1966-11-28

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I would like to make a reference to a national event, epitomizing the pride of Canadians, whatever province they may live in. With the two teams that participated in the Grey Cup on Saturday it was indeed a politician's paradise because no matter where you stood or where you lived you could express the hope that the rough riders would win. However, coming from the province of Saskatchewan where we have had a football drought that lasted more than half a century, the outcome of the game was of such importance that it deserves historic reference. To the Saskatchewan Roughriders, the winners of the Grey Cup, I am sure members in all parts of the house would want to join in congratulations. To the Ottawa Rough Riders, our congratulations also for the high sportsmanship they displayed; and to all the participants among the various teams throughout the season, finally culminating in this great classic, there must be the appreciation of Canadians for the degree to which football has brought us all together in a unity that otherwise is sometimes doubted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisler):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would permit us on this side of the house to associate ourselves with the words of the right hon. gentleman in congratulating the Saskatchewan Roughriders on winning this great national contest on Saturday. Mr. Speaker, you can imagine how delighted I, personally, was at this victory, having so many friends in Saskatchewan to whom I owe so much.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman talked about the football drought in Saskatchewan. There are of course other kinds of drought, but in any event it was a great
sporting game, well played, and as the right hon. gentleman has said our congratulations go out both to the winners and to the losers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the members in this party would also be allowed to send their congratulations to the Saskatchewan Rough-riders on their outstanding victory last Saturday. As has been said, Saskatchewan has been trying a long time for the Grey Cup. The last time they contested the finals was also against Ottawa, in 1951. Saskatchewan has always had some difficulty with Ottawa, not just in football; but this time they were successful, and I think the main tribute should go to the fans in Saskatchewan who have stayed with the Saskatchewan Rough-riders through thick and thin, and supported their team even when it was at the bottom of the league. Their tenacity and perseverance has paid off, and we in this party would certainly like to add our congratulations to them upon their outstanding victory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



O.E.C.D.-REPORT FOLLOWING PARIS MEETING ON WORLD TRADE AND AID

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from the Annual Ministerial Council meeting, in Paris, of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. I beg leave to table the communique of this meeting in both English and French.
This was the fifth annual meeting of the O.E.C.D. which, in 1961, succeeded the O.E.E.C., the Organization for European Economic Co-operation. In 1961, O.E.C.D. ministers established a collective target of 50 per cent growth in real terms for member countries as a whole in the decade 1960-70.
At this year's meeting, satisfaction was expressed that the rate of growth so far has been in excess of that necessary to reach the target, and that prospects for the remainder of the decade continue to be good. It was recognized, however, that the problem remains of
November 28, 1966

Report on O.E.C.D. Meeting containing inflationary pressures while maintaining a high level of employment.
The organization is doing useful work on the payments relations between member countries, and ministers gave instructions for the continuance of this work and the organization's efforts toward the improved operation of capital markets. The O.E.C.D. will also pursue its study of the nature and consequences of differences in scientific and technical levels between countries-the so-called technological gap.
So far as trade is concerned, ministers discussed the current multilateral negotiations in Geneva and stressed the importance of ensuring their success. This was an aspect to which I devoted particular attention in my own comments. I also commented on changing economic attitudes in east European countries. I suggested that the organization should be giving attention to the possibilities of further developing east-west trade, and bringing the eastern European countries to a greater extent into the world trading family. This subject was also raised by the United States and Belgian delegates, and a special reference to it was included in the communique.
Much attention was devoted to the aid and trade needs of the developing countries, including the growing need for food aid, for technical and other assistance to increase domestic agricultural production in developing nations which are short of food, and for greater self-help efforts by these countries themselves. This is a world problem and all countries in a position to help have a role to play. I urged that the burden of food aid should be shared equitably and not fall disproportionately on exporters of grain and other foodstuffs.
On aid more generally, a consensus was reached that the volume being made available should be increased and terms and conditions improved from the point of view of the needy countries. On behalf of Canada, I suggested that more attention should be given to an attempt to measure more exactly the effectiveness and contribution to developmental progress of aid being provided. In general, the meeting was productive and constructive and the exchange of views on the major economic issues was of high quality.
I had an opportunity to have discussions with the ministers of the various countries, including Mr. Debre of France, the United States representative, Mr. Rostow and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Right Hon. James

Callaghan. Mr. Callaghan and I naturally discussed, among other things, the new approach to the European Common Market. Mr. Callaghan confirmed that the United Kingdom is serious in its efforts to join the European Economic Community. He said that by January the United Kingdom government would be actively engaged in a round of visits to the various countries of the E.E.C. He therefore suggested that the first meeting of the Canada-United Kingdom Ministerial Committee be held then in London so that, among other things, they would be in a position to inform us fully and more currently of progress in their negotiations.
I indicated that it had been our hope to have the inaugural meeting in Canada, but that I was confident for the purposes outlined, the Canadian side would be prepared to meet in London. Mr. Callaghan assured me that there had been no change in the Labour government's intention to attempt to safeguard essential commonwealth interest.
I met with our trade commissioners, who are doing a good job in promoting Canadian exports to France, and again visited the new Travel Bureau Office which was opened during my last visit to Paris in September. The results of the establishment of this office are most gratifying.
Inquiries about travel to Canada have jumped from a level of 200 to 300 a month to an average of about 1,500 in October and November. This reflects both the advantage of having a well-located and staffed office in the centre of population in a country well disposed toward Canada, and the impact that Expo '67 is making in Europe.
Mr. Sydney Pierce, our chief negotiator in Geneva for the Kennedy round, came to Paris on my invitation to give me a first-hand report of the progress being made in these important and confidential trade negotiations, which are now in their active phase. There are still considerable uncertainties and difficulties to be overcome but, provided there is an adequate response to the offers and requests for concessions which have been made, we may expect a very significant result both from the point of view of Canadian interest and the widening of world trading opportunities as a whole.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, being from Saskatchewan I think it will be generally understood that I am in a good mood today.
November 28, 1966	COMMONS
I should like to thank the minister for providing the opposition with a copy of his remarks a few minutes before the house opened.
It is worth while at this time to remember the objectives which were laid down in 1961 at the meeting in Paris when Canada and the United States joined the O.E.C.D. as full-fledged partners. The objective of a 5 per cent growth rate per year has been maintained by all member countries. At the time we attended this meeting the minister of finance and I represented Canada and we thought that 5 per cent was a growth rate that would be worth-while striving for, and would be a worth while achievement if it could be maintained. Due to the expansionist policy adopted at that time I think all countries concerned can take credit for the fact that this growth rate has been achieved each year since 1961.
1 do not intend to say anything about the troubles involved in arranging the mutual and advantageous flows of capital from one country to the other, because that subject is too involved to be covered by this type of statement. I should like to make a remark, however, about the British entry into the European common market.
It is my hope that these ministerial meetings will be held frequently and in a mood of mutual self help. Canada should put foward some clear and positive alternatives which the United Kingdom can use in its bargaining position with the European common market. It should make it known to Britain that it does not stand alone in its particular economic trouble. In this regard it should also be pointed out that the United Kingdom still has to overcome the objections of France and to a lesser degree of Italy and Germany in relation to being received into the European common market. Canada's interests are definitely concerned and we expect from the Canadian side a full representation of those interests.
It was nice of the minister to mention the growth in our tourist trade. Only ten years ago we proposed that Canada could have a billion dollar industry by 1967 if we set our minds to it. The various tourist offices in various parts of the United States, in Paris and in London, have demonstrated our faith in the idea that if we could have tourist centres like the ones we have they would create a positive pay-off.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The last comment I am going to make concerns the question of the Geneva discussions.
23033-66O2
Report on O.E.C.D. Meeting As usual, the minister has expressed generalizations which say nothing and do not get at the real meat of the problem. In connection with the Geneva discussions, it is very clear that the problem before the nations is that in the so-called non-discriminatory type of proposals in GATT they were actually discriminating against the newly developing nations. The best that the Geneva conference has been able to come up with yet is that some sort of combined hand-outs should be arranged for the newly developing nations, on a formula basis.
I suggest this is far from being good enough. The time has come for Canada and all the industrial nations of the world to realize that this great gulf between the developing nations and the industrial nations is growing wider each year. We expect from our governments positive leadership in trying to provide institutions to bridge this gulf.
Proposals have been made in this house and across this country for several years now; I have listed them before and shall do so again. We need a new type of international commodity agreement that will give to the developing nations a fair and stable price for their products. We must think of the interest of the developing nations first, if this proposal is to succeed. It is time this gulf was bridged by the use of international trading arrangements. We have such international trading organizations in connection with grain. This idea should be extended to all goods which can be graded, shipped, and stored. We will need, for many years to come, bilateral give-aways, but we should be trying to bring about these basic institutions of trade in order that we may bridge this gulf in a practical self-help manner.
Other ideas should be brought forward, such as buying and selling agencies in order that we may deal directly with state trading nations, which have only one agency with which to deal. This idea should be developed. In addition we need some form of clearing house for short term and medium term credits. When dealing with countries such as the United Kingdom, which is fully developed, there has to be a growth rate exchange between our two countries on a bilateral basis. As well there must be growth rate exchanges with other countries outside the O.E.C.D.
These ideas will take time to develop, but every country in the world is waiting to see how the industrial nations of the world will take the initiative to bridge this gulf between the developed nations and the newly developing nations. This is the test of our generation.
November 28, 1966

Report on O.E.C.D. Meeting In the generalized statements issued by the minister today I see no evidence that the O.E.C.D. or the Geneva discussions on GATT are producing the type of positive proposal that will help in a tangible way to bridge the gulf between those nations which are industrialized and the people of the world who are insisting on a better standard of living to match our standards.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join the hon. member who has just sat down in thanking the minister for sending opposition parties copies of his statement. I want to add, in case he wants to get cross with any of his officers, that the copies which were supplied to us contained all the pages in the proper order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: The O.E.C.D. is a consultative body and not a policy-making body. One therefore could not expect the minister to bring us a report of actual policies arrived at. I want to limit my remarks very briefly to two or three points only. I join with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) in urging that a new approach to international trade is long overdue. As I read the minister's statement, I could not help but recall the hopes that all of us had in the early years after the war in the setting up of the International Monetary fund, the International Bank and the various international trade agencies, all of which were intended to assist both the developing and the developed nations and increase economic exchange among countries of the world. I think it is true to say, without appearing pessimistic or cynical, that all of them have had very limited success.
One of the great dangers in the world at the present time is the fact that these important international agencies, some of which have been in existence for 20 years, have achieved relatively little in the years spent in discussions and conversations. Everyone here knows this as well as I do and regrets it as much as I do, but it does suggest that a country like Canada should be proposing new approaches to the problem instead of being satisfied with discussions at Geneva. The government of a country like Canada should be giving leadership in those areas where it is possible for us to do so.
This brings me to the other two points I should like to make. The minister has referred to the difficulties we face in giving aid to other countries, particularly aid in the form of food. This emphasizes the necessity for the

establishment of an adequate world food bank. I cannot help but recall the fact that some years ago when this was proposed at a general assembly of the United Nations ministers of the Canadian government were among those who opposed the idea because, they said, we could not afford it. This was back in 1953 or 1954. We should change this attitude. We are a country which can start a world food bank by making available our resources for this purpose. In this area leadership from a country such as Canada would supply the impetus to proceed from mere discussions to active accomplishment.
The same is true in general about aid to the developing countries. As has been pointed out in various debates, Canada's contribution to the developing countries at the present time is a niggardly one. It is away below the 1 per cent which is our present objective in the United Nations. It has seemed to be a larger figure because our grants and also our loans and credit arrangements are included in the amount. Our actual contribution, as distinct from credits and loans, amounts to about one third of 1 per cent of our gross national product. Here is an area in which instead of merely engaging in discussions with others and regretting the insufficiency of aid to developing countries, we could give leadership by increasing our own aid to an adequate level.
Finally, if I may, let me urge the minister on behalf of this party not to wait for Mr. Callaghan's report on the negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community, which might put Canada in a position of having to object to or protest against some of the terms for the entry of the United Kingdom into the common market. This government would be well advised to discuss with the United Kingdom government some of the effects which the entry of the United Kingdom into the common market might have on this country. Let us persuade them to take such action at present as would not harm Canada or other members of the British Commonwealth at a future date.
I conclude my remarks in the hope that Canada will act so as to give leadership to other countries through the development of new policies in these areas.


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker,
the minister has just returned from a meeting in Paris of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development or in French
November 28, 196$

"L'Organisation de cooperation et de de-veloppement economique."
It is unfortunate that the minister does not have a French copy of the statement he made this afternoon; we only have an English copy, and yet, that meeting was held in Paris where, I believe, the discussions were conducted mainly in French. One of his officials called my office this morning to tell me that the French translation had not been done. It seems that, under similar circumstances, and in view of the importance of such a meeting, the minister could have waited for the French translation and made his statement tomorrow instead of today. Then the country's two important groups would have been respected, the English speaking group and the French speaking group.
Mr. Speaker, all this brings me to consider a few remarks in the minister's statement, particularly on page 3 where he says:
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)

Much attention was devoted to the aid and trade needs of the developing countries, including the growing need for food aid, for technical and other assistance to increase domestic agricultural production in food-short developing nations and for greater self-help efforts by these countries themselves.

Canada's intentions, as well as the intentions of those countries which met in Paris are of prime importance. But after visiting countries like the U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, and this year, Iran, I think that the greatest problem of those countries, especially in the case of Iran, pertains to education. Even though we may send food, equipment, technical assistance, if we do not send them technicians to train them, we are losing our time. Besides, the history of those countries goes back 3,000, 4,000 and 5,000 years and thanks to our fast means of communication today, those countries are practically our neighbours.
This summer, for instance, I met in Iran a Mr. Lariviere, a Canadian technician in mechanics, who was sent there to teach mechanics to young Iranian students. After teaching for nine months Mr. Lariviere tells me that he has been unable to show them a single thing to enable them to develop and go ahead, according to their own abilities. They do not want to learn. This is quite a problem. And Mr. Lariviere tells me that Canada wants him to teach them in two
Report on O.E.C.D. Meeting years what it took him six years to learn in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that we should help countries which need food. In India, for example, where there are 250 million cows, half of the population of that country, it has been suggested that God should be worshipped instead of cows and that those cows should be used as food.
The Hindus still have not understood; they are fighting among themselves to save cows instead of saving the people.
Therefore, it became a matter of education and as long as we keep on discussing-in Paris or here in Ottawa, or anywhere in the world-ways of providing them with material assistance, machinery, technicians or even food, if we do not begin by making them realize their own responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, we are wasting our time.
And when the minister told them: [English]
On behalf of Canada, I suggested that more attention should be given to an attempt to measure more exactly the effectiveness and contribution to developmental progress of aid being provided.

The minister is right then in discussing the means which would enable them to progress independently.
In Iran, Mr. Speaker, where a large quantity of American machinery could be seen, which the United States had given to Iran, Persia, what offended me was to hear the people criticize the United States. In addition to the machinery, for which the United States asked nothing in return, that country even had to be provided with operators because its people cannot operate the machines themselves, they cannot because they do not have the necessary knowledge. And yet, the Americans were accused of being bad capitalists.
Therefore, the minister is right in saying that we must endeavour to inform those people, to educate them, to show them how to assume their responsibilities; and then, we will be most happy to help them to progress and achieve a standard of living comparable to the one we enjoy here in Canada.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my comments very short and to the point. I wish to touch on several matters which may not have been mentioned
November 28, 1966

Report on O.E.C.D. Meeting in the remarks of the other opposition speakers.
We are grateful for having received prior to the calling of the house, a copy of the remarks to be made by the minister. I found his remarks most interesting, as they relate to Britain entering the European Common Market and to the general area of trade between those countries now comprising the O.E.C.D. This has direct reference to the Atlantic community and correlates with some of the discussions which took place at the NATO parliamentarians conference which preceded this one. I believe that every opportunity for consultation and co-ordination that can be fostered between the various countries to develop freer trade is worth while.
I wonder whether the minister might not have made a few more remarks regarding the prospects of freeing general trade restrictions, which by the way should be in line with the policies discussed by his own party, but which I believe on a broader scale are the only answer to meeting the problems facing us today in the world, problems which are inherent to international relations.
His remarks concerning countries short of food are also most timely. I wonder whether the minister could have reported anything with regard to the current desperate food situation existing in India. Certainly talk alone is not sufficient to meet the problem of world food distribution.
I would also add that I believe it is vital to this very problem not just to give food aid, or provide educational programs to help people handle, process and increase their own food production. It is in the area of international settlements where today our whole food distribution program in Canada is lopsided. Many countries cannot trade with Canada because of their international settlements problem.
I should like to see Canada take a lead in this regard, because unless through an improved system of international settlements, we can free restrictions which presently hinder our trade patterns, we will never be able to solve the current problems connected with trading prospects not only between the countries of O.E.C.D. but with other countries with which we are now developing an increased trade pattern.
It is also a very good thing that the minister has had further contacts with our own trade commissioners in various countries, because it is through the work and the offices of these

gentlemen that the increasing trade patterns that are ours are coming into being. Every opportunity for co-operation and consultation in this regard is good. We appreciate the remarks of the minister.



DURUM WHEAT-QUOTA POLICY ON MARKETINGS

Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I should now like to make a brief statement to advise the house of the special quota policy which was announced today by the Canadian Wheat Board with respect to producer marketings of Durum wheat.
There has been a strong market demand for Duram wheat for the past several months. By the close of navigation the board will have shipped virtually all of the Durum wheat which they have been able to move into export positions, and they are anxious that terminal and seaboard stocks of this type of grain be built up during the winter months so that additional sales commitments may be entered into for the opening of navigation period in the spring.
Producer deliveries of Durum wheat have been relatively light in the crop year to date, and in order to encourage farmers to market additional supplies in the immediate future the board has declared an open delivery quota on this type of grain from this date until February 28, 1967.
It is hoped that this open delivery privilege will bring forth substantial supplies of Durum wheat from farms during the next twelve weeks which will permit the forward movement of these stocks from country elevators to lakehead terminals for immediate transfer to seaboard when navigation opens in the spring.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The board is of the opinion that this action is necessary at the present time, so that forward sales may be entered into in the near future to take advantage of the particular marketing opportunity which exists. If producer marketings are delayed under regular quotas some of the sales opportunities could be lost to our competitors. They are therefore asking that producers co-operate to the fullest extent to deliver available supplies of Durum wheat as quickly as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: That announcement was expected, because of the general situation affecting
November 28, 1966	COMMONS
Durum wheat. May I point out once again that what the minister has said covers merely a small segment of this problem. What the western farmers want to know is this: What is to be done about increasing the quotas with respect to No. 1 and No. 2 wheat, which were produced in such large quantities this year?
There are areas where wheat is all piled up, and where no movement is taking place at all. This is the situation in which the wheat board should be interested, now, in order that the western farmer shall not find himself with wheat piling up in his granary, while terminal elevators are virtually unused and quotas are set as such a low level that he is denied reasonable means of meeting the ordinary items of expenditure with which he is faced.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The announcement the minister has made is an understandable one. There is a demand for Durum wheat, and I can understand the wheat board offering every possible inducement to have that wheat delivered so as to take advantage of the export demand.
However, the problem which is facing the western farmer, and facing the government, is that we are now handling much larger quantities of wheat than ever in our history. The government always counters by saying that the quantity handled in the previous year was an all-time record, but the fact remains that we must enlarge our handling facilities in order to cope with much larger movements of grain than ever in the past.
I believe the time has come for the government to set up machinery to undertake a full study of two questions. First we should take stock of the shipping facilities available. Do the railways have enough box cars? I understand there are still large numbers of Canadian box cars in the United States. Are more box cars needed? Should there be a greater degree of co-ordination between the two railroads in the handling of grain? Second, we should consider whether or not the terminal handling facilities at the ports ought to be automated to a much greater extent. Many of the facilities we are using to export grain are out of date, compared with the modern grain handling equipment which is available in other parts of the world. If he has not done so already, I hope the minister will very soon set up the necessary machinery to enable a full study to be made of the shipping and handling of grain, because this country has to accept the fact that we must now adjust our shipping and handling facilities so as to
Statement on Marketing of Durum Wheat cope with the export of quantities of grain far in excess of anything we have been accustomed to handle in the past decade.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, just a word to tell the minister that we approve the steps he intends to take in order to promote the movement of wheat to wheat buyers who encourage us and, at the same time, bring some relief to western farmers who have wheat stocks which they do not know where to store. By taking the necessary steps so as to improve transportation, the hon. minister is certainly helping the western farmers' demand who encourage us by the importers' demand who encourage us by purchasing our wheat.
On behalf of my group, I fully agree with the steps taken by the minister in this regard.


Robert Norman Thompson: We in this quarter of the house agree with the statement made by the minister as it relates to the limited area of Durum wheat. It is good to know that this portion of the wheat crop is in such strong demand.
At the same time I can only support the contention of previous speakers that the real trouble today is a much larger one. We trust that the government intends to do more than it has done so far to expand the facilities for the sale of wheat of other grades; otherwise we shall find ourselves in trouble.


Mr. Speaker:: May I refer to the first statement made by the minister? I believe he mentioned a document and asked leave to table that document. Has the minister leave to table the document in question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should also bring to the attention of hon. members that, according to my understanding of the spirit of standing order 15 (2) (a), ministerial statements should be brief and factual and that comments on such statements should be limited to the facts outlined in the ministerial statement.
I have the impression that we have sinned against that rule on both sides of the house in connection with the first statement the minister made.

November 28. 1966
Bail Reform Act BAIL REFORM ACT



BROADENING OF PROVISIONS CONTROLLING SETTING OF BAIL

Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-249 concerning reform of the bail system.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Barry Mather: The purpose of this bill is to reform the bail system in Canada. It would do so by amending the Criminal Code so that no person, regardless of his financial status, would be needlessly retained pending appearance to answer charges under acts of the parliament of Canada.
It is similar to the law enacted in the United States last summer which was described by President Johnson as permitting poor people awaiting trial to be released without bond at the discretion of the judge or magistrate. The provision would apply only in cases where the offence is not punishable by death or life imprisonment and where the judge deems the defendants to be trustworthy.
In addition the bill would ensure that convicted persons will received credit for time spent in custody prior to trial when computation is made of the length of any sentence imposed by the court.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Reid: What is the estimate of the Indian affairs branch of the income of Indians for the past 5 years in (a) the Kenora Indian agency (b) the Sioux Lookout Indian agency (c) the Fort Frances Indian agency (d) for Northwestern Ontario, from (1) fishing (2) trapping (3) wild rice harvest (4) employment in (i) mining (ii) pulp and paper (iii) the tourist industry (5) welfare payments?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 


ESTIMATED INCOME FOR INDIANS FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS
[Stage Direction]
Agency	Year	Fishing	Trapping	Wild rice harvest	Mining	Pulp and paper	Tourist industry	Welfare	Total$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$Kenora-Agency	
1961-62	92,683	79,000	50,000	10,000	212,650	90,000	38,674.51	573,007.511962-63	110,000	73,500	35,000	10,000	218,600	80,000	32,561.57	559,601.571963-64	159,992	70,000	15,000	10,000	222,850	80,000	34,698.30	592,540.301964-65	132,325	68,500	15,000	10,000	225,900	100,000	36,230.06	587,955.061965-66	105,000	59,000	10,000	10,000	220,000	100,000	110,933.40	614,933.40Sioux Lookout-Agency	
1961-62	98,000	280,000	-	190,000	25,000	34,000	110,000	737,0001962-63	95,000	286,000	-	200,000	37,000	36,000	164,000	818,0001963-64	100,000	283,000	-	212,500	38,000	38,000	198,000	869,5001964-65	120,000	295,000	-	237,500	32,000	50,000	218,000	952,5001965-66	200,000	285,000	-	250,000	45,000	55,000	450,000	1,285,000Fort Frances-Agency	
1961-62	102,280	28,050	8,520	18,000	181,800	59,400	3,153.85	401,203.851962-63	101,640	31,350	9,510	18,840	118,800	49,000	8,975.48	338,115.481963-64	105,320	28,800	9,060	18,000	194,700	70,000	10,884.69	436.764.691964-65	105,800	28,500	8,700	19,560	175,500	60,000	24,720.09	423,380.091965-66	108,960	33,300	4,070	21,600	174,000	61,000	27,657.69	430,587.69Northwestern Ontario	
1961-62	292,963	387,050	58,520	218,000	419,450	183,400	151,828.36	1,711,211.361962-63	306,640	390,850	44,510	228,840	374,400	165,000	205,537.05	1,715,777.051963-64	365,312	381,800	24,060	240,500	455,500	188,000	243,582.99	1,898,804.991964-65	358,125	392,000	23,700	267,060	433,400	210,600	278,950.15	1,963,835.151965-66	413,960	377,300	14,070	281,600	439,000	216,000	588,591.09	2,330,521.09November 28, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	10439
Questions
[Stage Direction]
November 28, 1966
Questions

Mr. Hales: 1.	How many cars have each of the Canadian car manufacturers and assemblers imported into Canada from Sweden, Germany, France, Japan, Italy, Switzerland, since the Canada-U.S. car treaty was put into effect?
2.	What was the total value of imports from each of these countries by each of the above?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: 1 and 2. It has been the long standing practice of my department to not disclose the private affairs of individual importers or taxpayers.


NORTH SYDNEY, N.S.-FREIGHT OPERATIONS OF C.N.R.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Is it the intention of the Canadian National Railways to change the present handling of the local traffic of the express freight operations at North Sydney, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what change will take place and how soon?
3.	Will such a change mean the removal of all local express freight traffic operations from North Sydney to Sydney?


Mr. James A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1, 2 and 3. A service study is presently being undertaken in this area and no decision will be reached as to the eventual handling of local express freight traffic until the study is completed some time early in the new year.


INTEREST PAYMENTS ON DEBT
Mr. Mather: What was the daily cost of federal debt interest payments for 1965?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: The average daily cost during the calendar year 1965, for interest on unmatured debt and other liabilities, was $2,881,121.30.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON PILOTAGE
Mr. McCleave: 1.	When was the Royal Commission on Pilotage appointed?
2.	Who are the members of the commission and upon what bases are they paid as commissioners?
3.	Between what dates did the Royal Commission hold public hearings?
4.	When is it anticipated that their report will reach the government?


Mr. John R. Maiheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Royal Commission on Pilotage as follows: 1. November 1, 1962 by Order in Council P.C. 1962-1575.
2.	Hon. Yves Bernier, a Judge of the Superior Court of Quebec, P.Q., Chairman; Mr. Robert Knowlton Smith, Q.C., Waterloo, Ontario, Member; Mr. Harold Alexander Renwick, Vancouver, B.C., Member.
The Chairman receives a per diem living allowance of $50 while absent from his nor-may place of residence in connection with his duties with the Commission. Commissioners Smith and Renwick are paid $100 per day each for each day during which they are engaged in performing duties as Commissioners and also receive a per diem living allowance of $20 each while absent from their normal places of residence in connection with their duties as Commissioners.
3.	The Commission began to hear evidence on February 11, 1963 and continued its public sessions fairly regularly until January 15, 1965, sitting in all pilotage areas of Canada for a total of 175 days.
4.	The Commission's report will consist of five or six volumes. The Commission is hopeful of submitting to the government the first volume of its report in April or May of 1967, the remaining volumes being submitted progressively thereafter, but all, if possible, before the end of 1967.


APPLICATION OF MEASURE RESPECTING RETIREMENT OF SENATORS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): What are the names of the members of the Senate of Canada who elected, pursuant to Section 14 of Chapter 4 of 14 Elizabeth II, not to have Part III of the said Act apply to them?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Hon. J. J. Connolly, Minister without Portfolio as follows: Senator O. H. Phillips is the only member of the Senate of Canada who has elected, pursuant to Section 14 of Chapter 4 of 14 Elizabeth II, not to have Part III of the said act apply to them.


EXPO '67-PROVISIONS TO FACILITATE VISITING PAVILIONS
Mr. McNulty: What provisions are being made by Expo '67 to minimize delays for people waiting to enter pavilions?
November 28, 1966


Robert Henry Winters: Expo will have a computer-oriented pre-ticketing system for queue control. Visitors will be able to reserve places for shows, for any Expo, national or industrial pavilion at 12 locations throughout the site, and will know beforehand the exact waiting time for each representation.
This system will smooth out the demand, thus permitting a visitor to make better use of his time and to enjoy more of the exhibition. It will also permit more people to see the various presentations.
In addition, large electronic information display boards placed strategically throughout the site will direct visitors to areas less crowded.
Where unavoidable line ups do occur, Expo has planned mobile entertainment units which will amuse the crowds free of charge while they are waiting.


VISITORS TO EXPO '67
Mr. Badanai: What is the estimated number of visitors to Expo '67 in 1967, and how was the estimate arrived at?


Robert Henry Winters: Original surveys indicated that there would be between 26 to 45 million visits to the exhibition. Design was, therefore, based on a low figure of 30 million visits. Recent studies and success with the sale of advance tickets, of which over 60 per cent are season passports, indicate that more people than originally expected will come to Expo. Expo, therefore, raised its estimate to 35 million visits.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the serious situation prevailing in the community of Bell Island, in Newfoundland. It has a population of 8,000. The iron ore mine there was closed down and they are rapidly approaching a position where unemployment insurance will run out. On more than one occasion the people have been promised that the federal government would compensate them for their property, in the event that they had to move.
23033-661J
Inquiries of the Ministry
I ask the Prime Minister if he will look into the very serious situation that prevails there, of such gravity as to be of national importance, and will the government make plans to protect these Canadians from a worsening of the serious situation they suffer from today, and to which too little attention has been paid by the federal and provincial governments?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to look into this and report as quickly as possible.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Minister of Labour said he was going to visit Vancouver and would report on the partial tie-up in the west coast ports arising out of the refusal of the B.C. maritime employers to bargain collectively with the foremen of the longshoremen's work crews. Has the minister had an opportunity to meet both sides and can he tell us whether or not there is some hope that a solution can be found?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I had a series of meetings on Saturday, some six or more of them-


Mr. Fulton:: When?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In the morning, in the afternoon, and also in the evening. There was a slight diversion in the afternoon by mutual agreement. The longshoremen and the employers had certain interests and engagements in the early afternoon that the minister was glad to share.
But, more seriously, Mr. Speaker, at these meetings I discussed the problem which has been raised in this house on two or three occasions. I put forward as effectively as I could the views of the maritime employers association to the foremen's union. It is a union that, as has been mentioned before, has not been certified but nevertheless seems to be a local. And on the other hand I put forward their views to the employers association.
I think it is fair to say that as a result of the developments that took place in connection with the slowdown during the last three or four days of last week, the situation is possibly even more difficult and more rigid than it was before those developments took place. My report at this time to the house is not an
November 28, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry optimistic one, but both sides have been assured that my officials there are available to assist them, it they need such assistance at any time. In addition, I offered to stay over for yesterday and today if they felt that I could be of assistance. I said I had to be back here in Ottawa on Wednesday, and it was agreed that there was no point in my staying longer at this particular time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that my information is that there is quite a backlog of material building up at the ports, and also that the men who are working are doing so without adequate supervision and under fairly hazardous conditions, has the minister any plans to find some solution to the situation as quickly as possible before some ports come to a complete stop?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that this second question has been asked by the hon member. Though there are rumours to the effect that there is not adequate supervision, my information is that in some cases at least there is much greater supervision than there has been in the past; that instead of having one foreman with two or three gangs under him, in some instances a foreman now has only one gang under him. I may add that I personally interviewed at least 40 longshoremen foremen during the evening, and the situation is hardly as it has been presented by the hon. member.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
According to press reports the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mar-chand) is now in Paris to discuss immigration. Is the prime purpose of the minister's visit to foster French immigration to Canada?
Has the minister gone to France precisely to make recommendations on behalf of the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose, of course, is to encourage immigration and the minister will be reporting when he returns as to how successful he has been in achieving that purpose.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Would he comment to the house on the report that the Red Chinese foreign office has said they attach no importance at all to his statement the other day regarding the admission of Red China to the United Nations or the establishment of diplomatic relations between Canada and Red China, and can he say whether he has been in communication with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) or the Secretary General of the United Nations in regard to this problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I was in communication with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) this morning. He will be in New York today and tomorrow. I hope he will be back in his seat in this house on Wednesday, and perhaps he will be able to report then.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say which nation acts as Canada's intermediary in Peking, and has there been any communication from the representative of Canada in China regarding this offer that was made in the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there has been no direct communication with Peking.


John George Diefenbaker: But which nation represents us?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Our diplomatic relations in a country like Communist China, where we are not represented ourselves, are in the hands of the United Kingdom embassy.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of a statement issued by "a spokesman for Labour Minister John R. Nicholson" which said that the city of Oshawa was being "a little unreasonable" in expecting a quick reply to its supplemental brief dealing with the economic impact of the auto pact on
November 28, 19G6	COMMONS DEBATES	10443
the city, I wish to ask the minister whether he authorized this statement to be made, whether he agrees with it, and also when the city of Oshawa can expect an answer to or an acknowledgement of its brief?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if memory serves me right, they have had an acknowledgement of their brief, but they have not had an answer to all the points in the brief. With regard to the first part of the question, I may say the minister did not authorize such a statement. This is the first knowledge he has had of it.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if he has an answer to my question of last Friday concerning Sunnybrook Hospital? Are veterans admitted promptly, or is there a rather substantial delay in their being admitted to that place?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, veterans entitled to treatment as of right, that is, for their pension disabilities, are admitted promptly as they have always been. With respect to non-pen-sioned disabilities there has been for some time past, and at present there still is, some delay in admitting non-emergency chronic treatment or domiciliary cases, as the accommodation for this type of patient is nearly always 100 per cent occupied. There is no change in that situation since October 1.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr
Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he now has a report ready with reference to the recent tragedy at Gleichen, Alberta, in which several children lost their lives and which matter was raised by the hon. member for Calgary North and myself?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that a coroner's inquest is being held on December 14 in respect of the death of the five Indian children. I should not like to make any comment until that time.
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE


COLLECTIVE BARGAINING-POSSIBLE EXCLUSION OF PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board. Has the minister received communications from the director of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada protesting against certain activities of senior officers in various departments and agencies seeking to belittle the value of collective bargaining in the public service and appearing to suggest that most of the professional personnel will be excluded from the proposed bargaining units? Would the minister inform the house what reply he has made to these protests, and what action if any he has taken to end such activities, which are somewhat typical of unfriendly management activities?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have received such a letter and have replied to it. I should not like to comment on the exact contents of either letter until I have them in front of me. I should like to say, however, that my inquiries have indicated there was no such intimidation going on to the knowledge of the Treasury Board.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I preface my remarks by suggesting to the minister that the executive director of the Professional Institute-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member can, according to the rules, preface his question in any way.


David Lewis: Then, Mr. Speaker, let me put it this way: In view of the fact that the executive director of the Professional Institute is a very responsible person, would the minister undertake to make some further inquiries into these charges, which have not been made lightly?


Edgar John Benson: As I indicated, I already have made inquiries in this regard. I am quite willing to make further inquiries, and can assure my hon. friend that it is not the policy of the government or of the Treasury Board to discourage anyone from joining any public service association; indeed we would encourage them to do so.
November 28, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry OLD AGE SECURITY


ALLEGED APPLICATION BY PROVINCES OF SEVERE MEANS TEST
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that as a result of his direction severe needs tests or means tests are being conducted by the provinces, and many individuals are now destitute before any financial assistance can be granted-


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question is of a very general nature and is not the type of question which should be asked at this time.


Stanley James Korchinski: I do not see the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his place. Perhaps he is not able to survive the means test. In any event, I should like to know whether the minister has been made aware of the fact that the provinces are making their tests so severe many people are driven to perpetual destitution before any assistance can be granted. I should like to know whether the minister has been made aware of this fact?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation, and I assume the minister will take note of it.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Following representations to his department, will the minister not agree that the high valuation now being imposed on farm land, compared to farm prices a few years ago, for estate tax purposes is a disguised form of a capital gains tax?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the question is argumentative and should not be asked in this form.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the minister is aware that the Saskatchewan provincial Liberal association recently passed a motion calling for more satisfactory and equitable estate tax settlements?
[Mr. Benson.1


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the second question is any more in order than the first one.


James Ernest Pascoe: I will raise the matter at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


EFFECT OF U.S. TAX ON INVENTORIES OF CANADIAN PRODUCTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. May I preface my question by saying I am not an expert on taxation. Has the minister been informed of a decision by the United States Supreme Court upholding the right of the city of Los Angeles to impose taxes on the value of inventories of imported raw materials, and that the right to impose these taxes by local United States authorities could affect commodities such as Canadian nickel, lead, zinc, lumber or any other raw material? Could the minister inform the house what action he proposes to take in order to deal with this unprecedented situation?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe this question should be placed on the order paper.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he is now in a position to table the annual report of the advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport for the fiscal year 1965-66?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker. The annual report will be available as soon as the translation is completed.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I ask the question at this time because of the necessity of making whatever arrangements may be necessary in the event that I receive an affirmative answer. In view of the intended visit of Her Majesty and
November 23, 1966
the fact that next year is our one hundredth birthday, I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman's government would look into the possibility of reviving the granting of amnesty to prisoners in federal institutions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the question is so urgent that it might not be placed on the order paper.



POSSIBLE PROSECUTIONS FOLLOWING POISONING OF WILD LIFE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I had intended directing to the Minister of Justice or to the Minister of Fisheries. In their absence from the house, however, possibly you will allow their parliamentary secretaries to take notice of this point. My question is based on complaints which I hear from Quebec to the effect that game wardens are leaving strychnine poisoning on the ice in order to kill wolves. This action is said to be contrary to the Criminal Code. It is also said that birds, other animals and fish will die as well. Is this practice against the law and, if so, would the two ministers who are concerned look into the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for an interpretation of the law and, as I understand it, that is against the rules.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Since November 30 is now just two days away and the negotiations conducted by Mr. Goldenberg have been continued until now, and in view also of the fact that the C.B.R.T., one of the largest bodies in the dispute, has stated it is pulling out from the negotiations, can the minister advise the house what progress is being made in these negotiations and whether Mr. Goldenberg has made a report?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have heard very recently from the negotiator. It is true that he learned from the newspaper that allegedly one of the four union groups involved withdrew on Friday last. The other large groups, however, still are negotiating and the mediator assures me those negotiations will continue through until Wednesday.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE
INTEREST RATE ON LOAN TO MEXICO On the orders of the day:


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Villeneuve asked whether a reported loan to Mexico would bear interest. The answer is yes. The rate of interest is 6 per cent payable semi-annually.



RELINQUISHING OF STORAGE CHARGES ON DELIVERIES TO ELEVATORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister give consideration to asking the Canadian Wheat Board to relinquish storage charges to farmers on deliveries of grain to the elevators for the remaining weeks of this year so that all available storage could be utilized at this time?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I will refer that matter to the Canadian Wheat Board.



QUOTA ON DELIVERIES WITH HIGH MOISTURE CONTENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer several questions which have been asked by hon. members during my absence. One had to do with quotas for wet wheat. I am pleased to be able to inform the house that the Wheat Board is announcing today that, effective immediately, producers in western Canada who have wheat, oats, barley or rye with a moisture content of 15.7 per cent and over, are authorized to deliver such grain to the extent of four bushels per specified acre over and above existing quotas, provided that deliveries do not exceed eight bushels per specified acre in total. In other words, the holders of high moisture grain have been given advance delivery privileges to enable them to move out moisture grain for drying at terminal facilities.
MOOSE JAW, SASK.-USE OF TERMINAL SPACE On the orders of the day:


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre asked about utilization of the elevator at Moose Jaw. I have been advised by the Canadian Wheat Board that at the present time space at interior terminals

November 28, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry such as Moose Jaw is not being utilized to a great extent, as every effort is being made to move grain off the prairies.
Accordingly, all available railway equipment is being fully used to move grain in volume from the country elevators direct to the lakehead and seaboard positions in order to meet sales commitments. The direct movement of grain from country elevators to export positions is a more economic use of railways and boxcars, and there is also a saving to the producer of six cents a bushel which is incurred when interior terminals are used on a temporary basis.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I asked the Secretary of State whether she could inform the house whether any changes were being contemplated in connection with C.B.C. news broadcasts which would make possible the sponsoring of those broadcasts by commercial interests. She said she would be happy to find out and report to the house. I am wondering whether she can do so today.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that there is no intention on the part of the C.B.C. to change its policy in this regard. Apparently speculation has arisen regarding the advisability of allowing commercial enterprises to sponsor newscasts, because there has been some discussion about the advisability of selling time to commercial enterprises in times adjacent to newscasts.



PARTICIPATION BY UNITED KINGDOM IN O.E.C.-PROTECTION OF CANADIAN INTERESTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce mentioned, in a passing way during his statement at the opening of the house today, the desire of the United Kingdom government to seek admission to the European Common market. He said he had some discussions in this regard with the British representative. Did he place before

that British representative the need, in any negotiations which do take place with members of the European common market, for preserving and protecting Canadian agricultural interests? Unless specific terms are placed in the agreement accepting Britain as a member of the common market, serious results for Canadian agriculture may follow.


Robert Henry Winters: Indeed I did, Mr. Speaker. As my statement indicated, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did renew the assurance that was previously given, that commonwealth interests would be protected to the greatest extent possible. There will, of course, be close consultation as negotiations develop. More specifically, we hope that at the meeting of the joint ministerial committee which is now scheduled for January in London, this will be one of the items on the agenda.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister and ask him at the same time whether any indication was given that President de Gaulle had changed his attitude toward British admission?


Robert Henry Winters: That remains to be seen, Mr. Speaker.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfori-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. I do not like to see a question period go by without the minister being asked a question. Will he make strong representations to Dr. Barber, chairman of the commission investigating prices of farm machinery, to speed up his inquiry? This inquiry is moving at a very slow pace.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I suffer no righteous indignation when passed by during the question period. I shall be pleased to draw the hon. member's remarks to the attention of the commission. In all fairness, I think the important thing is that the commission be permitted to do its job in an objective fashion without political pressure. I agree that time is important, subject to that basic consideration.
November 28, 1966	COMMONS



ACTION TO DISCOURAGE PRICE INCREASE-TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question in this connection, Mr. Speaker. Surely, it is not political pressure to suggest to the commissioner that while he is conducting his inquiry the price of agricultural implements is going up, and that he should give attention to this fact. Has the minister made any further representation to the agricultural implement companies to the effect that their conduct in raising prices while the commission is sitting is not in keeping with their national responsibility?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have met with representatives of these companies and I am going to see representatives individually in an attempt to find out whether their position in this regard can be reviewed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question. About a week or two ago the minister said he would give consideration to tabling the letters he had received from the farm implement companies in reply to his appeal to them not to raise the prices of their products. Has the minister been able to come to a conclusion as to whether or not he can make that correspondence available to the house?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact I am going to see officials of these companies individually, I think it would be advisable not to make any decision about tabling those letters until after I have had the opportunity to meet them.


Stanley James Korchinski: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know whether, as a result of the fact the commission is inquiring into the price of farm machinery, we can expect no action from government benches until the commission reports?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, if action is possible and deemed appropriate by the government it will, of course, be announced in the house in the proper fashion.
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



CONDITIONS SURROUNDING ENTRY TO CANADA OF MEXICAN MENNONITES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I cannot report on that matter, Mr. Speaker. I will look into it. I know there has been some difficulty in this regard. I know also that India has been concentrating on the importation of fertilizers as a way of meeting the long range problem. But I will look into that question.\nNovember 28, 1966']
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I should like on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, as his acting minister to answer certain questions asked on November 7 and subsequently by the hon. member for Lisgar and other members regarding the admission to Canada of Mennonites from Mexico.
Although the departmental investigations are not yet complete, they have gone far enough to determine that the majority of these persons who came to Canada by truck are either Canadian citizens or persons with a claim to such Canadian citizenship. As is well known, Canadian citizens may return to Canada as a matter of right without any immigration, civil or medical examination of any kind. The immigration officials at the border could not have turned such groups back, whatever means of travel they may have seen fit to use.
Admittedly, some members of these groups had no proof of Canadian citizenship and therefore might have been considered as being subject to the usual immigration procedures. The investigations have disclosed that, without exception, these Mennonite people were Canadians or were accompanying members of their families who were either Canadians or who made claim to Canadian citizenship. The non-Canadians were allowed temporary entry as non-immigrants to allow them time to clarify their status.
I might say that the Mennonite groups which arrived by trucks were described by examining immigration officers as looking tired and travel worn, but there was no indication that they appeared to be suffering from any disease. Before any of them will be landed as Canadians, of course, they will be required to meet the usual immigrant medical requirements.
I might say that one of these Mennonite families was found to be suffering from dysentery. This is not uncommon in the case of people coming from Central or South America. Treatment was prescribed promptly in this case.
The minister expects further reports, but it is unlikely that these will change in substance the answer that I have just given.
10448	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his courtesy in giving me a copy of the departmental report prior to reading it into the record.
I realize of course that the means of transportation used by the people in question does not fall within the purview of responsibility of his department. Nevertheless, the fact that some were brought all the way from Mexico in a relatively small over-crowded truck-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe the hon. member can make a statement at this time in answer to the reply given by the minister. He may ask a supplementary question.


George Robson Muir: Then I will substitute a question, Mr. Speaker. I thought the minister was going to make the statement on motions. Would the minister not agree that, since many of these people were brought from Mexico in a relatively small, overcrowded truck in which, as he said, one family at least was reported to be suffering from dysentery, this merits a warning from the minister that the federal government will in no way condone this practice in the future?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of condoning practices. The immigration legislation in this country does not permit the department to govern the means by which Canadian citizens must return to this country. The majority of these people, as I stated, are Canadians. Others have been accompanied by relatives. We have no way of governing how they travel: they can come on foot, by bicycle, on horseback, or in any other way, if they are returning Canadians.


Reynold Rapp: They are good citizens, too.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister the number in the party?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am informed that there were a series of groups which arrived at dif-erent times. They were in groups, I believe, not one party.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for

DEBATES	November 28, 1966
External Affairs I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Is he in a position to give the house any further information with regard to the government's response to requests from India for aid in the form of grain, to help alleviate the famine conditions in that country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition asked me this question on Friday and I said I hoped to be able to reply today. Over the week end a cabinet committee gave further consideration to the form the assistance should take. That report was made to me only at lunchtime. It will be discussed at cabinet tomorrow morning, and on Tuesday afternoon I will be able, I believe, to make a statement on the details of the program. I am sorry I am not able to do it today.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the other day the minister made the statement that some 30 million bushels, I think it was, of wheat had been delivered to India. Can the Prime Minister say whether that delivery was made mainly under the Colombo plan, or was it in any way part of a relief plan, particularly a famine relief plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Some of it was delivered under the Colombo plan. A great deal of it was delivered to meet the famine situation last spring. What we are considering now are very substantial additional amounts to deal with the particular famine situation. We hope that the aggregate which will be shipped to India will be capable of being maintained by us next year when there may be difficulties too.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell us if there is also anticipated in this report an increased availability of technological assistance to India, which seems to be one of the major problems in this, as in other instances.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot report on that matter, Mr. Speaker. I will look into it. I know there has been some difficulty in this regard. I know also that India has been concentrating on the importation of fertilizers as a way of meeting the long range problem. But I will look into that question.
November 28, 1966



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Could the minister tell the house whether she has received any protests from the former premier of Quebec, Hon. Jean Lesage, with respect to the way in which the C.B.C. behaved on the occasion of the Quebec Liberal Federation convention?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question which I had anticipated asking the Solicitor General. I know it is a sensitive matter. In view of the fact that in western Canada one police officer was killed and another seriously injured in the course of their duties, will the Prime Minister assure us that the judgments of the courts in these matters will be carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Criminal Code concerning police officers?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio, so that he may share in these spine-tingling questions this afternoon. Now that Atlantic ports day is only a week away, could either the Minister without Portfolio or the Minister of Transport obtain public assurances from the railways that the long-time policy regarding lower rates through Canadian ports, as opposed to foreign ports, will be continued under the new railway legislation?


Hon. John N. Turner (Member of the Administration):: I will attend to that question, Mr. Speaker.
Bank Act



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which he may wish to take as notice.
I should like to ask whether he has received a communication from the Pictou County Consumers Association regarding the high cost of living in Canada. If so, what action does the government intend to take in this very important matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Prime Minister has noted these representations.



BANK ACT AND QUEBEC SAVINGS BANKS ACT


Mitchell William Sharp: the second reading of Bill No. S-53, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, the purpose of this bill is to extend the charters of the banks beyond November 30, 1966, which is the present expiry date. The house committee on finance, trade and economic affairs has recommended that the charters be extended until April 1 so as to permit the committee, the house and the Senate to complete action on the proposed amendments to the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act. Before the committee's recommendation was received, the present bill had been introduced into the Senate and it was approved in the form as introduced.
The effect to the bill is similar to the recommendation of the committee, but the form follows the earlier pattern of bills to extend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act. Provided parliament does not sit for more than 20 days during the month of December-and I am assured by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that it is not the intention of the government to ask the house to sit for more than 20 days in December-parliament will have another 60 sitting days in 1967 to dispose of the banking legislation, which should take us to about April 1.
I agree in advance with hon. members that the bill now before us could have been in a much simpler form and accomplished the purpose in mind. I take full responsibility for having put precedent before common sense. I

November 28, 1966
Bank Act
hope hon. members will look at the matter in this light. Because of the urgency of proceeding with the measure today, I ask the house to accept the bill in its present form and pass it through all three stages today, if that is possible.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to dealing with the bill in all stages today, but there are one or two comments I should like to make. First of all, let us go back to 1964. The Bank Act was to expire on June 30 that year. On May 21, we extended it for one year to June 30, 1965. On June 14, 1965, we extended if for six months to December 31, 1965, and on March 15 this year we extended it 11 months to November 30, 1966.
Now we are asked to extend the act further, which will take in 60 sitting days of the session after we reconvene following a Christmas recess. In this regard, we are really buying a pig in a poke. It seems to me that the recess should be stated, so we will know exactly where we are going. At the moment we do not know what day we will be coming back. I accept the probability we will not have more than 20 sitting days in December, but we do not know when we will be coming back after the Christmas recess. Assuming 20 sitting days a month, and that we come back, for argument's sake, on January 15, this would take us to roughly April 15; but all this is guesswork.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I feel that either we should be given a definite date or the dates of the recess should be set out for us. I think that over the past two and a half years we have unnecessarily brought in other bills to extend the terms the Bank Act. I think the government would be better advised to set a date, such as June 30, or any other date. The date could be left to the government's discretion. Then, if the committee were to finish its study earlier and make a report to the house, the date of the passage of the bill would take precedence over the date of June 30. This is a hit or miss proposition.
It occurs to me also that the method of extending the act for an indefinite period of time puts the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs under pressure. We have asked when the legislation on deposit insurance is to be brought forward. The minister answered vaguely that it will be soon, but the committee has every right to examine the deposit insurance legislation in conjunction with the Bank Act. We feel the committee will possibly be pressured. As I said, we do not 
know for how long this legislation is to be extended.
I think that a firm date should be given to us. We will not object to the bill; we will let it go through. The minister mentioned prcedent instead of common sense. I wondered what he meant by that because it seemed rather peculiar that the matter was brought to us through the Senate. I do not think precedent was followed here because this type of bill has always been brought to the House of Commons first; and then sent to the Senate for approval. I do not suggest this is a back door method but it has that appearance. I think the bill could have been brought in at any time during the last two or three weeks. The minister knows there has never before been any delay on this sort of extension. I have the impression that we are operating in a vacuum, and I do not like the possible pressure which will be put on the committee.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong the debate on this except to say that members of this party are quite agreeable to putting the bill through the three stages.
I should also like to reinforce what the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) said with regard to the legislation on deposit insurance. I think we should have it before we conclude the committee hearings on the Bank Act because it has considerable bearing on one major problem of which the minister is well aware and which will have to be dealt with in some way or another. We should know what the deposit insurance legislation will be and be able to determine the reaction to it of the lending institution. Apart from that I do not think there is anything else to be said.
I agree with the minister that it seems practically certain that by April 1 we shall have concluded the hearings and the passage of the bill.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, all I wish to say is that we are quite agreeable to letting the bill go through its final stage so that it can become law as soon as possible. We are glad there will be more time given us to discuss the Bank Act and its relationship to what we call near banks, because I think this subject is extremely important. This review takes place only every 10 or 12 years and already 12 years have gone by since the last examination of the whole banking system. It is time for another thorough study of this matter. We also hope that some of the witnesses will express themselves with greater
November 28, 1966

clarity and in simple language so that laymen can understand just what is going on.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? Does the minister wish to take the floor? May I remind him that if he speaks now he will close the debate.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in closing this very brief debate I would like to thank the members of the other parties for their support of this bill. I can assure those who have raised the question, that we are proceeding to get the legislation on deposit insurance into final form in the light of our discussions with the provinces. I hope that the resolution will be on the order paper very soon, and I understand the reasons for urgency in this matter. I have been kept informed of the proceedings in the committee and I understand there are other questions of very considerable importance to be studied. I would like to assure those members of the committee who are in the house that I have devoted some time to the consideration of these issues and perhaps when I appear before the committee I will be in a position to throw some further light on the government's policy in this respect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 1-Duration of authority to carry on business.
Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, may I just make a brief comment at this time. As chairman of the standing committee of the house on finance, trade and economic affairs I want to join with the others in urging the adoption of the bill. In doing so I wish to assure the house and the public that the committee will continue to proceed as expeditiously as possible with its consideration of the legislation before it in accordance with its obligations to the house and to the public to give this very important piece of legislation a thorough consideration.
In saying this, as chairman of the committee, I would like to express a word of commendation to my colleagues of all parties in the committee who up to now, in my opinion at least, have been most constructive and cooperative in the work of the committee.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, may I reply to the hon. member for Essex West? I appreciate his remarks about the operations of the committee. Unfortunately, I have been prevented from attending a number of the
Bank Act
meetings but I expect to be there from now on. He said that the committee intends to deal expeditiously with the banking legislation. I do not think there has been any hindrance whatsoever to the expeditious handling of the bill before the committee but I am somewhat concerned about the date on which the house will be reconvened. I wonder just when we are going to have the 60 days in which to complete consideration of the bill. It seems to me that the date is too uncertain.


Mitchell William Sharp: I consulted the leader of the house on this matter and he said that a definite date has not yet been fixed but he expects it to be before January 15. Perhaps, this is as much as I can say at the present time.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Perhaps I can ask the chairman of the committee a question. Does he anticipate that the committee will sit when the house is not sitting?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In this regard I am the servant of the committee and of the house; that is the most I can say at this time.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I am certainly not intending at the moment to make such a proposal to my colleagues on the committee. This is a decision which the committee itself will have to make. I might say that in my opinion, if I may repeat what I have said, members of the committee from all parties have been giving very constructive and prompt consideration to the measures before them. I express my own opinion when I say that with the approval of this bill, the type of suggestion inherent in the hon. member's question should not be required. But again, I am in the hands of the committee and the house in this regard.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, I want to carry forward the remarks of the hon. member for Perth regarding deposit insurance. With the greatest respect to the minister, I find it gravely anomalous that a matter which really goes to the core of the whole of the government's banking proposals should have been delayed this long. Quite frankly, I think we are gratuitously insulting the members of the Canadian Bankers Association, who after all are not children to be summoned from their business to make a second appearance before the committee; and there will be other people involved.
I really cannot see why this measure was not brought in earlier as a companion piece of legislation and made part and parcel of the revisions to the Bank Act. The minister has

November 28, 1966
Bank Act
said that some of the provinces have taken a little longer than others to reply. I find it strange in some ways that, whereas the constitution says that banking shall be the exclusive jurisdiction of the government of Canada, through some open back door the whole of the banking system of Canada is now subject to some sort of veto by the provincial governments. This is an aspect which worries me a great deal.
I really cannot accept as an excuse the statement that this legislation is not now ready, because it is so integral a part of the subject of banking. To ask these people to come back and forth to comment on this matter is, I think, quite wrong.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, may I reply briefly to what the hon. member has said. It is not the intention of the government to proceed with the deposit insurance legislation through to completion at this session. We believe this subject deserves very careful consideration before the government makes up its mind on the final terms. Therefore, our plan is to read the bill for the first time and not to proceed further this session. This will enable the committee at least to know what is the intention of the government at the present time.
There is a related question raised, I gather, by the hon. member for Edmonton West and also by the hon. member for Kamloops with regard to jurisdiction over banking. I understand that this question has been debated at some length. As I have said on previous occasions, Mr. Chairman, the government is still studying this problem. It has introduced the idea of deposit insurance not as a substitute for any future enunciation of federal jurisdiction over banking but as a practical measure to improve the safety of deposits that people are now making in institutions whether or not they are engaged in banking. So, while I think deposit insurance will help to meet an immediate problem on a practical basis, the question of jurisdiction over banking is one which still remains to be settled.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a very brief question in this connection. Have his legal advisers not given the most serious consideration to the decisions of the privy council in connection with social credit legislation when Lord Si-monds, delivering the judgment of the privy council, laid it down in the most absolute terms that banking could only be construed in its very widest sense? He applied what is known as the growing tree philosophy, that

banking goes forward and its interpretation or meaning widens with conditions that exist today compared with conditions in 1867. In the result, the effect of the decisions of the privy council of that time leave absolutely no doubt at all that the federal government has sole jurisdiction, if it chooses to exercise it, over "banking" in its very widest sense.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, while I have no doubt whatever about the jurisdiction of the federal government over banking, I still have some doubt how one defines the business of banking, and that is the essence of the question. I think it is not just an accident that for 100 years no attempt has been made in this country to define the business of banking. Very difficult and practical problems are involved.
However, it is now my view that we should approach this question as a serious issue. I think there are now reasons that did not exist some years ago why the government should be looking at this problem much more seriously than it has in the past. I am sure that the hon. member for Kamloops, when he was minister of justice, had a look or was asked to look at the problem at the time. The fact that his government did not act is symptomatic of the very real nature of the difficulties that are involved. I do admit, of course, that the question was referred to a royal commission, and this royal commission has now made certain recommendations; I should like to assure the house that the government has not made up its mind in the negative on this question.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, if I may return to the relationship between the deposit insurance legislation and this wider problem, which includes the definition of banking, I should like once more to stress that until we know what is going to be the reaction of the near banks to the government's deposit insurance legislation we in the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs are not in a position to decide whether or not there should be an attempt to amend the Bank Act to deal with this situation.
I would urge the minister to let us have that legislation in time for the committee to get a reaction from the witnesses who will be appearing before it. I would certainly want to cross-examine any of the near-bank witnesses to ascertain what their reaction was to the government's deposit insurance legislation. I think we should have it in our hands as quickly as possible, because it may very well be that there will be a negative reaction. In
November 28, 1968

that event, the committee may leel that it will have to examine this question of the definiion of banking and try to get away from the circular definition that we have at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the house go into committee to consider 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.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My purpose in rising at this point is not to make a long statement but to indicate to the committee the intention of the government to move an amendment to clause 2 of the bill. I would ask my colleague the Minister of Forestry to move this amendment, the purpose of which is to make a change in the clause to reflect the starting date of the medical care insurance bill as of July 1, 1968.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question? Since the paragraph which would have to be amended in this connection is the last one in clause 2, may I ask whether the government has any amendment to move to any of the earlier subclauses?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The amendment which I propose involves the addition of a new paragraph (b) and the renumbering of the paragraphs from (b) to (k) as well as some changes in the last paragraph. I thought it would be better for the committee to have, at this point, the picture of the amendment and the renumbering as it affects the whole clause.
I will circulate this amendment to members of the committee and my colleague, the
Medicare
Minister of Forestry, will move it. May I read the amendment? It simply asks-
That clause 2 of Bill C-227 be amended (a) by reumbering paragraphs (b) to (k) thereof as paragraphs (c) to (1), respectively, and adding as paragraph (b) thereof the following:	(b) "contribution commencement day" means the 1st day of July, 1968, or such earlier day as the Governor in Council may fix by proclamation, being a day not less than six months after the day the proclamation is issued;


Mr. Fulion:: May I ask a question and make a suggestion? I am sure the committee appreciates the minister giving notice of the form of the amendment which is intended by the government, but I should like to ask the hon. gentleman's co-operation inasmuch as those of us who have been considering the bill have done so on the basis of the form in which it presently appears, and such amendments as have occurred to us have been framed in that light.
Would the minister agree to defer the moving of this amendment until the discussions on matters brought forward from this side of the house have been completed? If certain proposed amendments are accepted, they would be on the basis of the bill as presently drawn up, and the minister's amendment would then have to be somewhat modified in terms of any changes which might have been accepted by the committee following our proposals. We do not have the advantage enjoyed by the government when preparing amendments; there is no staff to assist us. It would therefore be appreciated as a co-operative gesture if the minister would defer the moving of his amendment until we have had the opportunity to put forward such amendments as we have in mind.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I at least complete the reading of the amendment before replying to the hon. member for Kamloops?
The second paragraph of this amendment reads:
(b) by substituting the expression "contribution commencement day" for the expression "1st day of July, 1967" where it appears in paragraph (1) thereof.
The effect of the proposed amendment is to renumber the paragraphs of clause 2 as a result of including a new paragraph, paragraph (b) defining the expression "contribution commencement day" and, secondly substituting the expression "contribution commencement day" for the expression "1st day of July, 1967" where it appears in definitions paragraph.

November 28, 1966
Medicare
I may tell the hon. member that I am quite agreeable to deferring the moving of this amendment until a later stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could we not, in line with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kamloops, take clause 2 as it is, and call the paragraphs? There are amendments to be moved to some of these paragraphs and we could deal with them. Then, when we have had a discussion on the paragraphs, except for the present (k), we could take up the minister's proposed amendment.
My suggestion is that we take clause 2 as printed and call paragraphs (a) to (j) and deal with each of them in the proper order, discussing any amendments which may be moved and voting on them as may be necessary. Then, when we come to the present paragraph (k) the minister might move the amendment he is now suggesting. It seems to me that this suggestion, initiated by the hon. member for Kamloops, would make for a more orderly discussion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would conclude from what the hon. member has said that the question of date of the plan would not be discussed until we reach paragraph (k).


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct, as far as we are concerned.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We would deal with other issues, and when we reach paragraph (k) it would be possible for the government to move the amendment which is now in the hands of the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was the purpose of my intervention. We are agreeable to the modification suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg North Centre.


The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed that we proceed to consider paragraph (a) and thereafter each paragraph as it arises?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to dwell on some shortcomings of this bill which, in the long run, may defeat its purpose which is supposed to be the provision of the best possible medical care for the Canadian people. First of all, I wish to deal with some remarks the Minister of National Health and Welfare

made on October 25, recorded at page 9104 of Hansard. On that occasion the minister said:
May I turn for a moment to the question of medical manpower and personnel? We admit naturally, the necessity for more doctors and additional personnel in all the health professions. Ideally, we will never likely have a sufficient supply of personnel and facilities.


The Chairman:: Order. The Chair is just wondering whether we are now having a general debate or whether we are proceeding to discuss paragraph (a).


Philip Bernard Rynard: I am developing my remarks to the point where I will have something to say about the clause.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, we have here a definition clause which, in my respectful admission, covers the whole ambit of the bill and it would be impossible to deal with the clause without making some general remarks. I think a similar situation arose on an earlier occasion this session and the chairman ruled that, by virtue of the wide ambit of the definition clause, he would allow a fairly general discussion. When the general discussion is concluded, we can then turn to discussion of the paragraphs of the clause seiratim.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The Chair understands now that there should be general discussion on clause 2, and after that we will proceed to discussion of paragraph (a). Is this the understanding of hon. members?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there is an unofficial rule that an opposition member never complains about extended opportunities for debate but in this instance, and I press it very earnestly, I think we have to consider this matter thoroughly.
When we adopted our provisional rules, under which the discussion of clause 1 was postponed to the end-


Gordon Minto Churchill: If it was just a title.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, if it was just a title, and that is what it is in this case, the purpose was that having had a general discussion on second reading we would not immediately have another general discussion on clause 1, but rather have it at the end of the debate in committee of the whole, if anyone wanted it at that time.
If we are going to get into this habit of having a general debate on clause 2 when it is a clause setting out definitions, we will be multiplying the opportunities for general debate. We will have a general debate on second reading, a general debate on clause 2, another
November 28, 1966

general debate on the main operative clause in the bill, and a final general debate on clause 1. I am not pressing the point of whether you are making a correct interpretation of what the hon. member for Simcoe East is about to say. Maybe he has an amendment to move to paragraph (a), but I do say we should think pretty seriously about our procedure in this respect, lest we defeat the purpose of the reform we made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, may I simply point out when you have a clause that deals with matters as wide and as varying as the definition of the word "contribution", which means "a contribution by Canada pursuant to section 3," and the definition of "insurable resident," as well as the definition of "population" and of "medical practitioner," then obviously it involves us in a discussion of the whole bill because it is not possible to consider and deal with any one of those definitions without reference to other clauses of the bill.
For instance paragraph (a) reads:
"contribution" means a contribution by Canada pursuant to section 3;
Obviously, we are going to have to be allowed to refer to clause 3 in order to get the exact meaning. Further, paragraph (e) reads:
"medical care insurance plan" means a plan established pursuant to an act of the legislature of a province that satisfies the criteria set forth in subsection (1) of section 4;
So, we we will have to refer to clause 4, and so it goes throughout all the paragraphs of clause 2.
I submit it would be narrowing discussion almost to the point of impossibility to say that there cannot be a general reference to the subject matter of the bill during the course of discussion of this clause.
I am reasonably sure, Mr. Chairman, that you will find the ambit of the debate to take place here will not be anything like as wide as that on second reading. I suggest we are going to get ourselves into an awful lot of trouble if we say that every word spoken should be strictly relevant to each of the paragraphs in the clause.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, may I support what the hon. membr for Kamloops has said and point out to you that you have available a weapon to meet the problem to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre refers. I refer to the rule, which the Chair can enforce, against repetition. Hon. members on this side of the chamber of course, always meticulously
Medicare
and strictly adhere to that rule against repetition, so naturally it will not be against us that this rule will need to be invoked. I am thinking of other hon. members who might be the main offenders.
With regard to general discussion on clause 1, I assume from what the minister has said that there may be certain amendments moved by the government side. It may well be that by the time we get to clause 1, as a result of amendments offered from this side of the house which the government might see fit to accept and the amendments which the government itself intends to offer, it will be a completely new bill. The general discussion under clause 1 will be the natural and proper place to undertake an examination of the bill as amended. But I do believe that under clause 2, a definition clause, while we cannot have the same type of general discussion that we can have under clause 1, nevertheless the committee is entitled to make a very thorough and detailed study of any aspect which comes within the ambit of definition.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, there are just two questions I should like to raise in connection with this point. If general debate is allowed on clause 2, is it going to transgress not only the spirit but also the letter of the rule that has been in operation for some time? Second, if a general debate is allowed on this particular paragraph of clause 2, are we going to be allowed another general debate when we return to caluse 1? I think we should have more information about these two questions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the comment made by the hon. member for Peace River, that if in order to have detailed and thorough discussion of these paragraphs reference may be made, if necessary, to other clauses. With that I agree, but I also agree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, that we cannot have a general debate on clause 2. We have stood clause 1. We are now on clause 2, and I think we will have to proceed on an experimental basis to see whether we are going to have the kind of debate to which the hon. member for Peace River referred, which we on this side accept, or a general debate, which we will not accept.


Maurice Rinfret: May I point out to members of the committee that the Chair interrupted when the hon. member for Simcoe East was speaking because the hon. member was referring to the topic of medical manpow-

November 28, 1966
Medicare
er, and the Chair was in doubt whether that had any relevance to the particular paragraph under discussion.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I submit it has an awful lot to do with the clause because if we do not have sufficient medical manpower we cannot carry out the provisions of the bill. Medical manpower is a primary necessity. This clause deals with the definition of a "medical practitioner". What is that but medical manpower?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I was referring to the statement made by the minister, as recorded at page 9104 of Hansard, when he said there was no hope of providing enough doctors and enough paramedical personnel. I disagree very definitely with this point of view because it is a hopeless attitude to take. The Canadian people are deserving of much better than this. In the United States today, there is one doctor for every 750 people. In New Zealand, there is one doctor for every 700 people. In Russia, there is one doctor for every 550 people. Yet, the Minister of National Health and Welfare says we never will catch up. Russia is aiming at having one doctor for every 500 people in order to give proper medical care to her people. Then, I take exception to the next statement the minister made. He said the same argument was used in the case of hospital insurance. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare would stop and think for a moment, I believe he would realize there is a vast difference between medical care and hospital admission. The two have very little in common. Only a very small percentage of the people who are seen by a doctor enter hospital and this is, of course, only in case of emergency. Others are booked for later dates. Surely, little Johnny with a burn or cut, or Mary with an earache, or the man suffering from bronchial asthma who is wheezing and tied up inside so that he can hardly speak, are the people who should be attended to in a short time and need attention now.
Certainly, the minister's contention that arguments on medical care are apropos to hospital insurance is completely wrong. In dealing with the report of the Hall commission, the minister says it is a very fine report. I agree that it is one of the finest reports which has ever been issued; but I point out, that the Hall commission inquiry was started in 1961. Does the minister realize that was five years ago? Does he realize that one of the outstanding doctors from the maritimes stated that a doctor who graduated in 1950 ten years
[The Deputy Chairman.]
later will find in 1960 that 50 per cent of what he was taught is obsolete? Does he not realize this? Does he not realize further that we are not doing what the Hall commission report stated we should do? What did this report state? Well, it stated several things, but I should like to mention one thing in particular. It said that this year we should have 500 freshmen students added to the usual number we have in the medical schools across Canada. What do we have? I wonder whether the minister even knows. I should like to tell him that we have around 250, or just half the number recommended by the Hall commission. Let me say that the people of Canada are not going to tolerate this type of treatment. A country like ours, which is one of the greatest resource countries per capita in the world, is entitled to the best.
Then, the minister goes on to state that the government is giving $500 million as a resource fund for the provinces to use to build the schools that are needed, to build the science centres that are needed, and to provide the teacher-scientists and so on which are needed. How can he expect the provinces to match the federal contributions dollar for dollar when the funds which would allow the provinces to do this are withheld. I am told that Premier Robarts, speaking in Toronto the other day, said that the federal government had filched $280 million from Ontario to which that province was entitled. He said that in two years they may have this changed. In the meantime, however, he said Ontario would have to take a long look at the matter of education, health and welfare and perhaps would have to bear some of the costs.
The government has been operating on the principle that more and more must be spent on education, yet they deprive the provinces of the money to provide it. This is the reason I say it is wrong to rush this bill through when this government is acting in this way. Can the government provide the medical schools? Can it provide the students? Can it provide the priority measures that are necessary if any government is to provide the needed doctors and nurses? Let me just dwell on this. I should like to mention hospital insurance. The minister said that it is a fine thing. I agree with him; it is a fine thing, nobody disagrees about that.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that we do not have enough hospital beds today. This government is paying $2,000 per bed, the same as it did in 1958. The price of a bed at that time was between $8,000 and $10,000. Today it is between $25,000 and $30,000. This government
November 28, 1966

is paying the same amount now for a hospital bed that it paid in 1958. Does this indicate the government is treating the provinces and the municipalities properly? Today the municipalities are carrying 60 per cent of the load in respect of building hospitals. They do not have the money to do this, because their debt is piling up faster than it is at any other level of government. Yet, government members sit here and smugly talk about medicare, but do not make provision for the things that are on the statute books. Why in the world has this government not pulled up its socks? Why has it not paid the amount that it should be paying? Today, the government is paying 14 per cent of the cost to provide the room for the bed which the patient occupies. This is the reason we are short of beds today. We do not have enough money to provide them.


Mr. Winkler:: It should be double.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The action of the government is similar to that of the person who cleans the outside of the tub and leaves the inside dirty. This is not the way to operate. I should like to dwell for a moment on the recommendations of the Hall commission report.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We have listened to the hon. gentleman for ten minutes-


Philip Bernard Rynard: I would think that you could stand another ten minutes. It might do you some good.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it would be fair to say that the comments of the hon. gentleman really are a resumption of the comments made at the resolution stage and second reading; they are not truly related to clause 2. In fact, none of the comments made thus far by the hon. gentleman have been related to any of the paragraphs in clause 2. This is not in accord with the understanding we reached. It is not in accord with the rules, and I would ask that the Chair bring us back to the clause which we are discussing.


Maurice Rinfret: May I direct the attention of hon. members to standing order 59 (2) which reads as follows:
(2) Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I will deal with the manpower problem, since the minister does not like to hear about the obligations of the federal government which have not been kept and the funds they do not provide for
Medicare
this resource fund. Apparently the minister does not like to hear about this. How in the name of common sense are we going to turn out doctors if we do not have the facilities? A delegation from the Canadian Medical Association came to Ottawa. Included in this association are the deans of the medical colleges, the professors, the doctors, and the interns from across Canada. This association is their representative body.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
This body advised the minister that these people who cannot afford to pay should be covered immediately. I suppose the minister will remind me of the Canada Assistance Plan, but let me inform him that I checked up on this and found that it was not even available in Ontario. This is just a little bit more of what somebody has referred to as window dressing.
Let me now refer to manpower. I am sure the minister and I do not disagree about the desirability of having the best medical care possible for everyone in Canada, regardless of the individual's ability to pay. That is a fundamental need, and one which I have advocated for years. I do not want the minister to take steps which will ruin this plan or cause great difficulty in the medical profession. Did the minister not listen to the representatives of the medical profession who came here and said that the people who could not afford to pay should be covered immediately.
Let me remind the minister of the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which appear at page 8620 of Hansard. That hon. member made a plea on behalf of those people the medical profession said should be covered immediately. The minister suggested they would not be covered for a year and a half because our economic situation is not as good as it might be. He says today that we cannot afford to cover those people immediately, but what will he say a year and a half from now? Will those people remain uncovered by insurance at that time? As a result of the deliberations of these medical people, they have come to certain conclusions. Does the minister suggest that they are all talking through their hats and are wrong? I am sure a great many people will question the wisdom of a government that refuses to listen to the suggestions of such a learned body. He might just as well suggest that lawyers should not draw up legal documents because they likely are wrong and that a layman could do better. That is apparently the position he is taking.

November 28, 1966
Medicare
I do not intend to deal with this subject very much longer, but I want to point out that the doctors in Canada are now being overworked and have to look after too many patients. I talked with an individual the other day who had waited for four hours before being seen by a doctor. He was then seen for about ten minutes and, as a result, the doctor suggested he needed an operation. He could not have one at that time because no hospital beds were available. That is the desperate situation with which we are faced today.
As a result of this serious situation, one of two things are happening in Canada. Either doctors are increasing their workloads and seeing more patients than they should, this results in a reduction or lessening of the quality of the medical care they are providing. Or doctors are refusing to see any more patients than they can properly handle. The quality of service provided by those doctors remains the same, but what is happening to those people who need care and attention? They cannot see a doctor, so they go to the emergency departments of hospitals. Those emergency departments today are overworked and the people must wait for hours to be seen. I am wondering if some of them are not losing their lives because of this lack of personnel.
Most hospitals in Canada are short of house doctors and interns and some of them are operating without any interns at all. Let us not defraud the people of Canada. We must provide funds and schools in order to increase the number of physicians in this country. How in the world can this government hope to obtain doctors from the United Kingdom under present circumstances and perhaps some Maritime provinces? The Canadian Medical Council is the enabling body so far as doctors are concerned, and if the minister will provide the funds that association will follow the example set by the United States Medical Association and set up a board in London to examine doctors who wish to come to Canada. About two months ago the United States association set up such a board and approximately 600 English doctors took the examination.


David Lewis: May I ask the hon. member a question? Surely, he is mistaken when he says that the Canadian Medical Council is the enabling body. Would it not be more accurate to say that the colleges of physicians and surgeons and similar bodies in each of the provinces are the licensing bodies?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to thank the hon. member for his question. I believe two provinces, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, in competition with the U.S.A. do accept doctors from England and give them licences to practice. What I am suggesting is that a doctor can obtain an enabling certificate to practice in any province providing he pays for the licence.
The United States association set up a board in London so that those doctors who wanted to leave England to come to the United States, and according to my figures there were about 600, could be examined by that board. How do those doctors take our examinations if they wish to come to Canada? They must come to Montreal or Toronto to do so. Surely, this is one area in which funds could be provided to set up a board to examine those doctors we need to look after the people when the medicare plan before us is passed by this house-we hope with some changes.
It is my belief that there have not been sufficient discussions with the provinces regarding this medicare plan. I do not believe this important bill in this field of medicare has been taken seriously enough or discussed in a satisfactory manner. Surely, some agreement could be reached between the provinces and the federal government on a common denominator.
I am not satisfied with the manner suggested for paying for this plan. It has been suggested that the federal government intends to pay $14 per capita, but percentagewise that amount has surely gone up. The cost of medical services in Ontario at this time is over $40 per capita. The fact is that if we pay $14 per capita in Ontario that will represent about one third of the cost in this province. This government is also not paying its share of the administrative costs. It is not right to suggest that the government will be paying about half of the cost, and no one is more aware of that than the minister.
Let me draw to the attention of this committee the views of the Conservative party, as represented here by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It is our belief that any plan for the coverage of medical costs on the basis of a prepaid insurance scheme should not be on a universal and compulsory basis, but should be based on the following principles: Medical services, at an adequate level, should be available to all Canadians on a prepaid basis. This being a field primarily within provincial jurisdiction, the federal government should not seek to superimpose any national, universal or compulsory scheme on the prov-
November 28, 1966

inces, but rather the role of the federal government should be to support medical insurance plans established by the provinces. The federal government should not attempt to dictate to the provinces the precise terms of their plans.
[DOT] (5.00 p.m.)
It should, therefore, be up to the provinces to determine the extent of the coverage, including especially the question of whether paramedical services, such as performed by optometrists, psychologists, chiropractors and other services be included. Any plan to which the federal government contributes should preserve the voluntary doctor-patient relationship.
Accordingly, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition intends to move, at the appropriate stages in the committee discussion, a series of amendments to the bill which would carry into effect the principles I have outlined. This will involve the following amendments: An amendment to clause 2 (f) to ensure that paramedical services carried out by qualified personnel who are authorized by the provinces to render services in such fields as dental oral surgery, optometry, which has been forgotten entirely, psychology, physiotherapy and other related fields, will be covered if they are included in a provincial medical insurance plan. This will be done by redefining the meaning of "medical practitioner".
By amending clause 4 (1) (a) we will provide that, in order to qualify a provincial plan need not be operated by a public authority, but may be operated by any authority approved or designated by the government of the province, which will preserve the principle of the right of the province to determine how it wants medical insurance within its borders to be adminstered. By deleting subparagraph (c) of subclause (1) of clause 4, the province would be permitted to determine the extent of the coverage within its own borders. Surely, this is a matter to be settled primarily between the provincial governments and their electors. By deleting subparagraph (bj of subclause (4) of clause 5, we would eliminate the paragraph which prevents any federal contribution towards the cost of administration of a provincial plan. It goes without saying that no plan of medical insurance, any more than any other governmental plan, can be administered without cost. We insist upon the principle that the provinces have the primary right to determine the medical insurance plan best suited to their needs and the needs of their people. Surely, this can be worked out in consultation with the provinces.
Medicare
The costs of adminstration are as much a cost of the plan as are the payments to the practitioners. We, therefore, propose to delete the paragraph which precludes any contribution to administrative costs.
By these amendments, we propose to bring the bill into line with acceptable principles upon which to found a federal contribution to the cost of prepaid medical care. If they are accepted, we feel that they would enable all parties and all members of the house to support a bill carrying into effect this measure so important to the welfare of the Canadian people. If the amendments importing these principles into the bill are enacted, I believe we will have produced a measure which will establish the basis upon which, in the very near future, the common objective of us all can be achieved, namely, that medical services, at an adequate level, should be available to all Canadians on a prepaid basis. I do urge the government to accept the amendments and thus make it possible for all of us to support the bill in its later stages. Unless this is done, there will be very real doubt as to whether such support is possible or should be forthcoming.
Accordingly, I move this amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops. I also move an amendment to-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I think the hon. member for Simcoe East should wait until the committee reaches the clause to which he intends to move an amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member could give notice of his intention to move this amendment.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I give notice of my intention to move the following amendment:
Clause 2 of Bill C-227 is amended by deleting paragraph (f) thereof and substituting therefor the following:
(f) "medical practitioner" for the purposes of this act means any person lawfully engaged in the practice of rendering services to Individuals in the Held of the healing arts whose qualifications and entitlement to practice in the place in which such practice is carried on by him are recognized by the government of a province or by an association approved for the purpose by the legislature of a province;


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might raise a procedural point at this juncture. I have listened carefully to the remarks made by the hon. member for Simcoe East. I think he has made it clear that either he or his colleagues have a number of amendments to move. The first one they wish to

November 28, 1966
Medicare
move will be to subparagraph (f) of clause 2. It so happens that my colleague, the hon, member for Hamilton South, wishes to move an amendment to subparagraph (d) of clause 2.
That being the case, I wonder whether we could deal with subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) and come to (d), when my colleague could move his amendment and after that we could go on to the various clauses, unless there are other general remarks which hon. members wish to make. We are not asking for the privilege of making general remarks on subparagraph (a) if we could get on to the other clauses. The first amendment that would be moved from this group would be one proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton South, which would be to subparagraph (d).


Maurice Rinfret: Is it understood by the committee that we have completed the discussion on subparagraph (a)?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, just before we consider the clauses in detail I wish to make a few remarks in general. I hope the government will give most careful consideration to the point of view outlined by my colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe East, in summarizing the amendments which the official opposition intend to move. That point of view, that principle is quite clear. It is that the federal proposal to participate in a medical insurance plan, a proposal to assist in the extension of prepaid medical coverage, should be founded-I would go so far as to say "must be", if it is to be proper-on the basis that it seeks to supplement provincial plans and does not dictate to the provinces the form their plans should take. To a number of us, this principle is extremely important.
The hon. member for Simcoe East stated the objective of the approach that all of us have in mind. He outlined the objective as being that medical services, at an adequate level, should be available to all Canadians on a prepaid or insurance basis. The hon. member for Simcoe East stated that we agree that such a plan must receive support from the federal treasury. That is the objective of all of us; but it is surely wrong to ask this committee, in seeking to reach that objective, to proceed on a principle that is unsound, wrong, improper and unnecessary; that is, that, in a field which is primarily under provincial jurisdiction, we would dictate to the provinces the precise form their plans should take. Why put the committee in such an anomalous position? It is unnecessary that this be done.

The federal government can set the lead. The federal government can say to the provinces; We will fill in the gaps in your plan; and if, on the basis of what you think is right, you want to extend coverage to a certain area, we will assist you to do so. But to say in advance, "Before you qualify for any federal assistance you must follow these criteria, and we will determine what medical services will be included and what will not", is an improper intrusion into a field that is reserved by the constitution for the provinces.
I, therefore, urge the minister to give consideration to these amendments and endeavour to bring about this desired objective, which I believe is well within our grasp now, on a co-operative basis. This can be done by discussion with the provinces in order to find out how far they think they can go now, and then the federal government can assist them in extending that coverage.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This surely is the way to bring about a comprehensive, universally available plan rather than by the club of a fiscal measure seeking to acquire jurisdiction and authority in a field which does not belong to the federal minister. That is the purpose.


Mr. Brewin:: May I ask the hon. member a question? What is the basis for his proposition that this matter does not belong in the federal sphere? I know nothing in the British North America Act to justify such a view. He is a member learned in the law, and I would be glad to know where he gets the basis for the statement which he repeated a number of times. My understanding is that the matter of health services is just as much in the federal as in the provincial sphere. I know it is convenient that the administration of the health services be in the provincial sphere but if the hon. member is right I misunderstand the whole situation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I should have thought that a lawyer of my hon. friend's competence would not require any assistance from me to grasp so simple a matter.
First of all, the field of welfare is well recognized to be within provincial jurisdiction and, generally speaking, every time the federal government has moved into this field it has been only after consultation and with the consent of the provinces. This is conspicuously lacking in this case. Second, any arrangement which requires auditing and, in fact, the cooperation and acceptance of people in the position of medical practitioners on a voluntary
November 28. 1966

contract basis is surely so clearly within the field of provincial jurisdiction that, as I said, it should not need any assistance from me to make the point clear to the hon. member.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, at this point I do not wish to get into a controversy over such a simple and clear constitutional point.


Francis Andrew Brewin: It may be simple to you.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend wishes to make a diversion, write an article or make a speech disagreeing with me, let him do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question from a non-lawyer?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I would hate to leave the hon. member to the tender mercy of his colleague who has shown himself to be so surprisingly unable or unwilling to grasp the essential constitutional point I am making but I will leave it to his other colleague, the hon. member for York South, who perhaps will be able to explain it to him better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would like to ask the hon. member a simple question. Where in the B.N.A. Act does the word "health" appear? If he does not know, I might tell him that it does not appear there at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I said, this kind of argument will not advance us at all. The point is that it is well understood that these kinds at welfare services are, by the provisions and interpretations of the B.N.A. Act, within the field of provincial jurisdiction, and I do not intend to get into a detailed discussion of that point. One only has to refer to all the occasions on which the federal government has entered into this field where the consent of the provinces has generally been agreed to be necessary and has always been obtained in advance. The conspicuous exception is the present proposal by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in which he is attempting to dictate to the provinces.
He is holding a fiscal club over their heads and saying: "You must accept our intrusion into your field because if you do not, you won't get any money".
I come back to my submission that this is an unacceptable principle on which to base any measure, especially one requiring the cooperation of the provinces for its effective
Medicare
implementation. It is on this basis that I repeat the request to the minister that he accept the amendments which we offer.


Maurice Rinfret: Is subclause (a) agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On subclause (b)-"Insurable Resident''.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, in the light of the fact that the minister indicated at the opening of the debate that clauses (c) to (k) were to be renumbered and the reference which was made to (i) in subclause (b), we cannot pass (b) in its present form if the minister proposes an amendment which will renumber (i).


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understood that we would discuss these subclauses and deal with any amendments that would be made in each of these subclauses until we have reached the last of the subclauses at which time the government will be able to move its amendment.
If we adopt these subclauses in advance, we will lose this opportunity, and if such were the case I would want to move my amendment now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then subclause (b) should stand.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not want to be obtuse, but I want to make it clear that subclause (b) should not be passed in its present form in the light of the amendment which the minister intends to make later. Perhaps, it could stand.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that subclause (b) stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On subclause (c)-"Insured person".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.
On subclause (d)-"Insured services".


Mr. Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Chairman, in order to help rush this bill through so as to have it ready for July, 1968 I propose to make my speech rather short. Then, I will not be blamed for delaying this matter. The government failed in this medicare bill to recognize many other forms of services that are so necessary to the health of the people of this great nation.
I am referring to services which are relied on by many people for the treatment of illnesses or the continuation of good health. By

November 28, 1966
Medicare
their own admission, doctors are overworked at present and claim that this state of affairs will continue and increase with the advent of medicare in Canada. How much worse will this be for the doctors if no other groups are included, not to mention the fate of the other groups of whom I am speaking. In many instances doctors refer their patients to optometrists, psychologists, podiatrists, chiropractors, physiotherapists and osteopaths and other groups, none of whom are intentionally left out. If their services are not to be included in this plan, it will obviously mean that patients will not enjoy their services except by extra payment. This again would act as a deterrent to a well rounded, total medical care program. For example, psychiatrists could not begin to look after all the people whom they would be expected to look after if it were not for the able assistance of psychologists, and ophthalmologists could not begin to look after all the people requiring their services in this country if it were not for the able assistance which optometrists give.
Orthopedic surgeons would not be able to look after all the people for whom podiatrists now care and many patients who now are sent to physiotherapists and chiropractors would be awaiting treatment which they would be unable to receive. The exclusion of any or all of these groups is a selective action in favour of one profession. I am a member of the medical profession and although I do not feel that this profession has been neglected, I think that in order to have a well rounded plan we should include these paramedical groups to give the proper coverage which the Canadian people are expected to have.
On the strength of these arguments I would like to move the following amendment:
That paragraph (d) of clause 2 of BUI C-227 be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the word "required," in line 19, the following words:
"and such other health and paramedical services as may be included in a provincial medical or health care insurance plan,".
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, with your permission I should like to raise a point of order in connection with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton South, if this is the appropriate time to make an argument.
The argument made by the hon. member for Hamilton South is that, in addition to the insured services of the medical practitioners, the range of services included in this bill should be broadened to include other health

and paramedical services. It is quite clear that within the range of the health professions there are, in addition to medical practitioners, other practitioners including, to single out two, optometrists and the chiropractic profession.
These practitioners are not members of the medical profession. In saying that, I do not intend to pass any judgment on their contribution to the general health field, but you will notice, Mr. Chairman, that the resolution which had the recommendation of His Excellency and which preceded this bill was carefully drawn so as to restrict contributions solely and exclusively to medical care services. I do not have it before me, but the resolution was restricted to contributions by Canada solely toward the cost of insured medical care services, namely those services to be performed by medical practitioners.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton South will certainly include, for example, the optometric profession, which under provincial laws is not regarded as that part of the medical profession which provides medical care services. In fact, an examination of the provincial laws will reveal that their terms strictly exclude optometrists from the practise of medicine.
Similarly, the definition of optometry in the provincial laws is drawn in such a way that it is not regarded as a branch of the medical profession. So, these other health and paramedical services which are sought by the hon. member for Hamilton South are not included in fact within the definition of medical care services under our law.
We have sought advice from His Excellency in providing for contributions for the provisions of medical care services, strictly and exclusively, and the resolution was drawn for that sole purpose. If we had so intended we would have asked His Excellency to authorize contributions to health services or the healing arts. But we confined ourselves to medical care services because it was the intention of the government to restrict contributions to that single field among the health professions.
My point of order is that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton South is not in order because it goes beyond the scope of the original resolution and the message from His Excellency.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, may I first of all commend the hon. members for Hamilton South and Simcoe East for their amendments, though the hon. member for Simcoe East has indicated he will be moving his amendment at
November 28, 1966

a later stage. Both are respected members of the medical profession and they are taking the lead at this time in order to make sure that the scope of services which will be made available through this legislation to the Canadian people includes the services of those professions which are in this bill excluded under the term "medical services".
This step they have taken has particular reference to provincial health schemes presently in existence which recognize the services of health practitioners other than just those of the medical profession.
I am very disappointed in the remarks the minister has just made. He has shown that it is not his intention to allow the amendment to go through because he has raised a point of order based on nothing more than a technicality. We are dealing with the bill before us, and it seems to me that it is the right of members of this house to make amendments to the bill as they see fit.
To try to argue that this amendment, which has just been moved by the hon. member for Hamilton South, is out of order is to do nothing more nor less than to underline the narrow and limited confines the minister intends the bill to have. According to the statement he has previously made on numerous occasions, the bill is to assure adequate health care for the people of Canada.
Likewise, Mr. Chairman, the members of the committee are entitled to amend this legislation so as to define, in the case of paragraph (d) of clause 2, just what is meant by the term "medical practitioners". If that term can be defined by this amendment-and that is what it seeks to do-so as to include those who are engaged in related health professions, then it ought to be the right of members of this committee to make such amendment.
If we are going to amend paragraph (d), then in view of the proposed amendment which the hon. member for Simcoe East is going to move, it will likewise be necessary to amend paragraph (f).
I believe that by saying that the resolution limits the scope of this bill to services rendered by those the minister interprets as medical practitioners, the minister is in fact weakening the bill. He is not providing the services rendered by those in related health professions. I believe the professions to which the amendment has reference are recognized under provincial law as such, and are also included in provincial health plans which are now in existence.
Medicare
I do not agree at all with the argument just raised by the minister and I give my support to the amendment that has been moved. I will also support the amendment which the hon. member for Simcoe East has indicated he will be moving when we reach paragraph (f).
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Smith:: The kindest thing which could be said about the statement the minister has just made is that his argument is specious. That is placing a charitable interpretation on it.
Surely, the purpose of this bill is to provide medical care for the people of Canada. To say that medical care cannot be provided by optometrists, by chiropractors or by dentists is pure nonsense. There is a further objectionable feature inasmuch as the minister is telling the provinces, under whose jurisdiction licensing has been placed, that they can only licence certain people.
A great deal has been said about a shortage of doctors. Surely, one of the best ways of alleviating a shortage of doctors is by making use of people who have a great fund of specialized knowledge. I think the minister is talking poppycock when he says this amendment is out of order.


James Ross Fulton: I believe the hon. member for Simcoe North has demolished the argument of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is true the resolution said "to provide for the needs of a medical care service" but this does not mean that parliament cannot define what shall be included in the term "medical care service". That is what is sought in the amendment which is before the committee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Would the hon. member suggest for one moment that by any stretch of the imagination it would include optometry, for example, as a medical care service?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You ought to read the provincial acts which make it abundantly clear that it is not.


James Ross Fulton: The minister asked me a question and I should like to reply. My answer is, yes, most certainly. This bill is supposed to be based on provincial medical insurance care plans. If the provincial plans define the term "medical services" to include paramedical services-and if we decide that our enactment should adopt that definition-is the minister to say the amendment goes beyond the resolution? Of course if does not, if we care to define these things as medical services.

November 28, 1966
Medicare
My view is that the proper place to do so is in paragraph (f) by definition of those who are regarded as medical practitioners for the purpose of the act. That would be neater. But the object of the amendment is simple. It is in line with the amendment we have in mind, and we shall support it. On the same basis, I believe the hon. member for Hamilton South will support our amendment when we come to paragraph (f).


Mr, Rynard:: The minister, not being a medical man, may have failed to grasp this point. But there are not enough ophthalmologists to look after the need for eye care in Canada. Optometrists do 70 per cent of the work. The ophthalmologists are concentrated in the big cities. In effect, this means that those who live in the cities go to the ophthalmologist and have their bills paid while those who Live in smaller cities will go to the optometrist and have to pay their bills themselves. Consideration must be given to this point if proper health care is to be given.


Mr. Orlikow:: A great deal has been said on this side of the house to the effect that we should not proceed with the legislation before us because the necessary personnel are not available in sufficient numbers. I do not agree with that contention, but I certainly believe we ought to make full use of the skill and experience which are available. These qualities are not necessarily to be found only among graduate medical doctors.
I wish to tarn to the field of mental health. There is at present a disturbing shortage of psychiatrists to look after patients suffering from mental or emotional illnesses. Indeed, there is little possibility that patients who are mentally or emotionally ill will be able to secure the services of a qualified person within a reasonable period. Yet this bill, in its present form, is saying to people who are mentally ill: you must see a psychiatrist.
My hon. friend from Hamilton South was concerned some time ago with the case of a patient who had been recommended to visit a psychologist. Under the terms of the medical plan in question, the Civil Service Medical Insurance Plan, fees paid to a psychologist can not be recovered, though fees paid to a psychiatrist are recoverable.
What happens is this: if a doctor recommends that a person covered by this plan- one of the better insurance plans-should see a psychologist, the patient will, obviously, say: Your advice is probably very good but my bill will only be paid by the Civil Service Medical

Insurance Plan if I go to a psychiatrist. So, I will go to a psychiatrist.
When the minister says that only fees charged by medical doctors can be covered, he is saying that if people wish to have their bills paid they must go, in a case such as I have mentioned, to a psychiatrist rather than to a psychologist. I can assure members of this committee that getting to see a psychiatrist in any city in Canada is a very difficult thing; their time is already completely filled.
If the bill is passed in its present form, a patient who does manage to see a psychiatrist will be able to recover the cost of treatment to the extent of the time actually spent with the psychiatrist. But should the psychiatrist recommend that the patient see a clinical psychologist, for example, for tests to be carried out-there are I.Q. tests, and so on; a whole battery of tests; I am not an expert in this field-the psychologist's fees, the cost of carrying out these tests, would have to be paid for by the patient himself. If we were to follow the minister's interpretation of this bill we should be heading into a disastrous situation.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on behalf of our group to say that we are one hundred per cent behind the amendment now before us.
I was somewhat astounded a moment ago by the argument put forward by the minister and I detected once again the supremacy of the medical profession.
I think that the first flaw in this bill is the faulty interpretation of the words "medical practitioner". In my opinion, the expression "medical practitioner" should have a wider meaning and not be confined to the high spheres of medicine and used only in the case of physicians or those who have always wanted to stay well anchored in that field. I believe that the medical profession has a much wider scope than the general public think today.
If my eyes are sore, if have a toothache, I do not go and see a surgeon whose specialty is the removal of appendices or anything else; X go and see an oculist, a dentist. I consider them medical practitioners in those fields as much as the other, for instance, general practice. I have always felt that it was possible to compare an optician, a dentist or a psychiatrist to a general practitioner. It seems to me that if someone suffers from an eye deficiency, a toothache or a mental disorder, he should be
November 28, 19G6

helped under the medical care scheme as much as someone who is treated by those who are designated today as physicians.
I think that it is nothing but segregation as far as all the insured services are concerned and that is nothing new, because I have always been against that group which pretends to be the only one to serve society and which forgets all the paramedical services which are sometimes as necessary, if not more, than those rendered by physicians.
We wholeheartedly support that amendment and I hope that those discussions will bring to light all the deficiencies which have resulted from the meaning of the word "medical practitioner" and that from now on its meaning will be extended to make it possible to say that a medical practitioner is someone who looks after the welfare of the human being.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter this debate for a few moments because my sympathies are very definitely with the members who have spoken on this subject. I realize the minister must take a stand, but I wonder if some sort of compromise could be affected. I am thinking in particular of the payment of bills for services provided by optometrists, dentists who do oral surgery, and so forth, if these services are performed as a result of patients being referred to these people by a medical practitioner.
I understand that the medical profession is vastly overworked at present and that a great many services are being performed by paramedical personnel. I also understand that under provincial medical plans a number of these services are included and are paid for by the provinces. I wish to ask the minister if a compromise could not be reached on the matter.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to the point of order I wish to say that the people of B.C. would take a very dim view if this amendment were ruled out of order. After being told that in order to get a partial medicare scheme we must have the co-operation of the provinces, now the minister is telling the provinces precisely what they can and cannot have as medical services under the scheme.
I wish to bring up a specific case in point respecting a society which was not mentioned in the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Naturopathic Physicians' Association. A 23033-6621
Medicare
lot of people think that naturopathic physicians practice something like witchcraft, but I would like to read into the record a telegram which I have received from the president of the Association of Naturopathic Physicians of British Columbia. It reads in part as follows:
For many years naturopathic physicians in B.C. have enjoyed acceptance of their services by major insurance companies, health services, Workmen's Compensation Board, government employees' medical services and more recently by the government of B.C. medical plan and the M.S.A. Exclusion or restriction of the services of this profession in any national medical care plan would constitute an act of gross injustice and discrimination.
In the first part of the telegram, it points out that British Columbia naturopathic physicians have consistently rendered valuable public service, practising under legislation which has been revised from time to time in keeping with the advancing progress of medicine and its practice in Canada.
I must admit that I have never had a naturopath attend me, nor any of my relatives, and so do not have personal experience in this matter. But the fact is that the Naturopathic Physicians Association of B.C. is included under the provincial medical services plan. Therefore it seems to me that the minister and this committee would be very foolish to try to dictate to the people of that province what kind of services can be included in a national medicare plan. It would be particularly foolish in view of the fact that the hon. member for Simcoe East has consistently spoken about the shortage of doctors, and about how doctors are overworked.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I have just one point to make which might be helpful to the minister in his consideration of what should be included under the definition of medical practitioner. If he checks the income tax act he will find that "medical expenses" covers work performed by dentists, optometrists, chiropractors, and goes on to list all the other professions involved. For the minister to say that this association referred to in the amendment cannot by any stretch of the imagination be included under the definition given in the paragraph, is completely unfounded. I suggest that he take a leaf out of the Income Tax Act.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I wish to begin by pointing out that we are dealing with a procedural point and not with the desirability of services provided by members of the health professions. The point at issue is. whether the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton South is beyond the

November 28, 1966
Medicare
scope of the resolution. A resolution preceding a bill to authorize the spending of money comes from His Excellency in the form of a recommendation, and that recommendation must specifically state the purposes for which the money is to be spent. The resolution preceding this bill authorized a measure "for the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services"-
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


William Dean Howe: May I ask the
hon. minister a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -not health care services and not the healing arts, because in each case we recognize that the health professions include a greater magnitude of components than the medical profession. Had His Excellency been asked to include contributions for the health professions, the resolution would have so stated. Therefore, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton South is seeking to increase the range of the services much beyond what is set forth in the resolution. It is abundantly clear that we have made a certain estimate of the medical care costs. If this amendment were accepted, that estimate would have to be increased by millions of dollars per annum. Since when has it been in order for an hon. member to move to increase the expenditures in the way suggested by this amendment? This never has been done. It has always been ruled out of order. This cannot be done in this case. It is not a matter of arguing that it is a separate issue, although in a way we do provide a broad range of health services. I am in sympathy with much of what has been said, and I should like to deal with it as a matter of substance later on. I am arguing now, however, that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton South goes beyond the scope of this resolution, because it goes beyond the clear purpose of the expenditure recommended by His Excellency. If this amendment were adopted by the house it would add millions of dollars to the amount contemplated in the message from His Excellency. So, it is clearly out of order.


William Dean Howe: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question? If subclause (f) were amended to alter the definition of medical practitioner, would this alter your point of view so far as the eligibility of this amendment in respect of paragraph (d) is concerned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am arguing on purely procedural grounds at the present time. If it were changed, it might alter the procedural argument.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Surely when the minister is arguing on procedural grounds he is in fact, arguing the definition of medical services. I should like the minister to explain to me how he can say it is not a medical service when an oral surgeon, who is a dentist by profession but nevertheless has taken additional training in oral surgery, works, for example, with a specialist in plastic surgery on the cleft palate of a child. In this case it is necessary that the oral surgeon work in concert, in the same operating room, with the specialist, toward the same end in an effort to produce the repair to the cleft palate. How can the minister say that this is not medical surgery? If he wants to be narrow in his definition, then I can be narrow too. In line 18 in clause 2(d) it says:
"insured services" means all services rendered by medical practitioners that are medically required,-
If the minister wishes to be accurate, then what about the surgical requirements? According to the acts covering the medical profession in the provinces, physicians are licensed to practice medicine, surgery and midwifery. If we are going to be narrow and refer only to medical care and leave out surgical and other related care, then of course we defeat the whole purpose for which the medical care act originally was intended. I think this carries over into the field of the optometrists. We have ophthalmologists who are also looking after eyes and who are prescribing corrective lenses such as the minister himself wears; but there are not enough of these, as I have pointed out before. If it is a medical service when it is being performed by an ophthalmologist, what is it when it is being performed by an optometrist? I should like the minister to answer that. It seems strange to me to note that since these services are provided for in some of the voluntary plans across Canada today, the purpose of this bill will be to destroy all the voluntary plans unless some of these amendments which are proposed by members of the opposition are accepted. It seems strange that you should destroy something which is providing these services and substitute something which does not go as far as the minister would have us believe it does.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the minister is asking us to rule this amendment out of order
November 28, 196G

because it exceeds the principle laid down in the resolution; but the principle laid down in the resolution is to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services. It does not define "medical care services". It is true that the minister may have had in mind a very limited type of medical care services when he was estimating the cost, but when the house passed the resolution upon which this bill was based, it passed it on the understanding that we were talking about medical care services. Medical care services are not distributed narrowly only among those services which are performed by medical practitioners. As a matter of fact, I should like to point out to the minister that if he insists on this narrow definition he will do two things. First, he will greatly restrict the kind of care which can be given to insured persons in some instances. Second, he will be greatly increasing the cost to the plan. There are services which are part of medical care and which are not provided by a medical practitioner.
It is common practice when a doctor is treating a patient for a broken limb, for instance, that there comes a time after the bone is knit when it is necessary to send the patient to a physiotherapist. In the case of a person who has had a stroke and has lost the control of certain muscles, the services of a physiotherapist again are required. Surely, the minister is not suggesting that this physiotherapy has to be given by a medical practitioner. Is he suggesting that this person will have to pay for the services of that physiotherapist? Physiotherapy is an integral part of what this resolution calls for, namely, medical care services. The same thing is true in the case of chiropractors and osteopaths. Those of us who have had experience in respect of workmen's compensation cases know that most of the workmen's compensation acts in Canada have been amended so as to include the services of chiropractors and osteopaths. I know that in the province of Saskatchewan the suggestion that the workmen's compensation act be extended to include chiropractors and osteopaths came from some of the medical men in the areas where coal miners work, because these coal miners were particularly subject to strained backs. The medical profession suggested that some of these men should be sent to chiropractors and osteopaths. The act was amended so that the workmen's compensation board could pay for these services.
Medicare
What the minister is saying now is that if a patient is sent to a chiropractor or an osteopath because he has a strained back or dislocated spine, these services will not be paid for because it is a service which is being performed by other than a medical practitioner. The hon. member for Saskatoon has a real point in respect of dental surgery; the same thing is true.	*
[DOT] (6:00 D.m.)
With reference to optometrists, there will be hundreds of communities in Canada where there will not be an ophthalmologist available so patients will have to go to the city to consult an ophthalmologist when all they require is eye correction, and eye correction is part of the medical service which could be rendered by the optometrist in the community. What the minister is saying, as he puts this very narrow definition on medical care services, is that the person who goes to an optometrist will not have that service paid for, but must go to an ophthalmologist for eye correction. If all these people go to the ophthalmologists, let me tell the minister that they will become completely overworked and their offices will be filled with prospective patients. They will never be able to handle them all.
I am sure the minister must see that any plan which the resolution defines as providing medical care services must cover paramedical services. Any plan must provide such things as deep X-ray therapy, physiotherapy, manipulation of the spine and all those things that have to do with services which are primarily the function of the doctor but which have been delegated to paramedical personnel who have special skills to supplement the knowledge of the doctor.
It has become common practice in medical clinics throughout the world, particularly in Europe. Great Britain and in Israel, to have attached to them paramedical personnel. Costs in this regard should be included in the services which the minister is proposing to cover. It seems to me that the definition which the minister is now placing on this, or the interpretation which the minister is now giving to insured medical care services, is infinitely more narrow and restrictive than anything that was suggested in the resolution. It may not be more narrow or restrictive than what the minister had in mind, but this committee cannot be guided by what the minister had in mind; it must be guided by what the minister said by the words of his resolution. The words of his resolution are that we are providing for

November 28, 1966
Medicare
insured medical care services, and medical care services certainly go far beyond merely the services which are provided by a medical practitioner.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If my hon. friend's argument is sound, why is the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton South necessary?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The answer to that question is very simple. By the interpretation which the minister has put on the bill, he has restricted and narrowed the interpretation of medical care services far beyond anything which appeared in the resolution. The minister is not arguing that what was in the bill at second reading is the guiding principle. What he is arguing is that this amendment goes beyond the resolution. There is nothing in the resolution which says that this program is to be limited to the services performed by a medical practitioner.


Michael Starr: He is creating a lot of confusion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a matter of fact the minister, when introducing the resolution, wanted to be very generous and said to the people of Canada that we are providing medical care service. Most people took that to mean medical and paramedical services.
When the bill came down, of course, the minister restricted this solely to services provided by a medical practitioner. This rules out physiotherapy, deep X-ray therapy, optomet-ric services and services provided by osteopaths, chiropractors and psychologists. I presume it will also rule out the services provided by dental surgeons, and that is a very important service indeed.
I hope for the sake of the plan the minister is introducing he will not take this narrow or restrictive view. The minister is making history by this legislation, and he is establishing a great milestone in the history of welfare legislation in Canada. Let me assure him that this plan will be a disappointment to the people of Canada if he makes it so narrow and restrictive that it does not provide the kind of plan the Canadian people are expecting. Canadian people have looked at British health services and the plans in West Germany and other parts of the world and are expecting a genuine medical services plan. When they find this plan is going to be restricted only to the services provided by a medical care practitioner they will be extremely disappointed.
I hope the minister, for these reasons, will give some further thought to the very narrow interpretation he is now placing on the plan before the house.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact it is now past six o'clock I wonder whether we could agree to a recess for dinner until seven thirty.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am agreeable to adjourning until seven if we could-


Michael Starr: It is now ten minutes after six.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us adjourn until eight so the minister can go see the governor general and get his approval of the amendments we shall be moving.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to note the hon. member's tacit recognition of the soundness of my procedural argument.


Michael Starr: In view of the fact it is now after six o'clock I suggest we recess until seven thirty, Mr. Chairman.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am agreeable to recessing until seven thirty, but could we have a ruling on this point at this time so we will know what we are doing when we return?


Herman Maxwell Batten: If there is some discussion as to the time of the adjournment, perhaps I should rise and report progress. Is it the wish of the committee that I make my ruling on this amendment now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Most of the debate on this particular amendment has centred around the definition of medical services. In my view, this is not the problem that faces the Chair.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks I should like to make and I suggest that you withhold your ruling until we return.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I rise and report
progress?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it was intended that we sit during this hour, but we have agreed to rise until seven thirty on the understanding that we have a ruling. We have had a long procedural debate, and if we cannot have a ruling now I think we should continue to sit.


Michael Starr: In order that we have an atmosphere of serenity in the House of Commons without anyone being riled up, I suggest the minister should not throw left curves at this time. All I am asking is that we agree to recess for dinner until seven thirty with no strings attached.
November 28, 1966


Some hon. Members:: No, let us continue.


An hon. Member:: Let the Chairman finish his ruling.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, consistent with the argument developed a few minutes ago, and I must admit that I did not hear the entire debate, I think the minister should indicate whether he is prepared during the course of our consideration to make some amendments beyond those dealings with the individuals who are to be covered. Perhaps he will indicate that there is some feeling to ameliorate the present terms of the bill, and make some amendments of his own to broaden its application.
I understand that currently there are ten paramedical personnel required for every practising physician. If that is the case, certainly with the introduction of this type of legislation, we must expect a tremendous expansion, in the demand for medical services. We have already experienced this type of expansion in regard to hospital insurance. That was also the end result so far as doctors were concerned.
I think this has changed the entire practice of a physician, particularly if he is outside the urban areas but perhaps also if he is inside the urban areas.
[DOT] (6:10 D.m.)
I have said previously that I believe services such as optometry, dental surgery and chiropractic services, as was well illustrated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, are required from a medical point of view. This being the case, I think we should hear from the minister-and it may determine to a great extent the time that will be taken on the balance of the items in the bill-whether he is prepared to bring forward amendments to broaden the services to be provided. I believe this is an important point. It is important so far as the patient is concerned; it is extremely important so far as the practitioners are concerned. An explanation by the minister in this respect will perhaps determine the amount of persuasion that we think it is necessary to bring to bear upon him and the government to accept some of the amendments we propose. I should like to hear from the minister in this regard.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, I will take but a moment to discuss this amendment. I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the brief which the Canadian Podiatry Association presented to the minister.
Medicare


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a point of order and suggest that the question before the committee is the regularity of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton South. It is quite impossible for me to reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce until we know one way or the other whether the amendment is properly before the committee. Could we have a ruling on the amendment, Mr. Chairman, if there is no evidence of further procedural argument?


James Ernest Pascoe: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that you have heard other hon. members speak to this amendment, and I do not see why I should be cut off now. I suggest that I should be able to say a few words on this matter. I would draw the minister's attention to the brief presented to him by the Canadian Podiatry Association.
This point has been mentioned many times during our discussion, in regard to other services. Podiatry is that specialized field of medical practice which is concerned with the prevention, diagnosis, medical, surgical, mechanical, physical and adjunctive treatment of, and the prescribing for, all diseases, defects and disabilities of the human foot. I should also like to point out that the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario have legislation governing the practice of podiatry. The province of Quebec is in the process of obtaining a podiatry act.
I point out that the standard required for those wishing to practice the profession of podiatry is very high. Aspirants for a career in podiatry must meet high standards of preliminary education, take at least two years of university training in arts and sciences, similar to a pre-medical course, and successfully complete four years of the podiatry course prior to the awarding of a degree. I will not say anything further at this time. I just wanted to put on record my opinion that if this amendment is allowed, consideration should be given to providing podiatric services in the bill.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Perhaps now there has been sufficient said on the amendment, and on the point of order raised by the minister, for me to make a ruling on whether this amendment is in order. Most of the debate on the amendment and on the point of order raised by the minister has centred around the definition of "medical care" and what "medical care" should include. I must say

November 28, 196S
Medicare
immediately to hon. members of the committee that this is not the business of the Chair. The problem which faces the Chair is to decide whether the amendment before the committee is procedurally correct. It is not the business of the Chair to decide what "medical care" shall include. If this amendment means anything at all, it means an extension of the services as outlined in the resolution and also, I presume, as mentioned in subparagraph (d) of this clause.
If I were to say that "medical care" includes paramedical services, I should then have to proceed further and decide what paramedical services are going to include. I do not think that is the business of the Chair. It is the business of the bill. I believe this particular amendment expands the normal meaning of "medical services". If it does expand the normal meaning of "medical services", I think it goes beyond what was meant in the original resolution.
I refer hon. members to citation 246 of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
May I refer hon. members also to May's seventeenth edition, page 551, paragraph 13:
Amendments or new clauses creating public charges cannot be proposed, if no money resolution or ways and means resolution has been passed, or if the amendment or clause is not covered by the terms of the resolution.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton South extends the purpose of the resolution. As such, it imposes an added charge on the crown. I therefore have to rule the amendment out of order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, in response to the request from the opposition house leader to be reasonable, if it is the wish of the house I suggest we adjourn until 7.30.


David Lewis: Make it eight o'clock, now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You should have said that to the amendment.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave).
[The Chairman.]


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have no objection, Mr. Chairman. I just hope I will catch your eye as quickly at eight o'clock as I have just now.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Halifax (Mr. McCleave), House of Commons-translation of government publications; the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), shipping-request for report on safety discussions; the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe), estate tax-valuations on farm lands.
Is it the understanding that the sitting be suspended until 8 o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, I do now leave the chair.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
The Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to resume consideration of Bill C-227 which was being discussed prior to adjournment at six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-227, to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On subclause (d)-"Insured services".
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, just before the dinner recess we were considering an amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton South which would have enlarged the
November 28, 1966

definition of insured services. The minister [DOT] objected to it on a point of order on the ground that the amendment offered was beyond the scope of the terms of the resolution which only covered medical services. You, sir, sustained the point of order and ruled the amendment out of order.
The official opposition would now like to offer a further amendment to this clause which we submit is within the terms of the resolution. I think it will be appreciated by the committee that the resolution did not define "services" beyond saying that they were medical care services. Therefore it seems to me that it is within the competence of the committee on behalf of parliament to say what is meant by medical care services. The minister has suggested that medical care services obviously means only services rendered by a medical practitioner, that is to say, a qualified doctor. However, it has been pointd out that it is common practice for qualified doctors to refer patients for treatment by others who are engaged in the healing arts. Therefore what surely should be embraced within the compass of this bill, and certainly within the terms of the resolution, is all services rendered by medical practitioners themselves, or-on their advice or with their consent-by others. Surely it could not be objected that a service rendered, shall we say, by a dental surgeon upon the advice of a medical practitioner and with his co-operation and presence-as frequently may be the case in the operating room, is not a medical service.
Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon, I propose the following amendment:
That paragraph (d) of clause 2 of Bill C-227 be amended by inserting immediately after the words "medical practitioners" in line 18 thereof, the following words: "or by or on the advice or with the consent of medical practitioners".
1 will not pose as an expert or attempt to draw the line as to precisely what forms of ancillary services may be rendered by or on the advice or with the consent of medical practitioners, but I do submit that it is beyond any doubt that such services are included within the meaning of the term "medical services". Whether they include services rendered as a result of referrals, say to psychologists or to dental surgeons or, with the subsequent approval of the medical practitioner, by optometrists, it can hardly be argued that these are not medical care services.
Again I submit to you, sir, that if a point of order is raised that this is not precisely included within the words of the resolution the
Medicare
argument will not be applicable in this case because in the bill now before the house the minister has submitted a definition of the term "insured services". In other words, he has admitted that the services contemplated by the resolution require definition, as of course they do.
I submit to you, sir, that it is not for the minister to say that he alone is qualified to define services nor, as you pointed out earlier, is it for the Chair to say what parliament should include in the definition of "services". This is a matter for parliament to determine. However, the moment it is admitted that the word "services" requires definition, then it is open to the committee to submit its opinion on what should be included in that definition. Therefore I submit that the amendment is not only in order but is indeed within the spirit and requirements of the bill.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I will read the amendment for the benefit of hon. members who do not have a copy of it. It is moved by Mr. Fulton "that paragraph (d) of clause 2 of Bill C-227 be amended by inserting immediately after the words "medical practitioners" in line 18 thereof the following words: "or by or on the advice or with the consent of medical practitioners".
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to raise the point of order which I raised earlier, because the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamloops seeks, in a different paragraph and with different words, to do exactly what was sought by the hon. member for Hamilton South. If it be true that parliament is free to define the services within the context of this paragraph, it must be borne in mind that a definition may not go beyond the services for which contributions were sought in the original royal recommendation.
What my hon. friend is saying is that if a medical doctor tells a patient to go to a chiropractor or to go to an optometrist or to go to any other person in the health professions, then, of course, this is an insured service and therefore eligible for contributions. This raises precisely the same point as that raised in the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton South and this amendment is deficient for exactly the same reasons. If this amendment were accepted and ruled in order it would achieve what was held to be impossible in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton South.

November 28. 1966
Medicare


Herman Maxwell Batten: I have read very carefully the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Kamloops and I must admit that here too I believ e the amendment extends the meaning of -'medical services". In extending the meaning of medical services it thereby imposes a charge and because it imposes a charge I would have to rule the amendment out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, undaunted I rise to move another amendment to subclause (d) of clause 2. While the minister was perhaps using the recess to go and see the Governor General I picked up a few books on procedure. I recognize that there have been two rulings against amendments which seem to have the effect of enlarging the services which the minister says were contemplated by the resolution and which he contends are implemented as intended in the bill. I believe that my amendment is different in character and is in effect one that makes clear the definition in paragraph (d). If a similar point of order is raised on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I shall rely on certain citations in Beauchesne's third edition and in May's thirteenth edition, which I believe are quite clear.
In terms of substance may I first point out that we have already made clear through the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton South that we believe there are a number of other services that should be covered in this legislation. Therefore, in now proposing an amendment that would pick out just one of these other services I am in effect trying to get the government to give at some point. In other words, I am trying to get a start somewhere.
We believe that services rendered by optometrists, particularly the kind of services that are on occasion rendered by medical practitioners, should be included and brought under the definition of insured services. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That paragraph (d) of clause 2 of Bill C-227 be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the word "required," in line 19, the following words:
"and services rendered by optometrists which, when rendered by a medical practitioner, would be considered as insured services,".
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that if this amendment is carried it will be necessary, in my view, to add another paragraph defining optometrists, and I hopefully have that amendment ready. But at this point I am simply urging the proposition that we already have before us a bill designed to pay the costs of insured medical care services, and we have

identified medical care services as the kind of services rendered by medical practitioners. I [DOT] am talking about a service of the kind rendered by medical practitioners, but in many instances this care is in fact rendered by optometrists.
Let me repeat, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about the same kind of care, and this after all is what is involved in this clause. It is not merely a question of who renders the care but of the kind of care being rendered.
We are prepared for the purpose of this amendment to accept the restriction that it has to be the kind of care rendered by medical practitioners. I therefore submit that because in many cases optometrists render the kind of care that medical practitioners sometimes render, optometrists should be covered when they are rendering that kind of service.
That Mr. Chairman, is the reason I move the amendment I have already read to the committee, adding the words I have indicated to paragraph (d). The result would be that paragraph (d) would read:
"insured services" means all services rendered by medical practitioners that are medically required, and services rendered by optometrists which, when rendered by a medical practitioner, would be considered as insured services, except any services that a person is eligible for and entitled to under any other Act of the Parliament of Canada or under any law of a province relating to workmen's compensation:
While I am on my feet, as ministers say on orders of the day, I would indicate, Mr. Chairman, that if this amendment carries I will move an amendment defining optometrists which would be inserted after the present paragraph (g) so that it would be in the correct alphabetical order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I regret the necessity of rising once more on a point of order, but in substance what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is attempting to achieve in this amendment is to include a new profession within the scope of the bill.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The hon. member for Hamilton South moved an amendment containing the words "and such other health and paramedical services as may be included in a provincial medical health care insurance plan." One of the principal illustrations used was the optometric profession. The hon. member for Kamloops proposed an amendment using the words "or by or on the advice or with the consent of medical practitioners." One of the new professions that would be brought in by
November 28, 196G

this device would be the optometric profession.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, by means of what I must say is an ingenious twist in the previous argumentation, is now proposing that the clause be amended to include a new profession, the optometric profession. It seems to me that to include the optometric profession woud be to extend the meaning of "medical services" and to impose a charge on the treasury in excess of that contemplated in the original resolution. The estimate of the cost of including optometric services not foreseen in the resolution is in the neighbourhood of $18 million.
Though the hon. member has argued ingeniously, nevertheless, the effect of his amendment would be to enlarge the meaning given to "medical services" and impose an additional charge on the treasury. The hon. member is attempting to achieve what two other hon. members failed to achieve, but the procedural obstacle which they encountered stands in his way also.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise merely to say that I support the amendment and to express the view that there would be no additional charge on the crown, since the reference in the amendment is to optometrists performing medical services which would otherwise be performed by the medical profession. That is my primary point but I should like to say, parenthetically, that this attitude on the part of the government illustrates the wisdom of the opposition in refusing to be seduced by the government into agreeing to the second reading of a number of other bills.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: The attitude of the government toward suggestions forthcoming from this side of the house shows that we were wise to refuse, and we shall continue to do so.


Mr.   Patierson@: The question which occurs to me is this, and I think it is one of vital importance. Are we discussing the practitioners per se under this scheme or the service they are rendering? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out that what concerns us in this amendment is service rendered by optometrists which, when rendered by medical practitioners, would be counted as insured service. I suggest we should be interested in the availability of the service and whether it is provided by a medical practitioner or someone else should not make any difference.
Medicare
In my view the same principle should apply to other categories engaged in providing a health service, chiropractors, for instance. We are told that medical practitioners are taking a short course, anything from an hour to five days, so as to carry out work in the manipulative therapy field. We are taking a completely unrealistic position by saying in effect that the services of skilled chiropractors cannot be used.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: This particular paragraph of clause 2 deserves far more consideration than has so far been given to it. Anyone who is familiar with the situation throughout the country, anyone who knows that opticians are performing a service which is just as essential in many respects as the service performed by ear, eye, nose and throat specialists, would have serious doubts about the course the minister is following.
I happen to be a member of M.S.I. in Alberta. I received a letter stating that as of a certain date, the cost of treatment for sight deficiencies, or the cost of eyeglasses, would be taken care of provided I went to an eye, ear, nose and throat specialist. As it happens, up to now I have not needed the services of such a specialist. That is perhaps, fortunate, because I might have to wait a month before I could get an appointment to see one.
I do not believe that parliament has the right on ethical grounds to discriminate against opticians and put them out of business. If it is not beyond the scope of our authority, on ethical grounds we should certainly refrain from doing so. These opticians have had to study hard and make themselves skilled in their professions. They are doing good work. As the minister has no doubt experienced on one or two occasions, they put medicinal drops into the eyes of their patients. So they are giving a medical service. Surely the minister will realize upon reflection that he is not acting fairly when he leaves out opticians and drives the public to the medical practitioners because the services of the latter are covered by insurance.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, clause 2(b) states very clearly:
"Insurable resident", in relation to any province means an individual who is a resident of the province and is not excluded from the calculation-
Clause 2, paragraph (d):
"Insured services" means all services rendered by medical practitioners that are medically required, except any services that a person is eligible

November 28, 1966
Medicare
for and entitled to under any other Act of the Parliament of Canada or under any law of a province relating to workmen's compensation;
Mr. Chairman, the bill introduced by the federal government states clearly that the federal government will subsidize the provinces according to their wishes and their legislation, but the federal authorities specify four major points which the provinces must meet.
And we can read very well in the bill: "A prepaid national and universal medical insurance plan".
The provinces must meet four basic conditions; Ottawa, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) is aware of it, chooses the four basic conditions so that a province may pass, accept or introduce legislation concerning medical insurance, or medicare as it is called across the country.
First: The coverage of such a plan must be complete, which means that the plan must cover all the services rendered by medical practitioners.
Second: The plan must be sponsored by the provincial government, but suggested by the federal government.
Third: The contributions paid must be portable from one province to another, and finally,
Fourth: All residents of a province must be eligible thereto.
The inception date of that plan, as suggested a year ago, should have been July 1, 1967; now it will be July 1, 1968.
Mr. Chairman, we hon. members, whatever may be the party we belong to, do receive representations regarding that universal medical care insurance plan. Earlier, I heard an hon. member refer to the eligibility of optometrists, for instance, oculists, pediatrists, dentists in that insurance plan. If a province, either Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia, institutes a medical care insurance plan including oculists, opticians, pediatrists, dentists, the federal government clearly specifies that the federal plan will apply inasmuch as the provinces comply with the four points in question. Then, Mr. Chairman, I believe the federal government should say rather in Bill No. C-227 that it will co-operate with the provinces, under the plan or the legislation implemented by them. And here, I shall quote what was said by the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), when she was minister of national health and welfare.
Under the Canada Assistance Plan, we are ready to put up one dollar for every dollar now spent by

the provinces on mothers allowances, an assistance to mothers with dependent children.
We are ready to share the costs of health services provided by the provinces to public assistance recipients. We shall arrange to include the costs of medical, nursing, dental, optical and pharmaceutical care.
Those were the words of the present Secretary of State on April 20, 1965.
However, it will be for the provinces to decide on the extent of such services and it will be their responsibility to take the necessary action to provide health services deemed appropriate in their particular case.
This health legislation is interim legislation, that will stay in operation only until such time as a medical care program comes into force, which I hope will be very soon.
That was stated by the Secretary of State, when she was minister of national health and welfare, before the Niagara Falls Optimist Club, on April 20, 1965.
Mr. Chairman, we are no longer asking for what the hon. Secretary of State was suggesting a year and a half ago. We are not requesting special treatment for some segments of society, we simply ask that the federal government stick to its comprehensive bill, which provides for individual help to the provinces, to the full extent of the government's possibilities, but without interfering.
9 (8:40 p.m.)
When we say in Quebec, for instance, that medicare will have to be drawn up and organized in Quebec, we also say that here, Ottawa has no right to tell the province of Quebec what to do, how to go about it, or what not to do. It is up to the province of Quebec to assume its responsibility, just as Manitoba must assume its own. And then, Mr. Chairman, Ottawa must assume its own responsibilities. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is now receiving-just as we are -requests from optometrists, dentists and pediatrists who are demanding the same treatment as that which is given or will be given to medical practitioners. And the minister is aware of the fact that optometrists, in the exercise of their profession, are victims of unfair treatment in this bill now before us, this Bill No. C-227. Medical practitioners will make use of their influence to eliminate optometrists and pediatrists, under the pretext that they alone are qualified medical practitioners.
However, Mr. Chairman, I have not the slightest grievance against any physician in Canada, but I would like to see the optometrists and pediatrists respected in the same
November 28, 1966

way we respect medical practitioners. We know of competent physicians-


Mr. Isabelle:: I rise to a point of order. I would ask my excellent friend, the hon. member for Villeneuve if he means to say podiatrist or pediatrist.


David Réal Caouette: Pediatrist.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Pediatrist. It is not pediatrist.


David Réal Caouette: Podiatrist.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Thank you.


David Réal Caouette: Is my friend the member for Gatineau satisfied?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Very satisfied.


David Réal Caouette: Satisfied? Podiatrist? With respect to the upper part of the body, I would ask the member for Gatineau what he means. A podiatrist is concerned with the care of the feet. Therefore, in his case, what should I say, pediatrist?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I did not say that, the hon. member did. He wanted to talk about feet, but he was talking of something else.


David Réal Caouette: I am talking about your head, that is approximately the equivalent of-


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: That is the equivalent of your feet.


David Réal Caouette: That is approximately the equivalent of the head I wanted to talk about.
Mr. Chairman, it means that the hon. member for Gatineau is aware of the situation and that he himself has received requests, telephone calls from oculists, optometrists, podiatrists in his riding who want to be respected as any other medical practitioner. And the hon. member for Gatineau is a physician, he knows something about medicine. I have been to see him and he treated me very well. If he treated Canada as he treated me, Canada would feel better and would not be where it is now.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I have never treated the hon. member for Villeneuve and if I had, he would be in better health.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Villeneuve is in very good health. Thanks to the
Medicare
hon. member for Gatineau perhaps. I met him before I left for Iran; I came back from Iran thanks to him. However, that does not mean that I will place Canada at the disposal of the hon. member for Gatineau; that is quite clear.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Chairman, I should like to keep the record straight. I simply vaccinated the member for Villeneuve so that he would not catch any disease during his trip to Iran.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, you will admit, however, that I had to deal with him and it is a physician in my riding, a good Creditist, who told me: "Go and see the member for Gatineau, Dr. Isabelle, but be careful because he is a bit weak". I was careful, but the hon. member simply gave me an injection to go to Iran; I came back, I am in good health, and in better health than the hon. member for Gatineau, at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, all this to say that, under Bill No. C-227, we want to have a medical cost insurance plan in every province but, as stated in Bill No. C-227, according to the wishes of the provinces.
In Quebec, the provincial authorities have already expressed their wish to legislate as they see fit in the medical field. In some other Canadian provinces, such as Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, medical plans have been in operation for several years. Those governments do not want to be disturbed by the federal authorities with a legislation established in accordance with the terms of Bill No. C-227.
A while ago, we were referring to oculists, optometrists or podiatrists. Mr. Chairman! the services of those people are paid for at the present time. They are recognized on the same basis as medical practitioners in British Columbia and in Alberta, but I believe that they are the only two provinces to recognize them at the present time. Even in Saskatchewan, they are not recognized. In the province of Quebec, of necessity, they are not recognized. They are recognized in Alberta and in British Columbia, but neither of these provinces has requested federal government intervention. In Manitoba, there is no such recognition, nor in Quebec.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: There are Conservatives everywhere.

November 28, 1966
Medicare


David Réal Caouette: Conservatives in Manitoba, Conservatives in Quebec, as mentioned by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
However, Mr. Chairman, if the federal government amended Bill No. C-227 so that the	provinces-Quebec,	Manitoba New
Brunswick, in short, any province-may accept or pass a plan which suits them, and said: We pay 40, 50 or 60 per cent of the total cost of your medical insurance plan, then it would respect the autonomy of the province, whichever it might be. Such is not the case with this Bill No. C-227 which dictates a policy to all the provinces, emphasizing four points: The coverage of such plan must be complete. The plan must cover all the services rendered by medical practitioners of course.
Second, that the program be sponsored by the provincial government, but passed and approved by the federal government.
Third, that benefits be transferable from one province to another, which is very good. A family insured in Quebec or in Vancouver, in Alberta or in Saskatchewan, should be insured anywhere in Canada.
Fourth, that all residents of a province be eligible; we also agree with that.
Mr. Chairman, we do not agree, however, that the federal government should dictate to the provinces the manner in which they should set up their own medical insurance plans. It is not up to Ottawa to decide that. Ottawa should help the provinces, but they should stop confusing them. We are proposing the following solution.
We have, at the present time, some economists among the Liberals who now form the government. A solution should be sought to rid the provinces of Ottawa. The federal government should not be an obstacle, a hindrance and it should not hamper the provincial administration. Then, we would see a greater national unity, more comprehension between eastern and western Canada or between the east, west and central area of Canada than at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, we receive grievances and representations from Canadian oculists and podiatrists who complain that Bill No. C-227 forbids the recognition of their profession and forbids them to practise their profession or use their skills in this field. Optometrists, opticians or podiatrists, however, all took the same classical course as the hon. member for

Gatineau; generally speaking, they have the same education as medical practitioners. We have physicians who are allowed to examine the eyes, the whole body of a person, whether it be a federal or a provincial member of parliament who, according to the present program, will receive remuneration. They will say: his eyesight is failing because he has diabetes, because he has a kidney ailment; his eyesight is failing because he is weakening.
Mr. Chairman, 1 think the optometrists and the Optometrists Association should call the attention of the government to the fact that they should be given recognition as an organized group, made up of people who serve society. Thus we could allow some people to benefit by this medical care program, like others who have the same training.
Mr. Chairman, I have nothing against medical practitioners, far from it. We call for them as soon as we are ill. However, as far as oculists and podiatrists are concerned, I believe the bill should recognize the two different professions in our country.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stipulates:
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)

That paragraph (d) of clause 2 of Bill C-227 be amended by inserting therein, Immediately after the word 'required' in line 19, the following words:
"and services rendered by optometrists"-
I would then add the word "podiatrist". It then states:
-"which, when rendered by a medical practitioner, would be considered as insured services,"

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seems perfectly logical to me and I support it, because I feel that if we leave out the optometrists-


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yeah, yeah.


David Réal Caouette: "Yeah, yeah" what?


Philip Bernard Rynard: You are on the right track. That is what I was thinking.


David Réal Caouette: I just heard "yeah, yeah". I thought you were talking to me but you were apparently talking behind the curtain.


David Lewis: What do you say in French?
November 28, 1966


David Réal Caouette: In French, we say "yeah, yeah".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: La meme chose.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks very good French. He says "la meme chose". Apparently "yeah, yeah" in French is the same as in English

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who is not asking for any special consideration, either in the case of podiatrists or of opti. ..-I was going to say optimists-oculists in our country, but that equal and fair consideration be given to them.
Mr. Chairman, I accept and strongly support this amendment, and I am asking my colleagues to do likewise. I am asking the government and the responsible minister who is not here at the moment-I see former ministers and others who are here, for instance the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet), but it is not quite the same thing- I am asking the Minister of National Health and Welfare to accept this amendment so that oculists or optometrists and podiatrists may be recognized as are general practitioners. A general practitioner is not competent as concerns eyesight. He is competent in medicine. However, oculists and optometrists, like podiatrists, are not now included. I would like to hear the minister say that, if a province includes them in its legislation, because this Bill No. C-227 will unavoidably relate to a bill introduced in a provincial legislature, the federal government will undertake to include optometrists or oculists, podiatrists, just like medical practitioners or specialists. Then, we will have nothing to say against that and we will not be opposed to Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia or the maritimes. But what we want is this: when the premier of the province of Quebec decides to introduce a bill or legislation on medical care insurance, then the federal government should not be an obstruction, but it should accept the decision of any province whatsoever with the greatest respect for provincial autonomy and for the good of the Canadian nation as a whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to return to the point of order raised by the
Medicare
Minister of National Health and Welfare. I thank him for the compliment he paid me when he suggested that this amendment was drafted with some ingenuity; I assume he meant that as a compliment.
I should like you to consider the two points the minister sought to make against my amendment. The first point is that it goes beyond the terms spelled out in the resolution which preceded the bill. The second point is that it would involve an additional charge. I think he gave the figure of $18 million. I might question that figure, but even if it were $1 million it would involve the same procedural point. At any rate, these are the minister's two contentions: first, that my amendment goes beyond the terms of the resolution and, second, that it involves an additional expenditure of money. The minister contends that on these two grounds it is out of order.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
With respect to the first contention of the minister, to the effect that my amendment goes beyond the terms of the resolution preceding the bill, may I echo what the hon. member for Fraser Valley said when he spoke to the point of order, namely, are we talking about the insuring of services or the insuring of practitioners? Subclause (d) by its first two words says that it is a definition of "insured services". We already accept, for the purposes of this amendment, the proposition that what we are talking about is insured services of a medical nature. That is what the preamble to the bill says; that is what was said in the resolution preceding the bill.
We are talking, therefore, about medical services and not about the persons who may perform them. We are suggesting in this amendment that the definition of "medical services" simply be made clear to spell out that if the medical services are performed by persons who in doing so are performing services that would be performed by medical practitioners, they should be covered as insured services. I submit, therefore, that on that count the minister's argument fails.
But, of course, I believe the minister was actually relying more heavily on his second argument, namely, that, after all, if this amendment is allowed it will cost extra money and therefore a private member cannot move such an amendment. It is a debatable question whether it would cost extra money if you force people to go to an ophthalmologist rather than an optometrist. It may cost the

November 28, 1986
Medicare
government more money not to cover optometrists. If you argue that the extra cost is $18 million, one might argue about what that includes, because in my amendment I am not talking about the provision of glasses and things of that sort. I am talking about services performed by optometrists but services identical to those at times performed by medical practitioners.
Let us look at this point squarely in the light of what is said by the authorities. I should like to quote Beauchesne's third edition and May's 13th edition. It is argued time and again that a private member cannot move an amendment to a bill if it increases the expenditure of money contemplated in the legislation. I point out that no amount of money was mentioned in the resolution. There was no limit placed on the amount that would be involved in the bill. This becomes very crucial when one reads a citation or two from the authorities I have before me. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let us look at Beauchesne's third edition, citation 439. It is a long paragraph. I think I am doing no violence to it if I start in the middle. In fact, the first sentence or two that I read will be music to the minister's ears, but he should continue to listen:
No amendment affecting the purposes for which the grant is recommended by the crown can be allowed. The constitutional principle which vests in the crown the sole responsibility of incurring national expenditure forbids an increase by the commons of a sum demanded on behalf of the crown for the service of the state.
That is the part that is music to the minister's ears, but note these next words:
This principle, however, is apparently disregarded when the recommendation of the crown is given to a resolution empowering the expenditure of public money which, framed in general terms, places no limitation on the amount of expenditure to be authorized by the resolution.
Beauchesne at the end of that citation has the notation "M.510", which of course refers to May's 13th edition, page 510. Let me read a few sentences from page 510 of May's 13th edition:
As is subsequently explained, the constitutional principle which vests in the crown the sole responsibility of incurring national expenditure, forbids an increase by the commons of a sum demanded on behalf of the crown for the service of the state.
I am revealing, of course, the source of many of the things which Dr. Beauchesne put in his book. This passage from May's 13th edition continues:
This principle, however, is apparently disregarded when the recommendation of the crown is given to a resolution empowering the expenditure of

public money which, framed in general terms, places no limitation on the amount of expenditure to be authorized by the resolution. As the resolution sanctions, without any specific limitation, the application of money to be provided by parliament to certain purposes, when the clauses in a bill founded upon such a resolution are before the committee, the freedom of action sanctioned by that resolution can be exercised.
Please note further, Mr. Chairman:
The committee is not bound-
Let me read it again:
The committee is not bound by the terms of the provisions which the ministers of the crown have inserted in the bill; and any member may propose to increase the grants specified in these clauses or to extend the application of the provisions of the bill-
And please note the next clause:
.-whatever may be the cost resulting therefrom, so long as the power conferred by the royal recommendation is not exceeded.
What was the resolution preceding the bill which this house passed? It has been read two or three times today, but let me put it on the record again in the context of this procedural discussion. This was the resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
That is the resolution in its entirety; I have read every last word of it. There is no limitation in that resolution on the amount of money that can be spent for the purpose spelled out in the resolution, nor is there anything limiting the paying of that money to medical practitioners. I ask you, sir: Are we not clearly within the terms of what I have been reading from page 510 of May's thirteenth edition? Let me read again the key sentences:
As the resolution sanctions, without any specific limitation-[DOT]
That is the case with regard to the resolution preceding this bill.
-the application of money to be provided by parliament to certain purposes, when the clauses in a bill founded upon such a resolution are before the committee, the freedom of action sanctioned by that resolution can be exercised.
That is where we find ourselves. We are in committee of the whole on the bill, a bill based upon a resolution that had the royal recommendation, as it is put in the United Kingdom, or the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General as we put it here. The freedom of the committee is clear; we are free to make amendments that may
November 28, 1966

Medicare
involve a larger expenditure of money provided they do not go beyond the purposes set out in the resolution. But because the resolution did not specify a maximum amount of money, I submit that we have this right.
As the minister knows, as the government knows, as the House of Commons knows, and as you, Mr. Chairman, know, many resolutions which the government brings in do take the precaution of putting a dollar figure in the resolution, so that there is in the resolution either an over-all, aggregate figure or a dollar figure in per capita terms, per item, or what have you. Let me read it again. We are in the position that " the committee is not bound by the terms of the provisions which the ministers of the crown have inserted in the bill."
This is what the minister has done; he has introduced a general resolution that has no ceiling and no limit. He has put in the bill a definition of "insured services" which satisfies him. But it is left to us, on the basis of May's 13th edition, to do as it is said here:
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
-and any member may propose to increase the grants specified in these clauses or to extend the application of the provisions of the hill, whatever may be the cost resulting therefrom, so long as the power conferred by the royal recommendation is not exceeded.
It seems to me that these points might have been made with respect to either of the two other amendments. However, it might be argued with respect to them that they went farther, that they went beyond medical services into the general arts of healing and so on. However, here we are staying within the concept of medical services, of services which are performed by medical practitioners. Surely that makes a difference. In addition, we are exercising a right accorded to us by the government when it failed to put a money ceiling in the resolution preceding the bill.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the rulings that you have made on the broader amendments I submit that this one is different, that it meets all the conditions of the citations I have read, and that Your Honour should find this amendment in order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to make a very brief reply to the argument made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, especially with respect to his reliance upon May's 13th edition, page 510. Of course, the gist of the argument which I have made on all three amendments is that the terms of the royal recommendation have been exceeded in the amendments which have been put forward.
The same deficiency exists in the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Before I elaborate upon that point may I read one sentence from May:
This principle, however, is apparently disregarded when the recommendation of the Crown is given to a resolution empowering the expenditure of public money, which, framed in general terms, places no limitation on the amount of expenditure to be authorized by the resolution.
The operative expression is "framed in general terms", and the resolution is not framed in general terms. If it had been framed in general terms the chairman would have found the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton South in order because his amendment was framed in general terms.
It read "and such other health and paramedical services as may be included". If the resolution were framed in general terms it would admit of this amendment because it is framed in specific terms. The chairman ruled that it did not meet the requirements. May I say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has argued that the committee is not bound by the terms of the provisions which the ministers of the Crown have inserted in the bill, and of course this is what May has said, "so long as the power conferred by the royal recommendation is not exceeded".
The essence of the issue is whether the power conferred by the royal recommendation is exceeded in these amendments. The first amendment was ruled out on that ground, because it dealt with the health professions in general while the resolution deals with medical services. The second amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamloops was deficient for the same reason, and now we are asked to accept, because of a difference in word structure, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has overcome this deficiency. All I wish to suggest is that if this amendment is held to be in order then every other profession can be substituted for the word "optometrists". Certainly if this amendment is in order that can come about, and clearly the effect will be to exceed the power conferred by the royal recommendation because every single health profession can be included by amendment. In other words, the generality of the amendment can be demonstrated by having the amendment read as follows, "and services rendered by any member of the health professions" instead of the word "optometrists".

November 28, 1966
Medicare


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the rest of the amendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: "-when rendered by a medical practitioner, would be considered as insured services". But the effect of the hon. member's amendment is to bring in every single health profession. If it is accepted, any other profession can be substituted for optometrists, such as psychologists, chiropractors, podiatrists and so on. This may be a highly desirable objective and I would like to say more about it later when we deal with the substance of the matter, but surely if that is possible then it is absolutely clear that the amendment exceeds the power conferred by the royal recommendation. This is the nub of the matter, and this amendment is defficient for precisely the same reason as were the other two.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us frankly-I wait until the minister puts on his earphone-for instance can the minister deny that the population needs care given by optometrists, podiatrists, oculists, dentists? In short, they need care as everyone is entitled to have. And these people are considered as medical practitioners.
When the minister reads Beauchesne or May to clear the government or to lessen its responsibility with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I find that the reasons he gives are childish, that they do not make sense, because the Canadian people need optometrists, podiatrists, dentists. In taking its stand upon May's work written 125 year ago, the government does not allow us to move an increase of expenditures.
According to Beauchesne's work, that does not concern us; but according to the population we govern, and I think that concerns us.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is perfectly right when he insists to have accepted the amendment he moved, both by the Chair and by the members as a whole.
I see that some liberal members, for example, my good friend, the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) is convinced that dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, and all similar professions have necessarily the same rights as any medical practitioner in Canada and that this amendment does not interfere With physicians' rights. We recognize the

physicians' rights, but at the same time we would like all other specialists to be respected just like the medical profession, and like any other specialty or profession that deserves to be recognized by law.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely believe the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre deserves to be supported not only by one group but by the hon. members as a whole, so that podiatrists and optometrists may be on equal footing with general practitioners, medical specialists and all specialities, whatever they may be.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take issue with one point made by the minister, namely, that if this amendment is implemented costs will increase.
Let me take the case of the optician. If I go to an optician for an eye examination and I buy a pair of glasses, I pay a certain amount of money. If I go to an eye, ear, nose and throat specialist who does the same job, I will also pay a like amount. In one case I am insured but if I go to the optician I am not.
For many years I have had the services of a good optician in my area. Under the present circumstances I will have to cease using his services and seek out an eye, ear, nose and throat specialist in order to be covered under medical insurance. But in both cases the cost to the government is the same whether the service is rendered by a medical practitioner or an optician. So no argument can be made about additional cost.
However, there is a tremendous argument to be made against the government trying to put legislation into effect which will put opticians out of practice. I believe in freedom of enterprise and in these people being given the right to practise. I do not believe that the government should have the right to pass legislation to force opticians out of business, which is what this amounts to. We will all have medical insurance when this legislation passes and in any particular province will have to seek the services of a medical practitioner, not of an optician, and the opticians will be put out of business. It will take months and months to get an appointment and years and years to increase the number of eye, ear, nose and throat specialists to carry the extra load placed upon them.
Why not start this legislation off properly? Why distort the usual practice which has been in effect? People are used to opticians and to
November 28, 1961

these other services. This legislation is deficient and will never meet the requirements of our people if the government adheres to the arguments it is using. The government should take into consideration the practices which are common among the people.
I can assure the government that it will hear more about this question from the people if this legislation is never put into effect in this form. I do not believe in ministers making snap judgments. These decisions should be made in caucus where the opinion of the members of the party can be had. We do not want to force on the minister what are after all reasonable decisions. I suggest that this clause stand and that the government think about it.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, I think we are in a dilemma at the moment. Could you rule on whether we are debating the point of order that was raised or the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre? I and other hon. members wish to debate this matter but we are wondering whether we are on the point of order or on the amendment. We would appreciate a ruling from the chair.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The point of order raised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare was whether or not the amendment moved was in order. If it is the wish of the committee I will now render a ruling on whether the amendment in my opinion is or is not in order.


Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Chairman, speaking on the point of order, I point out that everyone has been talking on and off the point of order, referring to Beauchesne and May and giving their own opinions. I was wondering whether, if you were ruling the point of order out, we would still discuss the matter. If this is so I would be pleased to give my views first.
With regard to the amendment brought in by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, some hon. members have indicated that if we cannot have the whole principle we will have half of it. How can we have half a principle? The amendment may not be to the entire liking of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and possibly not to mine, but I do not like to see concessions made to those affiliated with the medical profession such as dentists, optometrists and chiropractors, those who are not medical doctors in general practice. Every time you want to see one of these
Medicare
people you have to get the doctor's permission. This imposes control upon the individual receiving these services and puts the power of the Almighty into the hands of the college of physicians.
I recall reading about the life of Louis Pasteur who advanced the theory of pasteurization. This was at a time when there were many post-operative problems because of unclean utensils, the use of which caused many deaths. There was even a sickness in the medical books known as doctor's disease. For example, people did not die from appendectomies but from complications thereafter. Then Louis Pasteur introduced the pasteurization process, and he was a chemist, not a doctor. The point is: are medical advances sound only if propounded by medical doctors or is a thing sound if it makes good sense? If a given method is useful it should be put into practice.
I do not see how this amendment would increase the cost. If I need to see an eye specialist I will pay him for his services. If I see an optometrist I will pay the optometrist, not the eye specialist. Perhaps it will cost me the same amount of money, but I will be satisfied with the services I receive and will be able to walk down the street straight without hitting a post.
Doctors today tend to specialize. Some specialize in care of the feet, others in care of the ears, others in care of the eyes and others in care of the spine. There is a need for specialization today, and perhaps we need a few specialists in politics too. But one thing we always forget is the commonsense of the whole issue. For example, anyone with sore feet will not go to see a head specialist unless, of course, he hasn't got a head. But the point the minister is making is that when we need an eye specialist we have to go and see a doctor who can treat appendicitis. If we have sore feet we must go and see a doctor who can treat appendicitis. A doctor might be good at operations for appendicitis, but not nearly as good in treating a case of earache.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I raise my hat to the medical profession. I do homage to them. But it is impossible to specialize in all branches of the science. When people go to see a specialist they know they are seeing a man with a great deal of experience in a particular disease or ailment, not just a jack of all trades. It does not cost more to have a tooth extracted by a dentist than by a doctor but it hurts less. In this issue there is no difference in terms of dollars and

November 28, 1966
Medicare
cents. The government does not wish to recognize podiatrists but it does recognize doctors who have specialized in this field.
It is the same everywhere. A general practitioner cannot do everything. There is an asylum in my riding which has 2,000 patients. There is one doctor engaged in general practice who looks after the needs of this hospital and of the municipality which contains 5,000 people. This institution is now under provincial jurisdiction though for years it was under federal jurisdiction. All those people in that hospital are not there because they have appendicitis or sore feet. They went there because they were mentally sick. And there is no psychiatrist in that hospital. It would cost no more to send a psychiatrist to look after those people than it would to engage the services of a general practitioner. This man is all alone. He told me: "I do what I can". Every time someone has a baby in the municipality he has to attend on the case. If someone wants a tooth extracted in the hospital he has to take it out. He is a good man. But if he were not, the people there would still have no one else to turn to.
I have nothing against using the services of a doctor but when I have a sore tooth I like to call a dentist. Similarly, when I need glasses I like to go to an optometrist. At least I know he will give me a clean pair of lenses. I do not like the set-up which is now proposed, with the general practitioners having their say above everyone else. I have referred to the services of dentists. Why not accept dentists under the scheme? In every Canadian university there is a recognized course in dentistry with the same high standards as apply to the medical profession. Why this discrimination against dentists, chiropractors and optometrists?
The government should not be unduly bound by the recommendations of a royal commission. The public want a feeling of security. Let the hon. gentleman bring in provisions acceptable to parliament and to the Canadian people. He will be praised across the board and people will say, for once, we have a decent minister of health. It would not cost a cent more.


Alexander Bell Patterson: It would appear from the speeches we have heard that the remarks I wish to make will be in order at the present time. I have been tempted to raise a point of order in an effort to find out where we are in the present debate. I can only assume we are debating the amendment which is before the
[Mr. Langlois (Megantic).l
committee and that we can make our observations with respect to this matter at the present time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. I can understand his difficulty with respect to this discussion, and this may be an appropriate time at which to ask for a ruling from the Chair which would clarify the point. This will not prevent the substance of this question being discussed under the clause. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could have a ruling.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I have been trying to get a ruling on the matter. I understand that so far the committee has been engaged on a general debate on the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Since the other speakers who have taken part in this discussion were permitted to cover the whole area thoroughly, I do not think we should try to pull in the lines now and say that the discussion is out of order.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If Your Honour rules that we are engaged in a general debate I will gladly yield to the hon. member for Fraser Valley but if we are discussing the point of order I should like to make a few observations directed solely to the point of order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: An amendment was moved. It was considered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and he raised a point of order as to its validity. It is the point of order raised by the minister that the committee is now discussing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You mean: "should be discussing."


Alexander Bell Patterson: With all due respect, it seems to me that the discussion has been ranging so far afield that it would be unfair to restrict it now on a technical point.


Raymond Langlois: To enable the Chair to get out of this dilemma I suggest that we might adjourn the debate for 15 minutes during which time the minister could telephone the Governor General to ask him to widen the scope of the biU.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am prepared to rule now on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If the hon. member for Greenwood wishes to make any com ment I win at least listen to him.
November 28. 1966

[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: I know you have heard a great deal on this matter, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief. But I wish to deal with the argument put forward by the minister. As I understand it, he says that the amendment cannot expand the terms of the resolution. This, of course, we must accept. But it is my submission that, equally, the minister cannot, by narrowing the scope of the resolution, restrict the normal meaning of the words used and thereby prevent any hon. member from moving any amendment within the ambit of the original resolution. In this regard I submit to you that this amendment does not extend the resolution in any way. It is totally different from the previous amendments. The two previous amendments proposed that in addition to the medical care services referred to in the original resolution services provided by other professions should be added, and in so doing it could be very strongly argued, and you have already held, sir, that this would be an expansion of the original terms. But the present amendment is of a totally different nature.
The present amendment accepts the broad general words of the resolution, which I presume were drafted by the government referring to the provision of medical care services. This is a phrase that is very broad, but I think it is reasonable to restrict it to the type of service provided by doctors. I think this is the interpretation that you, sir, gave previously. But to pick out of this broad phraseology the proposition that it is only service when provided by doctors is to put a restrictive meaning on the breadth of the language in the resolution, which language was chosen by the government. If the government wanted to restrict the resolution to medical care services provided by doctors, it would have been very easy to say no. Instead, it used this broader language, thus permitting a proper interpretation to be made that if some other group provides the very type of service which is traditionally and normally proffered by doctors, then in fact medical care services are being provided.
In addition, in the original resolution there was reference to provincial medical care insurance plans. One can look at the terms of the resolution to see what its scope was, and when that is done I think we become aware that provincial medical insurance plans was a broad enough phrase to include these types of services. I suggest with great respect to Your Honour that the argument made by the minister is not applicable to the circumstances of this case, and that the restriction
Medicare
he is asking you to impose is not consistent with the resolution but is consistent with the minister's own restrictive ideas of what the legislation should be.
We in the opposition have the right to take the terms of the original resolution and, so long as we stay within its scope, move an amendment that will be in order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me I should have the right to express my opinion like any other hon. member in this house.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment reads as follows:

-and services rendered by optometrists which, when rendered by a medical practitioner-

Here, we should come to an understanding of some kind. We have ophthalmologists who examine the eyes, provide glasses to those who need them and who are recognized as doctors, as stipulated here in the amendment:

-when rendered by a medical practitioner, would be considered as insured services,

Mr. Chairman, optometrists or oculists complete practically the same studies as ophthalmologists. However, the latter would be included under this amendment, whereas the former would not. I feel that optometrists or oculists should be included in the bill on exactly the same basis as the others.
If a physician or an ophthalmologist states that the vision of a patient is affected due to a kidney disease, according to the bill, the government would provide for the required care in its legislation and one could set forth any reason or any motive so as to enable ophthalmologists to submit claims to the medical care plan or to any medical insurance plan established by any province at any time, anywhere and in any way.
Mr. Chairman, we suggest-and it may be advisable to change the amendment-that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre include not only:

-services rendered by optometrists which, when rendered by a medical practitioner, would be considered as insured services,

November 28, 1968
Medicare

Then, the member for Winnipeg North Centre includes in his amendment qualified optometrists who have made the same studies and who know where they are going. It would be unfair to them to pass legislation which would only take into account the care given by ophthalmologists to the detriment of optometrists or oculists in our country.
And moreover, Mr. Chairman, I think that podiatrists as well as chiropractors should be included in the bill. We often hear Canadians tell us that chiropractors have helped them more than some physicians.
Now, under the present circumstances, if one is not a physician but only a chiropractor, this is not enough. Chiropractors are called "bone crackers." But, Mr. Chairman, this is not my opinion. Chiropractors render services to the people and when medicine is helpless, the chiropractor is efficient, and he can cure while certain physicians are unable to make such cures.
Why are chiropractors, oculists, optometrists and podiatrists not included in Bill No. C-277? If this bill is apt to help only those who are already recognized, those who are already in a good position, it will not be very useful to Canadians.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
My colleague from Megan tic (Mr. Langlois) said a while ago: Take 15 minutes, and go and meet the Governor General, to have optometrists, oculists, podiatrists and chiropractors recognized and included in Bill No. C-227. Mr. Chairman, we will not accept that it should not be so, especially in the province of Quebec. I am not aware of the situation in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but I know that in Alberta and in British Columbia, optometrists and even chiropractors are recognized, while here in Ottawa, here-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


David Réal Caouette: A point of order?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is dealing with a wide range of subject matter. A short time ago the hon. member for Fraser Valley asked whether we were speaking to the point of order or to the amendment, and I suggest that the hon. member for Villeneuve should wait until a ruling has been given before getting into the general subject matter of the debate. Any comments

he wishes to make now could be made later after the point of order is disposed of.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking precisely on the point of order. The minister is asking the Chair for a ruling, but as far as the point of order is concerned, I would like to ask the minister to include in his bill the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and add to it: chiropractors and optometrists, not only when they are general practitioners or ophthalmologists-

Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, November 28, 1966
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 28th November, at 9.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
November 28, 1986	COMMONS

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the problem that I raise came to the attention of the country last week in the television program "Twenty Million Questions" when one of the journalists, Mr. Charles Lynch, displayed a volume which he said was the Canada Year Book, 1966. He said that much of the country was denied reading this volume because an adequate translation of the Canada Year Book, 1966, in the French language was not then available. Apparently the Canada Year Book, 1966, had occupied considerable warehouse space for approximately three or four months since it was ready in the English version.
There is difficulty in dealing with language problems in this house. For one thing, it is not considered sporting for an English speaking member to mention section 133 of the British North America Act, and if we point out that telephone operators have been treated rather shabbily because of their language limitations, some of us are met with sneers and jeers. I wonder sometimes whether bilingualism is an excuse to improve Canada or some ill-fancied revenge. I hope that its objective is the improvement of our country by giving us a broader based culture. Certainly, as we all know from school, the study of other languages is intellectual nourishment in itself. Therefore I approach this question in that light.
How can we prevent incidents, such as that which has occurred with regard to the Canada Year Book, happening over and over again? First, I suggest that because the matter is now out in the open it should be easier for government departments and the Civil Service Commission to recruit more translators for the public service of Canada. That is my first suggestion, a stepped-up recruiting program.
My second suggestion is special courses for gifted people in the translation field. Departments might pay for their education in return for several years service. This is a technique that is used in the Department of National Defence to attract officer material. A third step that I would suggest is the initiation of more documents in the French language. I understand that the pressure lies in English to French translation or, to use the expression a translator used to me, the English to French flow. Perhaps if more documents were initiated in the French language it would take some of the pressure off the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion English to French flow and would tend to equalize the problem.
As a fourth step I would suggest that there be more translating staffs in departments themselves rather than in centralized bureaux. Finally, Mr. Speaker, my fifth point, to prevent what I regard as a rather sad incident, is to parcel out some of the translating work to the language departments of Canadian universities. I think the house will see that my attitude toward the problem is on the positive side. I would like to see the problem overcome.


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the only reason for the delay in the public release of the Canada Year Book 1966 is the shortage of personnel in the translation division.
I am told that in a few days both the French and English versions will be ready and it will then be released to the public.
Now, my good friend knows that the policy of this government is to release publications simultaneously in both French and English. [English]
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



SHIPPING-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON SAFETY DISCUSSIONS

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, for some time now there has been growing concern about safety matters aboard ships, particularly in the seaway and in the St. Lawrence river, on the part of the Seafarers' International Union. The Canada Shipping Act contains provisions which permit the government to establish regulations for manning levels and safety factors but so far this has not taken place. In other words, the government has not exercised the authority which parliament gave it many years ago to establish by regulation certain manning standards and safety factors.
Recently a meeting was held at Dorval called by officials of the Department of Transport or by the department itself on the matter of policy which was attended by representatives of the shipping industry and of the employees who work in that industry. There is a certain conflict of attitude as to the matter of safety. One point of view advanced by the government not too long ago is that the manning scales or manning levels aboard ships should be the subject matter of collective bargaining. I do not subscribe to that view because I do not think that collective bargaining should take place in respect of the
COMMONS DEBATES	November 28, 1966
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion lives of employees. The other view is that minimum safety levels should be established by regulation and promulgated by the Governor in Council.
I have here an editorial entitled "No Bargaining Issue" dealing with that meeting which I should like to read into the record. It reads as follows:
The intermittent series of meetings between government, ship owners and maritime union leaders designed to make the St. Lawrence a safer place for shipping has finally, warily, approached the issue of manning. There were no visible bruises after the meeting. But it was quite apparent that if the shipping industry is not to bog down in collective bargaining over what is primarily a safety matter, the government simply must legislate minimum standards and provide more adequate inspection services.
Employers and unions are miles apart on the issue. The former accuse labour of selfishly trying to promote over-manning to collect more dues. The unions maintain that under-manning demands too much from individuals, that the consequent physical exhaustion brings danger or worse. Existing regulations certainly are so vague as to be almost meaningless, and overlook the possibility that what might constitute adequate manning while a ship is moving normally has little relation to loading and unloading operations.
There has been a lot of buck passing on the issue. Specific complaints to shipping inspectors have brought replies that manning is a trade union matter. Yet in reporting on a local case a few years ago, H. Carl Goldenberg, chairman of a conciliation board, refused to touch the question of personnel on the grounds that it related to seaworthiness, a subject governed by statute.
Sweeping technical changes gradually creeping into the shipping industry mean that fewer men will be needed to keep vessels moving efficiently. But manning must always be keyed to the abnormal because safety is the guide line. And it is up to government to establish the rules. Safety is not a matter for the bargaining table.
I commend to the government the thought contained in that editorial from the Montreal Star of Saturday, November 19. I hope that when the minister replies he will be able to make a firm and concrete announcement about government plans in the field of the establishment of minimum safety scales and manning levels as they relate to the safety of seamen working on ships.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the three minutes accorded to me under the rules I will not be able to make the extensive statement which the hon. member seeks. May I say that at the latest of a series of five meetings being held at Dorval under the auspices of the Department of Transport involving members of the industry and the unions concerned the subject matter was the manning of ships in relation to

safety criteria. I believe that the number of casualties along the St. Lawrence river channel, even though small in proportion to the amount of traffic handled, has now reached such a point that the government will have to intervene, as it has quite actively over the past year.
I think that the hon. member, who attended one or two of the meetings, will agree that we have taken a great step forward in traffic control in the use of walkie-talkies aboard ships, in the installation of a permanent network along the St. Lawrence river, in setting up the study of twin channels below Quebec, in the modernization of certification and training methods, and now in this particular provision with regard to manning.
The question of manning involves two aspects. The first is safety; the second is automation and its corollary of job security, which is properly a matter for collective bargaining. What we are dealing with here is the fact that automation has now reached such a stage in the shipping industry that crews could conceivably be reduced to such a minimum that safety standards would be jeopardized.
We are not dealing here with the total strength of crews, their hours of work or their welfare benefits, which are still properly a matter for collective bargaining between the industry and unions concerned, but rather with the number of men on watch, the number of men at alert at any one time, and also the number of hours worked by any one man over a given period, which brings into play the fatigue factor.
So we are not talking about manning requirements in general; this still remains a matter for collective bargaining. We are not talking about technological change on the one hand and job security on the other. We are talking of manning as it affects the safety of the crew and the ship. We are talking of the number of men on watch and at alert, not only during ordinary conditions of sailing but also during emergency conditions, men in sufficient number to safely man the ships. Since emergency conditions must be predicted we are also talking of emergency conditions as they potentially affect the safety of crews.
I hope that eventually the Minister of Transport will make a statement, and I am sure it will be soon, indicating that there is evidence before the department which will enable it to publish more specific guidelines, or preferably regulations based on the principles I have indicated, for circulation in the first instance to those concerned in the indus-
November 28, 1966	COMMONS
try and the unions and later for general publication, regarding the safety of the crew and the ship in no way interfering with the free collective bargaining process.



FINANCE-REQUEST FOR MORE EQUITABLE ESTATE TAX ON FARM LAND

James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I attempted to ask a question which related to the present high valuations being placed on farm land for the purpose of assessing estate tax on property left by a deceased person. The question I addressed to the Minister of National Revenue suggested that the present policy of high valuations on farm land in relation to the original cost of the land, and even in relation to farm prices only a few years ago, is actually a form of capital gains tax. Estate tax assessments of $125 to $150 per acre on farm land that my have been homestead land or purchased a few years ago at $25 or $30 per acre are, in my opinion a capital gains tax. How else can you explain the practice of the Department of National Revenue?
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
A farmer may have homesteaded land or have purchased it in an undeveloped state at a reasonable price but by hard work over the years he has put his farm into a highly productive condition. Surely it is a form of capital gains tax when on a farmer's death his land is valued at $125 or $150 per acre by way of arbitrary levey against his estate. The arbitrary valuation of farms for estate tax purposes can lead to inequitable treatment.
In this connection I should like to refer to three specific cases of estate tax valuation which indicate a wide discrepancy in the assessment made by the Department of National Revenue. These three cases relate to land with the same tax assessment and the same type of soil. On the death of one man in November 1964, the land was assessed at $85 an acre. The land of another man who died in April 1965, was assesses at $100 an acre, and the land of a third, who died in December of the same year, was assessed at $125 an acre. It is my contention that these diverse valuations for estate tax purposes with respect to land of practically the same soil type, in the same area, and having practically the same r.m. assessment, emphasize the need for a more equitable policy.
There is a further aspect of estate tax policy that I should like to draw to the attention
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of the house. It concerns the preservation of the family farm. Consider, for example, an 800-acre farm which has been built up by a farmer in the expectation that his son will carry on. In one case I have in mind the son is actually operating a farm still owned by his father. The father dies. The estate tax valuation on the 800 acres is $125 an acre. This amounts to $100,000. The widow benefits by an exemption of $60,000 but the estate tax levy on the remaining $40,000 could well be such as to force the widow to sell the farm in order to pay the tax, thus removing the farm from family operation.
I suggest, that the government should lighten this burden by lowering the valuation on farm land. I contend this should be done at least where a son or a daughter is taking over the land from the father. Such a policy is essential if family farms are to continue.
I want to read an excerpt from a leading editorial in the Regina Leader-Post of November 25, 1966:
Economic farm units have a minimum value of around $100,000 these days. Finding the money to pay an estate tax on a farm of this value is apt to impose a crippling financial burden on the heirs. At a time when a major objective is to encourage the development of more family farms into economic units, imposing this tax works in the opposite direction.
Farther on the editorial says:
Reasonable persons should have no difficulty in thinking things through to the logical conclusion that the tax does more harm than good.
I hope the Minister of National Revenue will consider my remarks carefully and bring about the suggested change in estate tax policy in the interest of preserving family farms.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the value of farm land has enhanced over the past years and the basis of evaluation for estate tax purposes has always been the fair market value at the date of death, and it still is. Therefore, since farm land can now be sold at higher prices than similar land could be sold a few years ago the values placed on it now are higher than they were then, using the same test of fair market value. Of course, as in all estate tax matters decisions of the Department of National Revenue can be appealed to the Income Tax Appeal Board.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Tuesday, November 29, 1966