1966-11-30

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time on a question of privilege regarding a matter drawn to my attention, and this is the first possible opportunity I have had to do so.
My question of privilege is based on an article which appeared in the New York Times on Sunday, November 20, 1966 regarding the first presentation of a film produced by the National Film Board of Canada. According to the article in the New York Times this film was presented in New York last Friday. It is a 60 minute film entitled "Memorandum" and, according to the heading on the article, the "film remembers Nazi death camps". The first part of the article reads as follows:
A detailed and moving account of the Nazi death camps, where 6 million Jewish men, women and children were slaughtered, is offered by a prizewinning film that is being prepared for distribution to Jewish and other groups throughout the country.
The 60-minute film, entitled "Memorandum", was produced by the National Film Board of Canada, and had its first private showing here last week, World Federation of Bergen-Belsen.
I do not wish to discuss the contents of the film, but it is my belief that any Canadian production of a film by the National Film Board of Canada, whatever the subject matter, should not be presented first to a United States society but rather should be presented first to the Canadian people.
I do not intend to read the whole article, but I should like to read the concluding words of the president of that federation who commented on the subject matter of the film as follows: "We shall not forget and we shall not forgive." Apparently the subject matter of this film, the slaughter of millions of Jews during the last world war, was produced in a raw manner. I do not comprehend or support this type of presentation at this time, particularly since on November 10 a report by a
special committee on hate literature was tabled in this house.
I do not know what the subject matter of the film is, and apparently not very many Canadians know because it was first presented in the United States of America to a private group. My question of privilege is that we should have had this film in Canada first; and in view of the fact that we are trying to prevent all kinds of racial discrimination, I do not see the purpose in re-establishing past facts that might cause more difficulty in the future.
I intend to follow up my question of privilege with a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), to the effect that this matter be referred to the standing committee on arts, films and broadcasting for consideration, and that they report back to this house at a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt that hon. members want at this moment to become involved in a debate on the matter raised by the hon. member. I have listened to him with attention, and I fail to see how his privileges as a member of parliament have been adversely affected, or affected in any way, by the incident to which he has referred. The hon. member may have a grievance which he may want to bring to the attention of the government and the minister concerned; but I have to rule that there is no prima facie case of privilege.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Mather: 1.	Has the Department of National Revenue studied tax deductible expense accounts with a view to eliminating unjustifiable claims?
2.	If so (a) have unjustifiable claims been discovered (b) what, approximately, is the saving in dollars of National Revenue receipts as a result of the government's action?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) Not available.

November 30, 1966
Questions


MAKRIED WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE RECIPIENTS
Mr. Maiher: What Is the number of war veterans allowance recipients who are married and who are responsible for the support of a dependent child, or children?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Statistics on this specific group are not maintained but it is estimated that there are 16,000.


WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the number of applications for war veterans allowance at each district office of the Department of Veterans Affairs in the period January 1, 1965 to June 30, 1966?
2.	What was the number of appeals from the decisions of the war veterans allowance district authorities received by the War Veterans Allowance Board in Ottawa for the same period?
3.	What was the number of appeals processed by the War Veterans Allowance Board during this same period?
4.	What was the number of appeals rejected by the board following rejection by the war veterans allowance district authorities in each district?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: 1. St. John's, Nfld., 381; Charlottetown, 305; Halifax, 1,588; Saint John, N.B., 1,019; Quebec, 443; Montreal, 1,897; Ottawa, 1,210; Toronto, 2,996; Hamilton, 1,099; London, 1,253; North Bay, 596; Winnipeg, 1,361; Regina, 334; Saskatoon, 313; Calgary, 674; Edmonton, 648; Vancouver, 2,325; Victoria, 774.
2.	1,176.
3.	1,176.
4.	Statistics on this subject are not maintained on a district basis. Records show that on a national basis 803 appeals were rejected by the War Veterans Allowance Board.


DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION TO MAINLAND CHINA
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What organizations have asked the Canadian government to grant diplomatic recognition to the People's Republic of China?
2.	What organizations have asked the Canadian government to support the admission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: 1. The following organizations have, since January 1, 1965, asked the
[Mr. Benson.)
Canadian government to grant diplomatic recognition to the People's Republic of China: The Canadian Federation of Agriculture; L'Union generate des Etudiants du Quebec.
2.	The following organizations have, since January 1, 1965, asked the Canadian government to support the admission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations: The 28th Session of the Saskatchewan Older Boys' Parliament; The Maritime Conference of the United Church of Canada; Voice of Women, Comox Valley Branch; Voice of Women of Ontario; Voice of Women, West Vancouver Branch.
3.	The following organizations have, since January 1, 1965, asked the Canadian government to do both: The Canadian Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Vancouver Branch; The 4th annual meeting of the Canadian Unitarian Council; The Eastern Canadian Federation of Liberal Religious Youth; Local 444, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America; The United Automobile Workers Canadian Council; The 22nd General Council of the United Church of Canada; The Standing Committee on Evangelism and Social Service of the Alberta Conference of the United Church of Canada; The Manitoba Conference of the United Church of Canada; The 1966 annual meeting of the United Nations Association in Canada; The University Women's Club of North York; The Voice of Women of Canada; The Voice of Women of Kimberley, B.C.; The Voice of Women, Parksville-Qualicum Branch; The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Toronto Branch; The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Vancouver Branch; The World Federalists of Canada; The Unitarian Universalist Association of the United States and Canada.


NUMBERS OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Douglas: 1.	How many (a) non-operating employees (b) operating employees (c) supervisory employees (d) managerial employees were employed by the Canadian National Railways in (a) 1956 (b) 1966?
2.	How many (a) non-operating employees (b) operating employees (c) supervisory employees (d) managerial employees were employed by the Canadian Pacific Railway in (a) 1956 (b) 1966?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed toy the Departments of Transport and Trade and Commerce as follows:
1. The management of the Canadian National Railways advises as follows: The figures which are derived from "Part VI
November 30, 1966

(Employment Statistics) of Railway Transport" published annually by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics are as follows, the figures for 1965 are shown as they represent the latest data available on an annual basis.
Number of
Employee group	employees
	1956	1965
Non-operating	82,424	59,458Operating	18,769	13,568Managerial and supervisory	4,957	4,764Professional, technical and staff assistants	1,480	3,003Other*	8,694	5,564116,324	86,357
* Other includes constables and policemen, extra gang labourers, floating equipment and hotel employees.
2. The average number of employees based on a mid-month count on the payroll of the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1956 and 1965, the latest statistics available, are as follows:
Employees	1956	1965Non-operating	57,835	40,282Operating	14,467	9,790Managerial and supervisory	3,494	3,017Professional and technical	552	1,584Other (policemen, extra	gang labourers, news	agents, hotel personnel,	etc.)	8,576	3,783Total	84,924	58,456


MAIL COURIERS REPLACED BY WAR VETERANS
Mr. Webb: 1.	On how many mail routes were the couriers changed in the years 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966?
2.	How many of the couriers replaced were war veterans?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: 1963	1964	1965	19661. (a) as a result of tender	290	303	229	221(b) awards not exceeding $1,000 under section 23 of the Post Office Act	15	13	6	5(c) by transfer of contract	139	159	166	174(d) temporary arrangement	24	49	47	47
Questions
2. This information is not available in the department.
Note: The answers in 1 (a), (b), (c) and (d) are for changes in rural mail routes.


C.B.C.-FREE POLITICAL BROADCASTS IN QUEBEC
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	How much time did the C.B.C. grant free of charge to each political party during the official campaign preceding the Quebec provincial election of June 5, 1966?
2.	What cost does such free time represent according to the current rates in force at that time?
3.	Did the C.B.C. sell any political broadcasts to political parties or political candidates with regard to the election of June 5, 1966, and if so, at what cost to each party?
4.	How much did each political party spend during the electoral campaign preceding the Quebec election of June 5, 1966, for the purchase of political broadcasts from private radio and television stations, as reported to the B.B.G.?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 
CHAMPLAIN INDUSTRIAL PARK, N.B., WHARF FACILITIES
Mr. MacEwan: 1. Does the government intend to construct a wharf and docking facilities in the Champlain Industrial Park, Charlotte county, New Brunswick?

November 30, 1966
Questions
2. If so (a) what will be the size of the facilities, and the estimated cost of same (b) will these facilities be operated by the government or by private interests (c) if by private interests, what is the name of the person or company who will operate same (d) for what purpose will the facilities be used?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes.
2. (a) Wharf section 300 feet long by 40 feet wide with an approach section 140 feet long by 40 feet wide. The estimated cost of a proposed structure is not made public before tenders have been received. The cost will be shared equally between the government and the New Brunswick Development Corporation. (b) By the government, (c) Not applicable. (d) The landing of tuna, the movement of materials to and from industries which may establish in the park or area, and other public uses such as the shipment of lumber.


MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL COVERAGE FOR IMMIGRANTS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,115-Mr. Irvine: Supplementary
1.	Is an answer available to part 2 of question No. 2,005 which was removed from the order paper?
2.	If not, when may one be expected?
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Yes. I am informed by the Ministers of National Health and Welfare and Manpower and Immigration that the answer previously given in response to question No. 2,005 was intended to apply to both parts 1 and 2 in that the Ministers of both Departments concerned have received representations from International House of London pertaining to basic hospital protection for new immigrants and monetary or other consideration for newly arrived pregnant wives. As indicated in the answer given to question No. 2,005, these representations are being studied to see what further measures might be warranted. Subsequent to the tabling of the answer to question No. 2,005, advice was received by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that Ontario Blue Cross has introduced a voluntary contributory hospital care plan designed specifically to provide for the payment of hospital bills incurred by new arrivals during the waiting period of three months prescribed under the Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan. It is understood that at least one other provincial Blue Cross organization is considering the possibility of introducing a similar plan.



Mr. Irvine: Regarding Question No. 2,005, Part 1	(Hansard
October 26, 1966), what in detail is meant by "Various arrangements have been in effect for many years to ensure adequate protection against such expenses during an immigrant's initial period of establishment in Canada"?


Albert Béchard: I am informed by the Ministers of National Health and Welfare and Manpower and Immigration that the arrangements referred to in the answer given to Question No. 2,005, include four separate areas of coverage for immigrants. First, the federal government absorbs the cost of any emergency hospital, medical or dental care required by indigent immigrants while en route from port of arrival in Canada to final destination. Second, the federal government absorbs any similar expenditures incurred by immigrants at any time they are in receipt of assistance from the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Third, the federal government has entered into arrangements with all provinces, except Quebec and Manitoba, whereby the provinces have accepted responsibility for the provision of assistance required by immigrants after they have been placed in initial employment by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Recipients of such assistance are thereby entitled to the same medical coverage available to other Canadian residents in similar circumstances. Lastly, the federal government has formal arrangements with all provinces except Quebec, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, whereby the two governments concerned share equally hospitalization expenses on behalf of immigrants who become indigent during their first year in Canada where the expenses are not covered by provincial hospital insurance plans. Hospital coverage under these agreements extends for a full 12 months from the date of any approved application for hospitalization benefits made during the immigrant's first year in Canada.


* EMPLOYMENT IN THE ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Crossman: 1.	What was the total number of unemployed in the Atlantic provinces for the month of October in 1960 and 1966?
2.	What was the regional unemployment rate in the Atlantic provinces for the month of October in 1960 and 1966?
November 30, 1966

3.	What was the total number of persons employed in the Atlantic provinces for the month of October in 1960 and 1966?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
Employment And Unemployment Estimates Atlantic Region
October
1960	1966
1. Unemployment	44,000	28,0002.	Unemployment rate	7.7%	4.4%3. Employment	530,000	610,000


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LOANS
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	What were the amounts loaned by the Industrial Development Bank in 1965, in (a) Canada (b) Ontario (c) Quebec (d) Toronto (e) Montreal (f) the constituency of Compton-Frontenac?
2.	Where does the Industrial Development Bank draw the funds it loans and what rate of interest does it pay?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1.	(a) $96,146,000; (b) $25,479,000; (c) $30,123,000; (d), (e) and (f). The information requested is not available.
2.	The Industrial Development Bank obtains the funds which it loans from capital which is subscribed by the Bank of Canada in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Development Bank Act, from the sale of debentures, from loan repayments and from net earnings. To date all debentures issued by the Industrial Development Bank have been sold to the Bank of Canada. The current interest rate on debentures ranges between 6.27 per cent and 6.48 per cent depending on maturity. The rate of interest paid is based on the market yield on government of Canada bonds of comparable maturity, plus an addition which is currently .60 per cent.


PUBLIC SERVICE BILINGUAL QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Irvine: Further to question No. 2,148 which was answered November 21, 1966, would the same regulations apply to employees of the government who are not necessarily operating under the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows;
Questions
Not necessarily. The Prime Minister stated in the House of Commons on April 6 that, for the present at least, these procedures will not cover federal crown agencies whose employees are outside the civil service, as these categories present special problems. The special problems are under study.


PARTICIPATION IN EXPO BY CANADIAN COMPANIES
Mr. Byrne: 1.	How successful has Expo been in attracting sponsorship by Canadian companies?
2.	Are there still opportunities for Canadian companies to participate and, if so, how?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. A good cross section of Canadian industry is represented at Expo '67. There are, however, some conspicuous exceptions and it is hoped that these will join the group within the next few months. To date Canadian private industries and associations are constructing 23 private pavilions worth $34,950,000. In addition, 135 Canadian private corporations and associations are sponsoring projects on site for an amount of $18,000,000.
2. There are still good opportunities for Canadian industries to participate in Expo '67 by way of sponsorship. The theme pavilions contain exhibits which can be sponsored by a Canadian industry wishing to emphasize its image before the world at Expo. There are various plaza areas, sculptures, fountains, elements of landscaping, and so forth, all of which can be sponsored with identifiable recognition. There are many spectacular events in the stadium and also those in the performing arts that are most attractive to prospective sponsors.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Mr. Robert C. Coales (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State whether she would indicate to me when starred question No. 2,155 might be answered, in view of the straightforward questions asked and the information desired?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, when we get an answer from the commission we will table it. I have repeatedly been in touch with all the agencies through my parliamentary secretary to ask them to answer questions as quickly as they humanly can. I suppose that some of this information takes some time to put together, and the first
November 30, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry question may be one which it is impossible to answer. I shall try to get the answers as quickly as I can.


Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might tell me for instance, when he intends to give an answer to question No. 910, which I put on the order paper on March 1 last.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the house that the hon. member's question will be answered next week.


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Albert Béchard: Would Your Honour call notice of motion No. 185?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other notices of motions stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion 185?


An hon. Member:: Stands.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion 185 stands.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. On October 26 there was a motion for the production of papers related to the correspondence between the federal government and the government of British Columbia regarding the relocation of Michel-Natal in the community of Sparwood, B.C. When will these documents be tabled in view of the fact that a month has gone by since the motion was made?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, we will see to it immediately.


REQUEST FOR FREE VOTE ON TELEVISING OF DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, now that the question of television in the British parliament has been dealt with by a free vote of the British House of Commons on a motion moved for the purpose, would the Prime Minister consider having a motion placed before the house, free of the whips, to provide for television in this house? I suggest that it might be done on

an experimental basis to start with so as to allow us in the house to decide whether it is appropriate at present and in the public interest that an opportunity be given to the Canadian people to see parliament in action. Such a move also would enable Canadians to appreciate better than they otherwise can the operation of this institution.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question of course and I will be very glad to give it my consideration along the lines indicated by my right hon. friend.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I welcome back the Secretary of State for External Affairs from his visit to the United Nations.
I would like to ask him a question regarding the statements which were made last night on C.B.C.-TV by Mr. Tom Gould who attributed to a very highly placed government official a statement to the effect that the government of Canada will recognize the People's Republic of China within two months. Since I assume the C.B.C. would not have carried the story without having received this information from some government official could I ask the minister why this information was not transmitted to the house rather than being leaked to the people of Canada through a statement to a correspondent of the C.B.C.?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course I cannot be responsible for what a distinguished commentator like Mr. Gould would say on his own account. I heard what he said and my impression is that he indicated he understood the government would be giving consideration to this matter within a specified time. I cannot add anything to that, other than to call my hon. friend's attention to what the Prime Minister said in general on the subject last Thursday.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the speech that the minister made at the United Nations and his comments regarding
November 30, 1966	COMMONS
the Italian resolution and the ineffectual aspect of it, may I ask the minister why Canada did not set down a resolution putting forth the views expressed by the minister in the speech that he made to the assembly?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in the statement I made last Wednesday to the general assembly I explained why we did not take the course which my hon. friend now suggests. We have had consultations with a number of governments over a period of several months regarding our ideas about how an advance might be made on this important problem. Our view was that certain guide lines should be included in the Italian resolution, and because these were not incorporated we could not co-sponsor the resolution.
We did not formally present a resolution because it was clear from our consultations that while our views were widely held, the governments concerned were not prepared at this time to give effect to and support to these ideas. It would have been regressive and would have had a negative result for us to put forward a resolution that would not have carried with it the substantial support which we sincerely believed our position warranted.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we did put forward ideas which we felt would provide a solution to this problem. We continue to believe that the ultimate solution will incorporate these ideas. I believe a consensus is developing in the United Nations in support of these propositions, and I am sure this will be an effective supplement to the necessary diplomacy that must be carried on outside the UN.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to ask the minister a question about the speech he gave at the United Nations to an empty chamber, as the press showed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Robichaud:: Cheap.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I want to ask him how Canada voted when the resolution finally came before the United Nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only say with regard to the statement I made on behalf of the government of Canada that while it did not command the immediate reaction a speech from my hon. friend would have commanded, I think I can say that the Canadian position
Inquiries of the Ministry and the Canadian initiative at the United Nations during the past few days is generally regarded as being one of the factors that has now moved the United Nations from the im-mobilism of the last 16 years.
On the three propositions which were before the general assembly our position was this. First of all, on the question moved by the United States that this was an important question requiring a two thirds vote, Canada, in accordance with its interpretation of the charter, voted that this question was an important one within the rules and required a two thirds vote.
On the Italian resolution, we had explained that we would support it even though we felt it was inadequate because it did not incorporate our concept of the realities presently existing in Asia.
On the Albanian resolution calling for the seating of Mainland China and the expulsion of Taiwan, we abstained from voting. By that abstention we introduced a new element in Canadian policy; we abstained because an abstension represented our view that Mainland China should be seated, but not at the expense of Taiwan.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the secretary of state what logic he sees in a situation in which Canada abstains from voting on this resolution, which if carried would exclude nationalist China and seat Red China, when the stated and reiterated policy of the government is that both these Chinas should be seated in the United Nations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid of the reply the hon. member might receive to this question. We have had a number of supplementary questions on this point. I suggest we go to another subject, and if within the 30 minute period we return to this subject I shall recognize the hon. member who now seeks to rise.



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production.
10554	COMMONS DEBATES	November 30. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
The Crown Assets Disposal Corporation sells all kinds of things for the government. Could the minister explain the reason why the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation does not openly publish a list of the items it has for sale, on behalf of the government, in the newspapers?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe this question can be permitted at this time, since it is not very urgent. I think the hon. member might have put it on the order paper.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I believe that he, with other members of this house, feels a great deal of friendship and sentiment toward another member of the Commonwealth which has emerged as an independent nation in the western hemisphere. I refer to Barbados. My question concerns a statement made yesterday at the independence celebrations by the new Prime Minister of Barbados, Errol Barrow, that the government of Barbados will seek immediate membership in the Organization of American States. The Barbados prime minister further stated: "We are going to make it easy for other Commonwealth countries in the area; we will take the initiative for other countries in the western hemisphere, including Canada".
Having in mind the many statements that our Secretary of State for External Affairs has made about Canada's entry into the O.A.S., would that hon. gentleman tell us his reaction to the statement of the Prime Minister of Barbados, and what is the policy of Canada in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the question asked by the hon. member is not in the form of a statement? Certainly the hon. member is asking for a statement of general policy which should not be asked for during this period.


Robert Norman Thompson: With all deference to you, sir, I think this is an important issue. There has been a great deal of talk in this house about recognizing Red China. I think recognizing Canada's relationship to the Organization of American States is something-
[Mr. Caouette.l


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not doubt the importance of the matter. Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs may seize an early opportunity to make a statement on the point.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I would like to ask the Secretary of State a question. Has the hon. lady any views to convey to this house as to how long the privileges conferred by this parliament on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-the privileges of complete editorial freedom and corporate autonomy-will continue to be abused by the dissemination of the kind of garbage purveyed on the program "Sunday" on November 27.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot associate myself with the language my hon. friend uses. This is a matter of personal impression. My hon. friend knows that the corporation, within the limitations of reporting to parliament, has freedom within the dictates of good taste to put on certain programs. The program my hon. friend referred to has been adversely commented about by other members of the house, by members of the other place, and members of the public.
I have received a number of letters in the nature of complaints, all of which have gone forward to those responsible for the management of the corporation. Short of requiring, somehow, the resignation of those who manage the corporation, I cannot see in what way the government, or myself, could cause any change apart from that which will be caused, I am sure, by the many letters and telephone calls which the corporation will have received.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the hon. lady not think that the management of the corporation should have not only some control over, but also some responsibility for, this kind of thing? Does she not think that, though the operations of the corporation should be free from political interference, it is time that parliament began to exercise control over the
November 30, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	10555
Inquiries of the Ministry
management and over the kind of program- further action, even though the director has ming which is offered to the Canadian people? been disposed of?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I assume the hon. member's question is not a rhetorical one. First, it is a matter of fact and of law that the corporation management does exercise some control, although I suppose it varies from time to time; certainly, I doubt whether top management is responsible for pre-screening everything which appears; I do not think anyone could reasonably expect that.
I believe parliament has a very strong moral control, exercised through the kind of reaction it shows on occasions such as this. I do not agree, however, with the hon. member for Kamloops, that individual members of parliament should have any say in the programming, any more than did a former minister of national revenue who was one of the hon. member's colleagues.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saini-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the increasing number of complaints about the program "Sunday" broadcast last Sunday night, November 27, does the minister intend to refer those complaints to the special committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts and ask it to conduct an investigation?
Does the minister intend to refer the whole matter to that committee of the House of Commons?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Every complaint and every laudatory letter or communication which is received in my office goes forward to the C.B.C. I do not intend to refer the subject of this particular program to the committee, which is meeting now, and which can be seized of it if it wishes, since I believe the president of the corporation will be appearing before it tomorrow.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Questions concerning the C.B.C. have been raised in this house from time to time, but the degree of public outrage which has been shown with regard to this particular program-and I must say immediately that I have not seen it-is such that I believe the Canadian taxpayer need no longer pay for this sort of trash. Is the minister not contemplating some


An hon. Member:: What action?


Mr. Fullon:: A debate in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have had a number of questions on this subject and perhaps we might now move on to another subject.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow a supplementary question addressed to the Prime Minister. I think the people of Canada have a right to know whether or not the Prime Minister saw this show on Sunday evening-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: If he did, is he willing to condone the action of the C.B.C. in presenting it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize the house was moving so rapidly from the question I asked earlier, and which I think is of extreme importance. I am referring to the subject which I raised earlier with the Secretary of State. I should like now to ask the hon. lady, in view of the importance of this matter, in view of the importance of the relationship between the government and the C.B.C. and parliament and the C.B.C., and with reference to the urgency of parliament expressing an opinion with regard to the kind of programming which goes on, if she will intercede with the Prime Minister and the government to arrange in the immediate future for a short debate-of perhaps two or three hours-on this whole issue?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As I have pointed out, tomorrow morning at 9.30 the president of the corporation is to appear before the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. It is my understanding of the rules of the house that one does not have formally to be a member of a committee to have something to say before it. It may be that some hon. members who are so enthusiastic about this matter may rise early and attend that meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to remind hon. members that we have only a few minutes left. I wonder whether they would allow other members to ask questions about other subjects?
November 30, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. R. Gordon L. Fairwealher (Royal): Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. lady belongs to that fraternity which regrets the loss of that old fashioned program, This Hour Has Seven Days?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prillie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour, but before asking it I should like to say that I hope the Secretary of State will not take these self-appointed censors too seriously. Yesterday the Minister of Labour said that grain was moving at the port of Vancouver. I am wondering whether he was correct in that statement because reports this morning seem to indicate that the grain movement is tied up.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: The latest report indicates that railway cars containing grain are being backed up. This matter is being looked into and I will report to the house when I have received further information.



HISTORIC SITES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
Has the minister received from the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada a definite recommendation about commemorating the memory of Sir Alexander Galt and, if so, is he in a position to tell us about his decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not feel that the matter raised by the hon. member is urgent enough for him to ask a question at this time.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York Soulh):: I have a question which I should like to direct to the 
Minister of Labour. It arises out of the continuing deferment of part I of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code-the part which deals with hours of work-in respect of the shipping employers of Canada. I wish to ask the minister whether he has within recent weeks received representations from the Dominion Marine Association, the organization of such employers, requesting further deferment, or total exclusion from the terms of the code, and if so what reply he has made to these representations.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, I have received such a request. The matter is under study, as a priority item.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: As a supplementary question, may I ask the Minister of Labour when he will be reaching a decision with respect to the original application for deferment which I understand was made some time last year?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is difficult to give a definite date because many of these problems relating to deferment are interrelated. Shipping interests not only in the St. Lawrence waterway but on the east and west coasts are also concerned. However, this matter is under urgent study and a decision will be announced as soon as possible.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norlh):: should like to ask the minister this: When he does make a decision, will the 18 months deferment be dated from the time the request was originally made or from the time the decision is announced?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That will be made known when the decision is announced.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour.
In view of the result of the vote taken among the employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation last week, is it the minister's intention to recommend that the Canada Labour Relations Board should permit a second vote for the English network, so that each of the two networks may have its own union?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a supplementary question.


Gilles Grégoire: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
November 30, 1966	COMMONS



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormision (Melville):: I have a question which I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. I should like to take the liberty of reminding the right hon. gentleman that this is November 30, a day dear to the hearts of Scotsmen everywhere. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Immigration and Manpower that in order better to resist the tremendous American influence, French leaders should try to direct their compatriots to Canada, may I suggest to the Prime Minister that if he would direct his attention to the encouragement of immigration from Scotland the problem of American domination would never arise?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot think of a more appropriate question on this day, nor can I think of a better way of strengthening this country in every way than by increasing immigration from Scotland. As this is St. Andrew's day I had thought of asking the Minister of National Health and Welfare to say a few words in Gaelic. But perhaps that would be out of order.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour concerning the longshoremen issue and the situation on the west coast. I want to ask him whether he has anything to report, and what efforts are being made by the federal mediation service to bring about a settlement.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In reply to that question I do not think I can do better than to read a telegram that I dispatched to the general manager of British Columbia Tree Fruits Limited shortly before the house opened this afternoon. It reads as follows:
In reply to your telegrams 29th to the Prime Minister and to me I assure you that the government appreciates that the British Columbia Longshore dispute is causing financial losses and serious hardships. Unfortunately the basic situation involves the union organization of managerial personnel and such personnel is excluded from the rights and consequently the obligations under our labour legislation.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I might interject that this was a decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board.
Subsidiary manifestations of the dispute are now before courts and consequently intervention inadvisable at this time.
Your strong representations will receive my continuing attention but you should also bring them to the attention of the union and employers involved in the situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the city council of Vancouver has asked the minister to intervene in this matter. In view of the fact that the matter which is before the court has to do with damages and not with a lockout, will the minister undertake to comply with the request of the Vancouver city council to intervene in order to bring this lockout to an end?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yesterday I stated in the house that the employers concerned, and certainly the Minister of Labour, have had advice to the effect that this matter does not involve a lockout. It certainly is not a lockout according to the information I have received. Therefore I fail to see how the Minister of Labour can be expected to interject himself into this matter when the matter is one which is before the court at this time.
With regard to the first part of the hon. member's question as to whether or not I have received a communication from the mayor of the city of Vancouver, I can only say that such a wire has been delivered to me within the last five minutes since I came into the chamber, and I have not had an opportunity to consider it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister has said that he is basing his conclusion on information given him. Did he receive this information from the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association, or has he had officials look into what certainly is a lockout, on the basis of what is reported in the press?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Not only have I had reports from my officials, but I also have had conversations with both sides in respect of this dispute.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I join in welcoming
November 30, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry back the Secretary of State for External Affairs after his "audacity", as he himself described it, at the United Nations. I should like to ask him, in respect of Israel and the Arab states where there is open conflict what is the present situation concerning the Canadian servicemen in the peace keeping force of the UN? Will their actions be determined by the Canadian government or by other nations? What control will Canada retain over the fate of her troops should a grave emergency arise?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asked me this question in connection with the Cyprus force. My reply now is the same as I gave then. Canada, through its parliament, has committed these troops to the United Nations force. So long as our troops are there, they are under the command of the commander of the United Nations emergency force.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Canadian government have no control whatsoever over the manner in which Canadian troops will be used by the United Nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend's question in this context is not a fair one. He knows perfectly well that the government of Canada and this parliament can call back its troops at any time from an engagement to which they have been committed through the United Nations. However, so long as they are part of such a force, necessarily they must be under the command of the commander of the force.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Could he now tell the house just what is being done to resolve or help alleviate the tragic employment situation on Bell Island in Newfoundland?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the other day the right hon. Leader of the Opposition asked me a question on this point and I said I would ask for a report. I now have a report to the effect that the government has offered its full co-operation and resources to the province of Newfoundland to assist in finding a solution to the employment problems that exist on Bell Island.
IMr. Diefenbaker.]
An interdepartmental committee has been established to work with the province on this problem. The committee, under the chairmanship of the executive director of the Atlantic Development Board, includes officials from the Atlantic Development Board, ARDA, and the departments of fisheries, manpower, industry, finance, and mines, energy and resources. This committee has gone into the problem in detail and made a number of visits to Bell Island to investigate the situation on the spot. Representatives of the committee have also made trips to Europe, at the invitation of the premier of Newfoundland, in an attempt to interest European companies in operating the Bell Island mines.
There are certain investigations still going on and no decision has yet been taken by the province as to the future of mine operations on Bell Island. In addition to the above mentioned assistance, the federal government has applied the full manpower mobility measures to the labour force affected and has arranged, through the Canadian Maritime Commission, for lower ferry commuter rates between Bell Island and Newfoundland to assist the mobility of the Bell Island labour force. The A.D.B., through the services of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, has conducted a house to house survey to provide essential information for future measures.
I wish to assure the house that the federal government will continue to work closely with the provincial government on this serious problem.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say what expenditures if any have as yet been made by the federal government? He mentioned what action has been taken, but I should like to know how many jobs have been provided and how many people from Bell Island have been transported elsewhere under the mobility of labour scheme?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will try to secure these statistics.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether any sum of money is being allocated to this committee, in order that it may know what kind of program it can carry out?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; of course, there have been expenditures made, but I do not have with me the details concerning this. I will try to secure them.
November 30, 1966


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. I respectfully submit that we had the opportunity to ask only one question today. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Simard) has been springing up, so to speak, for the past half-hour. He has not had a chance to voice his question. I would like to ask you to be a little more lenient and allow the member for Lac-Saint-Jean to put his question, and that will make two for today.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not within my power because the question period has expired. However, if there is agreement I will recognize the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that the Naud ward post office at Alma has been closed since last Monday, has the minister taken the necessary steps so that this population of 7,000 people may be adequately served?


Mr. Speaker:: Since the question has been permitted, I suppose the minister may be allowed to answer.


Desmond Morton Code: Mr. Speaker, I have already received representations from the member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette) in this regard and the officials of my department are looking into the matter.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 29, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-227, to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Medicare
On subclause (d)-"insured services".
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening it was considering subclause (d) of clause 2 of the bill.


Mr. Brand:: Mr. Chairman, when the house rose last evening I was having a discussion with the minister regarding the type of amendment which would be acceptable to him. Perhaps the minister has had an opportunity to read Hansard and now knows what I proposed at that time.
Earlier yesterday I had referred to two points in respect of clause 2 (d). The first was whether doctors could practise outside the plan, and the second was whether patients who attended such doctors could be reimbursed for the cost of their services from the plan, wherever it was in effect, providing they were insured residents. It took some time to get an answer, but the minister in reply presumably assured me that doctors could practise outside the plan. I found the rest of his answer completely and totally incomprehensible and I should like to read it to him with the hope that he will clarify it. At page 10536 of Hansard for yesterday the minister is reported as having said:
What has been requested by the Canadian medical association is that no provision of this bill prohibit the possibility of provincial arrangements which would permit a physician to elect to practise outside any plan, and that there be nothing in this bill to prohibit, for example, an insurable resident of any province from paying a physician directly or having the services rendered by a physician payable to the patient or the insurable resident.
That is the phrase I do not understand. How does one pay the services rendered by a physician to a patient.
Perhaps the meaning is that the payment for such services will be payable from the plan to the insured patient. Will the minister agree with me when I suggest that he has said doctors will be able to practise outside this plan if they desire, and that patients may be reimbursed the cost of such insured services from the plan, wherever it may be in effect?
The amendment I proposed to the minister appears at page 10543 of Hansard. I gathered from the reply he gave that he could not support an amendment of this nature because we would be telling the provinces what they should do. I submit we would merely be spelling out to the provinces what they could do and that they would have complete freedom to do so if they desired. That is a different thing, because we are not telling them what to

November 30, 1966
Medicare
do, we are merely saying that the bill does not prohibit them from doing certain things. Perhaps the minister will give me an answer in this regard, because I am sure that if doctors decide not to practise under the plan the cost of services will be less to the Crown.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Chairman, my reaction to the suggested amendment is simply this. The bill makes possible what the hon. member has in mind and the amendment is, therefore, unnecessary. What the member suggests is possible without adding this particular clarification. I am satisfied that what he has suggested is possible, so far as provinces are concerned, and that really we must decide whether this clarification is necessary. My view is that it is unnecessary.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I thank the hon. minister for his assurance, and I am prepared to accept his word that in respect of these two points the provinces will have complete freedom to decide as to what arrangement will be made between those rendering and those receiving the services.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank the hon. member and repeat the assurance I gave earlier. If there was any doubt in my mind that this would not be possible, I would be ready to accept an amendment.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, I have not previously entered this debate but some remarks the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare made last night prompt me to do so at this time. In reply to a question posed by the hon. member for Kamloops regarding the possibility of amending the bill, the minister said that the hon. member for Simcoe East had posed an amendment which was voted on and rejected during the debate on second reading. Later on the minister said, as recorded on page 10542 of Hansard for yesterday:
I said that the committee is not competent to alter the principles that were accepted on second reading. That is what I am saying.
That answer gives me some concern because, on checking Hansard, I found that the minister, in arguing against the amendment to which he referred last night, suggested it was totally irrelevant to the bill. Those remarks appear in Hansard for October 13 at page 8624. It seems strange to me that an amendment which in his opinion was irrelevant then, should become significant in preventing amendments during the committee stage. It also seems that this amendment moved during second reading has functioned in an extraordinary way, by preventing any amendment to

the bill at this time, as the minister now argues that any amendment put forward would be out of order. Let me suggest that he re-read his arguments as to relevancy of the amendment proposed during second reading.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It may have been partly because of that argument that I said I could support the principle of the bill on second reading. How else could we, coming from British Columbia or Alberta, approach a bill on medical health services when those two progressive provinces had already established legislation to provide medical health services to their people, and when the principle of the bill before us is simply to make a federal contribution to schemes already in operation in those two provinces? It would be strange indeed to argue against federal assistance for something that was already implemented in each case by a government of the same persuasion as the members of this party in the House of Commons. I was not alone in the assumption that the amendment at that time might be a dangerous thing. We have the words of the hon. member for St. John's West, as reported at page 8879 of Hansard:
The amendment if carried, would have that effect.
He was referring to the effect of killing medicare, and accused the official opposition of wanting to kill it. Again, what an awkward position in which to be placed, if it could be assumed that supporting an amendment would kill a contribution to schemes already established in the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. However, when the minister spoke to wind up the debate on second reading, he with great care changed the ground somewhat at the last moment and argued that we were voting, not on the principle of the bill, which was a straightforward financial contribution of the federal government to provincial schemes, but rather on what he called the principles-in the plural-of the bill. He repeated this and said, in essence, that a vote for second reading of this bill was a vote for the four basic principles set out in the bill, namely, universality, comprehensive coverage, public administration and portability.
I would argue that those were not the principles of the bill; they were the conditions laid down by the federal government for the bill they had presented. The principle was a singular one, namely, a federal contribution to provincial health schemes whether they were in effect at the time of that vote or whether they would be implemented in the future.
November 30, 1966

That was the principle on which we were voting, or should have been voting. But realizing that the vote, under the conditions laid down by the minister at that time, would be interpreted in the way that he chose to interpret it last evening, I changed my mind at that moment and voted against second reading of the bill. Having heard what the minister said last night, I must admit I was rather pleased that I had changed my mind, because I cannot accept the interpretation he put on what happened, either in regard to what he said about the amendment put forward by the official opposition or the suggestion that we have bought, without further alteration, the bill in its entirety excepting any changes that might occur to the minister or the government.
I understand from what the minister said last night that there are areas in which the government is prepared to amend the bill. I suggest that when one considers the argument of the minister, any such amendments would be no more acceptable than any put forward from this side of the house. He cannot have it both ways. I would warn the minister that he is on dangerous ground when he elevates second reading to something quite beyond a vote on the principle of the bill. He is devaluating the study in committee of the whole and weakening the possibility of the committee of the whole doing anything constructive to change the bill in any way.
The minister is telling us, in effect, something that perhaps a new member such as myself should have learned some time ago, that one would have to vote against the government every step of the way. If you do not it will be held against you when you endeavour to make necessary changes to the bill. I do not believe the minister can pretend to be sensitive to the wishes of the provinces; I do not believe he can pretend to refuse to broaden the scope of the bill because he says this matter has not been adequately discussed with the provinces.
He cannot say this and then ignore the fact that should be very, very clear, that provinces have viable medical care schemes in operation which should qualify for the support of the federal government but will not qualify because of the conditions he has laid down in the bill. Many people on both sides of the house would like to see these conditions altered so that this measure may be of assistance to the provincial schemes of health services and not a weapon of destruction against 23033-6681
Medicare
them. In his argument last evening the minister came perilously close to threatening the entire scheme, because he led us to understand that the cost of broadening the scheme at any point would threaten the entire scheme. It is indeed heartening to find him concerned about the total cost to the welfare state of this latest move.
We have had constant reference to the province of Saskatchewan and the scheme that has been implemented there. It is held up to us as a model in many ways from which the federal government cannot deviate at any significant point.
I suggest to the minister and the government that the fear at the present time is not of the total cost of the scheme, but is of a recent Gallup poll of political strength across this country which gave the N.D.P. 26 per cent. It seems that the minister is determined to present a scheme to the Canadian public that represents an obvious federal move into the welfare state, not in terms of co-operation because that might be misunderstood by the public, but in terms of something that is not acceptable to the provinces which have established medical health schemes that have won the support of their people. There has been a test by the democratic process of the acceptance of the sort of scheme that we have, for example, in the province of British Columbia. I think this test, which is as democratic as the test the Saskatchewan scheme has undergone, would qualify it for the sort of assistance the bill presents to us.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
If we go ahead with the scheme presented by the minister, under which some services will be covered and others will not, I am sure the administrative cost of the scheme will rise to a point where it might give the minister cause for consideration. The complicated problem in the medical clinics all across the country of sorting out who is to pay for what will not be a simple one.
Other clauses than clause 2 will also need amendments. It will be necessary to make amendments to allow for multiple carriers in the provinces. It is not in any way a proven fact that a monolithic organization provides an automatic saving of the public money, and yet this is taken for granted by far too many Canadians. It will be necessary to amend the coverage figure for universality because here again there is no need to set up a scheme which will force the wealthiest persons and groups which have been covered by their own medical insurance for many years into one

November 30, 1966
Medicare
monolithic state-administered scheme. This will, in itself, be an expensive measure and one that is not at all necessary to ensure an adequate medical services coverage across this nation.
I would therefore, urge a different attitude toward the amendments which are being presented during the study of the bill in committee of the whole. There are sound economical reasons for changing several aspects of the bill.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take advantage of the debate on this bill to say a few words.
Some time ago I had the opportunity to express my views on the need for a medical care plan and they have not changed.
I think it is necessary, particularly to fight poverty, to take the necessary steps so that the less fortunate Canadian citizens will see in the legislation now under consideration a ray of hope.
However, I am afraid that the plan which is now before us includes a number of imperfections and drawbacks, and it is absolutely necessary to convince the minister to remedy the situation and take under consideration the amendments proposed to him.
During the debate I was greatly surprised by the minister's attitude. He showed himself uncompromising and inflexible. Amendments which certainly deserved to be studied and considered by the minister were simply rejected and did not get any consideration at all.
The official opposition moved several amendments, through the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) who is certainly well-informed as far as public health is concerned. However, in spite of all the hon. member's experience, he did not get the minister to agree to anything.
The same thing happened to the amendments moved by-


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


René Tremblay: The hon. member says the minister did not consider the amendments: in fact, none of those amendments were studied by the house, because they were all ruled out of order by the chairman of the committee of the whole.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes, I agree with the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane. On the other

hand, it must be noted that every time an amendment was put before the house, the hon. minister did his very best to convince the chairman of the committee of the whole not to allow them.


René Tremblay: On technical points, not on the issue.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Consequently, we can rightly say, and on this the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane will surely agree with me, that when one campaigns against something, one is opposed to it. Therefore, when the minister used the time of the house to refute the merits of the proposed amendments, he was in fact expressing-


René Tremblay: His respect for the standing orders of the house.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -his disapproval of the proposed amendments.
The member for Matapedia-Matane may use all his knowledge to try to contradict that argument, but I know that, in his innermost heart, he agrees with me on those principles.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to carry on my remarks to remind the house that we are now dealing with a field coming exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The member for Matapedia-Matane recognized that fact yesterday; consequently, the requirements and the views of the provinces must not be forgotten or ignored. As far as Ontario is concerned, we know that its government instituted its own medical care scheme. Incidentally, may I say that I think that this Ontario scheme meets the requirements and the aspirations of the citizens of Ontario. That is the reason why the government of Ontario looks unfavourably upon the fact that the present minister wants to interfere in a field already covered.
Tomorrow, the first session of the 28th parliament will open in Quebec. Tomorrow will be read the Speech from the Throne proclaiming the measures the new government intends to take. I would not be the least surprised if the Speech from the Throne contained something concerning the bill before us. In any event, it is a fact that the government of the Union Nationale has already ordered an inquiry in that regard. The government of the province of Quebec does not want to commit itself without first studying thoroughly the question of health insurance.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I would be inclined to think, Mr. Chairman, in view of the haste shown by the government in having this legislation passed, that they
November 30, 1986

intend to use it as a political football, for it must be remembered that this measure will be implemented only in a year and a half or even two years. Knowing the tactics of our friends opposite, I realize they are introducing a measure which they will try to sell to the people in the next election. This is why I think we should take our time to study this question thoroughly, especially since, as I have said before, we are dealing with a matter which is under provincial jurisdiction.
The present government claims that it wants to help the poor, fight poverty. It seems to me that by refusing to extend the scope of the act, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) is going against the objective of the government. He says: We want to do everything we can to help those who are unable to get proper medical care, but at the same time, he claims that such and such a service, which is not clearly a medical service, must not be covered because if it were, it would increase the estimated cost of the plan.
Now then, Mr. Chairman, I submit that this is contradictory and the minister, instead of trying to rush this legislation through, should make use of all the necessary means in order that this legislation may benefit the greatest number of persons possible. And I agree with the members for Simcoe East and for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand)-who are certainly cognizant of the problem-when they say that we must insist in order to convince the Minister of National Health and Welfare to accept at least the amendments we are bringing forward, because our sole purpose in doing this is to improve the scope of the act. I am very sorry to see the minister restrict coverage under the act rather than extend it to a greater number of people. May I repeat that this is a very strange way to fight poverty.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I would again ask the minister to consider these amendments which have but one purpose: to extend the coverage to as many people as possible. And, as I said, provincial governments surely have their say in regard to this legislation and they will definitely be disappointed with the terms imposed by the minister, for this field, in fact, comes exclusively under their jurisdiction.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does this complete discussion on subclause (d)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Subclause agreed to.
Medicare
Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now proceed to subclause (f).
On subclause (f)-"Medical practitioner".


Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee was discussing this clause an amendment was moved to it by the hon. member for Simcoe East.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, if it is agreeable to the members of the committee, it might facilitate matters if you were to give a ruling on the point of order I raised in connection with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If there are no further comments to be made as to the validity of this amendment I am prepared now to make a ruling. The effect of the amendment before the committee would be to include those who are engaged in the practice of paramedical professions in the definition of a medical practitioner. I think this is evident from the statement made by the hon. member for Simcoe East as recorded on page 10459 of Hansard for Monday, November 28.
The committee will recall the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton South, the effect of which would have been to include within the meaning of medical services the paramedical services. This was ruled to extend the purposes of, and to be outside the scope of, the resolution passed on July 12. This ruling is recorded at pages 10469-10470 of Hansard for Monday last.
It would appear to the Chair to be unacceptably inconsistent if the Chair having ruled the paramedical professions to be outside the scope of the resolution, were now to rule that those who practise those professions could be considered as coming within the meaning or definition of a medical practitioner.
May I refer the committee again to citation 246 (3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
I might also refer the committee to May's seventeenth edition, page 551, paragraph (13):
Amendments or new clauses creating public charges cannot be proposed, if no money resolution or ways and means resolution has been passed, or if the amendment or clause is not covered by the terms of the resolution.

November 30, 1966
Medicare
I believe that the amendment now before the committee does extend the scope of the resolution which was passed on July 12, and I regrettably have to rule the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East out of order.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, being a member of the medical profession and knowing the situation across Canada, I feel so keenly about this question that I regret I must appeal that ruling.
[DOT] (4:00 pm.)
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
Mr. Speaker, in committee of the whole when subclause 2(f) of bill C-227 was being considered the hon. member for Simcoe East proposed an amendment. Subclause 2(f) of the bill reads as follows:
(f) "medical practitioner" means a person lawfully entitled to practice medicine in the place in which such practice is carried on by him;
The amendment by the hon. member for Simcoe East reads as follows:
(f) "medical practitioner" for the purposes of this Act means any person lawfully engaged in the practice of rendering services to individuals in the field of the healing arts whose qualifications and entitlement to practise in the place in which such practice is carried on by him are recognized by the government of a province or by an association approved for the purpose by the legislature of a province;
The Chair, using section 3 of citation 246, Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition, and paragraph 13, page 551 of May's Seventeenth Edition, ruled the proposed amendment out of order in that it extended the purpose and objects of the resolution preceding the bill adopted by the house on July 12 last and as such had introduced certain money provisions not covered by the resolution. From this ruling the hon. member for Simcoe East appealed to Mr. Speaker pursuant to section 4 of Standing Order 59.


Mr. Speaker:: Before hon. members proceed to argue the appeal launched against the ruling of the Chair, I remind hon. members, and particularly the hon. minister and the hon. member for Kamloops, that I have had an opportunity of reading and studying very closely the arguments made yesterday when the amendment was first proposed and moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the import of Your Honour's remark. I would say first-and I know that in this I am also expressing the views of the hon. member for Simcoe East-that it is with regret we feel impelled to appeal the ruling of the Chairman for whom we have so much respect.
[The Chairman.]
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We feel, however, that in doing so we are not impugning his authority or position. We are but asking that another authority should pass judgment upon the matter which he has had under consideration. I am glad to say that in making this appeal today under the new rules we are not submitting this appeal to the weight of revoke; we are not submitting it to any sort of power play. We are merely asking that another learned authority should bring his judgment to bear upon this important question. It is in this sense only that we have taken this step of appealing the ruling.
You have said, sir, that you have read the arguments made yesterday in connection with this particular amendment. Obviously, therefore, you will have read the arguments made with respect to paragraph (d) in particular, and I therefore do not propose to repeat them in extenso. Rather, I seek to bring to bear a new consideration, one which will, I believe, reinforce the other arguments which have been made in support of the amendment. In putting forward this new consideration I ask Your Honour to consider the words of the resolution in their totality.
As I understand it, the ruling from the Chair is that the words of the amendment would carry the scope of the bill beyond that which is contemplated in the resolution. Most of the rulings which have been made have been made with respect to insured medical care services. I ask Your Honour to bear in mind that the amendment which you are now asked to consider has to do with the definition of the words "medical practitioner". The object of the amendment, as clearly stated, is that "medical practitioner" for the purpose of this act should include any person lawfully engaged in the practice of rendering service in the field of the healing arts. Then the amendment goes on to say, in effect, provided that the qualifications and rights of such persons to practise are recognized by the government of the province or by a body set up by the legislature of the province.
I emphasize this point because I wish to relate it to the wording of the resolution. The resolution reads:
It is expedient to introduce a measure 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.
That is the kind of services which the resolution encompasses. Therefore, it is the kind which this bill must be presumed to encompass. What we are asking in this amendment
November 30, 1966

is that the persons who render these services, that is medical practitioners, be the kind of medical practitioners who are recognized by provincial governments for the purpose of provincial medical care insurance plans as well as for other purposes. So, I submit that the words of the amendment do not for one moment take us beyond the scope of the resolution. The resolution envisages that the medical services, and those who run them, shall be the kind set out in provincial medical care insurance plans. I submit to you, as a matter of logic, that no provincial government or provincial legislature would licence to practise under a provincial medical care insurance plan any persons whom they did not define as medical practitioners within the scope of the wording we have used in this amendment. That is the first ground of my submission.
Without going over ground which has already been covered, I would ask Your Honour to consider the fact that in the resolution the words "medical practitioner" are nowhere defined. They are not even mentioned. The bill recognizes that these words require definition. It would seem, therefore, to be altogether within the authority and scope of this committee to substitute its own definition for the one submitted by the minister. The minister must have chosen his definition arbitrarily, because no definition is contained in the resolution. As I say, the words are not even mentioned. So he brings forward a bill on behalf of the government in which he says, in effect: "This is what we think. This is how we think "medical practitioner" should be defined."
Surely, it is open to us in the opposition to say: "We do not agree. We think the words should be defined in some other way." Unless we clearly carry the matter beyond the scope of the resolution, we are surely within our rights. But we have not done that because, first of all, there is nowhere in the resolution any definition of "medical practitioner" and, in the second place we say medical practitioners are those recognized by the provinces. We are, therefore, within the scope of the resolution since the resolution contemplates an insurance plan which is pursuant to provincial schemes.
I would refer, in addition, to the dictionary definitions of the words in question. The authorities were quoted during the course of the argument yesterday, and I will not repeat what was said then. But when they are making definitions, which is what this clause does, we are surely entitled to rely on the authority
Medicare
of dictionaries when putting forward what we believe to be the true and proper definition.
Finally, I propose to deal with the citation to be found at page 207 of Beauchesne upon which the Chairman has relied. It reads:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the crown is that the communication to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
There is no reference here to the amount of the charge, so the citation is not applicable to this aspect of the present situation. It can only be applicable with respect to the object, purpose, conditions and qualifications. Let us consider this aspect.
What are the objects and purposes-the two terms appear to be virtually synonymous. The object and purpose of the resolution is-
-to introduce a measure to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada towards the cost of insured medical care services-
That is the object and purpose, not to introduce a medical care plan as defined de novo by the federal government.
-incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
The purpose of the resolution could not be more clearly stated. What, then, are the conditions and qualifications imposed by the resolution? They are that the costs to which the federal government is to contribute must be incurred by provinces pursuant to their own plans, not incurred by provinces pursuant to a plan which the minister defines as he chooses. That is not what the resolution says. It says "cost incurred pursuant to provincial plans".
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
All the amendment says is that for the purpose of the provincial plan the province would have the right to say who are medical practitioners. How can it be said to be beyond the conditions of a resolution submitted by the crown? It cannot, sir. Let us consider again the position in which we are in if the amendment is ruled out of order. It makes nonsense of the bill. I submit very seriously that it is your responsibility, sir, to avoid making rulings which make a proposition inconsistent with itself. If you are to rule that this parliament cannot say that contributions will be made in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down by the provinces or that the contributions cannot be made for costs incurred by practitioners qualified for the purpose by the province, then you are, I

November 30, 1966
Medicare
seriously submit, making a statement which makes nonsense of the bill and the resolution, because the resolution says the purpose of the bill is to authorize the making of a contribution to costs incurred by the provinces pursuant to their medical care insurance plans. I submit, therefore, that for you, sir, to rule the amendment out of order would be to make a ruling which would defte the express purpose of the resolution.
I conclude simply by saying that, although I realize it will be a very difficult and precedent setting step for you to reverse the ruling of the Chair in committee, nevertheless I invite you to do so. I think the Chair in committee has been faced with a most difficult problem, a problem in respect of which any one of us might have been faced with the same difficulty in the heat and immediacy of debate and in respect of which we might have decided in the way the Chair has decided. I think it is a matter of fundamental importance to the working of this bill, and to the rights of parliament, that we should be able to say to the government we do not accept the definition and that we insist on our right to say how we think the phrase should be defined. It is a problem of such importance that I invite Your Honour, recognizing the natural reluctance which the Speaker must have to overrule the Chair, in the interests of parliament to grasp this unhappy problem and make a ruling in the interests of the happy working of a most important scheme for the people of Canada.


Robert Norman Thompson: I, too, wish to express my respect for the Chair and the rulings which the Chair made yesterday and the day before with regard to amendments related specifically to clause 2, subclause (d) of this bill. However, in support of the words just spoken by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), I feel there is so much involved in this particular issue raised in the appeal by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) from the ruling in respect of his amendment to subclause (f) of clause 2, that I believe, for the sake of parliament and the sake of the very principles involved in this debate, it is important that your Honour give a very careful second consideration to the rulings made earlier. I say this respectfully, because I, too, understand the difficulty in which the Chair finds itself at the present time. I am disturbed, however, about several points which are involved.
Perhaps some of the remarks I should like to make at this time are a little redundant in view of what has just been said. Nevertheless,

I think there may be one or two other aspects which might be of assistance to you. Besides there are one or two other remarks I might add to those which have already been made. While directly related to the substance of subclause (d), I think the amendments which have abortively been made to subclause (d) of clause 2 were secondary, if not redundant, to the amendment that is being considered at the present time. I believe if the amendment which has been made by the hon. member for Simcoe East were to be passed by this house it would meet the arguments which have already been made in the debate during the past several days in respect of what we mean by "medical services" and what we understand is the general usage of the words "medical practitioner". Therefore, this amendment becomes doubly important.
The remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops yesterday in respect of the dictionary definition of the words in the amendments made to subclause (d) of clause 2 I believe are of particular importance. I do not wish to be repetitious because that already has been referred to by the hon. member today. I think, however, your Honour should consider very carefully the words which we find on page 10524 of yesterday's Hansard, beginning with the last paragraph in the first column and continuing in the first two paragraph of the second column on the same page. The hon. member for Kamloops referred to the Concise Oxford Dictionary in these words:
At page 756 the first definition of "medical"- adjective and noun-is found to be "of the healing art.'
So, the hon. member pointed out that the amendment proposed describes medical practitioner for the purpose of this act as "any person lawfully engaged in the practice of rendering services to individuals in the field of the healing arts." This definition is very clear and very pointed.
Today, as we are considering the amendment, I think it is important that we look back to the resolution. The resolution indicates in no way that some of the remarks made by the hon. minister himself are relevant to the wording of that resolution. It already has been pointed out that this is a bill which authorizes the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by the province pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
November 30, 1966

[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
On that basis, bearing in mind the definition of the Concise Oxford dictionary as it relates to those medical care plans already in existence in at least three of the provinces, this line of argument seems to be completely in agreement with the line of argument advanced by the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe) and the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard).
In addition, may I just point out to Your Honour again that the Department of National Revenue gives a clear-cut definition of this term in the guidance instructions provided for T-l short income tax forms. That has already been referred to by me and others including the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). It ought to be a very important precedent in your reconsideration of the ruling Your Honour has made declaring this and previous amendments our of order.
I mention these things again because I believe the arguments presented on this point are basically important to the rulings which were made, particularly in view of what I understand is the attempt behind the amendment to which we are referring.
There is one other point I want to bring to your attention. It concerns the right of members to move amendments to legislation proposed by the government. Bill C-227 would authorize the payment of contributions by Canada towards the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
The resolution passed by this house in effect gave general approval of the bill that was to follow. By granting second reading, which I did not support, this house gave approval to the principle of the bill. What the minister has said to us in the arguments he presented, and what I believe is involved in the ruling that has been made, is that by giving approval on second reading of a bill we are denying ourselves the right to make amendments when we reach the committee stage. I am concerned about that because approval of the principles of a bill on second reading certainly does not mean approval of all the details within the bill itself.
Surely approval on second reading should not interfere with the right of this house to move amendments to a bill. The minister has said that by accepting such an amendment we would be authorizing extra expenditures and that is not a right of the opposition in this house. I suggest that statement is open to question and that this has already been
Medicare
brought out during the debate in relation to whether or not these amendments are in order. I seriously question whether or not it would cost more to have an optometrist take care of the necessary refractions to the eyes of a patient than it would if the patient went to an ophthalmologist for the same service. Certainly, that same argument applies to certain muscular and spine conditions which could be looked after by a chiropractor. I am not convinced by any means that it would cost more for a chiropractor to take care of this kind of condition than it would for a medical doctor practising in the field of manipulative medicine to take care of the same condition. The same argument applies in the area of oral and dental surgery. The suggestion that widening the scope of the definition of "medical practitioner" or of "medical services" is going to incur an extra cost to the treasury is something that cannot be accepted as true.
If such a suggestion is true and if we accept it on that basis, then practically every amendment proposed by members of this house would be out of order because it would change the amount of money involved. This is a very critical and important point inasmuch as it relates to the rights of parliament and the rights of hon. members on this side of the house. If that is the case, then the arguments we have heard with regard to the second reading of the defence bill are invalid, because after second reading we would not be permitted to amend that bill on the pretense or excuse that amendments might involve the expenditure of money. By adopting this principle, we are weakening the rights of members in this house.
The other day a question was asked in this house as to the colour of the new uniform. Supposing an amendment were moved to change the colour recommended in the defence bill, who knows but what the dye for that colour would cost more or less than the dye for the colour proposed by the bill?


Mr. Knowles:: In other words, the die is cast.


Robert Norman Thompson: I agree with the hon. member, in other words the die is cast, and that die is simply a method by which we are now taking away the rights of this house. We are depriving ourselves of certain basic rights as members of the opposition to move amendments to legislation brought down by the government. If we accept that proposition, we might just as well forget about any useful purpose we have here except to talk in the

November 30, 1966
Medicare
hope that some publicity is given to what we say. Certainly what might be said would have no effect if we lose our right to amend legislation.
I urge you very respectfully to give serious and careful consideration to this situation. In spite of any precedent that may be involved, I urge Your Honour to reconsider the ruling that has been made that this and other amendments are out of order.
In concluding my remarks, I should like again to remind Your Honour that a number of provinces at this time have health insurance or medical care insurance programs in effect. Other provinces are considering legislation along these lines but are waiting to see what happens to Bill C-227. It has been very clearly stated in the resolution, and during the introduction to this bill itself, that this bill intends to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of provincially insured medical care services. I believe that every one of the plans which presently exist in the provinces includes more than just the services of a medical doctor. In this regard, I would also say that it is impossible to limit the meaning of those words to the narrow definition which the hon. minister has tried to present in his argument to this house. If we accept that limited and narrow definition we will be going completely against what is common practice in the field of surgery and in the field of every other health service provided to the sick people in this country. If what I say is true, it is very important that in clause 2 of this bill we make sure we widen the meaning or interpretation of the words "medical practitioner" as they apply to legislation of those provinces which are providing health insurance plans and medical services.
It is my belief that the provinces which are concerned are looking to us to assist them in applying this legislation to their own plans. I believe they are looking to us to be more specific than the minister has been in attempting to limit this legislation.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
A great deal has been said by the minister and other members of the government about the scope of this legislation and the benefit it will be to the sick people of Canada. I fail to understand how the minister can stand before this house at the present time and make some of the statements he has made. The minister has said that the provisions of this bill will be contained within the very narrowest of limits, which indicates that he really does not have

concern for the broader needs of the sick people of this country.
I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that you consider the arguments put forward by members of the opposition. I believe that if some hon. members on the government side of the house were to speak on the amendment-and it is our privilege to do this-we would see that support in this respect comes not only from this side of the house. I believe that many of the hon. members on the government side agree with us. I ask that very careful consideration be given to the definition of "medical practitioner". This definition is vital to our responsibility of seeing that health care is provided in the widest possible sense according to the over-all needs of the sick people of this country, because this is what they believe we are providing under this legislation.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak to the very narrow subject of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). I suppose I have to argue principally whether the amendment is in order, and I presume that Your Honour will decide whether we have the right to move an amendment affecting a money bill.
If the amendment had been brought in under clause 1, I would say there was validity to the argument; but in passing clause 1 and the principle of the bill the house agreed to the provision of universal medicare. I claim that in respect of paragraph (f) of clause 2 we are really looking for clarification, not only for the house but the provinces, as the last speaker said. We in this house have the duty not only to put forth the will of parliament in the narrow federal sense, but to protect provincial rights; because we are the only people who can protect those rights when it comes to the making of federal law.
Because we have agreed to the principle of universal medicare, I contend that we are not trying to broaden the scope of the bill but rather to clarify just what its scope is. If we do not do this now, we will not have another opportunity. On many occasions since coming to the house I have heard it said: You will have plenty of opportunity, when we get to the clause by clause study of the legislation, to go into detail. We are told that this is the time to go into detail with regard to the administration of a bill. As we all know, the administration of a piece of legislation is far more important than voting on its principle. This is when we get down to the meat of the legislation.
November 30, I960

We have a duty to the provinces to protect their rights. If the federal government is going to enter the medical field at all, under our constitution I think the only right we have is to vote the money and then give the provinces a perfectly free hand to administer the program. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe East calls for clarification of this provision, and I contend it is only carrying out the will of parliament as expressed when we gave the bill second reading. The bill is not clear. As I read it "medical practitioner" might mean anybody concerned with the health of the nation. If the minister, would clarify this definition by saying it includes any person requiring help in the mental field, dentistry, osteopathic services, chiropractic services and physiotherapy, I would be delighted to take my seat. I am sure the hon. member for Simcoe East would be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Parliament is often criticized for not making its will clear to the people. There are many acts on the statute books which they do not understand. I must admit that I do not understand some of the acts on the statute books without a great deal of research into the meaning of some other act or the Interpretation Act. This is just not good enough. Many times we pass the principle of a bill when we do not know the effect it will have on the people.
As far as the question of a money bill is concerned, it seems to me that the right of parliament to control the executive in the spending of the nation's money is fast slipping through our fingers. This is the only opportunity we will have to say how the taxpayers' money is to be spent. We have to fight this matter out on a clause such as this so we will know how the money will be spent right down to the last dollar. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I fully support the amendment for the three reasons I have given: Through this amendment we will be carrying out the will of parliament, protecting provincial rights, and everybody in Canada will know when the bill is passed what their rights are to universal medicare.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicloria-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, the observations
which I should like to bring to your attention must of necessity have a certain amount of application to the minister and the government. This matter must be examined very carefully because this is not an ordinary piece of legislation. This legislation is special in comparison with any legislation introduced 23033-6691
Medicare
into this or any other house of which one has the honour to be a member, because it provides for medicare. This principle applies to legislation concerning education. Medicare and education are a service, and such bills require that we transcend the ordinary bounds of debate because they represent a special situation. I consider that the bill before us is in this category.
The fact that the government have introduced such a bill, and the minister is sponsoring it and piloting it through the house, means that the government must have made up their minds they wished to introduce a bill which would render to the people of Canada the maximum service. Surely we can agree on that principle. Since I do not think there is any argument about this, we must of necessity consider it our business to devise ways and means by which we may contribute to the rendering of the service to the people of Canada at the lowest possible cost. I belong to that school that likes to see the maximum service provided to our people, with some recognition of the fact that there is a consideration involved for which people must pay.
The appeal which you are asked to consider, Mr. Speaker, is from a decision which I consider to be unjustified. I believe that, in the first place, the minister should accept anything that strengthens the intent of the government; and surely the government are not going to argue that they did not intend to make this bill comprehensive?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The bill is intended to provide for partial coverage of the cost of medicare in the provinces and according to the provincial statutes. I think we should agree that in this provision we should not and will not split hairs. If the minister argues that the decision of the chairman is correct and, on the basis of a technicality, this amendment should be ruled out, then I consider the minister is splitting hairs.
Mr. Speaker, it is for you to make the decision, but it seems to me that this amendment is a tremendous improvement. I was sorry that I was not present during the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), but I have read it and I consider his argument to be irrefutable. It seems to me that provided it is the intention of the government to sponsor measures which will contribute to the maximum health care of Canadians the minister could not possibly disagree with anything that has been said by

November 30, 1966
Medicare
my hon. friend from Kamloops in support of the amendment.
In my opinion the minister himself should have amended subclause (f) which should never have been presented in the first place. Later on I will have something to say about this subclause. It should never have been presented in that form for it reads:
*-a person lawfully entitled to practice medicine in the place in which such practice is carried on by him.
We have not built boundaries or fences around medical practitioners. Medical practitioners have patients from all over the country who sometimes come to them from as much as 100 miles away. They travel that far to a doctor because they have faith and confidence in him. Sometimes they will choose a doctor located several miles away from the doctor nearest to them because they have confidence in that doctor. And yet the minister defines the location as "the place in which such practice is carried on by him". This subclause does not make any sense, and the minister should not have presented it at all.
As I said at the outset of my remarks it is my opinion that in an examination of a bill of this nature ordinary considerations should not prevail.
Consequently, it seems to me that the splitting of hairs over whether or not the amendment enlarges the scope of the bill should not take place. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), the minister assured the house that all we needed to do was give second reading to the bill after which he would give consideration to any changes which might have been suggested by the opposition in committee. The minister is very eloquent, and I give him credit for it, although sometimes he is reticent. I do not always appreciate his remarks but generally speaking I do. I think he is splitting hairs. He has split hairs ever since we started to study the bill in committee. He never stopped doing it, and he is still at it.
Mr. Speaker, may I suggest with the greatest respect that when you make your decision you should be governed by little more than the humanitarian considerations which you generally apply to most of the decisions you make. In this case you should give consideration to the humanitarian aspect of the amendment.
When we return to the consideration of sub-clause (f), I will have a little more to say about it. Now, I would like to say a few words about the question of professional attitude. In

my lifetime I have had a lot to do with professional attitudes. Responsible professionals, whether they be doctors, lawyers, or even politicians, are determined to ensure that what they put down on paper is right, must prevail and should not be subject to any change, any more than were the laws of the Medes and Persians according to the Holy Writ. This is what we are facing now. The minister is determined not to consider any changes. I am afraid he had this determination before I started my remarks, but I still hope he might be swayed by them. I think he should accept the amendment we propose. Let us even suppose that it does involve some technical implications which might be a little out of the ordinary, but I repeat my words that this is not an ordinary bill. This is one of the most important bills that has ever come before the parliament of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks I wish to say that I hope you will make your ruling-in spite of the fact that you are in a difficult position-on the basis of the fact that ordinary considerations should not prevail with regard to this amendment but should be transcended by the humanitarian aspect involved.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few things left to be said but not too many. I think this is a tremendously important issue. Not only is the issue itself important but also the fact that we are driven, by the obstinacy of the minister, to throw ourselves at your feet. You are now in the position of a court of appeal. The old practice which prevailed in the house whereby decisions of this kind were, in the final analysis, decided by the house has now yielded to the practice which we are at present following. I quite agree with what the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) said regarding the difficulties involved in such a procedure but I suggest that you, Mr. Speaker, are in the position of a court of appeal beyond which we cannot go in arguing this particular issue.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) said that this was not an ordinary bill. I might add that this extraordinary bill has been piloted through the house by an extraordinary minister who has refused to give reasonable consideration to suggestions put forward by hon. members.
With reference to the fact that this bill deals with matters of health, hon. members
November 30, 1966

might appreciate my suggestion that the government is suffering from legislative arteriosclerosis. I will ask my hon. friend from Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) whether I am right on this. The government is suffering from an undue degree of inertia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would that be covered by the bill?


Gerald William Baldwin: No, unless we have the right kind of medical practitioner to deal with this ailment. This issue is doubly important. I can imagine a situation in which some province might put forward a claim under the provisions of the bill in respect of certain alleged insured services. The government of Canada may say: "We reject this claim because in our opinion these services include some which were performed by people whom the province has accepted as being medical practitioners but whom we in our uncontrolled discretion consider not to be medical practitioners". The fact that the minister has made certain statements in the house, and that subsequently the Speaker makes a ruling on the amendment, does not mean that the case rests there.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
If such a decision should be made and a province and the federal government were determined to carry the matter to its conclusion, in the final analysis only the courts could decide whether or not the persons described by the province as medical practitioners, but excluded from that category by the federal government, do in fact fall within the category.
This being the case, Mr. Speaker, surely it is for the members of this house to define with the greatest degree of precision and clarity all of the terms and expressions used in this bill. This is, I suggest, one of the main reasons for the amendment which has been moved.
As I pointed out last night, in my province the category of persons registered under the medical professions act includes members of professions who the minister and the government are suggesting will not be included under this bill. How do we know, without the closest examination of the various medical professions acts of the provinces, that the situation will not be repeated in other instances? In other words, we are heading into a situation where conflicts are likely to arise between the definition of "medical practitioner" in the very loose way it is described in this legislation, and the more precise definitions which have been established in the various provincial medical profession acts.
Medicare
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Simcoe East and the members of the opposition are doing a service to the house, to the government and to the country by defining with such accuracy and precision as that contained in this amendment the expression "medical practitioner". I would also suggest that a very heavy onus lies upon the government in attempting to argue in this particular case in support of the ruling of the Chair that the amendment is out of order. The onus upon them is so heavy that the government can hardly discharge it. Therefore, I urge Your Honour in your final considerations to give due weight to this particular aspect of the issue.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I should be put in the position on this St. Andrew's day of disagreeing with such a distinguished battery of spokesmen who have addressed themselves to this point of order. I am sure that Scotsmen all over the civilized world, and possibly in the uncivilized world, marking St. Andrew's day might regard our pursuits this afternoon as having been rather profitless.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They would say you were being niggardly and mean.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton was most unkind when he accused me of splitting hairs on St. Andrew's day. This is a very grave charge, and I am sure he did not really mean it.
I am not going to prolong the discussion on the point of order. The purpose of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East is to broaden the definition of the expression "medical practitioner" to include the healing arts. The healing arts embrace a large number of professions-dentists, optometrists, physiotherapists, nurses, osteopaths, podiatrists, chiropractors, to name a number. The effect of this broader definition would be to include within the expression "medical practitioner" these additional professions.
If the definition as proposed by the hon. gentleman is accepted, then it must be related to paragraph (d) of clause 2 which defines insured services as services rendered by medical practitioners. The purpose of the amendment is to broaden the scope and range of services beyond those contemplated in the resolution. This is a familiar argument which has been made on five former occasions, and the amendments were ruled out of order by the Chair because they would transcend the provisions of the royal recommendation.

November 30, 1966
Medicare
I might point out to hon. members that there was a certain attractiveness from my point of view about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I had to consider, first of all, if the amendment had been held to be in order, whether it could be accepted. I had to look not only at the rules of the house, but at the British North America Act, which gives a direction in section 54 with respect to a matter of this kind. That section reads:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that house by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution address, or bill is proposed.
So we are confronted, Mr. Speaker, not only with the rules of parliamentary procedure but with a provision of the constitution which stipulates that any resolution proposed in the house cannot go beyond the purposes stipulated in the royal recommendation.
It has been made perfectly clear in our discussion, Mr. Speaker, that the effect of these amendments is to provide for purposes not specified in the royal recommendation, and therefore seeks powers not conferred upon the house by the royal recommendation. That really is the issue, Mr. Speaker. It is a procedural and constitutional issue, and I suggest that because it is such, however desirable in the long term is the amendment of the hon. member for Simcoe East, it is out of order at this time.
Let me assure him that I appreciate the sincerity of his motives and the desirability of the long-term objective of this amendment. I am sure that as time goes on provision will be made in our health insurance scheme for these other professions to which he refers in his amendment. But within the scope of the original resolution I suggest that this amendment is out of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the minister accept a question? In view of his great love and affection for the British North America Act, for which I compliment him, I should like to ask the minister, if he is standing upon the provisions of section 54 of that act, whether he does not also feel he would be wise to rely upon sections 91 and 92, instead of throwing into disarray those two provisions by interfering through this legislation with provincial rights in respect to health and the registration of

associations of professional people such as optometrists and chiropractors? This is the effect of this legislation at the present time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member for Peace River is an important one. It is not a matter relating to the point of order. I should be happy to deal with it on a later clause in the bill.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
With the indulgence of the hon. member for Kamloops, may I say that in addition to the constitutional arguments made, I still stand on the argument made in the committee on all previous amendments, arguments which on six occasions were adopted by the Deputy Speaker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to exercise a short right of reply to the argument advanced by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that the rules of the house allow any member a short right of reply, unless an hon. member claims under the standing orders that he wants to clarify a point on which he alleges he was misquoted or misunderstood by a previous speaker. Alternatively, if hon. members agree to allow the hon. member for Kamloops to make additional comments, that might serve as well. There seems some disposition to this effect.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understood that in effect we are arguing a point of order before you. If there be any question that under the rules there is no right of reply, because we are establishing perhaps new grounds here and this is the first time such an appeal has been taken, I do not wish to ask for a right which is not contemplated in the rules. I was of the opinion that the rules gave me the right to speak again, but I shall gladly accept Your Honour's ruling, if Your Honour is of the opinion that I have not the right to speak again.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not clear about any opinion at this stage. Certainly, there seems to be no objection to allowing the hon. member for Kamloops to speak. This has been a very enlightening and interesting discussion, and I am sure there is no objection to allowing the hon. member for Kamloops to make additional comments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The reply I want to make is to that portion of the minister's argument in
November 30, 1966

which he said that the effect of the amendment would be to include or embrace purposes not specified in the resolution. That, I think the minister will agree, is the nub of his argument. Sir, it is with that I take direct issue.
I submit that the minister has not shown and cannot show that the amendment does in fact go beyond the purposes specified in the resolution, or that it includes purposes not specified. The resolution says-I have not my copy, having sent it to the Hansard office, but I think I can recall it-that the federal government will make contributions, or that the federal government is authorized to make contributions to the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medicare insurance plans.
I have just been handed a copy of the resolution, and at the end I should have said "medical care insurance plans". That is the only error I made in the quotation. I got the word "care" out of order.
The resolution does not say that the provision is confined to medical practitioners, or to the costs incurred with respect to services rendered by medical practitioners; nor does it say that the provinces have not the right to say that psychologists, chiropractors or anybody else will not be authorized to give services under their plans. The resolution is not restrictive in that sense.
This amendment, on the other hand, does not say that the costs incurred with respect to services rendered by medical practitioners will be paid, even though they are not included within a provincial medical care insurance plan. All this amendment deals with is the definition of medical practitioner.
The bill includes medical practitioners. Provincial schemes include medical practitioners. If, therefore, a provincial scheme defines either now or in future a medical practitioner to include an optometrist, chiropractor, podiatrist or any one of those professions that have been named, the amendment would be within the confines of the resolution, which is that we should authorize the payment of contributions toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
It is on that simple point, sir, that I take issue with the minister. I submit to you that he has not in law, in logic or indeed under any other definition, established his proposition. He has stated it, yes. He says, "I define medical practitioner, and you cannot define it
Medicare
otherwise". He does not say, because he cannot say, how the amendment includes a purpose not specified in or beyond the scope of the resolution.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his kind remarks. Let me say that hope springs eternal in the human breast. I do, however, want to bring to the minister's attention an anomaly, as I see it, in the field of medicine.
As I understand, the federal government pays for the services of optometrists to look after our Indian population. We have optometrists, as I understand, looking after up to 1,000 Indians and treating them for their eye troubles. We are in a difficult position, because we are saying that optometrists are all right for treating Indians but they are not all right for treating the rest of us. I do not think the minister knows he is in this anomalous position.
The same thing applies to veterans' affairs. For years, surely, we have paid optometrists to take care of veterans' eyes. Are we not saying that optometrists are fit to treat Indians, but not fit to treat the rest of the Canadians? I think this is wrong.
Not only is this principle wrong, and not only is the minister's stand restrictive, but the minister will find himself in another difficult position when the provinces recognize optometrists as medical people. Though the provinces recognize optometrists, we cannot recognize them.
We are in a difficult position and the minister is restricting-and I am sure he is not doing it intentionally-the scope of medical care, or the scope of the medicare bill. The minister is restricting it in more than one way. For instance, last night he said in the house that he was thinking of withdrawing payment to ophthalmologists on refractions, who are doctors caring for eyes. Such a step would be backward looking. I think the minister, on second thought, does not want to do what he suggested last night. I am sure that this house, concerned as it is with the care of the people of Canada, does not want to do it either.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: May I ask a
question. The minister referred to paragraph (d) which says, in part:
-all services rendered by medical practitioners-
Leaving aside for the moment whether the medical practitioner means a medical practitioner under our definition or under a provincial definition, and I concede that a province

November 30, 1966
Medicare
might have its own idea of what a medical practitioner is, do the words "all services rendered" include the help which any doctor needs from physiotherapists or chiropractors in treating one patient on any one specific occasion? I do not know how the minister will divide services. Are those words restrictive, or are they inclusive?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wants to add to the argument. We have been proceeding in an irregular way in the last few minutes. I suppose the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) should have been allowed to ask his question while the minister had the floor. The minister has now relin-guished the floor. Perhaps he wishes to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Athabasca.
We might allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to contribute his wisdom to the discussion. I would think, having heard briefly from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I should be prepared to render a decision.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Perhaps I might refer for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to a comment made by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Ry-nard) on a statement I made last night having to do with the optometric profession. What I did suggest was that we might provide in this bill an option to the provinces with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of eye examinations performed by ophthalmologists. It would be optional to the provinces. This is what I had in mind.
The answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) is that the services insured, and in respect of which contributions are proposed, would be services provided by medical practitioners and not by any paramedical personnel.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After your reference to me a moment ago, Mr. Speaker and after seven debates on procedure in the last two days, for the most part on essentially the same point, what is there left for me to say?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope Hansard is getting all the answers to my rhetorical question. The one I heard loudest of all was that I could sit down.
You told us at the beginning of this debate, Mr. Speaker, that you had read the debates of

yesterday and the day before. You have now listened to this one for an hour and a half, and my obvious comment is that you would be a poor Speaker if your mind was not just about made up by now. What point is there, then, in my rising to express the hope that Your Honour will at least modify what I suspect may be your opinion?
I rise because I am anxious to obtain from you, even by way of an obiter dictum, a ruling on one particular point which has been raised several times during the last two or three days. It is one which I myself raised the other day in the course of one of these debates on procedure and it concerns the right of members in committee on a bill to propose amendments even though they may involve the expenditure of money, in cases where the government has not put a financial limit in the resolution preceding a money bill.
If Your Honour finds this amendment to be out of order on other grounds-and I trust you will not-I hope you will at least confirm for us what May says at page 510 of his 13th edition, and what has been carried forward into the third and fourth editions of Beau-chesne. I refer to his statement that when a resolution preceding a money bill does not set a limit on the amount of money which can be spent under the bill it is in order, when the house is in committee on the clauses of the bill, to move amendments which may involve the expenditure of money provided they do not go beyond the purpose or purposes set out in the resolution.
I have admitted there are two separate concepts involved in all of this. One is the amount of money involved. The other is the question of purpose. If we get no more from this procedural debate, I should like to have Your Honour's opinion on our rights as set out on page 510 of May's 13th edition.
Like others who have spoken, I respect the rulings which have been made by the Chairman of the committee of the whole and I appreciate the attention which he has given to the various points we have made. But he did make one statement the other day on which, it seems to me, there should be comment.
As reported at page 10498 of Hansard for November 29, the Chairman had this to say in commenting on statements I had made regarding the right I have just been asserting:
This citation is similar to section 3 of citation 250 contained in Beauchesne's fourth edition-
November 30, 1966

This is the one which appears on page 510 of May's 13th edition.
-and, in my view, applies more directly to proceedings in the committee stage on the resolution than to proceedings on the committee stage of the bill.
With the greatest respect I should like to read again the exact words from page 510 of May's 13th edition. May says:
As the resolution sanctions, without any specific limitation, the application of money to be provided by parliament to certain purposes, when the clauses in a bill founded upon such a resolution are before the committee-
That is, the committee of the whole on the bill:
-the freedom of action sanctioned by that resolution can be exercised.
The reference is as clear as it can be. It is to the committee of the whole on the bill. The quotation continues.
The committee is not bound by the terms of the provisions which the ministers of the crown have inserted in the bill, and any member may propose to increase the grants specified in these clauses or to extend the application of the provisions of the bill, whatever may be the cost resulting therefrom, so long as the power conferred by the royal recommendation is not exceeded.
I hardly need to read again the terms of the resolution preceding this bill, because they have been put on record a good many times. Certainly, no one can dispute the statement that there is no financial or monetary ceiling imposed by the resolution. I suggest, therefore, that whatever else might be found defective in the hon. gentleman's amendment we surely cannot lose this right as spelled out in May's 13th edition. The government can prevent us any time it chooses from moving amendments of this kind to any given bill- and it often does so-by putting a ceiling in the resolution. But when the government does not put a ceiling in the resolution, it cannot be argued that we are unable to move amendments because they involve additional expenditure.
As to the object and purpose of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), I think this aspect is covered by the generality and vagueness of the resolution preceding the bill. In other words, I am making it clear, without arguing the substance or the desirability of these things, that we are in favour of this amendment and think it should be allowed.
Despite all that has been said in the last hour and a half; I recognize that Your Honour is not called upon to consider what might be desirable, or what might be good legislation,
Medicare
or legislation which the people of Canada might desire. Your Honour has to look at the procedural aspects of this matter. Throughout the seven debates on procedure we have had, two questions have been before us. Are we exceeding the objects and purposes of the resolution? That is a matter of judgment and you, sir, must make that decision. Are we exceeding the amount of money contemplated? Since there was no amount of money stipulated in the resolution, I insist, on the basis of what is said in May's 13th edition and elsewhere, that in these circumstances we have the right to move amendments of this kind. I am happy, therefore, to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe East. Perhaps I have also had the honour of doing what Your Honour would like to be done, namely, closing the debate on the procedural issue.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: As I was listening to hon. members make these comments I could not but come to the conclusion that many of them could have rendered a much more judicious decision than I could reach myself, although I am afraid that most of these hon. members would have reached a decision which would have been different to that which I propose to render. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was kind enough to refer to the fact that I am here in the position of a member of the court of appeal. I can tell him that I would be prepared right now to be sent back to the trial division.
I must say I am not over enthusiastic about the new rule which puts the Speaker in a position where he has to either agree or disagree with the Deputy Speaker, other than behind the curtains or in the Speaker's chambers. I have to take my responsibility, and I certainly will look at the situation very objectively.
As I indicated at the outset I have followed the debate during the last few days even though it has taken place in committee. I know the importance of the subject and I know the clash which exists between the two points of view. I know it is not easy to reconcile one fact with the other. The point which is under consideration now is a very limited one and is strictly procedural. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has been very helpful to the Chair. In his comments he said we should be limited strictly to the procedural question. The question is not whether we should have the definition proposed in the amendment moved by the hon. member for

November 30, 1966
Medicare
Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). I am afraid that perhaps this is the aspect of the discussion on which certain members concentrated rather than on the strict procedural standpoint.
I have before me the decision which was reached by the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees which refers to the amendment in respect of subclause (f) of clause 2 of the said bill. Since this decision will be quoted in posterity, perhaps it should be complete and therefore I shall read the amendment:
(f) "medical practitioner" for the purposes of this Act means any person lawfully engaged in the practice of rendering services to individuals in the field of the healing arts whose qualifications and entitlement to practise in the place in which such practice is carried on by him are recognized by the government of a province or by an association aproved for the purpose by the legislature of a province;
The Chair referred to citation 246 of Beauchesne's fourth edition and to paragraph (13) of May's seventeenth edition. He ruled the proposed amendment out of order on two grounds, as I understand it, but mainly because it extended the purpose and objective of the resolution adopted by the house on July 12 last. I will not read the resolution. It was cited by hon. members.
The argument advanced by the hon. member for Kamloops is a very strong argument. I assure him that since yesterday, along with some of my advisers and colleagues, I have spent considerable time wondering whether perhaps he was not right in his interpretation. It is in many ways a borderline case. He has made a very logical argument; but what puzzles the Chair and makes me suspicious is that perhaps, in spite of his apparent logic, there might be something wrong with the argument he has advanced and that which has been suggested by other hon. members. I refer to the fact that in this way the hon. member for Simcoe East would have achieved exactly the same result which has been desired by other hon. members in moving amendments which were found to be out of order.
My understanding of the bill, as it has been discussed to this point, is that the scope of insured medical services is limited by the resolution, and that by proposing to amend the definition of medical practitioner what we would be doing in effect would be to amend the definition of insured medical services. Indirectly, the result would be to extend the scope of insured medical services.
I realize this is the argument which was advanced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen). I took it down as he was speaking. It is very close to the

conclusion at which I was prepared to arrive. I think again I should remind hon. members of the citations which have been cited previously. The first is citation 246 of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but so its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated, it may well be that the resolution does not specify the amount of money. Perhaps the resolution should have been drawn in such a way as to place a financial limitation; but actually it did not do this. If the decision of the Chairman had been based exclusively on this, the appeal might be in order. I understand, however, that his decision was based mainly on the point that the resolution must be considered as having set once and for all the objectives, conditions, qualifications and principle of the bill.
This is, of course, very limited. Hon. members say this is unfair and in a way restricts the right of the opposition to move amendments which may be desired. This is the argument advanced by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) who said that a restrictive interpretation of the rules has the effect of limiting the right of opposition members to move amendments. That possibly is the result of interpreting the rules, but certainly the Chair has to be guided by precedents and must rule on procedural matters even though the result might be substantially unpleasant.
In arriving at the conclusion I am reaching now slowly, I was guided of course by the comments made by the hon. member for Simcoe East when he showed his hand and said:
Accordingly, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition intends to move, at the appropriate stages in the committee discussion, a series of amendments to the bill which would carry into effect the principles I have outlined. This will involve the following amendments: An amendment to clause 2(f) to ensure that paramedical services carried out by qualified personnel who are authorized by the provinces to render services in such fields as dental oral surgery, optometry, which has been forgotten entirely, psychology, physiotherapy and other related fields, will be covered if they are included in a provincial medical insurance plan.
This obviously would be the effect of the amendment. As I have said, in an indirect way it would achieve what apparently our rules do not permit us to do directly. It is, therefore, my duty I believe to confirm the
November 30, 1966

very learned decision reached by my colleague the hon. Deputy Speaker in his capacity as Chairman. I leave it now with the Minister of National Health and Welfare to find some way to perhaps satisfy the requests and suggestions made by hon. members of the opposition.
The house will now resume discussion in committee of the whole.
And the house having resumed in committee.
On subclause (f)-"medical practitioner'' [DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I ask if there is any further discussion on the subject of paragraph (f)?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare one question. Will he pay heed to the suggestion contained in the last sentence or two of the ruling from Mr. Speaker, namely that the m n'ster should try to find some way of satisfying the members of this house on *this very important point of enlarging the services covered by this bill?


Gerald William Baldwin: That was the obiter dictum.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank His Honour for giving me the opportunity of trying to satisfy the members of the opposit on. I will certainly pay heed to his admonition which is now supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This will be a big job, but I will see what I can do about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the one point I want to make relates to the absurdity to which the minister appears to have been driven, not appears to have been, but is in fact driven, in respect of this whole position here as illustrated by what he told us last night regarding his intention relating to optometric services. Last night the minister said, and I am reading from the first column of page 10540 of Hansard:
It Is not my intention to include the optometric profession under the plan and I believe I would be [DOT]on very dangerous ground with the provinces because no province has included in its public plan *eye refractions, although in Alberta optometrists are included under an extended benefit plan.
Later he said:
It is an important and numerous profession in Canada and I would like to meet their representations by making an amendment so as to avoid at least any element of discrimination which might [DOT]exist within the bill.
Medicare
In the second column on the same page he is reported as having said regarding his intention:
It seems to me there is a situation there which I should like to correct by giving the provinces an opportunity to remove eye refractions from insured services so that a parity of treatment would exist between ophthalmologists and optometrists and the patients of each. This may be described as removing something from the plan-
It certainly not only may but should be described as removing something from the plan. The minister said:
-but it does maintain equality of treatment between both professions and the patients. This is not the most desirable move from the point of view of the optometric profession, but I have had letters from members of the profession saying that this would be an acceptable solution for them.
What do we find? We find the minister by his stubborn refusal to include related medical services or services within the field of the healing arts, is driven to an absurdity in proposing to remove from insured services what is in effect a medical service. He recognizes, in other words, that he is forcing upon some of the professions what they call professional genocide because he will not include them under a scheme to which the federal government will contribute. He then says we are going to relieve them from that sentence of death by taking part of the medical services, which are in effect rendered, out of this bill. Can the minister, in all honesty sit there and say he is going to commit himself to such an absurd course? I hope he will not and will reconsider the situation. I appreciate his desire to be fair to optometrists, but will he not agree with me that this really is an absurdity?
I understand the diagnosis, prescription and treatment of refractions, if performed by an ophthalmologist to be a medical service even within the minister's narrow definition. The point seems to be that these same services are performed by optometrists who do not fall within the minister's narrow definition and who will therefore the prejudiced as a result of this bill if it goes through in its present form. The minister says he is going to remove that prejudice by disallowing a service, legitimate for contributions, which is in fact a medical service. To do that would be to make a mockery of a so-called medical care insurance scheme.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not want to carry on a debate with my hon. friend, but I should like to make sure he understands what I have in mind. It is not my proposal to disallow a

November 30, 1966
Royal Assent
service. My proposal if accepted, is to provide the provinces with an opportunity, if they so wish, to remove eye refractions from insured services. If they leave that service in, that is fine with us, but if they wish to take it out that is possible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think now we have the principle pretty clearly established that the provinces are to be encouraged to take a medical service out of their scheme because of the minister's stubbornness. Why does the minister not take the other course and encourage the provinces to include these services in the field of healing arts? Surely, he should be saying that if the provinces wish to include them the federal government will pay 50 per cent of the costs. I do not think anything could illustrate more clearly the unfortunate and disastrous effect of this legislation, and the minister's stubbornness, than the clarification he has just given us of the course he proposes to follow.
I suppose one could keep the committee here all night giving illustration after illustration of what this is going to do to chiropractors, podiatrists, psychologists, optometrists and patients. The Canadian people who want health services are the important ones.
What will the minister accomplish by way of contradiction of his flowery descriptions of the objective of the government, the objective being to introduce a comprehensive health care plan for Canadians? I suggest what the minister is doing is taking a retrograde step and reducing this whole thing to an absurdity. He is imposing upon the professions which perform paramedical	services-these are
honourable professions engaged in the field of healing arts-virtual extinction. He is also imposing upon the medical practitioners, as narrowly defined, a burden which is intolerable because there are not enough to carry out the task at this time, and he is denying to Canadian people health services urgently required.
I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the minister that surely the minister should reconsider his stand in this respect and bring his legislative proposals into line with his expressed intentions and declarations. If he does so we will respect him for his sincerity, but if he does not then I submit we are entitled to attack him for the lack of it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two comments to make in respect of-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Shall I rise and report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
[DOT]	(5:50 p.m.)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, 30 November, 1966
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 30th November, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT]	(6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to a certain bill.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1967.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will we continue tomorrow with the consideration of the medicare bill?


Mr. Drury:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
It being six minutes past six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 1, 1966