
At the same time not all of the provinces have the same fiscal capability of providing such programs or of meeting the costs of programs designed for all residents. Thus, although Canada is one country a Canadian resident of one province may be at a distinct disadvantage when compared with a Canadian resident of another province.
That suggests the exact situation in which my province finds itself at the present time so far as medicare is concerned. As closely as I can estimate, the cost of a medicare program in Prince Edward Island on the basis of the requirements set out in this bill would be $1J2-million. This money would have to come from the people of our province whose per capita income is the lowest of any province in Canada.
1 have before me a report of the Economic Council of Canada which I think will give hon. members an idea of the problems we must meet in the Atlantic provinces. This study revealed that the average earned income per capita in the Altantic region was 34 per cent below the national average, 47 per cent below British Columbia and a staggering 52 per cent below Ontario.
Translated into dollars and cents, these percentages mean that while employees in the Atlantic provinces receive an annual wage of $3,033 the national average is $3,810. In Prince Edward Island the situation is even more acute because our average weekly wage is $63.06 as compared with the Canadian average of $93.51. Can our province therefore afford to go further in debt in order to provide a comprehensive medical scheme? Right now we have a total debt, direct and indirect, of something of the order of $60 million or about $555 per capita.

October 14. 1966
Medicare
Premier Campbell has already said that Prince Edward Island cannot afford a medicare scheme unless it gets a better share of tax money. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) suggested in this house yesterday that he expected the co-operation of all provinces. Prince Edward Island is one province which has already served notice on the government that it cannot co-operate unless it gets a better share of federal money. It appeared at the preliminary conference held here in Ottawa just a few days ago that Prince Edward Island stands to gain only about $200,000 or $2 per capita. Is it any wonder that Premier Campbell told his confreres here in Ottawa that this increase amounted to merely a skunk bounty? That is what the premier thinks of the generosity of the federal government so far as the province of Prince Edward Island is concerned-a skunk bounty. The premier reiterated his stand that in Prince Edward Island we cannot afford medicare on the basis suggested by this bill unless we get a larger share of federal moneys.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
At the same conference just a few days ago, while we were promised only $2 more per capita the province of Newfoundland was promised $45 more per capita, and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick $25 more per capita. So the per capita amount is only $2 more for Prince Edward Island, a province in which the personal income is away below the national average and where there are virtually no industrial corporations from which large tax revenues can be derived.
I suggest that this is one of the reasons why the government should introduce more flexibility in this medicare bill. The fiscal reason is not the only one, although it is fairly important. There are reasons other than financial why we in our province cannot go into such a program on a 100 per cent basis at the present time at least. We have at the present time, and we are proud of this fact, a higher per capita number of medical students in colleges than all the other provinces of Canada. At this time 30 of our young people are in medical schools, but unfortunately on the average only one or two of these will return to Prince Edward Island to practice.
The reasons for this are probably academic. First of all, in a small province there is naturally a lack of opportunity for continuing medical education. Second, practising in rural areas, with long hours of work, is not too

attractive to young men entering the medical profession today. Unfortunately, too, in many cases the remuneration is not as adequate as it is in other provinces. So we lack in our province today sufficient doctors, I suggest, to implement this plan on a 100 per cent basis.
There is a serious shortage of doctors in our province, just as there is in the whole of Canada. At the present time there are only 67 practising doctors in Prince Edward Island. At least 10 of these are doing specialist work. This leaves about 57 doctors in general practice to service 108,000 people, or one doctor for approximately every 1,900 people. In the constituency I represent the situation is even worse. We have a population of approximately 18,000 and we have only seven practising doctors, or one for every 2,600 people. I most earnestly suggest that with this serious shortage of doctors we cannot provide adequate, competent medical services to all our people.
I suggest quite seriously to the minister that perhaps it is not necessary at the present time, although we favour medicare, to institute it with such a broad coverage, particu-lary in respect of those provinces which cannot afford it and are not equipped for it. I am convinced that there is a large body of people who need free medical services, who need to be relieved of the stress and strain of what may happen to them should they suddenly become ill. I notice that the report of the special committee of the Senate on aging, published in 1966, has this to say with reference to the income status of older people, who are among those we are chiefly interested in now:
Without question the most serious problem encountered by the Senate committee in the course of its investigation was the degree and extent of poverty which exists among older people. Witness after witness at the hearings spoke of incomes insufficient to ensure proper food, housing and medical care; and every form of analysis made for the committee, on the basis of the 1961 census and the 1962 survey of income statistics, supported the proposition that older people are a low-income group, and that many of them eke out an existence at or near the subsistence level.
It is obvious, therefore, that people in this category need medicare protection and of course should be provided with it. I have examined the situation in my own province as carefully as I can. It would appear that about 30 per cent of our population are totally self-supporting, that is, 30 per cent of our 108,000 people can, when required, pay for their own medical services without any undue hardship to themselves. About 20 per cent of our population can be quite correctly
October 14, 1966

classified as indigent. These people very definitely need help. The remaining 50 per cent are in the class that is in between; they are neither self-supporting nor can they be classified as indigent. However, I feel that they too should be given the security of protection against sudden illness so that if they do take sick they will be assured that they will receive adequate medical attention at no cost to themselves.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, approximately 70 per cent of the people of our province do need medicare right now because only 30 per cent are totally self-supporting. This is the situation in a province which cannot afford to expend the $1.5 million or $2 million which will be required to provide medical services to all our people. I suggest that the 30 per cent who are self-supporting would be perfectly satisfied to go along with any plan which will provide medicare to those who cannot afford it themselves. So if the federal government would give us the $1.5 million or $2 million which would ordinarily be appropriated for medicare purposes in our province, we would insure those people who need insurance.
As a matter of fact, we now have a plan in operation in our province which is working out very successfully. People in receipt of old age assistance, people in receipt of widows' allowances and those in receipt of welfare assistance of this nature are provided by our government with medicare. What the government does is enrol them in the Blue Cross and Blue Shield, so that if they are sick they benefit from these plans.
I suggest that this scheme is perhaps a much more reasonable approach than insisting that out of our own revenues we provide $1.5 million or $2 million to help give medicare to some people who actually do not need it at the present time because their incomes are such that they can take care of their medical expenses as they arise. Therefore I submit that at the present time a compulsory medicare plan is neither necessary nor in fact desirable in our province by reason of its fiscal position and the fact that we have not the facilities with which to provide medical services for all our people.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I suggest that we institute a combination of government and private plans whereby government funds will be made available to the province to provide for those in need and other plans will still be available through insurance companies and so on to those who
Medicare
are financially able to pay their own way. At the present time 47 per cent of our people are enrolled in plans of their own either privately or through employer-employee groups. Such a plan as this would permit our province, which is of course concerned with the ultimate cost of a plan such as the present one, to make its own choice, and I think it is very important that the provinces should be permitted to do so.
The minister said yesterday in connection with subclause (d) of our amendment which states that the plan should immediately provide for those persons who are unable for financial reasons to provide medical services for themselves, and I quote him from page 8625 of Hansard:
I might say that this house has already taken action this session through the Canada Assistance Plan to provide for this very item.
That is not exactly correct, Mr. Speaker. The Canada Assistance Plan does not provide for all of those who for financial reasons are unable to provide for themselves. The plan that we have inaugurated in Prince Edward Island does so because it covers those who are in receipt of widows' allowances, disability pensions or old age assistance. It does not provide yet for those who are in receipt of old age security, but we in our province are only too anxious to see funds made available for this category of people. However, a goodly number of people in our province are already covered-those in receipt of Old Age Assistance, etc-and I think they amount to approximately 10 per cent of our population. I therefore suggest to the minister very earnestly that the plan I have outlined, or something very similar to it, would for the time being give adequate protection to those who actually need it. Perhaps as time evolves and, as we hope, we become richer, our government will be able to provide complete coverage.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, on second reading of Bill No. C-227, an act 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, I would like to make a short and modest contribution.
If I sat here as a Liberal member, Mr. Speaker, needless to say that I would rise immediately to support that bill with the vigorous partisanship which allegiance to a

October 14, 1966
Medicare
party implies. And I would be very proud to go over the list of all the social measures introduced and put on the statute books by the Liberal government. I would look at the Conservative opposition with a degree of provocative satisfaction and I would say: "What have you done?" Because it is impossible to escape from that partisan point of view when one belongs to a party.
Of course, if I were a Conservative member, I would remember that I belong to the official opposition and that it is my duty, as a member of the house, to filibuster. I would like to think that I would find reasons to annoy the government and help my party politically.
If I were a member of the New Democratic Party, I would step on the accelerator to promote socialization, and even socialism under all circumstances. And God knows that such a piece of legislation is a favourable one.
If I were a member of Social Credit, I would miss no opportunity to advocate monetary reform. This is another field where, when speaking of the needs of the people one can easily ring the bell of monetary reform.
If I were, like my colleague the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), a professor of constitutional law, who knows all the shades and the subtleties of these legal matters, convinced as he is that provincial-federal responsibilities have to be protected by conscientious watchdogs who have this ability to study the subtleties of legislation, I would say also, in each of these circumstances, that it is part of my duty to ring the alarm bell and prevent infringement of this constitution governing the relations between the federal government and the provinces.
But, Mr. Speaker, I am just a layman who, moreover, benefits by this favourable condition and does not have to deal with those things. Anyhow, these things have been perfectly well done. I would be redundant in trying to start over again. I am content with gathering what has been said by all the parties, because very constructive things have been said, and we must recognize that this debate has brought light on the subject.
Therefore, very calmly and very objectively, I will be content with drawing from everything that has been said by all parties and thus make this contribution to the bill before us.
First of all, what strikes me, Mr. Speaker, is that I noticed a consensus in favour of the medical care plan. That is reassuring in itself. I think everybody, or nearly everybody, said

they were in favour of the principle. That is something in itself. Objections were raised for constitutional reasons, for more specific reasons concerning some aspects of the bill, but I think it can be said for once that everybody agrees on the principle of the bill.
The Progressive Conservative amendment impressed me, Mr. Speaker. At first sight I was inclined to support it and vote for it. I see, for instance, that they ask that consideration of the bill be postponed so that the co-operation of the governments of the provinces of Canada may be secured in the first place. This is a serious argument, Mr. Speaker. It cannot be dismissed without due consideration. The other point does not recognize the principle of voluntary choice by the individual. This is another worthy point. I believe that the report of Mr. Justice Hall mentioned that very eloquently when it says that this should be a basic condition.
The third point is to the effect that the plan will not be satisfactory unless it makes adequate prior provision for sufficient medical research, as well as the training of adequate numbers of doctors and other medical personnel.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
To be sure, there is a serious deficiency in this field; the argument is therefore serious. The amendment also says:
(d) immediately provides tor those persons who are unable, for financial reasons, to provide medical services for themselves.
I believe that here also, everyone will agree that the matter is serious.
However, Mr. Speaker, having listened to all the arguments and weighed the evidence, I feel I cannot support the amendment because I fear it will delay the passing of the biU.
I would submit, however, that the government should at least consider the principle of the amendment, consider it seriously as a statement of constructive suggestions which should eventually be incorporated in the bill before us, if they are not already fully incorporated.
But Mr. Speaker, I must say that I share the opinion of the majority and I approve the principle of the bill; I even approve it as it now stands, while recognizing that certain aspects could be improved and will eventually be improved, I hope, following future consultations with the provincial authorities.
To my mind, the most serious objection was raised by my colleague, the member for
October 14, 1966

Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), who raised a constitutional objection. For the hundredth time, perhaps, I have gone over the British North America Act to determine exactly what are the respective prerogatives of the federal and provincial governments and, after reading the act, it remains obvious that health matters are a provincial government responsibility. I see nothing, with regard to federal government prerogatives, which would enable it to take over health matters. It is clearly stated in paragraph 7 of the summary drawn up by Dr. Maurice Ollivier, and I quote:
The establishment, maintenance, and management of hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospitals.
These are exclusive powers of provincial legislatures.
Obviously, the conditions 100 years ago were different from those in 1966, but the statement is to the effect that health matters are a provincial responsibility.
Moreover, there have been famous instances which showed us that this was a provincial responsibility. For instance, you will remember that in 1930, the Bennett administration had tried to introduce unemployment insurance and that the bill was declared ultra vires, since it was maintained that the federal government did not have the power to collect funds for programs dealing with provincial responsibilities, even if it returned these funds to the provinces.
Mr. Justice Hall and the members of the royal commission were certainly concerned with this constitutional point, since they tell us on page 11 of their report, paragraph 4:
Canada's evolving constitutional arrangements take into account the primary jurisdiction of provincial governments with respect to health matters including staging, scope and administration of health services, as well as the necessity for federal financial assistance to enable each of the provinces to implement a comprehensive, universal health services program.
And further on, on page 14, the commissioners urge the federal government to call together within 6 months all provincial authorities in order to discuss health matters, since it is recognized in the report that provincial governments may not have all the required financial powers to establish such plans.
Nevertheless, the commissioners add something that I find very sensible. I quote:
The responsibility for leadership must be accepted by the federal government and plans made so as to ensure that every phase of the development 23033-549
Medicare
of the programme is consistent with its over-all objective. The unity of the programme and its application to all Canadians must be safeguarded.
I find therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the constitutionality of the law has concerned everyone who has dealt with the matter. And I find again the same concern in the very title of the bill which reads.
-pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
And further on, in paragraph 1 (a) of section 4:
The plan is administered and operated on a nonprofit basis by a public authority appointed or designated by the government of the province-
Therefore, the federal legislation expresses some concern about the important matter of safeguarding the constitutionality of the act. In paragraph 2 of section 4, one can read:
Any such designation-
This is a reference to the responsibility of the provincial authority concerning the implementation of the legislation.
-it is a condition of any such designation that all individual accounts so rendered to which the designation extend are subjected to assessment and approval by the provincial authority and that the amounts to be paid in respect thereof shall be determined by the provincial authority.
Mr. Speaker, I am not a theoretician nor a purist in constitutional matters. I am one of those Canadians raised in a social class where authorities are required to act according to the needs of the people and if I am assured that all those interested in that legislation are basically concerned in protecting provincial rights from the constitutional point of view, I will be satisfied, because I am one of those who believe that the problem of tax sharing between the federal government and the provincial and municipal authorities cannot be solved in a jiffy. It is a matter which should be solved gradually. Surveys have been made and reports submitted in that connection. The opportunity will present itself to hold meetings and I hope that eventually, at the three levels of government, satisfactory arrangements will finally be entered into, the responsibilities of each government will be defined as precisely as possible and sources of income which each government needs to assume its responsibilities will be distributed fairly.
But in the meanwhile, and this is the point I wish to make, can the Canadian people be denied the benefits of medicare. I do not believe so. I should then be given the assurance that those principles which I hold as intangible will always be taken into account

October 14, 1966
Medicare
because I believe that from then on, universally acceptable formulas must be sought to meet the health needs of all Canadians. In fact, what is the point of asking the government to try and work towards developing this country's economy if, basically, public health is not adequate?
Therefore, to summarize what I have just said, I have noted plenty of objections, say about ten, that I would like to put forward briefly to express my point of view.
For instance, it was suggested that the bill was to be used for electoral propaganda.
This does not surprise me, it does not scandalize me, for were the plan not carried out by the Liberals, it would be carried out by the Conservatives, by the N.D.P., or by the Creditistes. Then, I think it is impossible to expect that politicians who are concerned about the next election will never engage in electioneering. Therefore, this does not impress me in the circumstances.
Then someone claimed that it was not going quickly enough, that 1968 is a quite remote date. No, Mr. Speaker. I am of the opinion that the theory of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) was quite justifiable, for if the financial situation of the country is such as they say it is-and I believe it is so; besides we have evidence of this in all the newspapers, and this situation prevails not only in Canada but throughout the world-it might be wise to postpone this legislation. Therefore, his argument is a valid one. It is sound also because it was precisely suggested that all the provinces were not in agreement. There are still five or six of them which do not agree with the plan as it is; they may agree with the principle, but not with the plan in its present form.
Therefore, it may well be that the onfe- or two year delay for the implementation of the plan will provide an opportunity for all competent authorities to get together and reach an acceptable solution. It was suggested in other places that this is socialism. Well, I am for private enterprise, but inspired by the principles of the great masters of the religion I practice, that is the religion of the Pope and of the bishops, I am also ready to accept a mitigated form of socialism in the field of human needs. For instance, I would probably not accept socialism in trade or industry, or at least, not in all spheres of trade and industry, but as far as basic needs such as health and education are concerned, socialism does not worry me much, especially if we always remember that, in the field of health

and education, we will have to leave most responsibilities in the hands of provincial authorities.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
It is said that the plan was not intended to be compulsory. Evidently, that depends on the meaning of the word "compulsory". In my opinion, it would be unthinkable to force people to receive medical treatment at one place instead of another. But when national health is at stake, surely we can set some requirements so as to be sure that the careless ones, those who do not care for their health, would not contaminate the others. Therefore, we should be forced to contribute to the plan to some degree, but this obligation will have to be flexible, so that it does not become slavery.
Mention has been made of the shortage of doctors. The matter is serious, and it is a fact. There is a shortage of doctors but, to my mind, that is no reason to delay the passing of the act, for I know efforts are being made to train more doctors in Canada. I see, precisely in the passing of that act, a stimulant toward greater efforts; who knows, it might soon spur the government into granting the universities more assistance toward training better qualified and specialized doctors. I fail to see in the argument a reason to delay the bill. I therefore feel that the Conservative amendment becomes a dilatory amendment; on the other hand, if the argument is serious, it still is no reason, in my opinion, not to pass that legislation.
It has also been said that it would be very costly. Can we afford it? Will the people not overdo it? Of course, it will cost a lot. But I agree with the Hall commission when it says: if we can afford to spend between $600 or $700 million a year on tobacco, if we can afford to spend $700 million on liquor and beer, we can certainly afford to spend $400 million, or rather $800 million the contribution of the provinces included, to safeguard national health. Nor is it a serious argument. It is merely a matter of knowing when, under the present circumstances, the act can become effective. I say, therefore, that the hon. Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) has found an acceptable compromise. With regard to this argument, I should like to say something which struck me when it was mentioned earlier: that the provinces known as rich should forget a little their so-called constitutional demands and remember that we are all interdependent to a certain extent and that if, for example, we
October 14, 1966

felt it was our duty to help underdeveloped countries because all the nations in the world are interdependent, we should apply the same principle at home and the rich provinces should be ready to contribute to the cost of this legislation to help the poorer provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I come back, therefore, to what I was saying earlier. What struck me most was the constitutional argument, and I quoted texts earlier to show that this argument is serious and valid, that it must on no account be dismissed, and that those who, by profession or experience, qualify as defenders of the constitution, must recall it at every opportunity. We must not forget that the most important objective which must be reached as soon as possible is the revision of the constitution and its explanation in some cases to prevent a recurrence of the present clashes and duplication. I think this is something which should be repeated.
Mr. Speaker, even if this is repetitious, I do not believe this bill should be blocked, and I was glad to see that my colleague from Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) did not seem to oppose the bill in his remarks either, but merely wished to sound the alarm, which he did with a competence which, for my part, I do not possess.
But this leads me to say that my own province is worried, and with good reason, about the fiscal adjustments. In my opinion, there are two kinds of fiscal adjustments, Mr. Speaker. There is one which might mean that, as soon as the bill is implemented, the federal government would give the province the amount of money it would normally be entitled to and expect it to make do with it. It would very likely be the ideal solution.
And I remember that we asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen)-when the resolution concerning that bill was passed and as a matter of fact I asked him myself-if he would be willing to consider granting a fiscal adjustment to the province of Quebec.
I remember that the minister did not give us a satisfactory answer then. He did not seem ready to accept the principle of a fiscal adjustment with regard to the provinces which, for constitutional or other reasons, cannot accept the bill as it is. I was struck by an article which appeared, shortly afterwards, in a newspaper, Le Devoir of July 15, 1966, written by Miss Frangoise Cote and entitled:
Medicare-Even if its plan goes into effect after July 1967, Quebec will be able to obtain the fiscal equivalent.
23033-549^
Medicare
It is reported that the minister, in reply to a question, was not too explicit, far from it; but, on the other hand, a spokesman-I am now quoting, Mr. Speaker-a spokesman from the office of the Canadian Minister of Health was more explicit on the procedure concerning the fiscal equivalent which will be available to the provinces after the 1972 revision.
It goes on to say that it will not be necessary for a province to have had its medicare plan in operation for five years, that is since July 1, 1967, to obtain the fiscal equivalent. The plan will have to have been in operation for a sufficient number of years to permit a full appraisal of its cost. It would seem that the minister has changed his mind somewhat since then and that he is concerned himself with this question of fiscal compensation.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, because of my education, my background, atavism and what I have been doing all my life, I believe that, important as those fiscal matters may be, they should not delay the passage of such a momentous bill which will mean so much once it becomes law. Rather, we must try to find an acceptable formula, for the time being, attempt to improve it from year to year so that eventually every province will have its own revenues and will attend to its own affairs. I think conditions are nevertheless improving since the province of Quebec has had its commission on taxation since the federal government has reconsidered its position. I think that, eventually, the convening of other federal-provincial conferences will be requested and that such an ideal goal will probably be sought in the end, but I still believe that the benefits of this legislation must not be delayed. It is to be hoped that the government will not consider this as an accomplished fact and say: "Well, you accepted that kind of compromise, why not accept another one?"
I, like everybody else, have heard very categorical statements from certain politicians of my own province, such as hon. Mr. Bertrand or hon. Mr. Couturier. There are even some in other provinces who say that they will not accept any condition laid down by the federal government. Again, one cannot blame them, as they are the custodians of those prerogatives which are basic, in my opinion. But, in spite of that, I think it would be possible to find an acceptable formula which, even if it were not perfect upon the inception of the act, could, since there is still a year and a half or two years ahead of us to improve upon, be improved, as far as

October 14, 1966
Medicare
those arrangements are concerned, at each new session so that the time would come when every province would have its own sources of revenue and attend to its own affairs.
But, in the meantime, the federal government cannot be blamed, I believe, for showing leadership, for initiating commendable action, and, in all objectivity, it should be said that had the federal government not taken the lead in the field of insurance for the unemployed, the aged, the disabled and with respect to all the other social schemes, it is most likely that three quarters of the provinces would still be without them.
It might be argued that that would be because their means are insufficient. Perhaps. Anyhow, let us try, little by little, to provide them with the necessary means so that, eventually, each of them may tend to its own responsibilities. But, once again, I say that I am not one of those who would criticize the government for showing initiative and leadership at a time when the needs of all Canadians are so interdependent that we cannot hope to develop our trade and our industry without first considering the safeguard of that human capital, health and life.
It is with such feelings, Mr. Speaker, that I am prepared to accept the bill, taking into account the restrictions I have mentioned during my contribution to the debate and insisting that the government must not, later on, come and tell us: You have made a concession, we are asking you to agree to another.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
As it is, I believe that the bill meets the requests of certain Canadian leaders, as, for instance, Mr. Jodoin, of a well-known labour union, who stated at the beginning of this session that medicare should be given top priority. I think that Mr. Jodoin was perfectly right in saying so and that in implementing medicare, the government is promoting the commonwealth. Thank you.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday and today we heard so many speeches on Bill No. C-227 now before the house that I am wondering whether members are able to explain it objectively to their constituents who elected them to the house of commons.
It seems that once again, everything has been mixed up, which is nothing new. Socialistic methods have been discussed, but a

distinction should have been made, because Bill No. C-227 is a social measure rather than the implementation of a certain socialism. This makes a basic difference, since under a social measure, the individual co-operates with the government, whereas under a socialistic method, the government acts alone.
At this point, I refer especially to certain arguments put forward by members opposite to the effect that special emphasis has been put, for instance, on the free choice of the doctor. I have seen nowhere in the bill, which basically reflects the four criteria that are actually principles to be applied by all the provinces if they expect any federal contribution, that the free choice of the doctor is to be denied. Nowhere have I seen it in the bill. In my opinion, such an assertion is completely untrue or, at least, a misrepresentation. It is not a health insurance plan as it exists in England, which is a strictly socialistic measure under which a doctor is not free to select his patients, while the latter are required under the law to consult such and such a doctor. Following lawsuits which created quite a stir, the medical profession had to withdraw because it had no right to appeal.
It also seems that something else has been brought forward, that is practically the same arguments, set forth in 1958 when the province of Quebec opted out of a hospital insurance scheme. And by the same token, the province of Quebec was the last province to take part in the hospital insurance plan as advocated by the federal government.
It was argued that we were not ready to participate in the hospital insurance, because apparently we were short of beds in the province of Quebec. We adopt this reasoning to the health insurance by saying that we are short of doctors. We shall always be short of doctors. All countries have lacked doctors and Canada is short of them today and will still be short of them tomorrow. Is that a sufficient reason not to implement the health insurance as advocated?
I shall go further. Today, institutions, universities, medical schools are filled up right from the day of registration and, therefore, a very great number of candidates are not accepted. If people say that we do not have enough universities, I admit it. But I object to the proliferation of universities, because in medicine especially, we must expand our existing universities rather than opening new ones which are simply the ramifications of great universities.
October 14, 1966

Today, standards in medical school are too high. Automatically, we exclude some students who could pursue good medical studies, and become good general practitioners all across Canada. But they are excluded right from the start. Furthermore, doctors who practised in Canada are leaving for the United States because they cannot practise anymore here as they are offered better positions there.
And in the third place, the physician had formerly no social security. He had to work till his death under difficult conditions. He had to provide his own old age pension. He had to provide for his own future. At the present time, the proposed legislation already makes such provision. Those who wish to dedicate themselves to the medical profession will be sure, at least as long as they will be in a position to do so, to work and take advantage of other social legislation.
It is claimed that there is a shortage of medical equipment. There is a shortage of staff, because under the present circumstances, university students are inclined to specialize before practising medicine and this is absurd. But, do not see why there should be some objection to that bill simply because there is a shortage of medical personnel.
Today, there are 24,000 doctors in Canada but only 9,360 are general practitioners, which is nonsensical compared to 10,320 specialists. This is contrary to common sense. General practitioners represent 39 per cent and specialists 43 per cent. Twenty years ago it was the opposite. In the province of Quebec things are even worse.
Then, do you suppose when we say that in medicine we do not have the necessary human materia], it can be a valid argument for maintaining that this bill should not be passed? Everybody seems agreeable to recognizing the great principles. However, we would like to evade the issue by stating arguments which are strictly deceptive.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that we have here a principle which is valid for all the provinces, which is based on common sense, on the basic right of the government to take care of human health. Health as well as education is a basic right, and the government must do everything in its power so that all citizens may be in good health.
Yesterday, I heard a member say that we were putting the citizens in a political strait jacket. I would want us to work together,
Medicare
with a little common sense and not too much discussion, which is a loss of time, and pass a social piece of legislation which will be, I hope, the first step toward "pharmacare" and "preventicare".
People who want to cure a nation must see to it that preventive measures are made available to every one. Let the drugs from the drugstores be available to everybody, just like medicare.
I should not like to prolong this debate any longer. I already told the house that had the federal government not participated as they did, in a direct way, even though this may be a constitutional matter which is perhaps not entirely under federal jurisdiction, I am wondering where we would stand today, in 1966, if that had been left in the care of the provinces, as set out in the constitution.
I believe the federal government have set a precedent, that they have been generous; they even went beyond their rights, so to speak, so as to remind the provinces that they had their own rights. It may be all very well to say that in 1966, but in 1919, when those medicare plans came up for the first time, the provinces were not financially ready or were not considering the setting up of plans and legislation of that kind. I see that the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) is looking at me. He knows very well that those who practise medicine have 150 ways of filling in insurance forms, about 350 plans in order to submit their claims, as most insurance companies have restrictive clauses. Payment is often made only after the third, the fourth or the fifth visit. The hospital is not paid; visits at home are paid; visits at the office are paid also, but this or that is not paid. But why not have an overall plan, that would be uniform throughout Canada? Moreover, most of the insurance companies do not fulfil their contracts nowadays with the people who relied upon them, with their clients. You are promised wonders when you take out insurance; but most people do not even know what the contract means when sickness strikes.
Some insurance companies have deluded and continue to delude the public. Will that still be tolerated in Canada in 1966? If insurance companies are in earnest, let them form one large company, provincial in scope, on a non-profit basis, so that everyone can have the same protection; and let provincial governments ask this one company to act as their agent as Bill No. C-227 stipulates. This bill is just, fair, and above all intelligent, accessible

October 14, 1966
Medicare
to all; it will show that the federal government is not interested merely in constitutional controversy but also in giving back to the citizens what belongs to them, namely their health.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: I rise with some hesitancy to take part in this debate. Frankly I am puzzled that we as legislators should be asked to make a decision, now, on a plan which will not come into effect until 1968?
A few weeks ago we heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) enlarging on his reasons for contemplating the introduction of what some people term a baby budget. He said that from time to time governments are obliged to establish priorities in respect to legislation. I think we would all agree with that. I ask this question: How, and in what order of priorities, are we to deal today with a bill which is not to take effect until 1968, almost two years hence?
All across this country people are wondering why parliament is not getting down to business. As we travel across Canada we hear people saying that this house is doing very little and that it is high time it got down to work.
Today we are being asked to debate a program of far reaching significance which is not to become effective until July 1, 1968. Surely the people of Canada are not likely to think we are really doing something of benefit for them? I can think of many pieces of legislation with which this house should proceed in preference to the bill now before us. When we consider the social needs of the public we should surely consider the position of senior citizens who are being asked to live in a climate of increasing prices on pensions which do not meet their needs. Why does the government not set up a list of priorities and come forward with legislation allowing senior citizens to receive the increase they have been tentatively promised? The carrot has been held out. It will be available, they are told, some time this fall. Why is the government not proceeding with this measure instead of with legislation the results of which will not be available for two years?
There are other fields in which legislative action is necessary. We should consider the situation of veterans, disabled people, and others in similar categories whose incomes do not allow them to enjoy a reasonable standard of living in these days of rapidly rising costs. Canadians throughout this country find
[Mr. Isabelle.)
themselves in strait-jackets because of the inflationary policies followed by the present government. The fact that so little urgency attaches to the present debate indicates poor management on the part of the government, and I am sure the public generally, considering these circumstances, will come to the conclusion that once again this house is doing very little by way of social legislation to bring immediate relief to those most in need.
I am tempted to think that no other legislation is ready for submission, and that the present measure is before us merely because it has been ready for a long time. Let us consider some of the other things which should be done in this field before legislation is undertaken. Surely when such a bill as this is drafted the government in office should strive to bring about some degree of co-operation and understanding with the provinces?
The measure before us cannot be implemented in the absence of direct co-operation from the provinces. But what do we find? We find that provinces are at cross purposes. The province of Alberta from which I come does not like this bill at all. Ontario is lukewarm toward it. Mr. Roblin said a few weeks ago that he was pleased the government had decided to hold up the legislation until 1968, at which time Canada could take a better look at it and the provinces could decide whether or not they would go along with it. By failing to reach some degree of agreement with the provinces on this legislation before bringing it into the hcuse, the government has been derelict in its duties.
The medicare scheme now operating in Alberta will not fall within the confines of this legislation. Hon. members might ask why this should be so. The onus is on the government to seek provincial co-operation and agreement whenever legislation which concerns the jurisdiction of the provinces is concerned, as is certainly the case in this instance. Anyone coming from Alberta can readily see that this government has not gone to any real trouble to achieve any significant degree of co-operation with that province, at least.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Today we are living in a rapidly changing society, a society in which one thing may not be a crying need at the moment but tomorrow will become one, a society which, during my short time in this House of Commons, has greatly changed and speeded up. I am sure hon. members will agree that we are living in a fast moving society. If we accept this, then
October 14, 1966

why should we be asked to pass legislation that will not come into effect for two years, at which time we may find ourselves in a different set of circumstances than that which we are facing now?
In 1958 the hospitalization scheme was introduced. It was a good plan. Eight years have elapsed since it was introduced, yet we Still see a crying need for hospitals. People in every major city in the country have to be waitlisted, placed on a priority list or a needs list before they can obtain hospital beds. I think we should smooth out the wrinkles in that plan before foisting this medicare scheme on the public, a scheme which has not got the full approval of the provinces and which we are being asked to pass two years before it will come into effect.
One of the criteria laid down by the government is that the scheme must be operated by a government agency, a public authority appointed or designated by the government. It must also be operated on a non-profit basis. Will the M.S.I. scheme operated in the province of Alberta qualify? We are told that it will not, yet it is supposed to be a nonprofit scheme. It may not be a public authority which is operating it; but any federal government that is moving into a provincial field should do so with some degree of hesitancy, with some degree of formal consultation with the provinces, and should give the provinces latitude in which to vary their plans so that they may fall within the ambit of the general medicare program to be supported by the federal authority.
Under this bill the federal government is to pay 50 per cent of the cost, up to $14 per capita. That is a large amount of money. No province can say to itself, "We will do without this money," because most provinces are in search of areas which will provide them with more revenue. This is one area in which they would gladly pick up that extra revenue, but they must match it dollar for dollar, and must comply with a set of rigid regulations laid down by the federal government on matters which really fall within provincial jurisdiction.
I am not in any way trying to boost the Alberta Social Credit medicare plan. I think it has many shortcomings, but it is the plan Alberta has chosen. It is the plan the people of Alberta have accepted. One has only to look at the composition of the provincial legislature to see that the people of Alberta have accepted it. Why then is the federal
Medicare
government making an all-out effort to force its wishes upon that province in a field which lies within provincial jurisdiction?
Another provision of the bill is that 90 per cent of the insurable residents of a province must be covered by medicare before the federal government will give assistance. By 1968 those provinces which wish to introduce their own plans could be expected to have 90 per cent of their insurable residents covered. But supposing they do not, supposing they had only 75 per cent covered, why should the federal government insist on such a high percentage before allowing a provincial scheme to qualify for assistance?
Coverage of 75 per cent of the insurable residents would be high enough to ensure the implementation and success of a provincial scheme, and would be high enough to ensure that the other 25 per cent would wish to join after the scheme came into effect. But the federal government, because of its dictatorial attitude, its authoritative manner, is laying down four rigid criteria, and one is that 90 per cent of the insurable residents be covered. Why should not a voluntary plan be acceptable to the government? It should move less authoritatively when entering a provincial field, and should move only after a greater degree of co-operation has been reached with the provinces.
When one considers that this scheme will not come into effect until July, 1968, he must ask why the government does not now introduce medicare for senior citizens receiving pensions? This is something which we in Alberta have had for a number of years. If a person is receiving a pension he can acquire a card which entitles him to free medical services. Why does not the federal government do something about that? If it feels that the complete plan will have too great an inflationary impact, why not bring in a small portion of it?
In effect the federal government is now saying to a pensioner, "You have lived and served your work years in Canada. You are entitled to a pension, but if you take sick you are out of luck, you are on your own. We will prevent you starving to death but don't dare get sick because then you are on your own."
All across Canada senior citizens who are in poor health are having to buy expensive drugs and stay on waiting lists when they want to get into hospital. If this government really wants to move ahead with good social legislation, and bring about some degree of social justice in Canada, this is one of the

October 14, 1966
Medicare
things that should receive top priority in its priority ratings of legislation to be presented to the house.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Let me say, in answer to the charge that the opposition has filibustered on occasion to hold up the work of this House of Commons and parliament, that the opposition has no way of bringing legislation forward, but can only debate after passing judgment on whatever legislation is before the house. We are now being asked to pass judgment on legislation which will not come into effect for two years. This is legislation which the government has indicated is needed. The only conclusion I can come to is that the government has decided it is wise to wait until July 1, 1968 before bringing this social program into effect, because it intends to call an election in the fall of 1968. The government must be doing this with the hope that it can once again buy the votes of Canadians by the introduction of social legislation. It is difficult for any member of parliament to stand up and oppose a medicare program. I am trying to rationalize the thinking of the government. If it was really felt that some action of this kind should be taken, the government should bring in immediately legislation which would provide free medical services for all our senior citizens now on pensions.
A program of free medical service for our senor citizens would not be of a magnitude sufficient to create additional inflationary pressures. Some provinces already have programs of this kind, Alberta being one, and I am sure other provinces could afford and would like to move into this field.
I can only conclude by the government's action at this time that it has decided to delay the implementation of this program until 1968, because it will not call an election in 1967 and intends to call one in the fall of 1968 in the hopes that it will be returned to office. Surely that is a mean trick to play on our senior citizens who are looking eagerly to Ottawa for assistance both in relation to pensions and medical care services. This government should reconsider its position and do something for those people who need assistance in meeting the expenses involved in medical and dental care. We here in Ottawa have a responsibility to help the people of Canada in this changing society of ours.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group intend to support and vote for this bill because we

have over the years felt that medical care should be provided the people of this country without regard for their ability to pay. We believe that such care can only be provided through a plan organized and operated by the government of Canada.
In this party we do not just talk about things. We are not like the Liberals who have been promising to implement this kind of legislation since 1919. The government headed by the present leader of the New Democratic Party when he was premier of the province of Saskatchewan implemented a medicare plan in that province which should be a guide line in Canada.
The bill before us embodies the principles enunciated and explained so clearly by the Royal Commission on Health Services headed by Mr. Justice Hall. Let me point out to those hon. members of the Conservative party who have spoken during the last two days, calling for the killing of this bill, that the Hall Commission was appointed by a former prime minister, the present Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
When Mr. Justice Hall brought down his report in 1964 the basic principles enunciated were greeted with enthusiasm by the Leader of the Official Opposition. I have in my hands an article which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail of June 22, 1964. For the benefit of the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), who introduced the killer amendment now before us, I should like to read from this article which is headed "Diefenbaker Endorses Health Plan Proposals". The articles states:
Opposition leader John Diefenbaker came out strongly in favour of the recommendations of the royal commission on health services Saturday and urged an immediate federal-provincial conference to discuss them.
For the benefit of the hon. member for Accadia (Mr. Homer), who just suggested there were many other important matters which ought to be discussed, let me quote another paragraph from that same article which appeared on June 22, 1964. It reads as follows:
Mr. Diefenbaker termed the commission's report the most momentous and outstanding one in Canada in the past 50 years.
In spite of that fact, a host of Conservatives spoke yesterday and today, and I supposed many will speak in days to come, arguing that we do not need this kind of plan because we do not have the facilities to operate it, and because voluntary plans can
October 14, 1966

do the job as well or better. They have argued that we do not have enough doctors, nurses, facilities and other things needed.
Yesterday we witnessed the amazing spectacle of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Ballard), quoting ostensibly from the Hall Commission report. He must have been looking through a microscope at the footnotes and back pages, because anyone listening to him would have got the impression that Mr. Justice Hall said in his report that we ought not to go ahead with a universal government-operated and sponsored medical care plan, because we do not have sufficient doctors or facilities.
I have before me a commission press release which summarizes the main recommendations of the Hall Commission report, and I should like to put on record for the benefit of some Conservative members just what Mr. Justice Hall said about this question. It is obvious to anybody who can read that every important proposal Mr. Justice Hall recommended has in fact been ignored and rejected by the Conservatives in their amendment.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This is what the commission headed by Mr. Justice Hall said. I am quoting from the official press release and hon. members will find these words on pages 7, 8 and 9.
The commissioners, after examining various alternatives for providing Canadians with health services, recommend that the health services program be made universally available. They recognize that many Canadians have availed themselves of the benefits of health prepayment plans but these are principally those who can afford protection or are employed where health insurance is provided or subsidized as a part of working conditions. They also recognize the initiative shown by Alberta and Ontario in developing legislation that provides for voluntary coverage of certain medical services, with subsidies for some citizens.
After prolonged study and investigation the Commissioners conclude that coverage of all, or virtually all, Canadians could not be achieved through the voluntary system and that only a universal program could achieve maximum coverage. They recommend against the adoption of the Alberta and Ontario plans in their present form because they are too restrictive and they fail to reach a great percentage of the population who need protection more than anyone else.
Later there is this passage:
In view of their recommendation that Canada develop an integrated comprehensive health services program, the commissioners reject all methods of subsidizing individuals that involves means testing. They do so on the grounds that the proportion of the population to be means tested would be too large and the administrative costs high, but also because it is not in harmony with human dignity. Instead they recommend that a health insurance [DOT]new*-ssn
Medicare
fund be established in each province, administered as recommended in the preceding paragraph, contributed to by the federal government from general revenue and by provincial governments from premiums, sales or other taxes, or general revenues as they may best determine.
I think it is obvious from the few quotations I have put on the record that Mr. Justice Hall and the commissioners recommended essentially the principles which are embodied in the bill we have before us. We are being told by members of the Conservative opposition that we cannot go ahead with this plan now because the provinces are not supporting the proposal. I suggest to those hon. members that they look at the record of what happened when this country implemented hospitalization. It was the Liberal government under Mr. St. Laurent which brought in the bill for government hospitalization. It was a Liberal government which said that that legislation would not go into effect until the majority of the people of Canada as represented by the provincial governments agreed to participate.
That bill gathered dust and did not reach the statute books. It was Mr. Diefenbaker and his Progressive Conservative government who, after they came into power, brought hospitalization into effect by saying to the provinces, "We are ready to go ahead. We are ready to pay the federal share of hospitalization to any province, even one province, if it is ready to go ahead." When Mr. Diefenbaker said that, it was not very long before we had hospitalization in every province of this country.
Is there a single member of parliament or a single person in Canada who thinks this country made a mistake when we implemented hospitalization? People who are close to me have had hospital bills of $6,000, $7,000 and $8,000 paid by their provincial hospitalization plan, which meant that they did not go into debt for a year, or two, or ten as would have happened earlier. These hospital bills were paid because we finally had a government plan.
I suggest to the government and the members of the Conservative opposition that if the government stand fast on this bill and say, "These are the principles which the bill will embody, the principles which Mr. Justice Hall enunciated so clearly and eloquently, and we, the federal government are prepared to help finance a plan which is universal", the provincial governments, whether they like it or not, will go ahead with the plan because they will not be able to stay out. I do not

October 14, 1966
Medicare
believe for a moment that Premier Roblin of my province, although he is for voluntary medicare, as he was for voluntary hospitalization, would dare to stay out, because I cannot think of anything on which we would rather fight an election than a program of medicare if Mr. Roblin stayed out of this plan.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Your leader was defeated in Saskatchewan on medicare.


David Orlikow: Well, there is that chance in Manitoba; and I suggest that if Premier Manning wants to fight this issue, the people of Alberta will show him what they think about medicare. We are told by the Conservative opposition that the plan which the government proposes is no good because it ought to be voluntary and is not. All the evidence is that voluntary plans just do not work. Mr. Justice Hall demonstrated this conclusively in his report, and every expert who has considered the question has come up with the same conclusion.
We are being told that we cannot go ahead with this plan because there are not enough doctors in Canada. It was not so long ago that the leaders of the organized medical profession thought they could block medicare. They were arguing that we did not need medicare because people received all the medical services they needed. How many doctors and spokesmen for the medical associations in Canada made speeches in every city in this country to the effect that any person who was sick in Canada could obtain medical service, because if he did not have the money the doctors would look after him without payment; they would do this in a spirit of charity.
Now the organized medical profession realizes that, like it or not, medicare is coming, the argument is; Well, it is coming, but we cannot have it now because there are not enough doctors. They have made a complete reversal; and of course the Conservative party has made the reserval which one would expect, because they always speak for the organized groups which have power in this country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about the unions?


David Orlikow: There are not enough doctors in our country, but this situation is not caused by the possible implementation of medicare. We heard the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Ballard) reading horrendous figures into the record yesterday about

the number of doctors leaving Great Britain. There are many doctors leaving Great Britain, and the British people have a problem with regard to medical services. But, if one makes an adjustment for the difference in population, he finds there are fewer doctors leaving Great Britain this year, even though they have medicare, than there are comparatively leaving Canada, for the United States, because for the last five years at least 500 or more doctors have left this country for the United States.
This has not occurred because we have medicare; doctors started to leave Canada long before medicare was even talked about. Doctors, being pretty practical people, know that even though this government are promising medicare for 1968, it may be much later when we get it. Therefore I say that the arguments advanced by members of parliament speaking for the Conservative opposition are not only wrong but are completely opposed to the principles enunciated by Mr. Justice Hall who headed the commission appointed by the Conservative government. Those principles were endorsed, when the report was published, by the leader of the Conservative party.
I should like to deal with just one more argument put forward by the Conservative opposition. We have been told that we do not need this kind of plan; that we do not need a compulsory universal plan and should have a voluntary one.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record part of an article which appeared on the editorial page of the Winnipeg Free Press, a Conservative newspaper.


Mr. Nowlan:: What did he say?


David Orlikow: I apologize, I meant the Winnipeg Tribune. Anyway, both newspapers are Conservative, although one still continues, I suppose out of a sense of history, to support the new conservative party, which is called the Liberal party. An article appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune on October 7, 1966 written by one of their leading newspapermen, Val Werier. It dealt with the voluntary medical plan which we have in the province of Manitoba and which was sponsored by that great Conservative premier, Premier Roblin, possibly the next leader of the Conservative party in the federal parliament. I want to read just a few paragraphs from this article
October 14, 196$

to show how this so-called voluntary medicare plan works:
It must come as a shock to many people, but a pensioner living solely on $75 does not automatically qualify for provincial medicare. This is the government scheme subsidized by doctors to help the needy elderly.
It would be taken for granted that a person living on $75 would be welcomed and encouraged to receive free medicare.
The fact is that old people today with nothing else but their federal pension of $75 a month are being rejected by the province for free medicare. If the test, which is unrealistically calculated, determines he is getting by, the pensioner must pay for his own medical coverage.
The provincial government uses its scale of social allowances as a yardstick for extra aid to those getting the federal pension of $75.
Under this scale, for a single person living alone, the following is allowed: $26 for food; $10 for household and personal needs; $5 for clothing; $5 for health costs. Rents vary with the need, with up to $35 allowed for a heated room; $25 for an unheated room, plus extra for utilities.
The person on $75 does not qualify for medicare if he cannot prove that his costs for rent, utilities and special needs bring it above $75.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the voluntary medicare which the Conservative opposition in this parliament and the Conservative premier of Manitoba not only are thinking about but have implemented, and I suggest it is completely unacceptable.
We believe that what this country needs is a universal, comprehensive medical insurance plan, and we believe that it should start now, as this government and its spokesmen repeated ad nauseam as their platform in every city in this country for the last two or three years.
If I had any doubts that I was right in my belief that this plan should be implemented on July 1, 1967 as was proposed initially by the Liberals, they would have been dispelled by the letter which I received today from the city clerk of the city of Winnipeg. Although that city council has more N.D.P. aldermen than most cities, the substantial majority is made up of Liberal and Conservative members of the council, as are most councils in this country. Nevertheless it passed a resolution on October 11, part of which is as follows:
Whereas the government of Canada, which had undertaken to inaugurate a universal, national medicare plan on July 1, 1967, has announced a delay of one year in implementing such a plan; And whereas the Manitoba government has failed to support a universal plan of medicare; Therefore be it resolved that this council urge the government of Canada and the Manitoba government to press forward with government medical insurance on a universal basis as outlined in the Hall report, beginning July 1, 1967.
Medicare
The council of the city of Winnipeg knows what the people of that city want, and the same is true of the people of Canada. They want medicare and they want it now.
Mr. Speaker, we support this plan and this legislation. We will vote for this bill as it is on the order paper today. We are completely opposed, first of all, to the killer amendment which emasculates the whole bill; we are also opposed to the whole concept of universal medicare as proposed by the official opposition, and we are opposed to the amendments which I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) will be bringing in with a great deal of regret, and under a great deal of pressure, to delay the implementation of this plan to July 1, 1968.
Having said that, I want to spend a little time commiserating with the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the extremely unpleasant position in which he finds himself. I want to say to him and to the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stan-bury), who had to express his public penance yesterday by supporting what a week or two ago he was opposing so bitterly at Peterborough, that we believe there is no reason for the delay in the implementation of this legislation.
For years we have urged governments to go ahead with such a plan. As I said earlier, the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan introduced such a plan, which is working so well that the present Liberal premier, who is dead set against socialism or what he considers to be socialism, has not dared to oppose the bill or to change it as one would have expected him to do.
I am curious, as I am sure are other people of Canada, as to why this government reneged on its promise made so often and so eloquently to go ahead with medicare on July 1, 1967. I will not place all the relevant quotes on the record, because I would need weeks, not days, to put on the record everything which every Liberal candidate said. I suppose the government could say with justification that they are really not responsible for some of the irresponsible and less knowledgeable things which some Liberal candidate in some backwoods constituency might have said; however, Mr. Speaker, that promise was made by the head of the Liberal party, by the Prime Minister. It was also made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, by parliamentary secretaries and by other ministers, and it is very clear, plain and precise. There were no if's, but's and maybe's.

October 14, 1968
Medicare
It is true, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said yesterday, that this promise was first made in August of 1919, and that even for a party which is as slow as the Liberal party has been about all its promises, 47 years is really too long. Finally after some 47 years the Liberal party woke up and started speaking about medicare, not in the vague and general way in which they had spoken of it for so long, but specifically. They set a specific date. What did they say? The Ottawa Citizen of September 21, 1965 carried the following news report:
Prime Minister Pearson today announced a pledge to have a full medicare scheme operating in Canada by July 1. 1967.
In a speech before Liberal candidates here today Mr. Pearson said his government needed a mandate from the people November 8 to realize this medicare objective.
The Prime Minister was giving the lead to Liberal candidates going into an election. This was his pitch, the thing to emphasize, this was the promise made by the Prime Minister to the people of Canada.
He did not get his majority but he was awfully close, and here we are in the New Democratic party with 21 seats. Mr. Speaker, the government has more than enough votes to put medicare through as of July 1, 1967 if they really believe in it.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Well, Mr. Speaker, here is that great left wing Liberal from Hamilton East (Mr. Munro), the parliamentary secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration. What does he say? I quote again from the Ottawa Citizen for June 17, 1965, which quotes the hon. member for Hamilton East in this way:
"Subject to agreement with the provinces," he said, "I think we could implement soon a program of universal medical services under which everyone would be covered, there would be no deterrent cost, and commercial carriers as such would be discontinued."
Where is that great, radical Liberal from Hamilton East? I know where he is going to be after the next election, he is going to be back in Hamilton practising law because the people of Hamilton will not forget the betrayal of the promise on medicare which he made to them.
Here is one of the contenders for the Liberal leadership, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). He is supposed to be a right winger. I am not inside the Liberal party, so I do not know who is right or who is left. I doubt if there is

anybody who is left, but he is said to be right. We have this from the Toronto Star of September 23, 1965:
Cheering Liberals were told by Defence Minister Paul Hellyer last night that under a Liberal government Canada would have national medicare by July 1. 1967.
Could anything be more definite, Mr. Speaker? Could anything be more specific? Are the people of Canada not entitled to think that when a political party makes a promise, if that party is supported by the people that promise will be kept? Obviously that is too much to expect from the Liberal party or from this government.
We on this side were chided last night by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) because we continue to say today what we have said over the years. The hon. member for York-Scarborough supported medicare beginning in 1967, before the Minister of Finance issued his ukase that this thing could not be, and he still supported it when he acted as chairman of the meeting at Peterborough which expressed dissatisfaction with the postponement. We are not disposed to curl up and die just because the Minister of Finance says medicare cannot be now, we do not have to worry what the Minister of Finance thinks. We do not have to worry that if we do not support him we may not get the funds necessary to fight the next election. We continue to say today, therefore, what we have said in the past, the same thing which the hon. member for York-Scarborough said and the same thing which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) said. We say now, as we have said for years, that the medicre plan is necessary and that it ought to start on July 1, 1967.
As I listened to the hon. member for York-Scarborough, Mr. Speaker, I could not help but be amused at the charge that we are filibustering. How could one filibuster a measure which will not come into effect until July 1, 1968? It could not matter less to the people of Canada who want medicare whether this parliament takes two days, two weeks or two months to pass this legislation because no matter when we pass it the bill will not come into effect until July, 1968, at the earliest.
It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, how courageous, how outspoken and how radical the members on the other side are, paricularly if they come from urban ridings where they know the New Democratic Party is breathing down their necks. It is amazing how radical
October 14, 1966

they can be at home, but how lamb-like they are when they get to Ottawa and come under the eagle eye of the Minister of Finance who is now the undisputed boss of the formerly great Liberal party. We are not alone in our thinking. I should like to refer to the Ottawa Citizen. I do not have to tell the members of this house who spend nine months of the year in Ottawa, how close the Liberal party is to the Ottawa Citizen. I am sure the editor of the Ottawa Citizen, when he wrote the editorial I am going to quote, wrote it with a heavy heart, as heavy a heart as the minister had when he introduced this legislation yesterday.
I want to say that never in my 20 years of public life have I heard a minister introduce an important bill, a measure as close to his heart as this one, as hesitantly, as apologetically or as quietly as did the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I do not blame him. It must have been a bitter pill he had to swallow. In any event, here is what the Ottawa Citizen had to say and I quote from the editorial headed, "Challenge on medicare":
Reform-minded Liberal MP's are quite right to challenge Finance Minister Sharp and the cabinet 3n their decision to postpone for a year the inauguration of national health insurance. This is a Liberal commitment, made in the 1965 election campaign. Anyone who carried the Liberal colours In that election must feel he is in danger of breaking an important promise if the program is delayed till July, 1968. Before that time, there may I'ery well be another general election.
There is what the editor of the Ottawa Citizen had to say. Let us look at another Liberal newspaper, the Toronto Star. Certainly, it is Liberal at election time, although it is very critical of the Liberal party between elections. Here is the editorial which appeared in the Toronto Star of Friday, September 9, 1966. The headline is, "Medicare ielay is outrageous deceit", and it goes on to say:
Once again the Canadian people have been ieceived and disappointed in their expectation of lealth insurance-by the party which began promsing it in 1919.
Federal medicare is to be postponed for a year 3n the excuse-and it is merely an excuse-that :his is necessary to fight inflation.
A one-year postponement would be bad enough :or the 4,000,000 Canadians who have inadequate nedical insurance coverage and the 6,000,000 who rave none at all.
But who, in view of the 47-year record of Liberal lonfulfilment of this promise, can have any con-idence that the delay will be only for one year?
Medicare
I want to remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare that his integrity and the integrity of his party is being questioned in that quotation, not by opponents, not by members of the New Democratic Party, but by the newspaper in Canada which has the largest circulation of any I know supporting the Liberal party. This is what they say. This newspaper came back to the argument yesterday in an even stronger editorial. I am going to put it on the record because the language is so strong that it might be considered by some people as unparliamentary if they saw it. I can only say that what I am repeating is not my view, although I subscribe to it, but the view of the Liberal Toronto Star as stated in its editorial for Tuesday, October 11, 1966. The editorial is headed, "The faltering course of true Liberalism". I am not going to read it all because I think my time would be up, but I am going to read this substantial section from it:
The reform elements within the party are disorganized and dispirited. The rightwingers, mainly from the prairies and the west coast, are clearly dominating the conference. And the party leadership seems as smug and complacent-though not as arrogant-as it was in the last days of the St. Laurent administration a decade ago. ..
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Maybe no one could really expect the delegates to embarrass the government by condemning its decision to postpone medicare from July 1, 1967 to July 1, 1968. But we hoped enough Liberals would be sufficiently concerned to register a strong and loud protest.
Fourteen did-out of a total of 2,000 delegates. The overwhelming majority uncritically accepted Finance Minister Mitchell Sharp's bland explanation that medicare had to be delayed on the ground of "fiscal responsibility".
It was a curious performance by Mr. Sharp. He spoke of the "great pain" he had endured in announcing the delay in medicare. He said the greatest task of the party was to maintain full employment by making the right economic decisions. And he said failure to make the right economic decisions-such as the postponement of medicare- would jeopardize the future of "the little man".
Thus vacillation is turned into a virtue. And a giant Liberal assembly sits by, with scarcely a murmur of protest, as a Liberal finance minister offers the dubious proposition that he is helping the "little people" of Canada by denying them the protection of medicare for another year.
What kind of curious Liberal logic is this? Is this going to impress the aged, the sick, and the poor who have waited patiently for decades for the Liberal party to honour its pledge on medicare? Are they exepected to postpone their ailments and their medical bills until 1968?
In the whole range of Liberal policy in recent years, no issue has constituted so firm a moral commitment as the pledge to launch medicare by July. 1967.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I do not stand in my place today to give members a lecture on what other people should do. Rather I stand to declare from my place why I support this amendment.
Our job in the official opposition is to tailor legislation which comes before this house. If in a man's conscience he supports certain legislation, he is not necessarily bowing to the will of the government or bowing to the will of his own party. It is still possible for a man in this country to make his own independent assessment of what should be done in a given situation. I claim this on behalf of the district I represent, because that is the kind of representation that not only my constituents expect and demand, but it is the kind of representation they get.
In the nine years I have been in this house, Mr. Speaker, I have never been bullied by my party. If I had I would not be in it. I have never even been unduly pressured by my party. If I had I would not be in it. One has only to observe the differences of opinion among the independent members of the Conservative party ot see that this is the kind of party we are; and I say that this is the kind of man I am. Let us stop the class war. There is no need for a class war in Canada. But there is need for co-operation in every branch of our society in Canada today. Those who yell the loudest about the degradation of parliament are self-condemning.
I am not cynical and I do not believe that the members of this house are a pack of sheep; far from it. It is very hard indeed to line up our party as being a pack of sheep in relation to any proposal put before the house. One has only to go over Hansard for the last few days to see that there are differences of opinion over this question of medicare. I am entitled to my own personal view just as I am entitled to support my party if it reaches a consensus. I also have the right to criticize this government or any other government -including that of my own party when in power-if it acts against my own personal conscience and the will of the people I represent.
My constituents at the provincial level have made it abundantly clear what they think of Alberta's idea of medicare. No one can accuse me of being a supporter of the Social Cred-iters, but if the Social Crediters happen to have landed upon an answer to a specific problem which affects the welfare of the people of my province at this time, I will try
October 14, 1966

to keep an open mind politically and decide here and now what should be done.
I think that the four paragraphs contained in this amendment are eminently sound on every count. I also maintain that many fair-minded members in all parties in this house will agree with the basic principle which applies to the rule of law under our constitution in Canada. We have chaos unless we have a constitution in a democratic society, and our democratic society makes no bones about the fact that we have given the provinces the sole right to decide matters of health and welfare. The section in the British North America Act makes this provision is only too well known and I am not going to remind members of it. There it is clearly laid down that health and welfare will be the sole responsibility of the provinces involved.
To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, all governments have over the years recognized this basic principle in our constitution. There is a clause in this bill which in its very wording purports to honour this principle. In clause 3 of the bill it says that the contribution is payable, pursuant to a medical care insurance plan of the province. When Bill C-227 becomes law, will it not completely negate the right of any province to have its own medical care plan? Right from the start, under our constitution the bill would be null and void if we follow the principle that the provinces have the right to legislate and administer everything connected with health and welfare. The fact that the federal government has taken on the responsibility for collecting taxes in no way gives it the right to dictate to the provinces their almost inalienable right under the constitution. To hide behind double talk is to set a dangerous precedent in this and in other pieces of legislation. What we cannot do openly, under the constitution, we should not be able to do with a financial stick; and that is what this measure purports to be.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I support the principle of medical care for all. I believe in social justice, but I do not believe in state manipulation of every corner of my life. I am not a socialist, but I do believe in social justice. I think the provinces are quite capable of giving social justice under medicare, provided they have the money to pay for the service. The fact is that because the dominion government collects taxes, it has no right to dictate to the provinces in those fields where they have an inalienable right under the constitution. In
Medicare
my personal opinion the whole bill violates that principle. But I realize perfectly well that if you bury this bill, as some hon. members suggest, we may well delay medical care for years. That is true of course.
I beg the government to look at the real thing we are trying to do, which is to provide medical care for those who need it most, and if possible to do that within the framework of our constitution. Otherwise, the government essentially is saying that the provinces are not capable of handling those household affairs which the Fathers of Confederation in their wisdom allowed them to settle for themselves.
This is where we part company with our friends on the left, because they are cynical enough to say that nobody has the right to run his own affairs. They say that that can only be done by an omniscient, all powerful government. If one carried socialism to its extreme, this entails a one party government, which means that the people have no voice.
We have four parts to our amendment, the first part of which says that no legislation will be satisfactory unless it-
- (a) secures co-operation of the governments of the provinces of Canada.
One wonders why we have not had any consensus from the provinces. We do not expect them to abandon their rights, do we? Unless I am wrong in my guess at least two of Canada's great provinces will not knuckle down. They saw long ago the financial stake, which is very poorly disguised in words. Is this a question of getting out? I do not know. I am not going to impute bad faith to the government, saying that they are trying to welch.
I say that if we are going to get the kind of medical care we want to see, and that the people of Alberta want to see-and even though the system in Alberta is not yet perfect, it is not widely hated-the house must accept the amendment of this party. In Alberta they do not use the language I heard the last speaker use. One would think that around here there was a declaration of war. I will not repeat, in my speech, that kind of language. We have heard about betrayal, emasculation, and things like that. This is not necessary. Instead, let us offer reasoned arguments.
I say that this amendment is correct, because underlying all principles of law in Canada is the principle that Canada must be ruled according to its constitution. I shall

October 14, 1966
Medicare
paraphrase what was said by a former prime minister of Canada, who held office for a long time. I get the quotation from no less an authority than the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). Paraphrasing, the quotation shows that the Right Hon. Mackenzie King did not believe any party or any minority had the right to force the acceptance of its views or its policies upon the community. He felt that persuasion and willing consent were an essential preliminary to political change.
It is my pious hope that the bones of Mackenzie King do not roll in their grave when his ghost sees his successors wielding this financial stick. Is this bill Liberalism? Is this consultation? Is this willing consent? Is this moral persuasion, rather than force? The spiritual leader of the Liberal party said that persuasion was an essential preliminary to political change.
What greater change could there be than forcing the provinces of Canada to knuckle down under a financial stick, and imposing what to me looks like the rankest of socialistic measures. The only real criticism from those on my left is as to the speed with which we ought to impose this bill upon the people. Those hon. members are quite satisfied that it is socialist, but for them it is not socialist enough, nor is it going fast enough. You can hear the old criticism of the Liberals which says that they are socialists, but going too slowly.
I do not believe that. I think it may be that the government, finding itself in financial difficulties and on the crest of inflation, at the eleventh hour is trying to put on the brakes. I think that this wagon has brakes, and it is the duty of every member in this house to put them on to prevent disaster. I am not saying that we must abandon medicare as a proposition, but I say that we should watch inflation carefully.
I do not want hon. members on my left to put words in my mouth, and to say that I am attempting to kill the bill because I do not want to pay the shot, or because I refuse to give social justice. That is far from the truth. I do not want to kill this bill. I want to tailor this bill to make it work. If necessary, I want a reasonable delay to get willing consent from the provinces.
The second part of the amendment states that legislation would be satisfactory only if, among other things, it-
- (b) recognizes the principle of voluntary choice by the individual.

Again, I do not want to accept the process where I am fed through the mouth, or force fed, as a goose is, with all foods. I may not want some of the foods. If I have enough initiative to be able to pay for my own, should I not have the right to choose what I want?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
This is not to say I do not believe in looking after people who are incapable of looking after themselves. Paragraph (d) of our amendment makes it clear that we believe no citizen of Canada should go without medical care. That is what I believe. I, for one, am willing to pay for that medical care. I always hope I shall be in a position to look after my own medical needs and that I shall always be in a position to help those less fortunate than myself. That is conservatism at its best, whether with a capital "c" or a small "c". The fact that I am willing to look after my father and my mother is not an invention of the socialist party. It is as old as Moses, and even older than that; we find it wherever decent animals congregate, let alone human beings.
I give hon. members credit for not criticizing that part of our amendment which speaks of the importance of making prior provision for sufficient medical research, and the training of adequate numbers of doctors and other medical personnel. There is nothing gained by building a race track if you do not have any horses.
With the best wishes in the world, you cannot have your children's tonsils cut out unless you have a doctor who is skilled, and who is ready and able to fiddle around your children's throats with a sharp knife. Let us make sure that in the plan to bring about this Utopia we all desire we do not forget the preparations which are necessary, and if we have to do a little more planning, or spend a little more money to get the desired results, we should be ready to do so.
Do not think I am against taking out the tonsils of your children or my children or anyone else's children. That does not wash. I hope the people of Canada are getting sick of this, and the sycophant treatment of every question that comes up. If I do not agree with you I am something vicious, something terrible, something obscure. Do you think I want any of your children to go without medical care? I want them all to have it. All I ask is that we should put our minds to it and find out the best, the most efficient and the most economic way of doing it.
October 14, 1966



There is another element which I think is very sacred indeed: Where I have the ability and the money to make a choice, I should be allowed some leeway in this matter. In some of the progressive provinces of Canada great steps have already been taken without the necessity of leadership from a socialist government or premier. Great steps have been taken in this direction. It is nonsense to say that because we do not subscribe to any one pattern we are antisocial or members of a ruling class.
It is not 1840 any longer. The ruling class today is probably the labour class, and I venture to say the labour people themselves do not want to be regimented to the extent certain hon. gentlemen pretend they do. I have been a labouring man most of my life, working with my hands. Perhaps I speak for a minority of one, but I do not want to be regimented. I want the opportunity to earn a good living in a rich, young, progressive land. That is all I want, and our main thought would be to see that every individual in Canada has a right to stand on his own feet. Only in a society where a lot of men are standing on their own feet shall we have provinces able to stand on their own feet, provinces which do not need to go to the federal government on their knees-and there are some provinces in exactly that position.
In my own province of Alberta there are many opportunities, for we are desperately short of labour. If there are any young men in Canada who feel they are not getting a proper deal, let them come out to Alberta and we will give them a shovel, or let them climb around an oil rig and earn wages of a kind which would make their fathers sick with envy. Then they will be able to stand up on their own feet and say what they think of anything, and not have to buckle under to the opinions of others, whether they are Conservatives, Liberals, Socialists, or anything else. There are still a few people in this nation who think that way.
We are not antisocial. We are men. You have to start there. If you do not have the desire to be independent, then for my money you are not a man, no matter with what political party you ally yourself. If you are young and healthy it is your duty to get out and help raise the gross national product so that we can afford social justice, no matter how high the price may be, in order to give every individual in this country a reasonable standard of living, a reasonable standard of
Medicare
education and a reasonable standard of medical care.
That is where I stand. That is where every member of my party stands, those who are known to me-and I have spoken to most of them and I have also listened. That is where we stand. That is why this amendment is not only reasonable but essential, particularly to those who call themselves Liberals, if they have not abandoned the stand taken by their great leader who said we must have unanimity of consent and a consensus of opinion.
Is there any hon. member in this chamber who does not believe, in the depths of his own conscience, that his father or his mother trying to get along on $75. a month should not be forced to pay for his or her own medical care. We say: Oh, let us not give the rich anything. If a man has $1,000 in the bank, cut him down to the bare bones and make sure he lives on crackers and tea. Or if he hides his money and puts it in a barrel in the basement and claims he is broke, he can get assistance. But if a man is honest and has a little shack or $1,000 in a saving bond, he is to be denied free medical care.
I think I know why the Liberal party has postponed the coming into force of this measure. I think there are men in that party who believe we have gone too far in our current spending for social justice and that we cannot afford more immediately. I was happy to hear the minister say that in the near future we shall have legislation before the house to look after those who are in need. This problem is to be fixed up. If this is the case, it will certainly plug one of the holes in the plan. But I think this is needed at this time. These people require medical care now. I do not want to be accused of filibustering or of trying to kill the bill when I am merely emphasizing the needs of those people who today cannot afford the cost of the pills and the medical care needed to keep them going.
I abhor the idea of a means test, in the first place. I do not know why an affluent society like ours-and it is affluent; look at the cars on the highway; look at the houses they are building, those who can afford them-should need such a test.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
We are an affluent society and it seems to me that if it is necessary to tighten our belts a little bit to provide this kind of social justice, then we had better do it now, and never mind waiting until next year or three

October 14, 1966
Railway Act
years from now. If I could sit down right now and pass this thing I would do so.


David Orlikow: Sit down, sit down.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I should think my hon. friends to my left would like to hear at least this part of my address. It is urgent; it is necessary, and paragraph (d) of our amendment is an effort to say, regardless of party, regardless of class, regardless of personal income or lack of it, that we need action and need it now. This is one of the things we cannot delay any longer. Our people, even in the great province of Alberta, are not all getting it, and I think they should get it as a matter of right.
I do not think this is socialistic. This is a debt we owe. It is a debt to the people who pioneered this country, who have earned a right to have their broken, tired old bodies looked after for the remaining few years of their lives. How can I do otherwise than support this amendment in all four of its phases?
Before I sit down I want to reiterate that I believe in medical care. But that does not necessarily mean medicare, which is beginning to have a bad smell, so far as I am concerned, because it means some kind of state-imposed strait-jacket on the individual, on the doctor, on the province, and perhaps on the whole economy. I am willing to accept the principle of looking after our old people. I am even willing to accept what looks like socialism, or anything else you want to call it, so long as we can give our people social justice, something which we can well afford and which we have no excuse for delaying one more day.


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



RAILWAY ACT


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-18, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week a private member's bill was introduced which was very timely. I refer to Bill No. C-234, to amend the Criminal Code by providing for the elimination of premium stamps in food establishments, and which was introduced by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein). If there were any inclination to proceed with

that bill I would be quite happy to yield my place because of the importance of the subject. However, as the hon. member is not here I would like to give him notice that we in this party will be willing to yield our place any other Friday that private members bills come up for discussion, because his is one of great concern at the present time, due to high prices.
Bill No. C-18 is the same as Bill No. C-55 which I introduced in 1964 and which was debated on September 18, 1964. To explain the purposes of the bill I shall simply quote a few sentences from what I said on that previous occasion, as recorded at page 8221 of Hansard for 1964:
This is an act to amend the Railway Act by requiring transportation companies operating under the Railway Act to file a copy of their reports with the House of Commons. My idea is that such reports should be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines where they could be examined.
I went on to say that officials of the companies in question could be summoned before the committee where they could be examined by its members, as is done in the case of the Canadian National Railways. The purpose is still the same, Mr. Speaker, to have the companies in question, companies operating under the Railway Act, file returns with the House of Commons. These companies already file returns with the Board of Transport Commissioners and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. My idea would be to have similar returns filed here and referred for examination to what we now call the transportation committee.
Government members who participated in the debate in 1964 spent a great deal of their time defending private enterprise and denouncing socialism. According to some of their remarks it appeared as though I were introducing a bill to nationalize the Canadian Pacific Railway. That may be a good idea in itself, but it is not the purpose of the bill and I feel their remarks were largely irrelevant. The purpose is simply to get officials of the railway companies-and I admit I have the C.P.R. particularly in mind-before a committee for questioning.
As we all know, the Canadian National Company officials appear each year, including the president, the vice presidents and all members of senior management. They are available to be questioned by members of the house. The C.N. is an organization that affects just about every community in Canada, and it is a good democratic practice that the
October 14, 1986

elected representatives of the people are given this chance to have a face-to-face meeting once a year with the officials of this very important corporation.
If one examines the minutes of the transportation committee proceedings he can see the type of questions which are put to the management of the C.N. We have questions about passenger services, about freight services, about the C.N. pension plan and other related employee matters, questions about Canadian National Steamship services which are so important to some of the Atlantic provinces, about telecommunications, about the operations of hotels and about trucking operations, but it seems strange that the second largest transportation company in the country does not have to appear before the elected representatives of all of Canada to subject itself to the same kind of questioning that the largest transportation company must do.
I would say the C.P.R. has just as great an effect upon the lives of the people of Canada as the C.N., perhaps even greater because the operations of that company are spread far and wide throughout the country. It not only operates its railway services and air line services but is now venturing into many other fields. It has a subsidiary company called Canadian Pacific Investments which has been busy buying shares in a great many other companies.
It has an interest in the following companies, and I cite these to show the diversity of its interests in Canada: Canadian Delhi Oils, Canadian Del Rio, Great Lakes Paper, Huron and Erie, Husky Oil, Investors Group, Montreal Trust, Provincial Bank, Rio Algom, Texas Gulf Sulphur, and of course Consolidated Mining and Smelting. It can thus be seen that the company has a very great effect upon the lives of the people in practically every community in the country.
It has been argued that the reason the C.N. appears before the transportation committee is because the C.N. is a crown corporation, and we are told that the C.P.R. is not, that it is private enterprise. However, we know that the Canadian Pacific is no ordinary private enterprise. I do not know of any other private enterprise in Canada which has received, as of December 31, 1963, $106 million in cash from the federal government, from provincial governments and from municipalities, and 44 million acres of land, including the mineral rights. Ordinary private enterprises do not receive that type of public help,
Railway Act
but this one continues to receive federal money each year for a number of reasons. And so I feel there should be accountability by it right here before the House of Commons, or before a committee of the house.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
There are a number of things that could be said to illustrate that the Canadian Pacific is no ordinary enterprise. I am not going to use my own words on this occasion, but will refer to a speech made in this house on February 22, 1965 by the then member for Halifax, Mr. Gerald Regan, who is now the leader of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia. I quote from page 11614 of Hansard of that date, where he said:
I would preface my remarks by saying that a national railway, even If it had not received vast governmental assistance in the years gone by-as it has-cannot, in a country whose population is strung out along a narrow belt 4,000 miles long, ever be considered as just an ordinary private company engaged in competitive free enterprise. A national railway in this country must be part of the very holding together of our nation and its operations must, to some extent at least, be directed in consequence of this fact.
We have a situation where the top officials and the president of the railway have been going around the country saying quite openly and blatantly that which for years they said secretly, namely that they were plotting to get rid of their passenger services and carry only freight.
At that point the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) interjected these words:
Regardless of the profits of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company.
Mr. Regan then continued as follows:
My constituency of Halifax is only slightly involved. We are concerned with the continued service of a dayliner on the Dominion Atlantic Railway, which is a subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific Railways, from the Annapolis Valley into Halifax. However my main concern is a national concern. My attention has been directed to the subject because of the fact that the C.P.R. has served notice on the postal department that on June 23 they are going to abandon their mail contracts on trains 7 and 8 from Montreal to Vancouver and on trains 3 and 4 from Toronto to Sudbury, which is just one more step in drying up the revenue so that they can later on justify the abandonment of the service. This is the sort of program which this railway has been following.
I said earlier that this railway had received substantial governmental assistance over the years, and of course they have. In addition they received a strip of land across the country, some of which has been sold off. They found minerals on some other parts, received subsidies and have built up the vast prosperity of the empire known as the Canadian Pacific Railways on the strength of these governmental gifts. And now, like the son who receives an inheritance from his father on the

October 14. 1966
Railway Act
basis that he is to maintain his mother, and then throws her out into the cold winter night-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Regan:: -the C.P.R. would keep only that part of its service for which it is responsible to the Canadian public that it feels like keeping. It wants to cast off its passenger service and other services which are of such great importance to keeping this country of ours tied together.
I merely quote that to illustrate the point that we are not dealing with an ordinary private enterprise when we ask this particular company to come and give an accounting to parliament each year.
Earlier this year the Canadian Pacific Railways did appear on an order of the house before a committee of the house when the subject of the proposed cancellation of the Dominion passenger service was under discussion. I suggest that if the house can make an order for their appearance in respect of that subject it should do so in respect of a great many other subjects. There are other matters which members of this house would like to question C.P.R. management about, including the same sort of thing we question C.N.R. management about-rail abandonment, branch lines operations in general, and passenger services. There are one or two other things we would like to question them about in particular.
During the past year a great many members of this house have received complaints from constituents who are employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company concerning the pension plan of that company and how the investment of the pension funds has been made, as well as how changes were made in the pension plan consequent upon the Canada Pension Plan, without consultation with the employees. We feel we should have a chance to ask management questions about these subjects and cross-examine them.
I have mentioned Canadian Pacific Railway Company investment in a subsidiary company which has been established to handle the non-railway operations of the C.P.R. This has an important bearing on the total financial picture of that company, and I think members of parliament should have the opportunity to question the company about this very considerable subsidiary which it has established and which now has an interest in many enterprises in Canada.
This bill is a very simple one and again I want to emphasize for the benefit of government members who may speak-because I would not want them to make the same mistake they made last time-that this is not

a bill to nationalize. That is a separate subject. This is simply a bill requiring railway companies, and particularly the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which has such an important effect on the lives of all the people in many communities in Canada, to appear before the committee of the House of Commons and answer questions.
This might be a good thing for the management of the C.P.R. They are not very well liked at the present time. As a result of the appearance of Mr. Donald Gordon year after year before this committee, a certain grudging admiration has been built up for him on the part of members of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Including the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).


Robert William Prittie: Yes, including the hon. member for Lapointe. As I said earlier, it might be good democratic practice on the part of management of that company to appear and subject themselves to questioning by representatives of the people, whose lives are affected by the operations of this company from one end of Canada to the other.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) rose to his feet to address us on Bill C-18 I became curious as to its exact purpose. The bill appears to be innocent enough, designed to enable the house to look at some statistical returns. Having heard it said so often by the Chair, and rightly so, that one must not impute motives to a member, I waited, without imputing anything, to learn what imputations were contained in this bill. I found that the bill was designed to enable the hon. member to make a speech about the C.P.R., and it was a very interesting speech indeed. I want, however, to stick a little closer in my remarks to the bill itself than did the sponsor.
There are some things contained in this bill which are of considerable interest. I want to touch upon some of the remarks made by my hon. friend. In the explanatory note the hon. member has stated the following:
The purpose of this bill is to permit parliament to inquire into, as is done with the publicly-owned Canadian National Railways, the financial structure and the operations of those private railway, telegraph, telephone and express companies and carriers by water which come under the Board of Transport Commissioners as public utilities and quasi-monopolies.
October 14, 1966

The explanatory note then quotes from section 384 of the Railway Act. The first subsection of that section reads as follows:
Every railway, telegraph, telephone and express company and every carrier by water shall annually prepare returns, in accordance with the forms and classifications for the time being required by the board, of its assets, liabilities, capitalization, revenues, working expenditures and traffic.
About a year ago, perhaps in the spring when we thought this bill was to come before us, I had a conversation with statisticians of the Board of Transport Commissioners and of the Bureau of Statistics regarding the nature of these returns and the preparation of them, and I asked what would happen if such returns were brought forward in the house. It might be of some interest to hon. members if I took a moment or two to reveal some of the conversations I had.
The basis of the statistical information on the operations of railways, telegraph and telephone companies, and so on, used by the Board of Transport Commissioners in their work, which forms, the basic statistics used by the Bureau of Statistics for its purposes and for the purposes of anyone who wants to make use of them, comes through these statistical returns. That is why it was written into the act that the statistical returns must be made.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The procedure for filing these returns is approximately as follows. The forms are sent to the railways and other companies which are asked to make returns. Over the years they have built up into quite complex forms, some of them running into dozens of questions, and in the case of the railways into well over 100. The railways fill out the forms as required as soon as the year-end statistics have been compiled, and forward them to the Board of Transport Commissioners, who then proceed with the business of editing. You can realize, Mr. Speaker, that this is a complex matter, with returns of this kind. I might say that nine returns come from telegraph companies, about five from express companies, eighteen railways are involved and some six waterway companies on the Mackenzie river. All these companies send in the returns requested by the Board of Transport Commissioners. Not all the information sent in is exactly in the form which the Board of Transport Commissioners requires. Notes have to be sent back and forth, and so several months pass before the statistics can be obtained in a uniform style for analysis by the Board of Transport Commissioners. At the same time these
Railway Act
companies send to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics a complete set of the original returns and of the edited returns so that the bureau has the same information as is available to the Board of Transport Commissioners.
Some of the information which these companies are asked to submit is of a type that they certainly would not want to publish immediately with the year-end statement, because they are in competition with other carriers and enterprises. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it certainly would not be fair to approach these companies and say, "We have singled you out from among the corporate enterprises of Canada to force you to make returns under an act of parliament, although we do not ask other companies to make such returns, and these statistics will be revealed to the public and your competitors."
We would not do that. No parliament of Canada would do such a thing. Therefore these reports initially are given in confidence and are used by the Board of Transport Commissioners for compiling total statistics to indicate the progress of transportation, telegraph, communication and so on throughout the country. This is a very legitimate procedure and one that is valuable to us in maintaining all kinds of statistics and records in regard to the economic growth of the nation. So these are valuable returns for this particular purpose.
I think it would be very wrong of us to introduce into the Railway Act a section which suddenly altered the entire purport of the section of the act that is designed only for statistics gathering, and make it the means whereby we would bring a railway company or any company, as far as that goes, before a committee of the house for annual examination, when the company is not now brought before a committee of the house for examination under any other act.
It is proposed under this bill to bring the C.P.R. before the house for examination. It may be wise to do this in the long run, because it is indeed an important company, as my hon. friend suggests. But other ways ought to be found to do this and the matter should be debated in some other form than that in which we are today debating this bill.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to be a party to passing a measure of this kind which alters this section of the act in order to achieve an entirely different purpose than was originally intended.
My friend the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond and I have just returned from a

October 14, 1966
Railway Act
most interesting visit to Iran and the city of Teheran, the capital of that country, where we were attending the annual meeting of the Interparliamentary Union. There we took part, with the Canadian delegation, in the deliberations with delegates from 63 other countries over the period of a week or so. One of the things that was most noticeable to Canadians visiting that country and city was that they do not have available the statistical tools that are available to Canadians, with which we are very familiar in our daily working in this house and with which Canadians in commerce everywhere are so familiar.
In that country you cannot get a mortality rate, you cannot get a birth rate, you cannot get any statistics in regard to the G.N.P. There really is no logical body of statistics in that land. This is characteristic of developing countries, namely that they do not have statistics to use as tools for economic analysis or for day to day use in a modern country such as Canada.
One of the ways in which we have acquired these tools is by keeping faith with the companies from whom we collect statistics. These companies have learned that when they give a body of statistics to a government agency such as the Board of Transport Commissioners for analysis, which statistics if they were given to the public at large would be used by their competitors, we will keep faith with them and the statistics will be used in a proper fashion and not against them by their competitors in industry. The companies have no reservations about filing these returns with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and other government agencies which collect statistics in Canada because they know we will keep faith with them in this regard.
In the gathering of statistical information we have obtained an enormously valuable tool for research into the economic growth of the country whenever we require to have such information available. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say it would be an improper thing for us to take this section of the Railway Act and expand it into achieving some other purpose than the very simple purpose for which it was intended, namely the collecting of statistics for the benefit of the country at large.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate; it is a little refreshing to do so after the long discussion we have had on medicare.

First of all I want to say without any reservation whatsoever that I back the bill presented by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie). I think it is a good bill.
I support the hon. member's bill on one main basis. I say this in answer to the argument presented by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman). I say that the railways are in an entirely different situation than other companies. There are only two major railway companies in Canada, although there are several small companies. It has been said that this nation is being held together by its transportation system. When we consider the way this nation has been going lately, especially under this government, and see that we are beginning to divide into regions, one region against another, and the country is falling apart, I am sure that many of us are very thankful that at least we have a transportation system that holds us together.
The railways in Canada, particularly the C.P.R. have a virtual monopoly on railroading in certain sections of the country. I support this bill because other railway companies would have to appear before a standing committee of the House of Commons, the same as the C.N.R. does, to answer questions on their operations. I believe this should happen, because in the province of Alberta, from which I come, the railway has a virtual monopoly in the southern part of the province. Calgary is a C.P.R. city. When you travel south of Calgary you find that all the lines that serve the agricultural enterprises are owned by the railroads. There must be a reason for this. It is true that we have had our largest grain sales ever under both Liberal and Conservative governments. In this regard they are both to be congratulated. But these sales would have been even bigger in 1964, 1965 and 1966 if we had had a better transportation system.
The minister tells us that the government are doing everything possible to move the maximum amount of grain from the country elevators to the ports from where it can be exported.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Now we know that the government dillydallied with reference to strikes which caused us to be unable to deliver the grain according to the contracts of sale. However, one of the major problems also is that the ports in Vancouver, through which much of our grain goes to the Far East, are not sufficiently
October 14, 1966

automated, as I remarked the other day in the House of Commons during orders ol the day. They are not as highly automated as are the U. S. ports, and I say that automation will not take place there unless we get the C.P.R. to do something about it. I think the hon. members for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) and for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) made a special trip to Vancouver and saw the slow rate at which grain is unloaded from the C. P. R. cars to the boats. The fact is that the C. P. R. should be brought before a standing committee of this house and interrogated. They control many of the docks, as well as the property there, and therefore they control the whole enterprise. They should be asked why they cannot move grain from the farms. I estimated, and my estimation was somewhat conservative, that this year we would produce in western Canada 800 million bushels of grain. We see now that western Canada has produced between 840 million or 870 million bushels.
The government says it has solved this problem not only for this year but in the projected future, which is all to the good. Nevertheless we will have lost those markets, as we did some of last year's sales to Russia, because we could not move the grain from the farms, and from the country elevators to the ports.
Very few people in Canada seem to realize that this is a $2 billion industry. Very few people in Canada seem to realize that the wheat producers of this country- and I want to emphasize this-are the only producers in the world who are not subsidized. We are the only exporting nation of the world that does not subsidize the farmer. Many people in Canada believe that the cheques from the Canadian Wheat Board come from the Canadian treasury. The Canadian Wheat Board is a separate board and it gets its money from the sale of the wheat which the farmers sell through the board. From the initial payment to the final one, it is the farmers' money, for their wheat, and there is no subsidization.
The situation was that wheat was left in the country elevators. I blame the C.P.R. for this, and I believe the C.N.R. is also responsible. When this crop was being harvested there were farmers in Alberta who were not able to deliver one bushel of wheat to the elevators to pay their expenses. When I mentioned this to a member of parliament from another section of the country, he was at a loss to believe that the farmer could not sell
Railway Act
his wheat. He said: "But your wheat crop is sold". It is sold on paper, but what can the farmer do? He has to build bins and go to extra expense to store the grain himself because the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. have not done their duty to transport this grain from the country elevators to the ports and on to the ships of those nations who bought it. That is why I go along with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) when he says that C.P.R. officials should be brought before a standing commiteee. The wheat industry is the biggest industry in Canada, and the railroads of this country are letting the western farmers down.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on a bill such as this one, because this is the most important matter facing the government today, except for the question of the cost of living. Yet all we have been doing in the last two days, and all we will be doing for the remainder of this hour, is to talk about a bill which the government does not intend to implement for two years anyhow: What a window dressing.
I say that the C.P.R. should be brought before a standing committee, and I want to come to grips with this. My home city is a city of 350,000 people. Our original railway station was knocked down because the railway company was unable to come to grips with their financial commitments and their city land arrangements. We have in Calgary a C.P.R. station now which serves the Canadian on the main line. Yet in a city of 350,000 people, that station is not big enough to serve a hamlet of 3,000 people. It is usually overcrowded and in the summer it is a filthy place, full of flies-not a very attractive place for tourists. Believe me, that railway company should be brought to task before a standing committee of the House of Commons. The railway station in Calgary is a disgrace to the city, even if it were a temporary structure-which I do not believe it is. They say it will be there for two years.
I endorse the Liberal member's remarks when he says that the C.P.R. wishes to get out of the passenger service. I believe him. Let some hon. member try to make reservations on the "Canadian" in my home city. The line is usually busy in the summer, and I sometimes wonder whether they just take the phones off the hooks. You cannot make the reservations, and when you do get down to the station it is terribly overcrowded. Most of the time the "Canadian" is full to capacity. Matters having to do with the station are in a

October 14, 1966
Railway Act
terrible shape in Calgary. It is time this company were brought before a standing committee to answer questions.
I sincerely believe the C.P.R. is trying to get out of the passenger service. When they wanted to cancel the "Dominion", they were brought before a standing committee. Did anything happen then? Of course it did not. Some employees of the C.P.R.-and I cannot reveal their names-told me that the service on those trains was so bad because the company wished to discourage passengers. Neither the union nor the employees were consulted; they did not know what would happen to them when this service would be discontinued. The company ran roughshod over the employees and the brotherhood of railwaymen in the city of Calgary, and they have done the same thing in the rest of the nation. It is time they were brought before a standing committee.
I now wish to deal with a third point regarding the national park policy, which is one of the worst policies that has ever been implemented by any government. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) has behaved in the most autocratic manner. Why has he discouraged the construction of buildings to serve tourists? There are 1,700,000 tourists coming to the Banff national park. The only people who have a monopoly in that park today, and who can build anything, are the ones who seem to have an "in" with the department of northern affairs and the C.P.R. They can build hotels, motels and restaurants. Canada Power can go in and develop a great skiing enterprise. But let the average man who has served the tourists in the parks for 30 years try it, and he is not permitted to do so.
The people who owned freehold land in the parks had their land expropriated. Has the same happened to the C.P.R.? Why is there one law for the C.P.R. and another law for the citizens of Canada and the national parks of Canada? What connection has the C.P.R. with this government or with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? I would like the C.P.R. officials brought before a standing committee and asked those questions. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) said we would be sneaking into their financial reports if we did so. It is true that you cannot find here the financial reports of the C.P.R., but you can go down to the New York Stock Exchange and get one. The Americans can get them, but not
[Mr. Woolliams.l
the Canadians. You can get a C.P.R. report from the New York Stock Exchange if you are a shareholder. Maybe the C.P.R. managers do not know themselves what is going on, but they would soon find the information if they were interrogated by a standing committee of this house. They should be interrogated first on their passenger service, second on their freight service, and third on the automation of facilities for unloading grain in the ports.
This last mentioned is a point with which I should like to deal for a moment. Recently I read an article stating that the Americans can unload more grain in 15 minutes than the Canadians can in 24 hours. That is why we have tie-ups and the grain is still on the farms. I therefore say that the C.P.R. should be questioned on their passenger service, on freight, on the monopoly in the national parks and on the "in" they have with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in this government. The C.P.R. has now a new system. They are transferring their assets to the Marathon Realty Company, -I think that is the name of the company. Why is that being done? The petroleum wealth of western Canada was given to them because we knew, when they built the trans-Canada railway, that for a time it would not pay. So, this company was given so many sections of land in western Canada along with the oil rights. These oil rights were developed, like the rest of the enterprise in western Canada. Today they are being removed from the railway company to another company. These assets are being stripped from the railway company and placed in the hands of a holding company. When the trans-Canada transcontinental line is run ragged both in freight and passenger services, when the railway company can no longer say it is making $16,634,324 as it did in 1966, according to its financial report, the company will then say to the government: Take it over; we have our wealth stacked away. This is the wealth the Canadian government and the Canadian people gave them for the right to build this monopoly, and it will be in another company.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This is not good enough. This is not carrying out the terms and conditions of the charter for the railway which was given by the government-by a Conservative government -at the time it was built. In my opinion, this company should be brought before a standing committee of the House of Commons. This
October 14, 1966



company runs railway services, steamships, hotels and the petroleum industry, and we should find out now whether or not they have lived up to their contract.
It is pitiful to think that people now pay $12,800 for a medium sized wheat combine, yet they cannot deliver a bushel of wheat to the market because there are no quotas in this area. If people cannot deliver wheat, they cannot even make the down payment on these combines. People sit around and talk about the big crop out west. They say the farmers are all rolling in money. There is no money in the west until the farmers can sell their grain and get the money out of the wheat board. There is no money coming to the farmer until the wheat is sold and delivered. Grain cannot be delivered to country elevators today, and this is a serious problem.
The Liberals can bring as large a delegation from the west as they want, but it will not do them any good. Do you know what a farm union man told me in my office? He was a Liberal and he went to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Pearson) office and asked for action. This man lives at Rockyford, and if there is any question I am sure he would own up to his name. The Prime Minister said: Because you people did not vote for us, why should we worry about you? If that is the attitude of this government, then you have not got a vote left in the west because you have deserted us.


Mr. Walker:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. member, to whom I have listened with great interest, because he is a member of the legal profession would not want to enter into the record hearsay conversation. I want to make this particular point now because I know the hon. member, and he is fair. He knows enough to realize it is not right to put hearsay evidence into the record which comes from another person.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, my idea of hearsay evidence and that of my good friend is entirely different. This is not hearsay when the farmer, a member of the United Farmers Union of Alberta, told me that. This is absolutely the fact.


An hon. Member:: What is his name?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do not worry about that; I am telling you the facts. If there is any question about it, I will give you his name and you can write to him. However, I am not going to put his name on Hansard; why
Railway Act
should I? Those are the facts. This worries my good friends because it happens to be true and they happen to know that is exactly what goes on.
Coming back to the problem, I want to state that the passenger service, the freight service and the whole general financial structure of the Canadian Pacific, which as the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) said we bonused to the tune of $106 million, should be brought before a standing committee and examined.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew Norih):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say that since the Canadian Pacific is a national transportation system and since I am one of those who complained earlier this session about the service, I can see no particular reason for that company refusing to appear before the committee on transport if it were asked to do so. I feel the company has a certain obligation to do this.
Now, having put that on the record, I should like to make a few comments about the other aspects of this bill. While the bill deals with the financial structure and operations of those railway companies, telegraph, telephone and express companies as well as carriers by water which come under the Board of Transport Commissioners as public utilities, it does in some ways indicate a trend that seems to have become a part of our everyday society. This trend is one toward an increasing amount of paperwork and government regulation of private enterprise.
Many small businessmen have told me that the paperwork they are called upon to do by various levels of government has become very arduous indeed. When this country was in its pioneering stage, one of the major reasons it moved ahead in spite of many difficulties was the fact that there was lots of room for people who had the initiative to work and the desire to build a country that offered them many opportunities. While this bill deals with transportation and communication facilities, in so far as additional regulations are concerned it can be said that these are only part of the additional regulations that could be placed on any other type of business in the future. These businesses are already required to submit reports to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Board of Transport Commissioners. If anyone wants any information about these transportation or communications companies, he can check with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.

October 14, 1966
Railway Act
It is quite true, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure we are all aware of this, that during the days of the robber barons in the United States, that country passed legislation to control the giant enterprises. We in Canada, as well, have passed legislation to control the greed of some of these businesses. I refer for example to the Combines Investigation Act. Today we have legislation and other organizations that tend to offset any privileges or advantages that big business had in our economic structure. I am thinking here of the trade unions. Under our legislation businesses are forced to negotiate with the trade unions. The government provides for arbitration of disputes. When wage levels are arrived at, the wealth of the company is one of the factors that is taken into consideration. I should like to say here, Mr. Speaker, that I, like many other people, am in favour of a square deal for the labouring man as well as for the businessman. Labour should receive a fair return for services rendered, and the businessman who has a lot at stake must receive a fair return for his investment.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
If in our future society we are going to continue to place regulations and many additional requirements upon businesses, we are going to discourage smaller business enterprises and this will speed up the process of driving small business enterprises into the hands of bigger businesses. Some room must be left in this country to encourage initiative in private enterprise if we are going to retain a reasonable amount of competition. Otherwise a greater measure of legislation will be necessary to control the giants. Canada is a young country; let Canadians have the opportunity to build it. You cannot take away initiative and discourage ambition and expect this country to grow and to develop.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, these transportation and communications enterprises which are mentioned have to report to the Board of Transport Commissioners. In this way their business operations are reviewed in a fair and independent light, and they must answer for any irregularities. The transportation bill that has been introduced in this house and agreed to in principle provides for the setting up of a national regulatory body. Are we going to question this new body before it even has a chance to start its work or to prove itself?
We have in this house now a committees system that gives members considerable opportunity to air grievances. The order paper

allows members to submit questions to appropriate departments. As hon. members in this chamber know, committee work is already quite onerous and if we intend to load committees down with work which is already being done by some other body, the committees system may very well be damaged.
I have however no complaint about bringing giant corporations such as the C.P.R. before a committee. If any of the enterprises mentioned in Bill No. C-218 do not provide service, they are investigated. If there are complaints concerning safety factors, these complaints are investigated. If there are complaints about inefficiencies, these enterprises have to answer to the Board of Transport Commissioners. Are we in parliament going to set up a regulatory body, and then regulate the regulatory body that is responsible for enforcing the regulations? When there are inefficiencies in the new board, this parliament can complain about them; but at least we should give the new national regulatory body a chance to prove itself. Let us have efficient services, fair play to all parties and have controls where necessary; but let us not destroy initiative and the spirit of challenge of the Canadian people. The point in the bill, Mr. Speaker, concerning a particular giant corporation might be very well taken, but I should not like to see this measure applied to all when we have other means of control.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker,
this has been something of a freewheeling debate, particularly the contribution made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Wool-liams). It provided him with an opportunity to speak on his pet subjects, the Canadian Pacific Railway and national parks. Obviously the hon. member for Bow River either has not spent too much time in the house this session or has not been reading the reports of the committee on transportation and communications. If he had, he certainly would have known that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has quite willingly come before a committee of the house. Indeed, if I recall the statement of the president correctly, he said he would be happy to appear at any time to answer the charges that had been made by members of parliament and others about whether or not they have lived up to their commitment to Canada in respect of their contract to build a trans-continental railway.
October 14, 196S	COMMONS
The hon. member stated that the railway companies of Canada have fallen far, far behind the railways of the United States in the provision of dock and grain handling facilities. But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, as is usual for members of parliament or for any politician who wants to become successful in his career through the practice of condemning railways generally, forgot to note that the railways of the United States are paid something like 300 per cent more for handling export grain than are the railways of Canada, both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) pointed out that something like $106,000,000 had been paid in subsidies to the Canadian Pacific Railway over the last several years. He again neglected, of course, to point out that this was a subsidy which was paid in lieu of freight rate increases that were granted by the Board of Transport Commissioners, a body which is set up to do the things which are required to protect the shippers of Canada.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond feels that the Canadian Pacific Railway, and others, should be brought before a committee of this house so that in that forum their labour relations problems can be discussed by members of parliament. Up until a few years ago when the heavy hand of government regulation fell upon them very strongly, the Canadian Pacific Railway was far, far in advance of all other industries in the field of labour relations in Canada, providing its employees with a good annual income, a pension plan and so on.
DEBATES	8713
Business of the House


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: So that he certainly could not improve the circumstances of its employees simply by bringing the corporation before the House of Commons on an annual basis to discuss its relationships with the shippers and its employees. I think that in every respect this is another indication of the socialist trend toward domination of businesses.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have no objection.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the hon. gentleman think that the C. P. R. lived up to its obligation in respect of passenger service on the Kettle Valley railway?


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the acting house leader what the business will be for Monday, and the beginning of next week.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The order of business will be, I am informed, first, medicare; second, feed grain; and third, the immigration appeal board.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 17, 1966