1966-10-24

Mr. Speaker:: On Thursday last the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona rose on what he termed a question of personal privilege which he said affected not only himself but other hon. members, arising out of an article published in Le Droit on October 14 last. The hon. member said the article imputed an improper motive to himself and that it was a gross distortion of the facts. He then gave notice of a motion that Mr. Marcel Pepin be called before the bar of this house to be dealt with as having breached our privileges.
As hon. members know, the article in question was read into the record by the Clerk of the House, after which I asked the house to give me an opportunity to analyse the article in question and to study the motion proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
As far as I have been able to ascertain there have been only two cases in the history of the Canadian House of Commons when journalists, whose conduct has been complained of by hon. members, have actually been brought to the bar. The first case arose in 1873 and is referred to in the Journals of the House of Commons for that year at page 133. The second case is the well known attack on a member of this house by Mr. E. E. Cinq-Mars in 1906.
A cursory consideration of the facts in both these precedents show that they were cases of flagrantly libellous allusions to members of the house.
Earlier today in my chambers I discussed with the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona this aspect of his motion, and I brought to his attention the following annotation contained at page 466, volume 28 of
Halsbury's Laws of England, third edition, which reads as follows:
It is now the usual practice of the House of Commons to refer complaint of breach of privilege or contempt to the committee of privileges for investigation and report before summoning an offender to the bar-
And later on:

a flagrant and obvious contempt would still, however, be considered by the house itself without reference to the committee of privileges.
In the light of all the circumstances the hon. member has agreed that perhaps the motion might be changed. Since a motion can be amended by an hon. member at any time before it is formally put to the house I suggest there is no procedural obstacle to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona being allowed to alter the proposed motion, the one of which he gave notice last week, and I suggest to hon. members that he might be given an opportunity of doing this now.


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonion-Siralh-cona):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the Chair for pointing out the difficulty with the method I had proposed, in that that method presupposed a notion of guilt which carried with it a connotation of unfairness to the newsman.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I therefore suggest I should like to withdraw that motion and move that the question of breach of privilege raised on Thursday October 20 by myself dealing with an article in Le Droit of October 14, under the by-line of Marcel Pepin be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for investigation and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to give my further views concerning the matter that is before the house, I think I should be fair to all hon. members and give any member the opportunity to make additional comment if this is required.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty hearing the form of the motion. Could we have it read?

October 24, 1966
Question of Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: I will read the motion, without putting it to the house:
I move that the question of breach of privilege raised on Thursday October 20. 1966 by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona dealing with an article in Le Droit, Ottawa, Friday, October 14, 1966, under the by-line of Marcel Pepin (English Hansard page 8890), be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for investigation and report.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have just one point to raise in respect of this matter. The article contains several paragraphs and takes about a column in Hansard. The greater part of it reports the events as they happened in the House of Commons, with an opinion of the writer. Unless there is some pinning down of what is to be referred to the committee on privileges and elections it seems to me that committee would be going into matters that are no part of its proper function; not only that, but in so doing the committee would be interfering with the right of members of the press freely to report the proceedings in this house as they see them.
If the hon. member wishes to pin this down it is possible he could do so by referring to certain paragraphs. For instance, there is one-I will read the English translation, but I would hope the committee would deal with the original language of the article when they are dealing with it-where it states:
The latter directed from the public gallery the attack of the Conservative member Terry Nugent against Hon. Mr. Hellyer, Wednesday.
If that does denote some act or some participation on the part of the hon. member which would cast some reflection on him, then it well may be privileged; but if it merely describes the conduct of a spectator in the gallery, then there is no privilege involved so far as the hon. member is concerned. The other parts of the story have no relationship to any question of privilege. For instance, there is this paragraph:
Our informant maintains that half a dozen superior navy officers have been plotting at the Chester club in Halifax since the appointment of General Allard.
Surely whether such a meeting did or did not go on, or whether there was or was not that kind of action, it is legitimate for a reporter to report that, and it is of no concern as a question of privilege to any hon. member because it is not related to any hon. member in the house.

I could point out other paragraphs, such as the following:
The appointment of General Allard and the replacement of Rear Admiral Landymore by Rear Admiral O'Brien, an Irish Catholic, has angered the defenders of the bastion.
Where is there an interference with the privilege of an hon. member of the house in that kind of a statement?
My point is that the motion is lacking in precision and does not have a reference to the committee for study which would enable it to do its work and find out whether or not there has been a breach of privilege. I respectfully submit that the hon. member should be required either to describe the point of privilege or to cite the paragraph which in his opinion offends against privilege. Your Honour would then have to rule as to whether they constituted what could be considered as a breach of privilege.
The new motion with which we are confronted today is really totally different from the motion presented last week, and to the extent that it does seek to refer a matter to the committee on privileges and elections it is acceptable, but there is no use in attempting to clear up the procedural point raised by the hon. member by making the mistake of materially weakening or curtailing the right of the press to report events here as they see them. That is undoubtedly their right, and we must not through any carelessness in our procedure cut down or in any way restrict that valuable right of freedom of the press to report.


Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I find that the motion introduced by the member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) is written in English only and reads as follows:

I move that the question of breach of privilege raised on Thursday, October 20, 1966, by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, dealing with an article in Le Droit, Ottawa, Friday. October 14, 1966, under the by-line of Marcel Pepin, (English Hansard page 8890) be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for investigation and report.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend I heard some people suggest that the member for Edmonton-Strathcona seemed to attack a French speaking journalist because he is French.
October 24, 1966

Mr. Speaker, the motion of the member for Edmonton-Strathcona could have been introduced against several other members of the press gallery, against anyone in the house, in order to call them before the committee on privileges and elections. If we spent our time bringing up articles written or opinions expressed by journalists against us, the committee on privileges and elections would be summoning journalists all day long and even all year round, especially as far as we are concerned, we, members of the Ralliement Credi-tiste.
Mr. Speaker, I think the motion of the hon. member is not serious. On the other hand, I believe that journalists are the first to flout the freedom of the press, because instead of complying with that freedom, they indulge in licence of the press, which is entirely different.
An opinion can be stated, as long as it is pointed out that it is one's opinion, but to misquote knowingly someone, Mr. Speaker, is no longer freedom of the press. From that point of view I would accept the motion of the member for Edmonton-Strathcona, but as we complain that freedom is often violated-and by the way, especially as far as we are concerned-I think that this motion should be ruled out of order, because as I said earlier, we could introduce similar motions each day against any reporter or owner of a Canadian newspaper.
Mr. Speaker, for those reasons and considerations I think that the member for Edmonton-Strathcona should be a little more lenient and simply withdraw his motion in order not to make a point of conscience out of it.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to suggest to the hon. member for Villeneuve to consult his deskmate, the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) who, in November 1962, found himself forced to refer to the house, and then to the committee on privileges and elections, an article published in some newspapers, as well as the editorial of a certain newspaper, about a parliamentary delegation because he had been offended. And strangely enough the seconder of the motion was none other than the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). At that time not a single onjection was raised. The question was that the house itself could not discuss the pros and cons of the article.
Question of Privilege
We have a committee on privileges and elections which can study the matter, hear testimony and then report to the house which, then, will reach a decision. That is all we are asking for at this time; it is not for the Chair to decide if an article offends an hon. member or violates his privileges. It must only establish a prima facie case.
And I suggest to Your Honour that, in the circumstances, there is not much difference between the editorial about which we are complaining and that of 1962. It is unfortunate that at that time we did not get a decision or at least a recommendation, but other events stole the limelight from the investigation on that editorial.
Therefore, with all due respect, I suggest to Your Honour that the editorial and the complaints be referred to the committee on privileges and elections for study and report, after which we will be able to decide what to do.


David Réal Caouette: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, of course.


David Réal Caouette: Was the matter raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West in 1962 referred to the committee on privileges and elections at that time?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As far as I remember, Mr. Speaker, yes, the motion was agreed to by the house without discussion. That matter had been referred to the committee but there were then several questions before it, and then general elections were held quite soon after.
I think that the hon. member and his colleagues were involved in some discussions on a matter which had also been referred to the committee.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Villeneuve tried in his few remarks to give the impression that one Conservative member was trying to discredit the French Canadians.
I am myself a French Canadian, Mr. Speaker, and it is as such that I would like to make a few remarks.
Besides being a French Canadian, I am a Conservative member from Quebec. And it is as-

October 24, 1966
Question of Privilege


David Réal Caouette: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. One question of privilege at a time. We are now considering a question of privilege. I suggest to the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) to let the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot complete his remarks, and if afterwards he wishes to rise on a point of order, I will listen to him.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot is not speaking on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot is evidently taking part in the discussion on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent).


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that I am a French Canadian and a Conservative member from the province of Quebec. As Quebec Conservatives, we have, year after year suffered from prejudices stirred up against all Conservatives in general and especially against the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
Well, the starting point of such prejudices, Mr. Speaker, was precisely this kind of article.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the hon. member is straying from the subject and I feel that we will not make much progress if the house embarks upon such a general discussion as that which the hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe-Bagot wants to start now. I would ask him to sum up his comments as much as possible to help the Speaker render a decision bn the matter now before him.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I am simply dealing with the remarks put forth by the member for Villeneuve. I want to point out to Your Honour that articles such as those which my hon. friend, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) complains about are the cause of prejudices which, year after year, have been stirred up against the Conservative party and against its leader.
I would like the motion of my hon. friend to be accepted in order to throw light on this matter. Those who are afraid of light will surely object to its discussion. I have only one purpose: to throw light on the matter so that everyone knows whether the article in

question is a breach of privilege as the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona claims.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, if I deal with the question of privilege at this time, it is not in order to take up the cudgels on behalf of a party or some individual, but merely to establish whether the question of privilege is well taken or not, and, in a word, try and enlighten the Chair, rather than to attempt to make some political capital out of this, for the Conservatives or others.
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully a moment ago when the member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), referred to the incident which happened in 1962, and more particularly to the motion I introduced at the time, which was seconded by the present Minister of National Defence.
Mr. Speaker, the present circumstances are entirely different. First of all, the other case involved a delegation of Canadian parliamen-taries whose integrity had been questioned in a newspaper item which we felt was untrue. That is why we had asked that the matter be settled in the committee on privileges and elections, in order to protect the interests of Canadian delegations abroad. That article had given rise to some dissatisfaction not only in Canada but also among all those participating in that conference held in Europe. Therefore the circumstances in both cases are entirely different.
In this case, a journalist has expressed his views under his signature. As the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said earlier, a journalist has the right to express his personal opinion, whether it be right or wrong, and I could not care less. And as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) just mentioned himself, I am not so much concerned with the views expressed by a reporter, but with the question of freedom, and we should be ready to give our life's blood in order to protect his right to express his views. I am not expressing an opinion regarding such views, but I may be able to throw some light on the matter for the benefit of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot or any other.
Mr. Speaker, I admit that we have freedom of the press but even so, we must respect the professional ethics of our journalists, who are Canadian citizens and who have also a responsibility toward public opinion and
October 24, 1966

guidance, and I am not ready to take in this house any action which would condemn all journalists on account of an article, good or bad. It is not for me to say, in the circumstances, but one thing is certain, it is that the house would now set a precedent which could bring us cases ad infinitum in the future because of such a matter.
Cases might be brought up concerning the Prime Minister or any other member of the house, as well as the Leader of the Official Opposition, and we would be spending our time before the committee on privileges and elections. A journalist has a conscience; he must respect the rights of others and it is only according to his own conscience that he must pattern his behaviour. Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances, I think that the motion does not come under the jurisdiction of the house or the Chair, because it deals only with the fact that a journalist gave his opinion on what he understood; his interpretation might be wrong, but we must at least fight to the end for his right to express his views.
Like any other hon. member, I know that praise is not all we get from journalists. They are not here for that. They are here, for instance, to report the facts accurately and, in this case, it is not only a report but a statement. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona might have felt directly involved, as any other member might feel involved at other times by articles in the press, or might have in the past. Nevertheless, I do not think that it is a question of privilege which must be referred to the committee of privileges and elections. It is only a matter of ethics not involving the freedom of the press, and also leaving journalists free to follow the dictates of their own conscience and do as best they can with the facts put at their disposal.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: If I may, I should like to comment on some of the remarks just made. I believe these arguments might properly be heard with regard to the motion when the Chair puts it, but I should like to offer a solution to a question asked by the Minister of Public Works with regard to what would be referred and whether the motion itself is in order. The minister himself pointed out one paragraph which is a direct breach of my privileges in that it imputes that I was directed from the gallery.
When I raised the question of privilege I think I made it clear that the whole article must be read, in that it imputes that I was
Question of Privilege
directed in my actions by someone else rather than acting on my own. This again is the same as the direct accusation that I was directed from the gallery. However, the entire tenor of the article indicates that the motive behind my actions was of a sinister character, and that I was seeking to stir up religious strife and to keep French Canadians out of the navy, rather than the honourable motive that I claim. I believe these are properly questions which should go before the committee, and I hope I have satisfied the Minister of Public Works on that point.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if I could ask the hon. member a question which may clarify the matter. It would appear from his remarks now that the sentence about which the hon. member complains is as follows:
The latter directed from the public gallery the attack of the Conservative member Terry Nugent against Hon. Mr. Hellyer, Wednesday.
If I am correct in my assumption surely the hon. member has but to assert that he was not directed from the gallery, that the motions made there were not directions which he took, and we have to accept the hon. member's word. I am sure all hon. members will gladly accept his word. This would conclude the matter. It seems to me that we have lost our sense of perspective in this whole business. I understand the hon. member is making it clear, although he has not specifically asserted it, that he was not being directed from the gallery. If he makes that assertion, then that concludes the whole matter and there is nothing further to come before the house at this point.
The other interesting matters that were raised by hon. members are not germane to the issue today, and are points which can be debated on other occasions. The attributes of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and whether he has one view or another are topics that can be debated on another occasion. It is something that is not before us today, as I am sure he will agree, and it can be debated in another forum.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: If I may be permitted to answer the minister's question, I may say that I am surprised and disappointed that he was not listening to me just a minute ago. I made it plain that it was not one sentence of the article to which I objected, it was to the entire tenor of the whole article; the misquotation of fact and the distortion of the procedures of this house as outlined in the whole article. The story imputed improper motives

October 24, 1966
Question of Privilege
to me, and I hope I will not have to repeat that to the minister. His suggestion is a bit childish in view of the explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for the comments they have made to assist the Chair in reaching a decision. It is obvious from the comments we have heard there is a difference of opinion among the members, and this justifies in my mind the difficulty I have had in reaching a decision. The Minister of Public Works has pointed to a difficulty when he says there should be something perhaps specific in the motion from the article complained of. My understanding of the hon. member's complaint, on the basis of his motion, is that it is a question of personal privilege. The privilege is based on these sentences in the article:

The latter directed from the public gallery the attack of the Conservative member Terry Nugent against Hon. Mr. Hellyer, Wednesday.
Not only did he make signs to the member, but he also sent him messages during the debate. Witnesses have stated that Admiral Brock, who has been retired for three years, made a negative sign when Mr. Hellyer called on Mr. Nugent to put his seat at stake by making a specific charge of improper conduct.

edition. At page 124 he specifically refers to reflections on members in the following terms:
Analogous to molestation of members on account of their behaviour in parliament are speeches and writings reflecting upon their conduct as members.
If we look for relevant precedents with special reference to the action or remedy now proposed by the aggrieved member in the revised motion to which he has spoken today, we must consider two recent cases where the conduct of journalists was questioned by way of privilege. The first, to which the hon. member for Edmonton West has alluded and in which he took a very active part at the time, was when on November 29, 1962 the hon. member for Megantic raised a question of privilege relative to a newspaper article critical of a parliamentary delegation. Mr. Speaker Lambert, after taking the motion under advisement, ruled as reported at page 2132 of Hansard:
-the Chair has come to the opinion that there is a prima facie case of privilege. It is then up to the house, under the circumstances, to determine what shall be done.
Then on June 18, 1964 a question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona in respect to a complaint about an article in the Ottawa Citizen which he represented contained what he termed wholesale attacks on all members of the house. In his ruling my immediate predecessor, Mr. Speaker Macnaughton, expressed the following view, as reported at page 4434 of Hansard:
It seems to me that if this editorial referred in general terms to members of parliament none of us, I suppose, would be so thin skinned that we could not accept some rather healthy criticism, but this editorial does cite the name of one hon. member once or twice, together with someone who is not a member. In other words it focuses attention on a certain member, and to that degree in a not very favourable light.
Later on:
-it is for the house to decide whether there is a breach of privilege but it is for me to decide whether there is a prima facie case-
In both instances, the Speaker allowed the motion to be put to the house.
Taking into account the opinion of the authority I have quoted, and in the light of the precedents to which I have just referred, is the question of privilege which was raised last Thursday by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona a prima facie case of privilege? It may be held that the article complained of contains certain imputations
Question of Privilege
and reflections. If so, are these imputations and reflections of such a nature that the Speaker is justified in deciding that a prima facie case of privilege exists?
Doubts arise in my mind as to whether or not that is so. In considering this matter I ask myself, what is the duty of the Speaker in cases of doubt? If we take into consideration that at the moment the Speaker is not asked to render a decision as to whether or not the article complained of constitutes a breach of privilege-a responsibility which rests with the house alone-but rather that he has to decide on a mere point of order, and considering also that the Speaker is the guardian of the rules, rights and privileges of the house and of its members and that he cannot deprive them of such privileges when there is uncertainty in his mind, more especially when the motion presented to him would have the effect of seeking more clarification, I think at this preliminary stage of the proceedings the doubt which I have in my mind should be interpreted to the benefit of the member.
For these reasons I think I should accept the motion, which I will now read to the house.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher, has moved:
That the question of breach of privilege raised on Thursday, October 20, 1966 by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona dealing with the article in Le Droit, Ottawa, Friday, October 14, 1966 under the by-line of Marcel Pepin, (English Hansard page 8890) be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for investigation and report.
Is the house ready for the question?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a debatable motion, and I should like to point out a few of the reasons why I believe the house should pass it. Certainly in speaking to the point of order which was raised earlier some members advanced reasons why they felt the motion should not pass.
First and foremost among them, of course, is the question of the freedom of the press. I for one do not want anybody to believe for one moment that I want to restrict in any way or form the freedom of the press. Were this an article which merely made fun of me I would merely do what I have done in similar cases in the past, namely get a little annoyed; but I would not attempt to make a case out of it. However, sir, I feel that this particular instance goes far beyond that sort of comment.

October 24, 1966
Question of Privilege
In contending that this sort of conduct should not be allowed I am not suggesting that there should be restriction put upon the freedom of the press. I would merely remind the press that they have that responsibility which anyone who exercises freedom of speech must accept.
I want to assure hon. members that when I read this article the first thing that annoyed me was the fact that an error was made in fact. First of all, I would avowedly deny any suggestion that I am being impelled by some other group. I have never been in this "Admirals' club", or whatever it is, to which reference is made. I have met Admiral Landymore but once in my life, and that was when I went to Halifax to see whether he was prepared to swear to certain matters which I thought made a case that had to be brought to the attention of this house.
I know Admiral Brock and have talked to him many times, and I believe he has talked to many members of this house who are interested in military matters, members on all sides of the house, including cabinet ministers.
I am perturbed mostly, I think, because the writer of this article is attempting to paint a picture which can do nothing but disservice. It is my contention that the questions I raised were most important ones, involving the very question of cabinet responsibility to this house and the question of the efficiency and authority of committees.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I believe these questions are so important and so involved that they should be brought to the attention of the house and resolved. I am therefore much perturbed by the suggestion in this article that there is a mysterious person, an English speaking military man who knows the situation very well and who is apparently guiding and mis-directing the press gallery as to what is going on. This perhaps accounts in part for some of the confusion of this writer. There is contained in one paragraph of this article a suggestion that when the minister challenged me to risk my seat by making a definite allegation of misconduct, a signal given from the gallery had some effect in that I did not accept any such challenge.
We need to examine exactly what occurred on that occasion. I know that exactly what took place is not clear in the mind of the writer, and there is similar confusion in the minds of other reporters. But there should be no doubt that the minister had been formally

and properly charged and it is therefore puzzling to account for any suggestion that I had failed to risk my seat by making a definite accusation of misconduct.
The minister had been formally charged in the only way in which this could be done, by my rising and taking full responsibility for my actions. It is a little puzzling to determine how there could be confusion on this point, unless that confusion arises from something said by the minister, and there have been statements attributed to the Minister of National Defence which, in fairness to the reporter, should be brought to the attention of the house. After all, when a member of the press gallery makes such serious allegations against me and I am taking the step of having him brought before the committee, if I can, I think it is only fair that we should understand what motives are behind this. I have mentioned one mysterious figure, and I think that in fairness I should point out there is some reason why the writer might have been under a misapprehension. It is because of the actions of the minister.
The first action of the minister is this: he has continued to sit in the house, though having been formally charged, without having an opportunity of clearing his name-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ask the co-operation of the hon. member who should limit his remarks to the point now before us. The question is that this matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. The hon. member should limit his remarks to this rather narrow point which is the essence of the motion before us.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am afraid I may have given the impression of wandering, but with all due respect I really believe the essence of the question before us is the conduct of this reporter in writing his article. I do not believe I should complain about his accusations without, in fairness, presenting all sides of the case as I understand it and without calling the attention of the house to all those factors which in my opinion add to his guilt or his innocence. In the same way as I thought it fair to protest that I have had nothing to do with any committee of admirals who are plotting in connection with this affair, and in the same way as I have expressed my belief that the writer makes an error in fact when he says I was directed from the gallery, I think it is only fair to mention that I do know Admiral Brock. If this can be interpreted in another way, it is open to the house to interpret it that way.
October 24, 1966

The writer suggested that when challenged to risk my seat by making a definite accusation of misconduct I did not take up that challenge. I think this error can be explained by reference to Hansard of October 12 at page 8577 where the minister is reported as having said:
Under the law of this country my officials report to me and I report to parliament. I want a specific charge made.
That is to be found in the right hand column. In the other column there is a suggestion by the minister that the charge is "a trifle evasive". It is only fair to the press gallery reporter to point out that the minister himself may be responsible in a way for this particular misstatement of fact by the reporter. I would say, therefore, that with regard to this particular misstatement of fact I am not imputing any improper motive to the reporter or anything other than carelessness. He has listened to the Minister of National Defence and has been misled by the statements made by that minister, who said he wanted a specific charge made when a specific charge had already been made. And the minister is sitting in the house under that charge.
The impression the minister gave by the statement he made, as reported on page 8576-
If members of the opposition would be willing to formulate a charge that I have tampered with the evidence of a committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member again and ask for his co-operation. Certainly he is not abiding by the spirit of the rules of the house when he seeks to go behind the motion as moved in order to discuss a matter which is not before the house at all. Once again I ask for his co-operation. Let us try to have a logical and legitimate debate at this time.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will summarize my argument this way. First, the article complained of should be investigated because it is wrong in fact. It suggests that I failed to make a definite accusation of misconduct, when the essence of the situation is that a definite charge had been made.
The article is wrong when it suggests there is some sort of collusive agreement with certain admirals. I only know two admirals, or have met only two. I have met Admiral Landymore once. There is a suggestion that he was about this house, pounding the corridors. I have no reason to believe he was in Ottawa. I met him once when I sought to
Question of Privilege
assure myself that the evidence on which I intended to base my charge was available.
The charge that anybody directed me from the gallery in the manner suggested is incorrect. I think an attempt should be made to determine whether there was any justification for this suggestion, other than the presence of this mysterious informant, which prompted the writer to bring into this affair the question of religion and race. I must ask the house to look very carefully at this question of privilege as it was raised by me on Wednesday, October 12. Nothing was said by me which might have been interpreted in any way as having to do with race or religion. At no time did I accuse the minister of allowing religious questions to be brought into this matter or of permitting prejudice against anyone on grounds of race.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I think that there is a question of how this member of the press gallery was induced to make such a charge, since he says his informant is "an English speaking military man." Certainly the committee should be interested in finding out who this English speaking military man is who would do such a disservice to this house and to the country by attempting to drag a red herring of this kind across the very simple question of whether or not the Minister of National Defence is guilty, as charged, of tempering with evidence, and I suggest it does this house and country a great disservice to try to muddy the waters with questions that no one would want to bring in on this matter.
The article went on to state:
The appointment of General Allard and the replacement of Rear Admiral Landymore by Rear Admiral O'Brien, an Irish Catholic, has angered the defenders of the bastion.
I wish to inform the house, sir, that I have never to my knowledge met General Allard. I suppose it is possible that at one of those receptions that members of parliament attend I might have met him and forgotten about it, but certainly such a meeting, if there was one, did not impress me. The same applies to Rear Admiral O'Brien.
I have nothing against either of these gentlemen. So far as I know I have never met them. I have never heard anything derogatory said about them by anyone which would indicate that they are not fit and proper gentlemen for the positions they occupy, and I have never said or done anything to derogate from their reputations.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Is this not over yet?

October 24, 1966
Question of Privilege


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I think the interjection made by the Minister of Transport is a classical example of the deep-seated trouble that the committee should look into. The minister asked, is this not over yet? Therefore it is obvious that the question of the privileges of the house could not matter less to him. It is a bore and a nuisance.
The question of responsible government and the question of the rights of committees which I raised earlier are, of course, treated in the same way. That is one of the reasons I have suggested as a defence for this young man Pepin who has written this article-and in fairness I think I should bring it up again-that perhaps one of the strongest reasons for him being so careless with the truth is the example that has been set him in this house.
Perhaps one of the reasons that there is such a low standard of reporting in the press gallery, and an apparent failure to deal honestly and factually, is that its members see so much of the hiding of facts by this government. Because recent events in the house have shown such a contemptible regard for standards of conduct in the house we should consider seriously whether we have led this young man astray, and I suggest that the Minister of Transport should face that question very seriously because he revealed exactly that attitude when he asked, have we not finished with this yet. Whether or not we have become too cynical, Mr. Speaker, and whether there exist those factors I have brought forward as excusing a member of the press gallery being confused, such as the Minister of National Defence having been so successful in clouding the issue here, I still feel this matter should be looked into.
I suggest that the question of the informant is one we want to go into, for the explanation to be given by this reporter to the committee might cast a good deal of light on the manner in which news is gathered in our press gallery. I also suggest that the question of the responsibility of members of the press gallery to make themselves responsible for their own sources of information is involved. The committee should also consider whether or not the editor who allowed this article to be published, and the publisher, should be questioned as to the duties and the responsibilities of editors to see that articles are factual and have some degree of fairness in them, and certainly to see that they do not go out of their way to bring about discord by introducing questions of religion and race in this country.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
Therefore I hope that by supporting the motion members of the house will indicate that they have some regard for responsibility as well as freedom, and that they are concerned that matters such as this should be dealt with honestly. I am not asking hon. members to say that reporters have to be 100 per cent accurate but reports should be honest, and on that basis I ask the house to support my motion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. gentleman, while defending his own privileges, has chosen to cast personal aspersions on my conduct, I would just like to say that I was mildly objecting to the procedures of parliament being treated in the way that they are being treated now.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say only one or two words on why I for one do not propose to support this motion. If we in this group thought there was any serious reflection on the hon. member or any other hon. member, we would be very glad and, indeed, anxious to support him because it would be a serious question, but frankly we cannot believe that this allegation is too serious. After all, some of us would be delighted if an admiral would make signals to us from the gallery, a form of distinction that few of us have ever had.
I must say that when the hon. member first raised the question of alleged tampering with a witness before the defence committee we took the matter very seriously and were anxious that it be looked into, but at this stage we think it would be a waste of the time of the committee on privileges and elections to refer this matter to it. We think no worse of the hon. member because of the article in the press. Some of us have previously seen articles in the press which were not, shall we say, kind to us, but we do not think the unkindness on this occasion is of the nature that should take up the time of the house or that of any committee of the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say, because this motion is debatable and because the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) said a while ago that I claimed an anti-French Canadian issue was being made out of the matter. Now, I am not the one who claims that. Those are allegations heard here and there in the province of Quebec.
October 24, 1966

Whether the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe-Bagot supports the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) is his business. Whether he is a Conservative is his business. But whether he is a French Canadian or claims to be a French Canadian, we have a right to doubt it.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, those people are always willing to raise issues and to exaggerate the problem. What happened in Le Droit in an article by Marcel Pepin, also happened in the English press of Toronto, indeed of all Canada, perhaps not against the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, but against the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself. Was there any thought given to raising the matter in this house? Never. Did the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, consider calling before the Bar of the House of Commons Mr. Dalton Camp, who is busy knocking down the Leader of the Opposition throughout Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the motion now before the house; I am now under the impression that he is making the problem worse.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to worsen the problem; I only want to tell a thing or two to those who raise in the house matters which should not be raised. I agree with the hon. member: if a member feels he is attacked personally in his integrity, in his honour, he has the right to summon before the House of Commons any journalist, whether he is French speaking or English speaking. However to conclude that in that editorial, the hon. member has been taken to task, that is quite another matter. That the journalist saw, as he said himself, signs exchanged between journalists and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), that there are signs exchanged between deaf and dumb from time to time, that is normal- the deaf in the house and the dumb in the press gallery-however, journalists have nevertheless the right to write and we must recognize that but even though we do not like the way they do it. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona should admit that.
We have seen journalists who were once in the press gallery where they used to attack politicians, and members of the house, elected as members of Parliament. The hon. member 23033-570
Question of Privilege
for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) is perhaps one of those who wrote most against members when he was a journalist and today, you can see him sitting quietly in his seat. He speaks no more, he admires the body of representatives, he likes the hon. members, he no longer writes against them.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should put that matter aside, even though you decided the motion was acceptable, in order not to create a precedent. In my opinion, it would create a precedent to accept summoning Marcel Pepin before the committee on privileges and elections.
Mind you, Mr. Speaker, my intention is not at all to defend personally Marcel Pepin. No, but, I want to defend the freedom which must exist among journalists in a well-understood democracy.
That is the reason why I will ask the members of my group to vote against that motion. If ever a more important, more contentious, more serious matter is raised before the house our vote against that motion will not necessarily be the same. It will depend on circumstances. All depends on the seriousness of the charge and under the circumstances, I think that the charge is not serious enough to bring us to support the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and this is why we intend to vote against his motion.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to state very briefly that it is not our intention to support the motion. The objective of this debate seems to have been to give to a rather worthless article interest and attention that it never deserved. Were we to support the motion, I fear we might then be tempted to fall into the trap of searching the press ourselves for comments which we did not regard as favourable. I am afraid that should we practise that exercise we would find ourselves occupied with little else over the next year or so.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, it seems obvious now from the comments of spokesmen from the different parties and the applause from the government side that the motion is going to be defeated. Such being the case, I should just like to say to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona that he should not be discouraged because this will give him an opportunity to come back again tomorrow.

October 24, 1966
Question of Privilege


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I am thinking of the prerogatives of parliament. I was unaware when this matter was raised the other day that it was going to be raised. In so far as Mr. Pepin is concerned, he is one of my personal friends and has been for a very considerable time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know whether you over there think you alone have the capacity for friendship. It is an interesting revelation to hear this attitude displayed by hon. members who remain unidentified and incognito. I was about to point out that one of the most important rights and privileges we have as members, of parliament is that our privileges shall not be impugned. I have taken no part in any of the arguments up to this time. Since Your Honour, in a most careful manner, reviewed the principles which constitute the maintenance of the privileges of parliament and decided there in fact had been a prima facie case made out, if we are to follow the principles of the United Kingdom parliament as I have read them, then the matter automatically goes to a committee or is decided in the house as a whole.
In the British parliament, if I am still allowed to refer to this, if it has not yet been expurgated and if it is still permissible to refer to these things in this day of de-tradi-tionalizing those things upon which this country was founded, I would point out that parliament, whatever the individual's politics may be, jealously upholds its prerogatives and rights. If Mr. Speaker in the unchallengeable plenitude of his power had decided the other way, that would have been his right. He decided, however, that a prima facie case had been made out. In these days of reform of rules I thought that the result automatically would be that we would follow what is done in the United Kingdom, namely, allow the evidence to be heard in the committee on privileges and elections rather than rise and say that regardless of the prerogatives and the rights of parliament those rights are impugned. You have declared there is a prima facie case, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Not at all.


John George Diefenbaker: The objective was met. Hon. members rise now and say they are not going to follow this course. I am not one who nas risen on questions of privilege. It is interesting to take a look back over the pages of parliament. It also would be of interest to

other hon. members to read that maintenance of freedom of speech on the part of members of parliament goes back to the days of the Tudors, to a great extent to the period of the Stuarts and the period of the first two Georges. That is the reason there is nobody in the gallery. We sometimes listen to hon. members refer to the presence of someone in the gallery. I wonder whether they have looked at the history of parliament and have realized that kind of thing does not take place in the British parliament because there is nobody in the gallery as far as parliament can be aware. The reason for that fiction simply is that in the days of Charles I, when Hampden and Pym and those other leaders of freedom rose to speak in the house, Charles I would get someone in the gallery to make a sign, and if the sign was something like a transverse gesture across the throat it had a surprisingly persuasive effect on the freedom of speech of the individual speaking in parliament. It just shut him up. There is no one in the gallery, whether press gallery or other gallery.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Once a prima facie case has been established there is no simple answer to that prima facie case. It is not November 5, Guy Fawkes day, yet, but we do hear explosions from below. Construction work is continuing in the vicinity of the chamber. I say to you, sir, that if we depart from the principles of parliament we will be doing just as effective a job as Guy Fawkes tried to do.
I am in this position. I have been in the house a long while and I have never been the recipient of overwhelming encomiums, yet I have never raised a question of privilege as a result of attacks made on me. I have followed that course during the years. As a matter of fact, I recall Lloyd George speaking in the house when I was in the gallery in the fall of 1916, I think it was. I mention him because he was a great parliamentarian, in fact, the greatest of his day. At that time Churchill was in the opposition. The pictures and photographs of Lloyd George used to be the most deplorable that the Times or Northcliffe press could purchase. I have been the subject of some photographs that would win no prizes in masculine pulchritude. I have not complained because I believe in the maintenance of freedom.
When Sir John was attacked-those who attacked him are today forgotten-Sir John used to say: I will not answer such attacks
October 24, 1966

because when I was a boy and I was going to swipe apples-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The only difference between the hon. gentleman and Sir John A. is that Sir John A. admitted doing it. That is the only difference, and the Liberals did not restrict themselves to apples at the time of Beauharnois. He simply said that he used to go into the orchard and find a tree under which there were the most sticks and stones and that was the tree he would visit that night, because that was the tree having the best apples.
I believe in freedom of speech and the maintenance of it. Hon. gentlemen ridiculed the idea of the Bill of Rights which I advocated for years. Today it is accepted in this nation although it is no longer published because the present government does not want to circulate it.
Once Your Honour decided that a prima facie case has been made we must forget political considerations and join together for the preservation of our freedom. That has always been the course and there are no exceptions to it. Some hon. gentlemen have said they intend to vote against the prima facie case. One argument advanced by the leader of the Creditistes was that he was shocked by this case, but when his deputy leader came before the house and claimed that he had been maltreated-I do not know whether that was the word he used-by the police, we all joined together to provide an opportunity for proving that he was wrong.
What is the reason for the obvious opposition to sending this matter of privilege to a parliamentary committee? The government has an overwhelming majority on that committee. Whatever the facts may be, why do we depart now from a principle? This matter in years ahead will be looked upon as a bad decision and a bad conclusion on the part of parliament, and will set a bad precedent.
Whatever the different views may be we should not depart from our normal practice, because freedom is something that is indivisible in so far as the press is concerned. When Your Honour decides that a prima facie case has been made parliament should have the opportunity of considering it regardless of whether or not there is a prima facie case. If we decide against this motion a member of parliament will be denied his right to have tne matter judged by a committee of parliament. I appeal to the house not to make such
23033-570J
Question of Privilege
a decision, and I do so without apology. Pathways of expediency can become highways of the denial of rights. Once Mr. Speaker has made a decision that there is a prima facie case it should be up to parliament to decide whether or not there has been a breach of privilege. I appeal to hon. gentlemen, and particularly to that fine parliamentarian, the Acting Prime Minister, to uphold those principles that we as the descendants of the British parliamentary system, which had its birth as the result of Anglo-Saxons and Normans joining together, have inherited as a result of 700 years of precedents.
I appeal to hon. gentlemen not to make this matter the subject of a vote in the house but that it be passed in the normal way by those who know what freedom means. Otherwise we will be denying and undermining that freedom by the instrumentality of having press people prevented from writing those things they desire and making them public. Regardless of the facts these press representatives should receive an answer from parliament. If the hon. member is wrong, the committee will have the opportunity of determining that, but for us to decide, in spite of your decision, Mr. Speaker, that a prima facie case has been made, that this matter should not be sent to a parliamentary committee will be a departure from British parliamentary practice and can only mean that this decision will come up at some future date to smite those who are trying to preserve freedom.


Hon. John N. Turner (Member of the Administration):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to refer to only one point raised during the latter part of the address made to the house by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I refer to the fact that he stated there is a prima facie case to come before this house. I know the right hon. gentleman would not want to leave the impression that if members of this house were to vote against sending the substance of this question of privilege to a committee, or decide that it was not a question of privilege sufficient to occupy the attention of that committee, that would in any way be a reflection upon the Chair.
Let me refer Your Honour and hon. members to citation 104(2) to be found at page 95 of Beauchesne. It states:
It has often been laid down that the Speaker's function in ruling on a claim of breach of privilege does not extend to deciding the question of substance whether a breach of privilege has in fact been committed-a question which can only be decided by the house itself.

October 24, 1968
Question of Privilege
When members vote upon the particular issue now before the house they ought not in any way to consider, if they vote against the motion, that they are casting any reflection upon the Chair, because the Chair's sole function, as I interpret it, is to decide whether or not the matter should be considered by the house, and is not in any way to prejudge the issue because that is something which the house alone can do.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition a few moments ago made reference to the Canadian Bill of Rights. I do not have a copy before me but if my memory serves me correctly it seeks to protect a number of freedoms. One of those freedoms is freedom of speech, which we all agree should be protected. But another of the freedoms which is protected in the Bill of Rights is freedom of the press. It seems to me that in this case we have to balance these two freedoms one against the other.
I fully agree that Your Honour did the right thing in giving the benefit of the doubt to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Your Honour stated clearly that there was doubt in your mind whether something had been written which was injurious to the hon. member, but because the hon. member felt it was you gave him the benefit of the doubt. But, Mr. Speaker, we have a judgment of substance that we must exercise. I think we have to decide whether we would be infringing of the freedom of the press if we used the whole machinery of parliament to call a reporter before us to answer for an article that he wrote in the full exercise of his discretion.
I point out that what this motion would refer to the committee is not just the sentence or paragraph concerning the signals from the admiral, but what would be referred is the whole article which contains not only alleged statements of fact but statements of opinion. I suggest that the whole article is far less dramatic and far less offensive than things we read in the newspapers every day. I submit that we would be putting this parliament in a ridiculous light-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -if we were to decide that this kind of article calls for the machinery of parliament to be put in motion in the way the hon. member suggests.
I want to support what the Minister without Portfolio has just said. As a matter of

fact, when I was getting to my feet I had the same citation before me, but I do not need to read it again. I agree with him, that any vote we may cast now is not a reflection on Your Honour's decision. What Your Honour decided was not that in substance there had been a breach of privilege. What you decided was that on the face of it the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona had a case and therefore had the right to move the motion. But the decision whether in the opinion of parliament there has been a substantial breach of privilege, one that calls for the action that is proposed, is one that every member of this House of Commons must make if a vote is called.
I go along with the Leader of the Opposition and every other member of this house in stating that it is our purpose to protect the privileges and rights of parliament. But I submit that parliament is but one institution in our total Canadian society. We have a way of life that we must protect. One of the elements of that way of life is freedom of speech outside parliament and freedom of the press outside parliament. Oh yes, we have the duty to see that this does not become licence and is not carried too far, but what we have to do today is make a judgment on the specific article that appeared in Le Droit, all 11 or 12 paragraphs of which by this motion would be referred to our committee on privileges and elections.
I believe we would be doing a ridiculous thing if we were to take this action. We would be setting a very serious precedent. In fact I am sure that from the various corners of this house every day we sit an article just as critical of some member could be raised, or a cartoon or what have you, and we could spend our whole time quarrelling with the press. I urge, therefore, that just as Your Honour gave the benefit of the doubt to the hon. member, when we vote we should give the benefit of the doubt to the freedom of the press, which we think we must support just as much as we support freedom of speech in this House of Commons.


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman suggested that as one of the senior members of the house, and as Acting Prime Minister a1 the moment I have a responsibility to replj to some of the strong allegations which he made. I suggest to the right hon. gentlemar that if it were not for the fact that he ii himself a senior member of this house, i former prime minister and a vigorous Leade:
October 24. 1966

of the Opposition, one could have taken exception to his own speech, which had so much of an interesting autobiography about it. There was also a somewhat doubtful reference occasionally to history.
My right hon. friend referred to Mr. Pym. I would remind the right hon. gentleman that Mr. Pym was a republican who helped to abolish the monarchy.


John George Diefenbaker: Then he should be well considered by you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: While my right hon. friend has not had the opportunity of serving in the British House of Commons, I do know that he follows the deliberations of that house with great interest. But I am rather surprised that in his championing of the rights of members of this house he suggested that in the British parliament in a similar situation there would be no doubt what would happen. I too have followed the debates of the House of Commons in Britain, and I am sure that their rule in this regard is not basically different from ours.
What has happened here is that the Speaker has determined, with some doubt, that there is a prima facie case and he gave the benefit of that doubt to the hon. and persistent member for Edmonton-Strathcona. If there is any man in this house who could not justifiably make an argument in favour of his position on the grounds that he had been denied the right to speak, it is the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, whom we have heard day by day on this theme.
I am not complaining about the hon. member's right in this respect, but the fact that he has so exercised that right certainly abridges somewhat the strong advocacy of my right hon. friend that this member should not be denied the right to express his views as a member of this house.


John George Diefenbaker: In the committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of all the members who now occupy seats to the right or left of Mr. Speaker, no one has enjoyed with greater relish and greater luxury the opportunity of speech than the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think that having the responsibility of determining whether he shall continue with this marathon, we must now take into account the interests of
Question of Privilege
parliament itself. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said-


Mr. Churchill:: North Centre.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. As the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre said, there are not only rights for individual members of this house but there are rights for parliament itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are rights for the majority.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Are you coming over to my
side?


John George Diefenbaker: That is what the Minister of Finance said-get rid of the opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are rights for the majority just as there are rights for the minority. It was that, I am sure, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had in mind when he said we would make ourselves ridiculous if, after having thrashed this matter out as we have done day by day, we were solemnly to refer this matter to a committee as though there had been a serious violation of the privilege of one who happens to represent a responsible sector of the people.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Acting Prime Minister can suggest we have thrashed this matter out day by day when in fact a procedural point which the Minister of National Defence refused to remove did not allow us to discuss it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps I should not have said "day by day". Perhaps I should have said the hon. gentleman spoke every second day.
I think we have had an opportunity to express our views, Mr. Speaker. There is a clear consensus in this house, and we cannot ignore a consensus even on the part of those who sit immediately to the left of the Speaker, that we should get on with the nation's business and proceed with the discussion of the bill which is now before the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And bring it in in 1967?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman said "and bring it in in 1967". It is brought in now and we should not allow

October 24, 1966
Division
these diversions, whether it is the Liberal convention or the federal-provincial conference, to prevent the government from getting ahead with its program. I simply wish to say to my right hon. friend that he made a very powerful speech today in defence of freedom, as he always does. I suggest that this is an occasion when I think he has given a definition of freedom which is not implicit in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights never for a moment assumed that in situations such as this there is a violation of Magna Carta or habeas corpus or of the Bill of Rights. Surely the great and noble sentiments that moved my hon. friend to bring in the Bill of Rights were not involved in the little grievance of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you have taken your position respecting, as you must, the rights of an individual member and expressing your doubts about the full projection of those rights. Now it is our responsibility to determine whether or not the time of this house or of its committees should be wasted. I suggest it is clear that this house has already indicated in no uncertain manner that this motion must be turned down.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I do not know whether the whips notified the chairman of the Quebec Conservatives caucus, but I note that Conservative members-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote because I was paired.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
October 24, 1966

I was not paired, but had I been paired, I would have been paired with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), who ran away, in order to avoid voting.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Hales.
[Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
October 20-The Secretary of State-The following proposed motion: That the standing committee on privileges and elections be empowered to study the Canada Elections Act and to report to the house such proposals as the committee may deem advisable.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



REFERENCE OF REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON ELECTION EXPENSES

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
October 20-The Secretary of State:
That the report of the committee on election expenses tabled October eleventh last be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 21(2), this notice of motion is passed as a government order and shall be considered under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
October 20-The Secretary of State-The following proposed motion: That the white paper on broadcasting (1966) tabled on July fourth last be referred to the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts.
Questions
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has a decision been made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to close down the paraplegic service at the Queen Mary veterans' hospital in Montreal?
2.	If so, when was the decision reached, and what are the effective dates of the closing?
3.	What are the reasons for such a decision?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Yes.
2.	Montreal officials of the Canadian Paraplegic Association were first informed some two years ago that the department might have to suspend its specialized paraplegic service at Queen Mary veterans hospital. This decision was confirmed in the spring of this year and the effective date of the closing is February 28, 3 967.
3.	Of the 25 beds allotted to the paraplegic service, only one or two are normally occupied by veterans. The remainder are filled by civilian paraplegics referred to Queen Mary veterans hospital by the Canadian Paraplegic Association. As some part of the hospital must be closed to enable urgently required renovations to be carried out, it was decided to close that portion occupied by civilian patients. The deputy minister of health of the province of Quebec has been apprised of the situation and is making alternative arrangements for the care of the civilian paraplegics affected.


LONDON, ONT.-DRAINAGE PROBLEM IN VETERANS SUBDIVISION
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Has the Department of Veterans Affairs received any representation from the council of the city of London regarding the drainage problem in the V.L.A. subdivision (Wilton Grove) now situated in an area annexed by the city of London?
2.	If so, what action is contemplated?

October 24, 1966
Questions


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: The answer to this question is as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	None. Those occupying the subdivision are residents of the city of London. If there are drainage problems which may affect this 20-year old subdivision, then the residents must look to the municipality for a solution. It is reported that the city of London has a long term plan for providing services to the area annexed.


RECONSTRUCTION OF LOVERS WALK, PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	Has the Minister of Public Works or the National Capital Commission formulated any plans for a path or walk around the cliff or bluff of Parliament Hill either by (a) reconstruction of what was formerly known as "Lovers Walk" or (b) the construction of an alternative or substitute for the former walk at a lower level but equivalent thereto?
2.	If so, what specifically is the nature of such plans?
3.	Could such plans be brought to fruition for the centennial of Confederation?


George James McIlraith: 1. The National Capital Commission has examined the area and has recommended:
(a)	that reconstruction of what was formerly known as "lovers walk" not be undertaken because of the high cost of such reconstruction on a difficult sidehill location and because of the unavoidable construction scars which would occur on the face of the cliff; and (b) that a walkway around the cliff of parliament hill be retained, but that the walkway be located along or near the river's edge at the base of the cliff.
2.	The National Capital Commission has undertaken preliminary investigations for a walkway at or near the base of the cliff. It has examined also the cliff face to find out what measures seem likely to minimize erosion.
3.	Construction of the walkway and the consequent repairs to the cliff face do not form a part of the program of the National Capital Commission for 1966-67 or 1967-68.


RURAL MAIL CONTRACT, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What were the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the various tenders for the R.R. 4 River John. Pictou county, N.S., mail contract?
2.	To whom will the contract be awarded?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Poslmasier General):: 1.	Joseph Vincent Fenton, Box 44, River John, $2,400; Mrs. Agnes Delila MacLellan, R.R. No. 4, River John, $2,750; Cyril George Dwyer, R.R. No. 4, River John, $3,600.
2.	The contract will be awarded to the lowest tenderer who, upon investigation, can give sufficient assurance of being able to perform the service in a satisfactory manner.


APPOINTMENT OF RETURNING OFFICERS
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Have returning officers been appointed for the new constituencies under redistribution procedure?
2.	If so, how many, and under what authority were they appointed?
3.	Has a returning officer been appointed for the constituency of Central Nova and, if so, what is his name and on what date was the appointment made?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: 1.	Yes.
2.	One hundred and eighty seven. In virtue of section 27 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
3.	Yes. Mr. Stewart W. Proudfoot, September 22, 1966.


GRAND RIVER-ASSISTANCE IN DAM CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Hales: Has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources received representation from the Grand river conservation authority asking for federal aid in the program of flood and pollution control involving the construction of major dams?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No. If the federal contribution to the program referred to in the question is sought under the terms of the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, the request for such contribution would come through the department of energy and resources management of the province of Ontario, as arrangements under this Act are solely between Canada and a province.


GATINEAU PARK ACREAGE
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What is the total acreage included in the Gatineau Park?
2.	Of this acreage, how many acres are now owned by the National Capital Commission?
3.	Of the remaining acreage, how many acres are owned by (a) the crown in the right of the province of Quebec (b) individuals?
October 24, 1966

4.	What action, in detail, is being taken to acquire ownership of this remaining acreage?
5.	Have there been negotiations with the government of Quebec regarding the acquiral of lands owned by the crown in the right of the province of Quebec?
6.	If so, who has conducted such negotiations and when have such negotiations been held?
7.	What is the present state of such negotiations?


George James McIlraith: 1. The total area in the Gatineau park is approximately 88,300 acres.
2.	Of the above acreage approximately 68,000 acres are now owned by the National Capital Commission.
3.	Of the remaining acreage, the following areas are owned by: (a) The crown in the right of the province of Quebec, approximately 10,550 acres, (b) Individuals approximately 5,210 acres. The balance of approximately 4,540 is comprised of lakes.
4.	The answers to question 4 are: (a) the acquisition of lands owned by the crown in right of the province of Quebec is dealt with in answers 5, 6 and 7 below, (b) The land owned by individuals is being purchased when available on the open market when there is a reasonable land and building value relationship which can be supported by appraisal information.
5.	Yes.
6.	The province of Quebec, through the minister of lands and forests, has been carrying on negotiations since 1961 with the National Capital Commission through its chairman.
7.	The province of Quebec and the National Capital Commission are continuing negotiations for a property exchange involving provincial land in Gatineau Park and Commission land adjacent to the northwestern boundary of the city of Hull.


RESTORATION OF RICHMOND LANDING, OTTAWA
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	Has the National Capital Commission prepared at any time plans for the restoration of Richmond Landing near the foot of Chaudifere Falls, in the national capital?
2.	If so (a) what was the nature of those plans (b) what has happened to those plans?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes.
Questions
2. (a) The plans provide for the acquisition and redevelopment of the site as part of a park and historical restoration project. Existing structures associated with the origins of Ottawa would be restored and converted to museum and restaurant uses, (b) The land required to carry out the project has been acquired. The plans have not been developed in any greater detail because they are closely related to the plans for LeBreton Flats which are under study.


APPROVAL OF N.C.C. BUDGET
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	On what date was the capital budget of the National Capital Commission for the year 1965-66 first approved pursuant to the Financial Administration Act?
2.	Were any revisions made after such approval?
3.	If so (a) on what date or dates (b) what was the nature, in detail, of such revision or revisions?
4.	Did the expenditures exceed in any particular the approved budget or budgets?
5.	If so, in what particular and for what reasons?


George James McIlraith: 1. 13 May 1965.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) revision submitted January 21, 1966 was approved on February 24, 1966. (b) The total capital budget for 1965-66 was reduced from $24,143,000 to $24,044,000. The reduction of $99,000 is detailed as follows:
1.	Property	acquisition-$12,600,000 to
$11,800,000, reduction (principally due to a reduction of one million dollars provided for the green belt), $800,000; 2. Parkway development and improvements, $1,110,000 to $1,-
728,000,	increase (principally due to an increase of $700,000 for the construction of the Ottawa river parkway), ($618,000); 3. Park development and improvements, $303,000 to $281,000, reduction (minor adjustments), $22,000; 4. Miscellaneous construction, $630,000 to $635,000 (minor adjustments), ($5,000); 5. Repayment of loans to acquire properties, $1,000,000 to $1,100,000, increase (additional provision required), ($100,000); net reduction, $99,000.
Further, projects up to $50,000 were grouped for control of expenditures in the original capital budget. In the revised capital budget, projects up to $100,000 were grouped for control purposes.

Oclober 24, 1966
Questions
4.	Yes.
5.	The actual expenditures of the commission in 1965-66 for projects included in the
(a)	Relocation of railways (accelerated work and
increases in costs)	487,708
(b)	Repayment of loans
(additional loans required)	79,272
These expenditures also resulted in an excess of the group total for expenditures of $11,625,000 by $1,498,000.
Note: (X)-Including 10 per cent allowance for excess expenditures, but subject to a control by groups of projects.


MEMBERS OF NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What are the names of the members of the National Capital Commission whose terms of office have expired since April 22, 1963?
2.	Of these, who were eligible for re-appointment?
3.	Of such persons mentioned in part 2, who have been re-appointed?
4.	What are the names and qualifications, in detail, of the persons who have been appointed since April 22, 1963, as members of the National Capital Commission?


George James McIlraith: 1. The names of the members of the National Capital Commission whose terms of office have expired since April 22, 1963 are: Mr. A. E. (Lon) Campbell, of Ottawa (resigned 7 April 1964); Mr. R. D. Chenier, of Rockcliffe, Ontario (resigned 11 June 1964); Mr. G. E. Beament, Q.C., of Ottawa; Mr. Aime Guertin, of Hull, Quebec; Mrs. Henry F. Gyles, of Winnipeg, Manitoba; Mr. John L. Haw, of Calgary, Alberta; Mr. J. C. Horwitz, Q.C., of Ottawa; Dr. F. F. Kemp, of Richmond, Ontario; Mrs. R. H. MacLeod, of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia; Miss S. Clyde McLellan, of St. John, New Brunswick; Mr. Richard Parkinson, of Kelowna, B.C., and; Mrs. Robert E. Sutherland, of Charlottetown, P.E.I.
2.	Mr. John L. Haw; Dr. F. F. Kemp and Mr. Richard Parkinson.
3.	None.

capital budget amounted to $23,685,000 (compared with the total of $24,044,000 approved).
Expenditures for the following two projects were in excess of the capital budget authority:
Authorized in
Expenditure budget (X)
$9,837,708	$9,350,000
1,289,272	1,210,000
4.	The names and qualifications of persons appointed since April 22, 1963, as members of the National Capital Commission, are as follows:
1.	Mr. D'Arcy Audet, M.I.R.A.C., P.Q.A.A.,
O.A.A. of Hull-appointed to the National Capital Commission on 16 April, 1964. Obtained B.Arch. at McGill University. Practising architect in city of Hull since 1960. Member of Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (M.I.R.A.C.); of the province of Quebec Architects' Association (P.Q.A.A.), and of the Ontario Association of Architects (O.A.A.).
2.	Mr. Wilfrid Carr, of Ottawa, Ontario- appointed to the National Capital Commission on 7 June, 1966. Educated Ottawa University, commercial college graduate at U.O. District manager of National Grocers Co. Ltd. President of Le Droit for seven years and 15 years as director. Founder and director of several parish co-operative credit societies.
3.	Mr. Alfred John Frost, B.Com., C.A., of Manotick, Ontario-appointed to the National Capital Commission on 29 April, 1966. Graduate of Queen's University (B.Com.) 1930; Ontario Institute of Chartered Accountants, (C.A.) 1934; Osgoode Hall law school, Toronto; read law with Briggs, Frost and Company, Toronto; called to the bar of Ontario 1937; elected a fellow, Ontario Institute of Chartered Accountants, 1959; Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts, 1963. From 1940 to 1951-comptroller of Toronto General Trusts Corporation; 1952 to 1959-Ottawa branch manager Toronto General Trusts Corporation; 1959-60-general manager Mutual Funds Management Corporation; 1960-63- executive vice president Bolton Tremblay and Company; 1963-60-assistant general manager
October 24, 1966

October 24, 1966
Questions
She is a member of the I.O.D.E.; the University Women's Club of Truro; has served on the board of regents of Mount Allison University, and on the executive of the Atlantic Christian Training Centre at Tata-magouche.
10.	Mr. Kenneth Kane Paget, B.Sc., of Calgary, Alberta-appointed to the National Capital Commission on 21 July, 1966. Graduated from the University of Manitoba, in 1941, in civil engineering. Member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Alberta; Association of Professional Engineers of Manitoba; Engineering Institute of Canada; Calgary Chamber of Commerce. General construction-British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, 1939-1960. Manager and owner, Concrete Products 1945 to date. Ranching-owner-1957 to date.
11.	Mr. Alan R. Philp, B.A., LL.B., of Fort Garry, Manitoba-appointed to the National Capital Commission on 29 April, 1966. Graduate of University of Manitoba (B.A.) 1951, and Manitoba Law School (LL.B.), 1955. From 1955 to 1960-partner in law firm of Hunt & Philp of Winnipeg, and from 1960 to present-partner in law firm of Fillmore, Riley & Company of Winnipeg. Member of Canadian Bar Association; Manitoba Bar Association, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Club of Winnipeg.
12.	Mr. Graham Ford Towers, G.M.C., B.A., LL.D., D.G.L., of Rockcliffe, Ontario-appointed to the National Capital Commission on 29 April, 1966. Graduate of McGill, Queen's and Bishop's Universities. Served Canadian Army from 1915 to 1919. Governor of Bank of Canada from 1934 to 1954; chairman of the Foreign Exchange Control Board from 1939 to 1951; chairman of the national war finance committee from 1943 to 1945; president of the Industrial Development Bank from 1944 to 1954 and alternate governor of the International Monetary Fund from 1946 to 1954. Is presently chairman of the board of the Canada Life Assurance Company and of the Canadian Investment Fund Limited. Director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, the Moore Corporation, the General Motors Corporation, New York, and of the Canadian Committee of Hudson Bay Company. Is also chairman of the board of British Petroleum Company of Canada and of Arc-turus Investment and Development Limited.
[Mr. Mcllraith.l


STUDIES OF MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION
Mr. Orange: Did the Department of Transport conduct surveys and/or studies to determine the feasibility of keeping certain harbours and navigable waters open in 1965 and/or 1966 and, if so (a) what were the names of the Canadian Coast Guard ships involved in these operation (b) has a report been received for either year (c) if so, what are the recommendations (d) if not, when is it expected and when will it be made available to the public?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Surveys to determine the feasibility of keeping the following harbours or other navigable waters open were conducted by the Department of Transport in
1965	and 1966.	(i) Milne Inlet, N.W.T.;
(ii) Lake Melville, Labrador.
(a) The Canadian Coast Guard ships John A. Macdonald and d'Iberville were involved in both these operations, (b) Reports have been received on the Milne Inlet operation for 1965 but as the final part of this year's survey is now in progress a full report for
1966	has not yet been received. Reports on the lake Melville survey have been received for both years, (c) Ice conditions vary so much from year to year, in both these areas, that it would not be advisable to attempt to formulate firm recommendations on the basis of one and a half season's experience, (d) The department does not propose to promulgate such recommendations, but any knowledge gained from probes or surveys of this type is, of course, available to interested parties on request.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS-CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF WHARVES
Mr. Orange: 1 What agency of government is responsible for (a) construction (b) maintenance of public wharves and docks north of the tree line of Canada?
2. How many and where are these wharves and docks located as of the summer of 1966?
3 Does the government have any plan to improve existing facilities and construct such facilities in communities where they do not exist at the present time and, if so, what are these plans?


George James McIlraith: 1. The Department of Public Works is responsible generally for the construction and maintenance of public wharves north of the tree line of Canada.
2.	Three, at: Cambridge Bay, Coppermine, Tuktoyaktuk.
3.	The Department of Public Works is reviewing facilities at these and other points but no decision has been reached.
October 24. 1966


NEW FEDERAL BUILDINGS, HULL, QUE.
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Did the Minister of Public Works undertake in 1963 and 1966 to construct federal buildings in the city of Hull, and in the area of Hull and, if so, when will construction begin and when will the cornerstones be laid?
2.	Which federal department will be entitled to occupy the first building?

Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): 1 and 2. No. However, in 1966 the Minister of Public Works indicated that capital development in the National' Capital area must be truly regional and not be determined by the boundaries of any one municipality. Planning has progressed on appropriate buildings for the city of Hull, although no final designation has been made as to particular departments or precise locations. Substantial development of these plans awaits agreement as to additional bridge facilities across the Ottawa river.


EXPROPRIATION OF LAND FOR AIRPORT, LUCERNE, QUE.
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	In its master plan for the Quebec portion of the capital region west of the Gatineau river, did the National Capita] Commission provide for an airport in the municipality of Lucerne?
2.	If so, does the N.C.C. intend to contribute financially toward the expropriation of land for that purpose?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): 1. On plate 18, entitled, "Schedule of Operations", in the atlas annexed to the general report submitted to the National Capital Planning Committee in 1950 by Jacques Greber, a local airport is shown for the third stage of the schedule. An airport at the same point is shown in the illustration on page 156 of the report. However, no mention of such an airport appears in the text of the report. The N.C.C. has no plan for such an airport.
2. No.


PERMITS FOR BUTTER IMPORTATION
Mr. Winkler: Have any permits been issued for the importation of butter since January 1, 1966, and, if so (a) to whom (b) what were the quantities imported?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secreiary lo Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes. Several permits have been
Questions
granted for butter to be brought in for processing and re-export as ships' stores. There has been no net importation, (a) It is not government policy to disclose details of individual permits, including the names of permit holders, (b) 156,096 cwt.


FLAGS FLOWN BY CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Are ships of the Canadian Coast Guard required to fly the Canadian flag as ensign?
2.	Are such ships permitted to fly their own distinctive jack, distinct from the Canadian flag?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.
2. Yes, in accordance with Canadian Coast Guard standing instructions.


RURAL MAIL CONTRACT, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. MacEwen: 1.	What were the names of the various tenderers and the amounts of the tenders for the R.R. No. 2 River John, N.S. mail contract?
2.	To whom will the contract be awarded?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1.	Charles D. Sutherland, R.R. No. 4, River John $1,300; Mrs. Jean Elsie Dwyer, River John $1,360; William Archibald Bigney, R.R. No. 2, River John $1,700; Earl Joyce Rudolf, River John $2,100.
2.	The contract will be awarded to the lowest tenderer who, upon investigation, can give sufficient assurance of being able to perform the service in a satisfactory manner.


EXPERIMENTS IN BREEDING OF COWS
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	Is the federal government carrying on any other experiments other than the one with George D. Brown at Pakenham, Ontario, whereby grade Holstein cows are bred to beef bulls and, if so, where, what type of arrangement, and how many cows are involved?
2.	Has the government reached any conclusions due to these experiments and which method of carrying out the experiments is the least expensive and the most efficient?
3.	Does the government receive the money from calves and feeders sold and the milk marketed in the case of George D. Brown's operations?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Yes. The Department of Agriculture has a contract for a cross-breeding experiment with a rancher at Duchess, Alberta. The experiment involves the crossing of Aberdeen Angus, Holstein and Hereford cows with nine

October 24, 1966
Questions
breeds of bulls through artificial insemination. There are approximately 200 cows in each of the three herds. These cattle are privately owned and under the terms of the contract the department is required to compensate the owner for losses in excess of those considered to be normal and for extra labour involved in the breeding program.
2.	No experimental conclusions have been reached at this early date in the projects. Experiments conducted under contractual arrangements with farmers for the crossbreeding of large numbers of cattle are considered to be economical. However, such arrangements will need to be continued for some time to come before definite conclusions can be reached.
3.	The contract with Mr. G. D. Brown does not provide for refund to the government of any money from sales of calves and feeders but provides for the equal sharing of any milk revenue in excess of $8,450 in any contract year.


'RURAL MAIL CONTRACT, PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY, ONT.
Mr. Alkenbrack: What were the names of the various tenderers and the amounts of each tender for the recent letting of a mall contract for R.R. No. 1 Cherry Valley, Ontario, In Prince Edward County in the constituency of Prince Edward-Lennox?


Desmond Morton Code: Mr. Speaker, the answer to Question No. 2,022 is as follows: Mrs. Alida Mae Wiggins, Cherry Valley, $1,560; Mr. Gordon L. Cummings, R.R. No. 1, Cherry Valley, $1,650; Mr. David Morley Leavitt, Cherry Valley, $1,695 and Mr. Samuel Armstrong, Cherry Valley, $1,744.70.


ESTABLISHMENT OF FRENCH SPEAKING COMMONWEALTH
Mr. Choquette: What measure does the government intend to take in order to encourage the establishment of a French speaking commonwealth, in accordance with the idea put forward by Mr. Leopold Sedar Senghor, President of the Senegalese republic?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The concept of 'la Franco-phonie' is still at a formative stage at this

time. The recent visits to Canada by President Senghor of Senegal and by the French foreign minister have provided the government with an opportunity for a useful preliminary exchange of views on this subject. While no definite proposals have yet been submitted, the Canadian government fully supports the idea of developing closer links and more exchanges, particularly in the cultural and related fields, with those countries which, like Canada, share the heritage of the French language and culture.
It is the policy of the Canadian government to give full expression, in its international relations, to the bilingual and bicultural character of our country. The development of our ties with the francophone countries, which we have pursued vigorously over the last few years, represents a new and valuable dimension of Canadian diplomacy. We wish to participate actively in any effort to find an effective framework for further cooperation among francophone states.
I accordingly informed our distinguished visitors that Canada would give favourable consideration to any proposal intended to provide a framework for closer contacts and more exchanges among the French speaking countries. At the same time account would of course have to be taken of the particular structure and needs of all those countries like Canada which are interested in this idea. The Canadian government is studying this matter and will pursue it actively in consultation with other interested governments.
So far as the form of Canadian participation is concerned, I can assure the house that Canada's eventual participation will be predicated on the two basic principles which have consistently guided our actions in this field in the past: that the government of Canada represents all of Canada on the international plane and that we are anxious to use our powers in the foreign affairs field to promote and further the interests of all Canadians including, of course, those relating to our unique French speaking heritage.
The Canadian government is accordingly anxious to enlist the support and active participation of interested provinces and the province of Quebec in particular, in such an endeavour. We are willing and anxious to discuss with the interested provinces the best way in which provincial participation can be achieved and the exact form it may take within the context of the policy I have just stated.
October 24, 1966

In this respect, the Canadian government is, of course, aware of the proposal by the Quebec government to convene a meeting of ministers of education and culture from "states where French is one of the languages used". The suggestion is a recent one and the actual planning for such conference has not, as yet, begun. The federal government looks forward to hearing from the government of Quebec concerning this matter. It will be appreciated, of course, that international practice requires that the Canadian government sponsor any inter-governmental conference that might be held in Canada.


HISTORIC PLAQUES, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): During the fiscal year 1965-1966, upon what buildings in the national capital region were historical plaques placed?


George James McIlraith: No plaques were placed upon buildings in the national capital region during the 1965-1966 fiscal year by the National Capital Commission.


COST OF RAILWAY STATION, OTTAWA
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What has been the total cost to date of the construction of the new Ottawa station at Hurdman?
2.	Are any additional costs anticipated to complete construction?
3.	If so, what is the estimate of such additional costs?


George James McIlraith: 1. The total cost to date of the Ottawa station building is $5,575,000.
2.	Yes.
3.	It is estimated that this additional cost will be $100,000.


PAY SCALE, RESERVE FORCES
Mr. Crouse: Has a decision been reached on the pay scales for the reserve forces?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No.


IMPORTS OF BUTTER FROM NEW ZEALAND
Mr. Laprise: 1. Has Canada imported any butter from New Zealand in 1966?
Inquiries of the Ministry
2. If so (a) what was the quantity imported since the beginning of the current year (b) what quantity is expected to be imported from now until the end of the current year (c) what price is paid for this New Zealand butter (d) is this butter offered to Canadian consumers in the state in which it is received, or is it processed or mixed with Canadian butter?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. Yes. Butter has been imported for re-export as ships' stores.
2. (a) Statistics on imports of butter from New Zealand for the period January to June 1966 (latest figures available) are as follows: Quantity	Value
(cwt.)	$'000
60	3
(b)	Not known.
(c)	See (a).
(d)	None of this butter was imported for domestic consumption.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we have reached questions Nos. 2,040, 2,118, 2,078, and yet, since March 1, 1966, that is for eight months now, my question No. 910 has been on the order paper.
Would it be possible to find out from the minister or his assistant when it is planned to answer that question which has been on the order paper since March 1, that is for eight months?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 910 deals with about 75 crown corporations and the hon. member should understand that it takes more than a week or a month to reply to it. In any case, the answer should be ready very soon.


EDUCATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Acting Prime Minister this question. Having regard to the terms offered by the Prime Minister on the subject of education in the course of his statement to the federal-provincial conference, what justification is there for the fact that this house was completely ignored and that the Prime Minister saw fit, yesterday afternoon or evening, to make available that speech, to disclose this offer,
October 24. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry and to have it explained by Mr. Kent on behalf of the government?
Why was this done? Why was parliament not made aware of what the offer was going to be, particularly in view of the fact that it was announced to the press by the Prime Minister before it was given to the provincial representatives? Does this mean that parliament is to be treated as a kind of rubber stamp?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, what was done, in so far as announcing government policy by the Prime Minister to a conference with the provinces is concerned, does not represent the establishment of a precedent. That precedent has long been established, and my right hon. friend is among those prime ministers who have helped to make this a well established practice. I can think of nothing that would be more inimical to the negotiations that are under way between the federal government and the provinces than to have the kind of disclosure my right hon. friend is suggesting parliament should have been given in detail.


John George Diefenbaker: It wasn't given in any particular.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As to the course that the Prime Minister followed in the press release beforehand, I think that in this instance the Prime Minister observed the well known technique of which my right hon. friend was perhaps the best exponent during the time he was prime minister. I can think of three occasions when this was done.


John George Diefenbaker: Never once was it revealed before the conference met.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My right hon. friend says that.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My right hon. friend may not like the answers I am giving, but those are the replies I want to give.


John George Diefenbaker: This is another example of the Acting Prime Minister rewriting history, as he did a moment ago when he said Pym was a republican-he died, as a matter of fact, in 1643. There was no question of it then. This is another case of rewriting history. He was so far out it was frightful, but rewriting history is not unusual for him. I ask him, what justification was there to reveal this information to a press conference before the meeting of the dominion-provincial


conference and before parliament knew about it? What is the excuse for this?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My right hon. friend says once again that I am seeking to rewrite history.


John George Diefenbaker: Absolutely.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: That may be a distinction between my right hon. friend and myself.


John George Diefenbaker: I write and you rewrite.


Murdo William Martin: I have already given the reply. What the Prime Minister did was perfectly proper.


John George Diefenbaker: Never.


Murdo William Martin: My right hon. friend did it constantly.


John George Diefenbaker: Never.


Murdo William Martin: And so did everyone else. In the interest of prosecuting the federal side on this matter it would have been unwise to resort to any other course.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, never at any time when I was prime minister, or prior thereto, did I or any other prime minister reveal in advance of a dominion-provincial conference what he was going to tell them and explain it. This statement so far as I am concerned is as full of errors as the hon. gentleman's reference to history regarding John Pym.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will have the opportunity in a moment to ask a question. I have the impression that, for the last few minutes, we have been witnessing a fight between giants and I think that we should now consider another matter.
I will soon give the floor to the hon. member for Lapointe so that he may ask a question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime
October 24, 1966

Minister; it is supplementary to the question put a few minutes ago by the Leader of the Opposition and concerns precisely the brief mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, the brief of the federal government written for the federal-provincial conference today.
Could the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether it is true that this brief was distributed yesterday in English only, and that no French copy could be given to the members of the Quebec delegation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the exact situation is, but I am sure that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the distribution of the brief in one language only. I am almost certain it was insisted on that the brief be distributed in both languages. However, I shall inquire.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance or in his absence his parliamentary secretary. Would the minister advise the house whether the question of reciprocity between the Canada student loan plan and the Quebec student loan plan is on the agenda for the federal-provincial conference starting today, and I make particular reference to the right of Quebec residents to use these loans at universities outside the province of Quebec?


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I take due note of the interesting statement made by the hon. member and I shall bring it to the attention of the Minister of Finance.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, before directing a question to the Minister of Labour perhaps I might be permitted to say to Your Honour that if you should decide to send a message of condolence to the unhappy people of Aberfan, expressing the deep sympathy of this house on the agonizing tribulation which has befallen upon them, I feel certain it would meet with the approval of members in all parts of this chamber.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. I, of course, would be very pleased to consider it a duty and do it forthwith.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that it is now over a year and a half since the Canada-United States auto agreement was signed, how soon will the minister be able to give us a firm policy decision with respect to the transitional assistance payments which were promised by the former minister of labour to Oshawa workers who were thrown out of work as a result of that agreement?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: And as promised by the present Minister of Labour. As I have said, I hope to be able to make an announcement regarding this matter within a matter of days. A very important meeting has been arranged for next Tuesday between the international representative and other officials of the automobile workers' association, two of my cabinet colleagues and myself, and I hope to be in a position to make some announcement very shortly thereafter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister, is it intended to make these TAB payments mandatory upon the auto manufacturing companies?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, until government policy has been settled I cannot say whether there will be any change from the present practice or not. I only know that this meeting is to take place to pursue earlier discussions which have raised questions of importance that deserve and are receiving consideration by the government.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: As a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is rising on a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege for a very simple reason: it is the right of all hon. members of this house to be treated on an equal basis.
9026	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
A little earlier I wanted to rise on a question of privilege but I was not allowed to do so. Right now, I am not blaming the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) for trying to do the same thing, it is his right. But he rises on a question of privilege and is recognized. Therefore, here is my point: have all hon. members in this house the right to be treated the same and then, can some hon. members rise on a question of privilege and be recognized whereas others will not be allowed to do so? Mr. Speaker, that is my question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: It is very easy to give the hon. member an answer.
He knows that, according to the rules of the house, supplementary questions are left to the exclusive discretion of the Chair. When the Chair feels that there is no matter under consideration, it is not in order to recognize a supplementary question. If the hon. member for Lapointe will kindly listen to me, that is why I told him that I was not ready, a moment ago, to recognize a supplementary question. I told him that I would not forget, at the first opportunity, to allow him to ask another question on the same matter.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the representations made by the Oshawa city council, based on the serious lay-offs because of the Canada-U.S. automobile pact, can the minister advise whether the proposal that Oshawa should be designated a special area for the purpose of tax concessions to industry, so that a diversification of industry can take place in that city, is receiving favourable consideration, and can he advise whether a decision will be announced soon in respect of this very important matter?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the city of Oshawa requested that it be designated under the designated area program. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that it would not be possible under the law passed by parliament some time ago for this to take place. It just cannot be done under our present law. What they did ask was that some program providing comparable advantages to Oshawa be made available by the federal government. Having regard to the difficult situation of the automobile workers and the fairly large numbers laid off in Oshawa, we are trying hard to see what can be done.
[Mr. Gregolre.l
DEBATES	October 24, 1966


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious lay-offs, could the minister give any indication how soon Oshawa may hear whether some such program in this regard can be put into effect?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As soon as we can, Mr. Speaker.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
With regard to the strike by the postal workers, which should normally occur around mid-November, has the minister been informed that this strike could very well start November 5 next? What is his department doing now to improve the offers made to the postal workers union?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, it is somewhat hypothetical; I am still hopeful that a postal strike will not occur before the holidays.
With regard to the second part of the question, the department is studying all the recommendations made by Judge Montpetit, those dealing mainly with the Post Office Department and those dealing with the other departments and federal bodies, as well as the recommendations affecting also the labour unions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as minister of that department and as Acting Prime Minister. In view of the announcement that Right Hon. Lionel Chevrier, former minister of transport and more recently high commissioner to Great Britain, is leaving his post to assume the position of commissioner general for visiting heads of state during centennial year, will the minister inform the house when it is expected he will leave his present post and assume his new one?
October 24, 1S66


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would think before the end of the present calender year.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Acting Prime Minister. Would he tell the house what exactly will be the new duties of the present high commissioner when he returns to Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that this question can toe asked at this time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Are consultations being held with the United States government concerning the protection of sea approaches to Canada by the United States navy in view of the reduction in Canada's naval strength?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend did not give me notice but my colleague has given me the opportunity to deal with this question as though I had received the customary notice.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not give notice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The report is unfounded. The U.S. embassy has stated that it is cognizant of mutual United States-Canadian co-operation in defence planning and of our common obligations under NATO and NORAD, and knows of no such study. Furthermore, the U.S. navy has informed the U.S. embassy that no such study has been contemplated or made. I thank my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence for this information and I thank the hon. member for being so courteous as to listen to this reply.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not say there was any report so I do not understand the first part of the answer. As a supplementary question, is the minister considering holding consultations with the United States government along this line in order that Canada's defences may be maintained, since apparently we cannot do it ourselves?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State
Inquiries of the Ministry for External Affairs has returned the compliment to me on this one so that I may reply. The answer is no. No such consultation is necessary. My hon. friend, as an ex-minister of national defence, would know that there are constant consultations in respect of all defence matters concerning mutual defence and he would also know, if he really had listened to the evidence presented to the committee on national defence last spring, that the anti-submarine capacity of the Royal Canadian Navy is better now than it has been at any time in history and that the Canadian taxpayers are well served.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was not on the committee last spring but I will be next time.


Mr. J. M. Forresfall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he can advise the house how many ships with underwater capability are at sea today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: H.M.C.S. Forrestall I think is the only one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. The announcement by the Post Office Department that they are going to replace the arms of the Dominion of Canada which have been on our post office trucks and mailbags for many decades has created considerable concern in my constituency and I wish to register the strongest possible protest against this act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is abusing the rules of the house. He cannot make a statement of this kind under the guise of asking a question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: My question is this: on what authority is the Postmaster General attempting to carry out his ill-considered action.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: No orders have been given yet.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says that no orders
9028	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry have been given. Did your own department not issue a statement to the effect that this change was going to be made, and did you yourself not indicate in this house that it was going to be done?


Michael Starr: Today.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: No, sir.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of a reply made by the Postmaster General. I should like to ask him what he meant on October 14 when he replied to the following question asked by the hon. member for Wellington South:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is he in a position to confirm or deny reports that the royal coat of arms which appears on all mail trucks, bags and other things used to move Her Majesty's mail is to be removed and replaced by another symbol?
The minister's reply was:
Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are going to adopt an emblem which will represent a truly Canadian post office and which will give a real interpretation to the Post Office Act.
I ask the minister, did he have no knowledge of the issuance by his department of a statement to the effect that the coat of arms was going to be removed? Did he have no knowledge of that?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: In speaking on this question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, my answer referred to the first part of the question asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and was to the effect that a statement or a press communique from my department had been issued.


John George Diefenbaker: My question is this. Did the minister not know that the issue of a statement in an interview with one of his senior officers enunciated the principle that these insignia were going to be removed? Did he not know about that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this type of answer is not in keeping with parliamentary practice. The other day the minister said he would be making a statement. As I recall, that statement was going to be made today. What is being hidden and why is the government afraid of answering? Why do we not receive this statement?

DEBATES	October 24, 1966


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and remind the hon. gentleman of our rules in respect of questions. Questions are to be factual and based on facts. They are not to be argumentative or raise a subject for debate. I suggest that the right hon. gentleman should be subject to the rules of this house just as the rest of us are.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest that observation is a proper one and that we are all subject to the rules except for the government. That is exactly the point I am making. The minister is deceiving parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg rising on a question of privilege?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I wish to speak on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and reply to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the present Minister of Transport, that congenial member from the maritimes. At page 8951 of Hansard the Postmaster General is reported as having said:
Mr. Speaker, that matter will be dealt with in my statement, which I intend to give on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is entering into a debate. I suggest that the point of order raised by the Minister of Transport is a proper one. The question period is reserved for questions and not for arguments. After the right hon. Leader of the Opposition raised the question a second time I intervened to suggest that the question was argumentative and that the question asked by the right hon. gentleman was not acceptable from a procedural standpoint.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Picfou):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether he intends to make a statement regarding the removal of the coat of arms from post office equipment as he promised on Friday last, as reported in Hansard for that day at page 8951?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I stated on Friday that I intended to make a statement today, but I am not ready to do so at this time.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to
October 24, 196S

the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but in his absence I shall put it to the Acting Prime Minister.
Could the Acting Prime Minister tell me whether the federal government will be represented at the conference to be held in Pembroke on October 28 next in connection with the Grand canal project?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice and I hope to be in a position to answer it tomorrow or Wednesday.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the hon. Minister of Transport. I asked him about two weeks ago whether or not the government was considering temporary removal of tolls on Champlain bridge, and the hon. minister said that the government was seriously looking into the matter.
Can the hon. minister now inform the house of the outcome of this study and of the decision reached in this respect?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, that question is still being studied.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Minister of Transport must also abide by standing orders. The member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) said that he put the question to the minister two weeks ago; I myself put the same question to him a month ago. We are told the question is still under consideration, and the work on Jacques Cartier bridge is nearing completion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: The minister should at least give an adequate reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has the right to ask a question, but the hon. minister can reply to this question to the best of his knowledge and the hon. member, even though he may not be satisfied with the reply, must nevertheless accept it, pursuant to standing orders.
Inquiries of the Ministry



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Can he confirm or deny the report that the Studebaker Company of Canada made arrangements with his department or any other department before closing its plant to import into Canada a large number of Volkswagen cars?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question as asked by the hon. member is not in order in that it asks the minister to confirm or deny a statement. Perhaps the hon. member can rephrase his question.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, did the minister through his department or any other department make an agreement with the Studebaker Company of Canada to import into Canada a large number of Volkswagen cars?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the importation of cars is something about which the importing company must make up its own mind. The Canadian government does not and did not invite anyone to import Volkswagens on its account. In so far as the operations of the Studebaker Company are concerned, that company is free to import Volkswagens or other cars in accordance with our tariff. I understand that during the course of their operations they did act as agents and imported some Volkswagens into Canada before they ceased operations.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question. Was this arrangement made under the Canada-U.S. auto treaty?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the arrangement was made between the Volkswagen and Studebaker companies.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: should like to ask the minister a supplementary question before we leave this subject. Does the minister interpret the Canada-U.S. auto agreement as being such that it allows automobile manufacturing companies to import not only their own cars and parts but cars of foreign manufacture as well?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not in order because the minister is being asked to interpret a treaty.
9030	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Perhaps I may rephrase the question. Am I to understand from the minister's statement that any of the companies which signed the Canada-U.S. auto agreement may bring in not only cars of their own manufacture but also foreign manufactured cars?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in so far as Canada is concerned, the cars must be either manufactured by the importer in Canada or be foreign cars. The only cars an importer could bring in would be foreign cars, unless they shipped their own out of the country and brought them back in. We have provided under the auto agreement that a manufacturer of motor cars in Canada is entitled to bring into Canada finished motor cars and components from any country in the world. This provision is not limited to any one particular area or country. The companies are free to import cars and components from any country in the world, provided they meet certain conditions in respect of manufacturing facilities, increased production in Canada and so forth, all of which I have explained at some length. They are entitled to import these cars and components on a duty-free basis.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, that is a revelation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I should intervene at this point because it seems to me that the question now asked by the hon. member is rather involved. I suggest it is not in order to ask a minister to interpret or explain a treaty or an agreement in the way that it is now being done. That is not the purpose of our question period.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The revelation just made by the minister is the first we have heard about this aspect of the agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Some time ago I asked the minister about the sinking of the dredge Manseau 101 in the St. Lawrence River and he replied that an investigation had been commenced immediately. Can the minister indicate what progress that investigation has

DEBATES	October 24, 1966
made and when we may expect the report? Perhaps he could also indicate who is heading that investigation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I could not possibly answer those detailed questions without first obtaining some information. I will do so and make a reply.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question asked me last Thursday by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, and referred to again privately, with regard to the difficulties of Intrabank and the consequence of these difficulties which I think are now being corrected gradually as a result of the announcement of the government of Lebanon.
It is true that the deposits of Canadian employees in the Canadian consulate in New York, held by Intrabank were frozen. However, as a result of discussions that I had with the new ambassador for Lebanon, who has now taken up his post in Ottawa, and consultations that have been taking place in New York, I hope that other assets of the bank that are now in another bank in New York may be available to release these deposits.
In any event I think the situation now is less serious than it was when my right hon. friend sent me the telegram on Friday, and I have reason to believe that possibly before the end of the week this situation will be clarified.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been any unfreezing yet?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.



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 Acting Prime Minister, on behalf of all senior citizens in Canada, with respect to the anticipated legislation with regard to old age security pensions. Could the Acting Prime Minister tell us when this legislation will be introduced?
October 24, 1966


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce I would say, just as quickly as my hon. friend and others permit us to get on with the next piece of business. This will facilitate our dealing with old age pensions. When we do deal with old age pensions, it will be a further indication that the party that has done more in this area than any other-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -will be given a chance to do so again.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the senior citizens of Canada will not have to wait for two years for it to become effective.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That did not sound like a supplementary question.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege based on the reply made by the Acting Prime Minister. This seems to be a stock reply, because the Prime Minister himself uses it. The question was: When are you going to place this legislation on the order paper?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend wants a frank reply, just as quickly as he and others co-operate with the government in getting through the business of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: You will not get as much now as you used to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will indicate what rule in the book prevents an item being placed on the order paper because something else is under debate?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is an argumentative question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No rule prevents it, but that question is purely argumentative.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was asking for a legal opinion or an interpretation of the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The rule is not there.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister, following his recent declaration about getting through the public business, whether it would not have been better if we had stayed here for a two or three week period instead of recessing last summer? We might have got something done had we stayed here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is hypothetical.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on October 7, as reported at page 8438 of Hansard, I raised the question of the two members of the German forces who had deserted to the British and were subsequently executed. The minister gave his answer, as reported at page 8510 of Hansard, on October 11. Is the minister going to revise the answer that he gave then in view of the statements made by Major Oliver Mace, who served with the Seaforth Highlanders, and Major J. D. Pierce of Port Coquitlam, also a Seaforth Highlander company commander?
In view of the statements these officers have made, is there not some support given to what Professor McWhinney had to say regarding this matter, and is the minister not going to proceed with a further investigation in order to clear up a matter which when the minister answered the question originally gave every indication that there was no foundation for what was being said? Will the minister clear this matter up? Who is reinvestigating this question now, and when can the house and the country expect to have a version unrevised even though repented?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister: What is the government going to do? Is it going to stand behind the original statement or is it going to revise it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, what the point is of my right hon. friend's question is very hard to determine.


John George Diefenbaker: Are you investigating the matter?
October 24, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No evidence that has come to light yet would indicate any reason to believe that the answer I gave was less than the correct one. Since that time we have had a senior officer go to Europe to see whether there is available there any additional evidence which was not to hand at the time my reply was given. In the event that any evidence comes to light which would alter in any way the validity of the statement I gave to the house, I shall be pleased to bring it to the attention of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister say whether he is reported correctly in the Toronto Star of today that he instructed the legal branch of the Canadian army to make further inquiries? I ask him also whether Majors Mace and Pierce have been communicated with and statements secured from them?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have not seen this article, but I will be glad to take that part of the question as notice along with the rest.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, d have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce who first announced the latest Russian wheat deal. Does the Russian contract call for delivery of low grade wheat, and will the high quality of this year's prairie wheat crop have any effect on these deliveries?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Finance as he is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, but I will take the question as notice and answer it later.


James Ernest Pascoe: It is a very serious question, Mr. Speaker, because most of this year's crop is grading No. 1 and No. 2 Northern.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked a question and the Minister of Trade and Commerce-the Minister of Finance is not in the house at the moment-has said he has taken notice of the question.


James Ernest Pascoe: I just want to direct his attention to the fact that it is a very urgent question and calls for an early reply.


Mr. Speaker:: The fact that the question has been allowed is proof that it is an urgent matter.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to orders of the day I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On Friday last I posed a question to the minister about making available a transcript of the evidence relating to two gentlemen, Mr. White and Mr. Bob, of Nanaimo who were involved in a very celebrated case. The minister said he would have to look at the question. I wonder whether he has an answer now?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated to the Indian people that we will support their employment of lawyers to defend them. When we do that we want to win the case and we shall be glad to put in their hands whatever evidence is available in preceding cases before they go to court.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, October 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-227, to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that medical care cannot be put into effect for another two years I think that every opportunity should be taken to debate this matter before the house as thoroughly as is possible so as to ensure the full effectiveness of this bill. It is obvious that there is a widespread consensus in Canada in favour of medical care, and here I make a distinction between "medical care" and "medicare", which in some quarters at least has a connotation which we do not unanimously accept. Personally I believe in medical care, and because medicine has been, and I presume always will be, under the jurisdiction of the provinces, I feel it is my duty to
October 24, 1966

stand up and object to the fact that in this bill we are accepting a pig in a poke.
We are not familiar with all the details of this bill and we do not exactly know what we are voting on. We might well be bringing in under this bill the kind of complete medicare which the province of Saskatchewan has brought in, and I hasten to say at this point that in Saskatchewan, which is my native province, a great many people are very happy with the fact that medical care is available to all in that province. However, I am quite sure that the people of Saskatchewan are not unanimous in accepting the compulsory aspects of this bill. I think we have to put first things first, and if I have to decide between socializing medicine and having members of my family go without medical care, I would certainly not argue against providing medicare for every man, woman and child in Canada as long as that was the choice of the province involved.
We have in Canada the great advantage of having 10 areas of development and experimentation and 10 areas of investigation into the future of medicine. We do not want a complete unity of expression either in medicine or in anything else in this country. Neither do we want a homogeneous education in our universities. We are proud of the differences existing among our Canadian universities, and we realize that only by keeping our minds open to different approaches can democracy broaden. It was Tennyson who expressed himself with the words "where freedom slowly broadens down from precedent to precedent". It was our ancestors, and our forebears in politics such as Sir John A. Macdonald and Etienne Cartier, who handed down the principle that legislation respecting medicine should be the prerogative of the provinces.
No matter how good are our intentions, we should not use a financial stick to weaken our constitution in any way. Of course there is an element of compulsion in anything we do in Canada which depends on taxation but I believe emphatically that we should not use as a lever the right to tax, which the provinces have handed over to the Dominion for the sake of efficiency and fairness. This principle of spreading the tax burden among the provinces might be called by some a socialist approach. The provinces of Canada have accepted the fact that those who have more should share with those who have less, but in accepting this principle they did not intend to use it as a lever to force the ideas of one
Medicare
province on another, or even to force the will of the Dominion on the provinces in a sphere which clearly belongs to the provinces under the British North America Act.
There is a tendency today in our thinking, and certainly in our writing, to confuse socialism with social justice. I read last night an article written by a great German doctor, who, when he was asked whether Germany would ever revert to Hitler's type of fascism, said that because the people in Germany have already brought in so much social justice he did not think fascism would ever again find a foothold in that country.
There is a great deal of social justice in Canada today. I think it is well known too, that there is just as much social justice available to the people of Alberta under the Social Credit government, which is avowedly Conservative in its general approach, as there is in the great province of Saskatchewan where the socialist experiment has outstripped any efforts in this direction in the other provinces of our great Dominion.
We are not supporting communism, nor are we in support of extreme capitalism when we demand freedom of opinion. We are not deserting the position of the middle of the road, which has been the historic position of the great Liberal party. When I spoke on the amendment to the bill I reminded the Liberal party that no less a person than the great Mackenzie King himself said that before you put in sweeping reforms of any kind in Canada the fullest consultation should take place.
I have not attended any of the provincial conferences and I do not know how far this matter has been discussed with the premiers. Nevertheless from what I have read and heard I believe that at least three of the provinces are not going to accept this bill. Therefore to use the argument that if we are to have universality we must have compulsion is without foundation. This bill will not be universal and will not operate in all the provinces, unless a consensus in its favour is obtained. Nearly all the provinces of Canada today have strong premiers and strong provincial governments. They do not have to knuckle down to the wishes of the federal government, and I certainly do not think they should have to knuckle down to a government which, according to the latest Gallup poll, has only some 30 odd per cent of public opinion behind it.

October 24, 1966
Medicare
Surely the principle outlined by Mr. Mackenzie King, that consultation is absolutely necessary, should be upheld. When one considers that according to the present government time is not of the essence in bringing about this legislation, it becomes clear that there is no rush in giving full consideration to this matter.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
At the present time there is a conference of the premiers taking place. Why could not this measure be thoroughly discussed there? Why could not we, as the legislators of this country, have an opportunity of ascertaining just exactly what is going to be put in this bill, and how far reaching it is going to be, when it touches something so important as our health, and the health of our families? Now is the time to discuss this principle because, as you well know, it is much easier to put a bill through properly and have it work properly, than to try to undo mistakes. Once a government puts something on the statute books, it becomes very nearly sacred. The criticism can always be made: Well, you passed it in parliament. I have heard that criticism in Alberta with regard to the pension plan. They say I voted for the pension plan-and I did. It is very difficult to get a black and white question or a black and white answer here in parliament. Those who draw up bills and make policies always put a little bit of honey in with the vinegar.
When you want to sell compulsion, you talk about universality. When you want to sell an idea to the working people of Canada, you talk about capitalism and say that it is only the rich men in Canada who want to do this. I can tell you that I am not a rich man. I have been a workingman all of my life, and I know the need for having your bones mended if you fall off a scaffold. I know the need for a person to be fixed up so he can join the ranks of the workers and pull his weight in the boat. Most of the people in Canada want to pull their weight in the boat. They do have to be herded into this situation, pushed into it or cajoled into it. The people of Canada today are becoming much better informed. They know about this mixing of honey with vinegar. The people I represent

and I think on every occasion, we should speak for the people we represent-do not like compulsion. They certainly do not like it as a principle. I know they will put up with certain compulsory features. As I have said, taxation is compulsory. There are bad features and good features about taxation.

It is our job to thresh out these matters here. I think the former administration under the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was the finest government Canada ever had. When we lost the confidence of the public, we accepted that very well. We said: We cannot be the government, but we are certainly going to be the best opposition this country ever had. During the last three years every time the Liberals introduced one of their half-baked, poorly thought out pieces of legislation, or budgets that would not work, we worked hard, but not acrimoniously, to put forward our suggestions. I am putting forward my suggestions today in a spirit, you may say, of solid criticism, but also in a spirit of co-operation.
I will tell you this now: I intend to vote for this bill. I am going to vote for it, even though I know there is a need to amend it. I certainly have not changed my opinion that this bill needs amending, and it needs a great deal of amending. I can only hope-and I will tell you it is a thin hope that when the premiers get together to discuss this matter around the bargaining table they will be able to do what we have been unable to do here, that is, give the people of Canada medical care in a way that is acceptable to them, and in particular acceptable to the provinces.
I did not like the pension bill but, as I have said, I voted for it because it reduced the retiring age of labouring people. The pension bill contained this same principle of compulsion for the common good; but the net result was that the pension bill did not provide universal coverage. One of the criticisms I have heard most often during the last two years has been made by the farmers of my area who have asked why they, who probably need this pension scheme most, will gain the least. If the government wished to use compulsion as the excuse for giving universal coverage on medicare, then perhaps it should have introduced a bill that would be universally applicable. However, I do not see that feature in this bill. I see only a vague sort of compulsion; and a compulsion which is not spelled out is worse because it is an unknown feature.
If the government said it would take the Saskatchewan form of medicare as a base, then we could go out there and talk to the people, to see how it works. A great many people in Saskatchewan have accepted it because they believe, as I do, that health is very important, and you accept it on whatever basis you can get it. But certainly I do not believe that is any argument for ramming
October 24, 1966

something down the throats of the people that they do not want. When I was a child I was given a certain type of medicine-and I think you all know what it was because it was given on a big spoon. We did not like it, but we took it because we had to have the ailment that was bothering us fixed up. We took it whether we liked it or not: This was compulsion. I suggest there are other things on the market, such as little chocolate pills that you could take instead, and there would be no need for that ghastly castor oil that you and I know so well. I suggest that to some people this medical care scheme means castor oil, but a medical care scheme under a well thought out plan could achieve the same result.
_ I do not believe we have to go to socialism in order to get social justice. We have a form of social justice out in Alberta. It is not perfect; but in my opinion, many people are getting proper medical attention in Alberta without having to accept the over-all scheme which is suggested in this bill. I repeat that I believe it is important that we do not put a compulsory bill on the statute books. It is not going to be accepted anyway. What is the government going to do? Is it going to allow people to opt out? This is not clear in the bill. As I read the bill, if the people do not accept the scheme as it is, then they will be penalized in some way or other.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
With regard to the compulsory aspect let me make this point. I do not believe in means tests because I have seen them abused. I know old people in this country who cannot get medical care if they say they are broke. They do not get medical attention if they declare they have only small savings. If we are to have a completely compulsory system as envisaged by this bill, there should be no means test at all.
I would suggest that the government change the taxation structure. If someone has too much money and is getting free medical care, then tax him on it. Goodness knows, we are taxing people hard and heavy enough and they have very little say about it. With this type of compulsory taxation we can buy most of the social justice that we want without enforcing other forms of compulsion upon the people.
Although I am going to vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that talking about these matters is a waste of time. However, I am unhappy that the provinces have not got together on this question, and I do not
Medicare
know what they are going to do about it. I am very anxious to see the elderly people of Canada looked after. The minister of health, the Minister of Labour, in fact all the ministers, have promised that very shortly legislation will be brought before this house which will provide the "big deal" which the elderly people are going to get. We are going to make sure that they get medical care, I am given to understand, and also that they are going to get a pension of $105 per month.
Because we have lots of time to talk the matter over I do not know why we cannot be told what we are going to get. If we knew what was going to happen to the elderly people we could attack this problem with a much clearer mind, and I would be able to vote with a much clearer conscience for measures which have a compulsory aspect in them. I will accept the reasoning of the government if they will show me that the people I want to help the most are in fact going to be helped. I do not think it is cynical to say "show me". If you buy a pig in a poke you must expect to get hurt. It is very rarely the case that when you get the sack home and open it up you find you have a better pig than you would have had if you had observed the pigs paraded around the auction market. If there are good features about the plan to take care of our elderly people, then why do we not have a look at them? When you have a good product you do not hide it, you put it on show. You advertise your big bargains so as to get the people into your store. If there is a "big deal" coming to the elderly people, then let us have it; why be cagey about it?
I understand that one of the reasons given for delaying this measure is that we are trying to curb inflation. We should certainly do something about inflation, because the elderly people cannot live on $75 a month today. Two years from now is no time to deal with this particular situation, and I am not at all sold on the idea that this is the place where we should economize. We have had austerity programs before, I know. In the confusion of administering certain measures we sometimes find that such things as stopping the lunches of Indian children take place, and the short-sighted, badly informed people who do this sort of thing in the name of economy rush around trying to find a deputy minister or minister to blame it on. I know something about that, Mr. Speaker, because I have had first-hand experience in administering social justice to our people. There is hardly anyone in this chamber, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
October 24, 196S
Medicare
Speaker, who, if he were to think long enough about it, would argue with me when I say that the people we should look after first of all are our own elderly people. I want to see such a provision put on paper, because I do not believe that in our big bureaucracy we do fill the need where it is greatest.
If, Mr. Speaker, we want to start curbing inflation, there are a great many places in Canada where we are wasting money, and wasting it in large lumps, no check being had upon it whatever. We have plenty of money to build islands in the middle of a river to hold a fair. I am not against that; but I do think we should work out some clear-cut ideas as to priorities in spending in this country. However, looking after the people who built this country is our first duty. Let the people who gave us these good times we are all so proud about be the first to have at least a minimum of security. In view of the cost of living today no one could possibly imagine that spending $75 a month was living high on the hog; it barely pays the rent of any decent suite or flat in any of the cities I have lived in. What are these pensioners supposed to live on after that? If they have saved $1,000 and they declare it-and the honest people do-then in most cases it beats them out of some forms of medicare.
I do not think it is at all contradictory, Mr. Speaker, to say that I am against compulsion in principle, but that we should also look after our elderly people, no matter what compulsion is used. I am certainly willing to submit to compulsion in that regard. If the only way I can be told to vote for this sort of thing is to compel me to vote, right and good; but you do not sell me the idea of medical care for all on a compulsory basis, all the way down the line.
The people in every province in Canada today have shown that they want medicare, but I am also quite sure that as the deadline of July 1, 1968 approaches the government will discover that the people of Canada are not going to swallow this plan hook, fine and sinker. The government will have to change their terms of reference and put this particular castor oil in capsule form, or make one of their chocolate candies out of it.
We will never have communism in this country, Mr. Speaker, as long as the members of this chamber do their duty; but I do not think we can do our duty here unless we are frank with each other. I think we are getting into a morass because we are being cagey, hiding facts and promising that in the future

there will be some wonderful package deals. Then when the time comes, they do not appear.
This house is the place to discuss legislative proposals. The experience of the Canadian people over the last three years has been that we cannot get anything put on the statute books at present unless proposals are brought out into the open, and we who are here have a really good kick at them. On several occasions items of legislation have been withdrawn, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, and I compliment the government for taking that action. Having made a stupid mistake there was no point in compounding it. If you have laid an egg, stand back and admire it, by all means: But let us have a good look at it.
If voting against this bill meant that we would have a chance to review the whole question, then I would vote against the bill. I know perfectly well however that this bill is going to go through; but in voting for it, as I intend to, I am not to be taken as expressing approval of it in its present form. I wish I knew how I could make myself perfectly clear why I stand for certain features of the bill. I do not want to hold up medicare, but I want medicare introduced in a form that will do the most good.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I hope the government will do something about preparing the physical facilities and plant for medicare. In that connection I hope it will forget about austerity. If I am to believe what is said unanimously by the experts, our educators and medical men, then we in Canada are hopelessly behind in the amount of money we appropriate for research. Therefore I trust the government will make a real effort to provide more money for medical research.
I think we are also going to be hopelessly behind in hospital beds. We are already thousands of nurses behind. I raised this subject some five years ago, and begged the government of that day to put more money into the training of young nurses. This was turned down, not by the government of the day but by the nursing profession itself; so here is a place where some compulsion might well be used. We can no longer rely on the Florence Nightingale approach to nursing. It is now a highly skilled profession. We have to encourage our young people to enter it, because we will need more after medicare is implemented.
We should also do something to encourage our trained nurses to stay in Canada. I do not
October 24, 1366

Medicare
know why pay for nurses is so high in the United States, but I do know that a nurse trained in Canada can go across the line and increase her pay by anywhere from 20 per cent to 50 per cent. The standard of nurses' training in Canada is probably the highest in the world, but we are not training enough nurses for our own population, and should not be regarded as the nurse training centre for the whole of North America.
This would be the very last area in which I would be willing to economize, the training of our young people in the nursing and in the doctoring, because we cannot provide good medical care for every man, woman and child in Canada if we do not have the necessary plant and tools.
A great deal has been said in this debate about the possibility that we might lose more doctors, but I think we will lose a lot of doctors anyway no matter what we do with this legislation. Medical care schemes have worked very well in most of our provinces, but we still need to spend a lot more money on our medical schools to encourage our young men and women to take up medicine as a profession. Even if we set up new schools now, it will take ten years before the assembly line is working to the necessary capacity.
When we introduce national medicare and apply the present Saskatchewan and Alberta standards to it, there is no doubt but that there will be a tremendous strain on the medical profession. This is not the fault of any one government or any group of governments, but it is our responsibility to provide the necessary plans and plants. We need the physical plant, the hospitals and beds, the research laboratories, and the training of more personnel.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this bill because I believe in medical care for all. I can only beg the government to do many of the things which it knows perfectly well have to be done. Let us not bog down in a political bog. The government knows that some of our proposals should have been accepted. I only hope it will take the well meaning advice and suggestions it has received from this side of the house, because our only aim is to give every man, woman and child in Canada a better standard of medical care.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), Labour relations-withdrawal of the C.N.T.U. from the Canadian Council of Labour Relations; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), Health and Welfare-request for prohibition of cigarette advertising in broadcasting; the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer), Agriculture-Request for data respecting retail pricing.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-227, to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech I would like to ask whether the government is giving some consideration to an adjournment for the purposes of allowing hon. members to get some substance, some food?


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, I intend to propose that we suspend proceedings at seven o'clock for the purpose of dining.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wish to thank the minister, and on behalf of this side of the house accept his suggestion, and look forward to it.
This bill has been introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), who comes from an honoured province. It has much to commend it to the people of our province, and to the people in the rest of the provinces. But coming from Nova Scotia I think the minister could well have given a little closer attention to the needs of our province, and of other provinces that find themselves in similar financial positions.
I believe that some form of universal medical care is not only desirable but, indeed, is

October 24, 1966
Medicare
inevitable. Our own provincial attorney-general and minister of health in Nova Scotia has made this comment, and it is one I agree with. We have full awareness of the need for continued assistance to those who are on fixed incomes and who otherwise, for any one of a number of reasons, cannot afford to pay medical bills themselves; but this is going to put a heavy burden on our province.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The bold statement that provinces such as Nova Scotia cannot afford this plan under the present system remains a fact with which the government and the minister have not seen fit to deal. The minister's concept of universality has limited the application of the scheme. The provinces have never been given an opportunity to set out clearly their positions on this matter. I would invite the minister to meet with the premiers, and in particular with the premier of his own native province, and to raise this whole matter either privately or otherwise. I believe he is already aware of the point of view held by our minister of health and our attorney general. The cost to Nova Scotians would amount to some $15 million, an amount which cannot be raised simply by taking it from the provincial treasury.
No serious effort has been made to devise a plan which would take these various economic differences into account, or the differing need for medical care which arises from province to province. The federal government has dictated priorities without allowing the provinces to suggest meaningful methods of putting medicare schemes into operation.
It is our desire in Nova Scotia, as I am sure it is in all other provinces, to find means of enabling everybody to meet their medical bills without too great a strain on their finances. The bill before us fails to take account of the effects of the continuing cost of a program such as this, or to suggest its relationship to the primary cost. The plan does not permit the provinces to deal with escalation in the cost of medical coverage, yet they must find the money somewhere. On one hand, our province is faced with the expenditure of a staggering amount of money-I have mentioned that this is likely to cost Nova Scotia $15 million-and on the other the federal authority is threatening shortly to remove, through cut-backs in defence expenditures, millions of dollars which presently flow into provincial coffers, the economy of some of our rural areas, municipal treasuries, and so on. If one leaves all other items to one 
side, the combination of these two during the next three or four years will spell some form of disaster.
I do not know what the government intends to do about this situation. I do not know indeed whether it intends to do anything. As the previous speaker suggested, this motion for second reading will ultimately come to a vote in the house and it will be carried. As I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, I think this is right. But I still believe that advantage has not been taken of the opportunity to hear the comments of provincial ministers of health. Reference of this measure later to the committee of the whole for further discussion does not, in my view, provide an opportunity for the total study which ought to be given in committee when a matter of this kind is under consideration.
There is no special need for haste. We have until July, 1968, or some such date, before the bill will be implemented. The minister in his explanations, and I listened to them with great interest, did not deal with the bill in the depth which a measure of this sort merits. As has been pointed out, it will be with Canadians for many years to come, so it is of great importance that it should be given proper consideration by this house. Change for the sake of change is never good; our actions must be based upon the fullest understanding of all the implications.
Surely, it is of the greatest importance to consider the impact of plans such as this upon the local economic situation. We must be concerned about the ability of the local economies to sustain them, as well as with the capacity of the medical profession to cope with them. These questions have been raised before, and I suppose later speakers will refer to them too. It is my understanding that we need between 1,200 and 1,400 doctors each year, and that present numbers fall short of this requirement. It has been argued, and, in my opinion, correctly, that until this need can be met we should continue to study the situation in order to discover ways in which this and other difficulties may be overcome. The medical profession is recruiting, at present, about 800 doctors a year, while 2,400 are needed. We might well be concerned, too, about the morality of attracting doctors from countries which already have too few doctors. We are a rich young nation and surely we can afford to deal with this legislation in a manner which would best bring these necessary services to the Canadian people.
October 24, 1966

It makes no difference how fine the legislation is if we lack the doctors or the medical centres to do the job. Indeed, we might easily find ourselves doing a disservice to those who will ultimately have to pay the bills. So that there may be no misunderstanding as to the economic aspect of this measure from the point of view of Nova Scotia, let me point out that about 80 per cent of the federal members from our province have risen to make comments, including the minister himself. This, I suggest, indicates the degree of concern which is felt. As I say, I hope the minister will find some opportunity, while they are here in Ottawa on other business, to talk privately with our minister of health, our premier, our minister of finance and economics, and our provincial secretary, about the serious dollars and cents problem which will confront Nova Scotia if the government plan goes through as it stands.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
As I said earlier, I am very much aware of the needs of a large segment of our population in Nova Scotia with regard to the high cost of medical care. In many cases they do not have the funds to meet the obligation which would be incurred and because they are proud people, they do not seek out treatment. In this connection I must add, however, that I really have not known a doctor in Nova Scotia who has refused treatment because he felt there might not be immediate payment for his services. Nevertheless Nova Scotians, because of their pride, do not incur debts, no matter how much they need the services. They do not accept the services unless they are able to fulfil the commitment. For this reason there probably are this very day hundreds and hundreds of Nova Scotians who fail to seek out medical help and advice. Notwithstanding that, it is wrong to force upon those people, not only in Nova Scotia but in all of Canada, the compulsory aspect of this measure.
Over the years, people have built this nation because of their ability to make decisions for themselves. So far in all the western countries this ability, on balance, has not proven to be a bad thing, quite the contrary. There are ways in which medical services can be supplied. The minister is aware of the methods which could be brought into play, such as the continuing utilization of the present medical insurance programs which are being conducted both by private enterprise and by doctor plans similar to the Maritime Medical Plan, and others.
Medicare
With the exception of some clauses which suggest that some flexibility might be brought into play, in this bill these have been set aside completely. The bill should have been more closely aligned with these known and tried concepts. It should have brought in-if this is the word

this freedom, this right of choice to decide for one's self those things in life which are meaningful. I do not like to call this bill a measure of creeping socialism, but sooner or later one begins to wonder whether or not he ever will be charged again for any of the needs which arise in the course of his life.
It becomes a bit of a shock when you speak to young people who say, "What is the use of buying life insurance or annuities, or providing some form of insurance against the cost and burden of putting children through university education?" As I say, it is somewhat of a shock to hear young people say "Why bother; let us take that $200 or $250 a year and spend it at Christmas time or take a vacation with it, because by the time Susan or Danny is of age all these things will be provided for them by the generosity of the federal authority". Apart from the dollars and cents aspect of this, I think something greater is being taken out of the so-called pockets of our people, and that, I repeat, is the right of freedom of choice.
I am well aware that in no way does the bill impinge upon the freedom or right of any Canadian to approach any doctor, whether it be his family doctor or a new doctor, for medical assistance under this plan. Again the arguments in this context are familiar to most members in the house, so I shall discuss them only briefly. If a doctor finds himself working from six o'clock in the morning until midnight six days a week, it is not going to be too long before it will not be wholly proper or safe to consult him. The doctors will tell you this themselves. The only way they can combat this condition is to make themselves inaccessible to people. All of this may be brought about because we are going to rush into something before we are fully prepared to cope with its ramifications.
Mr. Speaker, when the bill comes before the house I intend to support it. I was very impressed with the way in which the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard)-God bless him, and I hope he is doing better these days-presented the amendment. The various suggestions in the amendment were those with which I agreed, and which supported when they came before us for determination.



S04G COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
Oclober 24, 19SG
Medicare
However, having said that, although it may not be in the form in which I would like to see it, it would be neither right nor proper for me to oppose the bill because it is a most meaningful Canadian step.
I should like to close by once again imploring the minister to find some further occasion, if at all possible, this week, to discuss with our minister of health, our attorney general and our premier the very real economic hardships which this is going to place on the province of Nova Scotia. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I had thought of this matter of medicare as a socialist measure, and I was particularly impressed by the fact that those in the house who are supposed to be the proponents of socialism, the members of the New Democratic Party, were completely absent from the house.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one last plea. In the house and publicly I have mentioned some of the things which bother me particularly about this bill. I have said I would support the bill with almost any amendment. I heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) say in the house that the measure would have to be postponed for a year or two because the country could not afford to bring it in at this moment. Just what are we affording? We are looking at it economically, I suppose, from the viewpoint of the Minister of Finance. We probably are looking at it politically from the viewpoint of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen); and, looking at it in this light, it might well be called not medicare but "politicare".
As I said before, the introduction of this measure seemed to be a matter of political expediency. This is not what we should be talking about; this is not what we should be thinking about when we are discussing medicare. I hope the minister will give second thought to this bill during the two years it will take before it comes into effect. I do not know why we should push a bill through which cannot come into effect until certain ministers arrive at an agreement. Surely there are other urgent and important matters that we should consider.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Let me plead with the minister, and challenge him if need be, to investigate thoroughly the results of similar plans put into effect in other countries. I do not pose as an expert,

but it is my feeling that a committee should be constituted to study the experiences of these other countries.
What we are supposed to be talking about is the health and welfare of the Canadian public, but I have heard very few words about this subject during the present debate. We have admitted that we cannot at this time afford to implement such a plan, but we must in some way ensure that the Canadian public has every advantage so far as health and welfare is concerned. We all remember the bitter experience we had in financing our pension plan. I was in support of that plan and voted for it, but only after I made a plea to the minister to reconsider the proposed method of financing.
Let me now make a plea to the minister to consider the essence of this bill and to avoid pushing it through on the basis of political expediency. We should consider the health and welfare of the Canadian people on a purely medical basis rather than on political or economic considerations.
In view of the fact I am not an expert in this field, I have had to read history to find out what has happened in the past. I came across a very disturbing article in a medical journal Lancet under the title "Crumbling Edifice". It refers to things that happened 100 years ago, and in fact goes back to the time of Bismark who first introduced public medicine in Germany. At that time Germany was foremost in laboratory research. Unfortunately, however, she did not maintain that position following the rise to power of Hitler. Before that era she was considered the world's most progressive country in the field of laboratory research, while at the same time England was outstanding in clinical research.
All medical men in the world I am sure look up to Dr. Osier, whose dream was to bring together the Anglo and Teutonic views in respect of medicine. He wanted to bring together the best laboratory and clinical approach to research and care. Had he been successful I am sure the health problems of the whole world would have been greatly alleviated.
Perhaps I should make some mention of the efforts of Marx in Russia. What has happened to these great plans in these countries? The proposed union was never accomplished. Russia no longer can be viewed as an outstanding example in the field of socialized medicine, and Germany has lost its place in the world in this field. No longer are England
October 24, 1966

and Germany viewed as the outstanding countries in the fields of laboratory and clinical research.
I hope the minister will have a second look at this bill, in light of the historical experiences I have mentioned. Perhaps he will consider the 1964 statistics showing the number of medical graduates in England in that year, and the number who left that country permanently. My figures indicate that in 1964 there were 1,600 graduates in medicine in England, but that during the same year 1,200 left the country permanently. Surely that tremendous emigration of English doctors can be related to the increase in the number of admissions to hospitals there. What will happen in this regard in Canada?
[DOT] (6:40 p.ra.)
Here we have something that is unique in the medical field. Let me give you one or two examples. Insulin was developed by Banting and Best, two Canadians. We are all very proud of our neurosurgeon, Dr. Penfield. We are very proud too, of the men who introduced to the world of medicine some of the matters I referred to earlier, including the theory of relaxation which has enabled open-heart surgery to be carried out. This is something we have read about in our week end magazines. I believe some 17 operations of this type have been performed and all but 4 have been successful, due to Canadian research and the dedication of Canadian doctors.
Do we want to rush into scheme, Mr. Minister, without taking a second look at medicare history in Europe? Surely the experience in similar schemes means something. Doctors and professional men are not leaving England at the moment because of wages or monetary return. These things are very easy to evaluate. They would be making much more money had they stayed in England. Why did 1,200 doctors and professional men leave that country? Why does a person become a doctor? Why does a person become a lawyer? Why does a person become a farmer? It is not necessarily because people think they are going to become millionaires.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, political expediency and economic considerations are no real reason for dealing with medicare in this way. As I have said publicly on many occasions-in fact I said it many, many years ago before we were even talking about medicare-our main consideration should be the mortality rate. Whose mortality am I speaking about? It is the minister's; it is
Medicare
yours, Mr. Speaker; it is mine and my children's, and that of our friends in the street. This is what we should be considering. In the light of the history of medicare in other countries I believe the minister should take a hard, second look at this scheme.
We on this side of the house are accused of holding up the business of the house, legislation increasing old age pensions, and so on. Maybe we are. But believe me, if our holding it up will result in the saving of even one life I am glad that I have taken part in this debate. I should like to come back to the question of comparison in this area. I mentioned state medicine. I mentioned very briefly what we in Canada have to be so proud of.
What is going to happen in this field? I should like to ask the minister what is beginning to happen right now. Canadian doctors have maintained that spark of something which I cannot properly describe. In Canada in 1936, in the depths of the depression, after a person had studied for at least eight or nine years why would he enter this profession of doctor when he knew he would not be paid? There must have been a spark of something in his heart, and he was not motivated by the pay he received. Doctors worked long hours and asked no questions, and suddenly what were they faced with? What were they faced with in Saskatchewan in the dark and dirty 30's as they are often called? Suddenly there was a state medicare program, which I think went to the extent of paying 41 per cent of doctors' bills.
I need not tell you the result of that scheme, Mr. Speaker. In my area half the doctors are from England and Saskatchewan. The ones from Saskatchewan are admittedly earning less money, and those from England are earning even less than that. These people gave up their careers and their homeland to move across an ocean and a continent. There must be some way in which we can appeal to the minister to reconsider this program and bring it about in another way. After all, with the experience of 100 years of state medicine we should be able to devise a better scheme than this. This experience must be valuable. The government does not have to introduce an identical state medicine plan. I am no scholar of history, and certainly I am no medical or hospital authority, but if the bill is introduced in its present form I see no reason why we should not expect the results that have occurred in other countries.

October 24, 1966
Medicare
As I mentioned before, we have so many things to be proud of in Canada. Surely we have an appreciation of matters beyond political expediency and economic factors. If this bill were amended so that the scheme would work most efficiently, I would not care if we went into debt for 50 years. I mentioned earlier that if we could save one more life, the reconsideration of this bill would be worth while. But we are not talking about one life; we are talking about many, many lives.
I do not like referring continually to England, because I appreciate that country so much; but it is very close to us and therefore provides a comparison. A very eminent authority from England was in Canada a few days ago, and he pointed out the fallacies of the program over there. As a matter of fact, most of my notes today are taken from his speech. The summary of his speech was simply that if they could revert right now-I think he was referring to the exodus of the graduate students who left England only two years ago, and the latest figures will show this exodus to be even greater now-to the old methods, it would take them 20 years to catch up. For heavens' sake, Mr. Speaker, if we are not going to introduce this plan for two years, why not shelve it now and have a better look at it?
Do we balance election promises with human lives? I would quote a very, very eminent English surgeon who four months before the medicare bill was introduced in his country had a waiting list of 65, and five months after it was introduced he had a waiting list of 365. And what did he say frankly and honestly to himself and to anyone who asked him? He said: "I get no thanks for it. Sometimes I have worked 18 or 20 hours, but now I get no thanks for it."
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, we should certainly take a second look at this bill or consider some amendment which would allow us to reconsider this legislation. I make this plea in all honesty and frankness.
This is a measure of socialization. We have seen a horrible example of it-and I hesitate to mention it, but I feel very strongly about it. Over the week end we heard about the terrible disaster which took place in Wales. What brought it about? I do not know, but I wonder whether this has not happened as a result of inaction by their government. The investigation will bring the truth out, but the government took over an industry and time
[Mr. Gundlock.l
and time again its attention was called to a possible danger. The situation resulted in a terrible disaster, and probably the only excuse the government can have is that they did not have sufficient money to take the necessary preventive measures.
As I said earlier, I challenge the statement that we cannot afford to bring in this legislation now. If it is all that good, and if it means maintaining our tremendously successful and famous medical research, then we can afford it. Believe me I would hate to take any part in a program which would jeopardize research in Canada. Let us think again of the internationally famous doctor who in his study of stress developed the relaxant which brought us to the fore in the whole world, including the United States. Let us also remember our famous neurosurgeon who has received world acclaim, as well as the well known doctor who has discovered a method permitting open-heart surgery, one of the greatest advances in medicine today.
When we think back to the famous Canadian researchers and teachers we realize the importance of this bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker my plea to this house and to the minister is that we should take sufficient time to study the matter thoroughly, and perhaps to bring in the necessary amendments. Meanwhile we might consider the old age pension legislation which has been bandied back and forth so much.
In conclusion I should like to ask the minister to reconsider this bill. If I have done wrong in holding up the legislation, then let me take the blame for it, and let me be on record as saying that I am proud of having done so. I hope the minister has listened carefully enough and will consider my plea. After all, we have time-those are his own words. Let us now go on with the other business of the house.


Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear at the outset that I agree with the principle of prepaid medicine, as I believe do most of the people in Canada and all the members of the house. I think that all of us who through the years have contributed to plans such as the Blue Cross, M.S.I. and similar plans have proven the point that we believe in it. Industrial and business firms all across Canada have set up medical plans for their employees, who believe it is a necessary fringe benefit, and who welcome it, as it enables people in that category to pay hospital and doctors bills in cases of emergency.
October 24, 1966

I come from the province of Saskatchewan, which has established a medical care plan, and I must say in all fairness that this plan works. However, many problems had to be faced in the beginning, because the plan was put into effect too hastily and because there was a lack of competent doctors and medical people. I believe we must be careful not to make the same mistakes in instituting a federal medical care plan, and we must ensure complete acceptance from the doctors, as well as complete co-operation of all the Canadian provinces.


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but if it is agreeable to the house I suggest we suspend debate until eight o'clock this evening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed that we suspend the sitting until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Sitting suspended.



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Lawrence E. Watson: Before we adjourned for dinner, Mr. Speaker, I was mentioning a few of the problems we had in Saskatchewan before the plan in that province was implemented. As I mentioned also, we now have a workable plan in that province and I believe everyone is proud of it. I do want to point out, in so far as the legislation before us is concerned, that the government should take a good look at the problems we had there before implementing this legislation.
One of the first problems I see in connection with this bill is the principle of compulsion. This was one of the big objections to the provincial scheme; but it is now compulsory and everyone in the province has to have it. If we are going to have a plan which covers the Dominion, I believe it must be compulsory for everyone in Canada to take part in and to contribute to it. I would much prefer to see a voluntary program, however, because most of the working class people who can actually afford to pay their doctors' bills have taken the precaution of belonging to some prepaid plan.
A federal plan should be set up so that it is completely portable from one province to another. At the present time, when you move 23033-572J
Medicare
from one province to another you have a long list of complicated documents to fill in, and this is one of the problems that has not been completely solved in Saskatchewan. At the moment, if you want your bills handled with no inconvenience to yourself, and if the doctors are to accept a certain proportion of the bill, you must belong to M.S.I. or some other form of group medical plan. Personally I do not agree with this provision. If a federal plan is implemented, then this must be one of the things omitted from it. In other words, it must be completely universal and none of the prepaid plans should participate in it.
I should like to refer briefly to the amendment which was before the house last week and mention the four points that I feel are very important. The first point in the amendment reads as follows:
(a)	secures co-operation of the governments of the provinces of Canada;
This is something that we must have, the wholehearted co-operation and support of each and every province. No province should have the right to opt out on such a plan.
Point No. 2 in the amendment reads as follows:
(b)	recognizes the principle of voluntary choice by the individual.
Again, it is important that each individual person who seeks medical attention have the privilege of going to the doctor of his choice.
Point No. 3 in the amendment reads as follows:
(c)	makes adequate prior provision for sufficient medical research, the training of adequate numbers of doctors and other medical personnel-*
Then, the last point in the amendment reads:
(d)	immediately provides for those persons who are unable, for financial reasons, to provide medical services for themselves.
I would say that the last two points are very important. If we are going to have a national plan under which every resident of Canada who needs medical attention can secure that attention, we must have research and we must have the facilities to train both men and women who will be entering the medical profession. I feel that possibly the most important point of all is the last one, which refers to immediate provision for those people who are unable, for financial reasons, to provide medical services for themselves. These are the people of Canada with whom we must be concerned. These are not just the underprivileged people of Canada but also

October 24, 1966
Medicare
that large portion of the population who have a small income and are unable to provide for their medical needs. They seem to hope that either the doctor will forget about their bill or someone else will pay it.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I believe that the provision that a province must have 90 per cent of its population enrolled in a plan in order to qualify for the benefits under this bill, does not go far enough. If this is to be a national plan, then it must cover 100 per cent of the people in Canada. It is the 10 per cent of the people who do not have coverage about whom we really care.
According to the figures, approximately one third of the people in Canada cannot afford medicare premiums. If people were to take a good look at their financial position they would in most cases agree that this is the first and foremost item in their budget and that they should subscribe to medicare not only to look after the needs of their immediate family but also those of other dependants.
I think it is a misconception to say that this plan provides prepaid medicare; let there be no mistake about this. Under the present plan in the province of Saskatchewan the initial premiums of the subscribers to the plan provide only a small part of the revenue, the major part being met by the imposition of taxes.
We must not forget that the medical doctors in the province of Saskatchewan first of all decided to fight the plan. The problem would be much larger if the plan were national in scope. Unless it is completely acceptable to each and every province there could be a major catastrophe if doctors all across Canada chose to walk out of the plan for 23 days, as was the case in Saskatchewan. The dominion government, Mr. Speaker, should have some kind of collective agreement with each of the provinces so that the plan is not only universally acceptable but practically identical in terms in each of the provinces.
The Hall report pointed out that we will require four new medical schools in Canada by 1971-72. At the present time there are approximately 23,000 to 24,000 doctors in Canada. If we are to keep up with increased demands for medical care consequent upon the coverage of people who have not had proper medical attention in the past, we will have to step up rapidly our training of doctors and also find the dollars and cents to build these medical schools, and to operate them.

I think that the federal government should take another look at its system of grants for the construction of hospital beds, which I believe at the moment provides $2,000 per bed. This is not enough. There is not only a problem of building sufficient hospital beds in Canada; we must also keep up with the increasing demand for new knowledge and the type of care that is demanded and expected by the people of this country.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the federal government, I believe, should be the only provider of medicare in Canada. The province of Saskatchewan pioneered the way to complete coverage, as we now have it in my province, and this only after having grown tired of listening to promises of medicare at each election-yes, and in between elections-for the last 47 years.
I think it was the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) who mentioned in his speech the other day that 46 per cent of the graduates from the University of Saskatchewan used to stay on in the province to practise, whereas now less than 25 per cent do so. I think this is the result of the doctors' personal feelings toward this plan. I am sure most doctors who have remained in Saskatchewan are doing better today than they did previously, and therefore there would seem to be no other reason for their leaving. Should the same situation occur across the Dominion of Canada, there is only one place where our doctors will go and that is south of the border to the United States. This is a fact that we must face. The plan must be worked out in complete co-operation with all doctors in Canada as well as with all provincial governments. One way in which doctors can be kept in Canada is illustrated by this example in the province of Saskatchewan.
The plan in that province is acceptable, so I would suggest that Saskatchewan proceed with its program. As the hon. member for Saskatoon mentioned, if half of the $14 million which Saskatchewan would receive under this plan were put into medical research at the University of Saskatchewan, I am sure we would be able to draw doctors back into the province, because they would be assured of good research facilities, unmatched in any other part of Canada. If this were done an added incentive would be given the young men and women of Canada to enter the medical profession, and to stay in the profession in a country that is theirs. They would have no reason to leave.
October 24, 1966

We heard a great deal about the implementation of this plan on July 1, 1967. We also heard a great deal about this plan a year ago. There was an election one year ago, which perhaps prompted the date of July 1, 1967. Now that the election is over we are back to the old game of stalling it off for another year. I would urge the government not to stall this plan, but to put it through as soon as possible, so that all people in need of medical assistance in Canada can take advantage of it.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The government should tell the people of Canada what they really want to know, and in no uncertain terms-when and how the plan will be introduced. Are we to find the doctors, and the medical profession generally, rejecting this plan because they have not been told, in detail, how it is going to work. I want to make it plain and clear that the citizens of Canada do not wish to be faced with a complete withdrawal of services such as occurred in Saskatchewan. I used the words "complete withdrawal". The doctors may take exception to that, inasmuch as there was agreement to take care of emergency cases. However the people of Canada do not want such a situation. They do not want to see a withdrawal of services by doctors and professional men because the plan is not acceptable to them.
What the plan actually does is this: It guarantees to the people of Canada that their doctor bills will be paid. This is what prepaid medical care actually is. We must assure the people of Canada that not only will their bills be paid but that there will be a supply of doctors adequate to take care of their needs.
This is one reason why I say: Let us get on with the plan. The federal government must act in complete co-operation in every province. There must be full agreement on the type of program to be introduced so that it is universal in application from one province to another.
In conclusion, let me re-emphasize that this must be a program acceptable to the doctors and to the medical profession in Canada, as well as to the recipients of a program of this type which is long overdue for the poor people and for the aged who are in greatest need.


James Ernest Pascoe: I wish to make a few remarks on Bill C-227. In doing so I would make it clear that I agree with the stand taken by this party that all Canadians are entitled to adequate medical
Medicare
care, but that attention should first of all be paid to those who cannot afford it. I am sure all members are in agreement with this statement.
The Progressive Conservative party, when it was in power, appointed the Hall Commission. We asked for a medical service plan which would be workable when introduced. I emphasize that phrase-"workable when introduced". We meant that the first stage of the plan would have to be carried out in full co-operation with the provinces and that it should not place too heavy a burden on federal or provincial finances. This is what we are advocating now.
I know I may not refer to an earlier debate in this house, but I believe it is in order to say that not long ago we proposed for the consideration of members that medicare should be introduced gradually. By postponing the implementation of this bill, if passed in its present form, the government has indicated that it cannot or does not wish to pay for the scheme as now drafted. The government is in the same position in this regard as the man who bought a new piano. His neighbour asked him what was the hardest thing about his new possession, and he replied "The hardest thing about it is paying for it." This is the position in which the government now finds itself.
The postponement of medicare until at least July 1, 1968, after so many definite promises by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) has, in my opinion, very little to do with combating inflation, although that is the excuse given for the delay. Why not speak frankly to the public and say openly that the financial burden and other pressing problems make it impossible to meet the government's promised deadline of July 1, 1967?
I wish to make my own position clear. As I stated earlier, all Canadians are entitled to adequate medical care. But why must this bill be pushed through parliament with such haste, particularly when the government gives such an obvious indication that it is not in a position to pay for it?
A federal-provincial fiscal conference is now being held in Ottawa. Full co-operation with all the provinces is essential if there is to be a satisfactory medicare plan. So why not wait at least until the views of the provincial leaders as expressed in this conference are on record? Perhaps a much more acceptable and workable plan would emerge

October 24, 1966
Medicare
even though some of the suggestions might require changes in the present legislation.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The final plan to be introduced should not be an infringement on provincial autonomy. This is something which has been emphasized by many speakers, including the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Watson). In this connection I would like to quote this paragraph from an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail, headed, "The Medicare Pressure Play":
Premier John Robarts was somewhat charitable when he refused this week to interpret as a pressure play Health Minister Allan MacEachen's announcement that the federal medicare plan would proceed on July 1st, 1967, no matter how many provinces had enrolled in it.
You can see, Mr. Speaker, that this editorial appeared a few months ago because the date for implementation of the plan has been changed, but I still think some of the provinces interpret this measure, and the apparent haste with which the government is trying to put it through the house, as a pressure play. There are more immediate problems facing Canada today.
I was interviewed on radio this morning in a report to my constituents, and this is the gist of what I said when dealing with medicare:
The government has announced that medicare will not be brought in until July 1, 1968, at the earliest. This is 20 months from now. But the government insists that we give approval to the plan now, that is, give second reading, approval in principle, to Bill C-227. Now that implementation of medicare has been postponed by the government I consider that there are more immediate problems to be solved. I refer to rising prices, and along with this the plight of the old age pensioners trying to exist on $75 a month. These are immediate problems. We should be doing more about them now.
Today the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin) said in response to some pressure from the opposition that relief for the old age pensioners would be introduced if we disposed of this medicare bill immediately. However, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out that there was no reason why the measure providing relief to old age pensioners could not be placed immediately on the order paper.
Other hon. members have referred to the pressing need for a greater number of doctors before a complete medical service plan can be made fully operative. In this connection I wish to refer to a letter written by Dr. R. K. C. Thomson, president of the Canadian
[Mr. Pascoe.)
Medical Association, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), on October 13, copies of which were sent to individual members of parliament. He makes a number of points in his letter and I wish to refer to two of them:
Finally, that the government has been making decisions about the provision of medical services for the people of Canada without adequate consultation with those persons who are expected to supply these services.
That is something which has been dealt with by other hon. members. Another point in the letter is this:
That a universal program will aggravate the existing shortage of medical and other health manpower, particularly in the field of general practice. The alleviation of these acute shortages should be given first priority in spending public funds.
This letter from Dr. Thomson emphasizes the problem, a problem which the government might help solve by postponing the date on which the plan will come into operation.
In addition to the lack of doctors, at present we have insufficient hospitals to cope with the demands for hospital space. I do not know how many hon. members have had to consult doctors and have had the experience of sitting in waiting rooms for two or three hours, and finally discovering how overworked doctors are.
Other hon. members have said that additional money must be devoted to medical research. I do not think anyone will contradict the statement that there is a need for more medical research, and it should be made clear in any government plan that medical training and research should have first priority. That is why I am suggesting that the government's rush to have this bill approved by parliament is not at this time in the best interests of Canadians or of Canada. The whole emphasis of my remarks is to stress that we should take more time to work out a medical services plan that will be fully operative and fully acceptable when it becomes law.
There are many points in Bill C-227 that require more explanation, and in addition some insertions will have to be made to it. I refer to a letter which I have just received from Dr. F. H. McWilliams, a well known and highly qualified optometrist in Moose Jaw, in which he says:
I realize that medicare has been deferred, but would like to bring to your attention some matters in connection with the medical care act as it relates to eye care-
October 24, 1966

He goes on to say:
Sections 2(d) and 2(f) are discriminatory against the profession of optometry, other health professions and the public, as presently worded; e.g., any medical doctor, such as an opthalmologist, could perform a refraction (eye examination), paid for by the plan, while optometric patients must pay for this themselves. If the definition "medical prac-tioner" were to include optometrists, etc., for special purposes only, such as eye care, all intentions of discrimination would be eliminated-
If no changes are made before the act is put into effect, this would mean optometric services are being included, but optometrists excluded.
He goes on to say:
In fact, in eye care, optometry serves Canada with 1,500 practising members, while there are only 300 certified opthalmologists.
He goes on to refer to the position in Britain, and says that there-
-it took only a month or less to discover that optometrists had to be included in the health plan where eye care was offered.
He also emphasizes that nearly 70 per cent of the population requiring vision care services seek out optometrists. This letter from Dr. McWilliams emphasizes the need for more studies to be made of this plan to make it more workable and more acceptable to the public.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
With regard to statements made concerning the medicare plan now operating in Saskatchewan, I should like to say that it certainly is not the plan which the C.C.F. government at that time, led by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), had in mind. In fact it was only after many consultations and conferences with members of the medical profession that the plan was worked out, as the hon. member for Assiniboia said, and now has reached a point where it is working very satisfactorily in Saskatchewan.
I should like to read from a booklet published by the Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Commission. It is entitled "About Your Medical Care Insurance Plan". A few items in this booklet indicate the changes that were made in the Saskatchewan plan before it was acceptable. One statement is:
Beneficiaries have free choice of physician and physicians are free to accept or reject patients.
That amendment was brought in as a result of conferences with Saskatchewan doctors. In respect of payments we see the following:
Under the Medical Care Insurance Plan, physicians' accounts are paid in one of three ways:
Direct Payment-The physician may submit the account directly to the Commission, and payment is made to the physician.
Medicare
Payment through Approved Health Agency-if patient and physician are members of the same approved health agency, the physician submits the account to the agency, and payment is made by the Commission to the agency for payment to the physician.
Payment to Patient-Where neither of the above methods applies, the physician provides an itemized statement to the patient. To obtain his insurance payment, the patient submits the itemized statement to the Commission, and payment is made to him.
Under this method, the beneficiary is responsible for payment of the account to the physician.
I have placed these items on the record to show that there is considerable elasticity in the plan in Saskatchewan as it is operating at the present time. I think the debate on this plan should be held over for a while. As I say, the federal-provincial fiscal conference is going on and I am sure the representatives at that conference have some ideas on this subject which we should like to hear. I also think we should get on immediately with the promised relief to old age pensioners.
In speaking at this time I wish to explain how I stand in respect of this matter. I agree with others that there should be adequate medical care for Canadians. I appeal to the government to listen to reason and try to work in some of our suggestions. If the government will not do so, then on the final vote on this legislation I will have no other choice but to vote for the bill, although I think it could be greatly improved. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, as a member from Saskatchewan I have had some experience in respect of the medical care plan there, and as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Watson) and the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe), I feel I should place on the record a few comments concerning the very important piece of legislation now before the house. I am a little concerned about the government's haste in bringing this to the attention of the house at a time when there is so much other important legislation which should be considered, and especially in view of the fact that they now have decided to postpone its coming into effect another 22 months.
I believe there are many citizens and organizations in Canada representing various medical services, such as optometrists and chiropractors, who in many cases have not been in a position to make their views known in respect of this bill. Personally I feel I must support the general principle of the bill. I

October 24, 1966
Medicare
was in favour of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). I think this amendment would have greatly improved the bill. The house, however, has made its decision in that regard.
I can quite readily recall some of the problems we had in Saskatchewan when Dr. W. P. Thompson headed the commission to study the principles for the medicare plan. Several terms of reference were laid down. He was asked, as members of the house know, to bring in recommendations which would be acceptable to the people of Saskatchewan, to the medical profession and to the government itself. I was naturally rather embarrassed by the situation which developed in that province when our doctors found themselves in a very unhappy position because of the premature action that was taken by the former premier of that province, the present hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). In the election campaign of 1962 he was interested in gaining political kudos and came back to Saskatchewan with instructions to the minister of health to get the legislation on the books. This was done prior to the Thompson commission bringing in its report. I believe this was the specific reason for the animosity which developed in that province in respect of this particular piece of legislation.
We have gone through all that experience now and, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, many of the wrinkles have been ironed out. The plan now is working fairly effectively, although I have on my file a copy of a lengthy bill which was presented in the legislature and which makes many amendments to the present legislation. No doubt we will have similar problems in respect of Bill C-227 when it finally comes into being. When we try to make it effective, undoubtedly there will be many wrinkles which will have to be ironed out.
Mr. Speaker, we have overlooked one segment of medical health in this country. I am referring in particular to the optometrists. Here we have a class of people who are providing a very beneficial service in the general health and welfare field to all Canadian citizens, and yet they are left out of the provisions in this bill. I have a letter from the Saskatchewan Optometric Association dated September 29, 1966, which sets out some of the criticisms they have with regard to this bill. Perhaps some of these points already have been covered, but I

think they should be placed on the record at this time. The letter states:
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Since our visit a few weeks ago certain aspects of the proposed Bill C-227 have come to light which
1	feel will adversely affect both the optometrists and the people of this area. The discriminatory part of the proposed legislation is evident in section
2	(d) and section 2 (f). Because I feel there will be more discussion in the Commons regarding this bill I thought I would point out certain facts of which you may or may not be aware.
Section 2 (d) "Insured Services" means all services rendered by medical practitioners that are medically required, except any services that a person is eligible for and entitled to under any other act of parliament of Canada or under any law of a province relating to workman's compensation;
Section 2 (f), "Medical Practitioner" means a person lawfully entitled to practise medicine in the place in which such practice is carried on by him;
All services of medical practitioners include the services of opthalmologists, the medical eye specialist. His services include examining eyes for vision problems which in turn is the sole effort of optometrists. In effect the bill insures the services of ophthalmologists, but does not include optometrists. It therefore discriminates against optometrists and their patients. It restricts the right of choice of the patient, a right which medical people always staunchly defend when it concerns them. It offers a service to the people which is not available to a great many people in this area because there are no medical eye practitioners here. In this area there are optometrists which directly serve the public from the following points; Estevan, Oxbow, Carnduff, Carlyle, Redvers, but no ophthalmologists.
With regard to section 2 (f), the definition of medical practitioner should be amended for the purposes of the act. If optometrists are included in the definition of medical practitioner then the services we provide would be available in the same way they are provided by the ophthalmologist.
In Canada there are 1,500 optometrists as compared to 300 certified ophthalmologists and it is estimated that 65 to 70 per cent of Canadians seek vision care from optometrists. In our area where there are no ophthalmologists the percentage is probably higher.
In my view the important point is that whenever a service is offered in the plan that any practitioner who is legally and academically qualified to practise the service should be included. Both ophthalmologists and optometrists should be included in any plan in order to properly care for the patient. In this area patients which show any medical abnormality are referred by optometrists to medical general practitioners in the area or to the ophthalmologists in Regina.
The important aspect concerns what the act means by medical practitioner. If it means what it appears to mean, then a great number of the Canadian public are going to be short-changed and have to pay double for any service that the medical man cannot supply, for various reasons.
I hope that these comments will be of value to you and that you will present them on behalf of your constituents if the opportunity arises.
October 24, 1966

This letter is signed by Mr. J. A. Seale, O. D., who is a resident of the city of Estevan, Saskatchewan. He is the executive officer of the Saskatchewan Optometric Association. I think his views are well taken in this respect.
I have before me a brief presented by the Canadian Association of Optometrists which also deals specifically with their views as to Bill C-227. This brief in part states:
The Canadian Association of Optometrists expresses its grave concern that the medical care act will have far-reaching and injurious impact upon the pattern of providing health care services that has been established in Canada over a great many years.
That is a pretty strong statement coming from an important body. I think their views should be considered before this bill finally passes the house. The brief then states:
The significance of this aspect of the bill is clear. It would demolish or severely interfere with the public's method of obtaining health services, from optometrists, as well as other members of the health professions, such as dentists.
The bill makes it clear that all eye services will have to be included if the provinces are to qualify for the federal grant. This means that such services as "major ocular examination," "tonometry," and "orthoptics" as listed in the schedule of fees of the Ontario Medical Association, will be included. These services are regularly provided by optometrists for their patients.
Optometrists are legally and academically qualified in all provinces to perform-with the exception of such services as surgery and treatment of disease-all of the services required in the major ocular examination referred to in the Ontario Medical Association schedule. Optometrists prescribe treatment if the defect is functional, which it is approximately 95 per cent of the time. If there is indication of disease referral is made to a medical practitioner.
The brief then states:
The public will be deprived of its traditional and fundamental right to freedom of choice of health practitioner.
Optometric patients (almost six million, or 65 per cent-70 per cent of Canadians who seek vision care) will be influenced to quite naturally seek out the favoured-by-legislation practitioner, i.e. the medical practitioner.
Optometrists would be placed in the suicidal position of having contributed to public funds which will be used to drive patients out of their offices.
It will have a serious impact upon the number of young people coming into optometry.
I think this is a very important point which bears emphasis because, as I pointed out, approximately 65 per cent to 70 per cent of people who require eye services go to the optometrist.
The brief then states:
There would be little incentive to study for five years to become a member of a profession legislated to fade from the scene.
Medicare
It will provide a service which if restricted to medical practitioners will be unavailable to a great proportion of the public, particularly outside the metropolitan areas.
The optometrist is the only vision care practitioner in 60 per cent of the communities where there are optometric practitioners. There are almost 1,500 optometrists in Canada and only around 300 certified ophthalmologists. The need for both practitioners seems obvious.
We recommend that the restrictive and discriminatory elements of the bill be removed and that the definition of "medical practitioner," for the purposes of the bill, be changed to include optometrists.
I think the Canadian Optometric Association brief and those other references I gave bear out the necessity for the government to take a serious look at this bill before it is finally passed. Surely these people should be included in the provisions of the bill because they also prescribe for the health and welfare of a great majority of the Canadian population.
Without repeating myself, let me suggest that a great many of the same arguments could be applied to those people who practise chiropractics in Canada. I have a great respect for this branch of our medical practitioners, and I feel they too have a strong case to be placed before parliament.
I could go on at some length with further references to this particular legislation, but suffice it to say that as a member from Saskatchewan I support the principle of this bill. I am naturally very concerned because the government promised the services to be rendered by this bill to be in effect by July 1, 1967 but has now seen fit to postpone that date for a year. This has come as a great disappointment to many Canadians, particularly those in the lower income and fixed income brackets. The government deserves strong criticism for not accepting the advice contained in the amendment moved by this party to bring in medicare for old age pensioners and those on fixed incomes, because they are now unable to provide the necessary services to which they are entitled.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I believe the government can be and should be strongly censored for at least not starting with the pilot project which would take in roughly 30 per cent of Canada's population which deserves these benefits immediately. It has been mentioned on a number of occasions that when this legislation is brought into effect it will place a very heavy load on the medical practitioners of this country. I believe that the suggestions that have been

October 24, 1966
Medicare
made by former speakers with respect to providing more adequate funds for medical research and the development of more medical schools should be listened to.
When we look at the statistics as far as medical practice in Canada is concerned, we find we are very greatly undermanned. In Saskatchewan we have one doctor to about 1,100 people. In the province of Newfoundland, to the far east, I think the figure is only one doctor to 1,900 people. When we go to other parts of the maritimes I believe the figure is one doctor in about 1,400. Yet the best advice I can obtain from the medical profession is that we should have one qualified practitioner for approximately every 850 Canadians.
So when we do bring in this bill, unless we have a speed-up in the development of medical schools and the provision of facilities for people to obtain medical care we will find ourselves grossly undermanned in this country as far as medical personnel are concerned. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government should take the advice of many people in Canada, including members of their own party to whom I have talked privately about this question, and allocate a much larger sum in order to provide facilities for the training of medical personnel.
The first law of nature is self-preservation. In view of this fact it should be obvious that we should spend more money in research for medical services. I believe that the economists in reckoning the gross national product, when considering the loss to this great country of ours through sickness due to the fact that we have not adequate medical facilities- and when we do have the hospitals we sometimes do not have them adequately equipped- calculate the loss figure to be astronomical. This is with reference to the loss to our gross national product because of illness.
This point is particularly interesting to Saskatchewan, because we have health services at the present time and we have already allocated our tax resources to pay for them. If and when this plan comes into effect I believe that under its formula Saskatchewan will receive something like $14 million a year. I think it would be our intention, when this amount is appropriated to us, to allocate immediately quite a large percentage of it-I believe the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) has suggested at least $7 million-to assist the medical profession in that province to provide further educational and research facilities, in order to make the plan more effective and operative in the province.

With these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will give the floor to somebody else, but I do appreciate having had the privilege of making these comments at this time.


Eric Alfred Winkler: inflation caused by this government. It was a ridiculous position for him to take.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to answer the question as to where I stand.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Please do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think that the record of governments which I have supported, and my own record, will show that this government, the St. Laurent government and the Mackenzie King government have a record in the field of social welfare and old age security that cannot be emulated at the present time by any other country in the world.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I will not deny that the minister has been part of all those things that are good. That is what I said a moment ago. But I cannot understand where he stands in relation to the situation today. This is nothing short of deceit. The minister knows very well that $220 million is in the old age security fund today, and if he had acted in accordance with his good conscience, that increase would have been given last January and this money would have been used. Let us not forget that this program will not become effective until July 1, 1968. I must say that the minister has not a leg to stand on in respect of this question. We are getting back to his old friends, the six bucks boys; and the minister cannot deny that fact. The elderly people of this country need an increase in pension.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked me a question, and every time he asks me a question I feel so kindly disposed to him that I want to respond. What the hon. member is doing now is denying the passage of a bill that will be of great benefit to not only the young but the elderly people of this country.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is right; but two years from now-don't forget that, either. The old age pensioners' need is today, not two years from now. This bill means nothing. Let me make another point while we are at this particular stage of the debate. Let me ask the minister this question: When the vote on second reading is taken and the clause remains in the bill that this plan will become effective July 1, 1967, what is the government going to do about that situation?


Murdo William Martin: Let us get on with the bill.
Medicare
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Eric Alfred Winkler: What are they going to do about it? Will they take this debate outside the house? Will they change the bill? The government does not care and the minister does not care.
Tonight I will put another point on the record, Mr. Speaker. The only reason we have for being involved in this debate at this time is to ameliorate the position of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), because his colleagues in the cabinet know very well that they pulled the rug out from under him and now they are trying to make him feel better about the deal. Who is suffering? I suggest that if the measure in regard to old age pensioners is passed immediately after this bill, it is the old age pensioners who will suffer. There is no need to increase taxation to pay these people. I suggest that as of this date there is in the neighbourhood of $220 million for this purpose and in view of the fact that Christmas is two months away the government could take the opportunity of doing something worth while, instead of indulging in this sort of blackmail two years from now. I suggest to you we will not even get a chance to vote on an amendment on second reading because we will defeat the government at that stage. We will force them to bring in this legislation on July 1 of next year, if we have the opportunity, and I am giving them notice of that tonight.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I also believe that since the beginning of a federal-provincial conference is taking place in the nation's capital today I would like to put on the record that I believe this Liberal government is usurping the constitutional rights of the provinces. Normally I would be speaking in support of the right of the federal government and I believe that it is only too seldom that we in this house think nationally. I think it is true for almost everyone here that we are inclined to be somewhat parochial when we speak of our constituencies and our provinces. Of course it is the right of the provinces to feel that way, and in this particular case we know that the government is forcing its position on the provinces in regard to this bill. In fact if the right thing were to be done, the money that is set aside for research and the medical professions would be more properly spent if no strings were attached to it, and if in particular the conditions laid down under sub clause (c) of the bill, which is the compulsory clause, were dispensed with.

October 24, 1966
Medicare
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this aspect of the bill and I am inclined to take a stand against it because of the position of the province of Ontario in regard to this matter. Nevertheless I am prepared to vote for the bill because it provides financial assistance to che provincial governments, all of which need it, as the federal government will learn during the course of this week.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say once again in regard tc the bill before us that I believe a disservice is being done to this country. I do not think this bill is so earthshaking that it will never come up again, and I do not think it means we should not proceed with it. However, the government is doing a disservice to the professional people, the doctors, the nurses and the associated professions by not providing enough facilities and a sufficiently enlarged program for the training of doctors, nurses and research personnel. I also believe, as I said the other evening, that the services of optometrists and opthalmologists should be included in this legislation, and this evening I will add to those professions the chiropractors.
I am now holding in my hand an article printed and distributed by Hon. M. B. Dymond, M.D., Minister of Health of the province of Ontario in connection with the discussions which took place in the provincial legislature concerning the participation of our optometrists and chiropractors. In this particular case it seems rather odd that it was a Liberal member who was fighting for the cause of the optometrists and chiropractors. I stand tonight in this house and I say that the same situation exists at the federal level in regard to these professions. I believe that this bill should take into account the professional assistance of these people, which would relieve the other participants of the profession.
In conclusion I want to say once again- and I cannot be too vehement in my views in this regard-that the people who are suffering from what I would call the blackmail methods of this government are the old age security pensioners of this country. I receive many telephone calls and I guarantee that the members on the Liberal side of this house will be receiving as many telephone calls on the week ends as I have received in this regard. I am asked: "When will something be done? We need assistance."
I believe that the people living in remote rural areas are better off than those living in organized municipalities, but the principle remains the same in all cases. These people

are being deceived by the government; they are being made to wait unnecessarily. Although under the terms of this bill they may be assisted in some ways, I think that if the government were to change the order of business tomorrow by unanimous consent and agree to increase old age security, so far as this party is concerned I could guarantee its passage in less than half an hour provided it were equitably distributed. I pledge the support of my colleagues and I assure our cooperation if the government were to bring in this legislation by unanimous consent.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to make some observations on the motion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) for the second reading of Bill C-227, which is recorded in the order paper as being an act to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans. I am very conscious of the fact that speeches made in this house in connection with the motion, and also the amendments which have been moved and voted upon, have conveyed to the house many different opinions regarding a proper course for the government to pursue in connection with the whole matter.
I do not profess to be able to introduce any particular new thought in connection with the motion for second reading, but there are a few aspects of the whole situation which I feel deserve to be brought to the attention of the house. I would like to emphasize that the bill authorizes the payment of contributions. In other words, I am sure no one would argue for a moment that it does not become a money bill. I assume that the government have in mind what type of taxation they expect to impose to furnish the funds which the imposition of this bill will render necessary. But what I am unable to understand, and I hope the minister will help some in that regard before long, is why the government appears to be confident that they know what the situation in this country will be so far as finances are concerned on July 1, in the year 1968. I do not believe the government or the minister, or any member in this house for that matter, have any access to any crystal ball by which they are informed in advance of what the general financial condition will be on July 1, 1968. The government does not even know that it will be the government in 1968.
October 24, 1966

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) knows what the present financial situation is in this country. I wonder why it is we have never received in the house any reason for the postponement of the effective date of this bill from July 1, 1967 to July 1, 1968? The minister has said nothing about it. No member supporting the government has said anything about it. We get the news by way of the press of this country that the effective date has been postponed for one year.
I am strongly of the opinion that since the government have decided it shall be postponed until July 1, 1968, they should have waited for the introduction of this bill to parliament until at least early in the calendar year of 1968. Then the government could determine what the financial condition of this country was. They would be able to see their way clear to tax, and would know where the taxation should be imposed. Instead of that, at this early date, 20 months before this bill is intended to come into effect, they introduce it and say it shall pass. Then they find a great deal of fault because the people in various parts of this chamber rise and express their views. I am unable to understand why there is the rush.
There are many things that should be brought before this house that have great urgency, and are for the immediate need and use of the people of this country. They are not being postponed until 1967, 1968 or any other date. They are there for the benefit of the people of the country. However, we are asked to sidetrack those measures, to forget about them for the time being, so we can pass something that will not come into effect until July 1, 1968. There is absolutely no excuse for this situation, and the minister will have a difficult time explaining that point to the satisfaction of the members of this house.
I say that this is not the only reason action should be delayed. We are quite convinced the provinces have not agreed on the type of bill that will carry with it a degree of unanimity amongst the provinces. I say to the minister that I feel it is vital to the success of this whole undertaking that there should be at least a degree of unanimity on the legislation from one end of this country to the other. We have nothing to convince us the matter has even been discussed to any great extent. There is presently a conference taking place in this city. Do we know that this matter is being discussed with a view to obtaining unanimity? I suggest that we do not. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the
Medicare
minister, is there not a great deal of merit in trying to secure agreement between the provinces with respect to unanimity? Has any discussion taken place between the provinces with regard to this particular feature?
Then, there is the whole question of portability. Everyone who has mentioned this particular point has been, I believe, favourable to the general idea of portability. I have no reason to think the minister is not favourable, I believe he is. Certainly, I am. But when the citizens of this country move from one province to another they surely would wish to carry with them any privileges that they enjoyed relevant to insured medical care. It seems to me that is just ordinary, plain common sense. Would it not be somewhat confusing to have a variation in the details as between provinces? People would get accustomed to dealing with the whole question of medical care in one province, then move to another and find themselves faced with an altogether different set of rules and regulations. I wonder if the minister has considered that particular feature? I wonder if some attention has been given to that particular point?
Now, I am returning to the matter of the payment of contributions. I do not believe there is much difference of opinion among members of this house as to the general desirability of having medical care made available to any citizens who, through no fault of their own, are in such physical condition that medical care is imperative. I think that is a point on which we can all agree. But, I believe we should examine the details of how we go about securing medical care. How do we define medical care? What is it? What do we do? I happen to be one-and I say this with a great degree of thankfulness -of those people who enjoy good health. I see all around me from day to day people who do not enjoy that privilege. There is nothing much more serious, except life itself, than the enjoyment of good health.
How do we go about getting medical care? What do we do? I am sure that the obvious answer to that question is that we try to have a supply of available doctors. What does this bill do? Does it provide for doctors? The answer is no. Will the minister argue that the payment of contributions will immediately make more doctors available to people requiring medical care in this country? The answer must be no. This may be true in time, perhaps, but not now.

October 24. 1966
Medicare
I say that this bill has been introduced without the appropriate amount of care and attention to all the details regarding medical care itself. Will the provision needed to bring about the much desired result of more doctors be immediately effective, or is it a long range proposition? I submit it must be a long range proposition. Will the minister argue that doctors are not in short supply in Canada? I spoke with a lady just yesterday who had fallen and broken her arm. She told me that she went to the hospital and waited four hours to get a doctor. Now, I am not blaming the minister for that situation, but I am saying that the payment of contributions will not improve it. Will the minister argue that this bill will lengthen the hours of work which doctors at present are willing to undertake? The answer must be no.
Will the minister not agree that it will shorten the hours of work? Will he also not agree that it is true that the doctors will become glorified civil servants to some extent, that they will go to work at a certain hour and quit at a certain hour? The minister shakes his head. He will have to prove I am wrong, to my satisfaction, though I give him the right to differ. I submit that this bill has not had the thought behind it that it should have had.
Then there is the question of the provision of hospitals, hospital beds, nurses and nursing assistants. All of these matters are part of medical care. They fall under the general umbrella of medical care. Is this bill going to provide immediately more hospital beds, or more hospitalization, or more nurses or nursing assistants when it comes into effect 20 months from now? All of these things are necessary in the provision of medicare in the general sense.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
This bill, Mr. Speaker, provides only for contributions which are to begin 20 months from now. Therefore I think the title of the bill should be changed. It does not provide medical care; it provides only the money for medical care.
How do we know, Mr. Speaker, what financial conditions will be in 1968? How does the government know what it will want to propose by way of taxation measures? How does the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) know what will be the export trade of this country 20 months hence? He does not have a crystal ball. How does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) know what the financial condition of the country will be at that time?


Robert Henry Winters: I could tell you what I would like it to be.


Hugh John Flemming: We would all like to do that; there is no question of that. We all hope that the minister succeeds in his efforts to stimulate exports, and I might tell him that I am doing my best to do so by buying national products.
If I had some criticism to make of the bill or of the government, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the bill is much too general; that the details of all the features of medical care have not received sufficient attention and consideration; that these features have not been discussed with the representatives of the provinces to the extent of bringing them into a workable and uniform plan for all provinces, the government of Canada contributing to a carefully thought out comprehensive plan.
Then there is the question of including some services in the plan and excluding others. Some hon. members have spoken favourably of the inclusion of the services of an optometrist for qualification as an insurable service. I think I am in hearty accord with that contention. The hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) went into this in detail. I received a letter from a constituent who brought to my attention the fact that the bill is discriminatory inasmuch as a physician specializing in the study and treatment of diseases of the eye, referred to as an opthal-mologist, would render services under the plan whereas an optometrist would not. I have examined the dictionary, Mr. Speaker, to find the meaning of the word "optometry", and the meaning given was "A scientific examination of the eye to detect diseases or defects; prescription of correction lenses, or exercises".
I would ask the minister to keep in mind that the needs of the patient should be uppermost in the minds of those framing the bill. The needs of the patient should also be uppermost in the minds of the members of the government, instead of their being concerned with the technical application of a certain definition of medical services. If people wanted to have an eye examination they would go to the optometrist of their choice. I know that the minister would be the last person to deny them the privilege of consulting somebody who was qualified to improve their situation, which would be the reason they would go to consult him.
October 24, 1366

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister that he examine again this particular aspect of the bill. The needs of the patient should be uppermost in his mind, and this particular service to which I have referred should be provided for in the statute. If scientific examination of a person's eye to detect diseases or defects is required, then what excuse can there possibly be for omitting such service from the general category of insurable medical care services? I am sure that this point requires a more general and broader definition so that nobody will be deprived of any services which he or she might need. As I mentioned before, my hon. friend from Moose Mountain went very thoroughly into this question in the course of his speech, and I would repeat his protest. No person desiring and needing the services of a practising optometrist should be denied the opportunity of securing those services.
What I have been trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that the payment of contributions does not in itself automatically provide medical care for the people of this country. It does not provide more doctors, it does not provide more nurses, it does not provide more hospital beds or nursing assistants: It provides funds.
I repeat my criticism that the provinces should agree on some plan which will carry with it a degree of uniformity. I think that is important, and I hope the minister concurs. The provision of uniform features and the general application of services and benefits throughout the whole country is, in my opinion, most important. This should be done through the regular channels-by training, by education and by the experience which people have gleaned as they progressed through life.
Another reason for delay of this measure is the fact that I do not think the minister or the government have taken into consideration the experiences of other countries which have operated medicare plans for a good many years. I was impressed with the speech of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Ballard) in this chamber, part of which is recorded at page 8638 of Hansard. I would contend that failure to take these experiences into consideration is another reason for delay. I contend that the experience which the United Kingdom has had should be studied by the Department of National Health and Welfare. Surely they would benefit from a study of the difficulties which were encountered and which were met.
Medicare
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Paraphrasing the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary South, he produced some rather frightening facts as far as medical care is concerned. For example, we find that doctors have been leaving the United Kingdom at a very alarming rate. Therefore it would seem to me only common sense to examine the reasons they are leaving. If the same reasons might apply to this country, then the application of measures which would correct those reasons would apply. There does not seem to be anything except common sense in that assertion. The hon. member pointed out that medicare has been in effect in England for 20 years, and that the general public there is dissatisfied with the operation of the scheme. Medical doctors continue to emigrate at an alarming rate. The cost has grown by a fantastic 500 per cent, along with deterioration in the calibre of service. Then the hon. member asked the question: Should not the facts give us warning not to follow the same path? There is no answer to that question except one, and that answer is that it should. I am sure the minister thinks he has, because that is what I judge from his gesture. Nevertheless he has not said anything about it; he has not told us anything about the difficulties which have been encountered and what he is doing to prevent the same difficulties occurring in this country.
More than half the doctors now practising in Saskatchewan are non-Canadians. That has never been contradicted. We find many communities in my native province which are unable to secure the services of doctors. The hon. member for Calgary South asked the question: Would our young Canadian doctors continue to emigrate to the United States because of the threat of medicare? What is the minister's answer to that? He has made no answer yet. I suggest he should, and I hope he will before this debate winds up.
Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house is for second reading of the bill, and second reading of any bill has always been considered to constitute acceptance in principle. I would not wish to be considered to be opposed to the principle of the bill. I supported the amendment put forward by the opposition. I felt that those things which were brought to the minister's attention by that amendment were things which he might very properly consider. I felt that the ideas advanced, and advanced ably and well from many quarters of this chamber, were deserving of his consideration. But I do not wish to

October 24, 1966
Medicare
be considered as being opposed to the principle of the bill on second reading. That is where I stand. I appreciate the attention which the house has given to these remarks.


Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roselown-Biggar):: rise to take part in this debate in order to add a few points which may have been overlooked by previous speakers and to add my name to those hon. members of this house who are basically in favour of a medical care plan.
Planned medical care has been a reality in Saskatchewan since July, 1962. At that time a plan was accepted by our doctors and by the Medical Care Insurance Commission. Since then doctors and patients seem to be reasonably satisfied.
As this bill now reads, four main points are set out for provinces to comply with in order to qualify for federal medical care assistance. Briefly, provincial plans must be portable, they must be universal in application, they must be administered by a non-profit organization appointed by the government, and they must be comprehensive.
As has been mentioned, Saskatchewan qualifies under these terms, since the plan now in operation there meets all these requirements. The Saskatchewan plan is portable, it is universal, it is administered by a medical care insurance commission and it is comprehensive, covering all permanent residents of the province.
Saskatchewan people as a whole will welcome a national plan. They would like to see this plan become a reality as soon as possible, and for that reason I will vote for the bill before us when I have the opportunity. Saskatchewan needs the $12 million, or whatever the total will be, that is likely to be forthcoming when this measure comes into operation. This amount will be used to improve the quality of medical care in our province. Saskatchewan, as is the case in other provinces, lacks adequate facilities for caring for the chronically ill, or for the mentally ill. There is also a shortage of nursing homes of a suitable type, as well as a severe shortage of facilities at such homes.
In Saskatchewan, as in other provinces, there is a lack of teachers in our medical schools. This applies to training during both the clinical and the preclinical years which go to make up the education of our doctors. In Saskatchewan, as in some other provinces of Canada, research is almost non-existent. This situation has been brought about by shortage of qualified personnel, inadequate

facilities and, of course, the absence of funds sufficient to attract medical teachers to engage in research. When Saskatchewan receives this $12 million from the federal plan we hope our provincial government will see that it is spent to improve the situation with respect to some of the items I have mentioned.
As the minister knows, we are just setting up a veterinary school in Saskatchewan. This institution will need money, just as any medical school does. I understand that the funds available to the Medical Research Council are inadequate to meet all the requests the council receives. As an elected member from Saskatchewan I think the government should not delay the introduction of this plan, because my province can use these additional sums of money to improve its existing scheme.
I believe that in the near future a medical data centre will probably be established. I understand that certain states in the United States already have such centres in operation or under study, and that provinces which approve of the establishment of such centres can allocate funds accordingly.
Having made those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I say again that I intend to vote for this bill when I am given the opportunity.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: I should like to make a few remarks about this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Thank you, gentlemen. Our friends in the gallery have called this a filibuster. Well, according to the government's own announcement, this bill will not become effective for at least 21 months, so why are we in such a hurry to get through? Here is our opportunity to take these 21 months to discuss the bill and think about it.
Medicare will be with us for a long time -with our sons, our grandsons and our great grandsons. Let us sit down and look at it.


An hon. Member:: That is a good idea.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Yes, we are going to do that, and we are not fighting an election on it-and I am not selling my soul to the N.D.P. like you are. Let us get that over with.
Why does the press say this is a filibuster? Why be in such a hurry? Are members opposite afraid of the bill? Do they know how many provinces will come in? They do not know. So they fight an election, saying: We brought in medicare but we cannot do
October 24, 1966

anything about it because it is up to the provinces. That is a rank, stupid ploy-the stupidest I have ever head. Do hon. members opposite think the Canadian people are as stupid as that?
My hon. friend says he is in favour of medicare. I am voting against it. We have it in my province, and I do not need two plans. Is British Columbia going to accept it? Is Quebec, or Alberta or Ontario going to accept it?
If hon. members opposite want an election, let them call it now. This legislation is due to take effect, according to their own leader, on July 1, 1968. Now the press says we are filibustering. Surely this is the time to talk about it, because we will find ourselves stuck with it for a long time to come. That is all I have to say. As far as I am concerned I will never vote for your third reading, or for any part of the bill.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): I thought it would be a little unfair to expect the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) to speak tonight when there are only a few minutes left. It might be better if he were to wind up this debate tomorrow. So I am taking pity on him, now.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I must say that although I seldom feel sorry for anybody on the other side of the house, I have felt a slight twinge on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) who, several times during the past few months, has been humiliated by his own party in the way that they have treated this bill of his with which he was going to make such a major display. They arranged in July, when the house was about to wind up, that this bill would stand over until the fall. That being the case, I thought that the dominion-provincial conference would consider it before it was brought back to the house. At that time the minister was very disappointed with the arrangement which had been made by his colleagues.
Then just recently the operational date of the bill was postponed by order of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), and the Minister of National Health and Welfare was left stranded just when he was expecting to parade his accomplishment before a notable annual meeting. Now we are in the situation where there is no certainty that if second reading is passed tonight, or tomorrow, the bill will go into committee of the whole
Medicare
house. It appears that the minister's colleagues do not want that to happen, because if it does, then the Minister of Finance would have to explain his position in postponing this particular matter.
It is a very awkward position for a minister to be in, and that is why I did not want him to have to expose himself to the public gaze tonight in winding up this debate. I would rather that he have time to think it over, and perhaps he will have that chance tomorrow.
We have been subjected to a great deal of propaganda with regard to medicare. The people of Canada have been brainwashed to the extent that they are being enticed to believe that this proposition came from the minds of the present federal government. Of course this is all wrong. This bill is not really the initial move with regard to medicare. It is simply a method by which additional funds may be made available to the provinces, from the federal government, to assist them in their medicare schemes, a number of which have been in operation in certain provinces for some considerable time. But through propaganda the federal government has tried to make the people of Canada believe that it has produced something really wonderful, a medicare plan, and in fact all the time this bill is spoken of as the medicare bill. But I know that the people of this country are not so easily fooled.
Province by province medicare has been introduced, or is being introduced. It is a matter of importance in each province, and there is a general feeling of the populace that medicare should be instituted. Of course the method by which it is done is another proposition entirely. Some provinces have medicare schemes in operation which they consider to be satisfactory, and the governments of those provinces are answerable to their own people for those schemes. Other provinces would like to introduce medicare, but they feel they have not the financial resources to do it at the present time.
The general subject of medicare is known to the Canadian people, and I think is an acceptable method of approaching health problems, except that in some areas it is not done just the way some people would like to see it done, and the criticism that has been levelled against the bill now before the house is with respect to the method. The principle of medical services for the population of

October 24, 1966
Medicare
Canada seems to be acceptable, but the method by which those medical services are to be applied is where the stumbling block comes.
So far as I am concerned, I favour a scheme of medical services for the entire population, just as I have done with regard to hospitalization, but it does not follow that I favour the method that is being applied by the government. That is the crux of the matter. If the present bill is considered to be-and propaganda has made it such-a medicare bill, then naturally we are inclined to vote for that particular principle, and the amendment which we put in front of the house last week affirmed our belief in introducing medical services for the people of Canada.
But unfortunately when you are called upon to vote for the principle of a bill it is sometimes considered that you are accepting everything that is in the bill, and that is where the difference comes with regard to method. It is only in committee of the whole house, when a bill is considered clause by clause, that an opposition can put forward its alternative schemes for modifying a bill. I hope when we reach committee stage in the procedures of the house we will have the opportunity of attempting to improve this bill, just as we have improved many a bill that has been brought before us by this government. So, from the standpoint of the principle of medicare I support that idea; but with regard to the method proposed by the government I have many grave doubts, and those will have to be expressed when we reach committee stage.
It is my hope that within the course of the next day or so the dominion-provincial conference will give some guidance to the government with regard to this bill. I understand from the press that there are premiers of the various provinces in this country who do not favour the method proposed by the government, and I think it would have been wise to have withheld the bill from further consideration in the House of Commons until the dominion-provincial conference had a chance to deal with the general proposition. After all, all of the premiers at this conference are concerned with medical services for their people, and this surely is the ideal opportunity to get a consensus with regard to the proposal of the federal government, and bring about modifications, if those modifications will meet with general approval.
It is now ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I move the adjournment of the debate.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Lawrence T. Pennell: Tomorrow we will call either item 82, the medicare bill, or item 101, the resolution dealing with the National Housing Act amendments. This will be followed by item 100, the resolution relating to the program on scientific and research development; then item 93, the resolution respecting the Export Credits Insurance Act; then item 79, second reading of Bill C-229, the Canadian National Railways finance guarantee bill. I re-emphasize that we will call either item 82 or item 101 as the first order of business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may we be told
at what time it will be indicated to us which of these items will be called first.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I hope that tomorrow morning I will be able to communicate with the house leaders and advise them. It may be necessary for the minister to be in another place tomorrow. That is the reason I am putting forward the alternatives.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Senatorial appointments so soon.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I said another place, not the other place.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, as there is no parliamentary leader in our group of independents, could we ask the Solicitor General of Canada to inform us also tomorrow morning of the item to be discussed tomorrow afternoon?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was not able to follow the hon. member. Would he be kind enough to repeat his question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I was asking the Solicitor General of Canada if he would inform us like the house leaders of the various parties, so that we will likewise know where to stand about the discussion tomorrow afternoon?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do that to accommodate the hon. members to my extreme right.
October 24, 1966	COMMONS



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, on October 19 last I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) the following question in this house:
Following the threat of the C.N.T.U. to withdraw from the Canadian Council of Labour Relations and from all other federal organizations, can the minister tell the house whether the ministerial committee set up seven or eight months ago is ready to make the decision about the changes to be made in the definition of negotiating unit? If so, could he make this decision known to the house?
The matter is serious, urgent, and very important; if it is not immediately dealt with, it could give rise to irreparable conflicts and clashes, in the province of Quebec and across the country.
Several months ago, the C.N.T.U. presented grievances to the government and the latter promised, through a ministerial committee to give serious consideration to the situation. Yet, we are still waiting for a statement of policy. Tension increases and unrest spreads with each day of delay in reaching a decision.
The government would have to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act in order to define specifically, in paragraph 3 of section 2, the negotiating unit between employers and employees, within federal agencies and to allow the negotiating unit to be recognized both on the local and the national levels.
Because of the vagueness and lack of precision of the act, the interpretation given up to now to negotiating unit by the Labour Relations Board has been too restrictive and contrary to union freedom. As a matter of fact, the Labour Relations Board ruled in several cases that the negotiating unit should only be recognized on the national level. This attitude ignores the freedom of the employee to select the union of his choice and in certain fields, as that of broadcasting, the attitude of the Labour Relations Board removes the characteristics of our two great cultures.
DEBATES	9059
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
It is essential to respect the freedom of people rather than try to set up structures. Canada must be a democratic country and our legislation must protect the sacred privileges of the worker. Time is short; action is necessary. Before the final withdrawal of the C.N.T.U. from all federal agencies, I hope that the minister will be ready to amend the legislation and announce his decision this evening.
Before concluding, I would also appreciate it if the minister would give the necessary instructions so that the discussions and proceedings of the Labour Relations Board will take place in both official languages.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, had the hon. gentleman been informed of developments he would know that the last hearing before the Canada Labour Relations Board was held in two languages. There was simultaneous translation at that time, pursuant to an assurance that I personally gave the C.N.T.U. some weeks ago.
With regard to the first point raised by the hon. member, may I say it is a serious one, but that its seriousness arises from the fact that he is suggesting that a system of jurisprudence built up over a period of some 22 years by the Canada Labour Relations Board should be changed. Because of the seriousness of the situation and the diametrically opposing views presented, not by one but by at least three major labour organizations in this country, the matter was referred to an ad hoc committee of the cabinet. We did not obtain the transcripts of the representations that were made by these three groups until well on into the summer. They are now being studied.
When the government is in a position to announce what action it feels should be taken in respect of this important matter-and I am not suggesting that a change will be made-that action will be announced.



HEALTH AND WELFARE-REQUEST FOR PROHIBITION OF CIGARETTE ADVERTISING IN BROADCASTING

Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago during orders of the day I attempted to raise the following question:
Bearing in mind the concern expressed by cancer societies over the growing incidence of cigarette disease, what consideration is being given to removing cigarette advertising from Canadian broadcasting?
October 24, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
At that time the question was deemed not acceptable to the house on orders of the day, and I asked that it be given consideration at this time on the adjournment motion. I am very glad to have this opportunity of bringing the matter to the attention of the house, and to underline the very serious situation to which the question alludes.
Let me put a few facts on the record to buttress my point. Every health department in the world which has examined this situation has come to the same conclusion, that there is a link between cigarette smoking and various diseases such as lung cancer, some forms of heart disease, respiratory and other diseases. This has been known for a long time in different countries, including our own. An hon. member of this house who is a doctor, the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Ry-nard), expressed his view about this situation in these words:
Each day some 500 of our young boys and girls in schools across the land, it is said, will be condemned to premature death and suffering unless something is done to stop this epidemic.
He was referring to the epidemic of cigarette induced disease. The cancer society, the heart society and medical authorities including those of our own Department of Health and Welfare are well aware of the grim facts in this connection. Everyone now knows that cigarettes maim and kill, or that they can do so, and do so in an alarming number of cases. Even the cigarette corporation officials know this fact, and many of them do not smoke. It has been well said, that they have people who do it for them.
Some years ago it was said in relation to this problem that if we were talking about spinach instead of cigarettes, the sale of spinach would now be a capital offence. Hardly a week goes by without there being news in the newspapers about further warnings and appeals by medical authorities because of the link between cigarette smoking, lung cancer and the other diseases I have mentioned.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I see in tonight's Ottawa Citizen, for example, a report which definitely ties in cigarette smoking with the tremendous recent expansion of the disease emphysema. We have in Canada a situation which is very like the situation in many countries where action has been taken to combat this type of disease. In Great Britain, for example, the government has reduced cigarette advertising on television, or has regulated such advertising to certain hours. In the United States the government has at least salved its conscience by

enforcing the warning labelling of cigarette packages. In Canada, as we know, our federal government and some of the provincial governments are spending quite a bit of money through their health departments to induce young people not to start smoking, and to warn them that they face the possibilities of disease if they do start.
It seems to me remarkable that in view of the fact that we are spending public money for this good purpose we are allowing the broadcast over private and public broadcasting corporations of Canada of cigarette sale inducement types of advertising. I have here a quotation from the magazine entitled Marketing of June 10, 1966, which states that Rothman's, a Canadian cigarette company, will spend $2 million in 12 months on promoting cigarette sales in Canada.
In effect my question of the other day was this: What is the government going to do to correct the situation in respect of this type of advertising? Is it going to do what other countries have done? How long will it take the government to take action in this regard? I hope that tonight we will get an answer to these questions and the government spokesman will not say, as has so often been said in the past, something to the effect that the government is concerned about this problem, they are trying to do something about it but really cannot do anything about controlling cigarette advertising.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, the government and particularly the Secretary of State is most interested in this question of cigarette smoking and its connection with the terrible illness which every year undermines and kills an alarming number of people of all ages in Canada.
The fact that three years ago the hon. Secretary of State, then Minister of National Health and Welfare, gave up cigarettes entirely is, I think, the best example and the best publicity against smoking for the Canadian people and cigarette smokers.
As to whether the government is thinking of forbidding all publicity concerning tobacco on radio and television, I must tell the house and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), that the Secretary of State, who answers to parliament for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, has received no official or unofficial request from the Department of National Health and Welfare to date.
October 24, 1966	COMMONS
On the other hand, the C.B.C. which, incidentally, has not been approached by the government with a view to abolishing all publicity for cigarettes, should not be treated differently from all the other advertising media in the country with regard to this subject, no more, certainly, than private radio and television networks.
If radio and television advertisements concerning tobacco and particularly cigarettes were, generally speaking, to be prohibited in Canada we think it would be fair and logical, if we are to reach the desired objective, simultaneously to prohibit all other similar publicity through the other advertising medias, in other words all newspapers and magazines.



AGRICULTURE-REQUEST FOR DATA RESPECTING RETAIL PRICING

Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) whether his department intends to expand its price data gathering function to include the gathering of prices relative to retail sales. At the present time, as everyone knows, the Department of Agriculture is charged with the responsibility of gathering price data with respect to sales of farm products at shipping points such as livestock prices, grain prices, vegetable prices, and so on.
It seems quite logical that this responsibility or function should be enlarged so that the departmental officials, as they go about this task, would also be able to gather information with respect to prices at the retail level. The shoppers boycott of recent weeks has served to focus attention on the need for increasing our efforts with respect to the gathering of information on matters relating to the cost of living, and it seems to me it would be a very convenient and practical proposition if the department attempted to expand its functions in the way I have suggested.
A week or so ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) tried to be helpful to the housewives across the country by shopping in one of the main supermarkets in the city. I would suggest to him he would be still more helpful if he were to try to persuade his colleagues to expand the functions of the
DEBATES	9061
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Department of Agriculture by instructing his officials, as they go about their routine duties in supermarkets, checking the grades, of food and the premises, to pick up information about food retail prices in a systematic way. It seems to me that only then will we have an adequate collation of consumer prices as they relate to producer prices paid to the farmer.
I hope it is the minister's intention to do something in this connection and I hope that I can receive an answer at this time.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, while the
Minister of Agriculture is of course interested in this important problem of prices, as are all consumers in Canada, the responsibility for collecting information about retail prices is vested in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for which I am responsible. However I will be very glad to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture those points which fall within his area of jurisdiction.
I know hon. members will recall that in 1952 the retail price index was changed so as to make it reflect more accurately the cost structure of consumer goods in the country. Since that time a considerable amount of work has been done in keeping this attuned to those items that go into consumer supplies and needs. The board recognizes that information is not available as quickly as it should be in all instances, and to that end it is presently engaged in increasing its staff. At the present time there is a staff of about 50 people engaged in the collection of information on retail prices.
Recently six people have been added, and it is the difficulty of getting staff that prevents the Dominion Bureau of Statistics from increasing the service still further. It is computerizing its operations so as to be in a position to render service to consumers better and more quickly. I can assure the hon. member that every effort is being made to collect information and to make it available as quickly as possible so that it will be of maximum use to consumers, and particularly to those housewives who are so concerned about this problem at the present time.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Tuesday, October 25, 1966