1966-10-20

Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonton-Strath-cona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege, which incidentally affects more hon. members than myself in the house. I am sure all hon. members will agree, when I have finished, that what I am about to refer to is a situation which should not be allowed to pass without being questioned.
My question of privilege arises out of an article in Le Droit of October 14 by Marcel Pepin. The article complained of imputes an improper motive to myself and is a gross distortion of the facts of this case as it occurred in the house. As such it is a breach of the privileges of parliament. I intend to move a motion, but first I want to satisfy Your Honour that though the article is dated Friday, October 14, this is my first reasonable opportunity to bring it forward because I was not aware of it and did not get a copy of it until it was handed to me this morning. This is the first chance I have had to bring it to the attention of the house.
The motion I intend to move at the end of my presentation is that this reporter be brought before the bar of parliament to be dealt with. I have and am willing to table a copy of the article complained of, and I rely on the presentation of a translation of that article, since my French is not adequate to deal with it. The translation having been done by my secretary, Mrs. Neault, it can be relied on, as she is very reliable.
The first point I should like to make is this. The article mentions, among other scurrilous attacks, that the question of privilege I raised last Wednesday in this house and the charge I made against the Minister of National Defence were directed from the public galleries by one Admiral Brock. I am sure it will come as a surprise to most members of the house that anybody can tell me how to handle an affair of mine in this house. I need say no more except to deny that there are friends of mine who can direct me, even while I am on my feet. I can assure everyone that is not so.
There is, however, a more serious allegation against myself. The article says that Admiral Brock not only directed me from the gallery, but that witnesses have confirmed that Admiral Brock, who retired three years ago, made a negative sign when the Minister of National Defence challenged me to risk my seat by making a definite accusation of misconduct.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
This is in such direct conflict with the facts so readily available that I need say no more. I am sure the house will remember that when I stood in my place I made the definite and formal charge, and also the way in which that was done. The house will remember that the defence minister did ask me whether my seat was at stake, and I answered that I took full responsibility for my conduct; and of course I am still willing to do so whatever that responsibility may be. If the reporter could possibly have mistaken that I cannot honestly understand why, because it was plain and clear. And if he was so obtuse, then certainly the chief electoral officer was not. I have here a copy of a letter from the chief electoral officer addressed to the electoral officer of my riding, Edmonton-Strathcona, dated October 13, that is last Thursday. He must have known my seat was at stake, because the last paragraph in that letter reads:
If, up to the dissolution of this parliament, the holding of a by-election becomes necessary in the present electoral district of Edmonton-Strathcona, you will, as returning officer for that electoral district, be required to conduct such by-election.
I do not bring that up simply to praise the alertness of the chief electoral officer, but I must say it was obvious to that important official what was at stake in the house in connection with the charge I made.
There are many serious allegations here, not only against myself but against other members of the house. A complete reading of the article would show that this writer has declared that the charges I made in the house in such a responsible manner are really the culmination of a plot by some Conservatives who want to see the navy remain British and Protestant, and who want to keep French Catholics out.

October 20, 1966
Question of Privilege


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am sure the house can derive amusement from a personal attack on myself.
I realize I have taken up much time on this matter and perhaps I should not have bothered to correct this story about myself, but the suggestions contained therein do such a disservice to the country and to parliament that we cannot allow them to go unchallenged.
Certainly while many suggestions have been made that I have accused the minister of defence of not allowing full information to come before a committee, nothing I said could be considered as suggesting for one second that the Department of National Defence had ever discriminated against anyone on religious grounds, and nothing I said could be taken to mean that the government had at any time discriminated between English and French speaking Canadians.
I would think that since the question I raised involves such serious matters, including, as I alleged, the decline of our committee system and of responsible government, it is the worst kind of disservice to this country to misinterpret facts in an attempt to stir up trouble between religious groups, and introduce questions of this sort into the serious matters which are before the country. When people are made members of the press gallery they are given the privilege of sitting there so they may honestly and truthfully report to the nation those things which go on in the House of Commons.
There is further contained in this article the suggestion that the writer is acting on the advice of an informant. Again I suggest that since the writer is a member of the press gallery he has the responsibility to get his own information and report from his own knowledge. That is why he is allowed the privilege of sitting in the press gallery. I suggest that perhaps his informant should also be brought before this house. Certainly the editor of the newspaper who was guilty of allowing such a scurrilous article to be published, should appear. It is the worst kind of journalism, and the house may wish to consider seriously, whether it will allow any representative of an editor of that kind to attend sittings of this house.
I think, sir, that I am acting quite reasonably when I suggest to the house that my motion should be supported, and my motion is simply this:
That Marcel Pepin be called before the bar of of this house to be dealt with re the breach of

privileges of this house, as charged this date, by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. concerning the article of October 14, 1966 in Le Droit under his name.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member file the article with the Clerk of the House, and I shall ask him to read the article very slowly.

The Clerk:
Le Droit, Ottawa, Friday, October 14, 1966.
SOME ADMIRALS WANT TO PRESERVE THE ANGLO-PROTESTANT CHARACTER OF THE NAVY, by Maecel Pepin.
Certain retired admirals have vowed that the navy would remain what it has always been, that is, British and Protestant. The Conservative outburst of passion against Mr. Paul Hellyer, Minister of National Defence, is the work of two retired admirals who have not swallowed the appointment of General Jean-V. Allard as head of the integrated forces, with full authority over the navy.
That explanation was given to us by no other than an English speaking military man, well aware of the situation.
The two rebels are Rear Admiral William Landy-more, dismissed by Mr. Hellyer for insubordination, and his predecessor, Admiral Brock.
The latter directed from the public gallery the attack of the Conservative member Terry Nugent against hon. Mr. Hellyer, Wednesday.
Not only did he make signs to the member, but he also sent him messages during the debate. Witnesses have stated that Admiral Brock, who has been retired for three years, made a negative sign when Mr. Hellyer called on Mr. Nugent to put his seat at stake by making a specific charge of improper conduct.
Our informant maintains that half a dozen superior navy officers have been plotting at the Chester Club in Halifax since the appointment of General Allard.
The Chester Club, a classical WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) style institution, groups retired admirals or other officers of the navy whose mission it is to keep the navy British in character.
The appointment of General Allard and the replacement of Rear-Admiral Landymore by Rear-Admiral O'Brien, an Irish Catholic, has angered the defenders of the bastion.
The counter-revolution finally reached the House of Commons. Messrs. Landymore and Brock have been haunting the corridors of parliament for the last two days, and they spend their evenings with Conservative members of parliament, engaged in perfecting a strategy to make the government retreat.
Even if it is sometimes painful to change at a single stroke the spirit of a body as closed as the Royal Canadian Navy, the Department of National Defence is quite determined to win the battle.
Heretofore, no French Canadian could make his way in the navy, but nobody ever decreed that the naval defence of this country was the exclusive privilege of Anglo-Saxons, explained our informant.
''It is not by voting resolutions recognizing the equality between the two groups that Canada will come out of the current crisis uninjured, but by crushing reactionary forces in facts. We in the Defence Department are ready to do our part", concluded our informant.
October 20, 1966
I English]


Mr. Forrestall:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to make one observation; that the report of the presence of Rear Admiral William Landymore in this house is absolutely unfounded and false. I speak as his member of parliament when I say that.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to the interpretation of the article read by the Clerk of the House, and it seems to be a reasonable translation of the article as I read it when it was brought to my attention by the hon. member. The claim made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona against a member of the press gallery is, of course, a very serious one and one that deserves consideration, and certainly I do not think I should make a decision immediately on such a very serious matter.
I would ask the indulgence of the hon. member and of the house to give me an opportunity to study precedents on this type of complaint and decide on the course to be taken, namely whether I should decide that there is a question of privilege and give effect to the proposal of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona that the member of the press gallery be brought before the bar of the house.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs-Mr. Gray.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, for the information of hon. members I should like to table a statement of principles for the guidance of the Air Transport Board and the Department of Transport with regard to regional air carriers, in English and in French.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, as agreed, I 23033-5831
Canada Labour (Safety) Code should like to table the joint communique of the fourth meeting of the Canada-Japan ministerial committee held on October 5 and 6, 1966.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, Votes and Proceedings of this morning contains notice of a motion to establish the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the white paper on immigration, If I may have the unanimous consent of the house I should like to move that motion in order to permit the committee to start its work as early as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave of the house to present the motion to which he referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Marchand: That this house do unite with the Senate in the appointment of a special joint committee to examine and report upon the white paper on immigration tabled in the House of Commons by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on October 14, 1966, and tabled in the Senate on October 18, 1966. and also to examine the reports on immigration matters made to the government of Canada by Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C., in 1964 and 1966;
That 24 members of the House of Commons, to be designated by this house at a later date, be members of the said committee, and that standing order 67(1) be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses;' to report from time to time; and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; and to sit during sittings and adjournments of the house; and	.
That a message be sent to the Senate informing, that house that the House of Commons do units-with the Senate lor the above purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Min ster of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, with unanimous consent 1 should like to move that Bill S-35, which is covered by item No. 85 in Orders of the Day, be referred, without debate on second reading, to the standing committee on labour and employment for clause by clause study



October 20, 1966
Student Loans
' Mr. Speaker: Has the minister leave to present the motion to which he referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the minister present the Chair with the motion?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, and I speak as one who has agreed to the minister's request, I do not think he has stated it in quite the same form it was submitted to us. His motion now is that the bill be referred without being put to the house.
What we agreed to was that if Bill S-35 was called for second reading we would not debate it, but would let it pass and immediately refer it to the committee. I am sure that is the position.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is the agreement we will wait until the bill comes before the house.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
_ Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, in response to questions by the hon. member for York-Scarborough and by other members who have asked me about the operation of the Canada student loans plan in Ontario, I think it would be helpful if I made a brief statement on this subject.
The Canada Student Loans Act passed by parliament in 1964 specifies that loans may be made only to students who are in need of loans. The loans made to students under the guarantee provisions of this legislation by banks and other lenders may be made only on the basis of certificates of eligibility issued by prov nces participating in the plan. The assessment of a student's need for a loan is accordingly made by the provincial authorities.
Although these loans are repayable starting six months after graduation, the interest on the loans is paid by the federal government while the borrowers are full time students and for six months thereafter. This is a substantial charge to the Canadian taxpayer, a charge that may in a few years rise to about $10 million a year. The volume of loans made is currently running between $35 million and $40 million a year, and this complements an increasing flow of aid funds from
£Mr. Nicholson.]
provincial governments. The sum total of these funds, though increasing, is nevertheless limited, and the federal government as well as the provincial governments have a common interest in seeing that the funds are directed to those who need them most.
To help avoid major inconsistencies in the handling of applications for loans under the plan in the various provinces a committee of federal and provincial officials formulated a set of general administrative criteria which have been accepted by all governments concerned and have been made public in appendices to Hansards of June 11, 1965 and July 11, 1966.
Against this background I would like to reply more specifically to the question posed by the hon. member for York-Scarborough on October 18. The Ontario student awards program this year includes Canada student loans as well as the various provincial scholarship, fellowship, bursary and grant programs. The hon. member, in referring to the Ontario government's student awards program, asked whether I could give an assurance that no delays or restrictions have been imposed or dictated by the government of Canada.
In commenting on the new Ontario student awards program it is important to make a careful distinction between the general criteria to which I have just referred and the formulation of specific administrative procedures applied by a province within its jurisdiction. The degree of detail that is required of each applicant, for instance, in application forms and the degree of flexibility in consid-er'ng appl'cations have not been the subject of federal-provincial agreement and remain a matter of individual provincial judgment and responsibility.
There have recently been some press reports, and I am referring specifically to an article in the Globe and Mail of September 29, which may have caused some misunderstandings. This news story reported a meeting of the Ontario minister of education with a group of students in which he is reported to have said that many problems connected with the new Ontario program were not the fault of his department, and that the loan application form, for instance, was drawn up to comply with the requirements of the Canada student loans plan, a federal scheme with a complicated means test. Also, an Ontario government brochure describing the new student awards program contains a statement to the effect that eligibility for a loan is based on
October 20, 1986
[Stage Direction]
need as determined by criteria established by the federal government in consultation with the provinces.
In the light of what I have said, hon. members will appreciate that I cannot associate myself with these statements. Let me re-emphasize that the general criteria were developed through consultation among federal and provincial officials and were approved by all governments concerned; but their detailed application has remained the responsibility of the participating provincial governments. It is apparent, I think, from what I have said that the administrative problems encountered in putting the new Ontario student awards program into effect can only be resolved by the provincial government. I understand that the minister of education for Ontario has given assurances to students that the program would be reviewed.
Hon. members will be interested to know that another regular meeting of federal-provincial officials dealing with student loans will be held next week. I am sure-
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Hon. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Sharp:: -that there will be a full and frank discussion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kamloops has risen on a point of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Normally I am sure there would be agreement that the house give considerable latitude to a minister making a statement on a matter of government policy; but I feel compelled to suggest to you, sir, and ask you to rule, that the Minister of Finance is going very considerably beyond an ordinary statement of government policy and is making a statement which by its very nature must be calculated to arouse controversy. Unfortunately the rules of this house do not permit a debate at this stage. I suggest, therefore, that the minister should not proceed with a statement directly critical-I am not saying whether the criticism is well founded; that may be a matter for debate-of a minister of another government, which should properly be done only in the course of debate and not in a statement on motions which should be confined to government policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had concluded my statement.
Student Loans


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the minister and all hon. members that the point is well taken. I am not suggesting that the speech-	.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: That was a lapsus linguae. I am not suggesting that the statement made by the minister was too long. I have taken' the opportunity on a number of occasions' previously to bring to the attention of minis-1 ters making statements and spokesmen on-behalf of opposition parties that their statements were perhaps too long. The rule is clear, and perhaps I should again bring it to the attention of hon. members. Standing order 15 (2a) says:
On motions, as listed in section (2) of this standing order, a minister of the crown may make an announcement or a statement of government policy. Any such announcement or statement should be limited to facts which it is deemed necessary to make known to the house and should not be designed to provoke debate at this stage.
That is the point raised by the hon. mem, ber for Kamloops. The standing order con tin ues:
A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly, subject to the same limitation.	*
We had an instance earlier this week, I believe, when a statement was made by a minister and comments were made by representatives of the four parties in opposition and the whole process took over half an hour.
I felt that perhaps we were going beyond the limitations of the standing order to which I have just drawn attention.	,
The statement and comments must be brief.
I realize that "brief" is a relative term and that it is difficult for the Chair to interpret whether statements are too brief or too long. Again I suggest that the point raised by the hon. member for Kamloops is well taken, and I hope that not only ministers but spokesmen-for parties in opposition will bear in mind the requirements of this standing order.	,


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think' you have fully covered the objection raised, r hear loud noises from the blasting operations being carried out on parliament hill. I have-often heard noises like that from the other side of the chamber demonstrating a degree of fear over there, but in this case it cannot, be so interpreted. The point of order, in addition to that referred to by Your Honour,, lies in the fact that the Minister of Finance endeavoured to use the opportunity, free

October 20, 1966
Student Loans
from debate, to cast aspersions on a provincial government, and endeavoured to exculpate his government from the shortcomings of the loans plan. That is all it was designed for. The smirk on the minister's face as he finally said to Your Honour "Well, I have said everything I was going to say, so it really does not matter", bears this out. If provocation was ever engendered by any minister, it was now. I ask him this: Where are the 10,000 scholarships that you and the Prime Minister promised?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition has made the point which everybody will want to make, namely that the minister's statement is nothing but an attempt by this government to shed itself of the responsibility for a scheme which was ill conceived and inadequate in the first instance. We are merely at this time repeating what we have said before, that this is the cheapest form of aid to higher education; that it has not worked out in any really satisfactory way; that students are being forced to incur large debts before they graduate; that the universities in this country are starved, not for this kind of cheap loan but for scholarships and bursaries, which are the real need in this country. The Leader of the Opposition has mentioned the 10,000 scholarships that we were promised in the last two election campaigns. This is one of the commitments which this government has not honoured.
With regard to the regulations, the minister cannot get out from under his responsibilities in this regard. I have gone over these application forms carefully, and the means test inherent in them is a disgraceful thing and something that should have no place in a modern educational system. So far as general pol'cy is concerned, the responsibility rests clearly on the federal government. They are the people who lay down the general guide lines, and the provinces only go into the general matter of administration. We are just not going to be taken in, and hope the public is not taken in, by this kind of facade which is nothing but a cheap political excuse on the part of this government to evade its responsibilities.
{Mr. Diefenbaker.]



JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Cameron (High Park), seconded by Mr. Habel, moves that the third report of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, presented to the house on Tuesday, October 18, 1966, be concurred in.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly to this motion.
The member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) introduced it as chairman of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs and the following appears on page 870 of the Votes and Proceedings for October 18, 1966:
Your committee recommends:
1. That it be granted permission to adjourn from place to place.
Everything is quite all right up to there, Mr. Speaker. But I happened to read on page 51 of La Presse for Wednesday, October 19, 1966, an article by a reporter named Jacques Pigeon and entitled:
The parliamentary committee on justice agrees to go to Detroit at the expense of car manufacturers.
That committee asks us to sit outside Ottawa or, as mentioned in the Votes and Proceedings, "to adjourn from place to place". And one of those places is Detroit, at the expense of car manufacturers.
Why should a committee of the House of Commons inquiring into safety devices in motors cars go and investigate on the premises of car manufacturers and at the latter's expense?
This is certainly something strange and beyond comprehension. I understand very well that a dealer or a manufacturer would invite prospective clients at his own expense to visit his plant or store and ask them for a cocktail or a dinner, in order to enhance his products. But such is not the case. The fact of the matter is that members of a committee of the House have been inspecting car manufacturing plants to see whether the safety of Canadian citizens-of whom we are responsible-is really overlooked in the construction of motor cars, and the owners of those plants are paying the costs of such an investigation. Is there not something disgraceful in all that? Does it mean that the members of the committee agreed to that trip and that, once they get there, all their expenses will be paid and they will be more inclined to accept
October 20, 1966

favors from the manufacturers, if the latter are paying for everything; then they will come back and make a report saying: We were well received, a big cocktail, a wonderful dinner, great speeches; now there is no longer any danger for the safety of the Canadian citizens as far as automobiles are concerned, the manufacturers can go on as they have been doing.
Mr. Speaker-


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cochrane is rising on a point of order.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I am raising a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to second that motion and all the more so because the hon. member for High Park did not intend to make it today. Therefore, I am not seconding that motion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is a strange question of privilege-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: No, it is well taken.


Gilles Grégoire: -telling us that the motion was not made while I have the right to speak on it.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: It was
withdrawn-


Mr. Speaker:: To regularize the proceedings may I say that I was just informed by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel), whose name has been called as the seconder, that he does not wish to associate his name with the motion. I assume that the hon. member for High Park will indicate who is the seconder of his motion.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member who has just spoken asked me whether I was going to make my motion today and I told him no. This is really a very simple matter. The committee of which I am the chairman having heard representations from various organizations and individuals interested in safety features, approached the manufacturers and asked them-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making a point of debate. Would the hon. member resume his seat. The only point I am trying to make now is that if we are going to have a debate we should first
Justice and Legal Affairs find out whether there is a seconder for the motion of the hon. member for High Park. If in fact there is no seconder for the motion, then I suggest that we put an end to the debate, to the question of privilege and everything else.


Mr. Ryan:: Mr. Speaker, I second the motion made by the hon. member for High Park.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe may now continue to speak.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I find the situation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member speaking on the point of order?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to clear up the confusion let me point out that I do not think the Chair heard the chairman of the committee, who, when motions was called, rose and said "I do not propose to make this motion today." These were his words, and I think everything that has been said since that time has resulted from that confusion. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the chairman of the committee should not be asked whether he wishes to withdraw the motion which he did not in fact make.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order, I believe that I had been speaking for ten minutes before the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) indicated that he did not wish to introduce his motion and, in fact, he has not yet mentioned it himself. I rose to speak after the motion had been formally put before the house by the Speaker and after I had been recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to proceed with my comments and express strong objection, in the name of simple decency, to the motion which I find a jest-


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand there is no motion before the house and all the remarks now being made are irrelevant. We should therefore proceed to other business.


Mr. Speaker:: This situation can be cleared up very simply. It is quite possible that the Chair took for granted the fact that a motion
8896	COMMONS
Justice and Legal Affairs was made. If the hon. member for High Park will tell me he did not make this motion, this would clear up the matter and would allow the Chair to admit its mistake and declare there is nothing before the house.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to make that motion today. As long as it will remain on the order paper I ask that it be stood, and that is what I would now like to do.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order-


Michael Starr: Order.


Mr. Woolliams:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not made the motion so why do we continue the discussion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to hon. members that this is a simple matter. The Chair was under an erroneous impression that a motion had been made but the hon. member for High Park now tells me he did not make a motion. We certainly have to accept his word, and the motion was called by the Chair in error. It is as simple as this. The speech which was made by the hon. member for Lapointe was very interesting, but I assume he will be given an opportunity to make it on another occasion. This motion therefore stands.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think we are in a situation-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order-[DOT]


Michael Starr: Order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lapointe is speaking on a point of order and he should be heard.


Michael Starr: A point of order on what, Mr. Speaker?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We find ourselves in a situation for which there is perhaps no precedent 
DEBATES	October 20, 1966
in this house. A motion has been moved, the 48 hours' notice has been given, the motion has been put in the Votes and Proceedings and on the order paper, it has been called by the Chair, another member has risen without there being any protest at all from the hon. member for High Park-Mr. Speaker, 1 want to conclude my point of order-during the ten minutes I had the opportunity to speak. And now, because I raise a strange and unusual point, those who are precisely surprised by that point rise, ten minutes after, to say that there has been no motion presented in the house.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall a precedent which occurred, I do not remember the date too well, I believe it was at eight o'clock one Friday night, when the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) moved a motion concerning the dispatch of Canadian troops to Cyprus. Nobody rose to protest when the Prime Minister asked the unanimous consent of the house, but even if someone rose seven seconds later to do so-and that was proved at the time-refusal-


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask for the co-operation of the hon. member. I suggest that the point of order is not well taken, that the precedent to which the hon. member has referred is not at all applicable here. In the instance to which he referred there was a motion which was seconded. Whether the hon. member likes it or not, the hon. member for High Park said he did not make a motion and the hon. member for Cochrane said he did not second it. The hon. member has every right to ask that this motion be stood. If this is what he asks for now, then I suggest the matter be closed.


Mr. Langlois (Meganfic):: Mr. Speaker,
normally I do not come to the aid of the Liberals but may I say, to help out the Chair in this matter, that I for one heard the hon. member for High Park say he did not make his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am very pleased to hear the hon. member sustain the position taken by the hon. member for High Park.
October 20, 19G6

Inquiries of the Ministry
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT	BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM



STEPS TO IMPROVE WORKING CONDITIONS AND AVERT STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Prime Minister whether in view of the rather shocking revelations made in the report of Mr. Justice Andre Montpetit with regard to health and safety standards for Post Office Department employees, the government intends to take immediate action to entirely remove these injustices so as to obviate and prevent a probable strike by the postal officers?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the report was received by me the day before yesterday, and the matter is under urgent consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister frankly tell the house what is being done to bring about settlement of the threatened strike? Surely we do not have to wait until the strike happens for action to increase the 6 per cent agreed upon for the postal workers, inadequate as it is.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet committee is meeting to deal with this matter, and there is a meeting of treasury board officials to deal with the matter tomorrow. I can think of nothing more unhelpful to a solution of this problem than to discuss the negotiations from day to day.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a related question in the hope that if the Prime Minister does consider the suggestion it might be of assistance at the present time. Would the Prime Minister and his colleagues consider immediately commencing bargaining with the postal employees unions on the recommendations which Mr. Justice Montpetit has made in order that they can play a part in getting rid of the appalling conditions revealed in the report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, these recommendations are being given immediate and urgent consideration, and we would wish to deal with those who are particularly concerned with them as quickly as possible.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister relates to former questions and concerns another royal commission. Can the Prime Minister inform us when he expects to receive the report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I have been urging on the commission the desirability of making their report with the least possible delay, but I cannot give any indication when that report will be received; I hope before not too long.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence with regard to the recent announcement of the closing of the radar base at Puntzi mountain, British Columbia. In view of the great difficulty and hardship on civilian employees not only with respect to obtaining alternative employment at this time of year but by reason of the impossibility of arranging to dispose of their houses at this remote spot, will the minister reconsider the decision to close the base or postpone the closing at least until after the winter?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would be agreeable to referring this question to the staff for consideration but from information I have had in the past I suspect that it would not be convenient, in view of the plans of the department, to postpone closure. In any event, I do regret any inconvenience that has been caused to the residents as a result of a move at this time.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister of National Defence received through the appropriate channels any memos which indicate that tradesmen employed in the armed forces in the construction and engineering branch are dissatisfied with the recently announced increase in pay?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that is a supplementary question. I suggest
October 20, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry to the hon. member that it is not at all, and I do not think it can be accepted in this way at this time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, it is supplemental in the sense that it deals with complaints from members of the armed forces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. From what I hear on that score there might be many supplemen-taries. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, if I may have your indulgence and that of my colleague. This question is truly supplementary, not related, as was the question of the hon. member for Kootenay West.
I would ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether his department has any plans to purchase houses owned by civilian employees at Puntzi mountain base, now being closed, for use by the Indians on the Redstone reservation, approximately four miles away.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question may be supplementary but I suggest to the hon. member that it is not acceptable at this time. It should be placed on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the Minister of National Defence is now in a position to answer what was my rather premature but related question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I recall the question, Mr. Speaker, notice of which arrived just before I came down to the house, it was to this effect: Had I received any memos indicating dissatisfaction from tradesmen employed in the armed forces in the construction and engineering branches in respect of the pay increase? No memo has been received by me to that effect.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of external affairs, whose silence in the house I sometimes find oppressive. In view of the serious reduction in the effective fighting strength of the Royal Canadian Navy, will the minister of external affairs

advise our allies that Canada can no longer honour its commitment to supply adequate anti-submarine forces for NATO?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member would not agree that the question as asked contains statements or allegations, which is contrary to the rules of the house relating to the asking of questions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I read in the Toronto Star for October 19, "Hellyer admits nine destroyers berthed for lack of crews", which obviously is a reduction in the fighting strength of the navy and affects our commitment to NATO.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Has the fighting efficiency of the Royal Canadian Navy been reduced or increased by the berthing of nine destroyers?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the six, I think, world war II frigates I would say it has been increased. In respect of the others, we should like to get them back to sea as soon as we can get the men and the trades required to man them. I would hope my hon. friend would help in the recruiting campaign to see that the right men and trades come forward.


Michael Starr: You cannot do it yourself.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The greatest increase in the recruiting campaign would follow from the resignation of the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As it is an acknowledged fact that the Royal Canadian Navy has been considerably reduced in fighting efficiency, does this not materially affect our commitment to our NATO allies?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Royal
Canadian Navy has never in peacetime had the acknowledged operational capability in the antisubmarine role that it has during this month.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister's attempt to fool around with the question of manpower is not successful. Would the minister recommend to
October 20, 1966

hon. members that they read the four deleted pages of Admiral Landymore's testimony in order to fully understand the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the concern of people engaged in the field of medical and scientific research over the government's cutback in research grants, I wonder whether the Prime Minister, either today or soon, can make a statement to the house as to whether there has been any modification of the cutback program indicated by the Minister of Finance on September 8?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall- indeed, 1 know he will because he reminded me of it at lunchtime-that I wrote him on this matter on October 12, at which time I pointed out that the grants for medical research will be increased, not reduced, in the forthcoming year, and will be increased, I think, appreciably. The effect of the policy of reducing government expenditure which has been announced will simply mean that the increase will be somewhat less than the government would otherwise have wanted. As I told my hon. friend at the time, we hope to recapture the additional increases before long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister some time soon make a more precise statement to the house as to what amounts are involved? Surely he appreciates that these vague generalities are encouraging but we should like something definite.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, vague generalities which often occur on orders of the day are made more definite when the estimates are under consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister. In view of the gravity of the situation relating to the base consolidation study at present under way by the Minister of National Defence, on behalf of all Progressive Conservative members from Nova Scotia I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would as quickly as possible convene a meeting with the premiers of the maritime provinces so they might be made fully aware of the possible consequences to the economy of the maritime provinces that this base consolidation program will have.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has already dealt with this matter.


Robert Carman Coates: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the economy of the maritimes is dependent to a degree at least on the $300 million a year from the defence bases situated there, surely the Prime Minister should give consideration to meeting the premiers of the provinces in order to make them aware of just what will happen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now stating an argument.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of recent discussions has the minister any report to give the house with regard to the negotiations which are proceeding to establish a 12-mile limit, and would he report on the progress that has been made in establishing geographical coordinates from which base lines will be drawn defining our territorial seas and our fishing zones?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with a view to enabling the government to establish straight base fines as soon as possible we had negotiations on Monday. As I indicated to my hon. friend on that day, the negotiating team from the United States was to forward a counter proposal, which we are now considering.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Apart from the

October 20, 19o6
Inquiries of the Ministry consideration of the benefit that this would provide for Canadian fishermen, would he speed up these discussions and negotiations so that a firm and favourable decision may be made before the Minister of Fisheries departs for other places?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He will do his best.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if the matter of exclusive fishing zones was a topic which was discussed at the recent Canada-Japanese ministerial meeting?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not hear the last part of my hon. friend's question.


John Angus MacLean: Was this same subject discussed at the recent meeting held between Canadian and Japanese ministers?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not in the same precise terms.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On Monday the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that he was having discussions on this matter with the minister from France. It is presumed from his remarks that agreement was reached. Would the minister indicate whether the United States is the only country raising objections at the present time to the establishment of geographic co-ordinates and base lines as defined in Bill S-17?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It would be inaccurate to say that the United States was the only country.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could the minister tell the house whether the government of the province of Quebec has asked the federal government to contribute part of the $900,000 grant being paid to apple growers in the Saint-Hilaire-Rouge-mont area?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this question could very easily be placed on the order paper. I admit there is some urgency to it and if he believes that it really deserves an immediate answer, I will allow it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A similar question was put by a member of the Social Credit party last week.


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



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. My question arises out of reply to my question yesterday. He said that there is a continuing process within his department to afford the court of appeal an opportunity to set out the boundaries of responsibility in respect of both fishing and hunting rights of the Indian people, whether by treaty or by some other arrangement. Apropos of that I would ask the minister whether the committee established by his predecessor, the present Minister of Labour, with respect to fishing and hunting rights of Indian people is still alive. If so, what is it doing?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, that committee has now made a report.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the report been made public, or will it be made public?


Arthur Laing: No, I do not think it will be the intention to make it public. It is under intensive study. It is a very complicated report.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works.
Since it is reported that last Tuesday night a French inscription reading "Edifice Federal", was torn down at a federal building under construction at Port Hope, Ontario, would the minister have the matter investigated and take the necessary steps so that bilingual inscriptions on federal buildings are respected?
October 20, 1966


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The bilingual inscriptions on all public buildings in Canada are respected and the names on all buildings are put in bilingual form.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it follows on the question I asked yesterday. Has the government of Canada now agreed to the proposition that the permanent base of NATO shall be shifted from Paris to Brussels?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to what I said yesterday. This is a decision-


An hon. Member:: Try.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think if I tried my hon. friend would not understand it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Halifax asked me a question with respect to duplicate coverage of the Grey cup game on the C.T.V. and C.B.C. networks. I can advise him, as he is probably aware, that in 1962 when he and his colleagues were sitting on this side of the chamber there was a rather unpleasant episode involving Grey cup coverage as a result of which the C.T.V. and the C.B.C. signed an agreement. Under that agreement both the C.B.C. and C.T.V. share coverage of regular season and play-off games regardless of which network or third party purchases the rights to these games.
I spoke to the chairman of the Board of Broadcast Governors about this situation and was informed that in the board's view the co-operative approach between the two networks has been beneficial and is ensuring orderly coverage of these games. So far as the Grey cup game is concerned the board's view is that, as this is a once a year attraction
Inquiries of the Ministry and something which a great many people all over the country are interested in, it is in the national interest to justify coverage by both networks.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: At ten
o'clock I shall ask the hon. lady to use her charms and influence again.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What about after ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



COLUMBIA RIVER-CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN DAM CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether concurrence has yet been received from the premier of British Columbia with respect to the tabling of correspondence relating to requests for financial assistance on the Columbia river dams?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have been pressing the premier for permission to table the correspondence. We have not received that permission yet. As I understand it, a message was sent to him yesterday to the effect that if we did not hear from him within a certain period we would assume he had no objection.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   G.-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General.
Is it true that the government is thinking of changing from "Department of Justice" to "Penitentiary Department of Canada" the shoulder insignia on the uniforms of the penitentiary employees? If so, I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, if that does not come into conflict with the government's policy which is more concerned with rehabilitation than correction?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might wish to put that question on the order paper.


Mr. Lachance:: I would like to discuss it at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



October 20. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry NATURAL GAS



STATEMENT AS TO TABLING OF AGREEMENT PROPOSED LINE THROUGH U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I would like to correct information I gave the house yesterday about the agreement between Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and myself on the great lakes gas pipe line. I said yesterday that I would table that agreement on Friday. I should have said Friday, October 28, at the latest. I will then make on motions a statement which will give all those who might want to express their views the opportunity to do so. [English]



FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
FRASER RIVER-RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION RESPECTING CLOSURE On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the economic hardship imposed on Fraser valley gill net fishermen, would the minister reconsider the decision resulting in the closure of the Fraser river for the balance of the season?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the salmon season in British Columbia this year has been excellent, one of the best, if not the best, in decades. However, there is need for conservation, particularly in the case of certain runs of salmon frequenting the Fraser river. I expect to be on the west coast this week end and I will discuss this matter with our area director there.



LABOUR RELATIONS

[Stage Direction]
FREEDOM TO JOIN UNION OF CHOICE On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could he tell us whether he will see to it that employees hired through his department will have freedom of choice concerning union affiliation, contrary to what happened in the case of the employees of the Angus Company, in Montreal, who wished to join the CNTU?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, no legislation on labour relations nor any provision of the Criminal Code come under my jurisdiction. IMr. Lachance.]



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I have it on good authority that the machinery companies are planning a substantial increase in the price of machinery by the spring, one which the farmers cannot afford. Would the minister, on behalf of Canadian farmers, confer with these companies and try to persuade them to hold the line for the time being?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made his plea to the minister. He also mentioned that the increase he fears is not due to happen until next spring and it would appear therefore that his question is properly one for the order paper.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: It will be too late.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate when the community of Tuktoyaktuk will have telephone communication with Inuvik and the south following the completion of the telecommunication facilities last summer?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suspect that the
community to which the hon. member has referred has been deprived of telephone communication for some time. Perhaps the question is not urgent and should be placed on the order paper.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The urgency arises from the fact that the network to the MacKenzie delta is now being completed. I believe the minister wishes to reply. This is a very important matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I did participate, along with the Prime Minister and a lot of other eminent people-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am trying to cover up the confusion of the senior member for Halifax. I did take part in the opening of the service for Inuvik. I shall have to make inquiries about
October 20, 1966

this other service before I can give an answer which would be of any guidance to the hon. gentleman.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the house whether it is true that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has cut off all loans for housing in the Peterborough district?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice. I doubt whether they have all been cut off, but I would be glad to look into the position and make sure.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. I believe he has received written notice. It is my understanding that the place name of the defence establishment at Beausejour, Manitoba, has been changed to Moskwa. Was this done upon departmental request or with departmental approval? It seems strange that a perfectly good French name should be changed to one which transliterates into "Moscow".


Mr. Speaker:: If the question raised by the hon. member refers to something which has already happened, I suggest it be placed on the order paper.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Could he tell us whether a chapter will be included to deal with the price of farm machinery in "The Joe Greene Almanac and Shopping Guide for Housewives"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will ask the minister to have the Clerk read the book.
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF APPLICATION OF CLEMENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Since Shakespeare advises us that the quality of mercy is not strained, I would ask the hon. gentleman if he would extend mercy to people who may have been convicted of arson, theft or contempt of court, if requests are forwarded.


Mr. Speaker:: This question sounds strangely like one which was raised by the hon. member earlier this week when I believe it was ruled out of order. Perhaps the hon. member would wish to discuss it later today.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Ten o'clock tonight.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State or to her parliamentary secretary. Bearing in mind the concern expressed by cancer societies over the growing incidence of cigarette disease, what consideration is being given to removing cigarette advertising from Canadian broadcasting?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will admit, I am sure, that this is a question of very general nature which might be placed on the order paper.


Barry Mather: Ten o'clock.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that today's mail has brought news that another 34 men have been released from employment in Cape Breton Highlands national park, would the Prime Minister look into this matter and see whether some assistance in the form of winter work could not be given as soon as possible?
Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad to look into it, Mr. Speaker.
8904	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry UNITED NATIONS



SOUTH-WEST AFRICA-CANADIAN POSITION RESPECTING MANDATE OF SOUTH AFRICA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the importance of the issue concerning South African control of Southwest Africa and the resolution which is now before the United Nations, would the minister inform the house whether a vote is expected soon and, if so, what are the government's instructions to Canadian delegates with regard to the vote on the resolution?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, as I explained the other day, the government has taken the position that South Africa has forfeited her right to administer the mandate and we shall register a vote on the resolution in accordance with this policy.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, one which could result in an income of some $200,000 or $300,000 for the government, and I am sure he will be interested in that. Would the minister consider extending the cut-off date for the purchase of 1966 proof sets of coins from the mint and advertise the fact that the date is being extended, with the result that additional purchases would be made, rather than having the employees engaged, as I understand they are currently, in tearing 1966 proof sets of coins out of their pliofilm holders because there is now a surplus of 200,000 to 300,000 sets?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's suggestion under consideration.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on October 14 I directed a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in reference to civil rights affecting visitors and immigrants *n this country, bail

DEBATES	October 20, 1966
being refused by inquiry officers, and the preventing of these people from having a review by higher courts. Has the minister a report to make on that now?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker; tomorrow.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement by the government house leader that there is to be a two or three day break between second reading of Bill C-227 and committee consideration, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government will seriously use this time to reconsider the effective date of that legislation?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the Prime Minister's answer to my question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The question was out of
order.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this is the type of question which should be asked in the course of debate, and the debate on the bill is going to continue in a moment when I have called orders of the day.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has received an urgent complaint from Canadian consulate employees in New York that the Intra Bank has frozen the accounts of many Canadian employees, and that action should be taken to protect the interests of the Canadian consulate which pays rent to Intra Bank for office space owned by that bank?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend was kind enough to send me notice of this message, which is the first intimation I have had of it. I have asked that the matter be looked into at once and I hope to be able to say something on it later.
October 20, 1966




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-227, to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rynard.
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, the government has suggested as an ostensible reason for delaying medicare that it would add to the fire of inflation. This is really tantamount to saying that the lower income groups shall be called upon to fight inflation by being denied an essential service provided through a transfer payment program so that those in higher income brackets will be taxed less heavily, leaving them more net income, presumably for individual consumption. I would ask spokesmen for the government if this is really a sound or rational economic argument. Is expenditure by individuals with higher incomes on consumption, goods and services any less inflationary? I submit it is more inflationary than an expenditure by government through transfer payments, etc., to finance medical care service would be.
Just before the house rose at six o'clock yesterday I was about to deal with what I consider to be a retreat by the government from two of the four fundamental principles enunciated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) and his colleagues in months past. It seems to me that the government has backed out of its marriage to the principle of public agency sponsorship of medicare within the provinces.
I have before me certain speeches made by the minister in which he re-asserts again and again that one of the criteria which the provinces must meet, if they are to be eligible for the federal contribution, is that the administration of medicare within the provinces must be on a public basis. I think it is generally accepted now that the administrative costs are much lower when such a program is administered on a public agency basis.
Data have been placed before us which indicate that in the province of Saskatchewan the administrative cost is in the order of 5 per cent of the total cost of the plan. It is also generally known that where private agencies
Medicare
are allowed to become involved in the administration of a health plan, administrative costs can surge up to 15 per cent, 20 per cent or 25 per cent of the total cost.
Therefore it does not make much sense to compromise in this legislation and allow diverse kinds of administration which will mean a reduction in the value received by the taxpayer for his dollar. As I interpret the provisions of this bill with respect to administration, it may well be that private corporation profit-type carriers will be allowed to become part of the administration of the plan in the provinces. I certainly hope I am wrong in my interpretation, and I would like the minister to deal with this point when he speaks later in the debate.
Another basic principle which has been enunciated by the government in past months, and particularly by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, is that in order to qualify for the federal contribution provinces must introduce health plans that respect the principle of universal coverage. Of course it may be argued that of necessity the government had to become more conciliatory and had to compromise in this regard in order to induce some of the provinces to enter the plan after the legislation is passed.
The bill provides that 90 per cent coverage shall be deemed to be universal coverage and that in a couple of years it is to rise to 95 per cent. I am somewhat disappointed with this provision, but in all frankness I must say I do not regard it as being as much of a retreat as the other. I do not regard it as being a great retreat because I shudder to think what the government may have been on the verge of doing, accepting existing provincial health plans as operated in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario under which I understand not much more than 60 per cent to 62 per cent of the population is covered.
It is often said that the plans in these provinces are working out quite well, but when speaking in the debate on this bill a couple of days ago my colleague from Winnipeg North was able to quote research material showing that the criteria for some of these voluntary plans, specifically in Manitoba, are such as to exclude not only many people in what we would regard as the low income group but also many people who are receiving social allowances, old age assistance or benefits fom other related programs. Therefore I think that the government, while making a mistake in retreating somewhat
8S06

October 20, 1966
Medicare
from the principle of universal coverage, nevertheless has done right in rejecting the solicitations made to it by some of the provinces that they should be allowed to come into the plan with existing so-called voluntary programs from which a high percentage of the population is excluded.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I should like to refer to an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen some time ago relating to the position of the Conservative party on the issue of a public medicare plan. I cannot find the editorial at the moment but as I recall it was to the effect that it is very difficult to ascertain just what is the position of the Conservative party on this important issue. I do not know whether this is a fair comment, but I do know that certain members of that group have come out quite unequivocally for the kind of public medical care plan that was recommended by the Hall royal commission. We have, of course, seen much comment in editorials in the press quoting the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) with regard to what his position is.


John George Diefenbaker: My position has been made clear many times.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Yes; as I say, it is quite clear and unequivocal. During the course of the debate in the last few days, however, we have heard comments from other hon. members of that party and one's conclusions become less firm because some members, like the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), seem to be of the opinion that the Hall Commission did not recommend a health plan with universal coverage. The hon. member stated quite emphatically that his interpretation of the findings and the recommendations of the Hall Commission was that it would provide for other than universal coverage.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of clarification? I said that the Hall Commission provided for the provision of medical care services by agreement with the provinces and that this is not a fundamental of this bill.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I have before me the speech made by the hon. member on October 18. At page 8796 of Hansard the hon. member is reported as saying:
I have seen nothing in the report to the effect that it must be a plan compulsory for every person in Canada.

To say the least, this is difficult to reconcile with the following. I should like to quote from the official news release handed out by the Hall Commission just after the release of the report itself. This was put on the record by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I am quoting from page 8695 of Hansard:
The commissioners, after examining various alternatives for providing Canadians with health services, recommend that the health services program be made universally available. They recognize that many Canadians have availed themselves of the benefits of health prepayment plans but these are principally those who can afford protection or are employed where health insurance is provided or subsidized as a part of working conditions. They also recognize the initiative shown by Alberta and Ontario in developing legislation that provides for voluntary coverage of certain medical sevices, with subsidies for some citizens.
After prolonged study and investigation the commissioners conclude that coverage of all, or virtually all, Canadians could not be achieved through the voluntary system and that only a universal program could achieve maximum coverage.
It is quite clear that the Hall Commission recommended a program with universal applicability of coverage. This is something quite different from what the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka intimated was the case the other day.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has quoted part of my remarks. I wonder whether he would be good enough to complete them. I should like to point out that as found at the bottom of page 8796 of Hansard I said:
The commission made recommendations which are general in nature, not specific, to be implemented by agreement.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I do not think the hon. member should try to confuse two principles in the commission's report. One of these principles has to do with universal coverage and the other with whether or not the plan should be implemented by way of agreement with the provinces or in the same way it was done by the former federal government in the case of hospital insurance.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It is not being done either way in this case.


Edward Richard Schreyer: My understanding of the way the government is proceeding with regard to this legislation is that it will really not be different from the way in which the benefits of hospitalization were given to the people of this country in 1958. I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion this
October 20, 1966

was the right thing to do at that time. When the government removed the joker from the whole hospitalization legislation in 1958 it did the right thing. It brought in the legislation and it was up to the provinces to decide whether or not they wished to avail themselves of it. As a result, all the provinces later found it in the public interest to do so.
I suggest that the case is similar in respect of a medical care plan. The government proceeds with the legislation and leaves it up to the provinces to decide whether or not they wish to avail themselves of the contributions. The sooner this is done, the sooner we will have a medical care program in this country. Who would want to say it would be undesirable to bring in a medical care program with universal coverage? Who would want to say this is not a desirable goal? Even a newspaper such as the Toronto Globe and Mail says quite emphatically that it should remain a goal of Canada to implement a medicare program with universal coverage. It procrastinates a little concerning what the proper timing should be, but it states this as a goal at which the country should aim. We agree. I am not too sure whether most members agree but certainly a large number agree that we should proceed in this direction as quickly as possible.
We find fault with the government for retreating on the matter of timing. It appears to me that it is also retreating somewhat on one or two of the basic principles formerly enunciated.
If debate is supposed to help to clear up points of misunderstanding and confusion, which I believe is the case, then I should like to make reference to the speech made the other day by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). I am sorry the hon. member is not here at the moment. In addition to other things he mentioned in the course of his remarks, he seemed to find some fault with the present government for not following, in the case of medicare, the course of action which was followed in respect of the hospitalization plan in 1956-57. I find this rather difficult to understand. This is a rather strange point of view for the hon. member to put forward in view of the fact that it was precisely the kind of provision which the St. Laurent Liberal government had in its hospitalization plan that effectively prevented the hospital program from becoming universal in this country.
Medicare
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Why a member of the Conservative party should want the present Liberal government to go back to its old pre-1958 days is very difficult for me to understand. So it cannot be said that there is any equivocation on our part as to where we stand on this legislation, let me reiterate that we completely support the main recommendations on the Hall Commission report and the legislation now before us. We think that in certain respects it may not go far enough, that is to say, it does not provide for implementation soon enough. There is this undesirable delay which is the result of a decision by a cabal in the cabinet and not by the cabinet itself.


John George Diefenbaker: It is always the decision of the whole cabinet. Surely there are no cabals in this cabinet.


Edward Richard Schreyer: If the right hon. Leader of the Opposition tells me that all decisions are made by the cabinet I must take advantage of his experience and accept that statement, but I think that right hon. gentleman is jesting or saying that in a bantering manner. Certainly it seems almost public knowledge now that the decision to delay was made by a cabal within the cabinet.
I should like to conclude, because I believe the time allotted to me has almost expired, by saying that we certainly realize governments must always proceed pragmatically and by compromise, and sometimes even with equivocation, but I think this government has demonstrated too often in the past few months that it equivocates too often, compromises on principle too often and is so pragmatic as to lose sight of principles. It has made firm commitments and then broken them. It has stated categorically four principles of a medicare program and the date of implementation; yet now it is retreating on all fronts. This leads me to repeat what was said by a premier of one of the prairie provinces a few months ago, namely, that the assurances of this government appear to be worthless. He was referring to the manoeuvring of the government in respect of the decision to transfer the overhaul base from Winnipeg to Montreal. That statement certainly applies to the government's assurances in respect of the medical care plan.
I do not think it really requires any amount of persuasive debate or effort to convince most hon. members that the time is really here and the economy of the country is such as to support a public medicare plan. An

October 20, 1966
Division
economic analysis carried out by a royal commission has demonstrated the need and the economic feasibility of such a plan. Studies by church groups and many others approaching the problem from the point of view of what is right, ethical and sociably desirable rather than from an economic standpoint, have also found reason to ask for a medical care plan which is universal in its availability and applicability to all the people of this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the house would permit me, the reason that the mover of the amendment upon which we have voted, the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), is not present is that he was taken to hospital after an attack this afternoon.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the house will be very sorry to hear that. I hope my right hon. friend will
October 20, 1966

convey to him the good wishes of all of us on this side, and I am sure of all of us in the house, for a speedy recovery.


Mr. Brown:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Ry-nard). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Faulkner:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) . I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. More:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McCulcheon:: Mr. Speaker, I too was paired.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, not having had the opportunity of speaking on the amendment I wish to make certain remarks, which I trust will not be long, in regard to this bill. I have no apologies to make to anyone with regard to the length of this debate. This is a most important measure which deserves full consideration, although I must say that I cannot recognize the urgency of debate attached to the matter by hon. members opposite and hon. members to the left of me. After all, the only reason the bill is up before us now is, I think, the rather undue haste on the part of the government as a result of the internecine warfare which they conducted recently at their own party's biennial convention. I would have thought that it would have been more incumbent upon the members of this house to discuss matters which are of just as great import to the country and of greater urgency than a bill which we are told will perhaps come into effect by July 1, 1968. Why the date July, 1968 is picked, I do not know.
Medicare
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and others, in justifying the government's stand on the proposed amendment in connection with the effective date of this legislation, have indicated that the reason for postponing the date is inflation at this time and in 1967, and also perhaps due to some stringency of funds. Unless something very drastic and dramatic happens between now and 1968, one has no assurance that the situation will be any better then, and in fact it could conceivably be much worse. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, their arguments in regard to this delay are, frankly, somewhat spurious. The delay was really the result of a compromise achieved within the inner workings of the Liberal party in order to reconcile diametrically opposed positions taken by various segments of that party in regard to this proposed legislation.
In view of the rejection of our four conditions, it is interesting to note the opposition to this legislation at the time of the last election and to observe the sort of "Yes", "No" and "Perhaps" answers that were given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) during that election campaign, particularly when he came into the province of Alberta, in order to try to justify, even to accept, the stand taken by some of the Liberal candidates in the province who themselves categorically opposed the legislation. In my own city my Liberal opponent, a medical doctor, was opposed to the legislation. The Liberal candidate in the constituency of Edmonton-Strathcona was also opposed to the legislation.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
May I say that generally legislation on a compulsory basis does not find favour with persons in Alberta, and I speak on behalf of my constituents in large numbers. I have the honour to represent a constituency ranking among the first ten in this country in population. The people of the provinces of Alberta have demonstrated their thorough objection to the proposal of the government. I want to say therefore what I should like to have said in the debate on the amendment, namely, that the government is trying to ram down the throats of the people a preconceived doctrinaire plan. This is a doctrinaire plan rammed down the throats of the provincial governments which have equal jurisdiction with regard to medical services and health.
If I may say so, this plan shows a complete about-face on the part of the government. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), his predecessor in that

October 20, 1966
Medicare
office and the Prime Minister have indicated that any province not wanting to accept this plan will not get any contribution and the people in such province, who of course will have to pay taxes, will have to assume the cost of their own plan. Was there not strange solicitude for another province on other occasions when it wanted to opt out of something inasmuch there is no opting out so far as this plan is concerned? The province of Alberta does not happen to be a province that the government wants to curry favour with.
At one time the government was running around saying so much about the opting-out formula being the keystone for the program of co-operative federalism. That has been laid low once and for all, because the provinces of Canada showed their contempt for opting out under the terms proposed by the government. There is only one province for which that provision was designed and with which it was negotiated in secret session. That province availed itself of the opting-out provision.
Would the government be prepared to grant to the province of Alberta, the province of British Columbia and the province of Ontario the option under this bill of running their own plans? The Minister of National Health and Welfare knows very well that under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act there are variations among the provincial plans.


Mr. MacEachen:: There may be under this bill too.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They are very narrow. There are four essential corners and these were the ones to which the provincial governments objected.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They did not.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Did they not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They did not. Can the hon. member tell me which provincial government has objected to any of these principles and which ones?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes. The province of Alberta, for instance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Exactly. That is the only one.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And is the province of Alberta less important than the others? Perhaps it is in the eyes of the minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not at all.


An hon. Member:: They do not have any Grits there.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That province and other
provinces having the appropriate jurisdiction will also object to the compulsory features. They will also object to some of the other features of the plan. Instead of negotiating acceptable agreements with the provinces beforehand, this government tries to ram this plan down their throats. We know the type of legislation this government is capable of putting on record. We know that the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was supposed to have been, shall we say, the star in the crown of the Liberal administration of 1957.


An hon. Member:: It was.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not one provincial government was prepared to enter into an agreement. It was a sterile bill because there was a provision therein that none of the provinces found acceptable. But the Conservative government was willing to enter freely into agreements with those provinces which, on mutually acceptable terms, were prepared to enter into agreements with respect to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.
This is what should have been done with regard to this bill. Some mutually acceptable base should have been negotiated. Also, if the government means what it says it should provide an opting-out provision. That should be done if the government is to be consistent. In saying that I am not arguing the pros and cons of opting out, but to be consistent the government must provide for the right of opting out.
The province of Alberta is opposed to this plan, but this government hopes to blackjack the administration and the people of Alberta into taking this plan in the same way, I venture to say, that it will be done with the province of Quebec. I say that because the government of that province has rightly said that this is a matter within its jurisdiction. It has a right to examine the whole question. They have a right to determine what kind of plan they want and when they will institute it on the basis of their medical and financial resources. But does this bill say that? No. We still have the financial blackjack inherent in this bill. I find that unacceptable in so far as this bill is concerned.
October 20, 1966

Both the government and the members of the N.D.P. have criticized a number of existing medical plans. Incidentally, there is a further distinction as to the situation under which the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act came into effect. No hospital plan was in operation when that bill was produced. In connection with medical services, however, several of the provinces have had some years of experience. Their plans are functioning. Their plans are being improved upon. No one pretends that they are perfect plans, just as no one in Alberta defends the Alberta plan as being the most perfect plan. It can be improved upon and in many sectors undoubtedly it will be improved upon. But I will say this much. That plan was worked out in conjunction and in consultation with the people most vitally affected by it, namely, the doctors-


An hon. Member:: And the patients.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The patients, certainly-in the province of Alberta. Look at the support in that province for its plan. Look at the support both in federal and provincial elections in so far as the plan in that province is concerned. I can assure hon. members that there was plenty of consultation with respect to the attitude of the public. I would invite the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) to find out what the people of Alberta say about compulsory medical plans.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Perhaps we are tired of the attitude that someone is going to play God, that someone is going to decide what is good for us, that something is going to be done and we will have to accept it. This seems to be the principle underlying some of the doctrinaire thinking which is prevalent in both the Liberal party and the New Democratic Party. Frankly, between the thinking of one large segment of the government party and the New Democratic Party there is little or no distinction.
There are those in the New Democratic Party and among the Liberals who say that the voluntary plans in the provinces which allow people to choose the means by which they will provide for their own prepaid medical expenses, and provide for those who are unable to do so, are examples of a shameful means test. But the government itself has instituted a means test in the Canadian student loan plan. There is such a test in the Canada Assistance Plan. The N.D.P. voted in favour of the Canada Assistance Plan. It
Medicare
exists in the old age assistance meaure; it exists in the War Veterans Allowance Act. When we say we intend to help those who need assistance, it is fundamental that we should use a yardstick. One can adjust the level of income in accordance with the times. As a matter of fact, there will have to be changes again in the province of Alberta because this government and others have failed to accept their responsibilities with regard to controlling inflation.
As I have said, there should have been prior consultation and agreement with the medical profession. There should have been prior consultation with the medical profession and representatives of other medical services because there is a grave insufficiency in this bill as to what are deemed to be medical services. I think the government is doing a great disservice with regard to optometrists, chiropodists and chiropractors. They are included in some of the provincial plans and they should be included within the present legislation. I cannot see why the interpretation of medical services should tend to favour opthalmologists as against optometrists. The same is true with regard to chiropodists. Why should a man who is a specialist in foot care be excluded? After all, patients are referred to him by general practitioners; in fact, many medical practitioners cannot look after a person's feet. Yet the chiropodist is shut out. Here again, I say there should have been agreement generally across the country as to which medical services would be included.
The third reason is one which I indicated in a letter I wrote to some of my constituents during the last election on this subject. I should like to put it on the record. I said:
I accept and approve of medicare as a scheme, based on freedom of choice, whereby all citizens in this country may have full access to the medical services they require, to do otherwise would be wrong. On the other hand I find the institution of a universal compulsory scheme of medicare based solely on public taxes and administered through public agencies to be incompatible with my participation in a free society. Any scheme of medicare should incorporate the voluntary choice to participate in it. Society's participation should be limited to providing such medical services for those unable to do so themselves so that all persons may be covered. Portability and general uniformity of the standard of services provided must be essential features of any scheme of medicare whether organized on a national basis or as a federation of provincial schemes.
It is emphasizing the obvious to say that Canada's supply of doctors, medical schools, teaching hospitals, technical assistants and nurses is far short of meeting the legitimate demands of any scheme of comprehensive medicare. It is a dangerous delusion to suggest the early institution of

Oclober 20, 1966
Medicare
such a scheme unless there will he available the qualified personnel and facilities to properly administer it.
It is the last paragraph in this letter that I wish to emphasize now. I think it is misrepresentation to say to the people of Canada that we can adequately provide a system of comprehensive medical care, with the attributes the government is seeking, on the basis of the present availability, not only of doctors but of all those other people who are essential in assisting doctors. What has been done by the government in this regard so far is, frankly, picayune. It is nothing.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is a billion dollars.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is nothing but promises. It is nothing in relation to the demand or the need. What has this government done to increase the funds available for basic medical research? What has it done in any meaningful way? Ask any doctor. Ask any medical school. Read some of the letters which members of parliament get in this regard. Here again we see how what is held out under this scheme to be the promise is nothing but a snare and delusion.
Right from the beginning people will expect to get all that has been promised. If the government were honest with the public, and said that this would be a limited scheme, that there would be shortages, that there would be difficulties at the outset, then we could perhaps take a different attitude. But no. The benefits of this scheme are vaunted at the 100 per cent level-at least, this is what its proponents in the Liberal party are claiming. I do not think this is right.
The minister may be able in the course of his reply to tell us whether the financial arrangements with regard to this legislation are to be discussed at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference which is to consider the fiscal arrangements between the federal government and the provinces. There is to be the negotiation of new agreements governing all joint programs of this type which are covered by the so-called opting-out legislation. Is medicare to be discussed at that time or is it to be pushed aside with the statement that the legislation is not due to take effect until July 1, 1968, perhaps, so we shall cross that bridge when we come to it?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I suggest to the government that if it were prepared to apply the principle of opting out to medicare so that the provinces could institute their own schemes to cover the

needs of the people within the provinces, with these schemes meeting the minimum requirements that the federal government would set up, then there would be a lot more hope for success in regard to a plan for medical services. Surely to goodness the people of this country, those who see fit to do so, still have the right to assume their responsibilities in regard to health services. Why should they all be dragooned by some form of doctrinaire approach, with someone deciding that this shall be good for all of the populace?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Justice Hall?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Those are views from which I respectfully dissent.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And your leader, the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), endorsed them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is perfectly all right but I happen to come from the province of Alberta. In this connection, if the minister considers that in matters of this kind there cannot be differences in thinking, then he denies the right to any representative in the government party, or otherwise, from the province of Quebec to think other than he does coming from the maritimes. I can assure him there are many areas of thinking in which there is a fundamental difference and therefore he must agree that I, coming from the province of Alberta, have a right to dissent in principle in regard to some of these propositions, and I do.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I only want to ask one question. How does the hon. member justify his dissent from the policy put forward by his leader in the last election, which was to endorse thoroughly the Hall recommendations?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yet within the Hall recommendations there is a proposition for a voluntary choice, if the minister will read them carefully, and the declaration of the Conservative party with regard to medical care was quite acceptable. There was still that voluntary choice available. The minister can shake his head. He was too busy down in Nova Scotia promising a $25 million subvention to the coal industry, which he has no intention of implementing, to notice these differences.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, we will put it on the record at the right time.
October 20, 1966


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is perfectly fine but, so far as I am concerned, in this particular form this bill is unacceptable to me and I intend to vote against it.


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken extensively on the amendment and on the resolution preceding the bill. The only real reason I have for rising at this time is to correct some of the misstatements that have been made concerning our stand in this debate and to try to tell some of those whose perception seems somewhat dulled, either by lack of knowledge or party affiliation, exactly what we believe on this side of the house.
This is a bill to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans, and we agree with the principle. As I said the other day in this chamber, we in Saskatchewan will certainly welcome the additional funds that will be available as a result of this bill because they will enable us to improve the plan now in operation in that province, a plan which I must repeat once again, and I hope for the last time, was brought about after a great deal of discussion between those giving and those receiving the services, a plan which, because it was based on this premise, is working and despite its deficiencies is at the moment working very well.
I must say that when I listened to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) speak yesterday it reminded me a great deal of the type of provincial politicking I heard in past years when that hon. gentleman was heading the government of Saskatchewan. I do not think there is any room in this house for provincial politicking, and his attempt to show that our stand is something other than it is, is nothing but cheap politicking.
I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam-I am sorry he is not in the house-that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before parliament, and that is why we on this side of the house are attempting to show the government what changes we feel should be made in the bill in order to make it a good one.
I remind the hon. member once again that when we introduce amendments, and of course our amendment on second reading has been defeated, we are not attempting to kill the bill any more than the members of the N.D.P. were trying to kill the bill to end the railway strike when they moved a subamendment. They wanted that strike to end as
Medicare
much as we did but they did not think the bill was good enough. Then they accepted our amendment.
Is there a difference between railways and medical services? Should we give more consideration to legislation dealing with the health of individuals than to legislation ending a railway strike? This is something which the hon. member is not thinking about very carefully.
As recorded at page 8870 of yesterday's Hansard the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said:
I therefore find it difficult to understand why the Progressive Conservatives should now be against this legislation.
This, of course, is absolutely wrong. On the same page he is also reported as saying:
Therefore I think the members who come from Saskatchewan will have to do some explaining as to why they are opposing a piece of legislation which would have such beneficial effects for their province.
That is a complete reversal of the truth.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: It will be a pleasure.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Are we not entitled to conclude that the Official Opposition is opposed to the bill in view of the statement made a few moments ago by a leading frontbencher of that party that he intends to vote against the bill? Are we not entitled to conclude that the party is opposed to the bill, or are we to conclude that the party is divided?


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I think the minister will understand, as I said originally, that we are not opposed to the principle of the bill but we think the bill is a bad one.
Since the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has said that the members who come from Saskatchewan will have to do some explaining why they are opposing a piece of legislation which would have some beneficial effects for their province, I invite the hon. member to look at my remarks in Hansard two days previously.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I ask the hon. member a brief question?


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Provided it does not take up my time.


Colin Cameron: Is he prepared to go back to Saskatchewan and advise any members of his

October 20, 1966
Medicare
party who may happen to be in the legislature-I am not sure whether there are any

that they may be wiped out there too as in British Columbia-


Mr. Haidasz:: They have one.


Colin Cameron: -if they insist on importing into the Saskatchewan medicare scheme the proposals contained in the Conservative amendment just defeated?


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I am glad the hon. member asked me that question because I will point out to him now that already in the Saskatchewan plan we have many of the features of the Conservative amendment. If you like, I will go into them for you. I will go back to the amendment-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify this situation. I am not sure whether the hon. member's words have helped me. Will he tell me whether he intends to vote against this bill when the question on second reading is called?


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: If the minister would read my remarks of the other day I think he would find an answer to that question, and perhaps if he listens a little further he will get the answer.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes or no. Are you?


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I think if you look at Hansard of two days ago-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Don't be anxious. We have 18 months.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: That is right. I know that the minister is extremely anxious to have the bill put through but he is being stymied by members of his own party. So far as the first part of the amendment is concerned, having to do with securing the co-operation of the governments of the provinces of Canada, I suggest that the comment of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands would have no affect in respect of Saskatchewan. Then there is the second part-"recognizes the principle of voluntary choice by the individual". Yes, it does. It allows doctors in Saskatchewan to practice in or outside of the act. I have very grave doubts indeed that the bill before us now allows this because it insures the services of the doctors, whereas in the act under which Saskatchewan's medical plan operates it is the people who are insured

against the cost of illness. This is a different thing entirely. There is this freedom in Saskatchewan but I do not see it in the present bill.
Then clause (c) of the amendment is as follows:
makes adequate prior provision for sufficient medical research, the training of adequate numbers of doctors and other medical personnel;
I am sure that our representative in the legislature of Saskatchewan will be happy to suggest the training of more doctors. The other day I made a suggestion as to what we would use the money for which will be available under this bill, the $11 million, $14 million, or whatever it is going to be. I suggested that the way to use it is to set up medical research and other facilities in the province of Saskatchewan so that we can train more doctors. Clause (d) of the amendment says:
immediately provides for those persons who are unable, for financial reasons, to provide medical services for themselves.
As you know, there is provision for this in our province and there has been for many years, so I really do not know what the hon. member was talking about.
We believe we need the co-operation of the provinces. We must have it. When the minister speaks in ending the debate, perhaps he will tell me how we are going to have portability if we do not have all the provinces in the plan. If I should leave the province of Saskatchewan which now meets all the requirements, how could I take my coverage with me to the province of Quebec if they were not in the plan? How can you make it portable without having all the provinces in it?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: You can force them.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I am glad the hon. member mentioned that. I looked up some words in the dictionary just so that some of our friends in the New Democratic Party would understand what some of these things mean. I have taken these definitions from the Concise Oxford Dictionary. Compel: to bring about by force. Is this what the hon. member would have us do? Would he have us bring it about by force? Compulsion of course arises from this: to compel.
If I may go back, there was a discussion about what the Hall Commission report said concerning universal availability. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) referred to the press release put out by
October 20, 1966

the Hall commission he used the words "universal availability". This is also what is written into the health charter. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "available" as follows: "Capable of being used, at one's disposal, within one's reach." I do not see the word "compel" or "bring about by force" or anything like that in the Hall Commission report. This is the reason I should like the minister to consider meeting again with the provinces. There is plenty of time. Apparently he is going to put this measure off until 1968, 1975, 1998 or whatever the date is going to be. There certainly is plenty of time before July 1, 1968 to meet again with the provinces to work out a program.
We believe that provision should be made as soon as humanly possible for those who are not able by reason of their financial position to obtain medical care for themselves. I am surprised that the New Democratic Party voted against this type of thing, especially in view of the fact that I thought this was one of the principles of their party. There is no question about it, they are slipping.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, at page 8872 of Hansard when referring to the question of whether the private schemes should get in on this plan or whether it should be strictly a government scheme, said:
It would increase the cost even for the people who are able to pay the premiums, because by having a number of private organizations handle medicare it was found that the administrative costs would be anywhere from 20 to 27 per cent compared to administrative costs in Saskatchewan of less than 51 per cent, where they have a publicly administered plan.
The hon. member, of course, has forgotten to mention that in the province of Saskatchewan we do indeed have private plans. He has forgotten to mention this-an error of omission. We have Medical Services Incorporated. We have the group medical service in Regina as well as a Health Insurers' Association. We no longer have the medical co-op. All these are incorporated under the laws of the province of Saskatchewan as non-profit bodies. They are operating and because they are operating they have allowed the citizens to obtain better coverage than they can under the Saskatchewan plan. They bring in things which, when people are ill, are just as important as some of the others and sometimes more important-special nursing care when it is needed, ambulances and, yes, even drugs. Yet the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam says we should not have this very thing. He has forgotten that this is the situation today
Medicare
in the province where he was one of those v/ho fought for the plan.
I think there is no question but that we should have something to take care of those people who are unable by reason of their financial position to provide medical care for themselves. At page 8873 of Hansard for October 19 the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam had this to say on this subject:
If anyone says we will need more doctors under medicare, then surely this is an admission that there are several million people who are not getting proper and adequate medical care now.
He says this and at the same time accuses our party for suggesting the provision of adequate care. He says it as if we were afraid to admit there are people who do not receive medical care. It is not only for financial reasons that there are people who are not getting the care they should; it is because there are not sufficient medical personnel. There is not enough money being spent to attract research scientists and teachers to our medical schools. We must spend more money in order that these people can continue research in depth and to attract good teachers in order to produce more and better doctors.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
If hon. members do not think the situation is serious let me refer to the situation in my own province, the only province in Canada with a complete medicare scheme in effect. The other day I made a tour of the medical college in Saskatchewan. I went through the anatomy laboratory and where the basic sciences of physiology and biochemistry are taught to medical students. I make no bones about it; I was appalled at the extent of the lack of facilities and personnel. I was told by a very eminent doctor on the medical faculty of the University of Saskatchewan that if five of the key professors and assistant professors resigned the school would have to close. How can anyone suggest that we do not need to spend more money to attract research scientists and teachers?
It is my feeling that it is essential we do something in this regard now. We are not attempting to delay bringing medical care to the people of Canada; we just want to make sure that when it is provided to them an attempt will at least have been made to obtain a sufficient number of doctors to look after the additional number of people who will be covered. It will be false if the government says: Now you have medicare and you can go and get a doctor. I invite hon. members, if they are ever in real need of a doctor

October 20, 1965
Medicare
while in Saskatchewan, to try to get one. You may be successful if you happen to know where a doctor is, provided he is not in the operating room or out somewhere on another call.
Do you not think that in Saskatchewan there are people who cannot obtain the services of a doctor? Let me tell you that there are such people in many areas. Let me put on record again that in Saskatchewan we have one doctor for approximately every 1,100 people. In the province of Ontario there is one doctor for every 776 people. In Newfoundland there is one doctor for every 2,400, and approximately one for every 1,300 people in the home province of the minister. That is a really shocking situation.
Does the minister honestly think that by bringing in medicare there will suddenly somehow be instant doctors? That is apparently what the minister wants. He is going to hand out a medicare package. All you have to do is add a little water to it and suddenly you will have an instant doctor who will look after your every health need. I wish that the solution were that simple.
The minister should pay heed to what has happened in Great Britain in respect of its national health service scheme. Doctors there, by the way, are also allowed to practise outside the act if they so wish. I think the words I quoted earlier of the minister of health of the United Kingdom point up very seriously and very strongly the failure of the medical profession as well as the government to see that there was a sufficient number of doctors available before that plan was brought into being.
I plead with the minister not to put political expediency ahead of common sense. Do not make the mistakes that were made in Britain. We have heard about pilot plans, and they are worth while, but surely we have had enough pilot plans now to show us where the mistakes were made. Let us try not to make the same mistakes again. That is all I am asking.
To be quite frank in answering the minister's question, let me say that I believe firmly in the principle of prepaid medical care and, for the minister's information, I shall vote for the bill. I will do so hoping that something will be done to take care of these obvious areas of lack and neglect. Perhaps during the committee stage we will be able to squeeze in a few amendments. Remembering what was said about Barkis, I hope the minister "is willin'" to accept these amendments. I am sure he will realize the necessity of them if

he considers what has happened in other places.
As I pointed out earlier, our University Hospital no longer has complete specialist training in the department of obstetrics and gynecology because of the lack of facilities and staff. If that is the type of situation the minister wants he is moving in the right direction, but I think he is doing a disservice to the people of Canada. If he does not pay heed to the voice of the Hall Commission report, the voice of the Woods Gundy report, the voice of the Canadian Association of Medical Colleges and, for that matter, the voice of the Canadian Medical Association, he will be making a mistake. You can no more lead a horse to water and make him drink than you can take a doctor and make him practise medicine. Yes, I have said it before, quoting the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, but I say it again.
If the minister will do something in respect of this bill to provide for those things that we in this party have been asking for, I am sure he will remove most of the objections of those of my colleagues who still feel some measure of fear as to what this bill may accomplish. It is up to the minister to do that and not up to us. We have made suggestions and we will continue to make them, but it is on the minister that the whole burden will fall. When this bill becomes law the results will be on the minister's head. I would much rather that he be bloodied now but unbowed with his head held high. He may not be able to hold his head high if he does not take account of the serious deficiencies that exist in Canada today.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday night and Friday, during the debate on the amendment moved by the Progressive Conservative party, I expressed my views on the federal medicare legislation.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Today, on second reading of Bill C-227, I want to add a few thoughts after having heard other speakers, and especially after having noticed the complete silence of the federal ministers from Quebec, when this legislation does great injustice to my province which has decided, and rightly so, not to participate in it.
To my knowledge, only one minister, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), commented not in this house but during a radio program on the French network of the C.B.C., between 9.15 and 9.30
Oclober 20, 1966

a.m., on October 18, 1966, the position I took in the house last Thursday night and Friday. In his remarks, the minister assured the whole French speaking audience of that network throughout Canada that the federal legislation on medicare respects provincial autonomy and that the purpose of the four conditions inserted in the federal act was to ensure equal treatment between the provinces.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to refute once again those false statements which deceive the Canadian people, and are mere window-dressing, to make them believe that provincial autonomy is respected even though provincial rights are thoroughly violated. The autonomy of the provinces exists not only in the rights granted to the provinces but also in the financial means they need to exercise them. By laying down four conditions, Ottawa is interfering with the freedom of choice of the provinces; by refusing to hand back enough taxation fields to the provinces, Ottawa weakens and reduces financially the exercise of provincial rights.
Therefore, that federal medicare legislation does not respect at all the autonomy of the provinces as far as their rights and their financial means to exercise them are concerned. To maintain that this federal legislation respects provincial autonomy is to deceive the Canadian public on the meaning of autonomy of the governments in a federative system, to oppose flatly the Quebec point of view and to show the most centralizing attitude.
To say that the four federal conditions are designed to strike a balance between the provinces is to want Ottawa to act as a substitute at all times for the initiative and intelligence of the provinces. The provinces hold annual interprovincial meetings and they are able to agree and work out their legislation. They do not need a systematic and omnipotent intruder.
If some provinces are too poor, the others can set up between themselves an assistance fund. To use constantly that balance as a argument is to perpetuate the best reason for federal interference and encroachment. That systematic presence of Ottawa is creating such imbalance, tension and discontent. That presence of the central government in provincial fields of jurisdiction goes against the existence of a truly federal union and is proof of the legislative union towards which Ottawa is rapidly moving.
Medicare
What is most unfair in the federal medicare legislation is its immediate refusal to grant the tax admustment to the provinces which will decide to opt out.
The practical result of that refusal will be an annual loss of millions of dollars for a non-participating province and, in addition to supporting a provincial medicare scheme, the citizens of that province will have to pay to Ottawa taxes which will be spent in the other provinces.
It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration made such a choice and should now praise centralization. By so doing, he completely disowns the aspirations of the province he comes from. Moreover, in so far as Quebec is concerned, be becomes a stranger, an opponent.
Through his attitude toward the bill on medicare, the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration finally reveals what he thinks about federal-provincial relations. He proves to be, just like his other colleagues in the cabinet and other Liberal members from Quebec, a true centralizer. Before being elected to parliament, he claimed he was going to Ottawa to save confederation. How can he try to save the confederation when he agrees, here in the house-and when he has definite responsibilities-to all kinds of infringements of the constitution and encroachments on provincial rights? I find instead that like his other colleagues-and I am speaking in this house as a free man-he is only trying to save his own skin and preserve his eventual leadership for the federal Liberal party.
I want to express today my deep disappointment, as well as that of thousands of people in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, in order to redress the injustice of the federal medicare legislation which does not provide for a fiscal compensation, I move, seconded by the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), that all the words after "that" be deleted and that the following be substituted therefor:
This house, while of the opinion that the necessary steps should be taken to ensure that appropriate medical services are made available to all Canadians, nevertheless believes that no legislation providing for insured medical services in Canada would be adequate unless it provides for a system of fiscal compensation for any province desiring to set up its own autonomous medical insurance plan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I shall read to the house the amendment moved by the member for Sherbrooke and

October 20, 1966
Medicare
ask the Speaker to consider it in order to determine whether or not it is in order.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to reiterate all the arguments and criticisms which have been made in respect of this bill and the scheme it envisages; nor do I intend to repeat the arguments made in favour of the reasonable and reasoned amendment put forward by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) which unfortunately has now been defeated. I do, however, want to register my objection to this bill and the scheme it proposes so far as medicare is concerned.
The argument has been put forward in the house, particularly yesterday by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), I believe, that the only principle in the bill before us is that of the federal government making financial contributions to the cost of insured medical services. I submit that this is patently wrong. The four criteria set out in the bill are part of the principle or principles of the bill, and approval of second reading of the bill really means approval by the house of those criteria as well as of the general principle of the federal government making financial contributions toward medical care.
I can conceive of no reason for this argument having been put forward except to try to maintain that those of us who disapprove of this bill and vote against it are not in favour of medical care. The reverse is the situation. I believe that every person in this house and practically everybody in Canada is in favour of a reasonable, practical and good system of medical care which will ensure the highest calibre and most effective type of medical care to all the people of this country. Those of us who disagree with this bill are no less concerned than the members on the government side of the house and others who are in favour of the bill about ensuring the best medical care for the people of this country.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
However, most of the provinces are dissatisfied with one or more of the provisions in the bill, and so are the vast majority of the medical fraternity. In these circumstances I do not understand why the government is so insistent on passing the bill at this time, particularly as it is not to go into effect for nearly two years. Instead of trying to push the bill through and to bulldoze the provinces and the medical profession into a scheme
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]
which they do not think is sound and of which they do not approve, and in view of the fact that there will be a long interval before this legislation is implemented, why does this government not try to get together with the provinces and the medical association to produce a medicare scheme of which we can all approve?
I do not see any reason at all for the elements of compulsion which exist in the bill. It is quite possible to produce a much better scheme than the one envisaged. For one thing, as has been mentioned here before, optometrists and their services are not included under the provisions of the bill. For another thing, dental care is not included. Personally, I think any really comprehensive system of health insurance should include dental care as well as the ordinary medical services. I think it would be quite possible to produce a medical care insurance system which would retain a place for insurance companies, doctors' associations and others who are already in this field, a scheme which would be more complete than the one which is now proposed and, in particular, one which would meet with greater universal approval and co-operation.
Before this bill gets second reading-I might say I propose to vote against it-I plead with the government that instead of trying to go ahead and push this scheme through they engage in consultation with the provinces, because if they would do so I am sure a much better scheme would result which we would all be happy to support.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate some hon. members opposite have been generous in their desire to attribute to members of this party from the province of Saskatchewan characteristics which, to say the least, are indicative of a sick imagination. I think of the usual type of claptrap which we have heard from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), the leader of the New Democratic Party in this house, and also the contribution made by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) when he once again sought to justify his adherence to and blind and unwavering support of his party in an eloquent and obvious tribute to the premier of his province for the appointment which brought him to this House of Commons. I was interested in his remarks because once again he found himself compelled to pay a tribute to my leader and to the influence of my leader in this parliament.
October 20, 1966

I thank him tor those words of tribute to the man under whose leadership our party, both in opposition and in government, has sought to build a true spirit and purpose in Canadianism. We on this side of the house are not unmindful of the influence which his presence in our party has brought to the national scene.
Indeed, on this occasion I would be remiss in my duty as a member of this house were I not to express my belief that had he been allowed to remain as prime minister of this country Canada would already have a national health plan. There is no doubt that he has demonstrated the most decisive interest in this matter, more than any leader of any party in the history of our country. Even the greatest proponents of the Liberal party have wrestled with the knowledge that their party's pledge of a national health plan will celebrate its fiftieth anniversary before becoming a reality within our nation.
The bill before us is ironclad evidence of the failure of the present Prime Minister to bring the provinces together in regard to national health care, and it is notable that this plan does not encompass all elements of national health care. I need only mention what has already been said by many other hon. members regarding, dental, optical and other requirements of our people. It is not surprising that the hon. member for St. John's West has had to try to hide his chagrin and his disillusionment at the nature of this bill and at the general performance of his Prime Minister.
Let us consider, for example, the order of priorities which has been before the public so much in recent days, months and years. This measure, having come on the heels of a confession by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) that the economy of Canada has become the slave of inflation, is a further devastating example of the carelessness and faithlessness of the administration opposite. Canadians have come to realize the price they have had to pay to maintain this government in office. The Minister of Finance has admitted that the failure of the government has threatened the future of the nation. Canadian businessmen have been brought face to face with the highest fixed costs in the entire history of our country and consumers have now been faced with the highest cost of living that has ever taken place in Canada.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
Motions for Papers [Translation]



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: It Is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be debated at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Kent, Immigration-temporary harvest workers remaining in Canada; the hon. member for Broadview, Industry-boycott of supermarkets; the hon. member for York-Humber, Administration of Justice-inquiry as to extension of exercise of clemency.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Notices of motions (papers)-Resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Woolliamst-
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all reports, records or documents indicating the places, dates and times of public hearings held by the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta and the members of the Commission and staff attending each hearing; for a copy of the transcript of the proceedings of each hearing; for a return of the record of each hearing if no transcript was made; for the memorandum provided to members of the Commission who were absent from any meeting; and for the resume or other document prepared by the Commission or any of its members setting out the reasons for changes made in the electoral boundaries for Alberta.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I know that we have agreed not to have a private members' hour but as I will be away tomorrow may I revert to motions on a matter which is on the order paper? I gave notice to the Chair. I wish to ask for unanimous consent of the house that order No. 121, a motion in my name, be discharged and the motion withdrawn. I should first of all like unanimous consent to do this and, second, to do it at this time.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house give unanimous consent to permit the hon. member for Bow River to withdraw his notice of motion No. 121 on the order paper?


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my consent will be forthcoming, though with the greatest reluctance and only after I am given a minute or two to explain my position on

October 20. 1966
Motions for Papers
this motion, if the house will so consent. I believe the hon. member for Bow River made an agreement to withdraw his motion. Because and only because I would not leave a fellow parliamentarian, for whom I have very deep respect, in breach of his understanding, I give my consent.
The basic theory of our parliamentary system of government is the full accountability of the complete public service to this high court of parliament. The electoral boundaries commissions and the representation commissioner have taken the attitude that they are above and beyond parliament and not accountable to it, and that their papers are privileged and not open to parliamentary review. Therefore, with all the emphasis at my command, I assert that this is a travesty upon parliamentary government. I also want to say that I shall seek another early opportunity to bring to account the regrettable arrogance of the representation commissioner and the electoral boundaries commissions. It is only on that basis that I give my consent to the withdrawal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Does the hon. member for Bow River have unanimous consent to withdraw notice of motion No. 121 standing in his name?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there has been some suggestion that we rise till seven o'clock for a supper adjournment. If that is agreeable to the house it is agreeable to the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreeable to hon. members that we suspend private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house agree to suspend its sittings from now till seven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 6.04 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 7 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill C-227, to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Allard.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) is allowed to continue his speech on the bill now before the house, I should like to refer if I may to an amendment produced earlier today by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) and seconded by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).
The amendment was reserved to give the Chair an opportunity to look at it, and also to give hon. members an opportunity to give some thought to it from a procedural standpoint. I would ask for comments which hon. members might like to make at this time.

I would be happy to hear comments hon. members may have to make at this time to indicate if, in their opinion, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sherbrooke is in order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would allow the minister to set forth any objection he may have.

Does the minister propose to give views from a procedural standpoint?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the amendment, although I have not received a copy of it, except in French. As I recall the proposal in the amendment it is that in the case of provinces not participating in the medical insurance plan a provision will be made for compensation to such provinces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is opting-out.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have great difficulty with this particular amendment, Mr. Speaker, because the resolution preceding the bill which received the recommendation of His Excellency proposed a particular financial scheme.
October 20, 1966

I think it is quite inappropriate at this stage to propose an alternative and different scheme without there being new and different recommendations from His Excellency. This is a point that I raise as being a fundamental objection to this amendment, namely that it proposes a scheme alternative to that proposed wih the royal recommendation.


An hon. Member:: That is opting out.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not so sure whether it is appropriate to move this amendment at this stage. It seems to me that it is an amendment that could be made, in a sense, in committee. It would seem to anticipate the committee stage of the bill. I suggest even if it were out of order on that ground that any amendment of this kind, or this proposed amendment in committee, would be irregular for the reasons I have suggested, because it does propose an entirely different scheme from that which received the Governor General's recommendation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I heard the minister's objections and I do not feel that it is necessary for the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gre-goire) to take part in the debate at this time. I take it for granted that he wants to give the reasons why the amendment is in order and I can guess the arguments he would make, which are those put forward when the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) was considered a few days ago. I gave due consideration to the arguments and objections made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) which are, of course, very serious. I have already indicated how hard it is for the Chair to render a decision when substantive amendments are concerned. Generally speaking, all that is asked, all that is written is that the amendment impedes the progress of the bill before the house, and that is the main reason why I accepted the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East. And that is why I feel that I must now accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard).
The minister is suggesting that the amendment goes beyond the resolution which was passed. I studied the terms of that resolution, as submitted to the house, and it seems to 23033-565
Medicare
me that it is drafted in abstract and general terms which I will now read:

[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Resolved, that 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.

As I said, that resolution is written in very general terms and so is the proposal made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, and I do not think that in principle it goes against the principle contained in the resolution.
The situation is not very clear. Once again, I hesitate to make the ruling I am now making but, since I am not quite sure, I take the liberty, and I think it is my duty to do so, to give the benefit of the doubt, at least for this once, to the hon. member for Sherbrooke and to allow him to continue the discussion on his amendment.


Edward Nasserden: When the house rose at six o'clock I was outlining some of the conditions which face us in this country as we prepare to deal with this piece of legislation brought forward by the government for our consideration. I was pointing out that Canadians have come to realize the price they now have to pay in order to keep the government opposite in power. I drew attention to the way in which businessmen in this country have been brought face to face with the highest fixed costs in the history of this country. Consumers have been subjected to the highest cost of living in our history. Yet all they have been promised is Joe Greene's Almanac and Shopping Guide for unenlightened housewives and consumers.
This government deliberately encouraged the trend toward the highest interest rates in Canadian history. Taxes at all levels have gone up, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) promises further increases in the baby budget which will be forthcoming later in the year. Is it any wonder that there has been labour unrest in this country?
These things, coupled with the indecision revealed in matters affecting foreign policy and the confusion caused by a lack of domestic purpose, have resulted in a lack of national unity and an unequal personal privation for those living on pensions and fixed incomes. These things, together with the most careless Prime Minister in Canadian history, are the

October 20, 1966
Medicare
price Canadians have to pay to sustain this government in office.
Months ago opposition warnings about the dangers of inflation were ignored and ridiculed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe is rising on a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the matter now under consideration is the amendment to make provision for a fiscal compensation for the provinces desiring to set up their own medicare insurance plans. Therefore, I wonder whether it would not be preferable to restrict ourselves to the amendment now before us. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasser -den) could come back later to the general question of health insurance, if he wishes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking that the discussion be limited to the amendment which has been proposed to the house. He is asking a great deal. I would be very satisfied if the debate were limited to the bill which is before us, and this is what I suggest to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Nasserden: Thank you very much. As I look at the amendment which has been proposed, and read what is written on the front of this bill-
An Act to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
-I cannot but think that the amendment is superfluous in a case such as this. Certainly, when we are dealing with financial considerations which will affect the ability of the provinces to deal with medicare it is fair to pay some attention to the financial positions of the provinces, the municipalities and the public at large who, after all, have to foot these bills.
Before I was interrupted, I was saying that the efforts made in parliament to warn against the dangers of inflation were labelled as obstruction by those across the way. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) sneered his way across Canada trying to establish that myth. Now in this bill, parliament is asked to legislate two years in advance on a matter of

unfinished business involving provincial relations. The postponement written into this bill marks the unready posture of the government. I ask you, sir, is not this arrogrance? Does this not constitute an obstruction to the effectiveness of democratic government?
There is a more serious charge to be levelled at the Minister of Finance and at the government. It is that they have misjudged the effect which the immediate implementation of this measure would have as a stabilizing factor in the Canadian economy particularly with regard to those living on low or middle incomes.
This measure is not a national health plan. It bears no resemblance to such a plan. Its terms even discourage provinces which do not presently have medicare plans from proceeding immediately with provincial schemes. I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) this: What about provinces such as Saskatchewan, where the provincial treasurer has been led to believe that there would be federal assistance forthcoming in regard to the health care plan already in existence in that province? Over a two-year period, it was estimated, between $25 million and $30 million would be forthcoming to the province in a field such as this. I ask the right hon. gentleman to show some consideration and good will for those provinces which have placed plans in operation on the assumption that the word of the Prime Minister during two election campaigns and in the house could be relied on.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
I want to deal for a few moments with the Saskatchewan plan, and trace its birth and growth. First of all, I must pay tribute to those pioneers of a national health plan who, as supporters of the Liberal party, had the satisfaction some 47 years ago to see their proposal enshrined as a plank in their party's platform. Unfortunately most of them have passed away since then, some of them never to know that their resolution would endure for 47 years, and still be the promise of the Liberal party. We cannot blame them for the dilatory manner in which that platform has been treated by successive Liberal governments. Lucky they are not alive today to witness the attitude of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) toward resolutions adopted at political conventions. Their only consolation might be that their resolution dealing with a national health plan was one of those promises kept by their party, to be carefully polished before and during elections, until it became almost a legend.
October 20, 1966

The first time I ever heard the former minister of national health and welfare, who is now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) I heard him recite in heady pride the acceptance of that pledge as a mandate, should they be re-elected. It must have been another of those disappointments with which the Liberal party has favoured him, to be denied the privilege to affix his name to such a bill. On this occastion I ask him to take new heart. After this bill before us has passed, fortune may still smile his way, and provide the opportunity to fulfil the pledge that has been made to successive Liberal generations.
The province of Saskatchewan is a jewel set in the heart of the prairies. Half a century ago it was discovered by the late Sir Clifford Sifton. To the raw unbroken prairie of those days he drew the pioneers by the thousands, and in the process changed the face and outlook of Canada. He was a nation builder-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: He was a Liberal too.


Edward Nasserden: Yes, but he was a different type of Liberal from what we have in Canada today.


Mr. Cashin:: And you are a different type of Tory, too.


Edward Nasserden: He was a nation builder, to be compared with those who went before him, like Sir John A. Macdonald who laid the steel to unite Canada from coast to coast. Sir John A. Macdonald gave Canada the physical outlines of a nation, and gave it the spirit that would make it distinctive among the nations of the world.
Sir Clifford Sifton gave our nation a new dimension, bringing in thousands to build their own homes and to grow the golden grain that, even to our day half a century later, has been the mainstay of our economy and of our exports. The turning of the sod, the recurring battle with the elements, and natural calamities have left their mark on the people of the prairies. These people came to know instinctively that there were certain things that could only be accomplished by working together.
That never dulled their appetite for freedom and initiative. Earlier in our history, by trial and experiment, municipal health plans of varying scope were put into operation, many of them long before the C.C.F. was ever heard of in Canada. The farm organizations in our province were a motivating force in providing an educational background for
Medicare
the development of these programs. The doctor-patient relationship was protected by those who had a real health care program at heart.
By 1944 all of the political parties in the province of Saskatchewan were committed to a hospitalization program. The revenues in the years that followed were allocated to provide for the introduction of Saskatchewan's hospitalization plan. The search for a national health plan was still in the minds of Saskatchewan people when, in 1958, they rallied to the banner of John Diefenbaker and sent to the House of Commons 16 Progressive Conservative members of the 17 members from that province. In the ensuing elections the results at the polls in western Canada have almost become a legend.
Thus is was that the Hall Commission on Health Services became a reality. Thus it was that the first substantial move was made by a federal government toward implementation of the old Liberal pledge. No one will ever forget the manoeuvring that ensued following that initial stance taken here in the House of Commons, with the members of all political parties trying to lay claim to paternity even before a national health plan was born.
I say to the leader of the N.D.P. that it ill becomes a man who once was the premier of Saskatchewan, the leader of the old C.C.F. party in that province, to impute motives to those who were sent from Saskatchewan to ensure a full study of health matters and the report which has formed the basis of the plan that is now under consideration.


Mr. Winch:: Then why are you blocking it?


Edward Nasserden: During the course of my remarks I have acknowledged the role of Sir John A. Macdonald and the role of Sir Clifford Sifton, and the part they played in opening up western Canada, thus developing a new dimension in our national life. In a real way they gave this nation a distinctive character and purpose. In recent years another great Canadian, with the imprint of the prairies on every one of his features, has given this nation heart and spirit.
Historians have already paid tribute to his qualities as an opposition critic, and as I read the book that was written about him by Peter Newman I saw him as the greatest liberal of them all. That is the real story of his achievements which gave this nation heart and spirit during the seven most tumultuous years of decision ever experienced in Canada, a period

October 20, 1966
Medicare
during which the stage was set for the greatest era of expansion and development that we in Canada will ever know. He brought Saskatchewan and the prairies to the national scene. Canada will never be the same again.


Harold Edward Winch: I'll say.


Edward Nasserden: Politics in Canada will never be the same again. This fact has escaped the Prime Minister who neither understands nor appreciates the changing complexion of our national life. The measure now before us is another monument to his failure to comprehend the elements of national unity and purpose. The Prime Minister's preoccupation for over three years with the theory of a state within a state has set back for more than a score of years the work of national unity in our country.
That is why the Prime Minister is presenting this measure to parliament without agreement among the provinces. That is why confusion and consternation rule the Liberal party today. That is why this crippled government seeks to hold on just a little bit longer, hoping something will happen to destroy the effectiveness of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons.
But I say to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) that John Diefenbaker has not departed this party yet, nor this parliament. I say this too-that when that time comes-
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's comments are very interesting, but I have some serious doubt whether they are relevant to the bill which we have before us at the moment. I am not sure whether the hon. member himself is certain that the speech he is making now has any reference whatsoever to the bill which is being studied by this house.


Edward Nasserden: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker; I am very confident that the point I am trying to make is very pertinent to the bill before us. Were it not for the fact that the Prime Minister of this country has failed to reach an agreement with the provinces, we would not be in the position of having a bill of this nature before us now. I am trying to establish one of the factors which has entered into this mealy measure, which is not of the magnitude we would expect from a government which in successive years promised it would give Canada a national health plan. Now the government comes up, because of

the failure of its leader, the Prime Minister, with this measure which does only part of the job which has to be done.
Before I was interrupted I was dealing with the impact that the Leader of the Opposition has had on this parliament and this nation. I say that, long after he has gone, Canadians will continue to reap the benefits of the legislation which has been passed by him and the ministers he has gathered around him through the years. I think of Saskatchewan, and when I think of Saskatchewan I have in mind the irrigation project that was placed there. I think of the name that was given to it only a few days ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member again to remind him that he should at least at one point in his speech refer to the bill which is under consideration at the moment.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I know it may be difficult for you to realize the point I am trying to make, but as I look at the clauses in this bill before us I cannot help but feel that it is important to impress upon this house the failure of the Prime Minister to secure the acceptance by the provinces of the important facets of a national health plan.
I was referring to one of the things that was done some years ago in respect of the development of this nation, the South Saskatchewan River dam as it was then called. It was called another name by the government the other day. I am one who does not take exception to the name. When the people of Saskatchewan hear that name they will be reminded of the battles that were waged in this House of Commons by a former Liberal minister of agriculture. His name on that project in our province is a monument, utterly unforgettable, a symbol of the futility of sending Liberal members and Liberal ministers to Ottawa.
The members from Saskatchewan are not unmindful of the role that the family doctor played in the development of our communities. We know he shared in that pioneering that built our province. The Medical Society of Saskatchewan has earned an enviable record. Individual members of that profession in our province have made that achievement possible. We make no apology to the renegade from Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) for our concern and for our defence of the doctor-patient relationship which has been a
October 20, 1966

most harmonious and happy one in our province. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam questioned whether we support health care legislation. I say to him and to the members of the House of Commons that we pioneered health care in our province and in our country.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, heavy at heart, to have to speak once again on this particular piece of legislation and to urge once again that the government halt their action in this regard, take a second look, go slowly, and go carefully. What are they doing? Where has co-operative federalism gone? Earlier today in the committee on transport and communications the minister said "We do not intend to invoke part III of this transportation bill because it concerns interprovincial trucking-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member recognizes that the reference he is making now has no relationship to Bill C-227.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I used this as an example and I intend to link it with my reference-and I think it is a logical reference-to this whole problem of co-operative federalism.
Part III of the transportation bill is not going to be implemented until the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has an opportunity to discuss this with the provinces and until full co-operation can be reached with the provinces. Now, I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) why is he not doing the same thing in respect of this piece of legislation; why is a federal-provincial conference not called to discuss this thoroughly, so as to ensure that what the house passes today will be enacted fairly and justly by those provinces.
I do not wish to contribute to the holding of a hammer over the provinces, and saying to them "Abide by this rule, or you are not going to receive $14 per capita for every person in the province". This is what this government is saying. Is that what co-operative federalism means to the minister? I interpret it altogether differently. We in Canada today are at the crossroads of remaining a nation or dividing ourselves. I have seen evidence today which angered me when I saw that a man would stoop so low as to incite and divide Canada.
I ask the government what they are doing by means of this piece of legislation to unite Canada, to bring us together, to weld us
Medicare
closer together? Nothing; nothing. Why do they foist this upon parliament and say "Pass it now", when it is not going to be enacted for 22 months? Is that co-operative federalism? I do not think it is, and that is why at the beginning of my remarks I said I rise with a heavy heart to have to speak once again on this particular legislation, because Canada means a lot to me and I want it to remain united. I do not want Canada to be the 51st state of the United States. I want us to remain strong and remain united.
What part in co-operative federalism does this play when we say to the provinces "You must bring in legislation that is operated on a non-profit basis; you must bring in insured services to cover 90 per cent of the population immediately on the enactment of this act; these four criteria must be obeyed or you will receive no money". Is this not the heavy hand; is this not a bribe; is this not forcing the provinces into something?
I really find no fault with this amendment. In my interpretation of it, this amendment says "Let us take a look at this; let us give the provinces the money to administer their own plans when they may see fit". But, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that we now are moving into a field which is within provincial jurisdiction, and we are using the heavy hand of money to persuade the provinces to accept what we want them to accept.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
This is a strange twist to co-operative federalism. Let us compare this legislation with the pension plan, which was implemented and is administered by the federal government. The federal government collects the money and ensures that there shall be pensions paid. However, in respect of this medicare scheme the provinces are being asked to act as administrators. We are saying to them that before they get any money they must listen to us and do what they are told. Surely the minister could negotiate a better arrangement than that. Surely he has more confidence in his aides and colleagues in the cabinet. Obviously he could have obtained some degree of co-operation on the part of the provinces.
I suppose I could be considered as a westerner in view of the fact that I continually advocate things on behalf of the west. In spite of that fact I have always defended the argument that we should have a strong central government. Far be it from me to deny the federal government the right to move into the field of medical care, either by initiation

October 20. 1966
Medicare
or by co-operation. Why does this government have to use a club to obtain acceptance on the part of the provinces?
We have heard a great deal of evidence to the effect that hospitalization in Canada is behind the times and that medical services are inadequate. We know that it takes nearly ten people for every doctor to provide the medical services required by the people of this country. It has been brought to our attention during this debate that we must bring in 460 doctors every year in order to meet our demands, because our schools are not capable of producing a sufficient number. The natural question arising from this situation is, why is this so, and the answer is obvious. This is so because we do not have adequate training facilities.
I suggest that our difficulties can be related to the old question of which comes first, the horse or the carriage, the chicken or the egg? The answer to me seems to be that in order to institute an efficient medicare scheme we must obtain the power and the ability to administer it. It has been suggested that the provinces will not be able to meet hospitalization and medical service needs until at least 1975. The brief submitted to the Hall Commission by the province of Nova Scotia, that province from which the minister comes, suggested that it could not meet hospitalization or medical needs until 1975. What will happen in the meantime, particularly in view of the implementation of this new plan?
Under this plan I understand that the federal government will contribute $14 per capita, which will be met by an equal contribution on the part of the provinces. These provinces must continue to build hospitals in order to catch up with our needs.
Where will the necessary money be found in order to carry out these plans? I am not a Social Crediter, although I come from the province of Alberta, and I know that money does not grow on trees. This money must come from the pockets of our taxpayers. We must have some consideration for the municipalities across this country which are finding it difficult to meet their hospitalization costs. Let us pay attention to those provinces which suggest that we should go slow in the institution of any medicare plan. Let us move into this type of social legislation bit by bit rather than force it all at once down the throats of our provinces.
It is my belief that the federal government should move into the medicare field, but I hope and believe that this government should

and will seek and obtain the co-operation of the provinces before doing so. Let us drop the 90 per cent coverage requirement and concentrate on providing medical services for pensioners. Let us first help those people of this country who find it more and more difficult to meet the ever rising cost of living.
Perhaps the government should call for a federal-provincial conference on this whole subject before implementing this scheme. This plan is not to be implemented until 1968, 22 months from now, so what is the urgency at this time? Let us bring in medicare for pensioners first; let us do something in this field for our pensionable veterans. Surely it is far more important to look after these people at this time than to bring in this kind of legislation. I urge the minister not to proceed with a plan of this kind before obtaining the full co-operation of all provincial governments.
The last time I spoke on this subject, when we were considering the amendment, I suggested that the minister was proceeding with this legislation, which is not to be implemented until 1968, because his government believes there will be an election perhaps that year, and will be able to use this piece of social legislation as a means of buying Canadian votes. That is exactly what this government did in respect of the pension legislation.
Let me point out specifically what I mean in this regard. If the government is able to have this medicare legislation passed now it will then be in a position to spend millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money in advertising, to induce the taxpayers to vote in their favour at the next election, whether it be in 1967 or 1968. I am sure the government is at this time uncertain when the next election will take place, but they want this legislation passed in order that it may be used as an advertising gambit. This is a deceitful use of the taxpayers' money and a deceitful platform for an election. IVIedicare will not in any event come into effect for 22 months, so the only reason I can find for the urgency of its passage is, as I have stated, so it can be used as an election advertisement. This is extremely deceitful.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
We have heard a great deal about the Hall Commission report, and I should like to refer
October 20, 1966

to certain of the recommendations it contained. This is the last recommendation they put before the Hall Commission:
In conclusion, and inasmuch as any medical care plan would have to be integrated with and would affect and be affected by the hospital insurance plan, we would urge, based on our own experience, that federal legislation should be sufficiently general-
Let me repeat that:
-should be sufficiently general-
That is what the minister's own provincial government said to the Hall Commission. They said, further:
-and flexible that a province would be able to develop and implement a plan that meets their individual needs.
The government of the province from which the minister comes said to the Hall Commission that if a medicare program is to be implemented, it will be affected by the hospital insurance plan and should be sufficiently general and flexible that a province would be able to develop and implement a plan that would meet their individual needs. Well, Mr. Speaker, let us analyse what they really said here. I would emphasize the fact that this is what the government of the minister's province is saying. They are saying-and this is back in 1961 or 1962 when the Hall Commission was studying this whole question-that a national medicare plan, if brought into being, would affect and be affected by the hospital insurance plan. That is a logical rationalization. What did they say about the hospital insurance plan? They said, "We will not catch up with the demand for hospital beds until 1975." They also recommended that the federal government make larger grants toward the provision of hospital construction. Why has not legislation in respect of this recommendation been introduced first?
If provinces across Canada say, "We will not have enough beds for our foreseeable needs until 1975", and they complain that the $2,000 per bed grant of this government is not sufficient, why has not legislation to improve this situation been introduced before medicare? Why do we not say, "Yes, we realize that there is a shortage of hospital beds and that the federal government grant of $2,000 per bed is not enough. We realize that we should increase this grant"? I think the grant should be doubled. Why does not this legislation come first? The minister's province is considered to be one of the areas of Canada not too generously endowed with
Medicare
natural resources. That province is not nearly as generously endowed with natural resources as is the part of Canada from which I come. Why do we not increase this grant before bringing in medicare legislation? It appears to me that this would be a logical rationalization of the facts available to us. This is what the province of the minister recommended to the Hall Commission. What did they say in their brief? They said:
We would urge, based on our own experience, that federal legislation should be sufficiently general and flexible that a province would be able to develop and implement a plan that meets their individual needs.
Let us see how this legislation meets that criterion which they urge upon the federal government, no matter who is in power at the time. Is this legislation sufficiently general and flexible to meet their needs? I can only say no. It lays down four criteria and says, "You must meet these four criteria or there is no money for you." I come back, Mr. Speaker, to the central theme of my speech: Where, oh where, is co-operative federalism in this particular piece of legislation?
Let us look a little further at the recommendations they made to the Hall Commission. They said that federal legislation should be sufficiently general and flexible that a province would be able to develop a plan that would meet their individual needs. Does this plan allow the provinces to develop a plan which will meet their own needs? It does not. It gives the provinces no choice whatsoever. It says, "Boom. This is to be the plan which you will operate. A criterion is that 90 per cent of all the citizens within a province shall participate." On page 3 of the bill other criteria are laid out. Where is the flexibility? Where does this plan allow a province to develop a plan to meet its individual needs? It does not. This plan does not even interest itself in the individual needs that a province may desire to meet.
The plan envisaged in this bill keeps a heavy hand on the money with respect to all provinces. Even the province of Alberta runs short of money once in a while. All provinces find themselves short of money as does every municipality, and especially the municipalities in the province of Alberta. I ask again, Mr. Speaker: Where, of where, is co-operative federalism in this legislation? I have searched this legislation and hoped that somewhere along the line this would not be the new interpretation of co-operative federalism. I hoped that we would not hold a club

October 20, 1966
Medicare
over the heads of the provinces and say, "We are not interested in whether we are invading provincial jurisdiction. We are invading it because we have the money and supreme power to tax the provinces and we can get the money for our purposes. We are not worried in this respect." The other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) said he would increase taxes by $350 million this year in his baby budget. He knows he has the ultimate power to tax the public, and he is not worried.
After taxing the provinces to this extent, this government comes back to the provinces and says, "We have the money. You toe the mark." Is this co-operative federalism? When this government took over office two years ago, this was not their interpretation of cooperative federalism. I find it difficult to believe that even this government has so eroded this principle in such a short period of time. It thought it was the father of the term "co-operative federalism". I would not give this government credit for being the father. They may own the funeral home that will bury this principle, because that is what this legislation is actually doing.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Would the hon. gentleman care to inform the house whether he is going to vote for or against this bill?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have no hesitation in informing any hon. member how I stand and how I will vote on any particular piece of legislation. I wonder about the concern of the hon. member as to how I shall vote, because this scheme is not going to be implemented for two years anyway. I should like to think that my vote would be the deciding one, because then I might give it a great deal of consideration.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: How are you going to vote? You are not sure.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am certain how I shall vote, and I would be pleased if the minister would stand up and answer some of the criticism I have levelled at this legislation.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Your criticism is too devastating.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member is a little worried about the new member from

Newfoundland, and that his prominence in this house may diminish. The premier of Newfoundland is about to retire and there is some doubt as to who will be his successor, the child-wonder who asked the question, or the new brainchild of the Liberal party from that province.


Mrs. Rideout:: How are you going to vote?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You will have to wait and watch.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You don't know yet.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is no doubt
about how I will vote.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to the amendment which says that while we accept that all Canadians be covered by medicare, we would also like to see added in the bill a section providing fiscal compensation for the provinces which way prefer to adopt their own medicare plan.
The other evening, while discussing Bill No. C-227, I mentioned that if Quebec wanted to adopt its own plan by 1972 instead of accepting the federal plan, Quebeckers would then be paying taxes toward the cost of the federal plan from which the other provinces would benefit and a second tax for the cost of the plan implemented in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind, the amendment is perfectly logical and I was pleased to second it when my friend, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) moved it.
It so happens that health is under provincial jurisdiction and that the provinces, for want of money, have not been able to implement a medicare plan, but if they had the money required, they would be able to do so.
It so happens that the federal government took fiscal resources away from Quebec and, having the major share of the fiscal revenue coming from outside, wants to implement such a plan and is ready to pay half the cost.
If the federal government is ready to pay half the cost of a medicare plan, why would it not give the fiscal equivalent to the provinces so that they could set up their own plans? That, it seems to me, would make sense. I think that it has already been done in the field of hospital insurance. For instance, Quebec has been able to opt out of
October 20, 1966

the hospital insurance plan and receive a fiscal compensation. If that could be done in the field of hospital insurance, why would it not be right in the case of medicare? That was good for the pension plan, since Quebec has its own program. That was also good for youth allowances of $10 per student of 17 and 18 years of age since Quebec received a fiscal compensation. Health also is under provincial jurisdiction. Why would it not be right to provide for a fiscal compensation at this moment? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this would be the logical thing to do.
The amendment is before the house. We will be able to see what the Quebec members will do. I do not see many of them in the house; I think there are now five or six, on the Liberal side, but in my opinion they are the best. For example, I would say that the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) is one of the best. Unfortunately, I have not yet heard him speak; I am eager to see what he will do with regard to this question.
I see the member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay), certainly one of the more likeable Quebec members. Unfortunately, I have not heard him speak. I am anxious to see what course he will adopt with regard to the amendment. The amendment has been accepted in accordance with the rules of procedure but this does not put it off the bill indefinitely; on the contrary, it simply allows the members to say that they would like to see a fiscal compensation system for the provinces which will implement their own medicare plan.
What stand will the Associate Minister of National Defence take on that? I am anxious to know. I see that he is now consulting with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) and I hope he is trying to convince him.
I should also like the member for Matapedia-Matane, a former minister, to try and convince his colleagues.
I see the member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) who should also take part in this discussion to try and convince the Minister of National Health and Welfare. If he feels that health comes under provincial jurisdiction, that Quebec can set up its own plan and is entitled, in return, to fiscal compensation, he should rise and say so.
Unfortunately, I do not see the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mar-chand) at this time. His support of our amendment today would be valuable, because he
Medicare
has the knack of bringing people around to his views. He says: "That is how it is going to be or else I resign". Therefore, we need the help of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Unfortunately, he has been away since the beginning and has not spoken on this matter. We have yet to hear him defend the rights of Quebec.
I remember, for instance, that when we discussed the bill concerning the railway workers' return to work, Bill C-l, I believe, no the bill we passed during the emergency session called at the time of the railway strike, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration stated on one occasion: "Since it is morally in the bill, it is as good as if it were actually in the bill."
In order to reassure us, Mr. Speaker, I should like to see him this evening, as well as the other Quebec ministers and members, rise and say: It is morally in the bill; it is better than if it were actually written in it.
I see another member coming in, the member for Shefford (Mr. Neveu). I also hope-


An hon. Member:: Not the member for Shefford, but the one for Berthier-Maskinon-ge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Yanakis).


Gilles Grégoire: Pardon me, the member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere. I do not see him, because he is sitting just behind me, this is why I do not always notice him.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that in their innermost heart, the Quebec members would like to see that included. And the proof is that the other day, when I asked that a provision for a fiscal compensation be included the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette)- who unfortunately is not here this evening, and I regret it-thought it it was included and I then said, as recorded on page 8752 of Hansard October 17, left column at the bottom of the page and I quote:
There are in the house some Quebec members. They know quite well that if the province of Quebec does not take part in this scheme, it will pay taxes from which it will derive no benefit, but which will be allotted to other provinces.
And then I heard the member for Lotbiniere repeat and this is recorded in Hansard:
"And what about fiscal compensations?"
He was anticipating fiscal compensations, but I believe that he had not even read the bill, since we had to tell him that there was none, since section 8 provided that there would be no fiscal compensation before 1972, that is in 6 years time.

October 20, 1966
Medicare
I then mentioned that I had just read section 8 which indicated that no fiscal compensation would be paid and I quote what I said, as recorded on the same page of Hansard.
-and no fiscal compensation shall be paid before March 31, 1972, even if a province does not participate in this plan.
And I asked that some clarification be given and to that the member for Lotbiniere replied:
This can be improved.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The amendment is meant only to improve the situation.
I see the whip of the Liberal party (Mr. Pilon), a member from Quebec, who should get the Liberal members from Quebec together and see to it that pressure is brought to bear on the Minister of National Health and Welfare to include in the bill a clause providing immediate fiscal adjustments for Quebec or any other province which prefers or wishes to set up, as it has every right to, its own medicare scheme.
Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the amendment-indeed I seconded it-which asks for the setting up of a fiscal compensation scheme. At the present time, Ottawa is forever trying to interfere in fields of provincial jurisdiction. I think the time has come to tell Ottawa: That is enough. Mind your own business and leave to the provinces the fields which come under their jurisdiction. And health is one of them.
Fiscal compensation should be provided for the provinces which will want to set up their own medicare plan.
My colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, reminds me that the Quebec premier will be here next week.
It might be a good idea to put aside for a few days, say until next Wednesday or Thursday, the discussion of this bill precisely to get the opinion of the man who represents Quebec at the present time, namely the premier of Quebec, to find out if he would not prefer a fiscal adjustment to the federal scheme. I think that would be simply a sign of good will. But no. It seems that the federal government is dead set on its decisions. It is obvious in the decision of the Labour Relations Board which will not give workers in the province of Quebec the right to choose their own labour union. And the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the former president of the C.N.T.U., did not protest. The

Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) does not protest.
Today we see another encroachment upon provincial jurisdiction and the Liberal members do not raise any protest. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see them rise. The only minister in the house at present is the Associate Minister of National Defence. I should like to see him rise to tell us whether or not he supports the amendment that is now before us or why he would not support it. I always realized that the Associate Minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Terrebonne, was very sympathetic. He always defended the rights of French Canadians, or at least he did so on some occasions. Among other things, I remember that when the question of appointing commissioners to the National Art Centre came up, he was one of those who defended the interests of French Canadians in spite of some of his colleagues.
Right now, we face a similar problem. I would be pleased if the only minister who is in the house at this moment could at least tell us whether he intends to support the amendment, and whether he will try to convince his colleagues from the other provinces to support it also.
Actually, Quebec relies on its representatives in Ottawa. At present its best representative in the house is the only minister who is present right now, it is the Associate Minister of National Defence. And today, the province of Quebec counts on him to act as its spokesman, to set forth the views of the province and to urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to make sure that the amendment, should go through so as to provide fiscal compensation which would allow Quebec to enter into a field which comes under provincial jurisdiction according to the constitution. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Associate Minister of National Defence is bound to make this gesture today, being the only Quebec representative in the cabinet, and it is his duty to convince his colleagues from the other provinces, and this with no beating about the bush.
And all other members should act in the same way, be it the member for Matapedia-Matane or the member for Hochelaga, the member for Stanstead, (Mr. Forest), Levis, (Mr. Guay), Verdun, (Mr. Mackasey). There are not very many, and that is why we can take the liberty of naming them all. That is what I have just done.


An hon. Member:: Bonaventure.
October 20, 1966


Gilles Grégoire: The member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard).


An hon. Member:: Laval.


An hon. Member:: Gatineau.


Gilles Grégoire: Well then, Mr. Speaker, these members are present. They have identified themselves. Quebec will know that they were here and that they did not take the floor when they should have. Mr. Speaker, I urge these Quebec members-I see another Quebec member coming in, the member for !les-de-la-Madeleine, and Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve), who could also speak on behalf of the province of Quebec and demand provision for fiscal compensation.
I remember when he was in opposition, he would champion the cause of the rights of Quebec. Well, it is time for him to prove it tonight, and the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development has the opportunity to do so. Let him take the floor; let one of the two rise and say they will support the amendment and ask all their colleagues from the other provinces to support this amendment which, after all, does not seek to kill the bill under consideration but to improve it by providing fiscal compensation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is everyone's duty to voice their opinion, to proclaim their support for the rights of the province of Quebec, and one of these is the right of the province of Quebec in the field of health. They must try and make their colleagues realize this and I urge hon. members of the house, and particularly the two ministers to do so.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, since I have already spoken on this bill, I shall be brief. I only rise to give the opinion of our group regarding the amendment moved tonight by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard).
Mr. Speaker, as you may have realized, we have voted against the Conservative amendment and if no changes are made in this bill, if this amendment is turned down by a majority vote, we shall be forced to vote against the principle of the bill because as I have said in my first speech and as other speakers have indicated, this bill is contrary to the rights of the province of Quebec and we may not, we cannot as French Canadians, accept something contrary to the constitution,
Medicare
something which undermines the powers, the rights of our province to the benefit of a central government which day after day, hour after hour, attempts to take over the rights of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, we read in this bill:
-an act to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plan.
Mr. Speaker, it sounds wonderful, quite enticing in fact; and as I said the other day, it seems a little like a pill given to a patient- a pill which is gilded to make it less repulsive. I assure you that the bill as it is now is repulsive to the province of Quebec.
They say that they want to help the provinces without consulting them. Mr. Speaker, have the provinces been consulted? Not at all. Do they know what the provinces think? We know by the newspapers. Most provinces objected to the present form of the bill; even the doctors have objected. But this is not taken into consideration; they forge ahead as if nothing happened.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if we want to know something about Quebec views-since I speak here on behalf of my fellow citizens of Quebec-we need only to open any newspaper to soon realize that Quebec wants at any price to have its own medicare plan, and to control it one hundred per cent. That is the reason why you see headlines as the one in L'Action of October 17, for instance, which quoted the very words of the Quebec premier -we have one, at last, who dares to stand up-who simply said:
Ottawa will not impose on us.
Mr. Speaker, I think that should give food for thought to the minister of national health (Mr. MacEachen). I believe that should give food for thought to all the ministers, and especially to the Liberal members from the province of Quebec.
I wonder what excuse they will give their constituents when they will try to explain their vote on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I said that the government did not consult the provinces, and I think it would still be time-as the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) said a moment ago-to adjourn this debate to enable the government to consult a Quebec delegation which will be here next week, to attend the federal-provincial conference, and try to agree on a formula which will provide our

October 20, 1966
Medicare
province with an adequate fiscal compensation, because I will not have the province of Quebec taxed again, by that bill, during five or six years and receive nothing in return. That has been going on for more than 50 years; it has acquired a new momentum since about 30 years, always for the benefit of others. A nice proposal is put forward, but there is a nigger in the woodpile: a tax will be levied on the Quebec workers, but Quebec will receive nothing in return and the minister is well aware of it, as a result of the statement made by the Prime Minister and the statement of all the other ministers. Moreover if you want other statements, you can find one in Le Devoir of October 19-it is quite recent-the hon. minister, Dozois said:
if Ottawa insists on keeping it, it will be necessary to find other means to recuperate its fiscal rights.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what is the government waiting for? Why wait to do justice to a province that simply wants to live within the law, that merely wants the constitution to be respected? We often hear that the present Quebec government is acting pretty smart, but I say that if it speaks harshly, the actions of the federal government, especially in the last 30 years, have also been pretty hard on the province of Quebec.
I fail to understand how the minister could answer as he did the other day when he was asked if there was for the province of Quebec, a fiscal compensation guarantee in the bill, either explicit or implicit. The minister replied coldly and directly in front of all the Quebec members seated on either side of him: No, the province of Quebec will receive nothing.
Mr. Speaker, as a Quebecker, I cannot allow such words to be spoken in this house. The province of Quebec will be taxed, that is the right of the federal government, but it will keep everything and give nothing. Then, in 1972, Ottawa will think about giving back something to Quebec, after having distributed everything, impoverished our workers and drained them dry during four or five years to satisfy that giant dictator, the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, we strongly favour this amendment which provides for fiscal compensation for such provinces as may not wish to avail themselves of the federal medicare plan. We will support it, Mr. Speaker, because as Quebec members it is our duty to do so, just as it is the duty of the representatives of other provinces.

I heard earlier the claim put in by the hon. member for Jasper (Mr. Horner) on behalf of his province. He has the right to do so because this field, let us say it and repeat it, is a provincial matter. Let Ottawa leave provincial affairs alone. Ottawa should let the provinces administer their own affairs and leave them their own revenues.
We hear people say that provinces are taking no action. No wonder they are not taking any action. The federal government is continuously taxing the provinces; from the beginning of the war, it has taken all taxation powers from the provinces, and has returned hardly anything to them. And then, some people say that Quebec-as well as the other provinces-are not taking any action. I can well believe it. If you empty someone's wallet, how can he then purchase even 5 cents worth of vitally needed goods? Well, this is exactly what the federal government has done in respect of the provinces and particularly in respect of the province of Quebec.
There are some provinces-and I bear no grudge-like the prairie provinces, for which special legislation has been passed, to help them.
Well and good. But try to find one piece of legislation designed to help directly the province of Quebec. There is absolutely none.
Let Quebec be the goat. Let's take it out on Quebec. Make Quebec pay in order to weaken it. Thus, we will have its skin.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Well, times have changed, Mr. Speaker, and it will be up to the federal government to take action. It will have to consider giving a little justice-social justice does not exist solely for the federal government. Social justice will have to apply to every province, including Quebec, one of those calling for such justice.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my remarks this evening will be considered as an appeal to all French Canadians from Quebec to support the amendment moved by the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard). If someone votes against this amendment, I shall simply say that he betrayed his province.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have been so kindly invited by the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to take part in this debate and to state clearly how I will vote on the
October 20, 1966

amendment before us, that I can hardly resist such an attractive proposition.
Naturally, the member for Lapointe already knows how I am going to vote. But nevertheless, I feel bound to give him my reasons, and because he inferred that most government members from Quebec had not read or understood the bill before us-the previous speaker also implied the same thing-I may say that perhaps they have not read it entirely themselves.
The amendment actually deals with fiscal compensation, and the member for Lapointe himself gave as an example the province of Quebec. In particular, he mentioned hospital insurance, suggesting that the province had withdrawn from that scheme, which is a joint program at present.
Now, the member for Lapointe slightly altered the facts because, if I am not mistaken, the province of Quebec will withdraw in 1970 from the hospital insurance plan. Therefore-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I think the minister is honest in those intentions he is ascribing to me, but if he reads my speech tomorrow, he will find that I have not said that Quebec has opted out at this time, but rather that Quebec has a right to opt out of that plan and that it can get fiscal compensation if it wants. I have not stated that it has already opted out of that plan.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: That is precisely the trend of my argument, Mr. Speaker. If, as far as hospital insurance is concerned, Quebec can experiment for a few years and then opt out with a fiscal compensation, if such a formula is agreeable to the hon. member for Lapointe, then I say to him: Read the bill and you will find that it proposes the same formula. The federal government seeks to set up a medicare plan and within that scheme, there has to be principles and standards as well as a basis for fiscal compensation. That is why we say that such a plan must be given a try for a few years. In this bill, which has not yet been amended, March 31, 1972, is mentioned as the date on which, on the basis of the experience of the years gone by, a fiscal compensation will be paid to any province which wants to opt out; actually, not "which wants" but "which will have" to opt out anyway.
Medicare
And clause 8 provides that:
At least six months before the 31st day of March, 1972, the government of Canada shall review-
Not "may", but "shall", review.
-the provisions of this act respecting the amount and manner of payment of the contributions payable by Canada pursuant to section 3 with a view to formulating proposals for any changes therein that appear then to be necessary or desirable with respect to the amount and manner of payment, whether by the transfer or allocation of specified tax revenues by Canada and the making of equalization payments and other fiscal adjustments by Canada in lieu of the contributions that would otherwise be payable pursuant to section 3.
And I do not see, Mr. Speaker, how the members from the province of Quebec can wonder about such a clear, fair and reasonable proposition, one which allows the federal government to establish a program to act as co-ordinator in all the provinces of Canada, to offer to each a plan based on principles of absolute equality, and then to offer them fiscal compensation based on the experience of the last few years, which will allow them to exercise their full responsibility, as is the hope of the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), as well as the Liberal members on this side of the house, myself, and the member who has just spoken.
I think this bill reflects the spirit of the constitution and I do not see in what way anyone would find it embarrassing to reject this proposal which I actually find premature with regard to the demand for immediate fiscal compensation for the provinces.
I say it is premature because there is no basis for comparison at the present time and, therefore, we would not know to what fiscal compensation a province would be entitled. I think the proposition of the federal government to the provinces to go it together is just and in the interest of the whole population, and that there is no call in a case such as this to harp on the same old nationalist themes from Quebec which try to show the government as always attempting to infringe upon the rights of the province of Quebec.
That is not at all the point here. The question is to establish, according to the constitution and the rights and prerogatives of the federal government, a universal medicare program which would make all Canadians equal with regard to their needs in the case of unexpected illness, and which in addition provides after three, four or perhaps five years of experience, an adequate, fair and reasonable fiscal compensation plan for everyone.

October 20, 1966
Medicare


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the minister allow me a question?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Certainly.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the minister admit that under the constitution, health comes under provincial jurisdiction? Would he admit that Quebec is entitled, under the constitution, to establish from the very beginning, its own medicare plan? And finally, would the minister admit that in such a case, it would be logical and normal for Quebec not to be compelled to pay for medicare implemented outside Quebec as well as for its own plan and then, if the Quebec government takes such a decision, as it is entitled to do so under the constitution, that Ottawa should provide a fiscal compensation in such circumstances?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, those questions are by no means embarrassing. I slightly disagree with the member for Lapointe and I think that this is one of the constitutional fields which perhaps come under provincial jurisdiction. But there can be some differences of opinion on this subject.
That the province of Quebec is entitled to establish its own medicare scheme? But, this is exactly what we are suggesting. We offer to contribute 50 per cent of the cost of the plan established according to standards which we consider to be national standards. The province of Quebec is not required to establish it, but requested to do so and a compensation of 50 per cent of the costs incurred is offered as a compensation. I do not see how I am at variance with the member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, just another question. The minister said that health came under a joint jurisdiction. Could the minister quote a section, a line, a word in the constitution giving to the federal government any right in the field of health?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I specifically stated a moment ago that we obviously did not agree on the interpretation of the constitution as far as jurisdiction was concerned.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I do not think that is the essential point in this debate. We are discussing a measure which is much more important in human terms than the right to argue forever like lawyers on the smallest technicality of a
[Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne) .1
constitution which, in some respects, is obsolete, I admit it. The whole thing is not clear, I admit it also. But that is not the point. The important thing is to keep within the meaning and the spirit of the constitution which has changed over the last 100 years through precedents of all kinds which were created in the course of the collective life which we have tried to live together here on the American continent.
That is the important thing, Mr. Speaker. We must not spend our time studying the provisions of the constitution with a magnifying glass and trying to give them a narrow interpretation. We must go beyond them and be guided by the spirit of those who wrote that constitution.
What did they want at that time? They were seeking the means to enable those who would become Canadians to develop that territory, to live together and to try to help each other.
I understand that in some particular fields, for instance in the field of education, one can be uncompromising in some cases. But I do not understand that in the case of medicare, one should defeat a bill which gives to the province of Quebec, as well as to the other provinces, all the means to set up a scheme, according to recognized standards, universally accepted throughout Canada, which will enable every Canadian to feel at home anywhere and to find everywhere the same help provided by the legislation.
I do not think this is the time to quibble, to split hairs and argue forever about the constitution because, quite often, that does not mean anything in human terms or it simply means that we are standing still in a case like that.
I would not want to shock the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard); I would not want that at all.


Maurice Allard: I am shocked, it is a scandal to hear such remarks as yours.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: But I would not want that, on account of the interventions and exceptional measures which you are always asking for the province of Quebec, you should deprive it of some benefits at a given moment; that you deprive it of the benefits provided by legislation dictated by the best intentions in the field of social security, because you are an overscrupulous lawyer. I would not want you to do that.
October 20, 1966


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on the point of order. A standing order that I could find for you in less than a minute, states that when a member's statement has been misinterpreted, the hon. member may rise to correct the interpretation given. Well, I should like to point out to the minister that the amendment, as moved, far from seeking to kill medicare in Canada, recognizes, on the contrary, the usefulness and necessity of a medicare plan; that the only thing it seeks to do is to provide, within that scheme for fiscal compensation for the provinces which will want to initiate their own medicare plans. That is not the interpretation given by the minister to my statement and that is not what was said.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, the amendment is redundant since fiscal compensation is already provided for in the bill.


Gilles Grégoire: In four years.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ville-neuve.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I heard the minister talk about quibbling a while ago. This is the first time, honest, that I heard a quibbling minister talk about quibbling, when he stated that these were exceptional measures with regard to the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to the minister that he does not seem to know what it is all about when he talks about quibbling in this house.
For the information of the minister, the Alberta government, which is a Social Credit government, did not have to wait for the intervention of the minister or of the Secretary of State of Canada (Miss LaMarsh) to reach a decision about a medicare plan in Alberta, while respecting the personal freedom of the individual, and the freedom of the family. And such a plan is now in force in Alberta. British Columbia did not have to hear the minister tell us that we spend our time, in Quebec, harping on the same Quebec nationalist theme. If the minister went to his constituency and made the same kind of speech, I am convinced that he would never again in his life be a minister in Ottawa, for he would not be re-elected in his constituency.
Mr. Speaker, there are limits-


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: May I interrupt for a moment.


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.
Medicare


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I speak the same way in my riding as I did a while ago in this house. And I would remind the hon. member for Villeneuve, that my main opponent in three elections was a Creditiste and that each time I increased my majority. That is because he came to campaign in my riding.


David Réal Caouette: The minister can indeed boast about the fact that he has been re-elected with a stronger majority in his riding, but not by saying in his constituency what he said a few minutes ago here in this house. And I challenge the minister to go and repeat in his riding what he has just said here. He would never dare to do so, because he knows he would then be defeated by his own French Canadian fellow-countrymen.
Mr. Speaker, there is a limit to being bamboozled and humbugged by ministers or members, whoever they are. We ask for the province of Quebec nothing more than we ask for the other Canadian provinces. But we want to insist upon the fact that Bill No. C-227 is not a proper medicare plan for Canada. I should like to impress that upon the minister. Bill No. C-227 specifies that the central government in Ottawa, and I quote:
An Act to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: That was precisely my point.


David Réal Caouette: Why does the minister say we keep harping on the same Quebec nationalist tunes?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Because you do.


David Réal Caouette: That is not true. Mr. Speaker, at noon today, I was at the University of Montreal where I probably met the minister's son-


An hon. Member:: The minister's son is only three years old.


David Réal Caouette: Send him to the Rouyn-Noranda grade school. He will learn more than in the county of Terrebonne.
Mr. Speaker, at noon today, at the University of Montreal, while we were dealing with this plan before the students aged 20, 22, 23, 25, nobody heard any Quebec nationalist tunes.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Here in Ottawa we hear nationalist themes from Alberta and British Columbia who feel they have much more in common with the
8S36

October 20. 1966
Medicare
United States and Seattle than with Ottawa. And any minister can vouch for what I am saying.
We are never told of the nationalist themes from British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick or the maritimes, we are not told of those of Mr. Smallwood, the premier of Newfoundland, certainly not, but why? Because it is a foregone conclusion that Mr. Smallwood is right and Mr. Johnson is wrong. Mr. Johnson is blamed for harping on nationalist themes; in respect to the Quebec-Brinco agreement, but no one will blame Mr. Smallwood. The minister never mentions that.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: There is no relation whatsoever.


David Réal Caouette: The minister limits himself to accusing his French Canadian colleagues of always harping on the same nationalist themes within our province-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I must point out to the hon. member for Villeneuve that he was away when I made my speech; he came in at the end and consequently cannot see what justified my intervention.
The Quebec members were asked especially by the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), to state whether or not there were fiscal compensations and we were asked to support the amendment before the house. Just as I was going to rise, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) made a speech bearing solely on the claims of the province of Quebec with regard to medicare. My reference to nationalist themes was made in connection with that speech. The member for Villeneuve is just now proving that what I said is true, that it is not-he says so himself-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: -it is not a
federal program, it is a federal assistance program-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not believe the hon. minister really has a question of privilege, he is discussing a specific point with the hon. member for Villeneuve, and I believe the hon. member for Villeneuve should be allowed to proceed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am completely flabbergasted by the minister's intervention, for he has just proven that I am right. Indeed, he has just shown that, as a French

Canadian minister-and this is a fact I deplore-he is the type of man who does not know his nose from his elbow. He says that the member for Roberval accused him of such and such a thing and, in answer, he is forced to declare that we of the province of Quebec always harp on the same old nationalist themes against the whole of Canada. I see the minister shaking his head, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister know or does he not know the meaning of his words?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to give the hon. member the opportunity to express his own opinion with regard to the bill presently before the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it is easy for me to say what I think of the bill, and it is also easy for me to say what I think of the irresponsible minister who spoke a while ago.
The amendment which has just been moved, requesting compensation for the province which does not wish to participate in the program means that it would be reasonable to grant some compensation to the province. But the bill states that there will be no compensation which, in my opinion, is totally dishonest towards any province. The minister knows that the province of Alberta does not agree to that proposal, British Columbia neither and that even if the province of Quebec accepts Brinco, it does not agree to the adjustment plan as provided in the bill.
It is not simply a matter of rehashing the same old Quebec nationalistic themes. When the minister says that the majority of the provinces have agreed to 50 per cent of the plan it means he has not consulted any of them; he certainly talks through his hat.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment before the house, requires the payment of a contribution or a compensation to the provinces. They will not agree to this plan. Quebec is one, not the only one, of the provinces which do not accept the plan. And in the name of what? In the name of freedom. And I think that like any other province in Canada, Quebec is entitled to its freedom.
Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-227 simply provides for the payment to the provinces of 50 per cent of the cost of insured medical care services. The federal government does not lay out any medical plan or medicare to any province. Therefore, why object to the payment to the provinces of the required amounts for
October 20, 1966

the administration of their own plan, since the bill clearly states:
-pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plan.
Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec, like Alberta, British Columbia, and even probably the province of Ontario, does not want to be dictated to by Ottawa. Ottawa may be willing to contribute 50 per cent of the incurred cost, since it is not the federal government which will pay for it, the Canadian taxpayers will be paying the shot.
Furthermore, they will have to pay for a federal bureaucracy besides paying for a provincial one. A duplication of expenditures to provide Canadian citizens with insured medical care services. Why such duplication of expenditures? Why not give back immediately to the provinces their own taxation fields which were taken away from them during world war II, between 1939 and 1945. This was the positive promise made by the then prime minister of Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King, who said: until the war is over, in the name of urgency, we must take over those taxation fields, but afterwards we shall give them back to you. That was never done after the war.
At noon, the University of Montreal students asked me this question: what did you, the federalists-because we are the federalists-do when confronted with conscription in 1942? Mr. Speaker, I am ranging now a little afield. Only I told the students that in the fight over the famous referendum, I was among those who were against it. In the name of the province of Quebec, one of those who were in favour of it was the late former minister of justice, Mr. Ernest Lapointe, an eminent French Canadian, who sold us out in every way he could.
Mr. Speaker, this brings me to say that Bill No. C-227 is another attack, not only against the province of Quebec, I repeat, but also against the provinces which want their autonomy to be respected, such as Alberta. Alberta has its own medicare and the doctors agree with the government, the patients are happy with their administration, and the proof is that in the last provincial elections in Alberta, 61 out of 65 ridings remained creditist and faithful to Social Credit.
Mr. Speaker, the medicare program was then in force in Alberta, and its premier, Mr. E. C. Manning, is right when he objects to this federal intrusion in provincial matters.
The premier of British Columbia, Mr. Bennett, is right in objecting to this intrusion.
Medicare
Those who fight most for an over-all program to save everyone or let everyone perish, are precisely my friends of the N.D.P. who are seated on my right. They had a program in Saskatchewan during 17 years of N.D.P. or C.C.F. administration-I do not know what name will come after-
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


David Réal Caouette: The plan has not been working.


An hon. Member:: I have been studying it.


David Réal Caouette: You may have been studying it, but you have never met with the doctors or you would know that there are not enough.


An hon. Member:: We met with the people.


David Réal Caouette: You may have met with the people, but you probably have not experienced the situation when you were sick and needed a doctor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

I would suggest to the hon. member for Villeneuve that he address the Chair.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, according to the rules, that is true, and I abide by your ruling. On the other hand, I was interrupted, not by the Chair, but by someone who did not seem to know what he was saying, and that is why I addressed myself directly to him, so that we may not both appear to be imbeciles.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the experiment has been made in Saskatchewan, under the C.C.F. government-or the New Democratic Party-but, in any event, the experiment was a failure. I heard earlier a member of that party tell me that the people were with them, and I say once more, that when someone is sick, Mr. Speaker, it is not up to the public to decide what the right treatment is; it is up to doctor.

He does respect the position because he knows that some day he will need one.


Harold Edward Winch: I will also need an undertaker some day.

October 20, 1966
Medicare


David Réal Caouette: Yes, and I think you will need one many years before I will need one.

And, at that time, there were no doctors in Saskatchewan. Doctors did not co-operate they did not want to. They went on strike, then, they did not want for any consideration whatsoever, to take part in the program, and when I speak of Saskatchewan, I do not talk through my hat. All my family on my mother's side lives in Saskatchewan, in the south of the province, south of Gravelbourg, at Ponteix, and Lafleche and all these small parishes. And that is where I was told about the results, about the immense victories of the socialist government in that province.
Mr. Speaker, their medicare plan did not work out. In proof of this, doctors were opposed to it, the government had to backtrack, and to come to an agreement with the doctors, because we do not have too many doctors in this house, no indeed.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly. In French, please.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is the hon. member giving the New Democrats credit for having introduced the bill that we now have before the house?


David Réal Caouette: I may; but I do not think I am that crazy, because I believe that this bill is meaningless in itself.

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of getting into an argument with my good N.D.P. or C.C.F. friends. Neither would I like to see the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) die a long time before me, because he is a fine citizen and a wonderful traveling companion. I would suggest he bring along with him on his trip all those who are in favour of state-operated medicare programs, and try and implement it where it might be possible to do so.
I still believe in private enterprise and initiative, in free enterprise. I believe the patient must, and has a right to, choose his own physician, his own insurance program, and we have group insurance plans in Canada, as I mentioned last week.
Whenever I speak of group insurance sold through private insurance firms, my friends of the N.D.P. and C.C.F. parties-I know there

was another party, was it the F.L.Q.?- complain about the companies making profits? I heard the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) telling us the other day: Go ahead. Let the companies make more money. What if the companies do make money, as long as we achieve results, get medical care, have doctors and have a real medicare program. Is not profit the incentive for personal initiative? And when I hear those hon. members of the N.D.P. and C.C.F. parties speaking out against profits, those people who look us straight in the face, millionaires, like the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge).
Mr. Speaker, when one sees members like the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), a distinguished Toronto lawyer who works for powerful national and international unions, who must get from them an annual salary of several thousand dollars, speak strongly and with conviction against those who make profits, one does not know what to make of it.
What about the case of an excellent friend of mine, a member for Toronto-he is not here this evening-who lived in Duparquet in my district a few years ago, a doctor who does not seem to live under a social insurance regime? And those are the people who protest against profits.
In Vancouver, British Columbia-the richest province in Canada-where in addition to their indemnities the members have fantastic incomes-those are the people who denounce the profits made by the big bad capitalists, by the profiteers.
Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable that such nonsense should be spoken in as distinguished a house as this one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: I have no wish to depreciate the importance of my hon. colleagues of the C.C.F., N.D.P. and P.S.D. parties. I only want the country and the house to know exactly where they stand and why they should be allowed to attack everybody, to blast everyone, to belittle everyone, to attack personal initiative, private enterprise, and Canadian employers who, to my mind, at least try to do the best they can.
Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to visit foreign countries-in fact, less than two weeks ago, I visited Iran-I came back convinced that in the medical field, as well as all other fields, we could, in Canada,
October 20. 1966

adopt and apply the theory we advocate, the Creditiste theory. But I said to the two colleagues who were with me in Iran, that it could not be done there because there is a production problem, and before that production problem can be solved, there is an education problem to be tackled. And when that education problem will have been understood by my friends of the N.D.P., C.C.F. and P.S.D., they will understand how good it is to live in Canada, how it would be possible to guarantee to every Canadian citizen, not only medicare but also security and liberty, because Canada can do it.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I said a while ago that this bill really does not make sense. Now, if that is the type of legislation the N.D.P. and C.C.F. members still want to move, they are wasting their time. We cannot make head or tail of it, because the bill is meaningless. The bill provides for provincial plans. I wonder whether the member can really grasp the difference between the bill as it stands now and plans that will be implemented in the provinces. That is what the members of the N.D.P., P.S.D. and C.C.F. forgot to tell the House of Commons. And that is why we of the Ralliement Creditiste support the amendment of the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I will tell the minister-who is animatedly talking with another member when he should be listening to me-because I do not want him to misinterpret the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, that we want the same rights for every province. If Bill No. C-227 goes through, and if three, four or five provinces still do not have any specific medicare plan, what will the federal government do with those funds? Did the minister tell us about that?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. member for Villeneuve tell me on what basis fiscal compensation will then be offered to the provinces, which do not have a plan?


David Réal Caouette: According to the basis suggested in the Bill, 50 per cent of the costs incurred, is that it?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: There is none.


David Réal Caouette: There is not, but that is precisely the point. The proposal contained in Bill No. C-227, provides for a contribution to medicare in a province, any province. But, under such circumstances, to refund any money to a province, its plan will have to be familiar. As long as the minister is not
Medicare
familiar with a province's particular program, how can he introduce a bill like this, if he is not sure of himself? He has not explained this in any way.
[DOT]	(9:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, we will surely vote in favour of the amendment moved by the member for Sherbrooke, seconded by the member for Lapointe. I would have preferred a member of the Ralliement Creditiste to second it. But, nevertheless, the amendment is logical. Therefore, even though that is not the doing of the member for Lapointe, it is still logical.
Mr. Speaker, we will support the amendment as moved, requesting that the government make the necessary tax equalization payments, between now and 1972, to those provinces; whether it be Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta or British Columbia, it does not matter. However, I feel the minister is not specific, and does not explain clearly the objectives of the federal government, which are, in the final analysis, simply and merely payment of 50 per cent of the cost of the plan to each of the provinces. However, will the minister not agree with me that these funds will be collected from the provinces, before they are turned over to them? Will he not agree also that the government will have to collect more tax money to pay the federal administration which will figure out the payments to be made to the provinces? Will he not agree also that it would be easier to grant the provinces their rights in fiscal matters and direct taxation thus enabling them to administer their own medicare programs? Why turn to Ottawa to decide whether a patient may be treated in Dolbeau? Why should we have to come to Ottawa in a proportion of 50 per cent for permission to admit a patient in a Gaspe hospital?
Mr. Speaker, this is double taxation, double administration and double undertaking by the federal and provincial governments. It is so true that a meeting was held recently at a national level, that is between the provincial and federal governments. Why? To discuss the possibility of reducing personal income tax? Not at all. To discuss whether it belongs to the federal or any provincial government in Canada to pick the taxpayers' pockets; this was the subject discussed and nothing else. And this discussion will go on and on.
Mr. Speaker, joint federal-provincial plans -I will say as the minister a moment ago- are nothing but quibbling. Discussion about who is entitled to do what is a sheer waste of time.

October 20, 1968
Medicare


Mr. Speaker:: Order please.


David Réal Caouette: I am through, Mr. Speaker; let the minister do his quibbling alone.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of speaking on this bill since I have already done so, but so many conflicting opinions have been expressed this evening that I feel duty bound to say a few words.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am almost tempted at the outset of my remarks to ask you or one of your clerks, to pass around the house and collect an amusement tax after the performance just given by the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have been told on several occasions that the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) enjoys very much making fun of the member for Villeneuve. I rise on both a point of order and a question of privilege. For the information of the house, I must say this, Mr. Speaker. Even though the member was mayor of Trois-Rivieres, not Three Rivers, but Trois-Rivieres, I have no lesson to take from him and when I have something to say, 1 have no intention of asking his permission to say it either.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I would not be so bold as to think that I can give lessons to the member for Villeneuve. But I note that every time the hon. member rises in this house, he pokes fun at almost everybody; I do not think he would want to deny us the same pleasure.
It may have happened a few times that I chaffed him when he was in the house, and I was rather sorry to see he was not here because his retorts are just as amusing as his interventions. It struck me when he said he had never heard so much nonsense as this evening. I do not know about whom he was speaking, because I would not want to insult him by qualifying his remarks as nonsense, but I would be using somewhat his own words if I said that I have seldom heard so much rambling as during his speech tonight.
Mr. Speaker, to make things clear, I will vote with the hon. member for Villeneuve in favour of the amendment. I am going to vote for the amendment tonight. However, I would tell my Quebec colleagues that I have found that the general discussion has been ungracious, and perhaps irrelevant. First, the real question was departed from. We should have

debated an amendment making provision for fiscal compensation for the provinces, all provinces, not wishing to participate in this plan. This discussion, which should have been serious, turned into a debate on things which, in my view, were outside the scope of the amendment. It reached a point-I think I will use the words of the minister-where the same old themes were harped upon. And they were brought in rather clumsily.
I do not think that tonight's debate furthered the interests of the province of Quebec or the cause of national unity. Some grossly exaggerated statements were made. We heard about stealing funds, about cowardice, about traitors, about all kinds of things, even about people who sold their province.
Mr. Speaker, I think that good will requires that all hon. members in this house should give our colleagues at least the benefit of the doubt, and think that they are at least as sincere and objective as we are. Personally, when I deem it necessary to object to a statement made by an hon. member from a western province, an English-speaking province, who does not understand the point of view of the province of Quebec, I would blame myself for accusing him of such a thing, because I solemnly and sincerely believe that he is probably a Canadian of good will like myself who does not share my views perhaps but who deserves that I should respect his views. And. in any case, I would certainly not convince him to accept my point of view if I called him a coward, a traitor.
I apologize for that digression-it is because I found the whole thing hard to bear and particularly ungracious. Colleagues of mine from the province of Quebec tore each other to pieces before the rest of the country. We should wash our dirty linen somewhere else.
We should decide together if we support that amendment that promises fiscal adjustments to the provinces which, for one reason or another, cannot accept the legislation.
In theory, Mr. Speaker, I support it. And I will vote for it because I think that it will not delay the passing of the present bill. I have already had occasion to say that I supported the present bill because I am not one of those who believe that constitutional questions which drag on indefinitely, and about which constitutional experts seldom agree, must deprive Canadians of the advantages which that legislation can bring.
I do not say it is urgent that we should settle that question at last, but I think that
October 20, 1966

we are perhaps too slow in settling it. But until experts settle it, it is our duty, I think, to give all Canadians the opportunity to profit by these acts whose purpose is to improve the health of all Canadians.
I do not think that we need to repeat here all the demagogic speeches delivered in some assemblies, which can achieve popular success in certain circumstances but which have less results at the polls than certain colleagues think.
The member for Villeneuve-I see him in the lobby, because I would have kept my remarks for myself otherwise-said that he visited the riding of Terrebonne, or someone said that he went-perhaps he did not say it himself-and the minister, since then, has seen his majority increase very year. I had a similar experience. Mind you, I tease him, there is no malice in what I say, Mr. Speaker, because if I did not respect the member for Villeneuve, I would never speak of him. I never speak of trivial things. Because I respect him to a certain point, I think he has a praiseworthy tenacity and that he is sincere, even if sometimes he uses means that I cannot approve.
But I repeat what I said a moment ago. He had the opportunity to visit my riding, and then the first time, the Creditiste took 4,000 votes or something like that, the second time he took 2,000, next time-he will come two or three times-there will probably remain 300 only then. But, I shall continue, as long as I sit here as an Independent, to vote with the hon. member for Villeneuve every time he appears to me as following a sound line of thought.
I believe his decision of tonight to vote in favour of the amendment is sound; everything he said before that was not bright; that probably discouraged a few of his colleagues to vote the same way.
Therefore, I shall vote in favour of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, as I shall support the bill itself, even if I do not find it perfect, even if I wish, like all the others, that the provinces would have their own sources of revenues, as well as the municipalities, to enable them to carry out their responsibilities. But I say that while we are waiting for the experts to settle those problems, we must accomplish something, and I believe that is what the people of Canada are expecting from us. I shall, therefore, vote for the amendment.
Division


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with a charming member of the opposition.


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired.
Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


David Réal Caouette: That is the first time he speaks in two years.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, I was paired.
Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I
was paired.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin).


Mr. Sauve:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired.
Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I abstained from voting. May I call it ten o'clock.



CANADA LABOUR (SAFETY) CODE PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill S-35, an act respecting the prevention of employment injury in federal works undertakings and businesses-the Minister of Labour.
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that earlier today the house was good enough to give unanimous consent to the second reading of Bill S-35, an act respecting the prevention of employment injury in federal works, undertakings and businesses.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, the house has not given unanimous agreement to the adoption of the motion for second reading of this bill. I think that we were asked if it had been given. Then there was an interruption by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am completely in the dark and I was not informed, nor were my colleagues, that Bill No. S-35 had to be passed without discussion. We were not informed. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, we do not see why we cannot discuss that bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish to point out to the hon. member for Lapointe that the minister is referring to a discussion which took place earlier this afternoon in the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I was here then, when motions were called, at which time the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) proposed that and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre then stated that this motion could not be made on motions but rather on orders of the day, to which you agreed, and that is why I do not think there was unanimous consent by the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe will not agree.
October 20, 1366



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
National Health and Welfare is required to be in Kingston at Queen's University tomorrow morning. Therefore I should like to propose that we return to the medicare bill debate at two o'clock tomorrow afternoon and that prior to that time we call item number 48 on today's order paper-house again in committee of the whole on Bill C-218, an act to provide assistance to livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia. Then, if there is additional time, we would proceed to the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. This is on the understanding that at two o'clock, no matter what item of business we are on, we would ask to revert to the medicare bill.
If we should finish the medicare bill and the items I have indicated, we would then proceed to call item number 83, second reading of Bill C-220, an act to make provision for appeals to an Immigration Appeal Board in respect of certain matters relating to immigration, and then the housing resolution which is item number 101 on today's order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the government house leader consider calling No. 85, Bill S-35, as the first order of business tomorrow. We are prepared not to debate it so that it can go to the committee.


Mr. Winkler:: We are in agreement, Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: I would have to consider it. There was consent given earlier, but I was taken by surprise tonight. I had understood there was unanimous consent. If there is unanimous consent, we will call it after the first item.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, if I might suggest to the government house leader-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether hon. members want to start a practice of originating debate after ten o'clock on the business for the following day. My understanding of the practice is that the representative of the government announces the business for the following day, and that should be the end of it.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, my question relates directly to the business of the house. I was going to ask the government house leader whether the minister would consider taking the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) with him to Kingston tomorrow. That would solve the problem.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent (Ont.l):: Mr. Speaker, in taking advantage of the rules tonight I wish to make a short representation. I posed a question some days ago to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerning the provisions under which the workers were brought into this country from Jamaica to assist in the agricultural industry. These workers brought into the area from which I come were engaged in harvesting and processing agricultural crops.
I find no fault whatsoever with the calibre of worker who came into this area, as it was very high and their conduct was beyond repute. They did their work very skilfully and to the satisfaction of their employers. My question arises because of the uncertain future of these men who came into Canada under certain provisions and conditions which were not clearly understood. Certain arrangements apparently were made under which these people must leave this country on completion of their work here. I felt it would be of vital interest to all parties concerned if the provisions under which they entered Canada were placed on the record.
I have received many representations, like many other hon. members, from people who are interested in procuring their further services here. Representations have been made in an effort to see that these young men are allowed to stay in this country, particularly those who possess skills which can be employed to the advantage of the areas to which they gave service this summer.
My question to the minister is a simple one. Under what provisions did these people come and will the minister place those provisions on the record so that interested parties can

October 20. 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion become aware of the terms of their transportation in and out of this country? If this can be done, these prospective employers will know the proper channels through which they can obtain the services of these men, and the men in turn will know how to obtain immigrant status as workers here.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the following statement will satisfy the query of the hon. member for Kent (Ont.).
When the government of Canada approved this special and experimental movement this year, it was solely to relieve a shortage of sessional harvest labour in Ontario. It was expressly stipulated that the workers must leave Canada upon the completion of their contracts, and must not use this means of gaining immigrant status in Canada. This was agreed to and clearly understood by the Jamaican government and the workers themselves. They cannot remain in Canada after the expiry of their contracts.
If any of these workers should decide in the future that they would like to become immigrants, and if they have the necessary qualifications, then they would at that time be admissible in the ordinary way. They cannot be accorded special treatment because they came for seasonal work, on conditions strictly defined as temporary.



INDUSTRY-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON BOYCOTT OF SUPERMARKETS

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week I asked the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) the following question:
Has the Prime Minister anything to report to the house on the housewives' boycott of food chain stores in Ontario and Quebec?
My question related to a protest meeting that was held about two and half weeks ago by the Ottawa Consumers Protest Association. They protest the high cost of living and, in particular, high food costs in food chain stores in the Ottawa areas.
The spirit of that meeting would indicate an outrage on the part of Ottawa housewives toward the high prices charged by chain stores, and there was manifested a determination to take immediate boycott action against these high costs. They have had a boycott for the last two weeks, and the reports I have received are that the boycott has been a real success. In fact, the Ottawa

Consumers Protest Association will continue the boycott for a further two weeks to give encouragement to other protest organizations across the country which have contacted them for advice and help with regard to a similar problem which they have experienced in their own areas. It is also worthy to note that 2,000 Toronto housewives will make a check on prices in Toronto this week end to determine why there has been an increase in the price of food in general stores.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
We feel that the government should give leadership in supporting the housewives' demands by taking immediate, constructive legislative action. We in the New Democratic Party feel that the following five measures should be taken into account: First, the establishment of a permanent prices review board to examine the prices of a wide range of items on behalf of the Canadian consumer. We have urged the government to do this on many occasions. We feel that if the government had followed the advice given them, the housewives may not have experienced the high food price spiral to which they have been subjected recently. We believe it is not sufficient to refer this problem to a special, temporary committee of the house which will take a long time to hear the evidence and bring forth a report. Experience has shown that reports tend to become buried and no action is taken by the government. A prices review board should be permanent in nature, having representatives from business, labour and consumer organizations and staffed with economists, consumer and accounting representatives so that consumer organizations can bring to the attention of the board matters which directly affect the welfare and well-being of the Canadian consumer.
Second, there should be legislation immediately to outlaw trading stamps and other promotional gimmicks. Housewives want lower prices, not gimmicks. They know that they, and they alone, are paying higher prices for these promotional gimmicks. They are not prepared to accept the excuse that promotion increases sales volume, which enables the company to keep prices down. Experience has shown that the opposite has happened; prices have gone up, and not down. Evidence before the committee has shown that the one large chain store that has not dealt in trading stamps has been able to offer most food items at lower prices.
Third, there should be a government educational consumer program to make the
October 20, 1966
Canadian public aware of the best buying methods, the quality purchases and how to detect deceitful advertising and packaging. Evidence has shown that the consumer has paid excessive prices for nationally advertised foods, compared with company brands which are of the same quality and content. I mention only the wide spread of prices paid on coffee, soaps and cereals between nationally advertised brands and company brands to prove this point.
Fourth, there should be legislation regulating exotic advertising in business. The public are fed up with this expensive nonsense. They want value, not deception. The government should also take a hard look at our tax laws to find ways of imposing restrictions on the amounts spent on such advertising.
Fifth, there should be legislation concerning the standardization of weights and the removal of coaxing labels. The consumer has difficulty in determining how much he is buying and whether the price is reasonable or deceptive. Standardization would protect the consumer and would inform him as to how much he was getting for the price paid.
Mr. Speaker, these are at least five measures to which the government could give immediate attention so as to convince the chain store operators that it intends to protect the public from the high food costs to which they have been subjected and to assure them of protection in the future.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister asked me to speak on this matter no doubt because he felt I was closer to the housewives than any other member of the cabinet. I am therefore very pleased to answer the hon. member to the best of my ability.
First of all let me say I was a little alarmed at the suggestion of the hon. member with respect to a prices review board. I do not quite know what this means. If it involves the question of price fixing, I do not believe it would be consonant with the philosophy of the party which I have the honour to represent. I would think that price fixing would also involve wage fixing, and I do not know whether the party of the hon. gentleman subscribes to this as does the socialist party of England, but it certainly does not conform with the freedom of price and wage structure which is consonant with the philosophy of our party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Reviewing prices does not mean fixing.
8945
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


John James Greene: There is not much point in reviewing if you do not do anything about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At least you know who is gyping the public.


John James Greene: I might point out that the housewives boycott has in my view been extremely useful. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), as we have often heard, is very concerned about the question of inflation. I think the government has taken positive and useful steps in this direction, and certainly the housewives of this country are doing their part in the very keen search into the price structure of food with respect to the war against inflation, and I commend them for it. I think they are giving leadership in the fight against inflation which is being led by our Minister of Finance.
I might point out that my department is concerned in this regard. I think it was five years ago that some 58 per cent of the consumer food dollar went to the farmer. Today only 41 per cent of the consumer food dollar goes to the farmer and the 17 per cent discrepancy is taken up in the cost of packaging, sales, retail distribution, etc. I cannot but have concern for this because it seems to me that, apart from the inflationary trend, the higher the percentage of the consumer's food dollar that goes to the farmer, the better it is for the agricultural community. I would also suggest that this contributes to an efficient economy in that there are no hidden charges or wasted costs in between.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. gentleman but the time allotted to his speech has expired.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF APPLICATION OF CLEMENCY

Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I felt compelled to ask a question of the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) in view of the action of the cabinet in commuting the sentences of wilful murderers when they have been sentenced to be executed for their crimes, and in commuting them without exception, whether or not there was a recommendation of mercy from a jury. My question is: Why was the cabinet so merciful to only one class of criminal? Why could they not consider extending mercy to those who might be convicted of theft, arson or contempt of court?

October 20, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion I make no apology for bringing up the subject of contempt of court, Mr. Speaker. If you wish to look at page 20 of today's "Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day" you will find under item No 45 that on January 24 I introduced a bill in this house "to amend the Criminal Code (contempt of court)". The fact that this bill was introduced on January 24 and has not yet been discussed, next week being November, shows that hope springs eternal in the human breast. I would also remind you that hope denied maketh the hearth sick, and I am not going to mention whom it makes sick the most.
On this subject of conviction for arson, theft and contempt of court I can see no reason why the quality of mercy should be so constricted. The best known reference to mercy is Portia's address in the Merchant of Venice, where she says:
The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath.
The rain from heaven does not drop only on the red heads upon the place beneath, and it does not drop on the bald heads upon the place beneath but on everybody upon the place beneath.
Some years ago the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) used the expression in this house "as impartial as rain". I only wish that the cabinet in its exercise of mercy would be as impartial as rain and apply this exercise to all classes of people who fall into the clutches of the law and not only the worst of them all, blood criminals.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that in this expression "the quality of mercy is not strain'd", Shakespeare was using the verb "strain'd" to mean that it is not compulsorily enforced. If the quality of mercy is exercised only under compulsion or by force in certain cases, it is not really mercy. Mercy is spontaneous and all-inclusive.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that while some may be very familiar with the quotation from Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice", perhaps not many remember the expression from Romeo and Juliet which is contained in Friar Laurence's comments, that:
Nor aught so good but strain'd from that fair use Revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse, Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied;-
I would state, Mr. Speaker, without qualification that the cabinet is exercising the virtue of mercy in a strained manner. They 
are looking over the country for convicted murderers to whom they can show mercy. They show mercy to a convicted murderer in Halifax. They show mercy to him in Prince Rupert. They show mercy to him in Windsor. They show mercy to him in Hamilton. Why can they not show mercy in cases of arson or theft or contempt of court in, say Peterborough, where the Prime Minister and I spent our boyhood? Why cannot they show mercy for contempt of court, say, in Vancouver? They showed mercy there to a murderer for whom there was no recommendation of mercy made by the jury just a few days ago. It is quite evident that we do not have to hav-e a recommendation of mercy from a jury in order for the cabinet to exercise what they think is a God-given virtue.
In the case of the chap in Edmonton who murdered his wife and a friend there was no jury to make a recommendation of mercy; he elected to be tried by judge alone. But the sentence of death was commuted without, as I say, a recommendation for mercy. Then there is the case of the "Santa Claus" killer, who received no recommendation for mercy; yet the sentence was commuted.
So since the cabinet are commuting sentences now on the most vile criminals when there is no recommendation for mercy, why can they not show mercy in the case of arson, or theft, or contempt of court when there is no recommendation for mercy, there being no jury at the time of conviction?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the cabinet whether it is going to continue to fly in the face of the law. Although the Prime Minister said during the debate on the matter that everyone observes the law, once the expressed will of parliament has been shown I would ask the Solicitor General whether the cabinet is going to fly in the face of the law on the question of murder. Why cannot they interfere with the exercise of the law in these other crimes that are committed?
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
Portia tells us that earthly power doth then show likest God's when mercy seasons justice. How is it that the cabinet only uses mercy in certain recipes, in those involving blood murderers. Why do they not put some of this seasoning of mercy in other sentences handed out in this country. I would ask the cabinet: What are you trying to do? Are you trying to pamper wilful murderers while hampering working men?
October 20, 1966


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for York-Humber will permit me to say that we came into the house together about four years ago, and that I have always regarded him as one of my close friends.
If my memory does not fail me, may I say that I cannot recall any application for executive clemency or mercy with respect to contempt of court since I came to the office of Solicitor General. I think therefore that the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion answer is clear. If I have not exercised such clemency it is because the matter has not been before me, or if the request has been made the matter has stood sub judice. I am sure the hon. member knows that every application for clemency is dealt with on its own merits, irrespective of the nature of the offence.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.34 p.m.


Friday, October 21, 1966