1966-10-13

Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonlon-Slrath-cona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege arising out of a statement made by the Minister of National Defence which is to be found on page 8583 of Hansard of October 12. The sentence I object to is as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I cannot give consent to reverting unless the hon. member is willing to indicate that he will put forward a serious motion rather than a spurious one.
The word "spurious" impugns my honour and integrity in connection with the charge I made against him yesterday. I did not raise this question last night; although I was here in my place and heard the minister speak I did not hear that word, or I am sure it would have impressed itself on my mind. Perhaps I thought he said "furious", which would not have been objectionable.
At first I thought perhaps that one word in itself would not give rise to the serious question of privilege I now raise, but on looking over Hansard and the entire list of statements which the minister made in this house yesterday there is obviously a course of conduct followed by the minister which would lead me to believe he was trying to give this house the impression that I was not making a sincere attempt to bring before this house something which I think is of the greatest importance.
In order to fully understand the intended connotation of the word "spurious" one need only look at Hansard and read similar words. Taken together these words can only mean one thing. I have looked up the word "spurious" in the dictionary and there are three definitions worthy of quoting. The word is stated to mean "not genuine". Another definition of that word is "not being what it pretends to be", and yet another is "not proceeding from the pretended source".
In order to establish that this is a serious question I will later on give the house the text of the motion I moved yesterday, which shows the intent and scope of the question. First I should like to refer to two or three references in Hansard where similar types of words were used. At page 8572 there are two references. The first is this:
Mr. Speaker, obviously no one is more interested than I in having these slanderous insinuations dealt with in a proper fashion and in a proper forum.
The word "slanderous" in that context certainly imputes that this was not a serious question and that I did not proceed in an honourable way. At the top of the same page the minister said:
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
It is clear that the object of this exercise is merely to frustrate the business planned for this afternoon.
I did rise on a question of privilege at that point objecting to the minister imputing an improper motive. I will not read it again but would remind the house of its context, namely that I considered the suggestion to be part of a planned campaign to discredit as dishonourable what I claim to be an honourable motive in making the charge in this house.
As reported at page 8577 the minister, when referring to the charge, said:
And also a trifle evasive.
This was said as though I had not leaned over backward to make the charge specific and to make sure there could be no misunderstanding of its meaning, and as though in fact I had not gone out of my way to explain it in every way possible because I felt the minister had the right to know what the facts were upon which I was relying to prove my charge. On page 8583 of Hansard there is the word I have objected to, namely that this was a "spurious" charge. Then on page 8581 the minister made this statement:
-"tampering" is so broad that it could include scratching your back.
When we consider all these remarks and the word "spurious" we can understand why one of the difficulties we ran into yesterday was the fact that I did not have an opportunity to bring before the house the actual facts alleged, the importance of the changes

Oclobei 13. 1966
Question of Privilege
made in the testimony, so the house could see for itself that I could not honestly be charged with bringing in a spurious charge and no one could seriously say that this course was not taken in a very serious manner and that the facts alleged do not constitute, if proven, a very serious breach of the privileges of this house. The motion I had intended to make yesterday reads as follows:
That the allegation made this day by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona against the Minister of National Defence, Hon. Paul Hellyer, be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections to deal with and inquire into the evidence and the witnesses before the standing committee on national defence during this session of parliament, and the practices and procedures involving witnesses, and evidence in appearances before the said committee, and in particular with regard to Admiral Landymore's appearance.
It will be obvious from reading that motion that the motion itself indicates, had the minister read it, that instead of making a spurious charge I had indicated to the house that I intended to refer this matter to the committee on privileges and elections. As will be seen from the motion, it was not just Admiral Landymore's testimony that should be investigated, but the facts I have in my possession indicate that the testimony of every witness heard by that committee must be viewed with very serious doubt. From the remarks made by the minister and also from the course of conduct in this matter it is obvious that the house should consider rules to guide witnesses, ministers and senior officials, so that when people are called before a committee of the House of Commons they may plainly understand what are the limitations of authority of a minister in giving advice to people who want to prepare and present a case.
I hope I have made a prima facie case, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps you will now allow me to proceed to the evidence that I think it is necessary to give the house so the gravity of the situation may be understood. I think the minister would concur in this.
He said on page 8572 of Hansard:
I make that suggestion because I do not think the alleged facts as presented here today can be separated from other facts and questions that will no doubt be considered at the time that committee meets. I think this matter should be considered in a forum where-
He was then interrupted. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that considering the statement I made yesterday and the charges I laid, which were unanswered; and the fact that the minister has impugned my honour and integrity, I have the right to ask that the matter be
[Mr. Nugent.l
referred to the committee on privileges and elections. I will therefore make a motion to that effect as soon as the Speaker has decided that I have made a prima facie case.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my hon. friend took offence at the word "spurious". To the best of my knowledge and belief it is not an unparliamentary word. If I am wrong in that contention I will be pleased to have you so inform me. Similarly I was not imputing any motives. At the time I made the reference to the word "spurious", I was unaware of the full range of meaning of that word, but after looking it up in Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary I was surprised to find I had hit the nail right on the head.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I cannot accept that as a satisfactory explanation, because I am afraid the minister's statement that his use of the word was unintentional does not get around the statement which he made very clearly and forcefully and which appears on page 8572 of Hansard. He said:
It is clear that the object of this exercise is merely to frustrate the business planned for this afternoon.
He certainly knew the meaning of those words and did not have to look them up in a dictionary. I suggest that in view of this, because of the suggestion made and the way it was reported in the press, my name can now only be cleared by the sort of hearing that is necessary to clear the minister's name. I would therefore like to proceed with my question of privilege if the Chair will permit me to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked the Chair to rule on whether he has a prima facie case of privilege. I have not been given an opportunity to do so until now. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member; since he suggested yesterday that I interfered a little hastily I will try not to get into difficulty with him in the same way today.
If hon. members agree and if no further contributions are forthcoming from either side of the house on whether the use of the word "spurious" is unparliamentary to the extent that it impugns the integrity and honour of the hon. member, this is the only point I have to consider. The hon. member also referred to two other statements made by the minister. But what the hon. member is saying is that the word "spurious" is unparliamentary and that it impugns the honour and integrity of the hon. member. I can
Oclober 13, 1966

assure him that I appreciate his kindness and thoughtfulness in giving me notice of the question of privilege which he has raised. I can certainly tell h.m today that in my view he has given sufficient notice to place the matter before the house. This is one of the requirements which he has met satisfactorily.
There is another requirement about which I am not so sure. I have consulted certain dictionaries for a definition of the word "spurious" and have found the same interpretation as that given by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona; that is "not genuine, not real". I looked at the translation of the word, and perhaps because of my training was impressed by the significance given in the French Hansard version of the word used in English by the hon. member. The French Hansard reads: "simulacre de motion", an unreal motion or a motion that is not genuine. Obviously this is the interpretation we have to place on that word.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
My limited experience in the house indicates that it is not, per se, unparliamentary to say of another member that the statement he makes is false, untrue, wrong, incorrect or even spurious, unless there is an improper motive imputed or unless the member making the charge claims the untruth was stated to the knowledge of the person stating any such alleged untruth.
The minister has taken the opportunity to do what I would have asked him to do in any event, to say that he did not impute motives. The Chair has to be guided by what the minister has stated and by a prima facie interpretation of the word itself. I do not believe that saying a statement made is spurious is unparliamentary, or that a statement is incorrect, wrong or untrue, if no motives are imputed by the person making such a statement. I have to rule with regret-I hope the hon. member is not going to suggest the question should be reopened; I will certainly hear him, but I was going to say that in my opinion there is no prima facie case of privilege.
I might say, in a more general way, that at times there seems to be a misconception about what is a question of privilege and what is a point of order. In many instances the words complained of really should not be complained of on a question of privilege but rather on a point of order, on the basis that the words used are unparliamentary and against the rules and therefore there is a 23033-544
Question of Privilege
point of order. I realize that in some instances words may be used which are so strong as to impugn the very honour and integrity of the individual member against whom the words are directed. In this case I do not believe the word is so strong as to impugn the honour of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, and for this reason I judge there is no question of privilege.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Your Honour has ruled on the word "spurious", but I had a second matter upon which I would ask for your ruling. Perhaps I did not phrase it quite correctly; nevertheless the total effect of the words referred to must be considered. The difficulty here, sir, is that even sitting in the house, although I objected to some words as they were used, in the heat of debate with the points you are trying to make or to clarify for the minister to be considered, it is not possible to get the general effect of all these remarks or their cumulative effect. I submit therefore it is a proper question of privilege to bring up as soon as possible, as I have done, the entire series of remarks.
I used the word "spurious" as the basis for the first question of privilege because that is the word which caught my attention when I looked at Hansard and caused me to check the rest of it. The second point of privilege is based on the entire series of remarks which give the impression-and I believe it is not improper to recognize that the press has so considered these remarks-that the object of this exercise was merely to frustrate the business of the house. Although I objected at the time, these words taken together with the reaction in the press across the country seem to indicate that this was less than a serious charge, that the matter was not serious.
I should like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of the house, so we may consider exactly how serious the charge is, the evidence which shows that the change was neither minor nor inconsequential because in effect it deprived the committee of complete information on the question of manpower. I think, sir, it must be borne in mind that I rose in my place to take my full responsibility and to make objection.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that since the minister is still sitting in the house with this question hanging over his head, and having turned down the chance last night to have the house give unanimous consent to revert to the question so he could clear his name, Your Honour should take a broad look at the rules in order that members of this house

October 13. 1966
Question of Privilege
should not be asked to sit with a member who has had such serious charges made against him, and who had the opportunity last night of having them investigated but did not take that opportunity. These charges are still hanging over him, and this would be another opportunity to have these charges dealt with. My motion is substantially the same as my motion yesterday except that I have added that the committee should also decide whether my charges were spurious.
I would ask Your Honour to take a very broad look at the rules in this regard. This is another question of privilege that Your Honour has to consider, and it arises as soon as the member involved comes into the house. Here is a member against whom very serious charges have been made in connection with a breach of privilege, which charges have not been dealt with. He himself did not give consent to have them dealt with and under those circumstances the members of this house should not have to sit with a member who refuses to have his name cleared.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if he is guilty as I allege we should not have to sit with him. If he does not want his name cleared he should not sit in this chamber. Therefore I would ask Your Honour to rule on my point of privilege that the sequence of the statements made in this house yesterday is of such a nature that the imputations against me contained therein can only be cleared by a full and complete investigation before the privileges and elections committee. I would further ask you to consider the fact that the minister can only clear his name by a full and complete investigation before that committee.
Finally I would ask the Chair to consider the position of the members of this house and whether a man can breach the privileges of the house, refuse to have an investigation to clear his name and still ask us to sit with him.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says he has a new question of privilege; I gather this is the purport of his assertion now. If he has not, obviously there has already been a ruling on the other question of privilege, so I assume that he is asking for another ruling from the Chair on the basis of a new question of privilege.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: For a second interpretation, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says he wants a second interpretation of the same question of privilege, but I do not think the rules contemplate this alternative possibility.
I have read the standing orders, the rules and the precedents but I have certainly never seen, and I very much doubt whether the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona could bring for the assistance of the Speaker in ruling in this particular instance, a precedent which would justify his suggestion that a new interpretation of the same question should get a second ruling.
The hon. member brought up a question of which he gave me notice, according to the rules, and this is the only matter I have before me. This question of privilege referred specifically to the use of a particular word. I have made a ruling on this question.
The hon. member says that other words were used, and that I should rule on those. The hon. member knows that the time to raise this question was yesterday, not today. The reason a discussion is allowed at this time on the use of this particular word is that the hon. member said that he himself had misunderstood the word when it was used. He thought the word was "curious", but on reading Hansard he saw that it was "spurious". There is no suggestion that he did not understand the meaning or purport of the other words of which he now complains. I suggest to him that when the words were spoken would have been the time to object.
With all due respect to the hon. member, he did raise the point yesterday that he thought the minister should not impute motives; and I fully agree that one of the basic principles of debate is that there should be no imputation of motives. In any event, the minister said a moment ago that he did not intend to impute motives.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
For all these reasons I cannot judge that the hon. member has a new question of privilege on which a new ruling should be required from the Chair. We had a question yesterday on which I made a ruling, and a second question brought up today of which the hon. member gave me notice in writing, according to the rules, and on which I have given my opinion and made my ruling. I am sorry to say to the hon. member that I do not judge that there is a third question of privilege at this time.
October 13. 1966	COMMONS


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, you have not given a ruling on the question of whether the Minister of National Defence is entitled to sit in this house under the present circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: Please. This is not the question of privilege; the hon. member is making a point of debate. He is making a specific suggestion now which he knows can only be presented by certain methods which are in accordance with the rules. The hon. member cannot ask the Chair whether he, an hon. member for any other riding in Canada or any member of the cabinet has the right to sit in the house. Only members of parliament can decide that. Certainly the Chair cannot.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, that is a question of privilege which I think is valid. I could not give you notice of it because this question does not arise until the minister takes his seat in the house. Therefore no written notice was required. This is a question of privilege,
1 submit, involving every member in this house. It is our business to suggest to individuals in this chamber under what conditions they shall sit in it, and what behaviour they must observe in order to have the right to sit here. I suggest it is contempt of parliament for the minister, in view of these serious charges, to be permitted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is repeating now for the second or third time a statement he has made before, but he knows what the rules are. The only way he can bring up this type of question, if it is a question of privilege, is under the proper circumstances. There has been a ruling that it has not been done under the proper circumstances.
If the hon. member feels that some type of action should be taken by the house, he knows that this has to be done by motion. Certainly no hon. member can rise in this house and say "I do not think the hon. member for such and such a constituency has any right to sit here", thinking he can initiate a debate in this way. There are rules to be followed, and the hon. member cannot do this unless he does it in the proper way. The motion the hon. member may have in mind is a substantive motion which has to be moved with notice given in the proper way.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: May I give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be moving a motion?


Mr. Speaker:: Of course it has to be written notice, according to the rules.
23033-544J
DEBATES	8601
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



REQUEST FOR INCREASES IN INITIAL PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the appropriate minister I direct this question to the Prime Minister. Will the government of Canada not give consideration to raising the initial payment for the 1966-67 crop year by 25 cents per bushel on wheat, 14 cents per bushel on barley and 10 cents a bushel on oats?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister responsible, the Minister of Finance, dealt with this matter a day or two ago when he said the matter was under consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the request of the opposition has received the approbation of recent events, does the government not feel that the time is here for it to announce these increases so the farmers will not suffer by reason of the accelerating cost of living, cost of machinery and the like? Is there no answer?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I said the matter was under consideration. We will do our best to see that the farmers do not suffer.


John George Diefenbaker: For 47 years health insurance was under consideration, too.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask if he has received any representations from the secretary of the Hudson Bay Route Association to the effect that the Churchill terminal elevator is to remain almost empty this winter as it did last winter. Has the minister heard the contention of the secretary that there is adequate grain within a radius of 700 miles, as well as adequate numbers of box cars, to fill this elevator for the coming winter? Also may I ask the minister whether any action is being taken to see that full and complete use is made of the storage and handling facilities of the Churchill terminal elevator during this coming winter and spring.
October 13. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no communication in this regard, to my knowledge. It may be that the Minister of Transport, under whose jurisdiction the elevators come, has received some communication.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Transport if it is correct that the Churchill terminal elevator is likely to remain empty this winter. If so, are any steps being taken to see to it that full use is made of the terminal facilities at Churchill?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I hope, sir, that the terminal elevator at Churchill will not be empty during this winter. I am taking the most active steps I am capable of to persuade the wheat board to till it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the elevator was empty for most of last winter, can the minister assure the house that his steps will be more effective this year than last year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot assure the house of that. All I can assure the house is that I will do my best. I should add that last year the elevator was kept empty at the request both of the railways and the wheat board, because it was felt last year that more wheat could be exported more expeditiously if that was done. The harbours board agreed with the greatest reluctance to what was done last year. They have not agreed this year.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What representations has the minister made? The explanation he has given is a novel one. What representations has he made, and what are the altered conditions this year that will assure that this elevator shall be used, rather than being ostracized as it was last winter by this government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I can answer that question very easily because I happened to be talking to the executive vice president of the Canadian National about this matter less than two hours ago, when he was at the transport committee. Last year if box cars had been used to fill the elevator at Churchill they could not have been used to take the wheat to Vancouver where it was urgently needed. This year there are box cars available to fill the elevator in Churchill. The Canadian National is very anxious to use box cars for

that purpose. I hope the wheat board will be equally anxious to have the elevator filled.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister whether any thought has been given by the government to fully automating our ports for the unloading of grain from box cars to ships, as it is done in the United States, so that we can speed up the use of these box cars.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A study is being made of this matter at the present time, and I hope we shall do an even better job than the United States authorities have done. I am fully conscious of the importance of modernizing our facilities for the handling of wheat. They are not adequate for the kind of crops we are now getting. This is one of the most pressing problems in this country, and the government is giving the most urgent consideration to it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much. [Translation]



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
He seems in fine fettle following the weekend conference where the matter of bilingualism and bi-ethnic groups in Canada was discussed.
Has the Prime Minister been informed of what he Devoir calls a "resounding resignation from the B.B.G.", that is the Board of Broadcast Governors? It is the resignation of Mr. Frederic Cote who is accusing the federal body of being intellectually dishonest and taking an anti-French Canadian attitude.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that he cannot read the news report while asking his question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, here is my question. Has the Prime Minister been informed of that resignation and would he undertake to check the accuracy of the charges made by a former employee of the Board of Broadcast Governors?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was made aware by the Secretary of State, who is looking into the matter.
October 13, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the remarks he made earlier this week in this city regarding the removal of the discriminatory aspects of our current immigration laws, and the indication that sponsorship rights were to be available to all immigrants entering Canada, may I ask the minister when this house can expect to receive the white paper on immigration?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I had intended to ask a similar question in connection with immigration. In view of the minister's remarks made last Saturday at a meeting in Toronto, remarks which brought forth strong protests, may I ask whether what is contained in this white paper will coincide with the statements the hon. gentleman has made?


Jean Marchand: Neither in Toronto nor here in Ottawa did I reveal what is contained in the white paper. As a matter of fact I did not say more outside than I have said here in the house. For the rest, I think the hon. member can wait until tomorrow and check for himself.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: I
should like to ask the minister whether as reported in the press this morning he discussed in detail the contents of this white paper which he intends to table in the house tomorrow.


Jean Marchand: I never discussed the white paper in detail.


George Harris Hees: Then I take it that newspaper reports to the effect that this was discussed at the annual meeting of the Liberal party yesterday are completely wrong?


Jean Marchand: My answer to that would be that I have discussed these matters in general terms; I merely repeated at the convention what I had already said here in the house concerning discrimination and sponsorship.
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



MEDICARE-REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Huron):: have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the government has changed its plan to have medicare instituted by January, 1967, and postponed the date to January, 1968, will the government give consideration to referring this matter to a committee of the house in order that all those who are vitally interested may have an opportunity to be heard?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: It is not the intention of the government to send the medical care bill to a committee for study. It is a very short bill and it speaks for itself. In my view it can properly be studied in committee of the whole.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Inasmuch as the effective date for this legislation is to be 1968, I wonder whether the minister could tell us by what date we might expect legislation to provide increased payments for old age pensioners?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I stated yesterday, we hope to bring in this legislation during the present session. The details of the legislation will be disclosed at that time.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Does the minister not think this pension issue is more important than the medicare bill because of the revised date of application of the latter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is argumentative.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put the following supplementary question.
Since the bill on medicare will not, in any case, be enforced before July 1968, would the minister not consider the advisability of studying in the first place an increase of old age pensions in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is my hope to have the medical care bill disposed of by the house before introducing any other legislation.
October 13, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES NOVA SCOTIA-REQUEST FOR BAIT SUBSIDY
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that inshore fishermen of Nova Scotia generally are required to pay twice as much for their fish bait as are their counterparts in Newfoundland, would the hon. gentleman give consideration to the application of a bait subsidy in favour of Nova Scotia fishermen identical to the one paid in Newfoundland?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: I am sure the hon. member is well aware that the bait assistance which is being provided in Newfoundland cannot be considered as a direct subsidy. It is a service provided to the fishermen of Newfoundland in accordance with the terms of union, or the terms which were put forward when Newfoundland joined confederation.
As far as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, or any other maritime province is concerned, we at present have a bait subsidy policy with respect to the construction of bait storage facilities.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the fact that this bait subsidy which the minister has mentioned discriminates against fishermen in Nova Scotia, would the hon. gentleman not consider extending a similar subsidy to fishermen in our province?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There is no such discrimination. The subsidy applicable today has been applicable for a number of years, and conditions have not changed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and ask whether he has yet seen a telegram from the president of local 112 of the United Automobile Workers protesting against the lay-off of some 89 employees by Douglas Aircraft at Malton. In view of the suggestion that many of those laid off were engaged in an on the job training program, can the minister inform the house what steps he is taking ^o persuade the company to reinstate them immediately?


Jean Marchand: I have received a telegram, and I hope to be in a position to make a complete report on this situation some time tomorrow.



NOVA SCOTIA-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In order to relieve anxiety among those of the public who are interested in and aware of the situation, would the right hon. gentleman now announce government policy with respect the Nova Scotia coal industry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not today, Mr. Speaker, but as soon as possible.


Malcolm MacInnis: Again,
I appeal to the Prime Minister. In order to relieve the anxiety which now exists, why does he not immediately release this policy? He has indicated that it is ready now for release. Why keep the miners and the people of Nova Scotia waiting?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question has been answered by the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Cape Breton South may think the answer is not satisfactory but, as he knows, he cannot require a minister to answer. The second part of his question would appear to be argumentative.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: A
further supplementary, then. I ask the Prime Minister this. Has government policy been prepared now, ready for release later?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The matter is under consideration, and as soon as that consideration is completed I will be as anxious as is the hon. gentleman to make public the views of the government in the house.


Malcolm MacInnis: I ask
the Prime Minister how he can equate that last statement with the information he gave me in the house yesterday as reported at page 8586 of Hansard, when he said:
I am sure my hon. friend will be very happy about the policy when it is announced.
The only impression one can take from this answer is that the policy is ready but that the government will not release it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
October 13, 1966



COMMONS DEBATES CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In view of the uncertainty surrounding the infliction of the capital sentence, and bearing in mind the case brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for York-Humber and the uncertainty which today exists in the minds of those who are awaiting execution, may I ask whether the government now intends to give consideration to the introduction of legislation for the abolition of capital punishment?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to raise this question. I also thank him for raising a very important subject. This matter has been under consideration by the government, and if it is proposed to amend or change the existing law an announcement will be made at the appropriate time and as soon as possible.


Mr. Fulton:: In the meantime will the existing law be carried out?


Lawrence T. Pennell: With respect, the law is being carried out.


Mr. Lambert:: I beg to differ.


John George Diefenbaker: How many now, to the minister's knowledge, are there in jail awaiting execution?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The right hon. gentleman will appreciate that I am speaking from memory, but I believe the figure is nine or ten.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry. I should like to ask him, since final studies were completed last week in Ottawa regarding a code for safety features in automobiles, is the government considering passing legislation in the form of a code for the public who purchase motor vehicles?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, consideration is being given to the introduction of legislation where appropriate and in fields in which the federal government has jurisdiction.
Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS



REPORT ON PENSION COMMISSION-INCREASE IN DISABILITY PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question of current concern to many veterans and their dependants in Canada at this time. Can the minister inform the house when he expects the report of Mr. Justice Wood on the organization of the Canadian Pension Commission will be tabled in the house, and when legislation will be introduced to provide for increases in war disability pensions and war veterans allowances?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank the hon. member for advising me that he would raise this matter today. With regard to the first part of the question, I think all of us are grateful for the fact that the evidence before and interest in the Wood inquiry has been such that it has taken many more months than many of us anticipated. I am not complaining about that. I think this shows that the matter is important. When the report is received we hope it will be of real value to us.
As to when this report may be received, I must say that it is still a question, although I hope to receive it within a month or so. I think the hon. member will appreciate that I will not press the chairman of this inquiry to rush his report. I am sure, as all hon. members who know him will be aware, that he will do so as quickly as possible.
Concerning the second part of the question, I hope at the first opportunity to present to the house a measure, which I anticipate will be by way of an estimate because we will deal with amendments to this act at a later date, dealing with war disability pensions and war veterans allowances. This I will do. The government has taken its decision on this and I would want to introduce it at the earliest possible moment.
While I am on my feet may I also deal with a question asked last Thursday by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition with regard to war veterans allowances. I should like to say to him that it is not my intention to recommend a change of principle in respect of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. There will, however, be some measures affecting the ceilings on income when I can bring to the house the amendments I have suggested.
October 13. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
I think the hon. member for Kootenay West also asked a question last Thursday, but I believe I already have given the answer. As soon as I have an opportunity I hope to introduce the adjustments to the war disability pensions, the war veterans allowances and ceilings on income. As the Prime Minister made clear, these are interim measures so far as disability pensions are concerned, and other measures will be coming in at a later date.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister suggests these will be temporary measures to raise the disability pensions and war veterans allowances through estimates and not through legislation, there will be no obstacle in the way of his making an announcement to the house before the estimates are brought in. I should like to ask the minister whether he can give us any idea what increase will be granted and when it is likely to be effective, because this is a matter about which members are receiving a great deal of correspondence. It would help the veterans if they knew when this is likely to take place and what the percentage is likely to be.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I can answer one part of that question, Mr. Speaker, as to an effective date. The hope is that it will be September 1, 1966. I have had some preliminary discussions with other people in the house on this and it is the hope that we can bring this measure in as quickly as possible, with perhaps the opportunity for a more complete debate on the matter at some later date.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. First I should like to say, if I may make this observation, that I am glad the minister is taking action, but I am disappointed with the suggestion made by him, if I understood him correctly, that the veterans 69 years of age and over who become qualified for the old age pension will have their war veterans allowance reduced. I ask the minister, will he not give real consideration to this matter? A grave injustice is being done. I am not blaming this on the government, but I am saying a grave injustice is being done to the veterans who today are in the latter part of their lives and find themselves unable to carry on with the reduced amount of their war veterans allowance.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can interpret that as a question, but I have indicated we have no intention, or I have no intention, of recommending to the government that the principle of the War Veterans' Allowance Act be changed. I did indicate, however, that I would be bringing in a recommendation respecting an adjustment of the ceiling on income for war veterans allowance recipients which in some measure will meet the request; but I am not at all inclined to recommend a change to the principle of the act.


John George Diefenbaker: It is pretty hard on the old soldiers.


Mr. G. L. Chatterfon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us when he expects to introduce amendments to the Pension Act other than in respect of pension rates, which were promised in 1964.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a moment age, I think it would be foolhardy for me to indicate a date, because I think I should wait for the report of the Wood committee which may well recommend far reaching amendments to the Canadian pension commission act. I think it would be wise for me to wait until I have that report before I indicate what the legislation will be and when I can bring it in.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is he aware of a severe livestock railway car shortage which is building up in the prairies, and will he take action to see that conditions are not repeated such as existed last fall, when livestock began to move and there were no railway cars to move them?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was courteous enough to indicate that he was going to ask this question. This gave me an opportunity to consult with the management of the Canadian National Railways. They are aware that in the last few days a shortage has been developing, and they are taking the most urgent action to meet the problem.
October 13, 1966

(Translation)



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that Jacques Cartier bridge is under repair at present, as well as the approaches to Victoria bridge, and that heavy traffic is prohibited in the Lafontaine tunnel and considering that a telegram has been sent to the minister and a few members of this house by the Quebec or Eastern Canada Trucking Association, would it be possible for the government, as requested by that association, to abolish tolls on Champlain bridge, at least temporarily or until the situation is corrected next spring?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much that this type of question should be accepted in the circumstances. If the minister wishes to reply,
I shall allow him to do so through courtesy for the member for Megantic.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret, and I am sure everyone who has used the bridge regrets it even more, that there is serious congestion on the Jacques Cartier bridge because of the paving that is being done at the present time. Every effort is being made to see that the paving is done only on one lane at a time. The work is progressing from both ends, and I am very hopeful that this situation will be of a temporary nature. In the meantime the suggestion will be taken into consideration.


Raymond Langlois: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister look into the situation and make some attempt to speed up the work being done and avoid construction on all bridges at the same time? This would alleviate some of this congestion.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN DAM CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Perhaps in his absence his parlia-

Inquiries of the Ministry mentary secretary could deal with it or, under the circumstances, perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister will answer it.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance, in correcting an answer given previously by the Prime Minister as to whether there had been a request from the premier of British Columbia for assistance in the financing of Columbia river dams told us that there was a letter from Premier Bennett to him and that he had replied. Will the government consider tabling copies of that correspondence immediately?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as I stated, no such request has been received by me. As the Minister of Finance said, the matter was raised at a recent conference and is being considered by the Department of Finance preparatory to its submission to the cabinet for consideration. Until that time I do not wish to add to what already has been said.


Mr. Fulion:: Perhaps the Prime Minister misunderstood me, Mr. Speaker. I was not asking him to further disclose the government's intentions, but merely, in view of the importance of this matter, to table the correspondence so the house might be better informed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no objection to doing so, but I should like to consult with the minister to see in exactly what form the request was made by the premier. Having done so I will make a report to the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance referred to a letter from the premier of British Columbia which he said had been acknowledged on September 23, so there appears to have been correspondence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ascertain whether the correspondence was labelled personal, private or confidential and whether there were items referred to other than the particular matter in question.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to pose a question to the minister in charge of Canada's
8608	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry national parks, but in view of the fact that he is away on business perhaps I should direct it to the acting minister. Would the acting minister be so kind as to advise us whether there will be a winter works program at the Cape Breton Highlands national park? If so, how soon will it commence? My question is prompted by an urgent communication from a parish priest in that area who says that 50 families are now on welfare.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances I will take this question as notice and either reply later or ask the minister to reply.



ACTION FOLLOWING REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON ELECTION EXPENSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can he now tell us, after the cabinet discussions which he anticipated yesterday, what action the government proposes in regard to the report of the committee on election expenses?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that matter is under consideration by the government. We were discussing it this morning and I hope that by the beginning of next week a statement can be made as to what action might be taken.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the government consider embodying the recommendations in draft legislation and then submit it to the committee on privileges and elections in order that we can expedite this action before the next election?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into that particular suggestion.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Has the Prime Minister received from the Quebec government an invitation to take part in the proceedings of a royal commission established by the Quebec government to consider the question of Quebec boundaries, and more especially the James Bay and

DEBATES	October 13, 1966
Hudson Bay islands bordering on the province of Quebec, and also the national parks in Quebec?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not recall receiving any such communication, Mr. Speaker, but I will check into the matter at once.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the fact that at the close of the first year of operation of the Canada-U.S. car treaty the imports of cars, trucks and parts into Canada from the United States had exceeded our exports by the alarming figure of $726 million, will the minister advise the house what steps he proposes to take to stop this dangerous trend which is so adversely affecting our imbalance of trade?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the figure mentioned by the hon. gentleman, but I think perhaps he is referring to the excess of imports in the calendar year 1965, which was something in the order of $770 million.
I have some figures here which indicate that in the first six or seven months of this year this imbalance was substantially reduced. Not only was the rate of imbalance reduced, but in the month of July the net import balance was only $15 million. I do not suggest that we can anticipate a deficit of only $90 million for the remainder of the year, but this does show a trend in the right direction which had particularly spectacular results in the month of July.


Mr, Hales:: The minister said he did not hear the figure I mentioned. That figure was $726 million.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary question. Bearing in mind the circumstances, the dislocation of employment and the changes in the prices of automobiles, can the minister say whether the government is satisfied with the operation of this Canada-U.S. automotive treaty?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that his question is not in order.
October 13. 1966



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In view of the suggestion disclosed in the report of the advisory committee on the development of government in the Northwest Territory concerning the inadequacy of mail services in the eastern Arctic, has the minister directed that an inquiry be made in respect of this matter of urgency?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Even though we have the best postal service in the world, my department is always trying to improve it in every area of the country. I must say that the eastern Arctic is a very special and difficult area, but I can assure the hon. member that it is under intensive study.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Can that hon. lady inform the house whether during this fall session of parliament the government is going to bring in legislation based upon the white paper on broadcasting?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is more likely that the government will be prepared to refer the white paper to the broadcasting committee as soon as unanimous consent is given.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the right hon. Prime Minister, and it relates to the fact that the government is now exercising the tender quality of mercy in cases where no recommendation has been made to that effect. Is the tender virtue of mercy being restricted to blood criminals or will the cabinet exercise mercy in the case of those gentlemen who were associated with the strikes at Lenkurt, a firm in Vancouver, and Tilco Plastics Limited of Peterborough,

Inquiries oj the Ministry Ontario, who have been sentenced because of convictions for contempt of court? Is the tender quality of mercy being restricted to certain classes of criminals?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we will do our best to discharge our responsibilities under the law.


Michael Starr: What is the law?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of numerous requests I have received with regard to workers entering Canada this summer from Jamaica to aid in harvesting operations and remaining in Canada, can the minister state whether in the original agreement it is requisite that they return to Jamaica after the designated work period or will the Department of Immigration receive individual representations to remain in Canada or to return to Canada in the near future and remain in this country as workers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not too
sure that this question is very urgent. I would not think it is. If the hon. gentleman thinks I am wrong, he may want to discuss the matter in the adjournment debate.


Harold Warren Danforth: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question to a very clever minister, the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Auguste Choquette: Can the minister inform the house what steps the commission inquiring into the Dorion accident plans to take to notify all persons who may wish to appear and express grievances or suggest appropriate solutions?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not clever enough

October 13, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry to answer that question without advice, but I am going to get advice from the Board of Transport Commissioners and will endeavour to answer the question tomorrow.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Can the minister now inform the house whether in the past the appropriate authorities have made representations to the Board of Transport Commissioners for overpass or underpass facilities at this crossing?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will be glad to make inquiries on that point.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. Can the minister advise the house whether he has any details in connection with the reported theft of 15 bags of mail today from the mailroom of the Montreal international airport involving an estimated $1 million?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether this is the type of incident about which a question should be asked at this time. I suggest to the hon. member that, the deed having been done, perhaps the question should not be asked at this time. If the hon. member thinks there is an aspect of urgency in his question I would suggest that it be discussed in the adjournment debate.


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that question would have been very urgent yesterday.


William Heward Grafftey: Explain.



REQUEST FOR INCREASED SHIPMENTS THROUGH CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that we now have on record some measure of support from the Vancouver area for increased shipments through the port of Churchill, would the minister take the appropriate steps to encourage his colleagues from the lakehead and Montreal areas to give the same support to increased shipments from Churchill?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I have the support of my colleagues from every part of Canada to do everything it is possible to do to facilitate the export of the maximum quantity of wheat from this country, and as much from Churchill as it is possible to put through that port.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that several statements have been made recently by the shipping authorities in Montreal to the effect that everything possible will be done to see that Churchill shipments are not increased?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will consider the hon. gentleman's representation, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of this bill. In the interim since this bill was presented for second reading members will have had an opportunity to study its provisions carefully and, I am sure, constructively. The medical care bill is a short but significant piece of legislation. It has only nine clauses and in this respect is identical with the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act passed by this parliament in 1956. I mention this parallel simply to show that good things may come in small packages, for surely we have all lived very happily with our hospital insurance legislation and I doubt that any member of the house would want to see it dismantled.
There are a number of other parallels between the bill we are considering today and the hospital insurance legislation-in the definition of "resident" and "population", for example. Similarly, both statutes require that insured services be provided under uniform terms and conditions to all residents of the province. Again, a similarity will be found in the provision relating to waiting periods for benefits. Although the approach in the statutes differs, the effect is to limit these to three months.
October 13, 1966

It will be recalled that in my statement introducing the resolution I outlined briefly the manner in which changing times and conditions were reflected in the varying methods by which federal assistance has been made over the years to provincial programs in the health field. I showed the changing patterns reflected in such programs as the health grants, hospital insurance and that set out in the present bill.
Members will also recall that I discussed the four principles which had been put to the provinces last year by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) when he described the federal proposal in relation to medical care programs. These four principles, it will be noted, have been incorporated in the present bill. I would particularly draw the attention of members to the added flexibility which has been incorporated in the principles concerning universal coverage and public administration. This has been done without eroding the purpose for which these principles were set out.
The question of universal coverage is one which may raise some problem only in provinces choosing to finance the provincial share of costs through a premium system, as I pointed out in my introductory remarks during the debate on the resolution. During discussions with my colleagues, the provincial ministers of health, certain questions were raised about possible difficulties which provinces using premiums might have achieving optimum coverage in the initial period. For this reason, a more flexible approach has been built into the legislation. It provides that in the initial stages of the program a plan will be considered to be universal if the number of residents covered by a provincial plan are not less than 90 per cent of all insurable residents of the province. This percentage would apply for the first two years, after which the percentage would be expected to reach 95 per cent.
Other questions raised by provincial governments related to the principle of public administration of the program. Here, too, it will be noted that flexibility has been built into the bill. The bill requires that a provincial plan must be:
a (3:50 p.m.)
-administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority appointed or designated by the government of the province . . . that is responsible in respect of the administration and operation of the plan to the government of a province for such purpose, and that is subject, in respect of its accounts and financial transactions, to audit by such person as is charged by law with the audit of the accounts of the province.
Medicare
The bill also makes provision for circumstances in which the province may authorize an agency, such as an insurance carrier, to carry out certain responsibilities on behalf of the provincial government, provided, of course, that the principles relating to public administration, including the non-profit principle, are adhered to. Where such carriers are appointed as agents by the provincial authority, then the carrier may be empowered to receive premiums from subscribers, but such premiums must be remitted by the carrier to the provincial authority.
Similarly, the carrier may be empowered to receive accounts with respect to insured services from doctors or from patients, but in these circumstances these accounts must also be passed on to the provincial authority. The assessment and the approval for payments of such accounts remain the responsibility of the provincial authority.
As in the case of hospital insurance, it is probable that different provinces will administer their public medical care programs in different ways, depending upon their own philosophy and particular circumstances. The federal law has been drawn up in such a way as to make such differences possible while at the same time ensuring the ready availability to all residents of all provinces of medical care services administered without charge by a body directly answerable to the provincial legislature. Thus, the responsibilities of the provincial authority in relation to administration are set out in the bill.
Members will have noted that the bill describes insured services as meaning "all services rendered by medical practitioners that are medically required". This provision carries out another basic principle enunciated by the Prime Minister when he originally annouced the government's medical care proposals. I would like to restate the position taken at that time by the Prime Minister with regard to the scope of benefits.
He said that the federal government's contribution initially would be based on the costs of physicians' services. He said that there would be nothing to prevent provinces providing additional benefits, either at first or later, and he agreed, and I quote his words as follows:
-if there is a consensus on the timing of further stages, the federal government will consider enlarging appropriately, and in due course, the scope of the services to which it contributes.
It was with the cost of physicians' services in mind that the section in the bill dealing

October 13, 196S
Medicare
with the calculation of the federal contribution was drawn up. This federal contribution will be equal to 50 per cent of the national per capita cost of insured services incurred by the province for the year, multiplied by the average for the year of the number of insured persons; this number is calculated along the same lines as that for which provision is made in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. In the present bill the methods for the calculation of the per capita cost, of the number of insured persons, and of the cost incurred by the province, are described.
As members are aware, preliminary estimates of cost based on figures relating to the cost of physicians' services in all the provinces, and projected to the original commencement date of the program, were discussed with the provinces. The federal contribution amounting to one-half of the cost, which I placed before you during my statement introducing the debate on the resolution, was $340 million with respect to a full year based on projected figures obtained in September, 1965. A postponement in the date of commencement will, of course, affect that amount somewhat. But it should be emphasized that the federal contribution will remain one-half of the actual per capita cost, regardless of commencement date.
The bill also incorporates the fourth principle relating to portability from province to province of insured status. The method set out in the bill is substantially the same as that which is now in effect across the country in the hospital insurance programs. It ensures that persons who are temporarily absent from their home province will continue to benefit from the medical care plan provided through the home province, and it also requires that residents moving from one province to another shall continue to be so covered during any waiting periods.
As I pointed out in my opening remarks during the resolution debate, these basic provisions are of national concern and the principle involved has never been questioned at any time by any of the provincial health ministers.
Mr. Speaker, since this legislation was last before the house a decision has been taken to defer the starting date of medicare. I do not propose to go into the reasons for this change, the necessity for which I greatly regret, as do my colleagues in the government. The fact that this alteration in the starting date has no bearing on our commitment to the principle
[Mr. MacEachen.l
of medicare is demonstrated by the fact that we are introducing this bill for second reading today. The substance of the medical care program remains intact in the bill and the house will have an opportunity to confirm these principles in the adoption of the second reading of the bill. The decision to defer the starting date of medicare was based and continues to be based on the government's assessment of the situation as related to economic conditions in the country. If the government had to make the decision to day it would be the same decision, but we are determined to proceed not later than July 1, 1968.
As the government we have the responsibility to ensure that in 1968 the introduction of medicare will have top priority and to adapt all our plans and programs to that end. In the meantime the government will keep financial and economic conditions under close scrutiny, as it must in any event. Nothing will please the government more than to be able to proceed earlier than July 1, 1968. We do not feel now that we could and should advance the date, but there will be sufficient flexibility in the legislation to advance the date if future conditions make that possible. I will be moving in committee appropriate amendments to imbed this principle of flexibility in the legislation.
There is only one further comment I have to make and that is to express to members of the house my appreciation for the interest which has been shown in connection with this very significant program and to express the hope that we may see this law placed on the statute books as a further milestone on the road of progress in social security in our country.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may ask the minister a question? In reply to a question earlier today he stated that the government did not intend to send this bill to a standing committee of the house but wishes it to be dealt with in committee of the whole house where, as we all know, witnesses are not heard. Can the minister give the house any reason why the government has decided to take away the ability to call in witnesses and discuss the bill informally in a standing or special committee of the house?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that not what the Hall Commission did?
October 13, 1966

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will appreciate that prior to the declaration of the Prime Minister with respect to this medical care program there had been a very exhaustive study made by the Hall commission into all aspects of health services in Canada, and all the relevant information is set out in that particular report. Since that declaration of principle by the Prime Minister last year, there has been a full opportunity for the provinces, for all the professions and for the public to express their views with regard to a medical care program. In the light of that the government concluded it would not be desirable or necessary to send this bill to a committee after second reading.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Would the minister not agree that this house is not bound by a royal commission nor is the house interested in discussing and examining evidence of a royal commission? A specific bill is before us. Would the minister not agree that this is a case where the house should examine witnesses and, independent of the evidence given before any royal commission, hear evidence in the same manner as on the Canada Pension Plan? Granted this did not do very much good, but it was worth an argument.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The bill is a very short one. It sets out very clear principles and the house will be asked to accept those principles. The actual operation of the medical care programs will be undertaken by the provincial governments, and the actual techniques and relationships with the medical profession will be dealt with at the provincial level. In those circumstances I think it would be quite unnecessary to have a committee set up here.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very appreciative of the position in which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) finds himself today. He has been quartered and hung on the altar of political expediency by commuted sentence. I congratulate him on the clear and distinct way he has presented this bill. However, he gave no fundamental reason why it should not be passed now and put into effect on July 1, 1967. Why is this not being done? The answer has been that the reason is to curb inflation, but to me this appears to be a completely ridiculous reason.
Medicare
The implementation of this program would involve an expenditure of only $80 million at the most, and only $40 million of that would come from the federal treasury. The reason for the delay has nothing to do with inflation. The bill would not come into effect until July 1, 1967 and the total expenditure would not be felt until the year 1968, so how could it affect inflation at the present time? Perhaps some of the taxes withheld from corporations and the increase in income tax revenues totalling over $300 million could have been used to finance this program.
According to a report in the Globe and Mail, the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Benson) had this to say:
Mr. Benson, who doubles as president of the government treasury board, pulled no punches In his short, direct speech.
He told the workshop that he was not much interested in economic arguments as to the inflationary effect of medicare.
How about this, Mr. Sharp.
According to the same newspaper report, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) told the convention that "we could not afford all these huge expenditures". But he assured them his July 1, 1968 date for medicare to go into operation was firm and that on this "there could be no compromise." Well, you have already compromised, not once but many times. He went on to say "Canada is going to have medicare, and it will be the Liberal party that will introduce it." But after two years perhaps we will be faced with the same problem again. Mr. Templeton, who contested the Ontario leadership, is quoted in this press report as follows:
"said the conference must accept the government's decision or register non-confidence in the cabinet. He criticized the government for poor planning in making a commitment it could not keep and for not satisfactorily explaining the reason for the deferral.
There is a further question of whether or not this government did any homework on the bill. Was this plan deliberately held up? Was there sincerity in the government's approach to the premiers of the provinces or did the government deliberately lay down rules that they knew would be unacceptable because the government held the aces in the form of dollars? An editorial in the Gazette covers this question rather well, and I quote:
Again this week at the Liberal party convention in Ottawa, the debate was resumed and was taken to the floor of the convention. More acrimonius words were thrown back and forth among the delegates on the question of the postponement of medicare.

October 13, 1966
Medicare
But out of all this discussion, there are many Canadians who wonder what all the argument is about. The debate within the cabinet and without, has had a strange and hollow ring about it; a lack of realism.
The debate has had a hollow ring because it has concentrated almost entirely on the question of timing. And it has shown a lack of realism because there has been little talk of how such a medicare scheme will operate, or what type of service will result. The debate has been on the question of when, not on the more important issues of what, bow and by whom.
What type of medicare scheme should we have in Canada? The subject has been brought up before in royal commission studies (the Hall commission), as well as several provincial investigations. In fact, most of the provinces either have some sort of medical care scheme in operation, or are planning to put one in operation. There is no shortage of suggestions, or lack of material to debate.
The question of how such a scheme should operate has far reaching consequences. Medicare is the first social welfare measure which raises problems in human relations between the citizen and his doctor, and between the government and the medical profession.
Finally, who is going to operate the plan? . . .
Canada is also in a vulnerable position to lose its highly trained medical personnel, particularly to the United States. And this country is already short of doctors. At the same time, there are insufficient hospitals to cope with the present load of medical service.
I should like to know what the government is doing about that. I continue the quotation:
In yet another area, medical research, the amount of money which the government puts into this vital sector of medical service is seriously Inadequate. And these are only some of the gnawing issues surrounding the implementation of medicare.
The editorial concludes in this way:
It may be hoped that between now and July 1, 1968, there will be more discussion about the real issues which medicare raises, and less about the secondary ones; more about substance, and less about style.
I should like to ask the minister, what is going to become of roughly one-third of the people across Canada, those in the low income, low pension groups when they have to have medical care? It is true that in the province of Ontario they are covered by OMSIP. I feel that the Ontario minister of health should be congratulated on the very fine plan he has in operation. It covers the disabled, those on old age assistance, mothers' allowance and the blind. For example, a person with a taxable income of $500 or less has to pay $30 and the government pays $30. The complete cost for a family of two with a taxable income of $1,000 or less is $120, of which the government pays half, $60. The cost for a family of three or more is $150, of which the government pays $90 and the insured pays $60.
[Mr. Rynard.l
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This is a step in the right direction. Ontario has its own plan but, I ask the minister, how about the people in the maritime provinces? How about the people in Newfoundland and the people in the provinces which have no plan to cover the needs of those with low incomes? Are they to be completely forgotten or sacrificed on the altar of expediency of this government?
There are always certain problems which arise when any plan comes into effect, so this would be an ideal opportunity to work out the kinks in this plan, by covering roughly one-third of the population. We should consult with the ministers of health and the provincial premiers so that when 1968 arrives we are ready to implement this plan and not have another stall.
I also think we have to keep in mind a few fundamentals. For example, we must keep in mind the meagre research that has been carried on in Canada as well as the scarcity of doctors and paramedical personnel. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that it takes ten other paramedical services to supply the needs of each doctor in practice. This bill requires very careful thought, even though almost two years will elapse before it becomes law. It must be given the most complete scrutiny at this time in order to ensure a medicare bill which will work in the best interests of all the people before it is passed. It must also, of course, be acceptable to the provinces. There must be a common denominator and there must be agreement.
To do this successfully, I submit to the minister that certain conditions must be met. The most important are these: First of all, sufficient beds must be provided for our sick, those needing hospitalization, so that they can be looked after. There must be sufficient doctors and paramedical services provided. There must be sufficient medical schools to train our medical students. There must be sufficient highly skilled teachers and medical scientists in order to teach our students. Lastly, there must be adequate research, and salaries must be provided which will attract outside teachers from the United States and Great Britain, and hold the teacher-scientists that we need today.
Let us look at the hospital bed situation, Mr. Speaker. Again I want to remind the government that in 1957 the federal government contributed $1,000 a bed. In 1958 the Conservative government brought in a bill
October 13, 1966



which doubled this amount to $2,000. But may I remind the government that in 1966 it is still paying only $2,000 a bed.
In 1958 the cost of a hospital bed in the province of Ontario, and I believe pretty well across Canada, was around $8,000 to $10,000. At that time the government at the $2,000 level was paying about a quarter to a fifth of the cost of hospital beds across the country. Eight years later when the cost of a hospital bed is somewhere around $25,000 to $30,000 the federal government is still paying $2,000. In other words, it is paying about one tenth or one fifteenth of the cost.
In all conscience, Mr. Speaker, how in the world can the government sitting opposite bring in a bill like this when they will not even provide the things which are required to make the bill work satisfactorily? I tell them to pull their socks up before 1968 and pay their share. Let them pay one third of the cost. It should be a 3-way partnership with the provincial and municipal governments.
In case the minister requires any references, I direct his attention to a plea which was made at the Ontario Hospital Association meeting in Toronto for an equal three-way division of hospital construction costs. According to a brief submitted to Premier Ro-barts, between 1960 and 1965 the cost of building and renovating public hospitals in Ontario was $293 million. Of this figure local communities paid 59 per cent. So the poor taxpayer at the municipal level was shouldering more than half of the cost. The provincial government was paying 25.35 per cent, or roughly one quarter, and the federal grant was 14.85 per cent, which is pretty disappointing.
The brief of the association stated that it was not calling for total government financing. It went on to say:
We believe very strongly, as do the majority of hospital boards, that a share of the building of a hospital should remain an obligation of the people of a community.
The brief went on to state that the federal government had not increased its basic $2,000 per bed grant since 1958 and made no contribution toward many essential supporting areas. Finally, the brief stated:
Unless the federal government can be prevailed upon to step up its construction grants to a more realistic level, we have no alternative but to look to the provincial government for the additional support that is so urgently needed.
Beds are scarce and I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how many people in Canada are having more prolonged illness or even losing their lives
Medicare
today because we have insufficient hospital beds in Canada.
I should now like to dwell on another matter concerning the provision of doctors. It should be our duty to help the provinces provide doctors so that people will not lose their lives because of lack of medical care or insufficient doctors to treat emergency cases. Doctors in Canada today are grossly overworked, though they are doing the best they can. They are on the whole a dedicated profession, but everyone has a breaking, point, no matter what his profession or business may be.
Our general practitioners are now serving upwards of 2,000 people each. I wonder how many people are aware of that. More doctors must be provided to teach in our medical schools, and if necessary classes should be held all summer in order to train students.
I should now like to deal with the Hall commission report. Canada has a population of roughly 20 million people and there are just over 19,000 doctors. It is interesting to note that some 9,000 of them are specialists or are engaged in administrative or other work. This leaves just over 10,000 doctors in general practice, acting as the workhorses of the communities, carrying on and healing and referring where necessary to other doctors.
I was interested to look up the statistics in the United States in this regard. There the number of doctors and this is all doctors per capita is one doctor to every 752 persons. In New Zealand there is one doctor for every 700 persons. In Russia there is one doctor for every 550 persons, and their target is one doctor for every 500 persons. This indicates just how badly off we are in our need for doctors. Not only must we have more doctors but we must train more. I will put on the record what the Hall commission report has to say about this situation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
However, Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to deal with Great Britain. Great Britain has good medical schools. Unfortunately, many of the doctors there are leaving the country. In one year-I am speaking of 1964 which was the worst year of all-1,200 doctors out of a graduating class of 1,600 left the shores of Great Britain. On the average Great Britain is losing about 600 doctors a year. I am citing these facts to emphasize what is happening in this country. We are today short of interns in Canada, with hospital after hospital having no interns. In Great Britain the drain has

October 13, 1966
Medicare
become so bad that 45 per cent of all interns are from outside the country, and mostly from Asia or Africa.
The United States is far better off than we are, in medical manpower. Yet they have set up an examining board in London where doctors can take their examinations. Those doctors who wish to leave Great Britain after having passed the board's examination can go to the United States, and enter into practice there.
What are we doing about this situation? What is the government attempting to do? The Canadian Medical Association requires a doctor to fly here at his own expense, sit for his examination in Canada, and then go back. If the doctor qualifies he can come back again and enter practice. What in the world is wrong? I might ask in the light of this, why when we are so short of medical personnel. Surely we too can see that doctors who have been trained in Great Britain and who are thinking of leaving Great Britain should be allowed to try their examinations in London. I suggest to the minister that one of the things that must be done, to get doctors if this bill is to work, is to provide funds to the Canadian Medical Council so it can set up a board in London similar to that of the United States.
This brings up the next point. I refer to the building of medical schools, paramedical services, science research centres and so on. We are off target here. The Hall Commission report said in 1964 that we have to add a minimum of 476 students a year to our medical schools, but I wonder if the minister is aware of the number of new medical students who entered medical schools this year in Ontario? Is the minister aware of what is required? Is the minister aware that only 75 additional students are registered in the medical schools in Ontario? There are just 75 more students this year despite the fact that the Hall Commission report says that there must be an additional minimum each year of 476 students for Canada. This report, as I say, was public knowledge in 1964. Yet in the waning days of 1966 we find that in Ontario we have only 75 additional students, which, applied to the rest in Canada, would give us only half the required number. In addition, only one new medical school will be opened, at Sherbrooke, which will admit 25 students.
The Hall Commission report stated that by 1970 we must have 7,100 additional doctors. They must be added to the profession. We are
[Mr. Rynard.l
not adding these numbers, nor have we any hope of so doing in the way we are conducting our affairs. Doctors, sir, are overworked almost to the breaking point. On a flight to Toronto I met a doctor. He is younger than I am, having graduated about 1935. As he is a friend of mine I said to him: "John, who is looking after your practice?" He had a big practice. He said to me: "I am quitting practice. I cannot take it anymore. People call me and I cannot refuse them, and physically I am unable to go, and if I stayed in practice I would probably break down." He said to me that he had come down to Ottawa to see about a government job.
This sort of thing is going on in many towns of Canada. Doctors are pulling out and quitting. I cite such things because doctors often say: "We cannot refuse people. We do not want the responsibility on our shoulders of somebody who ought to get immediate care dying, but we have to have some rest some time".
The people today are not receiving the best of medical care. Let us face that fact. That is not because there is not sufficient money but because we do not have the doctors to do the work. It is as simple as that. Canada faces a serious situation with respect to medical manpower.
You can build all the medical schools you like but unless you have scientifically trained teachers to teach the students you will not produce doctors. It will be of little avail to have students without teachers. How many teachers do we need? It is admitted that in the next five years we shall need 1,500 teacher scientists. We do not have that number in Canada. What is to happen? The Canadian Medical Association Journal, as quoted on page 7553 of Hansard, has this to say:
If the teachers for the expansion of existing schools and the staffing of new medical schools are recruited from within Canada, a sort of academic musical chairs will occur in which the staffs of existing schools will be rapidly diluted, and, if the bidding is brisk, an unfortunate concentration of the best talent in a few centres may develop.
This sort of thing has been going on for quite a time. It has reached the point where four medical schools in Canada may lose their accreditation. This matter was dealt with by the Canadian Medical Association Journal in these terms, also as quoted on page 7553 of Hansard:
It has been whispered about for a long time. Now it is in the open: one-third of Canada's medical schools, during the last ten years, have been warned that if they don't improve they may
October 13. 1966

lose their North American accreditation. This is a recognized method for judging the quality of medical schools, and loss of accreditation is a sad, bad blow . . .
The primary fault in the four schools was not with respect to their basic orientation or the quality of existing staff, but rather that they had insufficient staff and resources to meet the needs of modem medicine.
For a country such as Canada, which is one of the richest resource countries in the world, to have an article like that printed in the Medical Association Journal is something not far short of being a national disgrace.
The next question I wish to ask is: Where are we to get these teachers? I do not think we will get them from the United States, because while we spend $12 million in research the expenditure in the United States per capita is ten times as great. In other words, they do more research. We lose 200 doctors every year probably because of this. And it costs $50,000 to train a doctor, one does not have to be a mathematician to see that these doctors represent a gift of $10 million every year. Instead of giving that gift, why can we not spend more money in research to try to keep the doctors we have trained? The doctors who leave have an earning power of $100 million in their lifetime. In those circumstances, why should we spend only a niggardly $12 million on research? This is one of the frightening aspects of the problem, and it seems that the government has not woke up to the fact that we must spend money on research and must have research to attract teacher scientists.
It takes 8 years from the time he starts to train a doctor. It takes 11 years to train a specialist and 15 years to train a teacher. Where are we to get the teachers?
The teachers in Great Britain are of a high calibre. An effort to attract them from Great Britain might be made, although I do not believe in stealing their best teachers. Nevertheless, if they show a willingness to go to the United States I say we ought to put in a bid for them. We ought to have a Canadian Medical Council board sitting in London as the United States has. The United States has more scientists than we have; yet they do this.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I think one of the greatest fallacies in Canadian thinking is that we can steal the benefits of research and therefore we can let United States provide it for us. Nothing is farther from the truth. The benefits of research are not always transferrable. It must
Medicare
be understood, also that these benefits do not consist solely of new discoveries; there is the attraction which research has for scientifically-minded teachers and doctors. Our greatest difficulty now lies in obtaining the services of our own citizens, Canadians who have gone to the United States because of the meagreness of our own research facilities. I do not wish to state this as a fact, but I believe that last year the government provided funds for only 60 per cent of the research projects which were authorized.
I should like to put on record what a few of the provincial premiers feel about this situation. Mr. Stanfield said: "Ottawa must take a more flexible position on requirements for federal help." He feels his province is not able to carry the load which the federal government would imposed on it. It is for the less wealthy provinces I plead today, since the wealthier provinces are obviously in a better position to play their part.
Are the maritime provinces to be forgotten? Are they to be written off on grounds of expediency? I remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the help they need works out to between $10 million and $12 million, which would cover only a third of those in Canada who need help, and is therefore just about one-third of the amount which would otherwise be spent.
There are faults in this bill and I hope they will be corrected. Doctors are grossly overworked. We need more doctors as a matter of the greatest urgency. We are talking about a bill this afternoon which will not come into effect for two years. The measure is weak in other respects. What does the government intend to do about optometrists? Will they be paid? There are 1,500 of them across Canada and they are responsible for 70 per cent of visual care. There are only 300 certified ophthalmologists in Canada and these are mostly in the big centres. What will be done to serve those who live in the rural areas, people who do not have the opportunity to go to the big cities? Is the government thinking of them?
Most of this work will be done by optometrists. Many of these are men who have taken a specific four-year course of training laid down for them. These are individuals competent not only to undertake eye corrections but to know when cases should be referred to an ophthalmologist. I say these people should be covered. I could go on to deal with other points but I will not do so until the bill is discussed clause by clause.

October 13. 1966
Medicare
Finally, I point out that in Canada today we have the services of just over 10,000 general practitioners to look after 20 million people. This cannot go on. More and more of them are wanting to get out because they cannot give the service they expected to be able to give. In Russia there is one doctor for every 550 people. In Israel there is one doctor for every 400 people.
Besides the field of treatment there is the field of preventive medicine. We need doctors badly in Canada. I think the situation should be examined. We are in a crisis. Where are we to get these doctors? I would say that the medical course should be shortened. This could be done in two ways. Either students could go to school and be taught the year round, as was done when the war was on in the forties, or some of the frills could be cut out of the course as laid down by the universities. If it is true, as most of the eminent authorities in the medical field say, that half of what we learn today has to be discarded in ten years time, would it not be better to send doctors back to medical school for six months every five or ten years than to follow the policy we are following today?
This is an urgent business and I do not think the government has sufficiently considered the urgency. In these circumstances I propose to move an amendment as follows:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
This house, while of the opinion that provision should be made for medical services to be available to all Canadians at an adequate level on a prepaid basis, is nevertheless of the further opinion that no legislation for the provision of insured medical care services in Canada will be satisfactory unless it:
(a)	secures co-operation of the governments of the provinces of Canada;
(b)	recognizes the principle of voluntary choice by the individual;
(c)	makes adequate prior provision for sufficient medical research, the training of adequate numbers of doctors and other medical personnel, and:
(d)	immediately provides for those persons who are unable, for financial reasons, to provide medical services for themselves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: This is a complex amendment and I should like to refer it to the Speaker for consideration. Meanwhile I will put it before the house on a provisional basis.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when the resolution preceding Bill C-227 came before the house on July 12, followed by the introduction and first reading of this bill, we expressed our

great pleasure that this important piece of legislation was before parliament. I think it is fair to say that on that day the house itself was aware of the historic step we were taking and there was a very high hope that it would be followed by early action along the lines set out in the bill presented that day by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen).
In contrast to the spirit of that day, I suggest that this is a very sad day in Canada's history. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes I shall give point by point my reasons for saying that this is a sad day in the history of this country. But I think no one demonstrated it more effectively than the Minister of National Health and Welfare by the manner in which he spoke today compared with the things he said and the way in which he spoke on July 12. Let me remind him of the second or third last paragraph of the speech he made when he introduced the resolution and asked us to give first reading to this bill. These are his words as found at page 7549 of Hansard for July 12, 1966:
The introduction of this resolution, Mr. Chairman, I believe marks an historic day for this parliament and for Canada. The program it spells out goes a long way toward closing the gap in our over-all social security system. It is our hope it will result in the commencement of provincial medical care plans covering all Canadians on the 100th birthday of Confederation, July 1, 1967. This would be a most appropriate way to mark our birthday, since it would ensure ready access to medical care to all of our people, regardless of means, of pre-existing conditions, of age, or other circumstances which may have barred such access in the past.
That was the high hope expressed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on July 12, namely, that on our 100th birthday, July 1, 1967, we would have accomplished the taking of this historic step. Today, in a speech that was so timid and so half-hearted we could hardly hear it, he gave us a new word for what we normally call retreat. Today he told us that flexibility has been built into this legislation. Earlier today on another subject there was talk about words and their meanings and certain members had recourse to the dictionary. I suggest, however, that it is a strange effort on the part of the minister to try to turn the word "retreat" into the word "flexibility".
The minister told us, for example, that in July of 1965 the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), supported by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, laid down four cardinal principles upon which the government based
October 13, 1966

its stand, but now he tells us that with regard to two of those principles flexibility has been built into the legislation. He also tells us that the commitment made in 1965 and repeatedly in 1966 that medicare would come into effect on July 1, 1967, has been changed and that we are not going to get it until a year later.
The first example of flexibility relates, of course, to the principle of universality. I am going to say to the minister that I do not regard the change that is being made there as [DOT]quite as serious as the other changes being made. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister on July 19 and 20, 1965, said that one of the cardinal principles was universal coverage. He did not say 90 per cent or 95 per cent; he said universal coverage. The minister says that the government has accepted the principle of universality but has built it into the legislation with some flexibility. Universality is to mean 90 per cent for the first two years and 95 per cent after that. I freely admit that in the light of our experience with hospitalization this is not as serious a change as some of the others, but it still is a retreat rather that what the minister likes to call it-the imparting of flexibility into the legislation.
A more serious way in which the minister has retreated has to do with what was the third of the Prime Minister's criteria of July, 1965, namely, that medicare would have to be carried in the provinces by the provinces themselves or by provincial agencies, but not by private insurance companies. Now we are given a bill which has in it a loophole a mile wide under which it is possible for private insurance companies to be designated by provincial governments to carry this medical care insurance program.
When I say that, Mr. Speaker, I am not just giving my own interpretation of the clause in the bill that makes this provision. The fact is that when the minister appeared before the health and welfare committee on July 14, a couple of days after the bill had been given first reading, I asked him in that committee whether it was possible under one of the clauses in the bill for private companies to come into the program and he made it clear that if a provincial government chose to give the carrying of the plan to insurance companies on a non-profit basis that would be in order under the provisions of this bill. The minister himself used the phrase "life insurance companies". He insisted, of course, that it would have to be on a non-profit basis. We
Medicare
had some interesting exchanges on that point. I suggest that this leads to all kinds of speculation as to what is profitable and non-profitable and to the possibility of insurance companies getting into this business on a loss-leader basis. I suggest the minister has no right to call this flexibility. It is downright retreat from the position the government took in July, 1965, when it announced that one of the four cardinal principles was that medicare must be carried by provincial governments or their agencies and not by private carriers.
In addition to the flexibility the minister talked about-the downright retreat-regarding universality and private carriers, we now have this business of the change of the effective date from July 1, 1967 to July 1, 1968. No matter how much the minister may try to make light of this and no matter how much the Liberal party may try to give the impression that it achieved some kind of unanimity on this at its recent convention, there has been a retreat from a very definite promise make by the government time and time again, and I am going to go into that in some detail in a moment or two.
Before I do go into that, however, I should like to remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare that he saw the possibility of this happening. In fact, he should have stood his ground last July and should have insisted that this bill be put through at that time. I suggest that if my friends to the right in the Progressive Conservative party complain very much-they have not done so yet-about the postponing of the legislation, part of the responsibility is theirs, because if they had been willing to take the bill through second reading to committee stage last July, as the minister wanted to do and as we wanted to do, it would have been on the statute books before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) got his hands on it as he did in September.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do you not think it affects the cost of living


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not know the Minister of Finance was a ventriloquist. Those are the words of the Minister of Finance, yet they seem to be coming from the mouth of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams).
As a result of our difficulties last July when we were not able to proceed with this bill I put some questions to the Minister of

October 13, 1966
Medicare
National Health and Welfare. This was during a meeting of the committee on health and welfare on July 14. We were discussing private carriers, universal coverage and so on. At that time I posed certain questions which appear at page 549 of the report of that committee. I asked the minister if he was going to stand by certain clauses in the bill the cost of living?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, of course. Here is the bill and you do not expect me to say today that I am going to change the bill that was produced yesterday.
Let me read further from this page:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now it has three or four months to be kicked around.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I know.
That was a very short, plaintive and prophetic reply. The minister knew on July 14 that he had been jockeyed out of his determination to proceed with the legislation at that time by the Conservatives and by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) and that something was bound to happen to it. It is no wonder that he has had a sad summer and fall and his sad experience of the last few days. He knew this kind of thing was going to happen, and it has happened in perhaps an even worse way than he anticipated, particularly in the hands of his colleague the Minister of Finance.
I suggest that the Minister of National Health and Welfare should go back over this whole story and realize that the mistakes which have been made can still be corrected by keeping the bill as it is. I do not know what will happen to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), but I imagine it will be ruled out of order. If it is not, we will vote against it, for we do not want the bill postponed any further during the second reading stage. We want this bill to go through and we are prepared to vote for it, but when we vote for it we will be voting for it in its present form. I hope that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his colleagues vote for the bill they will be voting for it in its present form.
The minister said today that this is a simple bill with only nine clauses. I do not know whether there is anything in this business about numbers, but if he is going to change the date he will have to amend five clauses. One clause gives the title to the bill so there are really only eight clauses of substance and he will have to amend five of those eight. I suggest there is almost an

element of hyprocrisy if the minister votes for this bill on second reading and then has the gall to stand up in the committee of the whole and change five of its eight effective clauses.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is a spurious bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We now have the full meaning of the word "spurious". We have been given various dictionary definitions but we have now an example of the real thing.
I said I wanted to spell out point by point my contention that this is a sad day in the history of Canada. I am going to identify the three main reasons and then refer to them in greater detail. This is a sad day, first, because we have before us today an open betrayal of the pledged word of the government of this country. Second, this is a sad day because the action of the government in proposing the postponement of medicare for a year is a discrimination against the needs of the people in this country, particularly their medical needs, and I refer particularly to those people who cannot afford the medical care they require. I submit that to treat the people of this country in this way is a shocking denial for which this parliament should not stand.
In the third place, this is a sad day for Canada because this kind of action on the part of the government of the day is a reflection on politics, on parliament and on democracy itself. We over here can stand and say that we are opposed to what is being done, but even those on the opposition side of the house are subject to the criticism of the people in respect of what the minister has done. People are asking if this is what politics is all about and if this is what parliament is doing. We have been promised for years and decades that something would be done. These were solemn promises but apparently they can be thrown out the window when one or two strong men in a cabinet decide there must be a change.
Those are my three main reasons, and I will come back to them, but I suppose there is a fourth point to note. Perhaps it is not so sad but it should be noted. What this whole chapter is doing, along with a few other things, is exploding finally and for all time the myth that the Liberal party is a party of progress. The people of Canada have been fed that line for the last half century or more.
Someone said the other night on television that following the Liberal party convention the party was now stronger and more democratic, but so far as its decisions on policy are
October 13, 1966

concerned it is now at dead centre. I think that was said by Peter Newman. I believe those words are twisted and that they should be "it is now at centre, dead". Peter Newman continued by saying that the party is now at dead centre with no motivating philosophy to carry it forward. If as a result of this action the people of Canada realize it is a myth that the Liberal party is a party of progress, perhaps the country can find ways to make gains in the months and years that lie ahead.
Let me go back to the first of my contentions in support of the suggestion that this is a sad day. I said that this action represents an open betrayal on the part of the government of its pledged word. I have already read the statement of the minister made on July 12, 1966, when he gave July 1, 1967, as the date on which this legislation was to become operative. May I just read one or two other quotations in support of this proposition, and let me add that before the 21 members of this party get through speaking on this matter all of these quotations will be read back to the Liberal party. I have here a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen of September 21, 1965, shortly after the opening of the election campaign of last fall. The clipping contains this sentence:
Prime Minister Pearson today announced a pledge to have a full medicare scheme operating in Canada by July 1, 1967.
The article goes on to state that this pledge was made during a speech to Liberal candidates. No wonder Liberals at the grass roots, Liberal candidates and Liberal M.P.s across the country are concerned. They were given this word directly from on high that July 1, 1967, was the date. They campaigned on the basis of this statement and said that people did not have to vote for the New Democratic Party in order to get medicare because they would get it with the Liberals. The fact of the matter is that that promise was as clear and forthright as it could be, but it meant nothing.
Let me read the headline of an article which appeared in the Toronto Star of September 23, 1965. It states "Medicare Plan by July 1, 1967, Hellyer Promises Scarboro". The story indicates that this statement was made in a speech by the Minister of National Defence at a convention which nominated Robert Stanbury to contest York-Scarborough, Canada's biggest riding. Maybe it was Canada's biggest riding in which the promise was made, but it is also one of the biggest hoaxes we have had for a long time.
Medicare
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
When this session of parliament got under way, hon. members will probably recall that it was not long before I was on my feet in the question period trying to get a commitment out of the government as to the bringing in of this legislation and its effective date. Two or three times in the month of February I urged that we have a clearcut statement on this matter, and the first few times the answers were a bit evasive or the Minister of National Health and Welfare would say, "The previous position still stands." But finally, after two or three answers to questions that were fairly definite, we got the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, made on his own on May 17, 1966, as recorded in Hansard at page 5213, that the government had decided that medicare was going to come into effect on July 1, 1967, whether or not all or a majority of the provinces were ready. The statement was clearcut, namely, that the legislation would be in effect on that date for those provinces that were ready to take advantage of it. So from the Minister of National Health and Welfare and from the Prime Minister we had the repeated assurance that the effective date of this legislation would be July 1, 1967.
I suggest that the government, which made that promise as firmly as it did, cannot expect this house or the country to put any credence in the promise it now makes that it will be July 1, 1968. A government that can break a promise in the field of medicare as often as the Liberals have broken it cannot be trusted to carry out the promise that it now makes, and these firm assurances that we will have medicare by July 1, 1968, are just not worth the time it takes to make them.
Maybe my hon. friends to my right want this bill to go to a committee and be studied. They want more work done on it. There is right now an amendment they are trying to have accepted. They are helping the government, of course, to delay this legislation, and I expect it will be further delayed if the Liberals stay in power.
I make the suggestion that the government might do this on a really historic basis. They do not like my trotting out this 1919 book. They say, "Oh, there is the old 1919 line again." I am almost wearing out the book by bringing it into this house so often. I remember that when I first came here in 1942 I was astounded that the promises which had been made 23 years before had not been put into effect. Now we are up to 47 years. It was

October 13. 1966
Medicare
going to be 48 years, and they have now put it off to 49 years. Why don't they wait until August 6, 1969, at 11 p.m. precisely? If they do so, it will be exactly 50 years from the time the Liberal convention in 1919 passed the resolution that had been moved by one W. L. Mackenzie King and seconded by one Arthur Roebuck.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why not make it a centennial proj ect?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe it would be nice to do it whde at least one of the sponsors of the original motion is still around, but perhaps Arthur Roebuck will be around for another 50 years. Why was this change made? We know the first reason given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), which was that it was part of his program to battle inflation. That argument has been characterized as nonsense by just about everybody but the Minister of Finance-and he too probably knows that it is nonsense. After all, medicare does not involve that large an expenditure of new money that it plays any part whatsoever in inflation. But even the Minister of Finance has shifted his ground. He has been pressed by Liberals in caucus or at conventions, pressed by newspaper people and so on, and has given other reasons. He told us on one occasion that it was a matter of priorities. On one occasion he held up the blue book of .estimates and asked, "What items do you want us to cut out so we can put the money into medicare?"
The minister then trotted out old age pensions and asked what it was to be, an increase in old age pensions or medicare. The old age pension increase about which the minister was talking could be paid in full out of the old age security fund. On the question of priorities I would suggest that colour television might have waited if we had wanted to save money, the national defence building that will blot out the parliament buildings could have waited, or the construction of the second trans-Canada pipe line in northern Ontario could have been insisted on, rather than letting it go the the United States. But the government has to pick out medicare, something which our people seriously need, and put it at the bottom of the list of priorities. It is too bad that the Minister of Finance is not here. I hope he will be here before the debate is over, and this gives him lots of time because it is going for quite a while yet. I hope the minister will take part

in this debate and tell us his part in connection with medicare legislation. I hope the Prime Minister will speak on this matter which should be a major concern to the government. I suggest that the Minister of Finance perhaps came closer to the truth when, as reported in one newspaper, he said that not only was it because of inflation and these other reasons but the government had to demonstrate to the business community that it is responsible. I submit that he was getting close to the reason there, namely, that the Minister of Finance is more concerned about his relations with the business community than he is about the needs of the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact, all of us remember that during the election campaign the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro), the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) were saying we would have medicare by July 1, 1967. What did the then minister of trade and commerce, now the Minister of Finance, say during the last week of the campaign? He said he was just expressing his own personal view, but he said this might not be possible because there might not be enough doctors and money and medicare might have to be put off for another year or two. The truth is coming out. The big power in this government so far as anything that costs money is concerned is the Minister of Finance. Even when all the other big-shot Liberals were telling the country in the election campaign that we were going to have medicare by July 1, 1967, he was casting doubt on this promise. No wonder the Minister of National Health and Welfare on July 14, in the committee to which I referred a few moments ago, when I said medicare had three or four months to be kicked around replied to me with those plaintive two words, "I know".
I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a sad day for Canada because of the utter disregard of the needs of our people involved in this callous action on the part of the government. Our people are suffering in many ways. The rising cost of living is having a very serious effect on the health and well-being of our people. The government has to do something about this. One of the things governments can do to improve the lot of the people is
October 13, 1966

increase social security measures. The more basic things that people need which are paid for on an insurance basis or by the government, the more you cope with these problems that face our people.
I submit that at this time when the high cost of living and the problems of living on low incomes are pressing on our people, the one thing that should be at the top of the list is the institution of medicare. Instead of putting the date off until July 1, 1968, the minister should have the foresight and determination to stand up and say that he wants this date advanced at least to January 1, 1967.
The people of this country find that increased medical bills make things more difficult for them. People have to mortgage their future to get the medical attention they need, and many people have to go without medical attention. Those who suffer in this way will know that the aggregation to blame is the Liberal party, because it is the Liberal party which is imposing this callous treatment on Canada at the present time.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The third reason that I cited for declaring this to be a sad day in the history of Canada and of parliament is that this kind of performance is a reflection not only on the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), as well as the hon. members for Hamilton East and York-Scarborough and those who believe in the present need for medicare but are not prepared to go with it, not just a reflection on the Liberal government and the Liberal party, but in the eyes of the country it is a reflection on parliament, on politics and on democracy itself. All of us suffer as a result of it. Never mind the fact that maybe the rest of us in this house suffer these criticisms unfairly; the real concern is that this does damage to the confidence and to the faith of our people in the democratic process. On thing people have a right to expect out of the political process is integrity and dependability.
For 47 years we have had promises from the Liberal party. Nothing could have been more firm than what was promised by them in last year's campaign, but it has now been thrown out the window. I submit that those on the side of the government who like to make speeches about the importance of parliament and about keeping up the image of parliament have a chance to do something if
Medicare
they will keep their word on this very important matter. These are the three main reasons that I give for suggesting this is a sad day in Canadian history.
May I spell out for a moment or two the other point on which I said I would dwell, namely, that in the eyes of the Canadian people the myth about the Liberal party is at long last being exploded. We have been told for decades that the Liberals are the party of labour, that they are the party of social welfare and progress. The record is clear on the kind of pressures that were necessary to get any action out of the Liberal party, but the fact of the matter is that it was 47 years ago, as recorded in the book reporting the 1919 convention, that the Liberal party hoisted to the top of the flagpole its pledge for old age pensions, unemployment insurance and medicare.
It was in 1927, eight years later, that the first old age pension legislation was put into effect in this country. It was in 1940, 21 years later, that unemployment insurance came into effect, and it looks now as though it will be a full 50 years before medicare is put into effect in this country. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) says it may be 100 years. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that tells the Canadian people that it is a myth, a hoax, a delusion to presume that the Liberal party is a party of progress or of liberal ideas. I do not wonder that the Liberals have had trouble during their convention in the last few days. The fact that they have papered over the cracks and given emotional ovations to their leader does not hide the uneasiness on the part of some of them over there who do have liberal ideas; they realize they cannot count on their party to go ahead with the policies their leaders say they believe in.
Mr. Speaker, we are not only faced with delay in medicare but also with the time it has taken this government to bring in the labour legislation. Now we have the old age pension issue all over again. It took years to get rid of the means test, but this government is talking about increasing the old age pension and attaching a means test to it. It is turning back the clock, and therefore the Liberal party is not a party of progress but a party of retrogression. Somehow it maintains itself in the country on the strength of the argument that it holds the country together. It does all it can do to hold itself together, but perhaps out of this the country may realize, as Peter Newman said on television

October 13, 1966
Medicare
the other night, that the Liberal party may be stronger, that its organization may be more democratic, but it is now at dead centre or, as I suggest, it is now at centre, dead.
And so, Mr. Speaker, we want to make it clear that we are in support of the bill that is before us. We disapprove of the loophole that is contained in it which will permit the private carriers to handle medicare in the provinces if the provincial governments so desire. We do not like the way in which universality has been watered down, and there are some other changes that need to be made in the bill.
But we support the main point of the bill, namely, that there shall be a medicare program on the basis of four cardinal principles and that this legislation shall come into effect on July 1, 1967. That is what is in the bill now, and five of the eight operative clauses contain that date. If the minister is going to change the effective date he will have to change five of the clauses in the bill, but it will be over our protest. We will do our best to prevent any such amendments from passing and we hope the Liberals on the other side who say they want medicare on July 1, 1967, will join with us in voting against any of these amendments.
I come back to what the minister said at the start, to what he said today in the timid speech which we could hardly hear. He said this was a bill which carries forward the principles enunciated by the Prime Minister in July, 1965, but that it introduces flexibility without eroding the principles. We submit that two or three of the basic principles of this legislation have been eroded. We submit that there has been a retreat, and we submit that the change by one year, from July 1, 1967, to July 1, 1968, is not something the government can make light of. It is a betrayal of the pledged word; it is a turning down of the hopes of the people of Canada, and I submit it does damage not only to the party in power but to the whole political process.
There is time even yet for the government to review its decision because a good many people want to speak in this debate, and there is time to think it over. I plead with the government, not only in the name of the need of our people for medicare but in the name of our people's desire to have faith in parliament, in democracy and in the pledged word, that this bill be allowed to go through all its stages with the date that is now in it. Let us make it effective on July 1, 1967, so that we
[Mr. Knowles.l
can carry out the spirit expressed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare when he introduced this legislation on July 12, and I quote it again from page 7549 of Hansard:
The introduction of this resolution, Mr. Chairman,
I believe marks an historic day for this parliament and for Canada. The program it spells out goes a long way toward closing the gap in our overall social security system. It is our hope it will result in the commencement of provincial medical care plans covering all Canadians on the 100th birthday of Confederation, July 1, 1967. This would be a most appropriate way to mark our birthday,-
I agree with what the minister said when he first brought in this legislation. I ask him to go back to it on second reading so that we really can celebrate our 100th birthday by having medicare in effect on July 1, 1967.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette) is the next speaker.

If the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) would now allow me to refer to an amendment moved earlier this afternoon-

However, I should first like to refer to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). It was understood that the Chair would have an opportunity to look at this amendment and that hon. members would express their views thereon. I would be grateful to hon. members if they could let me have their views on the point of order, that is, whether or not this amendment is acceptable and in order.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have a few comments to make about the regularity of the amendment. I begin by a reference to May's sixteenth edition, page 530, where the author specifies the features of a reasoned amendment in these words:
A reasoned amendment is placed on the paper in the form of a motion and may fall into one of several categories. It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
I believe this would be the only point that could be utilized to support the regularity of the amendment. I remind Your Honour that the amendment states that no legislation for the provision of insured medical care services in Canada will be satisfactory unless it, and I quote:
(a) secures co-operation of the governments of the provinces of Canada.
October 13, 1966

This is not a policy or a provision contrary to the bill. The bill is designed to secure the co-operation of the provinces and we expect that co-operation will be forthcoming. This statement is merely an argument or a prophecy and it is not a provision or principle contrary to this bill because the bill does provide for co-operative arrangements with the provinces in the financing of this program.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment reads:
(b) recognizes the principle of voluntary choice by the individual;
The suggestion here is that in some way the provisions of the bill do not recognize the principle of voluntary choice. I argue that obviously the provisions and principles of the bill are fully compatible not only with the principle of voluntary choice by the individual but the principle of voluntary choice by the medical profession itself. I merely make the point with respect to paragraphs (a) and (b) that there is no policy or provision proposed in either of these two items contrary to the provisions of the bill. Both are quite compatible with the provisions of the bill.
With respect to paragraphs (c) and (d), I merely wish to refer to a further point raised by May to the effect that the principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such motion. The amendment must strictly relate to the bill which the house, by its order, has resolved upon considering. I argue that paragraph (c) is irrelevant merely by pointing out that the matter of medical research is provided for in the estimates of the Minister of Industry. We have already passed a bill this session, the health resources fund bill, dealing with this other matter of providing capital facilities for the training of an adequate number of doctors and other medical personnel.
Paragraph (d) reads:
(d) immediately provides for those persons who are unable, for financial reasons, to provide medical services for themselves.
I might say that this house has already taken action this session through the Canada Assistance Plan to provide for this very item. All I am saying in respect of paragraphs (c) and (d) is that they are irrelevant to this bill because each of the items dealt with in (c) and (d) is irrelevant to the scope of the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I submit to you, sir, that there is a very recent precedent which establishes that the amendment now 23033-5451
Medicare
before the house is clearly in order. The most recent precedent is, of course, the amendment moved on August 30, 1966, in this session, an amendment to the second reading of the bill to provide for the resumption of operation of railways, when all the points which were made by the minister today were made at that time and disposed of. I do not propose, therefore, to detain the house at any length. Perhaps I might deal briefly with what the minister has said. He rested his argument, first, once more upon only one section of the citation in May-I am referring to the seventeenth edition of May, page 527-where we find not only what was read by the minister but also words to the effect that a reasoned amendment may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill or otherwise opposed to its progress. In my submission, sir, the criticisms contained in the amendment are supportable equally upon that second ground set forth in May as upon the first, notwithstanding what the minister has said.
The only other portion of the minister's argument with which I might deal is that portion in which he sought to suggest that subparagraphs (c) and (d) of the amendment are not in order because they are not relevant. It was quite obvious from the minister's argument that was not the point he was seeking to make. It was that in his view subparagraphs (c) and (d) are not sound; that is what he was saying. In other words, he was saying that part of the amendment should not be allowed because he does not agree with it. This is a matter of argument and does not make the amendment out of order. It is a matter for debate and vote, not a ground upon which the amendment can be ruled out of order. I submit to you that subparagraphs (a) and (b) as well as subparagraphs (c) and (d) express opinions on circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill and are therefore, along with the whole amendment, clearly in order on the basis of the citations that have already been put before you.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member for Kamloops has been most persuasive in his argument and has dealt adequately with the points raised by the minister. I have some comments to add in a complementary way with regard to paragraphs (c) and (d). The minister has suggested that (c) and (d) are not relevant because in his opinion they have been dealt with adequately in other legislation introduced in this house earlier. I think

Ociober 13, 1965
Medicare
we can take issue with that. It is probably because in the opinion of the mover, the hon. member for Simcoe East, these particular sections have not been dealt with that he felt it essential at this time to introduce the amendment. The minister is drawing an assumption. He is entitled to draw an assumption, but like so many assumptions which come from the other side of the house it is an erroneous one. Because of that fact the hon. member for Simcoe East, and we are supporting him, felt it was most essential at this time to introduce this amendment and to include paragraphs (c) and (d). It may be that time will tell which of us is right. I suggest that for the minister to ask you to make your ruling on the assumption that certain legislation which has been passed will produce certain results is drawing a pretty long bow.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their sound and sage advice relative to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe East and seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. The amendment as has been mentioned by hon. members who took part in the discussion, is claimed to be a reasoned amendment and as such must be judged by the principles which have been mentioned in the house previously on numerous occasions, particularly on August 30. At that time, when a reasoned amendment was proposed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, I expressed my views on the principles which must govern the acceptance of reasoned amendments. These principles are set out chiefly in May's seventeenth edition, page 527. This citation gives three different and alternative categories within which an amendment should fall.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
As I have explained, if a reasoned amendment is not acceptable by virtue of the fact that it does not fall within the first of these categories, it can still be acceptable if it falls within the second and third categories enumerated by May's seventeenth edition. This is the point which was made by the hon. member for Kamloops and I am in full agreement with him. Even though the amendment is not declaratory of a principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill, it can still be accepted if it falls within the other two categories.
I find on this ground that I cannot accept the objection raised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare who raised the very important question of relevancy. This, of

course, is a very serious objection inasmuch as the rule provides that all amendments, even reasoned amendments, are subject to the rule of relevancy. The requirement is that an amendment should be strictly relevant.
I have looked at paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the proposed motion, and looking at them objectively they certainly appear to me to be relevant to the bill. The claim made by the minister was that paragraphs (c) and (d) are not strictly relevant inasmuch as at least one of these two is dealt with by the estimates of the Minister of Industry. I would suggest to him that that is not sufficient reason to decide that the matter is not strictly relevant to the principle of the bill before us.
He also stated that paragraphs (c) and (d) are dealt with by other legislative amendments or proposals. On the other hand, I take it that if the hon. member for Simcoe East promotes the acceptance of these principles, it must be because he feels that they are not included in other legislative proposals. I think that the word "adequate" which is used in paragraph (c) is particularly important. The hon. member for Simcoe East may feel that some provision has been made for medical research and training an adequate numbers of doctors and other medical personnel, but according to this amendment he is suggesting that these provisions are not adequate.
I would think it is a matter for argument whether the proposals made by the hon. member for Simcoe East are or are not included in these other legislative proposals or enactments. I would have to study these enactments to express an opinion. At that point I would take part in the debate myself if I were to study the enactments to which the minister has referred in order to decide between his contention and the contention put forward by the hon. member for Simcoe East. I do not think the Chair should be placed in that position. I will rule strictly on the point of order, not on the substance of the amendment. For this reason I believe I should accept the amendment.
I would stress again a point which I made before, namely, that if there is any type of amendment on which it is extremely difficult to make a ruling it is these reasoned amendments which are becoming more and more popular in the house and which create constant difficulties for the Chair.
I would suggest to the minister and to hon. members that when there is at least a reasonable doubt in my mind-I am not suggesting
October 13, 1966

that the argument of the minister is totally wrong; I believe he made a very logical and intelligent argument-in such circumstances I should give the hon. member who proposes the amendment the benefit of that doubt. Therefore, with respect to hon. members, and particularly to the minister who made such a strong argument in support of his point of view, I will accept the amendment and say that it is receivable at this time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said a while ago that we had plenty of time for consideration of the bill now before us, namely Bill No. C-227. Indeed, considering that this legislation cannot come into force before July 1, 1968, we have plenty of time to debate it. We practically have two and a half years, or at least two years, to discuss the contents of a bill which does not mean much in itself.
Indeed this bill is entitled:
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.
Therefore this means that the province or provinces have a duty or an obligation to have medical care plans of their own. And then the federal government, in the spirit of Bill No. C-227, will contribute towards the cost of insured services.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) should have introduced his bill this afternoon for an immediate increase in old age pension benefits in Canada. Inquiries coming from all parts of the country ask when the government intends to put its old age security program into practice, and we are unable to give them a definite date.
The minister was telling me this afternoon that it would be introduced during the present session. The present session will come to a close around Christmas time, until then our old age pensioners will still be getting only $75 a month. And the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) was telling us, the other day, that we were presently going through a very difficult period, an inflation era where the cost of living is continuously rising at an appreciable rate. But our pensioners must be content with a meagre $75 per month allowance, with which to face this increase.
Medicare
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
It seems to me that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would have shown objectivity, wisdom, and better understanding if he had asked us at the beginning of the present sitting to begin consideration of the bill to raise old age pensions to $105 a month, for those in need. But no; the minister tells us: we will study the bill entitled:
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.
Mr. Speaker, I said it a little earlier; we still have two years before the coming into force of that scheme or that federal contribution to the provinces. In passing, allow me to say that the federal government will con-ribute to the costs incurred by the provinces to the extent that it has received from them money collected from taxes imposed on the working public, in short on the population of those provinces. It will contribute only after such taxation.
If through Bill No. C-227 we are to pay for a bureaucracy here in Ottawa, which will determine the amounts which the federal government will contribute to the cost of insured services provided by the provinces and if we have, on top of that, another provincial bureaucracy which sees or will see to the administration and application of a medicare insurance plan, then we will double the expenditures and the administration costs. In my opinion, that is what I find illogical. If the federal government must get those funds from the provinces' treasury to be able later, after having paid its bureaucracy, its administration, to give what is left to the provinces, it would be better if it withdrew completely from such schemes and left the provinces to administer themselves, which is what several provinces have asked in many cases.
Today, the Conservatives moved the following amendment:
This house, while of the opinion that provision should be made for medical services to be available to all Canadians at an adequate level on a prepaid basis, is nevertheless of the further opinion that no legislation for the provision of insured medical care services in Canada will be satisfactory unless it:
(a) secures co-operation of the governments of the provinces of Canada.
That is precisely what has not been settled at this time. Federal-provincial conferences are held, in Ottawa or elsewhere, and the provinces object to one scheme or another submitted by the federal government; they

October 13, 1966
Medicare
insist on their autonomy. The province of Alberta protested against the interference of the federal government in the field of medical insurance. British Columbia did the same thing. The province of Quebec also objects to the federal government interfering in the field of health.


Mr. Haidasz:: Why?


David Réal Caouette: The province of Ontario- because we want precisely to preserve our freedoms and respect the autonomy of every province in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, before the federal government introduced its bill to help the provinces or suggest to them the establishment of a medicare plan, some provinces already had set up such plans within their respective boundaries.
As a matter of fact, in La Presse of January 22, 1965, the following item appeared:
Health Insurance scheme in British Columbia.
The Social Credit government of British Columbia laid down yesterday the broad lines of a health insurance scheme for the benefit of low income groups which will be operated by private insurance companies.
This announcement constitutes the main feature of the speech from the throne read by the lieutenant governor, Mr. George Pearkes, at the opening of the 2nd session of the 27th legislature of that province.
Almost two years ago.
The plan entails an optional test of personal incomes. . .
An optional test, rather than a compulsory one, whereas the federal plan will be compulsory.
The plan implies an optional test of personal incomes and is meant to help those who are not entitled to social welfare but who, on account of their very low income are unable to pay the entire cost of medicare.
Naturally, the provincial leader of the New Democratic Party objected to that bill alleging that it was a surrender to the physicians and that the scheme could be a surrender to private insurance companies.
Mr. Speaker, has the N.D.P. in Saskatchewan made such a great success of its medicare scheme when physicians refused to co-operate with the government? Has the N.D.P. government not been compelled to respect the physician's freedom and to take into account the fact that a human being is more important than a governmental scheme, be it medical or otherwise? Has the government not been compelled to retreat and reconsider its legislation?

They did not have to, either in British Columbia or in Alberta. Why? Because they respect the freedom of the individual, the freedom of everyone, the freedom of the physician and patient, the freedom of the human person, and this is the cause to which Social Credit supporters across Canada are dedicated.
Mr. Speaker, nobody in Canada is more anxious that the members of the Ralliement Creditiste to see that every Canadian gets medical care when he needs it. It is unthinkable that in 1966, at this very moment, Mr. Speaker, every Canadian cannot enjoy the security of obtaining medical care when he is ill, in hospital, or in need of a doctor. It is unacceptable and inadmissible that this should exist in a wealthy country like Canada. Nobody denies the physical potentialities of Canada, but, on the other hand, everybody fears and dreads the financial potentialities, precisely because we are tackling things which should not be touched while financiers get away with exploiting Canada.
If, instead of telling us the medicare plan will be put into effect in 1968 only, the minister had said: We shall stop paying interests on the national debt in order to fight inflation. And the minister could have suggested that the provinces attend to the insurance plan and agreed to provide them with the amounts of money required to meet those expenses in their own territory; but not a plan with a yoke, one that degrades, that is a breach of individual freedom, that compels a patient to choose or take compulsorily the government's doctor, as will be the case and as is the case in certain socialist countries.
I can understand, Mr. Speaker, that medical care can be provided in socialist and communist countries, but not through doctors chosen by the individual, no, but chosen and paid by the government. That is what we will be coming to with legislation of this kind.
What have we, the Creditistes been asking for, ever since we have been in this house? Since 1962, v^e have been talking about a health dividend for each and every citizen of Canada; we are urging the government to guarantee payment of the annual premium of a group insurance policy for a married person and for a single dependent person having to earn a living.
October 13, 1966

[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, under a group insurance or health dividend program, such as the Credi-tistes suggest, the government gives a coupon to each family head in Canada. Once a year, the government gives a coupon to every single person in Canada. These coupons may be used only for the purchase of a group insurance policy covering hospitalization, medical care and all other medical services for all Canadian citizens.
A family head would go with his coupon to the insurance company of his choice, either Sun Life, Crown Life, Societe des Artisans or Solidarite. All those companies sell group insurance. There is group insurance in private industry. In my own business, my employees, their wives and children are covered by group insurance. Now, the family head chooses his plan. If he chooses a more expensive plan than the one offered by the government, the family head covers the difference. The same thing applies in the case of a bachelor, but the family head, as well as the bachelor is still free to choose. One chooses the company offering the best group insurance plan. In the field of car dealers, at one time we choose an insurance company, and a rival company offered us a better plan. A third one came and offered an even better plan. We have always chosen the best plan, the one offering the best guarantees and advantages for the money.
Mr. Speaker, it would be the same at the national level. The head of the family would choose the right insurance company and group insurance plan for his wife and his children and himself. The whole family without exception would then have both medical and hospital insurance. At the same time, we could substitute for the present government hospitalization scheme a hospital insurance plan allowing the patient to make the decision, instead of the government deciding for the patient, as is often the case today, and telling him: This is the room you must take. Even the name of the patient is forgotten. He is given a number, patient No. 438, patient No. 32, patient No. 12, patient No. 8. The human person does not count any more, he is only a number which the government can transfer from place to place, from one hospital to another, in the province of Quebec as in other Canadian provinces.
Mr. Speaker, the health dividend is a solution which would cost the government less than the present hospital insurance plan and the medical insurance programs advocated in Bill No. C-227.
Medicare
Bill No. C-227 does not provide for the total payment of costs. Under this bill, the government will pay part of the costs of insured medical care services incurred by the provinces.
The province of Alberta tells the federal government: we do not need you, our plan is fine. The province of Quebec tells the federal government: do not meddle in our affairs, we are the ones who will deal with this.
And now the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) tells us: No, you do not want us to, but we will help you nevertheless. How? With taxes levied in the province of Quebec and in the other provinces. That is why the premier of Quebec shouted during the last provincial election campaign: give us back one hundred per cent of the personal income tax and one hundred per cent of the corporation income tax. Give us back the funds that you take from us and we will be able to manage.
In my opinion, Premier Johnson of the province of Quebec is justified in demanding one hundred per cent of the personal income tax. At this time, by introducing an act to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services in the province of Quebec and in every other province the federal government admits that the premier of the province of Quebec is right.
Let us figure out how much the federal government will pay to the province of Quebec.
A tremendous amount of money will be needed for administration costs alone, and it will come out of income taxes collected in the province. Why not let the province use that money to implement its program and leave it up to the province to decide whether to have a socialistic program or one where people will be free. There is all the difference in the world between a plan imposed by a government and a plan selected by an individual. It is a different thing altogether. Our preference goes to the health-dividend medical plan as selected by the Canadian, the citizen, the human person, and not to a plan imposed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, by the federal government or by the provincial government.
We want freedom of choice for everyone. There is none among us here, in parliament, who does not want to keep that freedom. And we, freedom-lovers, are going to pass a legislation which will place under a yoke, our
8630	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion fellow-citizens who are as intelligent as anyone among us, who also want to choose and have freedom of choice.
We will listen to all members who will speak on Bill No. C-227; but I want to say, before resuming my seat, that we of the Ral-liement Creditiste will require a system of health dividend respecting the freedom of choice, in preference to a yoke-type medical assistance as called for by socialists and suggested now by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes have a solution, but the Liberals do not have one, nor the Conservatives, with their meaningless amendment over which we will not linger. We will continue to call for respect of the human person in Canada.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) Old Age Security -inquiry as to legislation this session; the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) Finance-inquiry as to whether the minister has considered fighting inflation through tax reductions; the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) Agriculture-inquiry as to price of manufacturing milk.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand there may be unanimous consent if I propose that we rise between six and eight o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Is there unanimous consent to suspend our proceedings until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The
house will resume at eight o'clock tonight.


[Stage Direction]
At 6.01 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended.

DEBATES	October 13. 1966
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 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. Rynard.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The
hon. member for Fraser Valley.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the bill which we now have before us, Bill C-227, brings to our attention a matter of great importance and one which has been under discussion on many platforms and in many forums across the country for a number of years. While very few if any would question the need for some definite plan under which the best medical care is made available to every person requiring it, there is a wide divergence of opinion concerning the best and most effective way to achieve that objective. I suppose in this regard most people would fall into one of two categories; first, those who support the idea of a government sponsored, government operated, compulsory health insurance program or, on the other hand, a voluntary plan with government assistance for those who cannot afford to provide health insurance for themselves.
The plan presented by the government, while recognizing the principle of provincial autonomy, as indicated on the front of the bill where it says it is an act "to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada towards the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medicare insurance plans," in actual fact dictates the type and the scope of the plan which is acceptable to meet the eligibility conditions.
We appreciate the fact, Mr. Speaker, that certain changes have been or will be made in the bill. As the minister indicated, there will be a measure of flexibility written into the bill, or recognized, but I believe that in spite of this the provinces still are coerced into compliance with requirements which, in their
October 13, 1966

view, may be neither necessary nor desirable but which, unless accepted, would deprive them of assistance in financing their medical care insurance programs.
It is true that a province can refrain from participation in this particular program, but in so doing it still would contribute in the form of taxes to the implementation of the plan in other provinces in other parts of Canada. Therefore as I said, although there have been some rather fundamental changes promised in this legislation, these do not go far enough to remove some of the more obvious features which are obnoxious to various provincial governments and which I understand will not be accepted by them.
In looking at the measure before us, I think there are some commendable factors involved. First of all, there is recognition of the fact that health is not just a personal concern or a personal asset, but is a national concern and a national asset as well. There is no question but that illness is a personal loss; it brings hardship to the individual and to his family. It is however a national loss, in that that individual is not able to make the contribution in productive enterprise and in various social activities which go to make up our national life.
I think there is recognition as well of another principle; that is, that Canadian citizens should have within their reach, regardless of any financial considerations or obstacles, the very best in medical care which science has made possible. We stand amazed when we contemplate the advances which have taken place over the past few years in medical science as well as in other sciences. But what is the use of advances in medical science if people are not able to avail themselves of the benefits? Therefore I believe we must ensure that the children of our nation may have the health care necessary to the development of sound and strong bodies. We believe that families must not be fettered for their lifetime by medical bills which pile up and are beyond their ability to discharge. We believe the aged among us must not be deprived of those medical services required in their declining years. I say that regardless of the financial standard. I believe these services must be brought within their reach and must be made available to them whenever they are required.
I believe there is another principle involved here; that is, that society as a whole must assume collective responsibility to provide good medical services to those who, for a
Medicare
variety of reasons, are unable to provide it for themselves. In other words we recognize the fact that there always will be individuals in our society who, for various reasons, cannot be gainfully employed and are unable to earn sufficient money even to take care of the necessities of life, so far as food is concerned. Certainly when it comes down to the matter of medical attention they will never be able to meet the challenge or the need in this particular area of their lives. Therefore society collectively must recognize this fact and assume some responsibility therein.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Having said that I want to make it abundantly clear that we in the Social Credit party support the principle of a medical care plan. In stating that, however, I am not saying we are in support of or in agreement with every clause, line or word in the present bill. I believe it was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who said his party would support this measure on the understanding that they would be supporting it as it now is, and not as it may be amended. Of course when we vote on second reading we are voting for the principle of the bill which is, as I have pointed out, the authorization of the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by the provinces, pursuant to medical insurance plans. As I said, while supporting the principle we do not support unreservedly all the various clauses contained therein.
Let me place on record, if I may, part of a statement made by the leader of our party on July 12 in respect of this matter. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) stated at that time, as reported in Hansard at page 7563:
Mr. Chairman, in commenting on this resolution, which is a preliminary to the medicare legislation that has been talked about by the government now for such a long period of time, I should like to say that we in the Social Credit party are in complete agreement with the proposition advanced by the minister that every Canadian citizen and every Canadian family, regardless of financial status or any other classification that might be applied, must have full access to the highest quality, comprehensive health care possible, according to physical or mental needs. This is a basic principle, and I think we, not only as members of this house but as members of society as a whole, must assure every Canadian citizen and every Canadian family that it will be achieved.
I believe that sets out very clearly the position of our group in respect of the principle of the measure before us tonight.

October 13, 1966
Medicare
Let me also refer to a brief presented by the province of British Columbia to the plenary session of the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa on May 31, 1965. On page 4 there is a section dealing with comprehensive medical services, and it states in part:
British Columbia endorses, without reservation, the introduction of comprehensive medical services for all Canadians as soon as possible and irrespective of ability to pay, provided that the government of Canada will share 50 per cent of the costs. The government of British Columbia stands ready to bear the other 50 per cent of the required public expenditure to ensure adequate health services to all provincial residents. British Columbia recommends that these financial sharing arrangements be accepted by the government of Canada for early Implementation. Details of health services to be provided can then be promptly completed by the appropriate departments of our respective governments.
As I pointed out, we in the Social Credit party are in full support of the principle enunciated in Bill C-227. I indicated that while supporting the principle of the bill we are not suggesting we are in full support of every provision.
Four principles have been laid down by the government which provincial governments must meet in order to qualify under the provisions of this legislation. First, they must provide comprehensive medical coverage; second, it must be universal; third, it must be operated by a government agency, and fourth, it must be portable between provinces.
In dealing with these various qualifications laid down I think we must recognize that there are some changes which have been proposed or placed in the measure by the government. First, the plan must be operated by a government agency. It seems to me there has been some flexibility introduced in this particular provision, and even though it has not been accepted or approved by some individual members of the house, I believe it is a very wise provision or concession, in that it does not necessarily mean it must be operated by a government agency, but by one recognized and approved by a provincial administration.
As far as the test of comprehensiveness is concerned, I do not think it has been met because there are certain classes of medical services that are and will not be included. No provision is made for dental services or for services of chiropractors. As was pointed out today, the costs of an optometrist will not be covered by the provisions of this measure. I do not think therefore that we can say this is

a comprehensive measure. Many medical or health requirements are not covered, and it would seem to me that if we are to enter into a plan such as this it must cover all those services required by the people of our country.
As far as the matter of universality is concerned, we do believe there has been a certain flexibility introduced in that for the first two years there must be coverage for 90 per cent of the insurable residents of a province, and thereafter 95 per cent. Perhaps there should be changes made in this regard lowering the desired coverage in the introductory period to perhaps 80 per cent or 85 per cent. If this were done I think it would encourage the provinces which already have health care services or medical plans to integrate their plans with the federal plan, and in other ways meet the qualifications laid down.
The feature of portability is desirable, and we are pleased to note that when a person moves from one province to another he will be covered by the insurance of the province from which he has moved until he qualifies for coverage in the province to which he has moved. There has been some criticism about the statement regarding this principle of flexibility as introduced in the measure. I believe flexibility is absolutely necessary to ensure provincial co-operation.
Perhaps there will have to be further changes made if the minister really intends to meet the insurance needs of provinces so that they will be encouraged to enter into this program. Flexibility is desirable as well to accommodate provincial plans already in operation. It has been pointed out, charged or alleged that the government has retreated. It is often said that retreats are necessary to win wars and perhaps that is the case here. The government may have to make further changes to meet the wishes of provincial administrations who, after all, have the major responsibility for providing health services to the people of their communities.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Hon. members who have spoken today have mentioned various features which are absolutely necessary if a health plan is to be successfully implemented. I am not going to enlarge on them or even enumerate them, but I think the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) covered them very thoroughly when he referred to the necessity for trained personnel, training facilities, hospital facilities and all the other things that are absolutely essential if a medical care plan is to be
October 13. 1966

effectively administered and meet the needs of the people of our nation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that an intensive program is required to prepare for the effective implementation of the proposed medical care plan.
I understand that the principle of the bill is financial participation with the provinces in the provision of medical care insurance for all citizens of Canada. The measure now before us is considerably different from that which was first contemplated by the government. I believe that when we reach committee stage further changes will be suggested and I trust they will be accepted by the government.
I do not propose to say anything further at this time, Mr. Speaker, except to point out that we agree there are measures which are far more important at the moment than is the legislation we are now considering. The government has already indicated that this program will not become operative until July 1, 1968. What about the old age pension legislation that has been predicted? The government has already said that legislation will be introduced to assist in meeting the needs of the senior citizens of this country. Why, in the name of common sense, do they not bring that legislation in rather than this measure which will not become effective for another year and a half? I remember another occasion on which the government got its priorities all confused and mixed up, and as a result the activities of this house were hamstrung for weeks and weeks. It may be that the government hopes to gain some political advantage from bringing in this legislation at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh, I don't think so!


Alexander Bell Patterson: I doubt that it will have this effect. I suggest that countless citizens of Canada would have very much appreciated the government's saying: This legislation will not be implemented for another year and a half; therefore we will proceed with measures that are more urgent and place in a prior position legislation which is so important to the senior citizens of this country.
What about the unification program of the armed forces? This is something that will be implemented in the very near future. I am not arguing for or against unification of the armed forces at the moment, but I say that if this program is to be implemented this fall or early next year, and the medical care plan will not be implemented for a year after that, 23033-546J
Medicare
why give this measure priority over that with regard to the unification of the forces?
I believe the government has erred seriously in bringing this measure before the house and giving it prior position on the agenda when there are other measures that will have an immediate beneficial effect in our country, once they are dealt with. As I have said, we support the principle of the bill but trust its provisions will be changed when it reaches committee stage in the house.


Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my contribution to this debate will be brief. I had an opportunity to speak to the principle of medicare when the resolution was before the house some weeks ago. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on having responded to the requests and submissions of the members of his party, supporters of the government, to introduce the feature of flexibility with respect to the implementation date of this measure. The minister referred to this flexibility today. There are members of this house who would be so intractable as to destroy the program because it was not identical with their particular idea of what it should be.


Mr. Orlikow:: It is your idea.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: There are others who might run away from this problem and destroy themselves. I should like to pay tribute to a minister who is strong enough and courageous enough to bring into this house a bill in which he believes and one which this country needs, even if it does not completely satisfy all of us in the house.
It is no secret to the house that many members of the Liberal party, supporters of the government, were disappointed at the necessity, as the government saw it, of postponing the implementation date for medicare, but I am grateful that the government has responded to the representations of its own members and has introduced the feature of flexibility which might permit this program to be implemented before July 1, 1968. This bill makes perfectly clear the commitment of the government and I hope that when it is passed, as I am sure it will be, it will make clear the commitment of the Canadian people to the goal of making health services equally accessible to all Canadians wherever they live, whatever their income or disability might be.
When the resolution was being discussed in the house I expressed some puzzlement at the position being taken by the official opposition.

October 13, 1966
Medicare
I admitted to some uncertainty as to whether the principle of this bill was being supported or rejected by the official opposition. I received assurances at that time that the official opposition had had in its platform for some time a program of medicare, and wholeheartedly supported the principle of this bill.
When the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) began his remarks today I thought he was confirming that resolve on behalf of the official opposition, to see that medicare was introduced at the earliest possible moment. The hon. member began by asking, "Why not July 1, 1967?" Indeed, I might have asked the same question a few weeks ago. But he went on to tell us all the reasons why medicare could not be implemented in the foreseeable future in the view of the official opposition, and concluded by moving an amendment to the bill which even a novice parliamentarian like myself knows does not have any effect but to kill the bill. Is that the intention of the official opposition -to kill medicare?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes

this bill which has been killed by the government already.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Apparently that is so.


Mr, Webb:: It is to get it going.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why not bury it?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Now I come to the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. .


Stanley Howard Knowles: North Centre.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Yes, the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I appreciate the credit he gave to me as one of the proponents of medicare. But I must say I was very disappointed at his remarks because it seemed to me that instead of directing his attention to the merits of this measure, he devoted most of his time to belabouring the minister and heaping ridicule, satire and cynicism on the head of the minister and the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And scorn.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: And scorn. He has developed great expertise in that during the many years in which he has been in the house. He thundered through without really directing his attention, except very briefly, to the merits of the bill. My impression is that his greatest disappointment was in the fact that this government would be the one to put on the statute books of Canada a medicare plan for all the people of Canada.

[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: When?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I suggest it will be a great deal sooner because this government is in office than it would have been otherwise.
One of the things that disappointed me in the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was the threat, not just implicit but explicit, that the members of his party were prepared and in fact threatening to conduct a filibuster to the extent of their ability with 21 members in the house.


David Orlikow: How will that affect us if we have to wait until 1968?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Members of the N.D.P. are never concerned-


David Orlikow: Tell us about Peterborough.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: -about taking the time of the house, or making interruptions; but apparently even in this case they feel it necessary to delay the passage of this bill as long as possible.


David Orlikow: How will that hurt?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: My hon. friend asks how it will hurt. He knows that this house is waiting to deal with all kinds of important legislation, and I am not putting this legislation behind any that is awaiting our attention. This house and this country are waiting to deal with legislation on guaranteed income for the aged, on immigration, on defence and other important matters with which I think most members of this house would like to get ahead-even members of the official opposition. In spite of this the N.D.P. has threatened us tonight that each one of their 21 members in this house will speak, and if past performance is any guide they will repeat each other 21 times, until this house has exhausted its patience with them and perhaps until the country has exhausted its patience with the N.D.P.


David Orlikow: Check the Gallup poll and see with whom their patience is exhausted.


Mr. Slanbury:: If every member of the N.D.P. were to speak in this debate I wonder whether the Gallup poll would be as encouraging to their party as they think it is tonight. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre accuses this party, of which I am a member, of being in the dead centre or, as he put it so colourfully, in the centre, dead. I suggest to the hon. member that some people refer to
October 13, 1966

his party as being far left. May I point out to him that the attitude of the N.D.P. in this debate has indicated it feels indeed left: It is left out of the implementation of this legislation, and it seems to be suggesting that it will not be satisfied to have this government obtain any credit for something which has been undertaken against a great deal of opposition, and now apparently under the threat of a filibuster from the N.D.P.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: He used a most tortuous argument to show that the credit for this legislation which he says his party supports should not under any circumstances go to the government. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a supporter of a government that has not just talked about this measure, as Liberal and other governments have done for many years, but a government which will now put it on the statute books of Canada.
It is a disappointment to me that we may not have this legislation implemented for another year, but I am glad that this government is committing itself now to making health services equally available to all Canadians. That is why I oppose the amendment, which is simply a means of killing this bill, and I ask hon. members including those across the floor who claim to support the principle of medicare to support this bill as the government will amend it during the committee stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question before he sits down?


Richard J. Stanbury: I rather hesitate to accept a question from a person of such great wit and prominence, but I will try to answer it.


An hon. Member:: Don't overestimate him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a simple question. Is the hon. member prepared to vote for the government bill in its present form, as we are?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to vote for the bill in its present form, if it is supported and proposed in that form by the government which I support.
I think that even the hon. member would prefer to have the government which I support than a government led by any other hon. member in this house.
Medicare


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) in his very able presentation to the house, outlined the almost unbelievable program of preparation which will be needed to enable medicare to operate in an effective way in the future. He also outlined the shocking lack of preparation which is being undertaken by this government to bring in a realistic program of medicare of which the Canadian people can be proud. I am convinced that the great majority of Canadians believe in the principle of medicare and are anxious to see a workable plan introduced in the very near future. I know that I most certainly am. However, it has become apparent that if a crash program for training additional doctors, dentists, nurses and technicians, whom we are going to need to enable the plan to work, is not undertaken in the near future, then the plan will be a bitter disappointment to the Canadian people, who have been led to believe that medicare will be of such great benefit to the general health of the people of this country.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) spoke in this house some weeks ago to explain why the medicare program was to be delayed in its inception for one year, he gave as his reason for the postponement that the measure would increase inflationary pressures which are so seriously affecting the country.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that these expenditures will not commence for another nine months. At that time such expenditures will be mostly a transfer from the private to the public sector. This country is engaged right now, not nine months from now, in a very important battle against the inflationary pressures which this government has allowed to grow during the past year or so. It is simply not in accordance with the facts to give as an excuse for the delay of this important medicare program, the fact that it will affect inflationary pressures today.
This medicare program is being delayed for two reasons, which have nothing to do with expenditures or inflation. The first of these reasons is that the provinces representing 85 per cent of the population of this country have refused to go along with the present plan. It is abundantly clear that no national plan could operate successfully if only 15 per cent of the people are included in it.

October 13. 1966
Medicare
The second reason is that the Hall report had made it very clear that we in this country do not have nearly enough doctors, dentists, nurses and medical technicians to enable this plan to operate successfully. If a crash program is not started immediately to produce the additional personnel we are going to need, they are not going to be available for many years to come. So we see, Mr. Speaker, that the reasons for the postponement of this plan are not monetary, but political. This is a prime example I believe, of the political duplicity of the government in avoiding a solemn election pledge which it gave during the last election, namely, that when elected, it would immediately introduce a medicare program. It is obvious that the promise given during the election was not intended to be kept, and in my opinion that is political duplicity.
This government wants to avoid political humiliation by introducing a plan before the next election; a plan which has been rejected by the provinces in which 85 per cent of the people of this country live; a plan which will not have anything like the medical personnel which will be needed to enable it to operate successfully. This plan, like so many other legislative measures which have been presented to this house by the government, has been presented in haste, with a great lack of preparation and consultation with the provinces who, after all, are the ones who will have to make the plan operate successfully. It was presented at the last election simply to win votes, and without any thought of how it would work. The government now intends to try to keep the plan in cold storage for another two years. It has a very definite plan in mind. This plan is, as everybody well knows now, for the Liberal party to have a leadership contest a year from now. Following that leadership convention, they intend to call an election-


An hon. Member:: Are you going to run, George?


George Harris Hees: -in the spring, I am a member of a party, Mr. Speaker, which is proud of its policies, not ashamed of them. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that plan is to call an election in the spring of 1968, before the date this government has said it intends to bring in this medicare plan. So, once again we are going to have medicare promised in yet another election, just as it has been during the past 47 years. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has

pointed out that in every election since 1919 we have heard the same old promises, the same speeches, the same words, and seen the same duplicity from the same old gang. The same intentions to bring it in have been announced, and then it has been put aside, brought out and dusted off, to be presented at the next election. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is once again the plan of this government. I think this government is a government that finds it very difficult to stick to any plan it makes. The trumpets are blown and there is a call for a charge, then very soon afterwards you see the humiliating retreat after the errors and lax planning are pointed out by the opposition.
I think this time this government knows what it wants to do. It wants to introduce medicare once again, before it has the humiliation of putting it into operation and trying to make it work. The way things are going at the present time, it is obvious that unless very great changes are made, the majority of the people in this country are not going to be brought into the plan. This would make it impossible to operate. By July 1, 1968, there are not going to be nearly enough trained medical personnel available to make the plan operate successfully. I suggest to this government that they now go back to the drawing board and replace their plan with one that is operating successfully in this country, the plan introduced in the province of Ontario not long ago. This plan has in it one and three quarter million citizens of the province of Ontario. It is operating on a voluntary basis, and it has been found extremely satisfactory to the citizens of Ontario. I suggest to this government that they go back and redraft their plan on the basis of the successful plan which the province of Ontario has introduced.
I suggest if they do so that they would have a very good chance of having the majority of the provinces in this country go along with that plan, and make it not only a possiblity, but a reality. I believe the government should also start a crash program on a twelve months basis for training the great number of additional doctors, dentists, nurses and technicians which are going to be needed to make this plan operate successfully, and without which no plan can operate successfully. If they will do these two things, then I believe they can bring in a medicare plan which will be accepted by each of the provinces in this country, and which would be an operating success, instead of continuing to be,
October 13, 1966

after 47 disgraceful years of duplicity and dangling in front of the electorate, something to win votes at election time. If they will do this, they can bring in something of which the people of this country can be proud, and in which we can all participate with great benefit to the health of the people of this country.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, the medicare scheme announced by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) is in fact the crowning achievement of the social program which the Liberal party has been implementing over the years. And the present Minister of National Health and Welfare can take pride in having put into force the last of the measures planned in the past and in doing it too quickly according to several people. When we see our friends in the New Democratic Party indulging in sarcasm, it is probably because they were taken by surprise by the vigour with which the Minister of National Health and Welfare implemented that program and they were taken off guard to such an extent that today they can only find fault with the date on which the medicare scheme will come into force. Really it is a very minor complaint with regard to such an important measure.
In fact, that enables the opposition to create a diversion because as far as some opposition members are concerned, it was clear that the medicare scheme did not fit in at all in their program and that, on the contrary, if they had granted it, they would have done it only gradually to secure a few more votes in successive elections and to indulge in pure and simple electioneering. On the other hand, the Liberal party prefers to give the people a universal scheme by making it applicable in a year from now only, at the latest. It means that we are at odds now on a matter of timing. If the house supports the medicare scheme, are we really going to spend days on a matter of timing? If it were only a matter of ideology, if it were only a matter of saying that if the program is implemented on such a date for one group of people and much later for another, this debate would make sense. But when it is only a matter of timing, I think that we are dishonest in trying to drag on the debate only to indulge in electioneering.
For too long, as a young member, a backbencher, I have seen this house used as a forum of the lowest order in Canadian
Medicare
politics. That is unfortunate. And that the medicare scheme should be involved today is more unfortunate still.
We should show full cohesion in a field as vital as health. We should all agree on this legislation, as everything seems to indicate. If it only a matter of the date, let us not protract this debate, let us not try to show the Canadian people that we are in favour of this legislation, as an excuse, in fact, to fight it. One who wants to kill his dog says it has rabies.
Mr. Speaker, I also had a feeling of regret when the Minister of National Health and Welfare had to announce that the date for the coming into effect of the program would be postponed. But we must consider that this postponement may be for a few months only, since the legislation is very flexible on that point. Hence, if our friends of the opposition would rather take advantage of favourable economic circumstances which may occur before long to request medical care, we might all agree then, and very rapidly. But taking advantage of this legislation to continue this debate indefinitely is unfair, especially toward a minister who, until now, has fought unswervingly in the house to crown the social assistance system in Canada.
Therefore, as a back-bencher, I appeal to the opposition front-benchers in order that we may find ourselves in a more serene climate and that we may work toward the passage of legislation which would give rise to fruitful debates.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), and I do this in all good conscience in spite of the remarks of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) who accused the opposition of trying to kill this bill. Actually, we are not trying to kill the concept of medical services in Canada, but we do feel that medicare as it is spelled out in the present bill is doomed to failure. Medicare in its present form is a dead duck.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that if a poll were taken across Canada there would be a resounding affirmation from the people that no person in this country should be denied the medical services which he requires, regardless of his or her ability to

Ociober 13, 1966
Medicare
pay. Our social conscience demands that our affluent society provide medical and hospital services for all. I believe all members of this house will agree with this concept.
This present debate then is directed more to the how, the why and the when. I see that according to papers of recent date the government has been instructed by the Liberal national convention with respect to the starting date of the plan, so no more need be said about the question of when, except that this postponement gives to the minister a breathing spell in which to give some sober second thoughts to the question of how.
We are fortunate indeed, Mr. Speaker, in considering legislation of this kind, not to be the pioneers in the field of social medicare. We have the experience of several countries to examine and to consider before bringing down our legislation and, if we are as astute as we believe, should be able to avoid the pitfalls of other schemes. We can profit from their mistakes. We need not follow the same paths to discover for ourselves the mistakes which have already been made in other jurisdictions.
Would the minister reconsider the evidence which is piling up indicating dissatisfaction in Great Britain with the medicare scheme that has been in operation in that country for 20 years? There have been numerous reports of this dissatisfaction, and to illustrate let me quote but one that came to hand recently. I quote from Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly dated June 20, 1966. No doubt many hon. members have seen this article, which carries the headline "Cradle to Grave?". It appears that the British are turning away from socialized medicine. I quote:
A company called Independent Medical Service Ltd. will seek to sell Britons for cash what they have been getting free from the welfare state for nearly two decades. Executives of Independent Medical Services recently told Barron's that public opinion surveys showed 30 per cent-40 per cent of Her Majesty's subjects are not satisfied with free cradle-to-grave state medicine. They would prefer to make private arrangements with a family doctor. The firm, for a moderate charge, will enable them to do just that.
The people of Britain are dissatisfied, and for very understandable reasons: The doctors are overworked. The national health doctor in Britain has 2,300 people on his list compared to a national average of 752 people in the United States. This creates difficulty when people want to see a doctor and often leads to hasty examinations. Many are dissatisfied because of the loss of the doctor-patient

relationship. They are also dissatisfied because of the long waiting period for hospital beds. Only the most urgent cases can expect to receive prompt attention. As I say, the report indicates that about three quarters of a million people are waiting for hospital beds in the United Kingdom.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
It is a well known fact that British doctors are dissatisfied with the impossible working conditions engendered by medicare, and this situation has caused a mass exodus of medical practitioners from the British Isles. This has resulted in a tremendous gain for Canada, but has resulted in a vacuum in the medical ranks of Britain.
To quote again from the same article in Barron's:
From 1955 to 1962, an average of 400 British doctors emigrated each year; in 1964, no fewer than 1200 left the country for good, as against 1600 who graduated from British medical schools. Deploring this "substantial permanent loss" Lord Kindersley cited a survey of British doctors who had emigrated which showed: "Unwillingness to enter general practice, or to stay in general practice, as it exists under the National Health Service, was the most common complaint mentioned by those who responded . . . from Canada . . .
Finally allow me to quote from a brief presented to members of parliament entitled "Medicare in Canada: A National Danger" prepared by Dr. L. D. Wilcox, Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Western Ontario Medical School, which reads as follows:
Since the initiation of National Health Service in Great Britain in 1947 the government cost of medical care, paid from taxes, has increased by more than 500 per cent. At the same time British standards have notably deteriorated and Britain's medical care today is far inferior to that of the years prior to 1947. Medical research in Britain has also deteriorated and Britain's standing as a leader in medicine and surgery has fallen to a low and regrettable level.
Britain at present is losing more than 10 per cent of its medical manpower per year to the United States, Canada and other countries . . . With the likelihood of medicare in Canada these doctors are now looking to the U.S. as they escape from the medicare program in Britain.
In looking at the British scene, we find that on re-examination, after medicare has been in effect for 20 years, the general public is dissatisfied with the operation of the scheme; medical doctors continue to emigrate at an alarming rate; the cost of the scheme has grown by a fantastic 500 per cent, with a deterioration in the calibre of service.
Should not these facts give us warning not to follow the same path? Over one half of the
October 13. 1966

doctors now practising in Saskatchewan are non-Canadians. Will our young Canadian doctors continue to emigrate to the United States because of the threat of medicare?
I should like to refer to the hospital plan that we already have in effect. I am referring to the hospital insurance plan under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act which became effective on July 1, 1958. In the eight years past the government has contributed $2 billion to the provinces under the plan, which is an average yearly contribution of about $250 million.
Reducing these astronomical figures to understandable dimensions, the Minister of National Health and Welfare in a speech to the B.C. Hospitals Association convention on October 7, 1966, said:
The per capita cost for the five year period from 1958 to 1963 rose nationally from $21.23 to $39.44 and it is now estimated at more than $50.00 per capita.
It does not follow that there has been a 100 per cent improvement in patient care between 1958 and 1963. The facts would appear to indicate that a service paid for by the government is more costly that when it is paid for by the individual.
Earlier on, I said that the minister should give sober second thoughts to some of the aspects of medicare. I used the word "sober" because it appears to me from the legislation that the minister is drunk with power. He has been adamant in introducing his own version of medicare. He has rejected all suggestions for improving the plan. He has selectively disregarded portions of the Hall Commission report. He has spurned the plight of the provinces as expressed by the premiers of the provinces. Bearing these facts in mind, I wish to say again that we are trying to save medicare, and not kill it.
Quoting from the pamphlet The Interpreter of August, 1966, I should like to express to the house the opinions of the various premiers with respect to Bill No. C-227:
Alex Campbell, newly-elected Premier of Prince Edward Island, said his province cannot afford medicare unless it gets a better share of federal tax money. Nova Scotia's Premier, Robert Stanfield, said he has never been happy about the financial arrangements inherent in the federal medicare proposals-
Speaking for the Quebec Government, Education Minister Jean-Jacques Bertrand stated that his province would not submit to a national medical care plan imposed by the federal government. He said grants to the provincial schemes should be unconditional. Premier E. C. Manning of Alberta described the federal proposal as burdensome, and reiterated his stand that Alberta is opposed to the
Medicare
compulsion implicit in the federal requirement for universal coverage ... he favours a voluntary scheme that does not require the elimination of privately-operated health insurance plans.
Manitoba's Premier, Duff Roblin, said the federal plan should be scrapped and a fresh start made. The compulsory part, ... is not necessary-a voluntary plan would be better . . . Ontario's Premier John Robarts said he was dissatisfied with the manner in which Ottawa went about drawing up the legislation. He said there has been no opportunity for consultation, and demanded that there be a top-level federal-provincial conference on medicare.
-The objections voiced by the Premiers, with one or two exceptions, appeared to reflect their dissatisfaction with the inflexibility of Ottawa's requirements for participation in the plan.
It is for these reasons that the minister ought to be aware that the present concept of medicare is dead, before it gets off the ground. The co-operation of the provinces is needed to make it successful.
The Calgary Herald, in an editorial of August 5, after the provincial premiers conference, had this to say, in a column headed "Federal Medicare":
There are several important questions which will have to be answered at a future federal-provincial conference.
Can the poorer provinces afford participation? What happens to the federal requirement of portability if some provinces reject the plan in the final analysis? Does Ottawa have the right to force a compulsory plan on the provinces?
Ottawa's argument, of course, is that the provinces have a choice as to whether they wish to participate in medicare.
But the question of choice becomes a very theoretical point when the provinces will have to contribute through taxes in any case whether or not they participate in the plan.
Ottawa must reconsider its present position and be prepared to make reasonable concessions to provincial objections if there is to be any hope for a workable federal medicare scheme.
That is why I say to the minister that this concept of medicare is dead. If some of the suggestions which have been made are accepted, we may be able to make it survive.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the minister has selectively ignored portions of the Hall Commission report.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Here are some of the suggestions made in the report of the Royal Commission on Health Services:
That in view of the shortage of qualified pharmacists in the Atlantic provinces there be established a school of pharmacy at Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland, at the same time as the medical school we have recommended and as a department thereof.
That annual professional training grants of $2,000 each be made available to graduate pharmacists
8S40

October 13, 1966
Medicare
pursuing post-graduate studies in pharmacy. That financial assistance under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, and under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act be expanded immediately to support any qualified applicants enrolling in courses of training prescribed for those paramedical fields in which shortages exist. On the national level we foresee shortages particularly in the following occupations: medical record librarians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists and audiological therapists, and medical social workers.
I could continue to quote recommendations of the Hall Commission report. It appears that the government has taken one recommendation from that report and tried to put it into effect in isolation. I believe it was the intention of the Hall Commission that all these things should be brought into effect together so that when a medical service plan was brought into being the services and facilities required to make medicare capable of meeting the demands upon it would already be available.
One further point. I should like to quote extracts from a speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to the tax structure committee in Ottawa on September 14. This brings a whole new concept to our thinking in Canada in respect to cost sharing programs. I quote from page 7, paragraph 26 of the text.
We must recognize that the continuous and cumulative use of shared cost programs in fields of jurisdiction which are primarily provincial, would result in a greater and greater proportion of provincial budgets being devoted to programs whose costs are shared by the federal government, leading to a continuing influence on provincial decisionmaking. The result would be to reduce the fiscal responsibility of the provinces, and to hamper them in establishing their own priorities. We must recognize too that the provinces have more and more wanted to assume full responsibility for initiating .and operating their own programs, and that their ability to do so has grown demonstrably since the war. This has been especially true of Quebec whose particular social and cultural goals have been a continuing and dominant influence on its approach to federal-provincial relations. A full recognition of these facts and these changes must .surely lead to the conclusion that what was suitable a generation ago may no longer be suitable today.
The minister goes on to talk about the setting up of the act which provided for opting out by the provinces from certain federal legislation. He has this to say in paragraph 29:
We have decided to propose an important change in the federal government's approach to shared cost programs.
XMr. Ballard.]
Then, as set out in paragraph 31-and this deals specifically with social measures-the hon. gentleman said:
It is our view that in respect to the three large and continuing programs which come under provincial jurisdiction, federal conditions should be withdrawn as soon as full provincial responsibility for them can be established. I refer to hospital insurance, The Canada Assistance Plan, and the continuing portion of national health grants. We are considering doing this in two stages.
First, the federal government would invite the provinces to take the first step toward greater fiscal independence and responsibility by accepting a new form of compensation in respect of these programs, effective January 1, 1967.
I quote now from paragraph 34 of the address:
This would be accomplished by escalating the adjustment payments, after a given date, on an objective basis unrelated to program costs. After this date the provinces' compensation in respect of these three programs would increase quite independently of-and almost certainly more rapidly than-program costs, on the formula we will propose. I am suggesting that this second step be taken on April 1, 1970.
At that time the federal government would eliminate the conditions the provinces are required to comply with under the shared-cost programs concerned.
Then, in paragraph 37, the hon. gentleman said:
One of the questions which will properly be asked about these proposed arrangements is what assurance there would be that the hospitalization and Canada assistance programs would be continued after 1970, and that the benefits would continue to be "portable" as between provinces, or that program standards would be maintained. Once major programs like these have been established, no government would discontinue them, because of the needs they fill and the public support they command.
It can be seen from this statement that it is the intention of the government to impose a plan such as the medicare plan on the provinces in such a way that the provinces cannot back out of it when the federal government decides that it no longer wants to be bothered with responsibility for management or for financing. If it is the ultimate goal of the government to turn projects of this type back to the provinces to administer, then I maintain the provinces should be taken into the confidence of the government when these programs are instituted.
It is evident from this statement by the Minister of Finance who, it must be admitted, has a strong voice in cabinet decision making, that it is the intention of the government to force the provinces into commitments with respect to a plan which most of them do not want. Then, when the provinces are stuck
October 13, 1966

with the plan, the federal government intends to pull the rug from under them-to turn the responsibility for financing it over to them and offer a per capita grant unrelated to the service rendered. Why not make a per capita grant available now and allow each province to develop the medicare plan best suited to its needs?
In conclusion, let me say that I recognize the need for expanded medical services to all people, regardless of their financial status. We cannot offer expanded services unless we have a great many more trained medical doctors available, more trained paramedical personnel, more hospital beds. The government should have given priority to the supply of sufficient facilities and personnel before introducing this plan.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the minister can explain to us how he intends to ensure an adequate supply of these doctors before July 1, 1968. A federal-provincial conference on medicare should be convened immediately so that he can determine from the provinces the type of federal assistance which is needed and is acceptable for the discharge of a purely provincial responsibility-medical services.


Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should first like to comment on a statement made by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stan-bury) who claimed that the New Democratic Party was going to filibuster the bill and thereby hold it up. I think he will have to agree that no political party fought longer and harder for the inception of medicare than did the New Democratic Party. This has not been a fight; it has been a series of promises-47 years of promises which have resulted in a bill which, before it got to the floor of the House of Commons, has already been delayed. So the N.D.P. can hardly be accused of delaying a bill which the Liberals themselves are delaying.
Another matter on which I should like to comment is the old cliche, that there is insufficient personnel to handle medicare at the present time, used by the last two Conservative speakers, the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) and the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Ballard). I am fed up with this old cliche. This only proves to me the need for medicare. It is an admission that there are people who are not being medically treated, but who should be,
Medicare
and that this failure is due to the fact that we have not had a medicare program to take care of these people, rather than the lack of medical people. This is dividing people into two categories, and results in a condition wherein treatment for illness is dependent upon the financial status of the patient.
I should also like to make one comment in respect of the statement made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson). I do not agree with him when he suggests that integration is more important than medication.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I did not say that. I said that unification was something that was more urgent in that it was to come into effect in a very short time, whereas the government has stated that medicare would not take place for a year and a half.


William Dean Howe: It is hoped that by debating this thing we might possibly get it into effect before 1968. I think it is still more important that we get medicare before us and in effect in this country before we get integration and unification of the armed forces. It is therefore with mixed emotions that I speak on this medicare bill. My emotions are mixed because I am glad to see it get to the floor of the house after these years of promises, but I am not happy to hear of its intended postponement which so far as I am concerned is an act of deceit perpetrated upon the Canadian people. It does show the influence the right wing element in the Liberal party has over the whole party, when this smaller group has had the power to sway the rest of the party. Since it has been promised on many occasions that this country would have medicare by July 1, 1967 most particularly within the cabinet of the Liberal party there must be some sort of small right wing element which has been able to deceive the Canadian people.
I have spoken many times on the different aspects of medicare. I have spoken in the House of Commons and elsewhere pointing out the need for medicare. But this is not what is at stake tonight; rather, it is the disappointing postponement of it with which we are confronted at the present time. I have deliberately planned a play-back of some voices-Liberal voices I might say-to emphasize what an impact this callous postponement of the medicare program must have had on millions of Canadians who, like myself, listened to these voices and dared to hope.

October 13, 1966
Medicare
I am going to start with this editorial from the Toronto Star of May 18, 1966, headlined "National medicare-proud Liberal achievement":
The Liberal government's conclusive commitment to introduce a national medicare program on July 1, 1967-whether all the provinces sign or not- redeems a pledge that has been gathering dust for the past 47 years.
With all the delays, frustrations, and obstruction the scheme has faced since it was first endorsed in principle by the Liberal party in 1919, Prime Minister Pearson can none the less take pride that it is a government under his leadership that will finally bring the program into being.
Well, hon. members, that commitment seems to have been more flexible-to use one of the Prime Minister's favourite words- than conclusive and is, I fear, slated to gather more layers of dust in its own hallowed spot on the shelf of Liberal party dreams. It may be that a Messiah other than the Prime Minister referred to will eventually redeem it.
Writing in the Ottawa Citizen on May 18 last under the headline "Medicare Start by July, 1967", Don MacGillivray said:
The big decision, expected to get wavering provinces on the medicare bandwagon by that date, was announced yesterday in the Commons by Health Minister Allan MacEachen.
Mr. MacEachen said the federal government will be ready to pay medicare contributions to any province with a plan in effect on the target date, even though not all provinces join.
We all know now, of course, that it was not the provinces who were wavering. A Canadian Press report in the Ottawa Journal of June 8 stated:
Health Minister MacEachen said Tuesday six provinces have given positive indications they intend to take up the federal offer to pay half the cost of medical care insurance starting July 1, 1967.
Not surprisingly, the four wealthiest provinces, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia represent the negative side in this instance. On August 3, a Canadian Press report in the Ottawa Journal attributed to the Prime Minister the statement that he foresaw no changes in federal legislation as a result of criticism levelled by provincial premiers during that week. As late as Thursday, the first day of September, hon. members in the House of Commons were assured by the Prime Minister, replying to a question put by one of my colleagues, that medicare legisla-

tion did have priority for this session. And that, hon. members, is a factual record of the medicare promises made by the Liberal party during this last few months of the 47 years since the pledge was first introduced.
Surely, in a period of 47 years, there must have been some honest, sincere Liberals who really felt that the Canadian people needed this care. Surely, these have not all been election promises with no sincerity behind them. Has there not been, in all this time, one Liberal Prime Minister with the guts to face the private insurance companies, the medical profession and the corporate elite, and give to the people of Canada a social benefit that is truly needed.
Never before in history, perhaps, has a political party laboured so long to give birth to an important piece of legislation and still managed to avoid the final commitment. We are still dealing with empty promises, promises that were so beguilingly voiced in the last election campaign and, as I have just demonstrated, so faithfully repeated right up to the recent day of betrayal.
It has been suggested in some quarters that the Minister of Finance was forced into scuttling the program as a "dramatic" gesture in order to halt inflation and hold back pressures in other sectors of the economy. In other words, the medicare program which was designed primarily to assist those who lacked opportunities for first-rate medical care was to be laid as a propitiatory offering at the feet of Bay street financiers, insurance companies and, regrettably, too large a group of medical men whose great ethical tradition has been to some degree diminished by self-motivation. As recently as this afternoon I came across a page in the Monetary Times of October, 1966. I do not know who the author of this article is, but it is a Parliament Hill report by the Ottawa bureau entitled "Behind the Mockery". In part it states:
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Most of the cost of medicare would be a simple transfer payment; money which Canadians now pay to private insurance schemes or directly to their doctors would be channelled instead through public agencies. The additional cost of medicare would be around $100 million at the most in the first year-
Oclober 13. 1966

a sum so small that it is well within the margin of error which finance ministers allow themselves in calculating their yearly revenues and expenditures.
Sharp decided to cut medicare from his 1967 program for public relations reasons. His economists are more concerned about what they call inflation psychosis than they are about inflation itself.
Reviews to date of this great dramatic production have not all been laudatory, however. Even in the Prime Minister's own party there are, I gather, some disappointed critics, albeit their criticism may be rather less strident following recent disciplinary tongue lashings.
It is difficult to understand the motivation behind this action. Did the Minister of Finance really fear inflationary pressure consequent upon the plan's initiation on July 1, 1967, one year in the future? I think not. He is well aware too, I think, that it was during a period of austerity in Britain in 1948 that a medicare plan was brought in by a Labour government.
Why was medicare chosen for the sacrifice? Why did not the minister think of plugging a few gaping holes in the income tax regulations, or looking into some of those peregrinations on official government business which have been multiplying both numerically and expensively in recent years? On the positive side he might have considered an excess profits tax at this time on inordinate profittaking.
Whatever its motivation, this grand gesture by the Minister of Finance was a cynical and heartless one. It was also, I might add, perhaps to the minister's credit, singularly lacking in political astuteness. Inevitably this decision will boomerang on the government that so foolishly made it, because I am convinced the people are aware of the fundamental points at issue here and will refuse to be confounded by political twaddle. It is common knowledge that this period of further delay will give much in the way of aid and comfort to the enemies of the plan. They will have many months now in which to train their public relations batteries on the taxpayers-cajoling, frightening and persuading them with a barrage of equivocation, sophistry and evasion. Already the mails bear testimony to this.
There will be a rehash of the same old arguments against the plan. I shall deal with them one by one as they appear in a booklet entitled "National Medicare-Let's Look Before We Leap" authored by the premier of Alberta, one of the reluctant provinces. The
Medicare
Alberta government administers a scheme of subsidized prepaid medical insurance which, by the premier's own admission in the booklet referred to, covers little more than 80 per cent of Albertans. We are left to wonder what happens to the remaining 20 per cent who represent 47 per cent or nearly half of those eligible for a subsidized premium. It must be assumed that this half of the less affluent group are either unbelievably healthy or, unable to pay even a subsidized premium, are suffering for lack of an adequate and freely available medical care plan. Parenthetically I would suggest a comparison here with the figure of 99.87 per cent for medical care coverage in Saskatchewan.
Naturally Mr. Manning's primary concern in connection with the proposed national plan is not with money, funny or otherwise. He points sublimely to the right of each citizen to exercise freedom of choice in matters relating to his own and his family's welfare. For the premier's information, it has never been proposed that we institute a system of state medicine in this country. Under medicare there would be complete freedom of choice and the service would be based on self-governing professions and institutions. The patient would choose his own doctor just as the doctor would be free to accept or reject the patient, except of course in cases of emergency. The only people who would want to plead a case for freedom in connection with medicare are those reactionaries who fear that medicare is an extension of a right-and I emphasize, a right, not a privilege-to too many people too soon.
They choose to ignore the contemplation of freedom in its broader context of freedom "from", not just freedom "to". In this case it is freedom from sickness and ill health, not just the freedom to buy health as lavishly or whimsically as one's purse will allow. Health signifies the ultimate security for the individual and, as such, is a right not to be misconstrued as a privilege.
The second argument is: Are you as taxpayers in favour of governments spending your money to pay for medical services for those who can well afford to buy their own medical insurance? It is true that many people are covered by one form or another of group or private insurance. The premiums for this insurance are much more expensive than they would be under a government administered plan, but at least they are covered. However, according to the report of the Royal Commission on Health Services, over



B644 COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
October 13, 1966
Medicare
7.5 million or 41 per cent of the population had no medical insurance whatsoever in 1961, and for some three million more coverage was considered totally inadequate. This is so after 35 years of endeavour on the part of voluntary plans as well as those of commercial insurance companies.
In considering the costs of the scheme we should always keep in mind that expenditures will simply be transferred from the private to the public sector of the economy. It has been estimated that the total extra cost to provide complete universal coverage would amount to a sum variously estimated between $60 million and $90 million. In a $55 billion economy this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, to be considered an intolerable strain. Most of this merely represents people who cannot afford medical care at present.
We are asked to consider the point that medicare will produce excessive demands for services. It is probably true that there will be a backlog of cases coming forward in the early months of the plan's inauguration, and somehow they will have to be looked after on a priority basis. This priority establishment is properly the responsibility of the doctors themselves. They must see that patients are treated according to their needs and not according to their pocketbooks. For too long, perhaps, the well-to-do hypochondriac has monopolized medical attention.
I am, of course, very much in agreement with Mr. Manning when he urges the government to spend more on research. It is only when he makes point number four, expressing his fear that expenditures for long-range research will be subjugated to the political expediency of further expanding the immediate services which count most with the electorate, that I take emphatic exception.
It is true we are behind other nations in research. When Mr. Manning says we should be spending at least $100 million a year in this field I am delighted with the breadth of his vision. We would be satisfied with much less than that, because at present our expenditure of moneys provided by this government amount to 90 cents per capita as compared to $6.50 per capita in the United States. This causes a brain drain from Canada to the United States where there is money for research allowing projects to be carried to a conclusion.
I heard on the radio this morning that a doctor in Chicago by the name of Huggins was awarded the Nobel prize for medicine as a result of research done at the University of
[Mr. Howe (Hamilton South) ,1
Chicago. This man is a Canadian-born and Canadian-educated scientist. He was awarded a medal for work done in the United States, and I suppose he went there to carry out this work because we do not supply sufficient money in this country for research.
Mr. Manning is no doubt as disappointed as I am with the proposed cut in the rate of increase for the next fiscal year. This is no way to ensure the vastly improved climate for research which is absolutely necessary if we are to staff expanding medical schools across the country. Only when we are able to attract competent teacher-scientists to staff these schools will we be assured of an adequate supply of new doctors.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Let me refer to a local matter. In the city of Hamilton McMaster University is starting a medical college which, it is hoped, will be in operation in 1969 with new modern facilities, and it has the money to build these facilities. There are pre-medical students now taking their Bachelor of Science degree at this university. The university has some very progressive ideas with regard to graduating students. With the reduction in the supply of research funds available there is some doubt whether this university will be staffed adequately to teach medical students who would otherwise have sufficient facilities to graduate under an entirely new scheme-which I will not go into-on a speeded-up basis, which has been highly recommended. This scheme cuts down on the length of time taken for graduation. As a matter of fact, this university is cutting down the graduation period from four years to three years by reducing the summer holidays to two weeks rather than the usual four or five months.
Top-flight teachers of this type will never be induced either to come to this country or to stay here until an improved research atmosphere is established on an assured basis. In other words, Mr. Speaker, research people want to be assured that funds will be available with which to carry on the programs they start, rather than starting a program and being frustrated by the fact that there are insufficient funds to complete the work they started. Here again the threatened cut in the rate of increase will amount to a picayune sum in the context of the entire economy. It will be hard to justify it as a counter-inflationary measure. Equally hard to defend is Mr. Manning's contention that money spent on medicare will of necessity have to come from research expenditures. Research is a vital
October 13, 1966
[Stage Direction]
part of the medicare program, adding modestly to its cost to enrich its quality.
Many of the points I have dealt with in defending medicare were very succinctly expressed by Dr. Samuel Wolfe, medical director of the Saskatoon Community Health Services Medical Clinic, in his address delivered at the Chateau Laurier last November before the working conference dealing with the implications of a health charter for Canadians. I should like to read this very appropriate excerpt from that address:
There has been a lot of nonsense spoken in recent years about government sponsored medical care plans, and their supposed evils. I have had the good fortune to serve for close to four years as a commissioner of the Saskatchewan medical care plan, and while I do not pretend to speak for the Commission, I feel free to say that we have exploded a lot of myths. First, the myth of administrative cost when a plan is run by government. The fact is that the cost of operating the Saskatchewan plan has been about 6 per cent. The Hall Commission showed that the private insurers of Canada used 28 per cent of every dollar for purposes other than paying benefits. Second, Saskatchewan's plan provides broader coverage than any other plan in Canada, and for example, includes psychiatric care by private physicians, and preventive check-ups. Third, Saskatchewan's plan pays doctors' bills faster than any other plan in Canada. Fourth, the costs of Saskatchewan's plan have risen more slowly than the costs of private plans over the past three years. Fifth, demands for service have risen only modestly, and evidence suggests that increased services may be due more to doctors' decisions than to patients' demands. Finally, the pet myth that free selection of doctor by patient and patient by doctor would be interfered with, has been exploded.
The Saskatchewan experience to date proves that medical care, as one component of social security, can be entrusted to a government agency, with loss of neither individual nor professional independence. Freedom is widened, not narrowed, when the man who earns $40,000 a year pays more for public medical care insurance than does the man who earns $4,000 a year.
I should like to speak very briefly about what I consider to be some of the shortcomings of this bill as it is introduced. There are many other practitioners of medicine, aside from medical doctors, who are involved in the care of people who are ill. These include-I am touching on only a few-psychologists, chiropractors, optometrists, dentists and many other paramedical groups.
Psychologists serve an extremely useful purpose in the treatment of a large percentage of both children and adults who could otherwise be very demanding on the overworked medical profession. Realizing that many medical illnesses are of a psychological nature, psychologists are not only treatment specialists but serve to relieve the already overburdened profession which has many
Medicare
other phases of medicine to deal with. These practitioners of course require consideration in the bill before the house at the present time.
Then, too, many people are treated by chiropractors, who have also been significantly omitted from Bill No. C-227. Another group of the so-called drugless practitioners, who are highly recognized in our medical society, are optometrists. The hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) has mentioned optometrists but I am going to mention them again. The omission of optometric care is a drastic one not only for the care of people's eyesight but again because of a release of the burden on the already overworked ophthalmologists. Almost 6 million Canadians need visual care that cannot conceivably be handled by other than 1,500 optometrists in Canada, and certainly cannot be treated by the only 300 ophthalmologists. It is therefore my strong recommendation that the definition of medical practitioner be changed to include the optometrists of Canada. It goes without saying that there is an extreme need for dental care, which should be included in this bill on a basis equal to that of medical care.
If Liberal amendments go through, medicare will be postponed at least until 1968; and how do we know it will suit them any more in 1968 than they now think it will in 1967, when it is now 1966? I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Hamilton Spectator of October 11. The editorial is entitled, "Medical Inevitability" and reads in part:
-Canada's ruling party was telling itself that it was all right to breach the promise made during the election only 11 months ago because circumstances had changed, but that it can promise that circumstances will not change during the next 12 months.
The editorial goes on to say:
The cabinet has thus made itself accountable to the collective minor officialdom of the Liberal party instead of remaining primarily accountable to the people of Canada.
If the amendment the Conservative party has moved were to pass-and I am sure it will not-this would not only get rid of the plan for a year and a half in order that we may think it over, but I am afraid it would get rid of the plan forever. I do not think that even the Tory party can stop this progress that other people in our country are trying to make. It looks as though neither of these parties is willing to face private insurance companies and give the Canadian people any real social progress.
8S46
[Stage Direction]
October 13, 1986
Medicare
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, the present bill, namely Bill No. C-227, invites us to improve health conditions and assist the sick. Those two reasons are worthy of praise, all the more so when we know that disease constitutes, for both Canada and Canadians, a loss of time and money.
In 1963, sickness caused a loss of 100 million man-days, that is more than $1,600 million, or 3.8 per cent of the G.N.P. In comparison with this, industrial strikes do not represent even 1 per cent of the losses caused by sickness.
The provisions of Bill No. C-227 show us how the central government intends to contribute to a provincial medicare plan, that is by paying 50 per cent of the cost if a province satisfies the four following conditions: first, the program must be administered by the state or a non-profit organization; second, it must be universal in character, that is it must apply to at least 90 per cent of the population; third, it must be transferable, and fourth, it must cover all medical expenses.
I am examining these various conditions, Mr. Speaker, and I shall have occasion to come back to them at the end of my speech. But I wonder if these four conditions in themselves justify an intervention by the central government in the field of medicare. I personally feel that the provinces, separately or together, could easily have drawn them up and agreed thereto, especially now that the Canadian provinces meet annually, at a provincial Prime Ministers conference, and in view of the fact that interprovincial co-ordination and co-operation are gaining favour across the country.
It seems as though the central government were good-humouredly playing at Santa Claus several months ahead of time, offering the provinces money and setting conditions as if the provinces were children, backward little girls unable to organize their wardrobe themselves. This, Mr. Speaker, is the continuation of the unrestrained centralization practised by the present government in all fields and, it seems, despite the very eloquent statements made last night, according to press reports, during a celebration closing the conference of the Canadian Liberal party, when that party said: as long as we do not amend the Canadian constitution, we must respect it. This statement made the headlines of several newspapers.

There was also the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who as it were added, in a sort of speech which he alone can make, in speaking of the Liberal party and of the Liberal government in power: We do not intend to nor must we encroach upon or destroy the powers and the jurisdiction allocated to the provinces under the constitution. A wonderful statement, Mr. Speaker, which was made quite recently, as a matter of fact only last night. There you have the theory, there you have the statement, but today you have a concrete example of this systematic inconsistency because a motion was made for second reading of a bill which goes against the spirit and the letter of the Canadian constitution which allocates to the provinces, solely and exclusively, the fields of insurance and hygiene.
This is why, in this house, since January 18 last, we had the feeling of plunging further into a constitutional chaos in which this government places us continuously. This government refuses to set up a parliamentary committee to review our Canadian constitution. It denies the hon. members of the house and the law-makers of this parliament the right to amend this old text dating back to 1867 in order, it seems, to adapt it-may I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I do not think that the hon. member may call it ten o'clock immediately. However, this is not why I intervene. I simply want to remind him that at the present time we are discussing a bill which deals with establishing medical care in Canada and it seems to me that his speech at the present time is not closely related to the principle of the bill which we are considering at this time. The hon. member may still be making his preliminary remarks and, if such is the case, I invite him to come as soon as possible to the substance of his speech.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, when I close my remarks, this evening or tomorrow, you will find that this is the basis of my argument which is fully related to the substance of this bill and to the debate on medicare.
I simply wanted to point out in the premise-I will come back to that at the end of my remarks-that this legislation is another centralizing, anticonstitutional measure, and those are areas and conditions which should
October 13, 1966	COMMONS
be established by the provinces and not be imposed on them, as if they were only wards of the central government.
If we consider the provisions of the legislation-and several members raised the matter tonight-various questions may be raised to which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) has not yet replied. We hope that when he makes a statement, he will dispel our anxieties on various matters, as he himself and his government have decided to go ahead in the field of medical care.
Do we have enought doctors? Do we have, in Canada, the necessary medical schools? Do we have enough hospitals, laboratories and staff to overcome the effects which such a legislation would create in the field of health and in the country?
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock? [English]



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to whoever is acting house leader tonight in regard to the business of the house tomorrow. May I offer the suggestion that in order to have a quiet day in the house maybe we should take up a non-controversial subject such as the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a spurious suggestion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Splendid.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my instruction from the house leader is to indicate the continuation tomorrow of the present subject matter, and if we finish that to continue with Item No. 48, house in committee of the whole on Bill C-218, to be followed by the second reading of Bill C-220, respecting the Immigration Appeal Board.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, October 5, as recorded in Hansard at page 8348, I put to the Prime Minister a question that was
DEBATES	8647
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion supplementary to one that had been asked by another member, in which I used these words:
In view of the concern being expressed in the country, may I ask the Prime Minister whether consideration is being given to providing for an old age pension increase without imposing any test or limitation?
The Prime Minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should wait until the resolution is introduced; his understandable curiosity will be satisfied at that time.
My reply was:
I think I shall have to satisfy my curiosity at ten o'clock.
I have had to wait not only from the afternoon until evening but some eight days to get my question before the house during one of these late shows. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, several other members have asked questions about the proposal to supplement the old age pension by $30 a month. Questions have been asked as to the effective date and various other details. Every time these questions have been asked the reply has been that members should wait until the legislation comes before us when the details will be disclosed. Well, the main outline of the government's proposal was given to us by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on July 14 of this year. I suggest, therefore, that it is a bit of a cat-and-mouse game to suggest that we wait for the details if those details are simply going to be along the lines announced on July 14.
What we are asking for, and the government knows it, is a reconsideration of some of the fundamental points in the program announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. My question to the Prime Minister was one of those questions. Is consideration being given to providing for this increase without imposing any test or limitation? I hope the minister tonight will not give us one of his usual speeches about the number of times the Liberals have increased the old age pension, and all that kind of thing. I hope he will address himself to the question, and I make it as simple and as direct as I can. Do I hear the hon. member for Parkdale making a reference to 1919?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: His conscience is bothering him.


Stanley Haidasz: I was not here in 1919.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that if the hon. member's conscience is bothering him he might see a psychiatrist, if he can get one under medicare.
October 13. 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I ask the minister the direct question: Is the government reconsidering the matter of the test that the minister announced on July 14? As I tried to say to him on that day, and as I have said on different occasions since, it will be another major mistake of the Liberal party if it, in effect, goes back to the means test. We have had a debate today on what I think is a major mistake of the Liberal party in effect, bring back the means test, this will suffer seriously because of this. I say that if it is going to provide pension increases which, in effect, bring back the means test, this will be a mistake for the Liberal party and it will be a mistake for Canada. I can tell him that, just as certainly as it is after ten o'clock tonight, the next few election campaigns will be conducted around an effort to get rid of that means test.
Now, there is no point in the minister telling us that what he proposed is not a means test. There is no point in trying to give it some other name. The means test was not the official name of the test that applied under the old age pensions act from 1927 to 1952. It was in effect a kind of income test, at a very low level. "Means test" was the popular phrase which was applied to an arrangement under which people did not get the pension if they had certain other income.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that if that kind of test is put on the $30 that it is proposed to add to the $75, we are going back to the means test of unhappy memory which at long last we got rid of starting in 1952. I suggest that it would be a political and social mistake, and that it would be quite unjustifiable to go back to it.
Our people need this increase in their pension; no one will deny that. We can afford it, and no one can deny that: The money is there in the old age security fund. But our old people also have the right to their dignity and self-respect and they will not have this if we impose a means test on a portion of their pension.
I am glad to know that we will get a pension increase during this session. It was good to get that clear statement from the minister this week. I plead with him not to spoil that increase by the indignity of a means test, and I plead with him to say to us tonight that the government is prepared to reconsider this aspect of the proposed pension increase. Let us have an increase across the board for all our senior citizens.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question posed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I want to assure him that it is not the intention of the government to reconsider this particular decision. Because we are commencing in Canada in its application to recipients of old age security a new concept-the concept of a guaranteed annual income. This is the most modern concept in social welfare thinking and economics, and we think that we ought to move ahead and abandon some of the older concepts which, though good in their day, may not be as applicable now as they were formerly.
I appeal to the member for Winnipeg North Centre to watch the danger of slipping into Tory thinking. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre believes that everything that was decided on 30 years ago or 20 years ago must be valid and applicable in 1965, 1966 or 1967.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was the Liberals who instituted the means test, not the Tories.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not accept this view. I think we have to change and move ahead. We have a new, modern concept of a guaranteed annual income. We will be the only country in the world that I know of which is making a start in the application of this concept, and we are applying this concept to the recipients of old age security. The hon. member is setting up a straw man. He says it is a means test.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is not a means test. It was never proposed as a means test. I hope that when the plan is fully unfolded we will be able to convince the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that we are applying an income test, something which was strongly supported by his deputy leader who advocated in the house not long ago the desirability of having an income test approach to these matters. I am glad his deputy leader is moving ahead and I hope that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will catch up with him before we get into the house on this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is still a means test, and the minister knows it.


Mr. Dinsdale:: An exercise in semantics.



AGRICULTURE-MILK-ANNOUNCEMENT OF INCREASE IN SUBSIDY TO PRODUCERS

Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I raised the question of the manufacturing milk subsidy, along with the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on September 9. I regret very much that the minister is not in his place tonight, and I say that with every deference to the parliamentary secretary who has to take the minister's place.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I am raising this question because on reading the minister's statement I could not see anywhere in it that the minister was satisfied that the producers of manufacturing milk were in fact to receive $4 per hundredweight for their product. This is a serious matter, because we know how the minister has played with this situation since the last election campaign. It was he who made the promise that producers of this product, in essence, would receive $4 per hundredweight for their milk.
We know that this has not happened. All of us, including the parliamentary secretary, well know what the differential was and why it existed. We, too, had a policy to offer to the producers of this product. The point is that the minister and the government did not fulfil the promise that was made to these producers. The minister and the government know this full well. It was not until pressure was applied by farm organizations, particularly in the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec-where a somewhat similar situation arose, with a small exception

that the matter was brought forward.
I am rising because the minister would not give me the information I requested and, of course, because Mr. Speaker on that day would not permit the minister to answer, saying that this was a more appropriate time. I have the minister's statement here. In no way, and nowhere in his statement does he assure the producers that they will receive this much money. In fact, Mr. Speaker, had it not been for the ministers of agriculture in the provincial governments of Quebec and Ontario coming to the assistance of the federal Minister of Agriculture at this particular time in question, the producers still would not be receiving that which was promised in his last election campaign. Such a thing is regrettable, but it shows one of the ways in which this government has been acting. Someone always has to bail it out from problems it has got itself into.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The Windsor Star, which is a paper not noted for its support of the Conservative party, gives full credit to the provincial ministers concerned for what has happened with respect to these producers.
I said at an earlier date that I believe that constitutionally the responsibility for the payment of this subsidy is that of the federal government and I cited my authority. The minister questioned what I said at that time. However, an article in the newspaper I have mentioned points out that quite likely the minister has now realized that the constitutional authority for the payment of this subsidy lies with the federal government. That newspaper article also states that probably the producers will receive more than the minimum undertaking; and if that happens, the credit should go to the two provincial ministers, not to the federal government.
What I want to learn this evening from the parliamentary secretary is whether he has the authority to make a statement assuring the producers of manufacturing milk in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec that they will in fact receive a minimum of $4 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish I felt constrained to thank the hon. member for Grey-Bruce for his question which, to me, is slightly irresponsible. The question asked of the minister was whether he would assure the house that the milk producers in the province of Ontario and in the province of Quebec will, as the result of his announcement, be assured of $4 per hundredweight of manufactured milk.
I wish to draw attention to the words "be assured". The word "assure" means "guarantee". I did not-


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is what he did during the election campaign.


Bruce Silas Beer: It is my submission that to use the word "assure" would be absolutely irresponsible, and the minister, I know, would not make a statement of that kind. I should like to give two or three reasons to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce why it would be altogether irresponsible to guarantee to farmers a price of $4 per hundredweight. If we were to guarantee $4 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk it could only be done by entering into an offer-to-purchase program. This would remove from the milk manufacturing and processing business all initiative
October 13, 1965
8650	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion for the marketing of the product through distributors. Such action would be quite irresponsible.
Again, the marketing of milk does not come under federal jurisdiction; it comes under provincial jurisdiction. Milk is produced in Ontario or Quebec according to standards established by the departments of health in those provinces. In the second place, it is hauled by motor vehicles licensed by the provinces in which they operate. These are at least two reasons, in addition to what I have already said which make it clear that it would be irresponsible for a federal minister of agriculture to guarantee $4 per hundredweight to producers at the farms.


Eric Alfred Winkler: He made the promise and it is a simple matter to implement it.


Bruce Silas Beer: One should review the program which has been in effect. This creates a

climate which will enable farmers to get $4 per hundredweight. The federal support program as established on April 1, 1966, was designed to provide an average price to producers at the factory of $3.25. If we add to this the 75 cents federal subsidy, we arrive at a figure of $4. Then on September 9 the stabilization board raised its butter selling price by two cents a pound which is equivalent to eight cents per hundredweight of milk. The total comes to $4.08. On October 1, 1966, the government of Ontario introduced a producer subsidy of 25 cents, bringing the total to $4.33.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Order. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but the time allotted to him has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Friday, October 14, 1966