1966-10-19

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
23033-560£

[Stage Direction]
0	J'/i 0
	 ' * .	' ***
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 19, 1966

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Hales.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table copies, in French and English, of the report of the royal commission on working conditions in the Post Office Department.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Explain.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Postmaster General leave to table this report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Have there been net savings achieved by integration of the armed services in terms of dollars during the years 1965-66 and 1966-67?
2.	What is the forecast net savings for 1966-67 and 1967-68?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2. (a) Steps were taken subsequent to July 1964 to integrate headquarters' staffs and services and to consolidate bases in order to achieve reductions in manpower and consequent savings in operating and maintenance costs. It is not possible to relate in detail specific savings in terms of dollars to a particular fiscal year due to the time lapse involved for the necessary reorganization subsequent to actual decisions being taken. Moreover, the closing of
individual bases as part of the base consolidation program requires additional expenditures to provide for the relocation of personnel and equipment and in consequence the full reductions in operating and maintenance costs cannot be realized immediately.
(b)	Savings already achieved through the integration of headquarters and services since July 1964 include: Headquarters, a reduction of 26 per cent in staff; Training, a reduction of 13 per cent in staff; Recruiting, a reduction of 33 per cent in staff; Information services, a reduction of 60 per cent in staff; Construction engineering, a reduction of 45 per cent in staff; Cataloguing section material command, a reduction of 26 per cent in staff; Canadian staff London, a reduction of 44 per cent in staff; Canadian staff Washington, a reduction of 34 per cent in staff.
(c)	Despite increased costs of materials, supplies and services generally, actual expenditures for 1965-66 compared to 1964-65 show a net saving of $12 million.
(d)	It is forecast that additional savings due to integration in 1966-67 will not be sufficient to compensate entirely for continuing increased costs including the general military pay increase effective 1 October, 1966.
(e)	The 1967-68 annual estimates have not been submitted to parliament yet.


TAX EXEMPT GIFT OF REAL PROPERTY
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	In what year was the exemption of $10,000 from gift tax on a once in a lifetime gift to a spouse or child of an interest in real property first enacted?
2.	Has the Minister of Finance given any consideration to increasing the said exemption to a figure comparable in present real property values to that which $10,000 represented when enacted?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1. 1958.
2. The Minister of Finance has on various occasions considered the gift tax provisions of the Income Tax Act. Further consideration will be given to these provisions when the report of the royal commission on taxation has been received and studied.

October 19, 1966
Questions


DEFENCE DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES. LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Irvine: What was the total expenditure of the Department of National Defence for the purchase of various supplies, services and equipment from firms and individuals in the city of London, Ontario, during each of the years 1963, 1964 and 1965?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The information supplied by D.D.P. in reply to question No. 1,712, which was made an order for return on 5 October, 1966, (V&P 127, page 824) included purchases made for national defence.


FLAG FLOWN BY CANADIAN NAVY
Mr. McCleave: Are ships of the Royal Canadian Navy required to fly the Canadian flag as both ensign and jack?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of asking leave, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), to move the adjournment of this house under standing order 26 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the announced removal by administrative decision, with no reference to parliament, of the coat of arms of Canada from the vehicles and equipment of the Post Office Department, such action being invalid and unconstitutional and representing, as it does, a derogation from the sovereignty of this nation and the usurpation of the rights of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the right hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, address the house and the Chair on the question of urgency of debate?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the last few days there has been an announcement by the means usually followed in matters that might be controversial. The Canadian Press reported it as follows:
"It may take a few years but the familiar royal coat of arms printed on post office trucks and mall bags is going to be replaced by the maple leaf. A Post Office Department official said Thursday it now is policy to use the 11 point maple leaf, the same as the one on the new flag, when

the trucks are being relettered or bags being replaced. In the centre of the maple leaf . . . the letters are inclined, so they can stand for Canada Post or Poste du Canada. The change has not taken place in any post office equipment yet, the official said. It takes a long time for a mail bag to wear out. But the new ones on order will bear the new symbol. The labour department recently began using the maple leaf symbol on its publication, the Labour Gazette. The new social security card used by the department will carry the maple leaf, instead of the coat of arms. No change is required in any legislation to make the change."
That this is a matter of urgency cannot be denied. In point of fact what is to be attempted was dealt with by a former prime minister of Canada, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, in the House of Commons on February 22, 1955. At that time he went on to deal with the use of the expression "royal" and he suggested-


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: What page,
please?


John George Diefenbaker: -what was meant.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
right hon. gentleman from what page in Hansard he is about to read?


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon; page 1377.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What year?


John George Diefenbaker: I quote:
The constitution of this country is a monarchial constitution and I have always asserted, and I know it is-well, I hope it is-the unanimous sentiment of every hon. member in this house that that is the best kind of constitution for the Canadian people that we could hope for.
Then he went on to deal with suggestions regarding constitutional changes and said:
I have declared many times that wherever it is proper the word "royal" should be used. It is unhesitatingly used when the consent of Her Ma.iesty has been obtained. Of course, that is a part of the monarch's prerogative and we never attempt to use the word "royal" in any descriptive title without prior approval by the monarch. All hon. members know what are the many places in which it is used, namely, the Royal Canadian Navy-
This was in 1955.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I continue the quotation:
-the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Canadian Artillery or Regiment, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Royal Mail, and many others.
He made it clear that whenever it is proper to use the word, the word "royal" should be used. Now we find another example of the
October 19, 1966	COMMONS
tinkering away of the royal prerogative by clandestine means instead of facing parliament with the matter. The importance of this instance lies in the fact that it is one of a continuing series of acts under this government aimed at removing from this nation all signs and symbols of our constitutional heritage. The matter is urgent in that no other opportunity is provided for debating the action of this government in frittering away, chipping away, even chopping away the very basis of our constitutional existence.
We are facing in this nation, as we have done for the last two or three years, a form of underground revolution mounted in the silent precincts of the Prime Minister's office and the cabinet, and carried out surreptitiously through the unconstitutional device of ministerial ukase. This government, I say- and there could be nothing more urgent-is acting of its own accord, without reference to parliament or the people, to scrap the armorial bearings of this nation and remove all reference to the monarch.
Any hon. member in this house may advocate the removal of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic. There is no argument about his right to do so. There is nothing to prevent parliament and the people they represent making that change. But this creeping attitude of taking these steps one by one has got to be stopped in the interests of this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: You ask why the urgency. If it had not been for a diligent member of the Canadian Press this would have been kept under cover. One of the most interesting predictions of what may happen is set out in a cartoon in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. There is the mailman delivering his mail. He has a bag with a maple leaf on it and the letters "CP", and he is saying "They never bite me any more; they think I work for Canada Packers".
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
If that was the reason for the change I do not know, but I do know, sir, that throughout recent months and years-and this is the culmination of it-there has been a continuing action on the part of this government, and in resolutions from the Young Liberal University Association, to abolish the Queen and bring about a republic. Only a week ago one of these Young Liberals' resolutions, instead of getting in to the workshop-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Two weeks ago.
DEBATES	8855
Announced Removal of Coat of Arms


John George Diefenbaker: Two weeks ago

I won't argue about the time.


Mr. Pearson:: And two weeks from now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am just wondering whether we are getting into the debate that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is proposing.


Mr. Starr:: All the Liberals are working toward it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should limit his remarks to the question of urgency of debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the events of a week ago would be the foundation of an emergency. One of the resolutions had to do with the civil service and it was passed by the Liberal convention, but the Prime Minister ran for cover immediately after it was passed.
You ask about the urgency of debate. Well, I will go to the Vancouver Sun of October 15, which has an editorial under the heading "Why This Change?" It reads in part:
The maple leaf is Canada's leading symbol. It adorns the national flag, of which every Canadian has reason to be proud. But the royal coat of arms also is a legitimate Canadian symbol as long as this nation remains a monarchy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The public is entitled to know who is really responsible for what appears on the surface at any rate to be an attempt to introduce republicanism by the back door.
So far as the urgency of debate is concerned, sir, I would sum it up in this way. This type of surreptitious republicanism cannot be brought into effect by a minister of the crown or by a cabinet. Only parliament can deal with this, or the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: You ask me why the
urgency of debate. Well, it wasn't very long ago that they removed the Queen from the citizenship courts. We raised a storm, and back went the Queen. Now this is but a further step. I am not going to argue the subject now because I am simply asking for an adjournment, but there have been some interesting articles appearing recently, one in The Canadian the other day written by a friend of the Prime Minister, which sets out the reason for this action. This writer says
October 19, 1966
8856	COMMONS
Announced Removal of Coat of Arms that all this tinkering, including removing the flag from the Royal Canadian Navy, is part of a trend to Canadian republicanism.
I say there is nothing more urgent requiring debate. If the government wants to take this stand that the monarchy must go, and supports the desire of the young university Liberals of Canada that republicanism be established, then let it act and bring the matter before parliament, but not by the back door. That is the reason for the urgency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman, who of course went far beyond dealing with the urgency of the matter, has accused me-


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: It isn't for you to say.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -has accused me of being the leader of an underground revolution which is tinkering away with the-


Some hon. Members:: You are. That's right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -of tinkering away-


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Can we have order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -of tinkering away with the traditions of our constitution, introducing surreptitious republicanism and all that kind of thing.


Michael Starr: Well, come out in the open, then.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This underground revolution, according to the right hon. gentleman, has already had some disastrous results, including no doubt the introduction of the Canadian flag, so strenuously opposed by my right hon. friend because it had the maple leaf on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is the kind of thing the right hon. gentleman has raised this afternoon under the guise of urgency. He has asked us to set aside the ordinary business of the day, the important business of the day, so this matter, which is not a matter of immediate urgency, be debated this afternoon or we will have republicanism tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, there will be an opportunity to deal with this matter. We will be very glad to provide this opportunity and I think it will show that the facts alleged by the right hon. gentleman have no foundation whatever,


which is not unusual. I would welcome an opportunity for this kind of debate to expose this spurious attack on the government.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that no case has been made for setting aside the debate on the medical care bill to deal with this matter this afternoon.


Mr. Lambert:: That is real urgent; 1968.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take part in this debate. I just want to say that I regret that the newspapers seized upon that report before I could make a statement, before orders had been issued by the Post Office Department. I will be ready to make a statement when the time comes and I think that it will help.
It is quite easy, Mr. Speaker, to raise questions which can turn into political discussions. However, I can assure you that I will make a statement very shortly on that matter. If someone on this side of the house could be blamed because such action was or was not taken, I assume full responsibility.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing once again a truly anti-Canadian spectacle when we hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) raise a question about an order which has not yet been given by the office of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote). Besides, the minister has just said, in reply to the charges made by the Leader of the Opposition, that no order has been given by the Post Office Department. The Leader of the Opposition is asking us to consider a definite matter. How can he call a definite matter something about which he knows nothing or practically nothing, or a matter of urgent public importance, something about which the public has not been told officially yet? The motion reads in part as follows:
Namely, the announced intended removal by administrative decision, with no reference to parliament, of the coat-of-arms of Canada from the vehicles and equipment of the Post Office Department, such action being invalid and unconstitutional, representing, as it does, a derogation from the sovereignty of this nation and the usurpation of the rights of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity in the last two years to visit some foreign countries. In Russia, for instance, from the north to the south, I did not see the Canadian coat-of-arms at any time.
October 19, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take the liberty to remind the hon. member that he must limit his remarks to the urgency of debate as much as possible.


David Réal Caouette: It is precisely to explain the non-urgency of the debate, Mr. Speaker, that I am calling on your indulgence to tell you that, throughout the world, it is not the coat-of-arms of Canada which prevails but the maple leaf. That is what is recognized as the emblem of Canada.
Since the minister has told us that he will make a statement within a few days, I do not think that it is urgent to discuss the removal of the coat-of-arms of Canada on the old trucks of the Post Office Department which are seen in Ottawa.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonlon-Siralh-cona):: Mr. Speaker, I think the arguments advanced by the Postmaster General give a clear indication of the urgency of this debate. This matter involves a question of the responsibility of government respecting one of the rights of parliament, or whether this government can tamper with whatever it likes without regard for the rights of this house.
The Postmaster General has said that he intends to make a statement about this matter. I suggest that the approval of parliament should have been obtained before the minister had the right to do what he has proposed. Apparently he felt he could tamper or do whatever he wanted without regard for his responsibility to the house. I suggest we debate this matter of urgency now, because it involves a question of the rights of parliament and the authority of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank hon. members for their enlightening remarks which have assisted the Chair in reaching a decision on the motion proposed by the right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. On a number of previous occasions this type of motion has been moved under standing order 26, and members have been referred to citation 100 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, paragraphs 3 and 8. Paragraph 3 refers to the urgency of debate as being not necessarily the urgency of the matter which is being proposed for discussion. That paragraph reads as follows:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the 23033-561
DEBATES	8857
Announced Removal of Coat of Arms
rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
A portion of paragraph 8 of the same
citation reads as follows:
What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency-
There are really two matters which have been raised by the statement of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. The first was an alleged action either taken or to be taken by the Postmaster General and the second related to, to use the right hon. gentleman's own words, the general question of the alleged creeping republicanism.
As far as the first cause for complaint is concerned, the Postmaster General has said that he proposes to make a statement. I suggest it is rather difficult to discuss a situation before it has been made clear to the house and to the public by whatever statement the minister proposes to make. In respect of the second matter, and this is the general complaint raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, it does not seem to me to be an occurrence of sudden emergency. To paraphrase the words of that right hon. gentleman, this is a long standing attitude of the government.
In view of what I have referred to I suggest to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and hon. members of the house that there is no justification for adjourning the ordinary business of the house in order to proceed with a consideration of the matter brought to my attention by his motion.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would not like this incident to be disposed of without replying to the suggestion that the Department of Labour or the minister by any action has voluntarily dropped the coat of arms from the Labour Gazette. Such is not the fact.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Apparently these gentlemen do not want a debate, they just want to explain. If explanations are to be made there is a time for them to be made. My point related to the reported action of the Postmaster General. If the Minister of Labour feels he has been particularly hurt by some of his colleague's actions, that is just too bad for him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the Chair should be allowed to hear what the

Oclober 19, 1966
Motions for Papers
minister has to say regarding his question of privilege. I have no idea whether he has in fact a question of privilege, but I am sure hon. members want to give him the opportunity of at least indicating what it is about.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In the statement of the right hon. gentleman the suggestion was made that the coat of arms had been dropped from the Canada Labour Gazette. I have in my hand a copy of the last issue of the Gazette, and the coat of arms appears on the front page.


Michael Starr: It was removed from the front cover.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no hesitation in ruling that there is no question of privilege, particularly in view of the fact that no motion was advanced.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for papers Nos. 149, 162, 164 and 165 are acceptable to the government.
Would Your Honour call notices of motions Nos. 156, 159 and 160?
I ask that the other remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


FEDERAL CANDIDATES NOT CANADIAN CITIZENS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 149-Mr. Stanbury:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of showing the names of all candidates in the federal general election held November 8, 1965, who were not Canadian citizens at that time.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 162-Mr. Bell (Carlelon):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters, directives, memoranda or other documents sent by the minister or any official of the Department of Justice to chief justices, chief judges, registrars or other judicial or court officers, since January 1, 1966, with respect to judges acting as commissioners, arbitrators or members of boards of conciliation.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 164-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the letters from Canadians interested in going north arising from the statement of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that young Canadians lack the necessary pioneer blood.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 165-Mr. Bell (Carlelon):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the agreement between the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the National Capital Commission dated July 26, 1966, with respect to the operation of the Ottawa station and associated rail facilities, which agreement is referred to in the answer to Question 1,920-at page 8566 of Hansard.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 156-Mr. Coales:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence which passed between the-Prime Minister and Chief Justice Taschereau of the Supreme Court of Canada since March, 1966, in regard to the question of having a judge or judges of the Supreme Court of Canada to act on royal commissions.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is no such correspondence, so I ask that this motion be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion dropped.


LOBSTER LICENCE APPLICATION, THEODORE LEGER
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 159-Mr. Coales:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the report prepared for the Minister of Fisheries resulting from an investigation into the application for a lobster fishing licence by Theodore Leger of Robichaud Office, New Brunswick.
Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed the matters referred to in notices of motions 159 and 160 with the hon. member for Cumberland, and he has agreed to their withdrawal-


Mr. Speaker:: Withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
October 19, 1966


REFUSAL OF LOBSTER FISHING LICENCE TO THEODORE LEGER
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 160-Mr. Coates:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters, telegrams and memoranda of telephone conversations to the Minister of Fisheries from Theodore Leger, Robichaud Office. New Brunswick, regarding the refusal by the minister and his officials to issue a lobster fishing licence to the aforementioned Mr. Leger.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister to advise the house what is meant by "exceptional action" which the government intends to take to end the postal crisis. I refer to the headline appearing in today's Ottawa Journal which is "Exceptional Action May End Postal Crisis". What does the government have in mind? Does it intend to bring in compulsory arbitration, or what does it intend to do to deny postal workers a reasonable degree of justice?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose I am required to comment on headlines in newspapers as referred to by my right hon. friend, but I should like to tell him we are doing everything that can be done to prevent this postal strike.


NATURAL GAS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, on October 7 in answer to a question I asked the right hon. Prime Minister said it was his hope that in the following week the government would table the agreement between the responsible minister and the Trans-Canada Pipe Line Company regarding the construction of a gas pipe line through the United States. As far as I know the agreement has not as yet been tabled although nearly two weeks have elapsed. I should like to ask the Prime Minister when we may expect to receive a copy of that agreement.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may ask the Minister of Energy, M.nes and Resources to deal with that question.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I hope to table that agreement on Friday, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary
question. How soon after that agreement is tabled does the Prime Minister propose to provide an opportunity for debate on this question, which has far reaching consequences for certain areas of Canada and has a certain bearing on Canada's policy in respect of the disposal of its resources?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope there will be an opportunity to debate this matter before long. I would welcome such a debate on this matter.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Is the minister partly responsible for the offer of 6 per cent made to postal workers recently and which does not appear to satisfy them?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, that recommendation
comes from the civil service commission and no minister is responsible for such recommendations.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Before the civil service made that offer, had not the minister been informed of that 6 per cent increase and does he not admit that to offer an increase of 6 per cent to postal workers is simply to laugh in their faces.


Mr. Speaker:: This question is more of an argument than a question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread damage in Peru as a result of Monday's earthquake,

October 19, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry bearing in mind Canada's past actions in providing assistance to such disaster areas, will the Prime Minister indicate whether any action has been contemplated by Canada to render assistance to that country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are giving consideration to this tragedy at the moment, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to make a report as soon as possible.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was any other uranium mining company given consideration before the $100 million British uranium contract was awarded to Rio Algom mines?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a contract between a company and an authority in Great Britain. The government had nothing whatever to do with the negotiation of the contract, only with authorizing it after it was completed.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Prime Minister tell us how many companies in the Elliot Lake area are producing uranium at present?


Mr. Speaker:: The member cannot ask for statistical data at the present time.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry and Defence Production. I am asking the question because this matter is causing serious concern to many communities in southeastern British Columbia. I am sure the question falls within the rules.
In view of the announcement that Cominco Limited of Montreal intends to close the H. B. mine at Salmo, British Columbia on November 1, 1966, and in view of the serious effect this announcement has had on the 100 miners affected and the community as a [Mr. Thompson.)
whole, will the minister investigate the situation to see what can be done to provide continued employment for the miners and other persons affected in this community?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to ask the question. I am not familiar with the detail involved here, but with my colleagues I shall be glad to look into the matter.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government house leader. When can we anticipate the introduction of legislation in regard to the increase in old age security pensions?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as we can finish the business that is now before the house and the urgent items on the order paper we will have an opportunity of dealing with that matter.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the government house leader if he does not think-


Michael Starr: We will have it July 1, 1968.


Eric Alfred Winkler: -that legislation providing for an increase in the old age security pension is more important than the legislation now before us?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday he referred to a press conference in which he alleges that he gave some information concerning his policy to reduce the navy to a position of ineffectiveness. Will the minister make available immediately a transcript of the questions and answers at that conference, without expurgation?


John George Diefenbaker: And unrevised.
October 19, 1966


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I will be glad to take the suggestion under advisement, but in view of the allegations contained in the question I am not sure that it falls within the rules of the house. Perhaps Your Honour would rule upon that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister will not make available the information given at that press conference, I shall have to ask him whether it is his intention to mislead the house on the answers he gave to questions asked on national defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, certainly not, Mr. Speaker.



C.F.B. CORNWALLIS-REPORTED INTENTION TO CLOSE BY 1968

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence of which I have given him notice. Would he confirm the report that officers and men at C.F.B. Cornwallis were advised yesterday that the base would be closed by 1968 if present defence plans proceed?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: According to the information I have received, the commanding officer said that the base would not be closed in any event before 1968 but that in fact no decision had been taken; that it would have to be referred through the staff to the ministerial level for decision. In respect of the whole question of base consolidation, no decisions have been taken as yet; the matter has not been studied at the ministerial level. When it is, and if some bases have to be closed, due notice will be given and a planned, phased consolidation announced, in accordance with the suggestion made by my hon. friend and other people.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question for the minister. When that consolidation study has clarified the position and plans are arrived at, I wonder whether the minister will take into consideration the precedent set by the Secretary of Defence of the United States and announce the decision publicly beforehand, to give a chance to those affected adversely by such closure and so-called consolidation to make whatever representations they wish to make?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this may be done, but by the time the studies have been completed and all the facts carefully taken into account, and assuming that some consolidation is required notwithstanding the obvious economic difficulties in some areas that are posed as a result of this, although opportunity would be provided for representations to be made I am not giving any assurance that these would change the results of the study.


Mr. J. M. Forresfall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question, in the light of what has just been said, must be directed to the Prime Minister. I would ask the right hon. gentleman whether he would give to those in the maritime provinces, who now enjoy some $300 million annually out of the defence structure, every assurance that cutbacks as a result of base consolidation will not be made in the flow and extent of these dollars and cents.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we will do what we can to see that this does not happen.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Can he recall, or is he aware, that prior to the closing of the Point Edward base he gave a somewhat similar assurance that it would not be closed, but it was closed very shortly thereafter?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence on the matter of the consolidation of military bases. In view of the contemplated meeting among representatives of the Manitoba government and the community of Rivers-in fact, the southwestern Manitoba region-will the information presented at that meeting be taken into consideration in respect of any decisions reached with reference to the Rivers base?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the associate minister is seeing representatives, I think on the 28th, and certainly all the factors put forward by the delegation at that time will be taken into consideration.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime
8862	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister. Is it the intention of the government to remove the Canadian coat of arms from mail boxes, mail bags or other places where it is now displayed in the postal department?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we will have a chance to discuss this matter shortly, I hope.


John George Diefenbaker: Haven't you decided yet?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of-I was going to say "Northern Affairs" because I cannot think offhand of the name of his new portfolio.


An hon. Member:: Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.


Frank Howard: Yes, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that a number of Indian people near Richibucto, New Brunswick, have had fishing nets seized and have been charged with fishing illegally, in view of the fact that the fisheries department has retained a lawyer to prosecute these people, and in view of the fact that they claim the right to fish by virtue of a treaty of 1774, will the minister be prepared to provide legal counsel for these people so that their rights may be fully protected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that this is the type of question that can be asked at this time. I suggest that the hon. member might wish to make representations directly to the minister.


Frank Howard: May I speak to the matter of urgency, Mr. Speaker? The court case relating to the charges is imminent, and the people are without funds to provide legal counsel. It is on the basis of the urgency of the decision by the government that I ask the question at this time.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: It is intended that financial assistance will be offered to ensure that the Indian people get proper representation when they appear in court. I might say that this is a continuing process in my department, to afford the court

DEBATES	October 19. 1966
of appeal an opportunity to set out the boundaries of responsibility in respect of both fishing and hunting rights of the Indian people, either under treaties or other provisions that are set out separately for them.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Following the threat of the CNTU to withdraw from the Canadian Council of Labour Relations and from all other federal organizations, can the minister tell the house whether the departmental committee set up seven or eight months ago is ready to make a decision about the changes to be made in the definition of negotiating unit? If so, could he make this decision known to the house?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be put on the order paper.


Maurice Allard: I should like to discuss the matter at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put on the same subject a supplementary question which will be in order. Following the decision-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take the liberty of reminding the hon. member that the question put by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) was ruled out of order; I suppose the question of the member for Lapointe is different.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think that my question could be accepted on account of its importance. I could put it in accordance with standing orders, because it is directly related to the question of the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Since the Canadian Council of Labour Relations has decided to prevent workers of the Angus Company in Montreal from choosing their union freely, does the Minister of Labour intend to introduce in the house shortly new legislation in order to grant union freedom in Canada?
October 19, 1966


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Changes in legislation of this nature are matters of government policy. If and when changes should be decided upon, they will be announced.


Maurice Allard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. During the visit in Ottawa, of the right hon. Mr. Brown, Foreign Secretary of Britain, was there a discussion with him concerning the changed position by Canada with regard to moving the permanent base of NATO from Paris to Brussels? If so, what was the result of the discussion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did have a discussion at the United Nations with Mr. Brown about a number of matters, including that particular situation. I advised him what the position of the Canadian government was at that time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a supplementary question? Will the minister advise the house whether the position of the Canadian government has changed in regard to this, and whether it is accepting the representations from fellow NATO nations that a move should be made from Paris to Brussels?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this question is of a very general nature and is not the type of question that could be answered simply at this time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will rephrase it, then. Has the minister changed his position, and is he prepared to accept the recommendations to move from Paris to Brussels?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is a matter that has to be decided by the council of the alliance. There was to be a discussion in the council today, but that discussion has been postponed. Consultations on this question are now taking place between Canada and its partners.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister has not yet replied to the question.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: I have a question for the Secretary of State, who does not appear to be here; perhaps her parliamentary secretary will take it as notice. Would the hon. lady use her influence and charm on the B.B.G., the C.B.C. and C.T.V. to prevent the annual travesty in which both networks carry the Grey Cup game, thereby making a captive audience of all Canadians for the beer barons of this country?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he inform the house whether President Johnson received a warm and enthusiastic reception in New Zealand as reported by the B.B.C., or whether he received a cold and hostile reception as reported by the C.B.C.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the question is not proper at this time. I am not sure whether the response to the Chair is cold or hostile, but I do think the question should not be asked at this time.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Russell Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration the question I asked him yesterday, that is:
I may have overlooked some information, but I would like to know whether the minister intends to make a statement in the house concerning winter works for 1966-67?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will give the same answer I gave yesterday. I have already made a statement.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday, when I put that question, I got a reply from the minister and, afterwards, I checked in Hansard to see if such a statement had been made in this house and I saw it had not. I called the minister's
October 19, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry office and I was informed that the statement had not been made in the house but that it had been issued in a press release. That is why I did not want to rise on a question of privilege. I wanted to ask the question again.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will not discuss the question of privilege and I will limit myself to say that the program has been renewed for 1966-67 on the same basis as for 1965-66.


Robert Muir: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration? Is he in a position to advise if there is going to be a winter works program for Cape Breton Highlands national park in order to help the people of that area, where I am advised approximately 50 families are on welfare? I may advise the minister I have posed this question to the minister who is in charge of parks, but perhaps the minister to whom I address myself today will have something on it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is repeating a question which he has asked before, and I suggest to him that is not in order.


Robert Muir: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all due deference, sir, I am advised by a very reliable person that there are approximately 50 families on welfare in Ingonish, Nova Scotia, the area of the park headquarters. The park comes under some minister. This man across from me is always most courteous about these matters, but it is a serious matter at this time and that is why I press it.


Arthur Laing: I should like to rise on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the hon. member asked me if I had an answer ready to this question he had asked previously. I told him I did not have it ready yesterday, and I have not got it ready today, but I hope to have it ready soon.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister? Yesterday he assured me that the situation at Louisbourg would be rectified and that winter works funds would be made available so that the men laid off there would be reinstated. Has this taken place?
tMr. Keays.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was not, I believe, the assurance I gave. I said I would be glad to look into this matter. I have discussed it with the ministers concerned.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will
the Prime Minister check his answer of yesterday. He said then this would be taken care of, and his answer was a definite yes.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he is yet in a position to make any announcement about any change in the TAB payments to those laid off in the automobile industry?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I regret that I cannot, Mr. Speaker. The matter presents some complications and is still under very serious and active consideration.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question. In view of the importance of this matter, and consideration for the many people being affected by it, can the minister give any indication when he is prepared to make an announcement?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that it will be at the earliest possible date, let us hope within a matter of days.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question that has just been asked by my hon. friend for Ontario suggests that I should ask a question of the Minister of Industry. The latest Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures show that in the second quarter of 1966 there was a fall away of 19 per cent in sales of new cars in Canada. In view of this fact and the consequent acceleration in unemployment in the automobile industry, has the minister impressed upon the automobile manufacturers in Canada that their prices should be reduced in order to be put on a reasonable level approximate to that in the United States?
October 19, 1966


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the automobile industry will be glad to have the advice of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition-


An hon. Member:: Don't get smart.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -but I should point out to him that since the lower sales which occurred in the second quarter of this year on the domestic market, sales of the current year models this fall are very brisk indeed.


Michael Starr: Is that why thousands of people are being laid off?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This is no doubt a result of a further narrowing in the differential between the two countries.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether it is a fact that Canadian manufacturers, with the $50 million bonus they got from this government, are selling in the United States at a competitive price, cars which have been manufactured in Canada? In other words, are they selling at similar prices?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not quite hear that question.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the Prime Minister say "ridiculous"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is developing into a debate between the two hon. members, which is not the purpose of the question period.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compion-Fronfenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture, of which I gave him notice.
Can the Minister of Agriculture tell us why the weekly report on production and marketing of livestock and meat is not issued in French for the benefit of French Canadian farmers and dealers in the province of Quebec, and even in the whole of Canada, as it is in English?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture has taken note of the hon. member's representations.
Inquiries of the Ministry UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE



REPORTED CENTRALIZATION OF OPERATIONS OF COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saini-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
If it is true that the government wants to centralize the services dispensed by the unemployment insurance offices, can the minister tell us whether this policy will apply to the whole of Canada, or only to the province of Quebec?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, there has been no attempt on the part of the government to consolidate unemployment insurance offices. The Unemployment Insurance Commission is a body set up by parliament itself. In the interests of efficiency and because of the change in the work load, certain changes are being made by the commission which apply in offices in all parts of Canada.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would the hon. minister inform the house whether he has received representations from the C.N.T.U., which represents 40,000 members, objecting to this new policy of the department which has been detrimental to so many workers?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have just said that it is not government policy to consolidate these offices. That is the work of the commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Springfield.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question supplementary to that of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Even if the hon. member has a supplementary question, I have recognized the member for Springfield.
October 19, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry



INQUIRY AS TO COUNTRY ELEVATOR HANDLING CHARGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he in a position to confirm or deny unofficial reports to the effect that country elevator grain handling charges will remain the same for the current crop year irrespective of the fact that the Board of Grain Commissioners have earlier approved an increase?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the contracts are between the companies and the wheat board and the final charge is not necessarily as high as that which is permitted by the Board of Grain Commissioners. So it may well be-and this is my understanding-that the contracts are being written at the same rates as prevailed last year, even though authority to pay higher prices was given by the Board of Grain Commissioners.



GATT-INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the government's policy favouring a North American free trade area, does the government intend to join with that of the United States in pressing for 50 per cent general tariff reductions at the present Kennedy round of negotiations which are proceeding at Geneva?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this is a general question. I must remind the hon. member that a question must not raise a matter of policy too involved to be dealt with in an answer to a question.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is he aware of any damage done to the new federal building in Port Hope on October 18 or 19?


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



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether his department is giving active consideration to amending the law so as to abolish ex parte injunctions, as recommended by the recent Liberal convention?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the use of injunctions is a matter which is under continuous study by the department. I do not know of any change or course of action that has yet been decided upon. The matter is being studied along with other resolutions and representations which have been placed before the department.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In case he disappears before I am able to raise it again with him, as I have in the past, may I ask him now whether he would take a serious look at the refueling facilities at the Halifax international airport, particularly in light of continued loss of stopover international flights. I am afraid that most of them are going into Gander, and I might become suspect shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member asked this question as a form of representation to the minister.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mac-Eachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-227, to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rynard.
October 19, 19SS
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, on entering this debate I should first of all indicate my full support for the amendment that has been moved by the official opposition in regard to certain aspects of Bill No. C-227 and the kind of action that we feel should be taken in connection with a bill which according to its present form, will not come into effect, for 22 months at the earliest.
I should like to enter real objection to the fact that this house is being called upon to debate this piece of legislation at this time, while the old age pensioners and veterans of our nation have to wait and hope that the government will at some future date take the action that is necessary, and which has been necessary for some time, to revise and to increase their pensions. This action has been promised by the government, and these people have been waiting for many months.
This house has been requested by the government, through the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), to give passage to Bill No. C-227 while at the same time being informed that the legislation in question will not become effective before July 1, 1968 at the earliest, almost two years hence. Members of Parliament are being requested to give their approval to legislation that is useless by itself and can only be of value and benefit to the public if the governments of the ten provinces are willing to provide co-operation.
At the same time there has been no indication from the provincial governments of any sort of unanimous approval of the proposed plan as set out in the present bill. This is the situation that faces members today when debating a matter given first priority by the government, which allows many in need in this nation to wait, and wait, and wait, in order that they might get a bill through the house on a subject about which they have been making promises since 1919. Is it any wonder that Canadians become disgusted with this government and with the proceedings in this chamber. If the government cannot anticipate producing a program prior to July 1, 1968, why should we be asked in October of 1966 to provide them with the legislation, and certainly why should we be asked to provide them with such legislation before we have acted upon increases in old age security, veterans pensions and the like?
If this government were honest with the Canadian people in the matter of statements as to a recognition of need where it exists, it
Medicare
would have acted on these pieces of legislation that would be of immediate assistance and allow legislation that might become effective at some future date to await an indication of need, before we are pressed to act. The amendment before the house at the present time recognizes the main criticisms of the present bill. It urges the federal government to secure the co-operation of the provincial governments. It eliminates the compulsory aspect of the legislation and gives the individual the freedom of choice he should expect as a citizen of a free nation. It urges that sufficient medical research and the training of adequate numbers of doctors and associated medical personnel be available when the bill does become effective, and it asks that those who are in need and are unable for financial reasons to provide medical services to themselves at the present time, receive these medical services.
The amendment in question is both responsible and reasonable and should be supported by members in all parties in this house. Hon. members should be wary to give the blanket approval of the bill this government asks for, when they consider the history of the government to date, and its actions on its proposals. There has never in this nation's history been a government which has turned more somersaults than the present administration. They ask us now to approve a bill which they hope will be in effect in July of 1968, if they are able to secure the co-operation of the provincial governments-something which is not evident at the present time.
I recall so well this government's asking us to pass legislation of an enabling nature on the 12 mile fishing limit. The legislation was passed and has been on the statute books of this nation for some years; yet it is as ineffectual today as it was the day it received passage. Is this bill to have the same fate? Is it to fit the description given it by Mr. Thompson, the leader of the Liberal party in Ontario-"The blank cheque that was written by the Liberal Party in 1919, that has been bouncing around ever since"? Are we to become co-conspirators with this government in deceiving the Canadian people into thinking that they are going to have a medical care program available simply because we have passed legislation in this house, when as members we know that many of the participating provinces are most unhappy about the kind of program envisaged by this bill, when we know that they indicate an unwillingness to join with the federal government

October 19, 1866
Medicare
in providing the kind of program which this government is endeavouring to force upon them?
Are we to be asked to discriminate against our own provincial governments? It would appear that this government will be unwilling to contribute to a provincial program that does not meet the requirements of this bill, even though the taxpayers of those provinces will find their moneys being used by the federal government to contribute to programs by provinces which do agree, or are willing to submit to the legislation as set out in bill C-227.
I have no personal knowledge of the kind of program that the government of Nova Scotia will be proposing as a satisfactory one for the people of that province. Indeed, the government of Nova Scotia is not in a position at the present time to indicate the kind of program it feels the people should have, because it has a special commission investigating this matter at the present time. It is not possible for me to know what type of program will be proposed by this commission when it has completed its investigation. This government is asking me to vote for something, when I am not in possession of the facts as to my own province's attitude on the bill in its present form. Surely they are asking members in a situation similar to mine to be irresponsible. It is not a position in which I would expect any government to place a member, no matter to what side of the house or to what political party he might show affiliation.
The only members in the house capable of giving blanket approval to the present bill are those from the province of Saskatchewan, where a program similar to that set out in the present bill is now in effect. There are nine other provinces in Canada, and none at the present time has a program similar to that envisaged by the federal government. There is little indication by any of them that they agree with the kind of program the government now indicates its desires in this bill.
There has been a great battle going on in the Liberal party. I should like to read from an editorial in the October 12 issue of the Montreal Gazette. That editorial refers to this battle and makes many points that all hon. members ought to consider before voting on this legislation. The editorial is entitled "Not just when but how," and states:
Canadians were exposed to a heated debate recently about the federal government's decision to postpone medicare from the original target

date of July 1, 1967 to July 1, 1968. And the hottest words, it seems, were spoken within the inner councils of the government itself, in the federal cabinet, where one minister, Health and Welfare Minister Allan MacEachen, was rumored ready to resign.
Again this week at the Liberal party convention in Ottawa, the debate was resumed and was taken to the floor of the convention. More acrimonious words were thrown back and forth among the delegates on the question of the postponement.
But out of all this discussion, there are many Canadians who wonder what all the argument is about. The debate, within the cabinet and without, has had a strange and hollow ring about it; a lack of realism.
The debate has had a hollow ring because it has concentrated almost entirely on the question of timing. And it has shown a lack of realism because there has been little talk of how such a medicare scheme will operate, or what type of service will result. The debate has been on the question of when, not on the more important issues of what, how and by whom.
What type of medicare scheme should we have in Canada? The subject has been brought up before in royal commission studies (the Hall Commission), as well as several provincial investigations. In fact, most of the provinces either have some sort of medical care scheme in operation, or are planning to put one in operation. There is no shortage of suggestions, or lack of material to debate.
The question of how such a scheme should operate has far-reaching consequences. Medicare is the first social welfare measure which raises problems in human relations between the citizen and his doctor, and between the government and the medical profession. Finally, who is going to operate the plan? This is a point which any responsible government or group of politicians cannot avoid.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In Great Britain, the 20-year-old national health scheme has helped to promote real difficulties in personnel. Only last month the Health Minister, Kenneth Robinson, admitted the shortage was becoming acute. The British Medical Journal said recently 550 doctors left Britain last year. In mid-September a record 600 British doctors took examinations in London to qualify for practice in the United States.
Canada is also in a vulnerable position to lose its highly trained medical personnel, particularly to the United States. And this country is already short of doctors. At the same time, there are insufficient hospitals to cope with the present load of medical service.
In yet another area, medical research, the amount of money which the government puts into this vital sector of medical service is seriously inadequate. And these are only some of the gnawing issues surrounding the implementation of medicare.
But the heated debates of the last few weeks have not even raised the questions, much less begun a search for the answers. The debate has been on the irrelevant question of whether the scheme should be started next year or the year after.
It may be hoped that between now and July 1, 1968 there will be more discussion about the real issues which medicare raises, and less about the secondary ones; more about substance, and less about style.
October 19, 1966

I agree fully with the content of that editorial. I do not think anyone who has any responsibility for dealing with people or who is aware of the problems facing Canada today, especially in the field of social welfare, can feel anything but concern about what will happen to the medical profession if this bill is put into effect in its present form. Certainly, to the extent that the doctor-patient relationship is concerned, if there is a voluntary aspect to the plan there will be less chance of difficulties developing and less chance of losing our doctors to the United States.
As I was saying, there has been a great battle going on within the Liberal party. It has not ended. It is a running battle and one finds difficulty in determining who is winning from day to day in the skirmishes taking place within the Liberal party. One thing seems certain: It is the taxpayers of this nation who will be the eventual losers. I say this because the program finally recommended will not be the best program available; it will be the program which the two battle-scarred groups in the Liberal party find they can best live with. And it will be put into effect not at the most appropriate time, having regard to action taken in the various provinces, but rather at the time when it would be most convenient for the warring factions.
The Prime Minister might help solve this problem by resigning. We would then learn the name of his successor; we would learn whether the right wing of the party represented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) or the left wing represented by any one of a number of leadership aspirants will be dictating policy in the future. When all this had been settled we might then get around to thinking about the people who will pay the bill and who are anxious to have a medical care plan, but who must await the end of the internal wrangling in the Liberal party before they can get what they want.
During these blow-ups the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) has been found in various positions. One day he is resigning. The next day he is staying. The next day he is going to have altered the determination of the Minister of Finance not to have the plan in effect before July 1, 1968. The next day the Minister of Finance is maintaining that date. The next day he is not sure. Yet through it all members of parliament are told they should legislate to make the bill an act, and then, along with the Canadian public, wait for whatever
Medicare
decision might be forthcoming from a government which really does not know from day to day which way it is going.
How much better it would be to allow this legislation to await evidence of some agreement among the provinces on a program which could be universal in application. In the meantime this house could take action to deal with various matters which threaten the livelihood of Canadians today. Surely, the point has been reached at which we must attack the ever increasing cost of living. Surely we must devise labour legislation which would eliminate the tying up of our national economy as the rail strike threatened to do, and as the postal strike threatens to do if it is allowed to take place. Surely the time to provide increases for the old age pensioners and the war veterans of this nation is already overdue. If parliament has a bad image today, as it surely does in the eyes of many, it is because this government has been incapable of governing and because it shows no greater ability today to provide the kind of direction for which our people are crying than it did when it took office in April, 1963.
I will support the amendment in question because it recognizes aspects of welfare legislation that I consider worthy of consideration. It respects the fredom of the individual. It recognizes the immediate need of many in our nation today for medical services that they are incapable of securing. It recognizes the need for a crash program to provide the professional people required when such a program becomes effective; and it recognizes, above everything, the fact that we as federal members of parliament are interfering in a matter of provincial jurisdiction and should only do this with the full co-operation and consent of the provincial governments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-227 is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this parliament. Some Liberal members have taken exception to the length of time which has been used up in this debate. I would point out that in dealing with this legislation parliament is laying the pattern for the kind of health insurance which will obtain in this country for the next half century. It therefore seems extremely important that we examine it carefully and that we do everything we can to improve it.
As the house knows, the members of this party support the principles contained in the legislation. I shall have something to say later about some of the changes we would like to

October 19, 1966
Medicare
see made, but we are supporting the bill as it now stands.
We have before us not only the legislation brought down by the government but the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party. I should like the house to look closely at this amendment; and realize its full implications as explained by the various speakers who have spoken in support of its contentions.
It begins by saying that all the words after "that" should be deleted, and the words being deleted are: "That Bill C-227 be now read the second time". In other words, this amendment would kill the bill before us. This amendment would remove the medical care insurance legislation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
When the hon. member for Simcoe East, for whom I have a very high regard, made his speech he began by chiding the government for postponing the legislation for one year. With that, I heartily agree. But he then proceeded to move an amendment which will defer medical care insurance for many years, and perhaps forever in this country. May I point out that it is very strange that the Progressive Conservative party should seek to destroy this legislation which came about as the result of a royal commission set up by the Diefenbaker administration. That commission brought down what, in my opinion, is probably the finest elucidation of comprehensive health insurance that has been produced in our lifetime, and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) gave the report of that commission his wholehearted blessing at the time it was made public. I therefore find it difficult to understand why the Progressive Conservatives should now be against this legislation.
I would remind hon. members from Saskatchewan, all of whom are Progressive Conservatives, that the passage of this legislation as it now stands would mean that, starting July 1 next the province of Saskatchewan would be entitled, under its medicare program, to $11 million or $12 million a year from the federal treasury, and that this amount would increase progressively as other health services were added under a comprehensive health insurance program.
The saving of $11 million or $12 million a year to the Saskatchewan treasury would enable the government of that province either to remove the personal premiums, which bring in about 25 per cent of the cost, which

is roughly $20 million a year-and in addition enable it to wipe out one percentage point of the sales tax which goes to finance this program-or the government of Saskatchewan could use this $12 million a year for the purpose of doing medical research, training doctors, and establishing community clinics. Therefore I think the members who come from Saskatchewan will have to do some explaining as to why they are opposing a piece of legislation which would have such beneficial effects for their province.
In the amendment there are a number of objectives set forth. The first is in clause (a) which requires that before medicare is proceeded with the federal government must secure the co-operation of the governments of the provinces of Canada.


Mr. McIntosh:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


John (Jack) McIntosh: He has made several references to Saskatchewan and left the insinuation that maybe some Saskatchewan members have opposed certain parts of this measure. Would he please name those members who have opposed it?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We will see who opposes the measure when the amendment comes to a vote. I am pointing out that the amendment clearly says this bill shall not be read a second time, and the passing of the amendment would destroy this medicare legislation. If the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) does not vote for the amendment, then of course my remark does not apply to him. He will have to make his own decision when the vote comes.


John (Jack) McIntosh: It does not apply if I vote for the amendment, either.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My hon. friend should read the amendment and try to understand it, and if he cannot understand it he should have somebody explain it to him.
The alternative proposals made by the opposition are, first, that the federal government, before passing this measure, must secure the co-operation of the governments of the provinces of Canada. I want to point out that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) has said that six provinces have already agreed, and that he has every reason to believe that before July
October 19, 1966

1, 1967, all of the provinces will have indicated their willingness to come in under this plan.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing in this bill which compels any province to adopt a medicare program. This legislation is enabling legislation which merely says that in any province where the provincial government is prepared to set up a medicare program, and its program complies with the four principles laid down in this bill, of providing medicare, of having it portable from province to province, of having it under public administration and of having it universally applicable to every person in the province, then the government of Canada will pay half the costs.
No province needs to come in; any province can stay out. When I hear some complaint, as mentioned by the last speaker, that this legislation proposes to force medicare on the provinces, I would like to remind the house that when we established the hospital insurance and diagnostic services program in Canada it was a Conservative government-I have given it credit on hundreds of platforms across the country for doing so-which made that program available to all provinces.
The Liberal government which introduced the legislation in 1956 put a joker in it which said that the legislation could only become effective, provided 50 per cent of the provinces representing more than 50 per cent of the population came under the benefits of the act. To the everlasting credit of the Diefen-baker administration, one of the first things it did when it took office was to take out the joker and to say that hospital insurance was available to any province which wanted it. That administration said, "It is not compulsory. We are not forcing it down anyone's throat, but any province that wants to avail itself of hospital insurance can do so."
At that time only the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia were eligible; but other provinces came in, and today every province is under the hospital insurance plan. If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was Prime Minister of Canada had not taken that step I doubt very much if we would have national hospital insurance today. Therefore I find it passing strange that while, when the Conservatives were in office, they were quite prepared to pass enabling legislation, allowing any province that wanted it to avail itself
Medicare
of hospital insurance, now they argue that this legislation is forcing medicare upon the provincial governments.
The second reason given for deferring medicare, as stated in the amendment, is because its supporters want to recognize the principle of voluntary choice by the individual. If by that is meant the free choice of doctor, then of course I agree. But, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this legislation which denies any patient the right of free choice of doctor, or denies any doctor the right to freely choose his patients.
Therefore I can only conclude that when they talk about free choice by the individual, members of the Conservative party have in mind the right to choose whether they will come in under a publicly administered plan or whether they will come in under a private insurance plan. Certainly many of the members who have spoken on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party in this debate have argued that the reason they will vote against this legislation is that of compulsion. They say they are opposed to compulsion.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
When I interrupted the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) the other day and said this compulsion that he talked about was recommended by the Hall Commission, he said he did not agree and that that was not his interpretation of the Hall Commission report. Well, I can give many instances but I would like to point out that the Hall Commission started out by very seriously discussing two possible kinds of medical insurance, the first being the kind which obtains in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, where those who are able to pay the premiums join some private plan operated by an insurance company or some non-profit group, with the balance who cannot afford to pay the premiums coming in under a government scheme. The Commission, after looking at that proposal, came down against it, and in favour of a comprehensive plan publicly sponsored and publicly administered. They faced up to this problem. For instance, I refer members to page 10 of the first volume of the Hall Commission report in which they say this:
The national interest requires that the risk must be spread over the whole productive population to cover everybody and not only those who choose to insure voluntarily. And the device must be used ultimately to finance the whole spectrum of health services, not merely hospital and physicians' services. To make certain that all our citizens have access to the necessary health services is now

October 19, 1966
Medicare
clearly a matter for the public interest. That less than half of our population has some degree of reasonably adequate health Insurance coverage for medical services is a matter of grave national concern, and of greater concern is the fact that few organized insurance programs worth mentioning exist in equally important areas such as mental illness, dental, and optical care, drug requirements, retarded and crippled children.


Mr. Aiken:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question at this point?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If you, Mr. Speaker, will keep tab of the time, I will be glad to permit a question.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Will the hon. member not admit that recommendation number one of the commission, to which he indirectly referred yesterday, suggests that the federal government enter into agreement with the provinces in connection with the provision of medical care, and that that is not in this bill? I am giving him an answer to a question he asked me yesterday. Perhaps I have been a little slow in replying.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is precisely what the legislation provides for. It provides that any province which wants to enter into an agreement with the federal government for the provision of medical care may do so, provided it complies with four basic principles set out in this bill.
Let me refer my friend to page 740 of the Hall Commission report under the heading "issue of compulsion". The commission faces up to this matter by making it a separate item, where they say:
This is an important issue, since it lies at the roots of our democratic system. The essential point to be made is that society, in its collective judgment, has found it necessary to use the force of law to achieve a number of socially desirable objectives: attendance at school, payment of taxes to support schools, licensing of physicians to prevent unqualified persons from practising, regulation of insurance companies, to mention only a few. There can be few who would oppose the element of compulsion present in any of these examples.
Then they point out at the end of this section the following:
As a matter of fact, in a situation such as that obtaining in those provinces financing their hospital insurance program from indirect revenues, it is almost impossible to discover any element of compulsion with the hospital services in any form whatever. In fact, the greatest result has been an extension of freedom-freer access to facilities, and freedom from fear of financial consequences.
On page 743 of the report the commission says as follows:
That, so far as the issue of compulsion is concerned, we believe that as long as decisions of this

kind are made by democratically elected legislatures, as long as they provide only basic essentials (for example, standard ward hospital care) and assure citizens free choice of physician and hospital and free choice of additional items against which they may insure through private arrangements, then we have confidence that our democratic ideals will not only be protected, but, in fact, more fully realized. It is of great significance for a democratic society such as ours that the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was passed by an unanimous vote of the House of Commons representing all political parties.
Mr. Speaker, I think it can be said quite forcefully that what the Conservative members have been arguing is that of the two kinds of medicare, one publicly sponsored and publicly administered and the other what I call "tin cup" medicare, they have come down in favour of the latter. The Hall Commission examined this matter of "tin cup" medicare which would allow the people who can pay the premiums to join insurance companies and private plans and would require those who were in stringent circumstances to come under a government program. They rejected the latter, and rejected it on two grounds. They rejected it first of all because, as they point out, it is an affront to human dignity since it divides the citizens of the provinces and of the nation into two categories-those who are able to pay their premiums and get medicare from some private organization, and those who are required to pass some kind of a means test in order to qualify for public assistance.
I agree with the Hall Commission that this is an affront to human dignity. I am opposed to this type of "tin cup" medicare. Conservative members have praised the Ontario plan and the Alberta and British Columbia plans, but the fact remains that the great bulk of the people in those provinces resent the fact that they have to pass a means test in order to get medicare in the event they are not able to provide the funds themselves.
The second reason the Hall Commission rejected the idea of "tin cup" medicare was that it would increase the costs. It would increase the cost even for the people who are able to pay the premiums, because by having a number of private organizations handle medicare it was found that the administrative costs would be anywhere from 20 to 27 per cent, compared to administrative costs in Saskatchewan of less than 5J per cent, where they have a publicly administered plan.
This is understandable. When you have a number of private plans operating they have
October 19, 1966

to pay for advertising, promotion and commissions to the salesmen who sell the contract, and this increases the cost. The Hall Commission estimates that by using private carriers in Canada the cost of medicare would be increased by some $220 million a year. Surely, if we are going to establish a plan for the next 50 years for health insurance, we ought to be trying to get the cheapest kind of health insurance so that people can get it at a price they can afford to pay, that for every dollar which they pay they will get back 95 cents in medicare and will have only 5 cents of administrative costs rather than having to pay 27 cents out of every dollar for advertising and promotion gimmicks.
The third reason which the official opposition has given for deferring medicare is they want to make prior provision for sufficient medical research and the training of adequate numbers of doctors and other medical personnel. Well, Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt about the fact that we will have a problem providing sufficient doctors, although I should like to point out that the doctors are caring for the people of Canada now. If anyone says we will need more doctors under medicare, then surely this is an admission that there are several million people who are not getting oroper and adequate medical care now.
We will not solve the problem of the shortage of doctors by postponing medicare, any more than we would have solved the problem of having an adequate number of hospital beds by postponing hospital insurance. It was when we had hospital insurance that the provinces, the federal government and the municipalities became cognizant of the fact that they had to build more hospitals.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I certainly concur in all that has been said about the inadequacy of the health resources fund, and that $500 million spread over 15 years is completely inadequate. I am convinced that once medicare is in operation the federal government will have to put a great deal more money into training doctors and into medical research. I also agree that we could make better use of the doctors we have by providing funds to enable doctors to set up facilities for group practice, nursing homes and consulting centres where doctors could look after their patients without having to travel for miles. We could make much better use of the doctors we have and get a great deal more service. What the official opposition should be arguing for is more
Medicare
money for training doctors and for medical research, and not for the deferment of the implementation of medicare.
The fourth reason the official opposition gives for wanting to defer medicare is that they want to provide first for those who are unable to obtain medicare because of their financial circumstances. This is in line with the statement which has just been made by the Canadian Medical Association, that there are five million Canadians who cannot afford medicare. Their argument is that the government should now proceed to look after those five million people and not introduce a general medicare program.
I am pleased that the Canadian Medical Association has now admitted that there are at least five million Canadians who are not getting adequate medical care. This is something some of us have been arguing for years when we were told that there was no need for any kind of health insurance and that everybody was being looked after quite adequately. Let me point out that in addition to the five million people who are not getting adequate health services, there are another six million who have completely inadequate coverage, and they have to be looked after as well. It seems to me somewhat contradictory for the Canadian Medical Association to argue that there are not enough doctors to look after all the people, when in addition to the people they are looking after now they are going to take on an additional five million people and look after them. I think this situation was summed up very well in this morning's Globe and Mail by Mr. George Bain, who said:
The Canadian Medical Association urged the government to go ahead at once with a partial medicare plan because some 5,000,000 persons who are needy and are not covered by medical insurance otherwise would be deprived. At the same time, a spokesman argued again-it's an old argument- that there aren't enough doctors in the country to sustain a universal medicare program.
Who, then, would serve the 5,000,000 people the C.M.A. suggests are going without adequate medical attention?
The medical association can't have it both ways. If there are enough doctors to look after this additional 5,000,000 who would account for most of the new case load under a universal plan, there are enough to sustain a universal plan. What the latter would do, of course, in addition to serving the poor, would be to ensure that medical care would be available to everyone, without fear of impoverishment or the necessity of becoming a charity case.
The C.M.A. submission raises the question whether the objective may not have been to urge the government to take a partial step, in hopes that it would become all-and to disguise it as an act of pure kindliness.

October 19, 1966
Medicare
I do not think anyone will be fooled by this type of subterfuge. If the official opposition is concerned about the five million people who are not now getting adequate medical care, the best way to meet this situation is to pass this act and to prevent the government from altering the date so that it will come into effect on July 1 next. We must see that medicare is established for all the people of Canada-for the five million who are now getting no care, for the six million who have got inadequate coverage and for the ten million who are now covered by some type of plan but who need this program because it will cover them at much lower rates.
Let me turn now to the legislation itself and say that while we support the principle there are some changes we would like to see. I shall have to deal with them briefly because my time is running out.
First of all we think the term "insured services" is too narrow in that it is restricted entirely to medical practitioners. We believe there ought to be room for optometrists who, after all, take care of about 95 per cent of functional eye difficulties. About 60 per cent of the communities in Canada have no ophthalmologists or oculists, and there is only an optometrist available to deal with functional eye difficulties. It seems to me that covering optometrists under the act would meet with the approval of the great bulk of the Canadian people.
I think chiropractors and osteopaths have a place in a properly instituted medicare program. I know this would involve some measure of control and some measure of liaison between these groups and the medical profession, but the act should have sufficient flexibility to provide for them.
The act should be clear in respect of psychologists and psychiatric services, so that they would be provided under this program; and I hope the bill will be amended when it is in committee of the whole to cover other health services. The government may not be prepared now to move into these other health services, and the provinces may not either, but I think a provision should be there for dental and for optometric care as well as for prescription drugs. Those sections could be left subject to proclamation, so that when a province was ready to enter into an agreement with the federal government for the provision of additional health services that part of the act could be proclaimed without having to amend the whole act.

Let me suggest to the minister that this act could be broadened to make it a comprehensive health insurance act rather than a very narrowly restricted program as it now is, just providing for the services of a medical practitioner.
I think the term "universality" is too restricted. By saying that 90 per cent represents universality, and 95 per cent in future years, we will be leaving too many loopholes. If medicare is going to apply to everyone, the term "universality" should have a much firmer interpretation than what this bill now provides. If I remember the latest figures correctly, between 98 per cent and 99 per cent of the people in Saskatchewan are covered. The only people not covered are those who come under federal jurisdiction or who are wards of the federal government. Real universality and comprehensiveness means the coverage of a great deal more than 90 per cent or 95 per cent.
This bill creates a very serious loophole when it provides that provincial governments can designate an agency or agencies to operate the plan. Surely we are opening the door wide to private carriers. When in July 1965 the Prime Minister outlined the four basic principles upon which medicare would be predicated-and one of the things he stipulated was public administration of the plan -nothing was said about sneaking in this phrase that a provincial government could designate an agency or agencies to operate the plan. This looks to me very much like a concession to the insurance companies, or some of those groups that have been lobbying the government in recent months.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
As members of this party have been pointing out in the last few days, what concerns us most about this legislation is the fact that the government has announced that when we go into committee of the whole it is their intention to change the date on which this act will become operative and to postpone it from July 1, 1967, to July 1, 1968. I think this is a regrettable step. I think it is a complete betrayal of the pledge made by the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the election campaign less than a year ago. This is a deception which is being practised upon the Canadian people, who were told that if they re-elected the Pearson government they would get medicare on July 1, 1967. I believe we have a right to be told why this plan is being postponed for a year.
October 19, 1966

The most pathetic phrase in the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare was when he said, as reported at page 8612 of Hansard:
I do not propose to go into the reasons for this change-


An hon. Member:: I think he was a little scared.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think there is a very good explanation why the minister did not want to go into the reasons for this change. It is that the minister cannot think of one reason that in good conscience he can give to this house. At least I give him credit for not standing up and going through some hypocritical jargon, because he has not any reasons that commend themselves to him. But I submit that this house has the right to be given some reasons. We should be given the reasons by whoever made this decision. Why have we not heard from the Minister of Finance, who apparently made this decision? Why have we not heard from the Prime Minister, who concurred in this decision? Who is behind this decision? Who is playing Mephistopheles to this unhappy Faust? I should like to know that. Surely those who are responsible for making this decision ought to have the courage to come into the house and tell us why they are breaking their pledged word.
We might as well face the fact that the Establishment in the Liberal party has never been happy about the idea of universal, comprehensive health insurance. Even during the election campaign last year when the Liberal party were beating the drums for medicare up and down the length and breadth of this country, the Minister of Finance in the comfortable constituency of Eglinton was assuring his constituents that they need not worry, that it probably would not come into effect on July 1, 1967.
It is noteworthy that on July 12 this year when we were debating the resolution and giving first reading to this bill, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare told us we would go on the next day to second reading the Progressive Conservative opposition drew attention to the fact that they had an assurance from the house leader, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) and from the Prime Minister that second reading was not going to be proceeded with. The next day the Minister of National Health and Welfare had to back down, and we did not proceed to second reading. If we had proceeded with it then, this legislation would now be passed. But it was held up, and in
Medicare
September when we met here to deal with the railway strike, the Prime Minister gave us the firm assurance that medicare was on the list. Then he went off to England to attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference. As soon as he left, on September 8 the Minister of Finance announced that medicare was going to be postponed for a year. When the Prime Minister returned he concurred in that decision.
The Toronto Star of September 6 said:
The enemies of medicare are taking advantage of the current-and justified-concern over inflation.
They are dropping suggestions that as one means of avoiding unnecessary government expenditure and reducing inflationary pressures, the Pearson government should postpone its proposed national medical care insurance plan, now hopefully scheduled for July 1, 1967.
Now notice this accolade, this ill-deserved accolade:
We are glad Prime Minister Pearson has shown the strength and judgment to resist this insidious suggestion. He assured the House of Commons Thursday that medicare is still priority legislation for this year.
And two days later the Minister of Finance wielded the axe and medicare was off the list for another year. We are going to get some explanation from the Minister of Finance when the legislation comes before the committee of the whole, because we are not satisfied with the off-the-cuff reasons that have been given. The Minister of Finance said first of all that this postponement was necessary to cope with the problem of inflation, and every economist in the country has been laughing ever since. Medicare will not infuse $680 million of new money into the economy. The Canadian people are now spending $600 million a year for medical care. At the very most this means the infusion of an additional $80 million; and if the Minister of Finance says that $80 million will cause inflation, he can curtail some of the government's expenditures to the tune of $80 million.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is there the unanimous consent of members of this house to enable the hon. member to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 19, 1966
Medicare


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thank the house, Mr. Speaker, and I shall try not to impose on hon. members for too long. The fact is that the cost of medicare is not a new cost. It is simply a transfer of payments. It means that whereas the $600 million which people now pay for medical services falls upon those who are unfortunate enough to be ill, under medicare the burden will be borne by all the people of Canada out of taxes levied on the basis of ability to pay. This is not inflation. This is, on the contrary, a redistribution of income so that those with large incomes can contribute to a plan to help provide medical care for people who cannot afford it, and who will be able to use what they would otherwise spend on medical bills to provide themselves with some of the necessities of life.
I think Mr. Eric Kierans, the minister of health in the former Quebec government and a reputed economist, put it very well when he said the other day to a group of students in Montreal:
You do not reduce the inflation oi today by delaying the spending of money a year from now.
Every economist in this country knows perfectly well that a plan which will not cost this country a single dollar in 1966, and will cost us nothing in the first half of 1967, could not possibly be inflationary. However, if the Minister of Finance has done nothing else he has introduced a new theory of contra-cyclical financing. Ever since the days of John Maynard Keynes governments have talked in terms of contra-cyclical financing by building up a shelf of public works which they can bring into effect whenever there is a period of deflation, and gradually taper off during a period of inflation. This has had some measure of success. Now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is going to introduce a social welfare shelf. This will be a new technique, as suggested by Professor Melville H. Watkins, in a recent issue of the Canadian Forum. We can expect now that whenever we face a period of inflation, the Minister of Finance will rise and say: We are going to cancel family allowances. If the inflation gets worse, he will say: We are now going to do away with veterans pensions. Finally, if things get very bad, he will say: We are going to stop paying the senators.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I presume that during a period of deflation and unemployment, the Minister of Finance will rise and say: In view of the fact we have unemployment and we have a deflationary
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]
situation, I want to promise the house we will bring in medicare on Canada's second centennial celebration; or five years from now, we propose to introduce university bursaries. Surely, Mr. Speaker, one has only to state this matter to realize how ridiculous it is.
The minister said when introducing the bill that the delay was based on the government's assessment of economic conditions in the country. What economic conditions in the country? The government has been boasting that conditions were never better in the country. The government has been boasting of the high gross national product, the highest employment, the greatest rate of economic expansion. If we cannot afford medicare in this period of prosperity and affluence, when can we afford it? It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that Liberal policy is this, that during periods of recession the treasury cannot afford medicare, and during periods of prosperity the economy cannot afford medicare. We are not satisfied, and I do not believe the Canadian people are satisfied, with this kind of humbug.
I want to tell the government that when this bill gets into committee of the whole, we will resist any attempt to change the date. We will want some better and more adequate explanation than anything we have received so far. We will support this bill, but we will fight with all the powers at our command to see that medicare comes into effect, as the government promised, on Canada's 100th birthday. We are supporting this legislation because we agree with the Hall Commission that it constitutes a health charter for Canadians; that it will give to our people freedom from fear and freedom from want; that it provides health services irrespective of race, colour, creed or financial circumstances; and that it will enhance human dignity and extend social security in this country.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the French speaking members from Quebec should take part in such an important debate, and I regret that until now so few government members from Quebec have taken the opportunity to do so.
Before getting into the mainstream of my speech, I should like to say to the hon. member who has just taken his seat, the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas), that he has wrongfully imputed to the Conservative party intentions when he claimed that the object of the amendment proposed by our party is to postpone the implementation of medicare.
October 19, 1966

When he made that statement I think that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam behaved as a politician rather than as a parliamentarian because our party never intended to move an amendment to postpone the implementation of that medicare program which is for us of such great importance.
The hon. member who spoke before me claimed that it was not necessary, in short that it was useless to secure the co-operation of the provincial governments to implement that plan.
Mr. Speaker, how can we meet one of the main requirements of that plan, that is the portability of the plan in all the provinces of Canada, if we do not have the co-operation of the provincial governments in that field?
And that is exactly the reservation I make about consideration of that bill. This bill seems to have been introduced too quickly because beforehand the co-operation of all the provinces should have been sought so that plan would meet all the conditions already approved by parliament, first at the resolution stage and then when the bill was introduced by the minister himself.
Through our amendment we also want this legislation to recognize the principle of free choice by the individual. If I am not mistaken, that legislation is not necessarily a socialist legislation, but it has socialist tendencies, and I have the impression that, when it comes to public health or illness, people must be in a position to decide for themselves about the medicare program which they want. That is the aim of the second paragraph of our amendment.
In the third paragraph of the amendment we read:
-the necessary steps to insure that there be adequate medical research and that doctors and other medical personnel be trained in sufficient number.
Mr. Speaker, surely, it is not necessary to make long speeches to prove that there is a shortage of doctors everywhere in Canada. Indeed, the authorities of a small parish in my district, with a population of 3,000 have been trying to no avail, for two years, to get a doctor. They have been unable to find one to minister even to the pressing needs of the population. It is obvious that implementing the plan without first being sure of having the necessary doctors, nurses, laboratories and research centres on which its proper operation depends, would defeat the purposes of the bill. The obvious purpose of the third part of our amendment is to make sure that
Medicare
the bill will provide for enough doctors, personnel, experts to enable proper implementation of the medicare plan we now have before the house.
The fourth part of the amendment reads as follows:
That it provide the pressing medical services to those persons who for financial reasons are unable to attend to them personally.
Obviously, when the government decided to postpone implementation of the plan to 1968, it became urgent for the needy to receive without delay the required medical services. Unfortunately, we still have too great a number of people who, for lack of financial resources, cannot receive adequate medical attention. The fourth paragraph of our amendment is precisely intended to provide, immediately, such special care to the needy.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that instead of postponing implementation of medicare, the purpose of our amendment is to improve the present legislation and to make it available to all the citizens.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I return to the conditions mentioned by the minister, to make this act applicable.
The conditions outlined by the minister are as follows: first, the plan must be administered by the government or a non-profit agency; second, it must be universal, that is, it must be applicable to everyone; third, it must be portable; and fourth, it must cover all medical costs.
The central government intends to participate in the provincial medicare only under these conditions, by paying 50 per cent of the cost of medicare. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the four conditions mentioned by the minister during the introduction of this bill are not agreeable to all the provinces; four provinces have objected to the application of those four conditions and have suggested that they would be willing to set up their own medicare plan. Of course, we know that Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec have already made known their intention to have their own medicare plan. Indeed, in the case of one province, this is for technical reasons; for others, it is to maintain a principle to which they hold firmly. As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, we think that this is a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
From 1917 to 1957, the central government tried to interfere in the field of health, of

October 19. 1968
Medicare
exclusive provincial jurisdiction. When I speak of the central government, I do not mean the government in office more than the Conservative government in office from 1957 to 1963, because it is under a Conservative administration that hospital insurance was implemented and, in my opinion, that was another field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Now, the province of Quebec does not want, at this time, to participate in this medicare plan put forward by the central authority, because it claims that it is intended as an interference in a matter under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, the central government will have to put an end some time to its forays into fields which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces as provided in the constitution. Considering that, in some Quebec universities, nearly 60 per cent of our students no longer believe or have confidence in federalism, that they are opposed to federalism precisely because they claim the central government intrudes in matters outside its jurisdiction, in short, considering also that those students will, in the near future, tomorrow, form the leading class of our society, then this is a cause for concern.
I wonder if the co-operative federalism practised by this government really serves the purpose intended at the time that formula of co-operative federalism was discovered. Some complained, and rightly so, that in Quebec blows a wind of independence and separatism; this results from the fact that the federal government, which has too much money, wants on many occasions and without reason to take over some fields of exclusively provincial jurisdiction, and that in Quebec, some prominent people object to that interference and, as I said earlier, no longer believe in our federalism.
And I think that if the government continues in this way to interfere more and more in some fields of provincial jurisdiction, we shall witness more and more a revival of that nationalistic feeling of independence which we have seen in Quebec and which results from the formula introduced by the Lesage administration during the years 1960-65: "Masters in our own home".
If the federal government wants to avoid a further expansion of that movement in Quebec, and in other provinces, he will have to respect the fields of jurisdiction granted to every province by the constitution. And, if

there is a field of jurisdiction, which is strictly provincial, it is certainly that of health, a field which concerns the human being, and for which the provinces are wholly responsible.
I should like also to call the attention of the minister to clause 8 of the bill. Recently, I read in the newspapers, following a question asked by an hon. member that the minister had shaken his head to indicate that he had no intention of amending clause 8 of the bill.
In my opinion, clause 8 of the bill is punitive and coercive with regard to the provinces which are not ready to participate in the federal medicare plan. In fact, if we do not provide immediately fiscal equalization for the provinces which want to set up their own medicare plan, this is discrimination, because clause 8 of the bill provides that fiscal equalization will not be considered before March 31, 1972.
From 1968 to 1972, the provinces which will not have participated in medicare will lose their tax equalization. This means that Quebec citizens will pay taxes to their province to finance the Quebec private scheme. And those same citizens will also pay taxes to the federal government to finance the implementation of Bill No. C-227, an act authorizing the establishment of a medicare plan.
Now, I maintain that this is discrimination against the provinces which will not immediately participate in this plan and the minister should consider, when this bill is studied in committee, introducing amendments in order to correct this gross injustice set forth in clause 8 and grant tax equalization to provinces which would like to establish immediately their own scheme, so that the citizens of those provinces will not be subjected to double taxation.
These are the comments that I wanted to make concerning the bill before us, Mr. Speaker. Naturally, several reasons were given to postpone its implementation until 1968. I know that this postponement has disappointed many members, including members of the party in office for we could see, at the Liberal convention held in Ottawa about a week and a half ago, that not all Liberal party members supported the views of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) concerning the advisability of putting off implementation of the plan. This measure was said to be necessary in order to curb inflation, but obviously, as was put forward a while ago, the
October 19, 1966

Medicare
monies set aside for medicare are just transferable funds.
I therefore urge the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) to keep close tab on the nation's economic situation so that, with an improved plan, a plan taking into account the suggestions which have been made in the house, we may have, in the interests of all Canadians, a medicare plan acceptable not only to the federal government but also to all provinces. And if one province wishes to implement its own medicare plan, I hope the federal government will be broadminded enough to grant it tax equalization, in order to prevent double taxation of its residents and enable them to take advantage of this timely plan.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Richard Cashin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity of saying a few words this afternoon. With other members, we on this side of the house have been witnessing with amusement the spectacle of the pendulum swinging through full cycle. Just a few months ago the opposition benches poured forth compassion in an unparalleled way on the old age pensioners of this country. I find it quite inconsistent, when one recalls those wonderful words of rhetoric on previous occasions, to consider what is happening now. It is hard to believe that the same party in the house is speaking. This of course confirms a suspicion which has lingered for a long time in the minds of the Canadian people, that notwithstanding the occasional dash into the field of social security, basically the Conservative party has opposed virtually every social reform in this country.


An hon. Member:: That is cheap.


Richard Joseph Cashin: For a few months, under the once dynamic leadership of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) it appeared there was a change in the Conservative party ranks. This, to the many people who swept that party into power, proved to be false. Now, looking back one might feel that perhaps the right hon. gentleman really meant to do more than he was able to do. Perhaps the mistakes, and the lack of advance, were not due so much to himself as to the fact that he was leading a party which was basically a nineteenth century
Tory party. Today, Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the voice of opposition members, it seemed to me that I was hearing the words of Queen's Park. I heard nineteenth century Toryism wrapped in a twentieth century image. It would seem that the true blues can rest assured. Alleluia. They are going to regain control of the once great Conservative party. Probably, to be consistent, their first action ought to be that of dropping the word "progressive".


An hon. Member:: Do you support the postponement?


Richard Joseph Cashin: Perhaps I might refer to certain things documented by the leader of the New Democratic Party. Some unusual positions have been adopted. In fact, just a short while ago-a few years ago-this Conservative party, when it was under the imaginative leadership of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert endorsed at a party convention a medicare program paralleling the program now introduced by the government. That was when the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert appeared to be in command of the troops. Today of course we have witnessed a magnificent retreat that, in the words of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, calls to mind the retreat of Napoleon from Waterloo.


An hon. Member:: He retreated from
Moscow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He was licked at Waterloo. It might be better to say he retreated all the way to Waterloo.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Perhaps I was mixing historical facts. Instead of saying that it is like the retreat from Moscow, I should say that here we have the Waterloo of the Conservative party.
On the one hand the Conservatives are against any delay in medicare, while on the other they want to kill medicare. The amendment if carried, would have that effect. This would be to the liking of those true blue Tories who feel once again they are taking over their party. Also-and this is a major inconsistency-they are against the means test. It was a terrible thing even to suggest it in the case of the old age pensioners-and we have this from this party that was in favour of the great charities. Paraphrasing the words of the leader of the New Democratic Party: Nobody wants to see tin cups held by the five million Canadians involved in this country.

October 19, 1966
Medicare
For those people-for those I have referred to-it is all right to have a means test. That is quite acceptable. It is one thing to talk about old age pensioners, but quite another when you mention other people. One must not imagine that the party opposite is totally devoid of intellect. Occasionally that party does something to restore its tarnished image. But, taking the over-all picture, every time new social programs have been introduced, no matter for how long they have been discussed in this country, no matter how much suffering existed and how desperate the situation, no matter how obvious the need, the Conservative party has opposed them.
Once in that party's history, under the leadership of the right hon. gentleman when he was obviously in command of the party, there seemed to be a chance that the party would change. That was refreshing. But then there were those leaders in this country who emerged, opposing this. I suppose we should be glad to see that the balance is being restored and that once again we shall have in this country something that I suppose the country needs: a good, solid, old-fashioned Tory party. Some of the statements made, as reported in Hansard, by hon. gentlemen opposite struck me as reactionary even for the nineteenth century. Some of those hon. gentlemen are against compulsion. One hon. gentleman said he was against compulsion in any form. I presume therefore that he is against the laws of this country saying that our children must go to scool. It seems to me that his basic interpretation of private enterprise is that we ought to have the freedom of the caveman, who roamed round his cave unfettered by any of this progress that is confusing the human mind.
Of course, as we know, this program will give greater freedom to the five million Canadians to whom hon. gentlemen opposite are so attached. Instead of Robarts care or tin cup care, this program to those five million Canadians will mean greater freedom. The program might not go down too well with the Canadian Manufacturers Association, which seemed a couple of times to pose as a great authority in the field of medicare. It might not sit well with the old established Tory minds of this country. But for the five million people who are suffering from an indignity, I submit that their freedom would be enhanced.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
They also contended, supporting what the Canadian Medical Association has said, that we should now have partial medicare and give coverage to a group of five million people. This contradicts the other argument that we do not have sufficient qualified doctors to carry out the proposed program. Hon. members on the other side have presented many arguments, and every time two arguments have been put forward by them it seems that the second contradicts the first.
Anybody who takes the time to read the 27 speeches which have been put on record to date by the members of the official opposition-and it would take a good deal of time-will find within those 27 speeches and the quarter of a million words which have formed the filibuster to date, such numbers of contradictions as would tend to make their case look, to say the least, a little ridiculous.
I think that the time has come to make a decision on the amendment before us. I think it is time for us to be counted-for those who want to move forward to vote against the amendment, and for those who want to continue what they have been doing for the past 100 years, that is, to oppose all forms of democratic progress, to oppose it.
As one who is somewhat disturbed by the imbalance created a few years ago, I welcome a return, as demonstrated during the course of this medicare debate, to the good, old fashioned Tory political party. I think this will make the fight in our coming political battles far more honest. We shall know where we stand and I am confident that the vast majority of the Canadian people will continue to stand for progress as they have in the past.


An hon. Member:: Does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) know where they stand?


Richard Joseph Cashin: Unfortunately, I think that today the Leader of the Opposition does know where they stand, and viewing it from this side of the house one observes it not without sorrow.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I do not wish to extend the debate on this motion, but I want nevertheless to make some remarks about

Oclober 19, 1966

Bill No. C-227, more especially about its basic principles.
First of all, according to the principles of this bill, there are in Canada people without the money required to pay their doctors' bills. Provision has been made for an insurance to protect the Canadian people against the risks of illness and to pay their medical costs.
Mr. Speaker, how is it that in a country as rich as Canada, some people are so poor. How is it that Canadians are unable to pay their doctors' bills? It is surely because the present system is faulty or unbalanced, because the citizens are supposed to be able to look after their own needs. They should be able to pay their bills, their doctor, their food, their rent, but under the present system, not a single one is able to pay his rent, his doctor and everything. We are living under a credit system. Everybody borrows money from lending companies and our system has become so absurd-it is almost entirely planned-that the people are no longer able to meet the very requirements of the programs we set up.
The costs of a good number of our plans are paid by workers or employers. Employers and workers are no longer able to pay compulsory fees with respect to different cost sharing plans between the federal and provincial governments.
Mr. Speaker, in a country such as Canada, it is illogical to have to advocate compulsory plans which are going to bind individuals, which prevent the taxpayer from saving a few cents or a few dollars but provide all kinds of ways of emptying his pockets. It is desired to implement such a medicare plan and all possible means are resorted to in order to introduce it, knowing that a great majority of the people in Canada will be unable to pay for it. It is compulsory. Everybody is compelled to do something; every one is being cast in a mould and has to go through it; those who are working are compelled to pay, they are being robbed so that we may give something to those who are not working. A great percentage of the people are unemployed at present. There are pockets of unemployment at present in Canada. A great number of citizens who are fit for work are living off social welfare plans and their names do not appear on the unemployment insurance rolls. And we are told there is a decrease in unemployment in Canada, and that prosperity is taking over in this country.
Medicare
It is not prosperity that is taking over but poverty. If we have to talk about such plans, to try to set up plans of this kind, it is because you agree there is poverty in Canada.
A few months ago, a war was declared on poverty and now, we have declared war against the poor. Instead of fighting poverty, we are doing the opposite. In discussing these various resounding plans, several members of parliament have just begun to realize how worthless they are.
This particular plan is of no use; the people do not want it. First, it is a provincial matter, because education and health matters are under the jurisdiction of provinces, according to the British North America Act. Give to the provinces the right to administer themselves and let them take care of themselves. Let us not infringe on the rights of the provinces.
That is the reason why, Mr. Speaker, we will vote against the motion and against the amendment moved by the Conservatives, which is meaningless. It is merely restrictive in nature.
The principle of the plan is accepted, but it is not to be implemented now. However, if it is not to be implemented now, why present it to the people? Why present it to parliament for debate, why put in forward, if it is not to be implemented? When something is not to be put into effect, it is not talked about, it is put aside. It is talked about only if it is to be put into force. But now they want to socialize Canada and the whole Canadian economy. This medicare legislation exemplifies one of the great principles of socialism.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, almost all salaried workers are insured through group insurance plans. Almost all organizations and corporations, and several individuals in the field of production and consumption and in several other fields, have group insurance. Participation in these group insurance plans is not compulsory for the workers. All manufacturers and corporations having these group insurance plans offer them to their employees who are free to join them. Those who want to, join, and those who do not want to, do not join. The Minister of National Health and Welfare shoud follow the suggestion and we should have free participation. Yes, we are in favour of insurance plans. Yes, we care about the welfare of the people. We want the people to have an adequate standard of living in a country abounding with such riches. We want the people to benefit from medical and hospital services and from all possible care. Yes,

October 19, 1966
Medicare
but we could bring this about without such a plan. We could do it by leaving the purchasing power in the hands of the taxpayers, allowing them to choose their own medicare plan and to pay for it themselves. We could do it without making the plan compulsory.
Mr. Speaker, the government is always in a bad situation. It still is. It knows that the income of senior citizens must be increased to $305 a month.


An hon. Member:: No, $105 a month.


Henry P. Latulippe: It does not know where to find the money. It knows it is essential to set up a compulsory and national medicare plan, but it does not know yqt where to find the money to implement it.
It wants all sorts of things, very well, but it does not have the money to pay for them. We must do without; it is rather the population which must do without. When it is for members, for ministers, for war and for armaments, well, money is no problem, it can find as much as it wants. To increase M.P.'s emoluments from $10,000 to $18,000, well-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Henry P. Latulippe: -it does not have any serious arguments. It found ways to provide for this increase and it is able to pay it.
But the government is still in a bad spot, Mr. Speaker, because the population lacks money, even if it knows that production is always on the increase-this year our export production will reach $10 billion. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) insist that our exports should reach $12 billion in 1967. Is it not wonderful?
But we never have enough money for our citizens. We have huge natural resources that are almost inexhaustible, but we have to produce for foreign countries and not for our citizens who must tighten their belts even more. The government is still in a bad spot, it always is.
When companies flaunt net profits of up to $15 billion per year, after taxes, the government cannot even make ends meet in its annual budget; it lays bare to the public its incapacity to introduce a decent budget. It must have deficits, to show the people how to borrow, how to pay interest to those who can create money and capital.

There is chaos everywhere, imbalance, debts, deficits, except in the case of the 800 large Canadian companies; they make more than $1 million of profit a year and increase their dividends each year, as well as their capitalization on the stock exchange, adding millions to billions.
We are not against the large companies which pile up millions and billions when individuals, families, small institutions, municipalities, provinces, sink deeper and deeper into debt.
Please note that we are not against large corporations, nor against large profits. We want some balance in all institutions, between individuals, families and corporations; we want some balance between production, consumption and capitalization in a national economy.
With the whole of the Canadian economy, in 1966, we are able to capitalize up to $18 billion-$15 billion by big corporations and $3 billion by individuals-and we are not able to find $200 million immediately to take care of the citizens who do not have the vital necessities, and who are sick precisely as a result of malnutrition.
It is a pity to see this national economic imbalance between the poor and the overrich, which is at the basis of all our difficulties, our economic problems in Canada. And far from removing these difficulties, we seek solutions which can only contribute to widen the gap between the very poor and the very rich in Canada, between those who have a deficit and those who make big profits and increase their large capital.
Far from stabilizing the national economy, which everyone would like to see, the situation is getting worse and we are headed for chaos. Canada is spreading towards total collapse and ruin, with these health programs, these compulsory plans.
Mr. Speaker, we are against any compulsory measure, opposed to any plan which hampers human freedom. We do not want any yokes, the people no longer want them, Canadians are tired of yokes.
What we want, Mr. Speaker, and Canada can afford it, if it has the necessary courage to stabilize the Canadian economy, is a national health dividend distributed to every Canadian, who will remain free to choose his own insurance program.
October 19. 1966

lEngiish]


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us asks this house to adopt the principle of the federal government making contributions toward the cost of insured medical services incurred by the provinces. In my opinion that is the only principle we are being asked to adoptd.
This bill is not a comprehensive medical care plan, if I may put it that way, because it states very specifically that federal payments will be made to a province or provinces where a medical care insurance plan is established, or plans are established, by act of provincial legislatures. It is such provincial acts that constitute the medical services care plan. They may not all be identical, but they are what set up the plan. Therefore the only principle we are being asked to consider is that of the federal government making a contribution to the cost of plans set up by provincial governments.
At this stage I do not believe we need worry ourselves about whether we are for or against the principle of medical services plans set up and operated by public bodies such as provincial governments, because this is something which has already been done. It has been done in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, in British Columbia and in Ontario. Whether or not provincial legislatures pass such acts and set up the plans is entirely up to them. Granted, it will be substantially easier for them to do so after this bill is passed, which provides for a contribution from the federal government of 50 per cent of the cost of any plan which meets the criteria set out in Bill C-227. Therefore it is an academic question whether we accept the principle of medical care service plans because, so far as I am concerned, this was accepted by at least four of the provinces a long time ago.
We in this party disagree with some of the provisions of the bill, particularly those dealing with the criteria as outlined in clause 4, and when we reach committee stage we intend to argue in favour of some changes that we believe will improve the bill. But so far as the question of voting for or against the amendment that is before the house is concerned, I do not think we should be confused as to whether the principle is for or against a federal medical care service plan, or the establishment of such a plan.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The question is simply whether or not the federal government should participate in the 23033-5621
Medicare
financial support of those medical service plans. For example, the amendment says that this house should set aside this legislation until the co-operation of the governments of the provinces is secured. Well, if one reads all the bill carefully, and particularly clause 4, it is perfectly obvious there can be no medical care or health services care plan in any province unless the province does agree; not only that, but even if the province agrees, it must pass an act through its legislature setting up such a plan. It seems to me therefore that it is almost foolishness to suggest that we must secure the co-operation of the provinces before the federal government offers to make a financial contribution, because as I said, it is pretty obvious that the provinces will have to agree before the people in the provinces will have a medical services plan available to them.
The amendment also says that we should wait until there is adequate prior provision for sufficient medical research, the training of. adequate numbers of doctors and other medical personnel. Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how it is going to require more medical personnel to administer a medical services plan, whether or not the federal government makes a contribution to the payment of that plan. I say this because in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, where medical service plans already are set up, whether or not the federal government pays half of the cost is not going to add any work load, in my opinion, to the medical personnel which will be required to perform these services.
The amendment also says that we should wait until there is provision for those persons who are unable for financial reasons to provide medical services for themselves. Well, clearly the provision of medical services for people who are unable to pay for those services, either by way of premiums or by whatever method is used, is up to the provincial legislatures. In Alberta, for example, anyone who qualifies under a means test- and I presume this is what is meant-and for financial reasons is eligible for social welfare of any kind, whether it be that in respect of senior citizens, mothers allowances, widows allowances, invalid allowances, or what have you, is also provided with a medical services card which gives him 100 per cent coverage in so far as medical services are concerned.
In many cases, in addition to the medical services which are provided to these people who are unable financially to provide their

October 19, 1986
Medicare
own, there are clauses which provide for a certain number of specified drugs and many other things, such as in some cases chiropractic services or the services of optometrists. So I really do not see that it is up to this body to decide whether or not there shall be an additional provision for those who are financially unable to provide for their own medical services. That, as is clearly set out in clause 4 of the bill, must be included in an act of the legislature. It is this act of the legislature which will spell out in detail how the act is going to be administered, what will be included, what will be excluded, the means of collecting funds, and so on. It is not up to this parliament; it is up to the legislature.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to keep the house very long. There are however a couple of points which I should like to bring out, with regard to the criteria laid down, which must be met before a provincial plan will be acceptable under this bill. Clause 4(l)(a) says among other things, that the plan must be administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority. We do not disagree with that, except for the definition of what is a non-profit basis and what is a public authority. Subclause (2) of that same clause goes on to deal with it in this way;
Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of subsection (1), a plan established by an act of the legislature of a province does not fail to satisfy
I should like to underline those words "does not fail to satisfy".
__the criteria set forth in that paragraph by
reason only that it authorizes the designation by the provincial authority of an agency or agencies-
In two of the provinces with which I am most familiar, Alberta and British Columbia, Medical Services Incorporated, which is a non-profit organization, does in fact provide the major portion of the administrative detail. As I read this, it would appear that they would meet the criteria laid down. I think it would be useful if the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) would tell us whether or not organizations such as this, which have been set up in many provinces, do satisfactorily meet the criteria laid down in subclause (2) of clause 4. We would like to know this, because in Alberta and British Columbia it is working very satisfactorily. As I said, anyone who qualifies for any social welfare in any of its forms is provided with 100 per cent medical service coverage

without any cost to that individual by way of premiums. In the case where an individual pays no income tax but perhaps has assets and does not qualify for social welfare, the province pays 80 per cent of the premium set up by M.S.I. which is, as I said before, a non-profit organization.
In respect of anyone who has a taxable income of from zero to $500, the provincial government pays 50 per cent of the premium. In respect of a person who has a taxable income of between $500 and $1,000, the province pays 25 per cent of the premium. This is satisfactory; it is working. I hope the criteria laid down in subclauses (1) (a) and (2) of clause 4 will allow for this kind of administration of a provincial plan which will qualify for contribut.ons by the federal government. So, Mr. Speaker, when we get to these clauses we intend to probe deeply into the minister's thinking in respect of this matter, so that we will know in advance whether or not the interpretation of what is written in this bill in fact will meet these things I have been talking about.
In addition to that, in closing I might add that we think this should be a health care insurance plan rather than a medical care insurance plan, and that it should include such things as optometrists and some or all of the chiropractic services which are required by a large number of people. We will come to that when we reach our clause by clause consideration.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In the meantime I suggest that a vote for the amendment before us is a vote against the principle that the federal government should make a financial contribution to medical insurance plans. We in this party know there are plans already in existence in various provinces, and we are in favour of the federal government making such a contribution to those plans.


Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great number of explanations about this plan and the proposed amendment. It is my belief that the amendment will make the plan more acceptable. That is my belief as a result of talking to my constituents and as a result of reading about the experience of those who have been laid down in subclauses (1) (a) and (2) of subjected to compulsory universal medical
October 19, 1966

Medicare
plans. The present plan without amendment-and I agree with the amendment now before us-is nothing more than a universal comprehensive plan on a compulsory basis.
I do not wish to take up too much time, but I should like to refer briefly to the history of experience in those countries which have adopted compulsory plans of this kind. I refer primarily to the Scandinavian countries and to England. They have all discovered that a greater amount of research than has been provided is required to make the plan successful. The hon. member who spoke immediately before me suggested that more research was perhaps not necessary because research was being done by other authorities. Certainly that is not the experience of the countries to which I have referred.
There are several provinces in Canada including Alberta which already have adequate insurance medical plans. The proposal of the government is that this plan be forced down the throats of those provinces. I do not think any medical insurance plan should be adopted on this compulsory basis. I have no complaint about the adequacy of the plan now in effect in Alberta, and I might add that it is a good deal cheaper than this proposed plan will be. I had occasion to enter a hospital 2,500 miles from the province of Alberta and I had no difficulty whatsoever in doing so, or in obtaining the care of one of the finest doctors in Canada. One of my family had to enter the hospital in the province of Quebec and there was no difficulty, financial or otherwise, involved at that time.
I think we should be very suspicious of any suggestion that we do not require additional funds for research in relation to this plan, on the basis that someone else is carrying out this job. Let us make sure that we provide properly for medical research, if we are to adopt a compulsory universal medicare insurance program. In order to do that we must amend the bill before us.
As I suggested earlier, we should learn from the experience of other countries that have adopted compulsory medicare programs. England now has had several years experience, and we can learn from them. A very eminent authority from that country and in this field said a few weeks ago in Canada that if England were to revert now it would take them 20 years to catch up.
We are talking now about a plan which, if adopted, will not come into effect for some 22
months and I feel we should be given the opportunity of at least considering it thoroughly in light of other experiences. The only thing we have heard about this proposed plan in the house, and that the Canadian people generally have heard, can be boiled down to one phrase, and that is "political expediency".
What have we been told about the mortality rate under existing plans in other parts of the world as compared to the mortality rate in Canada? The minister may well say that in England the mortality rate has gone down since the adoption of its plan; but we must take into consideration the effect of new drugs and advances in medicine over the past 20 years. If we disregard the results of these advances will the mortality rate of these countries with universal and compulsory insurance plans compare favourably with the mortality rate here? If by that type of comparison it is shown that mortality rate is no better or even worse than ours, then the benefits of a compulsory insurance plan must be considered in that light.
Again I must apologize for taking up the time of this house, but I feel that certain other things must be considered. Cost should be considered, as of course should the sovereignty, if I may put it that way, or the constitutional authority aspect of this issue. I believe that some aspects of our constitutional authority are being breached in the bill as drafted at the present time.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
When it comes right down to it, it is pretty difficult to match dollars and cents with our public health. That is one point I should really like to put on the record and leave with the minister. Is public health the real consideration; because if it is, the bill will probably be supported, as it should be. However, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that further consideration will be given to the amendment, and I believe we should not rush this bill through right now when obviously the plan will not be implemented for two years at least.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, many if not most members in this house have been studying the issue of a public medical care plan for a long period of time. In the process they have no doubt been assisted by some of the systematic studies that have been made of the question, and by the large number of articles which have appeared in newspapers, periodicals, and the like. It is obvious, of course, that some hon. members have

October 19, 1966
Medicare
been able to draw from all this material that a public medical care plan is not desirable. However, Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that most members are more or less coming to the point of view that it would in fact be desirable if a public medical plan were implemented in this country. The difference of opinion seems to be on matters of method and degree.
For my part, having given this matter consideration over a number of years, I say unequivocally that I support the concept of a public medical care plan that is based on the principle of universal coverage and on the assumption that it will be the greatest value for the tax dollar if it is administered by a public agency. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, my position on the issue before us is quite clear. But much more must be said with regard to many of the points of view that -have been put forward up to now. The contention has been put forward by some hon. members of course that the desirability or efficacy of a public medical care plan is far from proven. However, we do have the Hall Commission report, which states quite clearly its findings and recommendations. In addition to; this report there is ancillary material. Also, it is not difficult to find evidence from ; other countries to the effect that where such a plan has been implemented it is working out in a way that is acceptable to a majority of the people.
There are those who say that in the United Kingdom the national health plan has presen ted many problems and contains many deficiencies. Of course this would have to be conceded; but for the most part things have not been deteriorating in that country with respect to health care. A relatively short time ago I recall reading an article in the Financial Post to the effect that the doctor population ratio was actually improving and had been improving in the past decade and a half, contrary to the impression left by some . bon. members who have made much of the fact that there has been a fairly substantial emigration by doctors from the United Kingdom to North America. The fact is that the doctor population ratio has improved; the medical schools are full and graduates are coming out of medical training institutions to carry out their profession.
. It is my understanding that, ideally at least, debate on second reading of a bill should focus on the issue and concentrate on the principle involved in the particular piece
[Mr. Schreyer.J
of legislation under discussion. Debate on second reading is supposed to help in clearing up misunderstanding or confusion. I am not sure that this has been the case at all with respect to the bill before us. I think it can be said, without appearing immodest, that in so far as our group is concerned we have stated our position quite clearly, namely, that we favour a public medical care plan based upon the same principles that were enunciated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) on many occasions in the past two years. But now the government has seen fit to delay the implementation of the program and really has not-and I think it is germane to debate this point on second reading-indicated just what is the real reason for the delay.
It is true that we have been told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and his supporters that the reason has to do with the connection between the implementation of a medicare program and inflation, the implication being that there is a causal connection between the implementation of this program and inflation. But, Mr. Speaker, such a statement coming from the Minister of Finance, without any elaboration, is just not good enough. His mere saying so does not give us the real reason. If the government was really sincere in postponement of medicare on the basis of the inflation problem, it should through its Minister of Finance have taken the time and made the effort to elaborate in complete detail on just what is the connection.
Many members who have spoken in this debate have touched upon this, in my opinion, spurious argument that has been put forward by the supporters of further delay. Some editorial writers have analyzed this apparent reason and have held it up to the ridicule it really deserves. I believe it is still not too late to expect from the government some real explanation of the delay.
It is my opinion that this program has been delayed for political reasons. The government has found that it would require a considerable amount of fortitude to press on with the program in the light of recent attitudes and thinking on the part of various provincial governments. Therefore, rather than stand up to this opposition from whatever source, the government has decided to retreat; and not just retreat with respect to the time factor,
October 19, 1966

but with respect to certain of the four fundamental principles that were earlier enunciated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I should like to refer to two of these principles in particular. One has to do with universality, or universal coverage, and the other has to do with the way in which the scheme shall be administered in the several provinces. However, before dealing with these matters, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call it six o'clock.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, could we have an announcement of the business for tomorrow?


Mr. MacEachen:: The business for tomorrow is identical to the business announced last night for today.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 20, 1966