1966-12-06

Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, after 33 meetings and hearing 73 witnesses, and having received and considered 36 briefs, I have the honour to present the thirteenth report of the standing committee on transport and communications in English and French dealing with Bill C-231.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer the question put to me yesterday by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. As it is a long answer I wish to make it at this stage in the proceedings.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition inquired yesterday about three Yugoslav ship deserters, Slavko Smoljan, Ante Ivancev, and Martin Bilic. He asked particularly why Bilic is to be allowed to remain in Canada under minister's permit while Smoljan and Ivancev are to be deported.
Martin Bilic deserted a Yugoslav ship at Sorel, Quebec, on July 28, 1966. He has four years elementary school, four years high school, and three years training in a trade school for auto mechanics, all of which he completed at the age of 19. At the immigration inquiry he claimed that his father had been killed by the communists and that his brother had been punished for attempting to escape to Italy. For this reason, and because of his qualifications, it was decided to allow him to remain in Canada under minister's permit.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Slavko Smoljan deserted the S.S. Caer-navon at Montreal, December 15, 1965, on his fourth trip to Canada as a crew member. He left school at the age of 15 and subsequently trained as a waiter. He went to sea as a
fisherman and later spent two years in the Yugoslav navy. He joined his ship in the United Kingdom in August 1965, after leaving Yugoslavia legally with a passport valid to December 1966. At the immigration inquiry he produced no evidence that he would be subject to persecution if he returned to Yugoslavia. The Immigration Appeal Board, in dismissing his appeal, recommended that he be deported.
Ante Ivancev deserted the S.S. Caernavon at Montreal on December 15, 1965. He left school at the age of 16 and subsequently trained as a waiter. He worked as a waiter in hotels in Yugoslavia until he secured a passport in August 1965, valid to December 1966, and went to France under a tourist visa. From France he went to the United Kingdom to join the ship from which he deserted in December, the same ship incidentally which brought Smoljan to Canada. At the immigration inquiry, Ivancev produced no evidence that he would be subject to persecution if he returned to Yugoslavia. The Immigration Appeal Board, in dismissing his appeal, recommended that he be deported.
It will be evident to hon. members that the case of Martin Bilic differs substantially from the cases of Smoljan and Ivancev. Bilic has qualifications which probably would have enabled him to qualify as an unsponsored immigrant, had it been possible to examine him in Yugoslavia. The other two do not have such qualifications. There is at least the possibility, moreover, however remote it may be, that Bilic might be persecuted for political reasons if he returned to his own country, whereas Smoljan and Ivancev quite clearly can make no such claim. Both of them had an opportunity to seek political asylum in at least one other country if that had been their real aim in leaving Yugoslavia.
I might say, finally, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian embassy in Yugoslavia has reported that the authorities there do not permit persons with political backgrounds, or evaders of military service, to serve on ocean-going ships from which defection would be relatively easy. This would appear to reduce considerably the possibility that ship deserters come within the categories of persons likely to be persecuted following their deportation to

December 6, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry Yugoslavia. Thus far In 1966, 21 ship deserters have been deported, and there is no evidence whatever that anything untoward has happened to any of them. None the less, as in the case of Martin Bilic, we will continue to pay close attention to even the possibility that a particular individual might be subject to persecution.
This is not the first time deserters from ships have been deported to Yugoslavia. Some were deported in 1960, others in 1961 and 1962 when the Leader of the Opposition was prime minister of Canada.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: That may have been so at times but not in the circumstances which have arisen in these cases. The minister has added to the cloud of doubt which surrounds the actions of his department.
He endeavours to differentiate between Bilic and these two persons who are to be deported. If there is one thing we must guard against in this country it is bureaucratic dictation which interferes with human rights. I want to say at once that the explanation given by the minister is transparent. He said neither of these two men who are being deported has produced any evidence that he would be persecuted if he returned to Yugoslavia. What manner of nonsense is that? Are they going to know in anticipation what is going to happen to them? I say that the explanation given is the usual explanation to cover up and conceal, and I take the strongest objection to action that will deny political refuge in this country to those who want to come to Canada, unless they have records that would make them unsuitable and unsatisfactory as immigrants.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Why did you deport them?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has to say about this. If he does not know very much more about this than he does about his own department, it would not be very beneficial. I want to say that I think this is wrong, and the explanation given does not add in any degree to clarification of a situation that, on its face, seems unjust.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a correction-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. If the minister wants to rise on a question of privilege or a point of order I am not too sure really what he has in mind, but I hope we do not prolong this. The minister made a statement on motions to which the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Diefenbaker) has replied. I am not too sure whether the minister is rising on a point of order or a question of privilege.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to add anything. I just want to mention that I never said those ship deserters did not produce any evidence. I just said that they did not claim. This is something different.


John George Diefenbaker: How would they claim unless they had evidence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: How about the ones you deported? What about George Christian Hanna, whom you deported?


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to see the
Minister of Transport back in the house again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, what a phony.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour would the Prime Minister provide the house with a report regarding the longshoremen's strike in Vancouver? What progress has been made toward a settlement, now that the effectiveness of the representations for settlement has been so strongly aided by the interposition of the premier of British Columbia?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour had meetings yesterday with both sides to this dispute. I was in touch with him late last night and he told me he would be meeting them again this morning. Because of the difference in time, those meetings may be going on now. The minister expects to be returning this afternoon or evening and I hope he will be in a position to report to the house tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the frightening consequences of delay in getting ships underway, will the Prime Minister not now place before parliament proposals for action to be taken immediately to provide for the appointment of an administrator so that the detrimental economic consequences that follow this prolonged strike, call it what you will, will be ended?
December 6, 1966


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be wise if I waited until I had a report from the minister this afternoon.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: As
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this dispute has tied up nine ports and that the tie-up is now in its second week, and in view of the further fact that the proposal advanced by the Minister of Labour has been accepted by local 514 of the I.L.W.U., does the Prime Minister not think that any administrator appointed ought to be an administrator over the stevedoring companies, since the men have indicated their willingness to co-operate with the government in getting ships loaded and unloaded?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, before I can make any comment on what my hon. friend has said, surely I should await a firsthand report from the minister. Then I will be in a better position to make a reply, and the minister will be in a position to make a report immediately he returns to the house.



WHEAT-DELAYS IN SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA ATTRIBUTABLE TO PACIFIC LONGSHOREMEN LABOUR DISPUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he has been advised by the Canadian Wheat Board that because of United States negotiations there has been some loss in reference to the amounts delivered under contracts to Russia?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have been advised of no loss. There is a serious delay in making shipments but I have not been advised of a loss.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps I did not put my
question clearly, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the delays, I should like to ask the minister whether he has been advised by the Canadian Wheat Board that the delays would not have occurred in respect of the grain shipped under the contract if the strike had not occurred?


Robert Henry Winters: No, I have not been so advised.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and is addressed to the Prime Minister. I have had 23033-680
Inquiries of the Ministry reports from quite a number of my constituents advising me that they have been out of work because of this situation. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has an up to date report in respect of the magnitude of the unemployment, and the number of workers who now are idle because of the tie-up of the shipping, which in turn has tied up industrial plants in British Columbia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; I do not have the latest figures. I could try to get them this afternoon, but I am sure the minister will be bringing back later this evening details on that account as well as on other accounts.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that our Canadian representative in London is chairman of the sanctions committee for Rhodesia, and in view of the fact that a meeting has been called and the various representatives of the Commonwealth countries have been in communication with their respective governments, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs could tell us whether or not our representative, the High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, has been in contact with him, and what policy Canada is adopting in respect of the critical situation which presently is developing around the matter of the compulsory sanctions requested of the United Nations by Mr. Wilson.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend is aware the British Prime Minister has indicated the intention of the British government to move in the Security Council for sanctions under chapter 7 of the charter of the United Nations. The Sanctions committee under the chairmanship of the High Commissioner for Canada met this morning. As of this hour I cannot say whether or not the meeting has concluded. Of course the government has given him instructions concerning the position he should take at this meeting. I should like to remind my hon. friend that on November 24 the Prime Minister stated that Canada is committed to supporting selective mandatory sanctions under chapter 7 of the charter. This will be the position the government will take, depending on the action taken by the Security Council itself when it meets very shortly.
10752	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could tell us whether or not the British Prime Minister has been in touch with the Canadian government in relation to the foreign secretary's visit tomorrow to the United Nations to discuss the policies they will be following there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There have been full consultations between the British Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Canada, and between the Commonwealth office and the Department of External Affairs. Last week one of the officials of the Commonwealth office was in Ottawa for discussions with the Prime Minister and myself.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the United Nations now has changed its charter -and I refer to article VII, chapter 1-so that they can now interfere in the domestic affairs of any country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question would appear to be argumentative.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in a position to tell us at the present time whether or not the government would sanction the use of any sort of force to enforce sanctions in Rhodesia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot go beyond what I have said today. On November 24 we indicated that we would support a program of selective mandatory sanctions. This will be before the Security Council in the form of a British initiative. When we have had the opportunity of seeing the precise form of that British proposal, we will be in a position to decide what view we should take.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Inasmuch as his proposal for a two China policy has been rejected, is he now prepared to extend diplomatic recognition to the nationalist government of Formosa?

DEBATES	December 6, 1966


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, Canada has diplomatic relations with the government of Formosa. We have no resident minister there, but there is a resident ambassador from Taiwan in this country. May I say to my hon. friend that Canada at no time has proposed a two China policy. We have proposed a one China, one Taiwan policy.


An hon. Member:: What is the difference?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I have a supplementary question. We all recognize the implications of the answer given by the hon. minister. In view of that answer is he prepared to open Canadian government offices in Taiwan?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I have given an answer, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry relating to the lay-off by the Dominion Steel and Coal Company at Sydney, Nova Scotia, of some 800 men during this year, and the announcement in this morning's press that one of the two blast furnaces is being banked and will likely remain banked until the end of February. Has the minister had the opportunity of looking into this situation, and what action does the government propose to take to deal with the plight of the 800 men who have been laid off and the others who are likely to be laid ofi as a result of the banking of this furnace?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1
have not yet had the opportunity of looking into this situation, Mr. Speaker, but I shall Let me point out to the hon. member foi Burnaby-Coquitlam that the government has a great many plans now in operation designee to alleviate the effects of industrial changes and dislocations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. Has the government any works prograrr or any plan for immediate assistance which will be provided for these 800 or more mer who have or will be laid off by Dosco in Cape Breton?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of programs in existence, but I cannot a-this moment answer as to which one might be most applicable to this situation.
December 6, 1966



DOSCO-EXTENSION OF EXPORT CREDITS TO SECURE ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question somewhat similar to the two asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I should like to propose a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is a native Nova Scotian. What steps or action does he propose to take under the Export Credits Insurance Act, and other facilities available to his department, to assist in obtaining export orders for the Sydney steel plant, similar to the action by the previous administration?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I doubt
whether there are many companies in the country which have benefited more than has Dosco from the operations of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. Not long ago we did facilitate the sale of a considerable quantity of steel rails from Dosco.


Robert Muir: I have a supplementary question, and I would appreciate it very much if the minister would answer my question. What action is he taking at the present time to further this type of order under the Export Credits Insurance Act to assist in eliminating unemployment at the Sydney steel plant? We all realize what has been done in the past, specifically under the previous administration.


Robert Henry Winters: I am sure the hon. member knows that we must first of all receive an application before we can process it.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry. As I am sure he knows, Washington has just announced federal laws and regulations requiring the inclusion of over 20 safety features in all cars made in or imported to the United States for general public purchase, and I underline the words "for general public purchase". Is the Canadian government now considering Canadian standards for the protection of the Canadian public?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):
Mr. Speaker, I think the house will recall that a large and competent committee considered the introduction of standards of safety in respect of automobiles and their environment. The conclusions of this committee have now been forwarded to the relevant governments for study and action.



AIR POLLUTION

[Stage Direction]
INTRODUCTION OF CANADIAN STANDARDS On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who last week said he was looking into the problem of air pollution. The same announcement from Washington, relating to this subject announced that all cars to be made in or imported into the United States would be equipped with a clean air package in order to alleviate this problem. I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the Canadian people can expect that similar Canadian standards will protect them?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be able to consider the hon. gentleman's question.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will the government be placing before parliament a measure to raise the ceiling on war veterans allowances, so that recipients of the allowance who qualify for the old age security increase will not lose it by virtue of the ceiling in the War Veterans Allowance Act?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman knows that recently we adopted, through supplementary estimates, a measure which would increase the ceilings in war veterans allowances. It will not take care of the whole amount that is indicated in the supplement to old age income, but I would like to' point out to the hon. member that those veterans on war veterans allowance receiving old age security are at the ceiling and will be receiving an allowance of $145 a month- combined income.

December 6, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister take a look at this matter again, in the light of the new old age pension legislation?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I have taken a very, very careful look at this matter, and in the light of all the circumstances the decision has been reached which I have indicated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You give with one hand and take away with the other.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PHYSICAL FITNESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the report of the advisory council on physical fitness and amateur sport was to have been tabled in this house on March 31 this year, and we are now five months past that time, I wonder whether the minister is now prepared to table this report in the house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the delay in tabling the report is a question of translation. I will be glad to check immediately and advise my hon. friend when he may expect to read this exciting document.



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. I would like to ask what is holding up the processing of applications by industry for the purchase or rental of the parts of Centralia Canadian Forces Base which are now in the hands of Crown Assets?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Nothing, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Elgin McKinley: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please, I would think the question is not in order, in spite of the fact that the minister answered it. If the hon. member is not satisfied with the reply, he may wish to raise the question on the adjournment debate.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. By what authority have the words "Royal Canadian Air Force" been painted out and the words "Canadian Armed Forces" substituted on C-45 Expeditor aircraft No. 2368?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I really could not say, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) has a supplementary to a previous question.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question is to the Minister of National Defence. Since my question seems to imply that there has been a contempt of parliament and an anticipation of action that has not yet been taken in this house, I would ask him to take the question seriously and find out who ordered the substitution on that plane.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to do that. I presume someone on the staff is doing a little praiseworthy planning; but I would be pleased to find out for my hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Lee?



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about a staff report made to the Federal Power Commission relating to the importation of Western Canadian gas to the United States through the new proposed pipe line. I wonder whether at this time the minister could inform us of the progress being made in those F.P.C. hearings relating to this subject.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member just mentioned, this is a recommendation of the staff and is not a decision of the Federal Power Commission itself. In the past, quite often a recommendation of the staff has not been agreed to by the commission itself.
December 6, 1966



OLD AGE SECURITY

[Stage Direction]
ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether his government has received any representations from the Quebec government, in the last few days, asking him to consider the decision taken by the Quebec government to take over altogether the field of old age security in Quebec?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Since this was the intention expressed in the last speech from the throne of the Quebec government, does the right hon. Prime Minister intend to postpone the legislation now before this house in order to know about the attitude of the Quebec government in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. 3arry Mather (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Recently on the orders of the day the Prime Minister was good enough to say that he would see what could be done in the way of referring to a special parliamentary committee or a standing committee of parliament all the major issues of animal welfare. I wonder whether he could indicate today what action has been taken in this regard.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I think our parliamentary committees are somewhat overcrowded in activity, and I would not like to give my hon. friend any particular hope at the present time in that regard. But I would point out to him what I think he already knows,
Inquiries of the Ministry namely that the question of the care of experimental animals has been referred to a special committee of the National Research Council and that council, in order to provide for an advisory body on this matter, has recommended the establishment of a Canadian council on animal care to ensure uniform application of the guiding principles at the national level and to assist local committees in effective implementation for the procurement, facilities, care and use of laboratory animals. So the matter is being given attention.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question following a similar question I asked on this subject a few days ago. Would the Prime Minister consider putting before parliament legislation governing this matter, in the same manner as was done in the United States and in the form in which it was proclaimed last October 14?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think we should wait for a report from this council before deciding what kind of legislation is required. I admit that perhaps it may be required.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In answering the hon. member for Oxford a few minutes ago, the minister did not rule out the use of force against Southern Rhodesia. May I ask him whether he will, before reaching that terrible climax, use his good offices to persuade the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to withhold action at the Security Council for the time being, in view of the acceptance by the Ian Smith government of the six points in the working paper which was presented by the British government a few days ago to the Southern Rhodesian government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, sir, I will not.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I would ask the



December 6, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry minister, under whose authority are the services now imposing a condition in the field of promotions?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my hon. friend would mind putting that question again.


Malcolm MacInnis: Under whose or what authority are the armed services now imposing certain conditions with respect to promotions?
any of his technical advisers in the department in connection with the studies now being made by the province of the causes of pollution of the Kootenay and Columbia rivers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take this question as notice and try to answer tomorrow. I did have an answer but to another question pertaining to British Columbia.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I would have to know what the conditions are. If my hon. friend would be good enough to put his question on the order paper I would be pleased to give him an answer.


Malcolm MacInnis: I will do better than put it on the order paper. The Minister of National Defence should know what is going on within his own department. Is he aware of, and what does he propose to do about the fact that a group of potential N.C.O.'s was paraded at Camp Gagetown and offered promotion under the condition that they would leave their families behind when their units went overseas? Is that plain enough?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was not aware of that, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. friend would be good enough to give me the details I shall be very pleased to answer the question.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
minister has the details.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon.
member wants to follow the suggestion of the minister he might do so by communicating with him.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I see no reason to follow anything that should be as plain to the minister as it is to everybody else. The minister has already had a full explanation and should know what is going on.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. May I ask the minister whether he has received a request from the Letter Carriers Union that the new code of discipline implemented unilaterally by the department be suspended pending discussions and negotiations with the union concerned?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have read the letter received from Mr. Decarie on December 2. I replied the same day explaining exactly what had happened and inviting him and his union to form a committee to discuss this matter with the officials of my department.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether, pending those discussions, the code of discipline will be suspended from operation?


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: The problem, Mr. Speaker, if we suspend this code of discipline is that we will have to use the old one, which was not acceptable to the union especially in view of the fact that fines were provided for.



MANITOU WHEAT-ACTION TO SECURE EXPORT MARKET WATER RESOURCES POLLUTION OF KOOTENAY AND COLUMBIA RIVERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I have not given him notice; the matter has only just come to mind. Has the government of British Columbia requested assistance from
On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him whether he would ascertain from the wheat board what action will be taken to permit the growers of Manitou wheat to make sales thereof. They produce this wheat but are denied the right to export, and they have no market within this

December 6, 1966

country at the present time. Would the minister look into this matter because it is serious for those farmers who are producing the wheat but who now find no interest in Canada in the purchase thereof.


Robert Henry Winters: I would be very glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.



FARM IMPLEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I would ask the minister if he has yet come to any decision whether or not he will table the correspondence which passed between himself and the farm implements manufacturers relative to the recent price increase.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker as I think I told the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam the other day, 1 certainly will not table the correspondence until after I have had the opportunity of seeing all of the companies. I will consider the matter at that time.



REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of mines. Could the minister indicate when he expects to make the coal policy announcement, and would he undertake to make it as soon as possible?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it will be my greatest joy when I am in a position to do so. The minister and the cabinet are working hard to make it possible to announce a policy at a very early date.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister say whether the statement will be made by himself, as the proper minister to do so, or will it be made outside the house by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to whom we cannot direct questions and who says that he holds no responsibility in the matter-that is, until he is outside the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Medicare



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he is yet in a position to table copies of correspondence received from the optometric associations regarding the narrow point of the amendment to which he is going to be speaking when we get into committee of the whole?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster asked the same type of question yesterday and I reminded him that the house would be going into committee to consider a certain bill later on in the day. I would have to make the same observation today. I suggest that this question be asked when the house goes into committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that when we are in committee documents cannot be tabled. When we ask this sort on question in committee we are told that we have to wait until we get into the house. Hence my asking while we are still in the house.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, December 2, 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 clause 4-Criteria to be satisfied by plan in respect of which contribution payable.
The Chairman:: When the house rose on Friday, December 2, clause 4 of the bill with an amendment moved by the Associate Minister of National Defence was under consideration. The amendment is as follows:
That Bill C-227 be further amended by adding to clause 4 thereof the following subclause: "Excepted services"
"(3) In the application of this act to a plan established by an act of the legislature of a province, examinations of the eye performed by a medical practitioner in connection with the fitting of a person for eye glasses or other devices for the

December 6, 1966
Medicare
correction or relief of a defect of vision shall, if the provincial law so provides, be deemed not to be insured services."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago when Mr. Speaker was in the chair I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he was prepared to table certain documents. The minister, of course, heard what Mr. Speaker said at that point. I recognize that we cannot ask in committee for the tabling of documents, but it is certainly within my capacity to ask the minister to read any documents that he may have on this point.
I suggest if he does propose to go ahead with his suggested amendment to clause 4 that he should let us know where the optometrists and the optometric associations in Canada stand on this issue. If he has no correspondence from these people in support of this amendment, then he can tell us that there is nothing to table. I do not have any correspondence from optometrists or optometric associations in support of his amendment, but I do have quite a few telegrams, as I think all hon. members in the house have, opposed to the amendment.
All of these telegrams urge that this exclusion be not written into the bill. In fact, they urge the government to go in the other direction. Before we go any further with respect to this matter, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister can speak to this one point. Where do the optometrists and the optometric associations stand on this issue? Has he any correspondence, even one letter, in favour of this amendment, or what is the official position of these people?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the amendment which is now before the committee was moved on Friday last. Since that time I have had a large number of communications, the most important of which undoubtedly is a communication from the Canadian Association of Optometrists. I presume a copy of this letter has been sent to other members of the committee. The essence of the letter is that the Canadian Association of Optometrists is opposed to the amendment I moved on Friday last. The position of the profession is that it wishes to have its services included within this bill. Their communication where it touches on the amendment, I can assure my hon. friend, is opposed to the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, from what the minister just now said, and from what he did not say-that he does not have any official communications from optometrists in support
[The Chairman.]
of his amendment-if it is the case that the minister brought in this amendment because he thought the bill the way it stood discriminated against optometrists, and if the optometrists did not see it that way and do no want the amendment, why does he proceed with it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment was to meet the point of view presented to me by the members of the optometric profession. After careful consideration it was my conclusion that this would be a possible way to meet the point of view put forward by this profession. That is the reason, principally, for moving the amendment. Now I am advised by the Canadian Association of Optometrists that the amendment in their view is not in the public interest. It is not acceptable to the profession. If that is the situation I shall be happy with the consent of the committee to withdraw the amendment.


Mr. Baldwin:: When the house adjourned on Friday I had asked the minister if he would consider bringing forward the amendment he had in mind. That was the amendment, I think, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to. So far the minister has not said whether he intends to do what I asked. I have a suggestion to make, assuming that the amendment offered by the Associate Minister of National Defence is one we cannot accept even in light of the future amendment which the Minister of National Health and Welfare will propose.
Let me go one step further and assume that the amendment offered by the Associate Minister of National Defence is put and passed. In those circumstances would the minister consider detaching the amendment now before the committee with the provision that it shall not come into force except by proclamation? I suggest that, because in the event of discussions or negotiations between the provinces and the federal government bringing additional services under the bill, it may not be necessary to proclaim the amendment. It would not therefore come into effect. I do not know if I have made myself clear. My suggestion is that the present amendment should contain a provision that it does not come into effect unless it is specifically proclaimed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have put forward this amendment in an effort to meet the position of this particular profession. Obviously I have not succeeded in the amendment. As I understand, all the opposition parties do not like my amendment; consequently
December 6, 1966

Medicare
I have asked to withdraw it. Do I have con- The Chairman: The committee will proceed sent?	to consider clause 5.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Canielon:: I have had one letter from one optometrist who does agree with the particular amendment. I am sorry I do not have the letter with me now, so that I shall paraphrase it. This optometrist was opposed to the act as it was originally. I gather that was because he felt that the act put the optometrists under a great handicap, when one compared optometrists with ordinary eye doctors who could perform refractions and be paid for them. With the suggested amendment he feels that the specialist who does eye refractions, and the optometrist, are on an equal footing. Hence he is in favour of the amendment.
I thought I ought to let the minister know that, because here is at least one optometrist in favour of the amendment. I shall send the minister the letter when I have an opportunity to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One out of 1,500.


Robert Norman Thompson: I do not want to be redundant and repeat what is in numerous telegrams that I am sure the minister has received. I have received many telegrams regarding Bill C-227. In my opinion the amendment the minister proposes discriminates severely against optometrists and professional men such as dentists and chiropractors, whose services tend to overlap certain aspects of what is done by medical doctors. My correspondence in telegraphic and letter form is overwhelmingly against the minister's proposed amendment. We in this group, give the minister permission to withdraw the amendment. In fact we urge him to do so. It does not accomplish what the minister originally intended it to accomplish. The amendment is extremely discriminatory and would cause no end of difficulty for the professions. It would bring no real benefit to the patient, either.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The amendment referred to by the minister is recorded on page 10687 of last Friday's Hansard. It was moved by the Associate Minister of National Defence. Do hon. members give unanimous consent to having this amendment withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.
On clause 5-Amount of contributions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the matter of coverage under this bill has been the principal subject of debate in the last six or seven days. We have an amendment-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting, but is the minister now talking about clause 4 or clause 5?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Clause 4.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clause 4, thank you.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: An amendment to an earlier clause was moved by the hon. member for Ontario and was allowed to stand. In fact a ruling has not yet been given on it. I believe the purpose of the amendment is to make it possible, by agreement between the federal government and a provincial government, to bring additional health services under the plan at a later time. It is my submission, I do not say this in any provocative sense, that this amendment suffers from the same flaw as did previous amendments. Since it does involve the power to bring in further services, it does go beyond the scope of the resolution. I have considered a number of the amendments which have been moved suggesting that there ought to be some flexibility in the bill to allow the federal government and the provinces to add further health provisions at a later date. If that were to be done, a new resolution would be required authorizing such an amendment in committee.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I have considered this matter, but before I go further I want to say that the attitude of the government has been that if the services were to be added, amending bills could be put forward at a later date. However, we do appreciate there is a point in the view put forward by the opposition and if members of the committee are agreeable I would be prepared to produce an additional resolution authorizing such an amendment, provided the normal notice is waived and that the normal debate on the resolution is set aside.
I would warn hon. members that if the resolution is passed, the amendment would not be itself amendable in committee.
I do not want anything to be done under false pretences. The effect of my amendment would be to make it possible for the minister

December 6, 1966
Medicare
to recommend to the Governor in Council additional health provisions or services, provided the provincial law prescribes such services. If hon. members agree to give me consent, I will be glad to consider moving such an amendment because I think it would meet a wide desire among members of the committee and provide some flexibility in meeting the problems which lie ahead.


Mr. Rynard:: We in the official opposition would be very happy to have the minister bring in the amendment he proposes. It is a move toward meeting the views of hon. members not only of this party but also of other opposition parties.
We believe there should be a wider scope and a wider meaning assigned to the terms "medical health services" and "paramedical services". No one disagrees. The minister's proposal goes part of the way toward meeting the amendment put forward by my hon. friend from Ontario and, of course, it meets in part our contention that the provinces must be allowed to exercise their inherent rights in the field of health.
The proposed amendment would leave the way open for negotiations between the Governor in Council and the provinces to bring in the necessary additions to health services in the wider field of medicare, and it would allow the Governor in Council to support those provinces which are forward-looking in this respect, and which adopt forward-looking legislation. We are in favour of such forwardlooking proposals and we hope that as time goes on they will be further enlarged as the provinces increase the scope of their measures and accept their duty to the people they serve.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to respond publicly to the suggestion which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has just made. I may say he has discussed this matter with various members on this side of the house, and we are prepared to agree to two requests he has made. The first is that we should dispense with the 48 hours' notice normally required in respect of the new resolution which would have the Governor General's approval. The second request is that we do not exercise our right to debate the resolution for one day, or five hours. We are prepared to agree to both these requests.
It is understood that if the resolution is brought in with the consent of the Governor General, and if it is passed, an amendment will be moved when we are back in committee of the whole. The minister has made the point

that it will not be amendable. That is probably not for him to say; that is something for which the rules provide. But we shall be happy to facilitate the reaching of that amendment by not requiring the nomal 48 hours' notice, or the one day or five hours' debate.
As we understand it, the gist of this amendment is, more or less, what has been asked for on this side of the house. In fact, it would seem to read, in part, like the amendment moved by hon. friend from Burnaby-Coquitlam. The amendment would provide that if, in the interim, provinces by legislative action wish to include other health services not now provided, such as the services of optometrists or physiotherapists, and if the federal government is prepared to agree and pass the necessary order in council, those services would be covered. This is in line with requests which have come from several of the opposition parties.
We might have something to say on the actual amendment when we have its terms before us. But we shall agree not to require 48 hours' notice and not to debate the resolution which will be brought in.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, just a word on behalf of our group to assure the minister that we are prepared to accept this amendment for the simple reason that it will straighten things out a little bit and give back to the provinces the control they must have over medical and paramedical services.
I do not think that any member will object to this type of amendment authorizing the minister to recommend to the governor in council further additional services requested by the provinces.
I would now like to call the minister's attention to this point: if, for instance, some services are requested only by certain provinces, will those services be included in the payment of contributions by the federal government toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by a province?
I hope the minister will take this matter into consideration, because I think that some provinces accept certain paramedical services not recognized in the province of Quebec. I wonder how the minister can solve this problem through the proposed amendment which provides that provinces may indicate to the federal government what services they would like to include in the plan.
I think this is the most democratic amendment we have had to date and the minister can be assured of our support.
December 6, 1966

[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, we likewise join with other spokesmen for the opposition parties in giving an affirmative answer to the question asked by the minister. I support wholeheartedly the statement made by the hon. member for Simcoe East, and I believe the minister is showing good judgment in agreeing to move the substance of the amendment that had previously been moved by the hon. member for Ontario.
After that amendment was moved, and since we were aware that the minister was actively considering this matter because he had talked to us as well as to other members of the opposition, I communicated with the various professional associations. I do not have with me all the replies I received, but I do have here a telegram which I believe is indicative of the attitude of the members of the paramedical professions whom we are considering at this time in respect of provincial authority. It is from Lou W. Heard, - D.C., M.L.A. President of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, and reads as follows:
Designation of services to be included in medicare plans is matter of provincial jurisdiction. We urge adoption of Honourable Michael Starr's amendment to Bill C-227. This will encourage federal-provincial consultation which is desirable. It also recognizes those professions already established under provincial legislation. Anything less would discriminate against those providing needed services and would violate the rights of patients to consult licensed practitioners under tax supported program.
This reply is similar to replies from provincial dental and optometric associations.
If the intention of the amendment to which the minister referred is to permit the inclusion of these services which are authorized under provincial health plans, then it is a very definite improvement on the bill that we have before us and we would very gladly give our support to the minister's suggestion. I hope that the minister, either in the amendment or by a statement to the committee, will assure that negotiations will begin immediately with the governments of those provinces where these services are already allowed under provincial plans, in order that steps can be taken in the near future to include those services under this bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, very briefly I want to congratulate the minister for his constructive response to proposals made by parties in the opposition to provide for a widening of the scope of this bill so that on the 23033-68H
Medicare
request of the provinces certain other services can be included. This indicates that the minister has a flexible mind and I again congratulate him on it. I think parliament is working at its best when the minister does listen to representations made by the opposition, which are well founded so far as opinion in the country is concerned.
Progress reported.



AMENDED RESOLUTION TO PERMIT INCLUSION OF PARAMEDICAL SERVICES

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) seconded by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner), moves that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee to consider the following resolution which has been recommended by His Excellency the Governor General:
Resolved,-That it is expedient to amend an act to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans. Bill C-227, now before the house by adding to clause 4 thereof the following:
"(3) In the application of this act to a plan established by an act of the legislature of a province, any health services of a kind prescribed by the minister to be required health services rendered by a person lawfully entitled to render such services in the place where they are so rendered shall, under such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Governor in Council and if the provincial law so provides, be deemed to be services rendered by a medical practitioner that are medically required."
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), seconded by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner), moves that the said resolution be now referred to the committee of the whole on Bill No. C-227. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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
[Stage Direction]
December 6, 1966
Medicare
by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans, together with the resolution referred to it this day-Mr. MacEa-chen-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 4-Criteria to be satisfied by plan in respect of which contribution payable.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is the minister now going to move an amendment to clause 4 along the line we have just discussed in the house? If so, will he also say a word or two in clarification of it? Perhaps while I am on my feet I might put the obvious question. I take it from the wording of the proposed amendment that if additional services are agreed on between a province and the federal government, such as optometry, physiotherapy or some others, these will be covered even though they are performed by people who are not generally known as medical practitioners. That is the point with which I think we are concerned. That is the reason we agreed to this. Perhaps the minister will make the situation clear in this regard when he speaks to the amendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I should like to have moved to clause 4 of the bill, in effect, would add to clause 4 the following subclause:
(3) In the application of this act to a plan established by an act of the legislature of a province, any health services of a kind prescribed by the minister to be required health services rendered by a person lawfully entitled to render such services in the place where they are so rendered shall, under such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Governor in Council and if the provincial law so provides, be deemed to be services rendered by a medical practitioner that are medically required.
May I ask the Associate Minister of National Defence to move this amendment to clause 4?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a better amendment than the one he moved on Friday.


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a few words about this amendment. I am glad that over the week end the minister found a corner of his heart which is receptive to some measure of warmth. He has been receptive to the very constructive suggestions which were made from this side of the house. As a member of the legal profession I should like to say it did strike me that the very simple and precise wording of the amendment moved by the hon. member for

Ontario now has been somewhat tortured by a team of lawyers into a different shape with the same meaning. It is now more difficult to follow. As I say, however, I appreciate the fact that the proposal made by the hon. member for Ontario, following the views expressed generally by the opposition, has been incorporated into an amendment with which we feel very happy. I hope some time before this debate is concluded the minister will say that, while the amendment is merely permissive in that it gives the Governor in Council the right, if a province should wish to incorporate other services which shall be construed as being the insured health services of a medical practitioner, the government proposes to take advantage of that permission. Then, when the provinces move forward in this area, as I am sure they will, the government can take advantage of the right which has been given to it to act by order in council rather than require that the legislation be amended.
I hope the minister would make it quite plain that the government intends to take advantage of the opportunities which I am quite convinced the provinces will give them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I, too, would like to have the kind of declaration for which the hon. member for Peace River has asked. However, before we get too far into this, I hope the minister will confirm our understanding of this amendment. He nodded his head when I was speaking, but Hansard does not record the nod. In particular I should like to know whether it is clear that other services, such as optometry and physiotherapy, can be included under this arrangement even though they are performed by people who are not known as medical practitioners.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman; the effect of the amendment is that the additional health services would be deemed to be carried out by medical practitioners and the services will be insured services.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How does the minister answer the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River? I think it would be useful to have the minister's statement as to whether these are just words to get this debate over or whether it is a permission which the government is glad to have and of which it will take advantage.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the amendment which has been moved has been moved with the authority of the government. It has been discussed, but I am not empowered to state that we will move in any direction. I
December 6, 196G

certainly accept the view, however, that this flexibility is desirable. I can only repeat what has been said already by the Prime Minister when the original policy announcement was made; that is, it is expected that as circumstances develop further services will be added. I am sure my hon. friend from Peace River appreciates that this is as forthright a statement as could be expected at this stage.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I have not spoken on this matter since second reading. At that time I suggested to the minister that further consultation with the provinces might have been beneficial in a realization of more effective action. As I listened to the amendment which has been proposed it seemed quite fair to conclude that had there been this further consultation the present amendment would have been included in the original bill, and we would have avoided the lengthy discussion which took place last week.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
While it is true that provincial governments have the responsibility for health care, I think it is equally true that the Hall commission on health services intended that the federal government should take the initiative, in consultation with the provinces, so that as comprehensive a health care plan as possible could be devised. This would facilitate the establishment of a uniform plan across the nation.
I trust that now the house is to give approval to the amendment, the minister will seize the opportunity afforded and consult further with the provincial governments prior to the implementation of this legislation.
As the original bill stood we were not being asked to establish a health care scheme but rather a medical care scheme which obviously had discriminatory features which would work against those citizens living in rural parts of Canada. This is true particularly with regard to optometric services because up to 70 per cent of eye care required is provided by optometrists. Certainly, that is true of my constituency which is composed of a combination of rural and urban environments.
The original bill also discriminated against senior citizens because in many instances those citizens require almost continuous health care. The unamended bill discriminated too against individuals suffering chronic illnesses who require, over a long period of time, a complex of health services involving all the paramedical features. I am sure the
Medicare
minister will agree that it is in cases of senior citizens and instances of chronic illness where the greatest expense is incurred. He will also agree, I am sure, that the only comprehensive care of this kind now available exists under hospital plans, which is the most expensive way of dealing with this problem.
In most provinces patients have access to various health services so long as they are resident in a hospital. I think as a result of this amendment now before us we will, in the long run, actually cut down the cost of a health care plan to the treasury. That argument was put forward last week to get the government to move in the desired direction. Amendment after amendment was proposed, but they were all turned down on the grounds that they would constitute an additional cost to the treasury.
As has been indicated, we heartily support this amendment, and I suggest again that if we are going to obtain the best possible health care program, as was the desire and fundamental recommendation of the Hall commission, the minister must consult with the provinces so we can move into this broader field when this legislation is implemented on July 1, 1968.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the introduction of this amendment and, of course, will give it our full support. Some suggestions have been made today, however, that the federal government should take the initiative in leading the way in these various fields of health care services. Let me say that it is a little late for the federal government to lead the way because the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia make many of these services available now under their medical care plans.
We do hope the minister will move forward in co-operation with provincial governments in order that these services may be included under this legislation. The minister has not indicated what services will be considered for inclusion, and apparently that is to be left up to the minister's discretion. It is our hope that he has taken into account all the representations which have been made during the past two days and will move in the direction of satisfying them under the terms of this legislation. I refer to services such as chiropracty, optometry, dentistry and podiatry, all of which are very important to the over-all health picture of our people.
There are individuals who do not need medical care in the strict sense of that term, but they need these other types of treatment

December 6, 1966
Medicare
just as much as some of their fellow citizens require medical care. We do hope the minister will move forward and give an assurance to the provinces that just as soon as they are ready to move in this direction he and the government will be ready to move along with them.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a moment to congratulate the minister upon the amendment which is now before the committee. Certainly, as a new member of this house, it is cheering to note that the efforts of the opposition in carefully scrutinizing bills in committee can have a salutory effect upon ministers and can move the government to make changes in certain aspects of bills.
The minister has given me an excellent answer to a telegram I received this morning.
I should like to put it on record because it represents the views of dental surgeons in the province of Saskatchewan. This telegram is from Dr. G. H. Janzen, president of the College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan. Before reading this telegram I should like to point out that the minister, by this amendment, is in effect legitimizing amendments which were tossed out, particularly the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe East regarding the definition of medical practitioner.
The telegram states:
In regard to current definitions for 'insured services' and 'medical practitioners' in Bill C-227, the College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan is convinced the definitions discriminate against dentists and their patients, and should be eliminated. This conviction is based on the following opinions.
(A)	Patients would be induced to request treatment for diseases of the mouth from physicians instead of dentists.
(B)	Physicians would be recognized as a group that is qualified to perform certain oral treatment which dentists are equally entitled to render.
(C)	Patients who would wish to receive certain oral treatment from a dentist would be denied unencumbered choice of a practitioner.
(D)	Public funds to which dentists contribute would be used to persuade the public to obtain oral treatment from other practitioners.
(E)	The total availability of oral treatment service would be jeopardized if public demands for these services from dentists were to sink to a level where their inclusion in dental graduate and undergraduate curricula would no longer be justified.
The telegram goes on to urge the elimination of such definitions.
It seems to me the permissive nature of this amendment proposed by the minister will provide an answer to this group and the other groups which have been mentioned.

[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I urge the minister to listen to these groups and include them within the provisions of this bill, particularly in those areas where there is a duplication of service. I urge their early inclusion under the terms of Bill C-227, so that by the time the bill becomes operative in this country we will be able to cover not only physicians' services but the other services which are so essential to a totally integrated system of health care in Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, once again I just want to say how pleased we are on this side of the house with the minister's decision this afternoon. I incline, on occasion, to refer to my own constituency. In pointing out what this amendment means, I am speaking on behalf of 100,000 people living in an area of 20,000 square miles. A large number of them live in small communities, sparse sections, and so on.
When I was speaking the other day, I said there were two eye specialists in the whole district. I find that I was wrong. One of those eye specialists has died, and there is now only one. But we have quite a number of optometrists in the district who can meet the growing needs in this field. This amendment means a great deal to a district such as the one I have the honour to represent. The optometrists we have at the present time cannot keep up with the demands on their services. I am very glad that this amendment will permit the inclusion of dental surgeons, chiropractors and the other health services, some of which are at the moment included in our British Columbia medical services scheme.
As the hon. member for Saskatoon mentioned, this widening of the scope of the legislation will be of great benefit to many senior citizens, particularly those who suffer from chronic ailments and require health services that are not necessarily performed by a medical doctor. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to say how pleased we are on the opposition side of the house, and the hon. member for Kootenay West in particular, with the minister's response to the representations from the opposition.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be the only spoilsport in the party or to deny any of the bouquets that are being tossed to the minister for the amendment which has been proposed. Certainly the members of this party will vote for it, and we commend the minister for providing this degree of flexibility. I think he will find, out of
December 6, 196G

his experience in administering this act, that it will be a very useful section.
However, I think the committee must recognize that this is purely permissive legislation. As far as we are concerned, we would, of course, have preferred that the act specifically state that optometric services, physiotherapy services, the services of podiatrists, osteopaths and chiropractors would be available. I think it would have been preferable to have had the paramedical services enumerated in the legislation. But since the minister was not agreeable to that, certainly this is the best compromise he could have made.
It should be clearly understood, however, that this amendment can be nothing more than words if the governor in council does not decide, in consultation with the provinces, to provide the terms and conditions under which these other services may be provided. I hope that between now and the time the plans actually come into effect the minister will have consultation with the provinces, and the provinces and the minister will agree upon what paramedical services will be provided. Then, I hope the governor in council will be prepared to set forth by regulation, or by clauses contained in the agreements with the provinces, what these paramedical services are. I would make a special plea that optometric services be included because of the importance of these services to children and elderly people. I have seen many instances where children have been handicapped for life because of the lack of optometric services when they were small; and most old people now require optometric care. Consequently this is a very essential service.
There are other services which need to be included. I hope that what we are now passing will not be merely a pious wish, and that the minister will, if the provinces request it, be prepared to add some of these paramedical services to the present plan contained in Bill No. C-227.
There is one other point in this amendment. My reading of it would indicate that the terms and conditions specified by the governor in council need not be of general application. Perhaps the minister would correct me if I am wrong. The amendment reads, in part:
In the application of this act to a plan established by an act of the legislature of a province-
I take it this means that the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister, can extend paramedical services in a plan in a particular province even though other
Medicare
provinces have not asked for a similar extension. In other words, the minister would be free, under this amendment, to accede to the request of a particular province that wanted to add to the services which are provided under this legislation, and it would not have to wait until a majority or a specified number of provinces, indicated their desire to have these paramedical services included.
If that is the interpretation of this amendment, and it certainly is mine, I would be glad to hear the minister say so. I am sure it would be a great improvement to the legislation, because I believe the minister not only wants flexibility as to services he can add, but flexibility so that he can keep abreast of the most progressive provinces-those that are prepared to move most rapidly. No province that wants to provide additional services ought to have to wait until other provinces catch up. As a matter of fact, the ability of some provinces to move more rapidly and introduce additional services will break new ground and will lead to the gathering of useful statistical data upon which other provinces can determine whether they want to follow the lead.
I hope the minister's interpretation is the same as my own, namely, that any province will be able to go ahead with providing additional services, provided of course that the minister and the governor in council agree.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I think the construction the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has put on the proposed amendment is correct, namely, that it would be possible for one or any number of provinces to admit any health services. I want to assure the committee that the amendment proposed is not a pious wish. I hope that if it is accepted I will be able to recommend to the governor in council at an early date that surgical procedures performed by a qualified dental surgeon in a public or licenced private hospital be included as a medical service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: So, this would be the first step in taking advantage of this amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What would be the second step?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have here a telegram, copies of which I imagine other hon. members have received, as some have already indicated. The telegram urges the government and this parliament to move in the direction in which in fact the minister is moving in this amendment.

December 6, 1966
Medicare
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Therefore, I am not going to take the time of the house to read these telegrams. I noted the minister specifically mentioned in his reply to the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam that he had only one particular extension in mind. Many of us have been receiving representations about eye refraction services and I had hoped the minister would mention them during the course of his remarks.
.However, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister, particularly in view of the remarks just made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, whether in reaching the decision to bring in this amendment there have been any consultations with any of the provinces. Can he give us any indication of the nature of any requests which may be coming from the provinces?
I think we have to recognize that, as this legislation is conceived, unless there is a provincial initiative the legislation really does not amount to anything more than the language in which it is couched. It might be useful to the committee if the minister could give us some indication of any reaction he may have had from any of the provinces with regard to paramedical services, either before or after the decision of the government to suggest this amendment to the committee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If I may reply to the question posed, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I have had no consultations with the provinces with respect to additional services in the past week or since the committee has been discussing the clauses of the bill. Nor do I recall any requests that have come forward from any provinces. I have had discussions with the representatives of at least one other province on this bill, but not with respect to this item, except indirectly.


Mr.   Patierson@: Mr. Chairman, the minister has indicated that he hoped to be able to recommend in the very near future that oral surgery performed by dental surgeons will be covered by this legislation. We all realize that one of the factors that has concerned those who are engaged in these other professions is that medical doctors performing certain types of service are able to have that service insured, whereas those who are fully qualified in those fields are not able to enter the plan.
For instance, the services of chiropractors, who have spent four or five years preparing to carry on their profession, are not covered while the services of medical doctors who

have had only a very brief course in manipulative therapy are covered. I do not think this is fair. When the minister talks about coverage for oral surgeons, I think he ought to move in the direction of covering these other categories as well because they are in the same situation in which the oral surgeons find themselves under this legislation.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether the meaning of subclause (5) of clause 2 is being broadened here. I spoke previously on this bill and I did ask whether, within the interpretation of a medical practitioner, these other paramedical groups would be included. I do not see any specific terms to indicate that this amendment will do much except to make it legal for the minister at some future time to include the services of such groups. Is this correct?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It will make it possible for the federal government, acting in concert with the provincial governments, to include additional health professions. By this action these additional health professions, if lawfully empowered to operate in their own provinces, will be deemed to be medical practitioners. Accordingly, their services will be regarded under the definition clause as an insured service. So it does provide a way to bring in the services of additional health professions at the decision of the federal government, and if the provincial law so provides.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister one question on which he made no comment at all. As the minister will recall, there was a good deal of discussion about discrimination. In fact, he made a speech on the subject of discrimination as between eye refraction work practised by qualified medical practitioners and similar work performed by optometrists. When the minister referred to oral surgery, I asked him whether he would make any comment on what he was going to do about discrimination which he had earlier indicated existed between similar services performed by these people. I understand that the minister withdrew an earlier proposal which, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said at the time, was moving backwards. Can the minister not now tell us that at least in this field he is prepared to move forwards?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, we have had a great deal of discussion about the problem of eye refractions. I put forward an amendment which was not greeted with enthusiasm but which I still think was a good
December 6, 1966

amendment. However, I am prepared to let the members of the optometric profession determine their own best interests as well as they can. The effect now-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you are going to do that, put them in. Give them coverage.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I was prepared to accept their definition of their own best interests in this case, but I do not want to go back over that ground.
The fact is that this amendment will make it possible at a later stage to bring in additional health professions, including the members of the optometric profession; there is no doubt about that. I cannot say what action will be taken with respect to any of these professions at the moment, except that I did say earlier that I proposed to recommend that surgical procedures performed by dental surgeons should be insured services. I think this is something which can be done, and let me say now that I will recommend this to the Governor in Council. But I cannot go beyond that, much as I should like to accommodate my hon. friend.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister realizes, of
course, Mr. Chairman, that he would save himself a lot of questioning in the weeks ahead if he were to decide to do this now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, may I urge the minister, when he and the provincial governments are considering adding paramedical services, to consider that the main factor, as it seems to me, ought not to be the optometric profession or the ophthalmologists or any other professional group. Surely, the main consideration is the welfare of the public.
That is why I was opposed to taking away from the ophthalmologists coverage for eye refractions in order, in the minister's words, to make the optometrists less unhappy. The main thing is to consider the public. While restricting eye refractions to ophthalmologists does limit the number of the public getting this service; to take away the services offered by ophthalmologists removed it entirely.
As I see it, this bill is not designed to provide employment for professional groups.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
It is designed to provide medical care services for the Canadian people. Any additional services ought to be placed in this measure on that basis. One of the services for which there is a crying need is eye refraction. Now, particularly when people do so much inside work,
Medicare
when there is so much eyestrain, when students are so much longer at school and in educational establishments, eye refraction services play an important part in maintaining good health. I hope that at some time the minister will consider taking eye refraction, as a service, into this measure.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I agree with the hon. member's assessment of the purpose of the bill.


Mr. Webb:: May I ask the minister if the amendment means that podiatrists will be included? Will podiatrists be included in this amendment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am being asked to give a professional opinion. Obviously, joint action by the federal government can at some time include services performed by podiatrists, or any other group within the health professions.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the committee consider clause 5, or go back to clause 2, paragraph (f)?


An hon. Member:: Clause 5.
On clause 5-Amount of contribution.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wish to service notice that we shall move an amendment to paragraph (a) of subclause 4 which will substitute the expression "contribution commencement day" for the expression "1st day of July, 1967". Perhaps we could move the amendment now and dispose of it one way or another.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, let us dispose of it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We can then discuss the clause.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I move:
That clause 5 of Bill G-227 be amended by substituting the expression "contribution commencement day" for the expression "1st day of July, 1967" where it appears in paragraph (a) of subclause (4) thereof.
Amendment (Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne)) agreed to; yeas, 38; nays, 17.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the clause as amended carry?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I wish to say a few words about the administrative costs of carrying out this plan. The administration, in my opinion, should be part of the cost of the health care service. As defined in this act, the federal

December 6, 1966
Medicare
government will pay nothing whatsoever toward the cost of administration. I feel that with spending in the municipalities and provinces mushrooming, with their financial picture as it now is, the federal government ought to pay 50 per cent of the administration costs. I say this because the premier of Ontario, speaking one week ago in Toronto, said that the province would be hard put to find money and that the costs of provincial governments across Canada are mounting more quickly than the costs of the federal government. Provincial governments are having to spend money at a faster rate than the federal government is having to spend it. I hope I have made myself clear on this point. The provincial governments are more in need of money than is the federal government. The same thing applies to the municipalities.
The minister, I am sure, will know whether what the premier of Ontario said is correct. The premier of Ontario was not contradicted when he said that the need for money was greater in the provincial than in the federal field. I urge the minister to consider paying 50 per cent of the cost of administration. I also urge him to consider something else.
In estimating the costs of the plan, as I understand it the minister is taking 50 per cent of total medical costs from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In other words, the minister is taking an average. The minister must be aware that in Ontario, where I come from, medical costs are higher than in some other provinces; in British Columbia, they are also higher than in some other provinces. That applies also to Alberta. The minister, in estimating his costs, is taking an average and is saying, "We shall pay 50 per cent of that". This, to me, is misleading.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It seems to me that when the government says it is paying 50 per cent of those costs, it is making a misleading statement. According to the original figures, the cost per capita across Canada amounted to $28. As the minister knows very well, that is not the situation today; the cost per capita has gone up to $35 or more. But taking the original figure of $28, the federal government undertook to pay $14 per capita. Today, in the province of Ontario medical costs are in the region of $35 to $40 per capita. So, in effect, we are asking the taxpayers of Ontario to pay a great deal more than the federal government. The actual cost at the time the original figures were prepared was around $34. So the federal government will, in effect, be paying $14 while asking 
Ontario to pay $20. When the government says it intends to pay 50 per cent of the cost, I do not think that is right. We should pay 50 per cent of the actual cost, and not leave the taxpayer in the province to carry an unfair proportion.
This applies to administration, also. Some of our provinces are not so well fixed financially as are others, and I suggest the federal government should make grants in order that we may know what the score is across Canada. Otherwise, our bookkeeping will be mixed up. We say we are paying 50 per cent but in fact we are only paying 42 per cent, or 45 per cent, whatever the figure is. I do not think this is right, because some of the high-cost provinces have their difficulties, too. In my own province of Ontario the government has resorted to deficit financing. There is a health resources fund there, and the province has to match federal expenditures dollar for dollar. Where will the province get the money to put up buildings and furnish them as it should? It does not have the borrowing power of the federal authority. If I interpret the statements of the premier of Ontario correctly, the result will be that his administration will need to consider very carefully the funds available for education, and in the field of health and welfare. Surely, this would be a retrograde step at a time when medicare is being introduced.
For these reasons, I believe the government should seriously consider accepting responsibility for 50 per cent of the administrative costs and 50 per cent of the actual cost of the scheme in a province, not across the dominion. Only in this way will some provinces be able to devote sufficient funds to the health resources plan, the purpose of which is to furnish and equip the buildings which will be necessary to enable the doctors and the paramedical services to do their work. The stipulation is that the federal government will put up one dollar for every dollar provided by the province. If the province does not have those dollars available, how is it to proceed with the construction of the medical centres which are needed for medicare? I urge the minister to give this matter careful consideration.


Mr. Howe (Wellingion-Huron):: I should like to add my voice to that of my hon. friend from Simcoe East in asking that the minister consider another definition of the 50 per cent assistance to be given to the provinces in connection with this medicare program.
The costs which have to be borne differ from province to province. In some areas the
December G, 196G

cost is higher than in others. We, in the province of Ontario, are faced with higher costs than are most other provinces. The minister should remember that half the money raised for this and other such schemes is raised in the province of Ontario. We do not want to brag about that; we are always ready to assist other provinces out of the funds we raise and contribute to the federal government. But we do feel, bearing in mind that the cost of medical services and so on is higher in Ontario than elsewhere, that the equitable way would be to proceed on the basis of 50 per cent of provincial costs, not 50 per cent of the cost on a national average. If this were done, each province would get the money to which it is entitled from the federal government.
This is only fair. The 50 per cent contribution based on a national average might almost pay the actual cost of some of our provinces, whTe in other provinces it would not nearly approach the cost of the services provided. So,
I ask the minister whether it would not be possible for h'm to define this 50 per cent contribution to the provinces in different terms, both with respect to the administration and to the other costs, in order that its application would be fairer for all.


Michael Starr: Perhaps the minister would deal with th s important question which has been raised by my hon. friends from Simcoe East and Wellington-Huron.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The proposal is that the federal government share the cost of providing insured services. It has never been the intention of the federal government to share in the administrative costs of a provincial plan. I beleve there is some logic in permitting a province to discharge fully the costs of admin'strat on because that will enable the province to develop the most efficient possible administration of its own plan.
If a province wishes to develop a system which involves multiple carriers, then the cost of the administration will be borne by the province itself. If it wishes to use the services of a single carrier it will benefit from this procedure. We th:nk this is a means by which a province can take full responsibility for the pattern of administration which it sets up.
It is true we are to pay 50 per cent of the *cost of the insured services in participating provinces. It may be that the provinces with lower costs will benefit to some extent. It may also be that those provinces are provinces which are less capable financially of bearing the burden of a medical care program. We Thought this was a fair procedure-paying
Medicare
half the cost of insured services in participating provinces. Thus, if there are three provinces in the plan in the beginning, the federal contribution would be based on the average of the cost to those three provinces. Conceivably, there might be three high cost provinces in the plan initially. On the other hand there might be low cost provinces. But the federal government would pay half the average per capita cost of insured services in those provinces.


William Marvin Howe: Can the
minister indicate whether this matter has been discussed with the provinces? Have they agreed to this program?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have personally discussed the financial proposals of the federal government with the provincial ministers of health, and I am sure the Minister of Finance has discussed these proposals with his colleagues. I cannot say that they were accepted;
I cannot say that they were rejected, but at least they were understood.


William Marvin Howe: 'Were they accepted by any of the provinces?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Chairman, I said earlier that the provinces always reserve their position in the expectation that at the end of the day there may be a bigger rainbow in sight.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I remind the minister that some of the provinces thought this was an exercise in frustration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the provinces will be paid on the basis of 50 per cent of the average costs incurred by all the participating provinces. Does this mean that if the average cost per capita for all of the participating provinces is higher than the amount which has been spent by a province which is below the average, then that province will be getting more than 50 per cent of its actual costs, whereas another province will be getting less than 50 per cent of its actual costs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister not think this could be a rather dangerous principle in that the provinces which are endeavouring to provide a high quality of care may find they are going to get considerably less than 50 per cent of the total cost? When one adds to that the fact that they are not going to get any of

December 6, 1966
Medicare
the administration costs, then a province could easily find that all it is collecting from the federal government is 40 per cent of the total cost which the province itself has spent for this particular program. I am wondering if the principle of equating the payments on the basis of an average of all costs incurred by the participating provinces might have some adverse effect on the quality of care. Has the minister talked to the provinces and to the medical profession about that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There has been no comment, so far as I can recollect, from any province with respect to the point that the system would tend to affect the quality of care, and to my knowledge it has not been raised by the medical profession either.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I take it that where any province undertakes to have what is commonly called co-insurance provisions, as is done in some provinces with hospital insurance, then by the provisions of the last paragraph of this clause the money it receives for co-insurance will be deducted from the credit of the province? If the province charges patients a coinsurance fee for any service rendered, this will not help the province in any way, and the federal government will contribute nothing for that amount of money which the province has collected? In other words, any revenue it gets from that will be deducted, and it will not be able to use this in trying to estimate what return it should get from the federal government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The interpretation placed on the paragraph by the hon. gentleman is correct, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Ballard:: With respect to the question asked by the hon. member for Wellington-Huron, I am just wondering about the calibre of the discussions held by the minister with the provinces. Was it similar to the discussions in the recent dominion-provincial conference, following which the premiers returned home quite dissatisfied? It seemed to be a matter of dictation by the federal ministers, and in fact the speech from the throne read recently by the Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba placed the entire blame for forecast tax increases in that province at the feet of the federal Minister of Finance.
I am quite concerned about the effect of subclause (4). The administration costs are going to be quite momentous and should be shared by the federal government. It is only logical that they should be shared because, in effect, the minister is imposing a program on [Mr. Douglas.}
the provinces, the nature and operation of which they have had no say. Therefore, if the minister is imposing his own type of medicare he should be prepared to stand some of the administration costs of the operation of the plan.
I am also quite concerned about paragraph (c) which excludes any premium or other amount payable by an insured person in respect of the cost of insured services. In Alberta we found it desirable to charge a small fee per diem to patients on entering a hospital. It was commonly called a deterrent fee. Its purpose was to ensure that people applying for hospital services were really in need of them. It may be that a province would be desirous of charging a deterrent fee for medical services in order to prevent any abuse of this plan, but, as the bill stands it more or less precludes a province from charging such a deterrent fee.
I think this paragraph should be eliminated from the bill in order to give the provinces a choice on whether they wish to charge such a fee. In other words, the federal government should pay 50 per cent of the cost of the medical services, and the portion of the cost payable by the provinces could be raised entirely through taxes or partially through taxes and the charging of a deterrent fee or premium. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should concede that the federal government should pay 50 per cent of the administrative costs, and that paragraph (c) should be eliminated.


William Marvin Howe: Is the
Minister of Finance going to make a statement about this 50 per cent?
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Chairman, as Minister of Finance I do not expect that any provincial government ever would express satisfaction with the result of any federal-provincial conference concerned with the sharing of tax fields, equalization payments or any of these other matters in which there are bound to be differences of view between the federal and provincial governments. I think they would find such an approach to be bad tactics on their part, apart from the merits of the case itself.


An hon. Member:: This probably applied in the case of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Mitchell William Sharp: I know that when the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was receiving very generous treatment from federal
December 6. 1966

governments, particularly Liberal governments, he never expressed the kind of satisfaction which would have been very acceptable to my predecessors in office. I do not blame him. If I were a provincial minister of health or minister of finance, I would argue for a better deal and I would claim more than I expected to receive.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You might have mentioned that the minister of finance would have dropped dead with shock if this had not been the case.


Mitchell William Sharp: This minister has not had any such shocks since he took over his present portfolio; nor does he expect any. I was not surprised when I read in the newspaper about the speech from the throne in Manitoba. Mr. Roblin has expressed himself as being dissatisfied with the results of the federal-provincial conference and I am sure he had no alternative but to repeat that dissatisfaction in the speech from the throne. It is a very natural thing to blame one's difficulties upon the federal government. This is commonplace; it is expected, and I am sure Mr. Roblin is the kind of politician who would not overlook an opportunity like that. In fact, I think Mr. Roblin and the Manitoba government received fair treatment, everything considered. As Minister of Finance, I certainly shall have to bring before this house proposals which will increase expenditures arising out of the very fair treatment the federal government gave the provinces at the last conference.
I think the federal government and this parliament should be assisting provinces like Manitoba which has a standard of provincial income that is lower than the national average. Manitoba is the recipient of very large equalization payments. I know Mr. Roblin would have liked to see them enlarged rather than remain where they are; nevertheless, they are substantial. I should like to mention one other point, and in doing so I will try not to intrude upon the field of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have intruded enough already.


Mitchell William Sharp: I admit that the Minister of Finance is always in the position of having to protect the taxpayer. It is not a popular position in which to be. It is one which is more popular with the taxpayers than it is with the members of the opposition. I have no hesitation in speaking on behalf of the taxpayers of this country. I think it is good politics as well
Medicare
as good sense. However, may I come to the question concerning the particular method, which has been put forward in this bill, for making payments to the provinces.
One of the main objects of the medical care proposals is to get away from the conventional shared cost program approach which has been in effect for so many years. On many occasions, I have heard ministers of finance complain to me that their colleagues would appear before their local treasury board and say, "We should increase these expenditures because these are only 50 cent dollars. If you increase the allotment here the value is doubled because the federal government will match it." This seemed to us to be an undesirable principle. One of the purposes in switching over to 50 per cent of the national average was to put neither the provincial nor the federal government in that position.
As hon. members may know, at the federal-provincial conference the federal government proposed that the federal government should get out of the standard shared cost programs, because these programs put the provinces in a rather subsidiary or dependent position which I do not think is desirable and which I do not think the provinces feel is desirable either.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Chairman, I was rather interested in the minister's statement that this proposal is to eliminate the shared cost programs. I think this is the point upon which we in the province of Ontario differ with the minister because in our estimation this is a shared cost program. We feel Ontario probably is going to be paying more than its share in respect of this program.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister one question. A few moments ago he mentioned the fair treatment which the provinces had had from the federal government, was he speaking with tongue in cheek the way he argues the premiers of the provinces speak?


Harold Raymond Ballard: Would the minister reply to the suggestion I made that paragraph (c) be eliminated in order to give equal treatment to two provinces, one where the provincial share of the cost is raised completely by taxation and another where the provincial cost is raised partially by taxation and partially by the premium paid by the individual taxpayers of the province? I suggest we should eliminate paragraph (c) of subclause 4 entirely.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would not agree to that.

December 6, 1968
Medicare


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would hope not.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not think my hon. friend really would agree to it either, if he were to reflect a little more on the point.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Information required for payment of advances and other amounts.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, my colleague the Associate Minister of National Defence has a very short amendment to move in respect of this clause.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 6 of Bill No. C-227 be amended by substituting the expression "contribution commencement day" for the expression "1st day of July, 1967" where it appears in subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subclause (1) thereof.
Amendment agreed to on division: Yeas, 34; nays, 19.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question with reference to this phrase "furnish to the minister such information as is required by him for the purpose of determining the actual cost of insured services". Does the minister envisage some method to be used in every province or will he consult with each province to And out the method it intends to use? I ask him that because some provinces include cancer services in their overall costs, whereas other provinces such as Saskatchewan put them in a separate group. With different types of care being covered under different types of categories in various provinces a false statement as to actual costs could be given. I wonder whether the minister has decided upon some set-up of what will be included. The minister has mentioned some that will not be included, but what will be included to make up medical care or insured services.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not think we have any special method, but the bill provides that services provided by medical practitioners will be insured services. Undoubtedly, this will involve a matter for consultation between the officials of our Department of Health and Welfare and officials of provincial departments. We will have to determine a common definition of these services. I agree there may be some overlapping in specific cases, and I have in mind perhaps hospital insurance programs, but I think these things can be determined through discussions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is a very important point in respect of making payments to provinces. I recognize the minister's difficulty in that I do not think it is possible to work out all the details in this bill, but it seems to me the minister will have to determine, under some regulation, whether or not payments for services rendered by medical practitioners will apply if those medical practitioners are in the employ of a provincial government.
If the minister does not agree that services rendered by practitioners who are in the employ of a provincial government should be covered, this will discriminate against those provinces which have set up fairly extensive government health services which, in many cases, provide much better care than could be provided on an individual basis. The hon. member for Saskatoon has referred to cancer services. This is one example where in some provinces it is not possible to get a high quality service unless there is established a cancer commission and cancer clinics that guarantee incomes, research and the kind of facilities that cannot be set up in a smaller community by individual practitioners. If those practitioners and the services they provide are not going to be paid for under this plan, then of course the provinces will naturally be inclined to discontinue them.
Another example of this would be pyschia-tric care which is provided in some instances by provincial government psychiatric clinics. These services are provided by the clinics, but the practitioner is paid by the government of the province. It seems to me the province should be able to recover those expenditures under this plan.
In some provinces, and I am thinking particularly of Saskatchewan, services for the treatment of tuberculosis is provided by the anti-T.B. league, whose expenditures are met by grants from the provincial government, contributions from the general public and the sale of Easter seals and so on. If the services provided by a practitioner hired by the antituberculosis league are not going to be allowed, then certainly there will be a very strong inclination to discontinue those services. I do not think the private individual practitioner could provide the quality of service now being provided.
I am not asking the minister to change the bill because I think that would be too complicated. I hope, however, that when the minister has to determine whether or not the services provided by a medical practitioner shall be paid for he will decide to pay for the services whether the medical practitioner is in
December 6, 19G6

private practice, employed by a department of government, a non-profit health organization or a community co-operative clinic.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 6 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Review of provisions of act respecting payment of contributions for years after March 31, 1972.
Mr, MacEachen:: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to take a moment to advise the committee that my colleague, the associate minister of national defence, has an amendment to move to this clause.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the associate minister moves the amendment I wonder whether we could have some statement about this clause. I suggest that this clause is unnecessary. The Minister of Finance is here and perhaps this is more in his bailiwick than that of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Minister of Finance intends to speak to this clause.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just briefly outline why I make this suggestion. As the clause reads it does not have any legislative effect. It does not provide that any change will take place, it simply indicates that the government will review the method under which payments are to be made from the federal government to the provincial governments under this plan. There is nothing to stop the federal government from reviewing matters of this kind at any time. In fact, this kind of thing is going on all the time, the review of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. It seems to me that to put this clause in the bill is to raise questions about the permanency of this arrangement. This ought not to apply to medicare. We cannot stop the federal and provincial governments from discussing fiscal arrangements, but why put this clause in the bill in this form? Let me go back to my opening sentence, is this not an unnecessary provision which provides nothing in terms of legislative effect?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I understand the curiosity of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who has asked a legitimate question, because clause 8 of the bill does not, as he says, do anything more than express an
Medicare
intention. However, the clause has a very definite purpose and perhaps for that reason the committee will allow me to make a short statement about that purpose.
Clause 8 provides for a review in 1973 of the method by which the provinces are compensated for the federal government's share of medicare expenditures. This provision is designed to apply to medicare the general apporach which the government has adopted in respect of federal-provincial programs in the health and welfare field. Hon. members will recall that this approach was outlined to the tax structure committee on September 14, 1966.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I said then on behalf of the federal government that federal-provincial programs had been an important vehicle for bringing into existence Canada-wide programs in the field of health and welfare, and that some such vehicle would be required if new social and economic advances were to be made in the future. The medical care bill is an example of such a nation-wide advance.
During the period that programs such as hospitalization and medicare are being established and consolidated, federal contributions must be based on the actual costs of the programs. This method of compensation ensures that the federal government shares the rising costs of the programs as and where they are established, and provides an equitable basis for determining the contributions to the different provinces. It requires, of course, a reasonably uniform basis for determining the costs in the different provinces.
When the medical care programs are firmly established, however, and can properly be classed with hospitalization as continuing programs, we would propose to change the method of compensation, as we have offered to do with respect to the hospitalization programs. We would estimate that this would occur about five years after the programs had been started. Our purpose would be to ensure that federal contributions would not come to have a continuing influence over provincial decision-making, in particular over budget decisions. The new compensation would take the form of a tax transfer, equalized under the general revenue equalization formula, combined with a program equalization payment which would be calculated and escalated in such a way as to ensure that the provinces were fairly compensated. However, this program equalization payment would not be escalated by reference to the program costs:

December 6, 1966
Medicare
some other, or neutral factor would be chosen, thus rendering unnecessary the continuing reporting and auditing of provincial program costs.
I should note, Mr. Chairman, that this is the first time that legislation concerning federal-provincial programs has contained a provision concerning the form and amount of compensation after the termination date of the proposed arrangements or agreements. We consider this to be appropriate both as a method of indicating to the provinces that there is no intention of cutting off federal contributions in respect of the program, and as a method of integrating our views as to the manner in which a federal-provincial program such as this should be handled in the longer run. .Hon. members will recognize that this is in accord with the general approach to federal-provincial fiscal arrangements which I outlined to the tax structure committee on September 14 of this year.
In brief, Mr. Chairman, what clause 8 is intended to do is give notice that about five years from the date of inauguration of the medicare program the government will put forward proposals to the provinces for a change in the method of compensation, probably in the form of a tax transfer. It is, as we outlined to the federal-provincial conference our intention to give national leadership, to establish national standards, and then to observe as well as we can the jurisdictional responsibilities of the respective levels of government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I, for the purpose of being sure about it, put this question to the Minister of Finance. I gather that the date is going to be changed; but that can come later. Supposing the Canadian government at that time-it might not be the present administration-does not carry out the provisions of this clause and does not review the financial arrangements? Would this have any effect on the guarantees that are already in the bill, that federal moneys would continue to be paid to the provinces in connection with their medical care programs?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Chairman, this would not have any such effect. This clause is intended to require the government, five years from now, to make such a review and to make proposals. But it does not in any way, as far as I understand the intent of the bill, place any limitation upon the scope of the act or upon the longevity of the payments themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let me ask another question, Mr. Chairman. Supposing the government that is in power five or six years hence does not want to make this review, is it then in contempt of parliament or in contempt of the law? Does it have to amend this clause, or can it just ignore it?


Mitchell William Sharp: This is a legal question. I suggest that it would be in contempt of parliament in the sense that it was not observing the law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does this not point up the fact that it is rather awkward for a session of parliament to bind the activities of future governments even with respect to a matter of study? I still feel that the writing of this kind of thing into a statute is a little on the nonsensical side.


Mitchell William Sharp: There were very great difficulties in deciding how best to indicate the intention of this government in proposing medicare legislation. We could simply have said that in our view at the end of five years there should be such a review of the method of compensation, and suggested that at that time the government of the day should bring forward proposals along the lines of those I placed before the federal-provincial conference in connection with other established programs. That was one extreme. On the other hand, the government could have enacted now the form of a tax transfer effective five years hence. It seemed to us premature, however, to go as far as that, and quite frankly we comprised; we put in a clause that indicates the intent of parliament at the present time, which is to require the government to review the financial provisions of the act and to bring forward such proposals as at that time they consider desirable.
As I have said, this clause carries out the general policy of this government toward federal-provincial arrangements. We believe it is desirable that the federal government should not share in provincial fields indefinitely; that the function of the federal parliament in these fields is to take initiatives to establish national standards, but not to insist that the provincial governments should follow exactly the requirements of any federal government or federal parliament thereafter. We consider such a form of financial arrangement to be no longer suitable to our modern Canadian confederation. The federal-provincial proposals that I put forward on behalf of this government carried the philosophy into the field of established programs. This clause
December 6, 1966

carries the same philosophy into the field of medicare.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not worth labouring the point, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to say to the minister that while he may feel at this time this particular method of federal-provincial financing is no longer adequate, and he can introduce legislation to make provision for some more satisfactory method of financing, I do not think he can by statute lay down the guide lines upon which a government in 1972 is to study a new basis of financing. That is exactly what this clause does. It does not do any harm, but if the Minister of Finance in office in 1972 wants to follow some totally different guide lines, he will do so irrespective of the words contained in this clause.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Also, Mr. Chairman, the government in office in 1972 would be keeping the law by merely reviewing the provisions, and then reporting that it was not going to make any change.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance how many provinces at the present time have signified their willingness or their intention to bring in a medicare plan of their own which will work in conjunction with this legislation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, we did cover some of this ground earlier. A number of provinces have already indicated their intention of coming into the plan. For example, on Sunday I had a meeting with the planning committee of the province of Nova Scotia, which has advanced to quite an extent in making the necessary plans to bring in a medical care scheme in accordance with the policy in this bill. We have also had indications from other provinces. I believe that even the premier of Ontario, in a meeting of the tax structure committee, has accepted in principle the proposals contained in the medicare bill, saving of course his declaration that he would like to have more financial assistance from the federal government. But there has been quite an indication of readiness on the part of the provinces to participate in this plan.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I was quite concerned about this, Mr. Chairman, because the Minister of Finance has just said that the intention of the federal government should be to take the initiative in establishing national standards. From our discussion this afternoon,
Medicare
we have certainly not drawn any assurance that national standards will be set.
The minister of health and welfare has admitted that the costs involved will not be standardized, and neither will the medical services. So now, almost at the end of the clause by clause study of this bill, the only significant thing that has been revealed has been that this bill as drawn will not give a uniform standard of medicare services to all Canadians, nor will it be conducive to uniform cost of services which will be met by the taxpayers in each of the respective provinces or territories. I think this is a shame. It is a very poor example of the type of legislation that the people of Canada expect and need.
One can readily assume now, Mr. Chairman, that the largest taxpaying and most populous province, Ontario, will receive far less benefit per capita tax dollar expended than any other sister province. This is nothing but discrimination against a province which has to bear the bulk of the contributions that the federal government collects in the first place from the Canadian public in order to pay its share to each of the provinces. The government admitted this afternoon that those shares will not be equitable as far as the taxpayers across the country are concerned.
This is a bill to grant uniform medical services across Canada, but it is nothing but another example of deception and sham. I hope that those provinces which wish to participate in the legislation and give their people a medicare plan will realize this need, and that each province in turn will correct the inequities that are present in this bill.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 8 of Bill No. C-227 be amended by substituting the expression "1973" for the expression "1972" in the heading preceding clause 8 and in clause 8.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is this amendment moved because of the one year's delay in establishing medicare?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We had better vote against it then.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Cadieux, (Terrebonne)) agreed to: Yeas, 34; nays, 18.

December 6, 1966
Medicare


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment carried.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now revert to clause 2, paragraph (f).
On clause 2, subclause (f)-"Medical practitioner".


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, when this clause was last under discussion I moved an amendment to subclause (f). No ruling was made on the amendment and as a result the whole clause was allowed to stand.
The minister today introduced an amendment to subclause (3) of clause 4 which had the same intent as my amendment when I introduced it. Consequently, I ask unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw my amendment.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give the hon. member for Ontario unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 1-Short title.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I may try this on for size. Earlier this session when amendments were made to the act which for some time was popularly known as "ARDA", the title was changed in such a way that we seemed to be losing this grouping of letters and the government agreed to write into the act as a subtitle the word "ARDA". Would not the Minister of National Health and Welfare like to go down in history as legally coining a word? Why could we not put the word "Medicare" in brackets into this short title?


Mr. Byrne:: You would want to call it "minicare".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I would, but I am giving the minister the opportunity of doing something historic.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have just done something historic.


Michael Starr: Let it go at that. Carried.
[The Chairman.]


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Michael Starr: At the next sitting of the house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is there any chance, Mr. Speaker, of having third reading later today?


Michael Starr: No, no. There are amendments. The bill has to be reprinted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall third reading be at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MANITOBA-SASKATCHEWAN BOUNDARY ACT DECLARATION OF BOUNDARY LINE SURVEYED AND MARKED

Jean-Luc Pepin: the second reading of Bill No. S-45, respecting the boundary between the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we have been working diligently here this afternoon, and have accomplished a great deal. Since it is so close to six o'clock, I wonder could we not break until eight o'clock and come back refreshed, able to accomplish more with refreshed minds than if we stayed on?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to suspending the sitting from now until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I advise the house that on the adjournment debate there is a question to be raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie).
I do now leave the chair.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
December 6, 1968	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that the business on adjournment this evening has not been announced completely and perhaps it should be announced again at this time. The one question to be considered has been raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie). The subject is: Canada Elections Act-Reappointment of experienced returning officers.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin for the second reading of Bill. No. S-45, respecting the boundary between the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be a good idea if we had the consent of the house to take these three bills together, that is, S-45, S-46 and S-47.
Michael Starr: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe we could give second reading to these bills quickly one at a time and then, in committee of the whole on the first one, have an explanation from the minister as to what they are all about.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was asking for consent to take the three together. Then I would give an explanation of all three together and later, when at the committee stage, all three separately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think we are both seeking the same thing, but we can hardly give three bills second reading at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is there unanimous consent that there should be a motion for second reading of the three bills and that there will be a discussion of the three bills at the same time?


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe has objected to the proposal.
Manitoba-Saskatchewan Boundary Act Mr. Winkler: The only member who has objected.


Mr. Speaker:: We shall take them one at a time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
I did not accept that the three bills be given second reading at the same time because, in my opinion, the motion for second reading of Bill No. S-45 raises a question of principle that I should like to discuss.
The Ottawa government, commonly referred to as the federal government, introduces a bill concerning the boundaries between the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Does this mean-and I would ask the minister to answer me on this point-that in principle the federal government is competent to rule what the boundaries between two provinces shall be? Is it the responsibility of the federal government to mark such boundaries, to survey them, to map them, and to state afterwards: Here are the boundaries between those two provinces?
Mr. Speaker, Bill No. S-45 differs from the other two, and I would have no objection that those should be given second reading at the same time. However, as far as Bill No. S-45 is concerned, this is a matter of marking the boundaries between two provinces: Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I thought that interprovincial boundary lines could only be decided upon by the provinces concerned but now the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) brings in a bill to mark the boundaries between two provinces.
Mr. Speaker, if that falls within the jurisdiction of the Ottawa government, I now ask why the minister of energy, mines and natural resources-the name of that department was changed recently, and perhaps I do not have the correct designation, but I believe it is the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-does not also decide to settle the problem of boundaries between Quebec and Newfoundland, with regard to Labrador?
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: There is no question about that.
Another hon. Member: You are out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am told that I am out of order but I do not think so, because in the first place, my comments will be directly related to this and then, because we are on second reading and we
10778	COMMONS DEBATES	December 6. 196S
Manitoba-Saskatchewan Boundary Act
are discussing the principle of the bill. Now, the principle is as follows: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) is bringing in a bill concerning the limits between two provinces, after having maps drawn up by a board appointed by the federal government.
Well, if such is the case, I would like the minister to tell me whether this matter comes under the jurisdiction of his department? He will certainly answer yes, since he is the one who-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister answers, he will close the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, I would ask the minister not to close the debate immediately but to let us at least give a few explanations.
I know that he is democratically-minded and democracy precisely implies letting everyone have his say.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, according to the principle of this bill, the minister proposes to mark the boundaries between Manitoba and Saskatchewan. If this is allowed in the case of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, I would ask the minister-and he will have an opportunity to answer-whether he could do likewise with regard to the boundary between Quebec and Newfoundland, especially in Labrador?


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Gilles Grégoire: If the minister can do likewise for Newfoundland and Quebec, as he is doing for Manitoba and Saskatchewan, then what is he waiting for to take action in the case of the boundary between Quebec and Labrador?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow the hon. member to put this question, because I could not let the minister reply. He can, if he so wishes, consider the principle he mentioned, in so far as it is connected with the particular bill now before the house and which deals with the marking of the boundary between the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
I do not think the hon. member can use this excuse to raise a problem which is surely ii relevant to the matter now under consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by your decision and simply ask the minister a 
question of principle. Is it part of the functions of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to mark the boundary between two provinces following a survey conducted by a board of geographers or others or, at least, following an investigation by commissioners?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. member a question? I assure him it is a helpful one. Is it not a fact that this bill is before us only after it has been agreed to by the legislatures of Manitoba and Saskatchewan? Is it not also a fact that the bill is not changing the boundaries but just confirming the survey of those boundaries? Do the answers to those questions not answer his question?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have read, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the whereases in Bill No. S-45 and, in the third subclause, it says:
And whereas, the legislatures of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan having consented thereto, it is desirable that the boundary line so surveyed and marked on the round be declared the boundary line.
But the principle is this: Even though the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan consented to it, it is the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who introduces in the House of Commons a bill which has already been passed in the other place, but it is the federal minister, not a provincial minister, who introduces the bill. Therefore, it means-


Mr. Laflamme:: Do you object to that?


Gilles Grégoire: I have not objected to that in reply to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme). But since it is the federal minister-and this is the question I am asking-does that mean that theoretically the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is responsible for the marking of boundaries or, at least with the introduction of legislation regarding the boundaries between two provinces.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If the hon. member-


Gilles Grégoire: I would gladly yield to the minister but I am not through with my questions and if I yield to him, it will be the end of the debate. I would not want him to close the debate before I have had the opportunity to-
December 6, 1986	COMMONS


Mr. Mcllrailh:: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question? Is he aware that the B.N.A. Act of 1871 provides that the parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces out of the territories and, in addition, may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the Dominion, increase, diminish or otherwise alter the limits of such province, and so on? Is he aware that the points he has raised were all dealt with in that legislation?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker. I am quite aware of that, but if the ministers will only let me complete my remarks-they will not be very long-they will see why I make them. But I should be allowed to complete them. I am aware of that section of the British North America Act. But since the Minister of Mines, Energy and Resources (Mr. Pepin) can pass laws concerning the boundaries between two provinces, I would like to know whether the same procedure can be applied in the case of the boundaries of any province, as the minister is doing in this case?
And here, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to specify which province or which territory, because I am only thinking of the principle involved. Has the minister authority to do this?
Now, because the problem I am raising bears no relation to the case mentioned by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) -because when the matter of joint boundaries was raised Newfoundland was not a province-I would also like to know, should a boundary set before a territory has been made into a province no longer be accepted by one of the two provinces or be accepted by one but not by the other, if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources could then intervene to correct such a boundary?
Mr. Speaker, to follow your ruling, I am not stating in any way what boundary I am talking about, although the minister must know which one it is. I would like answers to those questions. I would like the minister to tell us if that is possible in the case which concerns us and I would like to know if he intends to intervene to solve those problems.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister's statement will now close the debate.
Manitoba-Saskatchewan Boundary Act [Translation]


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to reply to the second part of the question which the hon. member for Lapointe asked me because it would be giving a legal opinion which I am neither entitled nor able to give, but I do intend just the same to answer shortly the first part dealing with the right of the central government to take part in that way to the setting of the boundaries between the provinces.

I presume we are debating the three bills together now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is only one bill before the house at the moment.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, my remarks will deal with the three bills because they are extremely closely related. They involve the same monument at the north corner of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories. The three bills I am introducing have all been studied carefully by the Senate, and for further details the hon. member might refer to the proceedings in the other place.
The Saskatchewan Act, the Manitoba Extension Act of 1912 and the Northwest Territories Act declare the northern boundary of the province of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the southern boundary of the Northwest Territories to be the parallel of the 60th degree of north latitude, and they also declare the northerly portion of the boundary between the province of Manitoba and the province of Saskatchewan to be the second meridian in the system of dominion land surveys. Obviously these are quite abstract concepts and it was to be expected that sooner or later the need for better definitions of these boundaries would arise.
That need has now arisen as prospectors, miners, hunters and other persons wishing to acquire or develop land or other resources need to know more precisely where the borders of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories are. It would also, of course, be of great advantage to the governments of these provinces, and of the territory, charged with the responsibility of administering or controlling development or exploitation activities to know the precise point on the ground at which their particular responsibilities begin or end.
10780	COMMONS
Manitoba-Saskatchewan Boundary Act
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is a marked trend northward in the exploration and development of mineral resources. There is also the fact of the extension of the railway to Lynn Lake in northern Manitoba and commercial fishing in Reindeer Lake. Therefor the responsible ministers of the federal and provincial governments agreed that surveys of these boundaries were essential in order to delimit the federal and provincial spheres of administration.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
In 1953 the Privy Council, accordingly, with the concurrence of the province of Manitoba and the province of Saskatchewan, established three commissions charged with the responsibility to survey the boundaries. I do not wish to go into the details, but these commissions now have completed their task and their reports have been tabled in the House of Commons over the period 1964 to 1966. Again I have the historical details, but I do not think I should go into them at this time.
The problem facing us now is one of declaring finally and definitely that the survey monuments placed on the ground by the three commissions shall henceforth in fact mark these boundaries. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) a moment ago asked me on what basis this was done. As the Minister of Public Works answered, this was done under the authority of the British North America Act 1871 and, as the minister stated, article 3 makes it very clear that with the consent of the provinces the federal government can do this sort of thing.
I might say further that precedents have established that it now is considered necessary to introduce legislation in the parliament of Canada to confirm the boundaries between provinces and territories. This is what we are doing tonight. I may add finally that similar acts have been passed by the legislatures of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I have here a list of the acts.
Again we are acting under the powers given to the federal government. I would rope that we now can go into committee to study this bill and the two others similar to it.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the explanation given by the minister I wonder whether there might be a disposition on the part of the house to give second reading to the three bills? I understand from the hon. member

DEBATES	December 6, 1966
for Lapointe that he has no objection to the other two bills.

Does the hon. member give his consent so that the three bills may be read for the second time immediately?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the other two bills so that they may be read for the second time together.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact that there is not unanimous consent we will call second reading of this present bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-Boundary declared.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a brief question or two. Could the minister inform the house as to the method of surveying which was used in connection with these boundaries, the margin of error that was allowed on the ground, the method of marking the boundary, the type of monuments used, whether on the prairies or on developed land, the time it took to undertake this project, and the total cost of the survey in respect of this bill?


Jean-Luc Pepin: In respect of the kind of monuments used, I will be delighted to send to the hon. member tomorrow the report the commission tabled which includes-and this will bring satisfaction to his great interest and curiosity-pictures of these monuments with indication of where they are situated, etc. With regard to the cost, I am sorry to say that I do not have the figures with me at the moment. I promise the hon. member, who is always very keen to have the cost in respect of government activities, that I will let him have that information as soon as I can obtain it.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister. In his remarks he stated that the marking of the boundary was necessary because of prospecting in that area. I think he mentioned that the northern boundary line was 60 degrees north latitude and that the boundary between Manitoba and Saskatchewan was the second meridian. Could the minister indicate whether there is much prospecting going on there at the present time
December 6, 1966	COMMONS
or whether it is an area which has a great potential?


Jean-Luc Pepin: In my introductory remarks I mentioned some of the activities which are going on in that area at this time. I am not in a position, however, to be more specific. I would be delighted to let the hon. member have a report from my department in respect of the mining activities in northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Tonight we are studying exclusively a problem of surveying. Unfortunately, perhaps, it is not a problem which has to do with mining development as such. Nevertheless I will let the hon. member have a report on the prospects for mining development in that area.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that my interest has been aroused I should like to ask a question of the minister. Is this the first time the north-south line has been proven? Did it exist previously or is this just a matter of establishing its accuracy under present-day conditions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As I stated in my initial remarks, this border previously was referred to in very general terms as "the 60th degree north latitude" and "the second meridian in the system of the Dominion land surveys." Of course these are vague concepts and as activity developed in these areas a need arose for more specific references. This is the reason why the border has been surveyed and monuments have been placed. When the hon. member is travelling in that area now he will know whether he is in Manitoba or in Saskatchewan. This might be helpful to him, though I do not know in exactly what way. So far as the governments of the provinces are concerned, this is extremely important because mining activities have a direct bearing on provincial revenues.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have worked on a few of
these surveys and I think it is wise when we are spending money to get as much information as possible. In carrying out the survey of the boundary did the surveyors locate registered benchmarks of altitude which can be referred to for other purposes?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not know. If possible I will also find this out.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Manitoba-Saskatchewan Boundary Act
On clause 3-Coming into force.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on clause 1, which allows us to speak of


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The committee is now considering clause 3. Shall clause 3 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 1-Short title.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, clause 1 provides the opportunity for a general discussion of the bill. A moment ago, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) gave me an answer which I find far from satisfactory, since he quoted the case of provinces constituted from existing territories at the time of their creation.
Now, the question I put to him did not concern provinces formed from territories existing at the time under the recognized name of "territory". My question referred to existing provinces at the time of confederation, colonies not considered as territories but as other British colonies, as Newfoundland was until 1949.
I wonder then whether, in the light of this explanation, the minister could-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I should remind the hon. member for Lapointe that Bill S-45, which is now before us, deals with the boundary between the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I consider that a discussion about the boundary between any other provinces is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I do not have in mind any particular province; I am only asking the minister some information concerning responsibilities and, precisely, under section 1 of the bill we are entitled to ask such questions. The reason I am doing it is because the minister himself saw fit to introduce this bill. And my question, which I had finished asking anyway, does not relate to a boundary between two provinces but to a more general case. I want to know how far those responsibilities go, under those boundary acts. Can the minister really answer the
10782	COMMONS
Sask.-Northwest Territories Boundary Act question I put to him on second reading oi the bill? By the same occasion, I would like him to tell us if he intends to take action some day in this regard?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. If the question posed by the hon. member for Lapointe dealt with the boundary between Manitoba and Saskatchewan, his question and any answer by the minister would be in order. However, the question deals with the boundary between other provinces and is out of order, as would be any answer given by the minister.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, does the minister intend to answer my question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to say that if I answer I will be out of order and it is the last thing I would like right now.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the minister that I am not asking for an answer on the boundaries between two particular provinces but only on the rights or the authority of the minister in that field. Then, this does not deal with a specific point.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It may well be that the hon. member for Lapointe is not asking for information in respect of a specific province, but I should point out to him that clause 1 of this bill reads as follows:
This act may be cited as the Manitoba-Saskatche-wan Boundary Act, 1966.
This clause deals with the boundary between two specific provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

DEBATES	December 6, 1966


Jean-Luc Pepin: the second reading of Bill No. S-46, respecting the boundary between the province of Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, as for Bill No. S-46, and if it is agreeable to
the minister, we agree to the motion for second reading of Bill No. S-46 as well as the motion respecting Bill No. S-47. However, I would like to make a few remarks.
This measure is no more no less than an act respecting the boundary between the province of Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is indicated that the act deals with the boundary of the Northwest Territories, but unavoidably the bill does not specify what the changes are or what delimitations have been made. It is said that this is indicated by the sixteen map-sheets numbered 1 to 16 entitled "Boundary between Saskatchewan and Northwest Territories", signed by the Commissioners and on record as No. 51748.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the minister certain irregularities and inconsistencies concerning the boundaries of the Northwest Territories. There were some irregularities in the boundary between the Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan. There are also some in the boundary between the Northwest Territories and Manitoba, since bill No. S-47 is to be brought before the house next. There are also some in the boundary between Ontario and the Northwest Territories and in the boundary between Quebec and the Northwest Territories.
Since the irregularities in the boundary between Manitoba and the Northwest Territories are exactly the same as those in the boundary between the Northwest Territories and Quebec, I should like to clear up a few things concerning this point. Everyone knows that the Northwest Territories and the three provinces of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec have a common boundary on one side, which is James Bay and Hudson Bay.
And the Northwest Territories end at one or the other of those three provinces, not in
December 6, 1966	COMMONS
direct line between one part of the Northwest Territories and Quebec, Ontario, or Manitoba, according to the water divide.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Neither are borders determined as lying so many miles from the coast at high or low tide. Boundaries between the Northwest Territories and Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec are determined in the following manner: You are in the Northwest Territories when you cross James Bay or Hudson Bay, from any one of the three provinces, as the case may be, up until high tide. This means that if you travel along the coast of Hudson Bay or James Bay, whether it be in Quebec, Ontario, or Manitoba territory, and you drive a post at high tide, this marks the boundary between the province concerned and the Northwest Territories. When the tide goes out-and in the vicinity of James Bay and Hudson Bay, facing Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, the tide is known at times to be a mile, a mile and a quarter, a mile and a half long and even longer-the post you drove at high tide now lies in the Northwest Territories. Which means that all the land up to James Bay or Hudson Bay, at high tide, forms part of Manitoba, Ontario or Quebec, and as soon as the tide begins to recede, this land forms part of the Northwest Territories. This is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker; I see the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, a Manitoba resident, listening to my comments. If the hon. member decides to buy a cottage, in the province of Manitoba, on the shore of James Bay or Hudson Bay, he will have a right to this land at high tide. But if he builds a wharf, or if he decides to go for a swim, as soon as he enters the water, he is in the Northwest Territories. If he builds a camp-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. member a question? If I buy a summer cottage on the shores of Hudson Bay at latitude 60 and present it to the hon. member, will he move there and live in it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: Perhaps not, Mr. Speaker, as I have no intention of going to live in Manitoba, although it is a lovely province.
But people who really like fishing or hunting could be interested in building cottages in Manitoba along James Bay or Hudson Bay.
Sask.-Northwest Territories Boundary Act If, for example, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who may be fond of fishing, were to decide to build a wharf by his cottage, this wharf would inevitably be in the Northwest Territories. If the cottage is burglarized, the matter concerns the Manitoba provincial police, but if the boat tied at the end of the wharf is stolen, this comes under the jurisdiction of the R.C.M.P. Therefore if a thief burgles the cottage of a Manitoba resident living in that place, the provincial police will be called, but if the same thief steals a boat tied at the end of the wharf belonging to the same cottage, the R.C.M.P. will have to be called, for the offence was committed in the Northwest Territories.
A drowning man, from the minute he stepped into the waters of James Bay or Hudson Bay, was no longer within the boundaries of Manitoba, Ontario or Quebec, the provinces surrounding James Bay and Hudson Bay, but in the Northwest Territories. The R.C.M.P. or the rescue forces from hundreds of miles on the other side of the line must be called; it takes a long time for the rescue forces to come and help a drowning man or to help in the search. Therefore I think that the boundary between the Northwest Territories and the three provinces is illogical. I am willing to plead in favour of Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, since these three provinces are treated unfairly and should not in my opinion continue to suffer this injustice.
I feel that the boundary is not set appropriately and that, instead, it should be ruled that the Northwest Territories extend 12 miles out from the shoreline at low tide. At present, it lies along the high water-mark so that, when the tide is on the ebb, the shore belongs to the Northwest Territories. All the shore which lies bare at low tide should belong to the province, where that occurs, in addition to the limit recognized today and which extends 12 miles from the shoreline at low tide.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that request is normal, logical, it would mean that when a citizen from a province settles along James Bay or Hudson Bay, or somewhere in that area, not only his house but also the shore would be in the same province. He would not be leaving that province when he went for a swim across the way from his cottage.
I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) -
10784	COMMONS
Sask.-Northwest Territories Boundary Act [English]


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit another question?


Gilles Grégoire: Sure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member suggest putting low-water marks on the boundary line of the province of Saskatchewan? I am just testing his geography.


Gilles Grégoire: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is because I am discussing both bills at the same time and, as you asked a moment ago, we are discussing the boundaries because Saskatchewan, and this is the reason why I do not speak of the province of Saskatchewan, now, does not border James Bay or Hudson Bay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Obviously, the hon. members have listened with great interest to the argument of the hon. member, but it seems to me that it does not apply very much to the bill before us. I think he should keep as much as possible to the delimitation of the boundary between Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories. In the circumstances, I would suggest that he move his boat to Saskatchewan.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take you for a row one of these days. At all events, I thought we were considering both bills respecting Saskatchewan and Manitoba, as it was suggested a while ago, but I singled out the boundaries between the Northwest Territories and Manitoba.
The minister was allowed to make a statement on the three bills, if you prefer that I await the motion for second reading of bill No. S-47, an act respecting the boundary between the province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, to continue my statement, Mr. Speaker, I can do so because precisely, I include in my remarks the boundary between the Northwest Territories and Manitoba, James Bay and Hudson Bay which border both.
So, Mr. Speaker, if you prefer that I should wait to speak on this point, I can do so; however, if you prefer that I finish right away, I will.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it for granted that if the hon. member agrees that the speech he now makes will do for both bills, the house will probably be happy to hear him immediately.

DEBATES	December 6, 1966


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak more than once on both bills; I do not see why I should repeat myself. Anyhow, there are enough who do so. I want to put the same remarks and the same questions to the minister.
That is why I consider, Mr. Speaker, that the boundary between the Northwest Territories and Manitoba as well as between Ontario and Quebec, is not well defined at the present time. I am of the opinion that the boundary between the Northwest Territories and any of these three provinces bordering James Bay or Hudson Bay should not be established at the high water mark in either of those bays but 12 miles from the low water mark, for each of the three provinces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My patience is now exhausted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The high-water mark between Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories has not yet been observed by any member of this house, and certainly not by the hon. member for Lapointe. I do not know why we have to listen to these remarks. I think the hon. member should be restricted to dealing with the subject matter under discussion, as is any other hon. member of the house. If the hon. member will not adhere to the rules of the house, he should be named.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member for Lapointe knows to the same extent as other hon. members that the rule of relevancy requires that he should limit his comments to the bill before us. It was my understanding that the hon. member's remarks were applicable not only to this bill but the following bill. If there is a desire on the part of the house that the hon. member should be limited strictly to this bill, I am sure he will agree to this limitation. The hon. member will be given the opportunity of pursuing his remarks, if they are relevant, when we reach the following bill.


Gilles Grégoire: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that it would be much simpler, under the circumstances, to restrict ourselves to the discussion of the bill now under consideration and I am going to put the question-
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 2-Boundary declared.
James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister one question? Are these survey maps available and, if so, how can they be secured?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Chairman, they are available. The maps with respect to Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories were tabled in the house on February 27, 1964. If the hon. member has any difficulty I will make sure he gets a copy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question to ask the minister. Are these surveys undertaken by the staff of the minister's department or are contracts let for the surveys? If contracts are let, how are they advertised and allocated?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was hoping, Mr. Chairman, to have the chance of giving the hon. member the information he asked me a few minutes ago and it might be wiser to have it on Hansard for other interested intelligent people to consult in the future.
The Saskatchewan and Northwest Territories boundary survey was begun in 1953 and completed in 1962. As I mentioned a moment ago, the report was tabled in the house on February 27, 1964. This particular survey cost the provincial government $218,024 and the federal government $109,012.
With respect to the Manitoba and Northwest Territories boundary survey, it was begun in 1957 and completed in 1962. The
Man.-Northwest Territories Boundary Act report, dated August 2, 1965, was tabled in the house on January 18, 1966. The Manitoba share of the cost of the report was $131,080; the cost to the federal government was $65,540.
The last survey concerning the Manitoba and Saskatchewan boundary was commenced in 1961 and completed in 1962. The report was dated August 2, 1965, and was tabled in the house on February 3, 1966. I do not have the exact details but the share of the cost assumed by the two provinces was $96,314 and the federal share was $32,105.
I presume, Mr. Chairman, that these amounts are all covered in the budget of the Surveyor General of Canada. I would have to inquire further but it is possible that a very small part of the work may have been done on contract by outside surveyors. My intuition, however, tells me it was not, but I would have to get further information to satisfy the hon. member's insatiable and legitimate curiosity.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to thank the minister because this is quite interesting information to have on the record. There are other persons interested in this type of legislation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to put the information on record.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Jean-Luc Pepin: the second reading of Bill No. S-47, respecting the boundary between the province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the remarks I began a little earlier. Here we are really dealing with the boundary between Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. I would like to talk particularly about those boundaries along James bay or Hudson bay between Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.
10786	COMMONS
Man.-Northwest Territories Boundary Act
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I want to stay within the rules and I do not wish to start a controversy, but it happens that Ontario and Quebec are in the same position as Manitoba. However, I will talk only about Manitoba and while fighting on behalf of Manitoba, something the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) cannot do, I find myself at the same time fighting on behalf of Quebec and Ontario.
I feel big-hearted and ready to help my fellow-citizens from Manitoba and Ontario who would suffer the same prejudice as Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, a little earlier I explained practically the whole case. I would just like to end the few remarks I was making by asking the minister if he could not study the whole boundary between Manitoba and the Northwest Territories along James bay and Hudson bay, and see to it that it is no longer set at the high water mark on the shores of the province concerned but at the low water mark, 12 miles offshore, as is done for all delimitations.
Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that the geographers I was able to consult about that matter all agree that the present boundary is illogical, that it does not make sense. It is illogical from the point of view of geography, for instance, because a boundary is no longer considered in such a way. It is as if Spain or France or England said: their boundary extends to the other side of the Atlantic, at high tide, to the coast of the United States or Canada. Then people would say that does not make sense.
Well, from the Northwest Territories to Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, there is also quite a distance, as great as the Atlantic, and yet, the boundaries of the Northwest Territories, even though the latter are quite remote, extend across James bay and Hudson bay and come as far as the shores of Manitoba at the high water mark. And when the tide goes down, one finds oneself in the Northwest Territories. Therefore, from the point of view of geography, it is illogical; from a practical point of view, it is also illogical-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gilles Grégoire: If it is an intelligent one, yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I adapt my question to the member who is being questioned. Does the hon. member consider that there is a water

DEBATES	December 6, 1966
boundary between Manitoba and the Northwest Territories?
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: If I understand the purport of the question, the hon. member is asking whether the boundary between Manitoba and the Northwest Territories runs through any body of water or bay. Well, not in the water itself, but where James bay or Hudson bay touch the shores of Manitoba, as soon as one is in James bay or in Hudson bay where the water touches the shores of Manitoba, as it does, for instance, at Fort Churchill, everything in the water belongs to the Northwest Territories, so that any ship anchored or docked at Fort Churchill is in the Northwest Territories, while a ship-


An hon. Member:: What are you talking about?


Gilles Grégoire: The minister seems to find that-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You should look at the maps.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, you look at the maps. The minister seems to find that odd, but it is precisely because we find it odd that we are asking for a change. Where James bay or Hudson bay touch the shores of Manitoba, Ontario or Quebec at high tide, that area comes under the jurisdiction of the Northwest Territories, and that is what we would like to see changed.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre finds that odd. But that has been established a long time ago and it is a fact that the boundaries of the Northwest Territories extend all along James bay and Hudson bay where the water touches the shores of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec at high tide.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre may be surprised, but that is a fact. Therefore, I would ask the-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not only surprised, I am distressed by the hon. member. I think the hon. member needs some attention elsewhere than in the house because he is confused.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the one who is confused about all this is the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who did not know about the situation. But, he knows, as I do, that part of Manitoba lies along
December 6, 1966	COMMONS
James Bay and because of that, it belongs to the Northwest Territories. That is what the hon. member did not know. That is precisely what we are asking, that the boundary not lie along the high-water mark but along the low-water mark. We are asking that it lie 12 miles from that point. The matter concerns Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. Revision of the boundary line between those provinces and the Northwest Territories would be advisable and I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources what he intends to do about it and when he intends to proceed.


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


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am not allowed to discuss other subjects than the subject matter of this legislation; indeed, the Chair ruled so and besides I do not feel like discussing other matters. I will have copies of the remarks made by the hon. member for Lapointe forwarded to my officials for perusal, and since there are certain aspects of international law involved, I even intend to send copies of his remarks to the UN, either the Maritime Commission or similar bodies for proper analysis.


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think it is the right of any member of this house not to let the minister mislead the house, voluntarily or not. And I know what the minister just said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must rise on a legitimate question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and my question of privilege is as follows: the minister has just misled the house, deliberately or not, when he said that the matter had international implications, whereas its implications are merely national.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has the minister completed his remarks?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to add that the boundary involved here covers the 249 miles running along the Saskatchewan and Manitoba boundary up to Hudson Bay. That is why I refuse to discuss the status of Hudson Bay or James Bay which, according to certain jurists in international law, have an international status and, according to some others, an exclusively Canadian status. It is
Man.-Northwest Territories Boundary Act in this regard that I referred to the United Nations Maritime Commission.
Without entering into a debate, I would point out that there is a precedent for this concerning the boundary between Alberta and the Northwest Territories. Once again, the preamble of Bill No. S-47 states that the provincial legislature concerned has agreed thereto.
Another matter which should be made clear for the information of the hon. member is that the bill has nothing to do with the setting up of new boundaries. It merely deals -as I explained at the beginning-with the delimitation of boundaries already vaguely defined as the "60th parallel" or 'the second meridian."
Now, what we are doing this evening is to determine more accurately, to give a concrete form, if you want, to those concepts which were rather too foggy for the requirements of a modern economy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 2-Boundary declared.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, so that the record will be straightened despite the verbiage we have listened to from the hon. member for Lapointe, as I understand this bill it has to do with the boundary between the province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories following the sixtieth degree of north latitude. The hon. member for Lapointe was dealing with the eastern boundary of Manitoba which borders on Hudson Bay. That is where he was confused in his geography. The geography of the territory is not known to him and I hope that he will be straightened out on this matter. All his discussion about low-water marks and high-water marks had nothing to do with this particular bill, which has to do with the marking of a boundary on the ground between Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. Those areas are not separated by Hudson Bay.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). I know, of course, that the bill deals with the boundary, on the ground, between the Northwest Territories and Manitoba. Now, it
10788	COMMONS
Man.-Northwest Territories Boundary Act so happens that the Manitoba boundary does not stop there at 60 degrees of latitude, it goes as far as Hudson bay, But at that point, on the very shore of Hudson bay, Manitoba is still bounded and its boundary is not only Hudson bay, but again the Northwest Territories. That is what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre does not seem to understand.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
When the 60th parallel reaches Manitoba's most easterly point, then the boundary goes southward; but what part of Canada is on the other side of that boundary? The Northwest Territories again, since all of Hudson bay, to the last drop of water bordering on Manitoba, on the east side, belongs to the Northwest Territories, so that the waves combing the wharves at Fort Churchill are in the Northwest Territories. That is so illogical that I can understand the conclusion arrived at by the member for Winnipeg South Centre, but the water bordering immediately on the Fort Churchill wharf is in the Northwest Territories; this is what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre did not seem to understand and that is why he was confused.
To go still further, Mr. Chairman, and to give the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre an example, a ship berthed at a Toronto wharf would be in Ontario. A ship moored at a wharf in Montreal or Quebec city would be in the province of Quebec. But a ship moored at the Fort Churchill wharf, according to existing boundaries, would be in the Northwest Territories. There lies the difference.


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly.


Ovide Laflamme: What would happen if, some day, the owner of the ship referred to by my hon. friend landed an independent fish?


Gilles Grégoire: I see that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency does not take this matter too seriously.


Ovide Laflamme: No.


Gilles Grégoire: But not only the Manitoba boundary is involved; there is also the boundary between Ontario and Quebec, and in the case of Quebec, hundreds of miles of boundary are at stake.

DEBATES	December B, 1966
I would rather congratulate the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency for the good work he did in the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs committee than for the remark he has just made which is not very relevant.
However, to continue my explanation for the information of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-and this is the point with which he might not be conversant- precisely on account of the existing boundaries at present, the boat anchored at Fort Churchill wharf does not come under the jurisdiction of the province of Manitoba, as the one moored, for instance, in the ports of Toronto or Quebec or Montreal would come under the jurisdiction of the provinces where they happen to be. The boat moored at Fort Churchill is no longer within the limits of the Manitoba territory, it no longer comes under the jurisdiction of Manitoba, but under that of the Northwest Territories. If a murder occurred aboard that boat, the Royal Mounted Police would have to be called whereas, in the Montreal and Toronto harbours, the provincial police could step in. This makes all the difference. And this is not all. If the direct taxation system, sales tax or other taxes, to be levied by the provinces, are in effect at Fort Churchill, the people doing business ten feet from the wharf, that is in the water itself, are no more subject to the taxes imposed by the Manitoba provincial government. Perhaps at present the situation does not create an immediate problem or has not taken broad proportions, since the Manitoba shore on Hudson Bay is not as developed as other parts of the province.
But I point out to the member for Winnipeg South Centre that this might be a problem when the harbour gets to be actually built. Those who, for instance, want to indulge in black market operations or other illegal activities, as soon as they cross the border-line between terra firma and the high water mark, come under a jurisdiction other than that of Manitoba. This is not the case, for instance, along the St. Lawrence River or along the Great Lakes; the Hudson Bay area is the only area in Canada where this situation prevails. You do not have it along the eastern Atlantic coast, for the maritime provinces, nor do we have it in British Columbia, along the Pacific coast. We do have it in one specific spot: Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, along James Bay and Hudson Bay.
December 6, 1966	COMMONS
And, in this regard, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has only to find out for himself. Fort Churchill is clearly at a disadvantage in this regard.
I see the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre nodding his head. Well then, I will say this to him: find out for yourself. And since the Northwest Territories boundary-
I have the map here-runs this way, but also follows all along the James Bay coast, until high tide, we are in the Northwest Territories. The boat anchoring at the wharf, as soon as it is afloat, lies in the Northwest Territories. This comes as a surprise to the member for Winnipeg South Centre, but it is a fact.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I want to ask the hon. member a question. Perhaps he would look at the preamble to the bill. He has had extensive legal training and has one of the sharpest minds in the house. But if there is a vacancy in the centennial program for a farce, I think the hon. member should apply for it.
The preamble says in the second line, "northern boundary of the province of Manitoba." In the second paragraph it also mentions "the said boundary", which is the northern boundary. In the third paragraph it says "the boundary line so surveyed and marked." I suggest to the hon. member that all these references are to the northern boundary and not to the eastern boundary of the province of Manitoba.


Gilles Grégoire: I am very much aware of this fact, Mr. Chairman. What is presently being considered in the bill is the 60 degrees latitude, but that is precisely the point. I feel that the bill is incomplete.
I feel that the bill is not satisfactory, that it does not solve the whole problem. And I would like to ask the minister to make it complete. I read the preamble and I know that the bill deals with the northern boundary between the province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. This is not only mentioned in clause 2 but also in the preamble of the bill: we are dealing here with the boundary between the province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, the northern boundary; I am aware of this.
But that is what I want to tell the hon. member, and I will not return his insult of a while ago. I feel the problem is important enough to warrant this. What I want to let him know is this-
Man-Northwest Territories Boundary Act [English]


Eric Alfred Winkler: Will the hon. member permit me to ask a further question?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, if he will allow me first to answer the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gilles Grégoire: Without even turning the joke round on the hon. member, I only want him to know that I do not find the bill complete in the case of Manitoba; it should not be restricted to the northern boundary, that is to the 60th parallel, but cover the whole shore; the dividing line should run along the Hudson Bay shore, between Manitoba and Hudson Bay.
These remarks are made with a view to complete the bill and not to draw a red herring across the trail. I feel that this bill is not comprehensive. Now, if the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) wants to put his question, I am ready.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I simply wanted to say I had hoped to see unprecedented progress made in the house. But I wish to ask the hon. member now, in view of his contribution to this debate, whether he is aware that there is no problem with regard to the question he is raising? If he is trying to impress the house with his intelligence, he is taking up far too much time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the member for Grey-Bruce who asked me a question, I can say: Yes, there are problems. For instance, the boundary as it is now-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Speak for yourself.


Gilles Grégoire: And I see that the hon. member was not really interested, since he is leaving even before he got his answer.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The present boundary makes it possible for a large number of citizens to run away, at least to escape from direct taxation which a province may levy along the boundary, something that is not possible elsewhere.
It may also mean that a murder committed on a boat does not come under the police force of the province concerned but under another police force hundreds of miles away. There are many similar disadvantages.
10790	COMMONS
Man.-Northwest Territories Boundary Act
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister what he intends to do with the remainder of the Manitoba boundary and, by the same token with the boundaries of Ontario and Quebec along Hudson Bay and James Bay; I hope to have a favourable answer in that respect.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, we are studying tonight a bill concerning only part of the boundary of Manitoba. If the hon. member will look at the map I lent him, he will see also that the other boundary concerned in this bill, the one between Saskatchewan and Manitoba, is also only partly defined. Perhaps later other studies similar to the one we are dealing with now can be undertaken.


Gilles Grégoire: This is what I am asking the minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It will be determined by circumstances.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, does the minister intend to study the rest of this boundary along James Bay and Hudson Bay and has he taken steps to do so?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, if it becomes necessary, we shall consider it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would say to the hon. minister that it is necessary and that it should be considered.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will take into account the opinion of the hon. member.

With respect to the query by the hon. member for Kootenay West as to how these surveys were made, for Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories part of the work was done by an outside surveyor employed on a short-time fee basis but most of the work in this connection was done by staff of the department. With respect to the border between Manitoba and Saskatchewan and Manitoba and the Northwest Territories the work was all done by staff surveyors of the Manitoba government. We only shared in the cost of the enterprise.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to thank the minister for this further information, but before we pass the last of these three simple but very important bills I am sure all members of the committee would want to express their appreciation of the important work done by the surveyors and their crews, often under severe

DEBATES	December 6, 1966
conditions which mean that real men are required to undertake this work. I may say I have some experience with this type of work, and the services of these men are required in order to establish these very important boundaries for the benefit of the provinces concerned and the country as a whole.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When shall the said bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that third reading be postponed until tomorrow to allow the minister to get the information requested a little earlier and also the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to check what I said and correct me, if need be. That will also enable him to see that he was confused, not I.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When shall the said bill be read a third time? Next sitting of the house? Agreed? Agreed.



CANADA LAND SURVEYS ACT


Jean-Luc Pepin: the second reading of Bill No. S-48, to amend the Canada Land Surveys Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[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-
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that normally this bill was not supposed to be submitted to us. We had been
December 6, 1966	COMMONS
told that the other three would be examined but not Bill S-48. I had brought copies of the other three but I find that I do not have that one. Moreover, in view of the fact that my filing is not up to date, I would like to have a copy of the bill, and I must admit-


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Right away.


Gilles Grégoire: -that consideration of that bill comes as a complete surprise to us. I thank the new page boy, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Langlois) to send me a French copy at least. He sends me the English copy, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: I think that the hon. member for Chicoutimi should try to get French copies.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Would the hon. member for Lapointe please address the Chair and, therefore, the committee?


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister if he could give us the reasons why he moved an amendment to paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section 6 which read as follows according to the explanatory notes:
-the subjects in which candidates from admission as articled pupils, for commissions or for certificates shall be examined.
The proposed amendment states it in English, instead and 1 would like to ask the minister why he wants to translate that clause into English instead of leaving it in French as it was previously.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is because in the English version there was a typographical error.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Appointment.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the new subsection 1 of section 8 reads:
The minister may, upon the recommendation of the board, appoint qualified persons as special examiners to examine candidates, to prepare examination papers and to appraise the responses of candidates thereto.
I want to bring to the minister's attention that owing to the tremendous developments taking place in Canada at this time in our cities and rural areas and in the northern places we have been talking about there is a
Canada Land Surveys Act great shortage of qualified surveyors. We have plenty of lawyers in Canada. We are overloaded with them.
I wish to suggest that here is an opportunity for young men who would like to follow this type of life. It is an outdoor life, an interesting life. I wonder what is being done by the department to direct the attention of students in universities to the opportunities for surveyors at the present time. I have repeatedly heard from numerous people in recent years that they have had to wait months to get a surveyor to undertake some small piece of work, and this has caused difficulty in subdividing land and things of that sort. I would like the minister to tell the committee what his department does to direct the attention of young Canadians to this important field in which value is given for services rendered.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sorry not to be more learned in the subject. If I knew all the answers to the hon. member's questions I might be the Surveyor General of Canada. But I have heard that surveying as a profession is developing, particularly at the provincial level. There was a time, way back in the 1870's, when apparently surveying was exclusively a federal function. This explains why the profession of dominion surveyor has developed as a sort of special entity with a sort of college of doctors for surveyors and a special entrance examination.
En passant I might mention that this is a housekeeping type of bill, amending the previous act which has not been amended since 1951 except in a very minor way in 1956. In the last 15 years many changes have taken place in this very noble profession so that the time has arrived to make changes in the act. This is what we are doing tonight.
With respect to the efforts by the department to inform students about this profession I shall make further inquiry and will be in communication with the hon. member on that matter.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Preliminary examination.
Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief question on clause 5. In the provinces we have licensed persons who are known professionally as provincial land surveyors. In the province of Ontario we have the O.L.S., in the province of Quebec the Q.L.S., and so on. This is applicable in all provinces in respect of
10792	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways persons who have qualified for professional licences. Are these persons not equally as qualified as the Dominion Land Surveyors?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The explanation in this regard is that the Dominion Land Surveyors operate on Canada crown lands. As I mentioned a moment ago in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West, it is quite customary for the federal government to use the services of provincial surveyors for specific work. These Dominion Land Surveyors, however, are persons who are operating essentially on federal lands in the Northwest Territories, in the national parks, on Indian reservations and on other federal lands.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Does marine survey work also become part of their duties, for instance, in respect of navigable waters?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not have the faintest idea but I will endeavour to find out and give an answer later.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Jean-Luc Pepin: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. John N. Turner (for ihe Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-229, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system for the period from the 1st day of January, 1965 to the 30th day of June, 1967, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am appearing for the Minister of Finance in respect of this particular bill. Basically it is the same as in previous years except that it comprises two years in one measure. In this respect it is based on the precedent of the Canadian National Railways Financing and Guarantee Act, 1962-63, which also combines two years in one act. I will be pleased to answer any questions when we get into the clause by clause study of the bill, but unless members wish me to do so

DEBATES	December 6, 1966
I do not intend to make any further statement at this stage of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?

Order. The minister has spoken and by so doing has probably brought the debate to a close. I would suggest that the hon. member make his remarks-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: -when the bill is before the committee.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke and closed the debate; that would bring to an end all debates on second reading and we would have no further debate. He has the right to speak, but it is his reply that closes the debate and not the opening statement, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I certainly appreciate the point made by the hon. member, but I was under the impression that the hon. members having no comments to make, the minister had seen fit to make a statement that would bring the debate to a close. If that is not the case, of course there is no reason why the hon. member should not have the opportunity to speak.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, as soon as second reading was moved, the hon. minister was given the floor. I did not rise, because I thought he was making his opening remarks. I did not quite understand what happened there, Mr. Speaker, but I had a few things to say about this bill.
We are dealing here, in Bill No. C-229, with provision for capital expenditures for the Canadian National Railways, from January, 1965, to June 30, 1967. I believe the minister is asking, all told, for $161,600,000. To my mind, this bill brings up a question of principle which must be discussed.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The C.N.R. is told-and that is what is being done by the House of Commons now: You are authorized to spend $161 million in two years. That is mentioned in clause 3, about capital expenditures. And in clauses 4 (3) and 6 (2), the Canadian National Railways are told: to make capital expenditures of $161 million, you are authorized to borrow or issue bonds, which are guaranteed by the
December 6, 1966

federal government, for an amount not exceeding $50 million. Which means to the C.N.R. spend $161 million on capital expenditures, but you are forbidden to borrow more than $50 million. We have here an unavoidable deficit. Where will the C.N.R. get the difference, Mr. Speaker?
Well, they are told to add the difference to their deficit for the year. Spend $161 million, borrow $50 million and charge that against your commercial operations for the year and then add it to your deficit. And at the end of the year, the Canadian National Railways, instead of having a $60 or $65 or $50 million deficit, as usual, or a deficit of $70 million, will say that they must add to that the difference between the $161 million and the $50 million for capital expenditures paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think this is not normal, since this increase in securities of the C.N.R. represents an asset acquired by the Canadian National Railways. Here in clause 3, subclause (1), paragraph (a), reference is made to additions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not want to raise any technical or useless objection against the hon. member, but on second reading he cannot refer as he is doing to particular clauses of the bill, nor deal with them separately.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deal with this particular item, but I should like to mention that oapital expenditures are being made and, for that purpose, I am quoting the relevant figures appearing here. Out of capital investments of $161 million, they are allowed to borrow $50 million, and the balance will be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, that is, with the taxes collected during the year. But those $110 million are covered by existing assets. With regard to those assets, I wanted to point out that it is not normal that public taxes be used to finance expenditures which will constitute assets for the C.N.R. That is why I did not want to refer to the whole paragraph, but only to certain items, in order to prove that those $161 million are not used to finance current operating expenditures even though they will be financed as if they were current operating expenditures or losses incurred by the C.N.R.
I simply wanted to mention what kind of money will be spent. Reference is made to "Road property". Is that what is meant by property? The amount of $60 million will not 23033-6835

Canadian National Railways disappear into thin air, it will still be there five, six or seven years hence. And it is out of the taxes collected this year and the Consolidated Revenue Fund that road properties which will still be there in six, seven or eight years are to be paid. I think that it is quite an unusual procedure.
Reference is made, for example, to investments in equipment amounting to $65 million. Surely, this equipment will last longer than a year and yet it is to be financed out of taxes collected in a single year although it will remain as completely paid assets in 1968, 1969, 1970. It is out of our taxes collected in a single year that such expenses will be made
Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that in principle, no company and no business man would proceed in this way.
The Canadian National Railways and the government take the liberty of doing this because they are using the people's taxes, and it is the people who will be taxed in order to enable the Canadian National Railways to purchase equipment. What we should do is let the Canadian National Railways purchase their equipment, borrow accordingly, and, in return, give, the C.N.R. the opportunity to collect the necessary money in order to repay the loan progressively by means of a sinking fund. This is how any company, operating in a normal manner, would proceed. But this is not how we proceed; we prefer to let the taxpayers carry the whole burden. And what is the final result of this procedure? Well, the Canadian National Railways, once it has purchased all its equipment, having no debt to pay, not having to take certain sums out of its operating fund for debts, can afford to reduce its rates. But at whose expense? At the expense of competing companies, for instance, the trucking and bus companies, etc. And who pays for all this? It is the Canadian taxpayer who pays to have the Canadian National Railway, a crown corporation, compete illegally in the field of freight or public transportation.
Now then, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the principle of this bill whose purpose it is to authorize the C.N.R. to purchase land and equipment and not be made to pay for this land or equipment out of profits realized by use of the land or the equipment which would be perfectly normal-but whereby the Canadian citizens' taxes are going to pay the cost.
December 6, 1966

Canadian National Railways
I submit that the minister should review the bill, because it is all shown here, by the fact that the C.N.R. is authorized to make capital expenditures. These are not operating expenditures and I am really quoting the bill as it reads here. Moreover, clause 3, subclause 1 mentions this fact; I wish to come back to it:
-to make capital expenditures not exceeding in the aggregate $161,000,000.


An hon. Member:: This is a loan authorization.


Gilles Grégoire: No, the loan authorization does not apply to the $161,000,000 which represents capital expenditures; because the loan authorization is limited by two other clauses in the bill, namely sub-clause 3, clause 4, which limits the debt to $50,000,000; no company can borrow $50,000,000 for capital expenditures amounting to $161,000,000; we are short $111,000,000.
Also, sub-clause 2, clause 6, reads:
The aggregate principal amount of loans made pursuant to subclause (1) shall not exceed $50,000,000.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is completely out of order to refer to some special provisions of a bill or to quote them as the hon. member for Lapointe is now doing.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think that to discuss a bill, it is essential to know what are its provisions and consequently to refer to them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I call the hon. member for Lapointe to order.


Gilles Grégoire: And it is precisely the principle which I submit. As in this bill-without referring to any given section-capital expenditures of $161 million are authorized and-without referring to the section, but it is there-it is provided that for capital expenditures of $161 million, it will not be possible to borrow more than $50 million, the funds will inevitably be insufficient. Where will they come from?
Elsewhere, without mentioning the section, Mr. Speaker, the bill states that it will be considered as operation expenditures of the C.N.R. and when the company submits its annual report to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp), the deficit will be covered with moneys from the consolidated revenue fund.

And that is why, instead of doing what any ordinary company would do and seeing to it that the depreciation of those purchases are made against operation benefits, the C.N.R. is allowed to make the purchase and have capital expenditures and investments paid by the taxpayer thus putting the C.N.R. in an advantageous position to compete unfairly against private transport companies, either in freight or passenger traffic, since those private companies do not enjoy such advantages or privileges.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, in principle, I am not against authorizing the C.N.R. to borrow or issue bonds for its own development; on the contrary, development of our transport companies, the C.N.R., Air Canada, etc., should be encouraged.
If the Canadian National Railways are allowed to make capital expenditures but do not have the necessary funds, let them borrow according to the capital expenditures they are authorized to make, for these capital expenditures, which come to $161 million, represent an additional asset for the Canadian National Railways. If the C.N.R. builds branch lines, improves hotels, buys rolling stock, or invests money in other companies and in affiliated companies, their assets will be increased.
Therefore I do not object to the Canadian National Railways borrowing in order to improve or increase its assets, I object when they are told: Increase your assets but, to finance them, we will have to use the taxpayers money. As far as I am concerned, I would rather have them told: Increase your assets, and with your profits you will pay for equipment or the capital expenditures that you are making at present.
Therefore, I would ask the Minister of Transport, or his representative tonight, to see to it that the situation is well explained, since the bill presently before the house is very difficult to understand and since, for the first time in five years, I have been told that I am not allowed to quote the bill or any section thereof. I am very pleased to learn of the fact, Mr. Speaker; one learns something new every day. I thought that, on second reading, sections of a bill could be quoted as examples, so that one might know at least what the situation is, but I have just heard that this is not allowed.
I believe that explaining this bill will be very difficult, indeed, if we are not allowed
December 6, 1966

to refer to its contents, nevertheless, I would ask the minister to try to throw some light on the subject.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be a very peculiar bill. I must confess that I set eyes on it for the first time only a few minutes ago. This is, of course, no excuse for my not understanding the bill. However, in exculpation of my misunderstanding I must say that the file of Commons bills that 1 have starts at Bill C-230 and this bill is No. C-229. The thing that is very peculiar about the bill is that it concerns the expenditure of funds by the C.N.R. for new equipment, hotels and other things in 1965 and deals with expenditures of over $100 million for the year ending 1966, which we are rapidly approaching. In addition, the bill gives authority for the C.N.R. to pay for equipment which has been secured by Air Canada and which apparently has already been paid for. In other words, the authority to pay these amounts has already been given at some time in the past and this is retroactive legislation. It would appear to me, if we are being asked to authorize expenditures which have been made more than two years ago, that the minister should give us an explanation in this respect.
Further, it would seem to me that this is a very peculiar way to conduct the country's business. The sums involved run into several hundred millions of dollars. This money has been paid out without any real authority having been given. These expenditures having been made without any direct authority having been given, I do not think we should give second reading to this bill until we have received a full explanation from the minister. The minister should give a full explanation to parliament for these expenditures before we are asked to pass them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister's statement at this point will close the debate.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the form that has been followed for ten years in this house. It of course concerns the refinancing of the C.N.R. The hon. member has posed a quite valid question in this respect. This bill is not authorizing the moneys already spent. The supplementary estimates for 1965-66, loan vote L82e, and upcoming supplementaries F and G have authorized the spending of this money.
Canadian National Railways


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Why duplicate it?


John Napier Turner: It relates to the spending of money in connection with the C.N.R. and Air Canada. These budgets have come before the standing committee of the house. There is the question of the control of future spending in clause 3(1), paragraphs (b) and (c). I think the situation is well in hand. The money has already been authorized. This is a statutory enactment.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Then why is this bill necessary?


John Napier Turner: When the C.N.R. is recapitalized this sort of bill will no longer be necessary.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I am speaking a second time on this matter, but it does not seem to me that the explanation given really covers the point I brought forward.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the difficulty of the hon. member but, the rules being what they are, the hon. member of course has an opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification when the bill is before the committee. The minister will at that time have an opportunity to clarify these matters and answer the questions asked by the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, before clause 2 carries I should like to raise this question. Clause 2 (b) is concerned with the definition of "national system" and it is defined as meaning the national railways as defined in the Canadian National Railways Act and any companies controlled by the national company through stock ownership. Does that include Air Canada?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What other companies are included besides Air Canada?


John Napier Turner: I have a list of them here.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Are there any other active operating companies besides Air Canada?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Chairman, other than the railway companies.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
10796	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways
On clause 3-Capital expenditures authorized for 1965 and 1966.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, clause 3(l)(a) refers to an expenditure of $161,600,000 in the calendar year 1965 for capital requirements of the C.N.R. This is the point that struck me and it is why I raised this question when we were on second reading of the bill. At that time the minister stated that these expenditures had been covered by supplementary estimates. Did the supplementary estimates spell out in detail what the various amounts were for or are we giving a blank cheque in this regard?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, clause 3 (1) (a) deals with expenditures of $161,600,000 which were not required from the treasury. This amount was covered in the current revenues and depreciation of the C.N.R. No cash expenditure was necessary out of the consolidated revenue fund in this respect.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, if no cash expenditure was necessary, why does this item cover road property, branch lines, equipment and so forth? Under the statute the railway is authorized to make capital expenditures up to a point and in respect of these capital expenditures revenues are obtained from the sale of 3 per cent preferred stock. This was in 1965, Mr. Chairman. If there has been no legislative authority by this parliament for the expenditure of this $160 million odd, am I to understand from what the minister has stated that the $160 million was expended out of funds accumulated by the C.N.R. from depreciation and things of that kind?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: It was expended in that way in accordance with the annual budget which has already been tabled and approved by the transport committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think that we are coming down to the basic question of the company having been authorized and given parliamentary authority to expend these sums. Apparently the only authority it was given was to spend $1,600,000 if I understand the minister correctly, in a supplementary estimate. That is a very far cry from the $160 milhon capital expenditure which was evidently made and which two years later parliament is now asked to approve.

DEBATES	December 6, 1966


John Napier Turner: I did not say that the supplementary estimates covered only $1,600,000. The first set covered $35 million and the second another $15 million.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, an item has recently come to my attention pertaining to property. Would the committee like to call it ten o'clock and we can take it up later?


John Napier Turner: I wonder whether the committee might extend the courtesy of finishing this off in a few minutes, Mr. Chairman?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I am agreeable. It will only take me two or three minutes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think so, Mr. Chairman. There is an important point at issue here. We should take another look at this and come back to it tomorrow. I am anything but satisfied with the explanations which the minister has given so far.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have had some discussion with members on all sides of the house in relation to item No. 100, which is a resolution to introduce a measure to encourage the initiation of programs for the expansion of research. In order that members may see the bill I think there may be a disposition, if this item is called, to agree to it without debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?



RESEARCH


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to Introduce a measure to encourage the initiation of programs and the expansion of existing programs of scientific research and development in Canada by the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund, on the authorization of the Minister of Industry, to corporations incorporated in and carrying on business in Canada, of grants in respect of capital expenditures in Canada, and in respect of increases in current expenditures in Canada over a specified base period by such corporations on scientific research and development in fiscal periods commencing with the fiscal periods of such corporations ending in 1966; to provide that such scientific research and
December 6, 1966

development grants shall be exempt from income tax; and to provide for amendments to the Income Tax Act that are incidental to or consequential on the introduction of the said measure.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-252, to provide general incentives to industry for the expansion of scientific research and development in Canada and to effect certain related amendments to the Income Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I understand there may be a disposition to treat similarly item No. 93 on the order paper, the resolution having to do with the Export Credits Insurance Corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act to authorize Export Credits Insurance Corporation to issue unconditional guarantees to banks In connection with transactions insured by the Corporation under sections 13 and 21 of the Act; to authorize the Corporation, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to enter into agreements with foreign governments in connection with transactions entered into under section 21A of the Act to reschedule or revise payment arrangements in respect of debts owed to it under that section; to enable the aggregate liability to the Corporation at any time in connection with transactions under section 21A to be Increased from four hundred million dollars to five hundred million dollars; and to provide further for certain consequential changes in connection with the administration of the Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Supply-External Affairs
Mr. Drury (for Mr. Winters) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-253, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with hon. members opposite with respect tc supplementary estimates (D). This is a verj urgent matter dealing with famine aid to India. I would ask that we revert to supply to deal with this item at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that standing order 56 be suspended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS A-Department-
External Aid Office-
35d. Economic technical, educational and other assistance as detailed in the Estimates, $22,500,000.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I wonder whether the minister, in view of the great public interest in the matter of giving additional aid to India, which I presume will be in the form of food, and in view particularly of the movement among the high school students of Canada in this regard, might give a brief word of explanation.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, this is additional aid to India beyond the substantial aid already given in this particular year. The aid is necessary in order to avoid a terrible famine and it will be in the form of wheat and flour. I should indicate that the parliament of India yesterday expressed its sincere gratitude to Canada for the tremendous amount it is doing for India in this particularly difficult situation.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I would just like to say that I commend the government on this particular move.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So do we, Mr. Chairman.


Michael Starr: Me too.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
December 6, 1966
Ways and Means WAYS AND MEANS
Edgar John Benson: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.


Edgar John Benson: Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1967, the sum of $22,500,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Benson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-254 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1967.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Edgar John Benson: Has the bill been distributed to hon. members opposite? It is in the usual form and it is simply a bill containing this single item. The bill is available and I suggest it be distributed to those interested.
On clause 2-$22,500,000 for 1966-67.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: I found it difficult to hear what the minister said. I take it that the bill is in the usual form, that there is nothing unusual about it.


Edgar John Benson: That is correct. The bill is in the usual form. It is a supply bill in relation to a single item of $22,500,000 for aid to India.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
BiR reported, read the third time and passed.
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members opposite for their cooperation in assisting the government in carrying through this great humanitarian effort.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there are two items on the order paper with which we do not intend to proceed. One is item 108, a motion for concurrence in the twelfth report of the standing committee on transport and communications. Since that committee has finished its work and reported to the house, this motion becomes redundant and unnecessary. The other is item No. 23 on the order paper, the house again in committee of the whole on a bill to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company. The purposes for which that bill was proposed have been taken care of by agreement, so the bill has become unnecessary. Therefore it is no longer intended to proceed with it. I would ask the permission of the house to drop those two items from the order paper.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, while I have no objection to dropping Bill S-2, we on this side of the house would be glad to pass it through all stages tonight if the minister would call it.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATION


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government orders:
November 18-Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Macaluso: That the twelfth report of the standing committee on transport and communications presented to the house on Thursday, November 3, 1966, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: On item No. 108 do I understand there is unanimous consent to allow this order to be dropped and the motion to be withdrawn?


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



OTTAWA TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government orders:
House again in committee of the whole on Bill S-2, An Act to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company-The Minister of Transport.
December 6, 1966	COMMONS
Mr. Speaker:: On the second order referred to by the Minister of Public Works, No. 23, is it agreed that the order be discharged and that the bill be withdrawn?


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

["I understand that by agreement the order for the adjournment proceedings will be dispensed with this evening. It being after ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until two thirty o'clock tomorrow afternoon."]
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will submit for the consideration of the house item 107, second reading of the bill to amend the National Defence Act.
Business of the House


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about old age pensions?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that by agreement the order for the adjournment proceedings will be dispensed with this evening. It being after ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until two thirty o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
It being 20 minutes past ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following Item was passed in Committee of Supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
35d.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 7, 1966