1966-10-25

FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourteenth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, in both French and English.
In this report the committee refers back to the house the main estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce for 1966-67; this also covers the participation of the Canadian government in the World Exhibition in Montreal and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present the fifteenth report of the said committee, in both French and English.

Mr. Speaker, in this report the committee reports to the house, with amendments, Bill S-16, to incorporate the Bank of British Columbia.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement on postal symbols following some questions asked in the house.
I must say that my first statement took about 14 pages, but as on motions we are not entitled to speak at length I will summarize it in about four pages.

Mr. Speaker, on October 14 I was asked a question by the hon. member for Wellington South regarding the intention of the Post Office Department with respect to a symbol, to which I made the following reply: "We are going to adopt an emblem which will represent a totally Canadian post office and which will give a real interpretation to the Post
Office Act." This answer was based upon a question evidently founded on an article in the press based on information which had come from the Post Office Department to the effect that consideration was being given to the adoption of a distinctive symbol for the post office.
I regret the misunderstanding which has arisen because of this premature article of action being considered in the department, but on which the government had up to that time no opportunity to take any decision.
Shortly after I became Postmaster General I asked myself whether a symbol could not be developed which would be easily recognized as the symbol of the post office, and which would be simple to recognize and easy to reproduce. The officers of the department were receptive to the idea, and a good deal of thought and effort has been given in the department to developing such a symbol. In fact there are a number of symbols that have been used in the Post Office Department for a number of years, one of which is the hat badge of the letter carriers, which is made up of the intertwined letters "C" and "P", surrounded by a circle of maple leaves and topped by a crown.
The first step in the development of a new symbol was the use of a print of the hat badge to decorate the cover of a recruiting brochure directed at university students. This led to the use of the intertwined letters "C" and "P" and the 11 point maple leaf from Canada's flag. The stylized maple leaf, by the way, has formed part of the uniform shoulder flashes since 1965. This symbol combined with the words "Postes Canada Post" seemed to me very suitable.
I made inquiries to find out whether there was any statutory provision or any provision by order in council regarding post office emblems, and I found that neither the governor in council nor parliament appeared at any time to have prescribed such emblems, and that the emblems and other descriptions in use had been adopted by the department as a matter of usage.
Notwithstanding the practice in the past, it is my view that the latest proposal is a matter of such a nature as to require cabinet
9064	COMMONS
Announced Removal of Coat of Arms approval. However, before I had any opportunity to submit the matter to cabinet for approval, the article on which I believe the question was raised in the house appeared in the newspapers. I expect that such consideration will be given shortly.
I want to make it very clear that there was no intention on my part or on the part of the department to hide anything or to do anything without the proper authority. Certainly no such accusation can properly be made against the government, because my colleagues knew nothing about the matter up to the time the story appeared in the press.
I think I made it clear that the object of the proposed new symbol now under consideration is merely to provide a symbol of the post office which would be uniform for postal purposes and would be clearly and exclusively identified with the post office. There was no thought and no intention of interfering with the proper use of any existing symbol, and certainly no thought whatever of any kind of disrespect for the Canadian coat of arms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the house has just heard a novel doctrine; that the minister on his own, giving the answer he did give to parliament, acted for himself and without consultation with the cabinet.


An hon. Member:: That is not fair.


John George Diefenbaker: That explanation just cannot hold water.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: That is not the
situation.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not a bit surprised at this, in view of the various closed compartments of government wherein one does one thing and another does another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not surprising, because it is the same old story. I will read the answer the minister gave previously. He left out one word when he read what took place on October 14. I will read what was said at that time;


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is he in a position to confirm or deny reports that the royal coat of arms which appears on all mail trucks, bags and other things used to move Her Majesty's mail is to be removed and replaced by another symbol?

DEBATES	October 25, 1966
The answer was:
Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are going to adopt an emblem which will represent a truly Canadian post office and which will give a real interpretation to the Post Office Act.
Then a little later on this question was asked:


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to infer from the minister's decision just announced that in the view of the government the mail is no longer to be Her Majesty's mail?
The minister said:
The mail has never been Her Majesty's mail, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement has no basis in fact. We go on to the next occasion that the matter was raised, which was on October 17. I asked a supplementary question at that time-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order? Don't you want the truth?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, sir. My point of order is that there is a provision in the rules of this house that hon. gentlemen opposite, when commenting on a minister's statement, a factual statement, should comment in a factual way-


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and should not introduce new matter or subjects for debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that from the first word used by the right hon. gentleman he has been seeking, not to deal with the statement made by the minister but to introduce extraneous matter to provoke a debate. I suggest that this is completely contrary to the rules of this house, and I would once more plead that the right hon. gentleman be subject to the rules like the rest of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can well understand the point of order of the hon.
October 25, 1966

gentleman; the susceptibilities of the government on this matter have obviously been seriously aroused. I ask you, sir, when it became extraneous to quote the words that were used by the minister-


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: On the same subject.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: -when he admitted what the government was going to do. When did that become extraneous? It may be extraneous as between the various ministers of the government, one of whom does not know what the other is doing, but in this case 11 or 14 days have gone by and until today no explanation has been received except for a self serving answer which does not clarify the situation in any way.
The hon. gentleman says they are going to produce something, some time, some place. All I can say is that having regard to what has taken place in various departments recently the course of action of this government has been to remove the crown whenever the opportunity offered.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: That is not right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition had the floor before the Acting Prime Minister, who now wishes to raise a question of privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, because of the significance and importance of the unjustified declaration just made by the right hon. gentleman-


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman does not have a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Acting Prime Minister should be given an opportunity to state his point. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition says it is not a question of privilege; however, I think I should be given an opportunity to hear what the point is, after which I will rule accordingly.


John George Diefenbaker: I know it hurts their sensibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe that according to the rules of the house when an hon. member rises on a question of privilege he should be heard. I will recognize the right
Announced Removal of Coat of Arms hon. Leader of the Opposition after the Acting Prime Minister has spoken.


An hon. Member:: Make sure it is on a
question of privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is that the right hon. gentleman has said that this government has taken steps within recent days-


John George Diefenbaker: I never said "within recent days".


Paul Joseph James Martin: -has taken steps to remove references to Her Majesty. There is not the slightest basis for that statement nor the slightest justification. I want to assure my right hon. friend that we on this side of the house are as loyal to Her Majesty as is my right hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Ricard:: Is this the way the hon. member obeys the rules? This is in defiance of the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. Starr:: The rule evidently does not apply to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I bring to the attention of hon. members that there is disorder in the house at present, and I suggest to them that this is not appropriate. Perhaps I should first deal with the question of privilege raised by the Acting Prime Minister. I recognize there is no question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the Acting Prime Minister is a question of debate, which shows how difficult it is to stay away from debate.


Michael Starr: Why does the Acting Prime Minister not rise again?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is extremely difficult to conduct the business of the house in an orderly fashion if we do not abide by the rules. Standing order 15 which refers to ministerial announcements states as follows: Any such announcement or statement should be limited to facts which it is deemed necessary to make known to the house and should not be designed to provoke debate at this stage.
I suggest that the statement made by the Postmaster General was not the type of statement that provokes debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
October 25, 1966
9066	COMMONS
Announced Removal of Coat of Arms


Mr. Speaker:: I would invite hon. members speaking on behalf of their parties not to make statements that provoke debate.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not debate that is provoked; it is the sensibilities of these people opposite who endeavoured, by stealth, to get away with this and got caught.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Send for Dalton Camp.


Michael Starr: You had better watch your own back; look around.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, you do not hear these observations, these gratuitous observations made by the Minister of Transport. He feels very deeply about this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So do you.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that we revert to comments on the declaration made by the Postmaster General.


John George Diefenbaker: I say without fear of contradiction, Mr. Speaker, that what has taken place here is but another step in a course of action. The Prime Minister and his cabinet cannot escape the basic responsibility. This announcement was made, was admitted to have been made, and now what is being done is the usual course of this government, to act, to fear and to run. This has always been their course, to run away. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said this had not happened before. It happened to the security card; off went the coat of arms.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I again ask for the co-operation of the right hon. gentleman. Certainly he must be referring to matters which are clearly extraneous to the question before the house, because I did not realize that the statement made by the minister had anything to do with security cards.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect I ask, if the other side has the right to introduce this type of thing why can we not reply? I ask Your Honour that as one who upholds the Chair at all times. From the very beginning, when I rose, these catcalls opposite began because they feel badly over there. The cat got out of the bag, and they are disturbed.
Your Honour says I cannot give the facts about the removal of the coat of arms from the security card and the substitution of the


maple leaf. They took the coat of arms off the front page of the Labour Gazette where it had been for years. The new Labour Gazette has it on the inside page, where nobody can see it. It would not take long to get it out of there. We have this same thing in connection with unification. I have only to mention an article, without going into detail, which says that the reason for this unification is that the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -the Prime Minister cannot understand why Canadians in uniform should be mistaken for those in the armed forces of another country. This reference is in the article by Mr. Terrence Robertson.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The right hon. gentleman is not making things easy for the Chair. I realize that is not necessarily his responsibility, but on the other hand I would remind him that, in so far as possible, we should follow at least the spirit of the rule in standing order 15 which requires that members, in commenting on a ministerial statement, should stay within the four corners of the statement made or the facts raised by the minister making the statement.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when we attempt to debate this tomorrow, when a motion is made to discuss this, this government can apply closure against us through the rules. I believe the people of Canada want to know what kind of business the government is undertaking. The government can prevent observations being made now, but the Canadian people have proof on this occasion that this government is again continuing the tinkering, the chopping and chiselling away of those things which are part of our tradition. We in this party intend to do everything we can to assure the survival of those things, even though we are in the opposition. As the Minister of Finance said the other day, "If we could only get rid of that opposition, or if only they were smaller in number, we would be able to do with them what we liked." I am telling the government of this country that they are not going to get away with what they have done here.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Postmaster General on what he calls a misunderstanding
October 25, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES
has demonstrated once again that the government has a genius for stumbling from crisis to crisis. Here is a department which, if I understood the minister correctly, issued a press release-*


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -saying that the department was contemplating changing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister claims to be rising on a question of privilege. I trust that it is a genuine question of privilege.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman said I stated that the department issued a press release. This is not the case, Mr. Speaker, I said there was no press release issued by my department.


Mr. Winkler:: It is all on Hansard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I gladly accept the correction. I listened carefully to the minister and I understood him to say that an official of his department had indicated to the press that consideration was being given to changing the emblem of the Post Office Department. I am pointing out that here is an official of the department making a statement regarding a matter that is under consideration. This matter was raised in the house on October 14, and at that time the minister said no decision had been taken. He has repeatedly been asked to make a statement and has deferred it, and now some 11 days later he tells us that no decision has been made.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that if the department has not made a decision there was surely no reason at all for any comment to be made to the press. If the government is going to make a change in the insignia of the Post Office Department, that announcement surely ought to have been made in this house and then parliament should have been given some opportunity to express its opinion about it.
I am not one of those who cling tenaciously to the insignia or emblems of the past. Nor am I in favour of tossing out emblems and insignia unless there are perfectly good reasons-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Turner:: Riding two horses again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has the floor.
Announced Removal of Coat of Arms


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am endeavouring to make a reasoned statement. I do not know why hon. gentlemen opposite are so touchy on this question. I am telling the house that I am opposed to changing insignia and emblems unless there are perfectly good reasons for doing so, and we have been given no reason today.
My criticism of the minister's statement is that he has not told us anything. He has not told us whether the government does intend to change the post office emblem. He has not told us what the new emblem will be. He has said that the matter is under consideration. The only assurance he has given this house is that it will be submitted to cabinet. This is certainly a gracious concession to his colleagues. He does not intend to do it on his own, and I am sure we all feel better for that.
However, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we should be given some assurance that parliament will be consulted about this question. I submit that this is not a matter of loyalty or monarchial government. The coat of arms which is used at the present time is the Canadian coat of arms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the government decide that some other emblem is more suitable or appropriate, let them give parliament the reasons they think it is more suitable. But let them not do this surreptitiously. Let them not do it by leaking out little statements through officers of the department to the press. Let them come before parliament and say that there are certain insignia which the government think are no longer representative of Canada and therefore propose to change, and that they want parliament's approval for so doing.
I hope that the minister will reconsider this matter and, if he is going to make a change, that he will at least come before parliament and give parliament the reasons for that change. He will certainly have to give me much more convincing reasons than any he has presented so far.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I think this whole question indicates the government's capacity for coping with shadows and neglecting substance. I would have been much more impressed had the minister risen to tell us what he was going to do about the Montpetit report, about the appalling working conditions which exist in the post office and what he is going to do to meet the demands of the workers in his department.
October 25, 1966

Announced Removal of Coat of Arms [DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Co-quitlam (Mr. Douglas) has simply suggested that the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) speak of the Montpetit report instead while we should not study the Montpetit report at all, but rather discover the pros and cons of the Postmaster General's decision to remove Canada's coat of arms from post office trucks and replace them with the maple leaf.
I heard a moment ago the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) trying, as usual, to play politics with the question. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition finds that very funny, but for a long time we have been finding his way of acting very funny too.
Mr. Speaker, according to the Postmaster General, there is no intention of removing completely Canada's coat of arms which embodies the English and French facts. I find it logical, however, to replace the present coat of arms by the maple leaf, which is internationally known as Canada's emblem. Actually, no one in the whole wide world knows the Canadian coat of arms, and I defy the Leader of the Opposition to tell me where, in what country, the arms of Canada would be recognized. On the other hand, the maple leaf is recognized as authentically Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, when on Air Canada aircraft we replaced the initials TCA with Air Canada and the maple leaf, the Leader of the Opposition did not object. Today, we want to place a maple leaf on Canadian postal trucks. I feel we should remove the words Royal Mail, for we are dealing with Canadian mail. That does not prevent us from respecting the Queen of Canada. There are countries which belonged and still belong to the Commonwealth of Nations, such as India-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will please excuse me if I interrupt him just when he is starting to tell his anecdote. I simply want to remind him once again, as I did before, that the comments which party representatives are allowed to make following a minister's statement must as far as possible be restricted to the facts contained in that statement.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to order. I shall restrict myself as far as possible to the minister's statement, but it is precisely to explain our position and to appeal to the reason of the members that I wanted to point out that other countries have done the same thing without being criticized.
Here in Canada we must admit that the decision announced at noon by the Postmaster General was not made by himself alone, but after consultation with his colleagues and government members. It is a decision solely based on a policy of his department. It has no more to do with the opposition or with the Leader of the Opposition than similar questions had to do with the opposition parties when he was in power. No legal statute has been transgressed to enable the minister to announce at noon that the maple leaf will hereafter appear on bags and trucks of the Post Office Department.
As I said earlier, the Leader of the Opposition would like to stir up a storm in a teacup. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that he would be promoting the cause of Canadian unity to which he is supposed to be fully dedicated.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. members' comments should be limited to the minister's statement and should not include the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition apparently was allowed to say all he had to say a while ago. And are we going to tolerate his being allowed to say everything he wanted to without saying a word?
Mr. Speaker, anyhow, let the Leader of the Opposition say what he will, let him think what he will, I am sure the decision of the Postmaster General

I do not agree with all his views-but in this case the decision that he has just taken, or that his department and the government have just taken, is not limited to a simple question of the French or the English element, but it affects the population of Canada, which is made up of the most diverse elements, who have decided that we are Canadians and that the maple leaf is henceforth our emblem, now acknowledged as such the world over. That is our approval.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied, nor do I think the

October 25, 1966

Canadian people will be satisfied with the statement which the Postmaster General has made in the house this afternoon. As I see it, the real problem is that the statement made by the Postmaster General on October 14, in answer to this question is in fact a statement of proposed action, and I do not think the remarks made this afternoon are consistent with that, nor do they adequately deal with the situation. Hon. members will find Mr. Speaker, on examining what was said today that today's remarks are far different from what was said on previous days in answer to this question. It remains a fact that on October 13 a minor post office official stated almost casually that Canada's coat of arms and the words "Royal Mail" would be progressively removed from post office trucks and mail bags.
That statement caused all the discussion and uproar, and it is more than just an uproar, in the house this afternoon. As I see it, what is happening here is a determined and planned attempt to try to erase the tradition and history of this country. Let me ask this question of the Postmaster General and anyone else in this house who thinks that the question is legitimate: What is wrong with the Canadian coat of arms?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: It represents the history of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: To say that Canada's coat of arms must be equated with an insignia on an aircraft or a hat or the flag or any other symbol that represents Canada at home or abroad is wrong. The coat of arms is entirely different. The coat of arms belongs to all of us. It represents part of our history and part of our legitimate tradition. It is the official emblem and seal of Canada and the government of Canada. It represents the nation of Canada. We should not confuse symbols and the coat of arms because they are entirely different.
It seems to me that many minor changes are being brought about which may be minor in detail but major in cumulative effect. What is happening here in my opinion is an intentional moving of Canada toward republican status.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Justice and Legal Affairs


Robert Norman Thompson: Whether we admit it or not that is the impression the Canadian people get and that is the impression I get.


Michael Starr: You are doing it at night and not in the daytime.


Robert Norman Thompson: These traditions can be broken, if we want that. Anybody in this house can campaign for or against any new symbol or new emblem on the mail boxes and trucks of the post office or elsewhere. However, the fact is that the Queen is Queen of Canada. This is her parliament and we have made certain pledges and we have certain responsibilities to uphold. There is a place where changes affecting the nation should be made. That place is in this assembly, by the representatives of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: These words and the coat of arms are not against any part of Canada. They represent what Canada is. I would urge the government to take heed of these things. These proposed changes are major changes that ought to be made only by the representatives of the Canadian people in this parliament.



JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved:: That the third report of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, presented to the house on Tuesday, October 18, 1966, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I would not say anything on such a motion because I would not think it necessary. However, on account of certain events which happened last Thursday I believe I should inform hon. members more fully about the facts of the motion.
The fact is that the committee on justice and legal affairs has had referred to it a number of important matters including motions by private members relating to the installation of safety devices on motor vehicles. We have also had two public bills, proposed by hon. members of this house, imposing upon the automobile industry punitive measures. We have heard from witnesses solely on one side of the subject, and the subcommittee in its wisdom decided that we should send a letter to the automobile manufacturers in Canada inviting them, if they so
October 25, 1966

Justice and Legal Affairs desired, to send a representative to the committee so that we might have their views on the matter.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
In response to that communication we received a letter from an organization called the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association. I shall not read it in full, Mr. Speaker, but in the first paragraph they suggest that there should be a common and joint interest in the committee and in the association in dealing with the subject. They commented on the fact that they had received the notices of motions and had read the members' proposed bills. They also said they had a two-day meeting in Ottawa, arranged by the Canadian government specifications board, on similar subjects.
The third and most important paragraph in the letter read as follows:
In these important matters of public interest we suggest it would be desirable if the committee members could plan a visit to the research and development laboratories and centres of the industry in the Detroit area. Such a personal visit would provide the committee with the best opportunity of learning first hand what safety activities are undertaken by the industry. It would provide a more meaningful concept of what is planned for the future. Further, it would give the members an opportunity to talk with experts in the many and varied safety subjects to which the committee refers.
The letter went on to point out that similar visits proved of value to legislators in other jurisdictions, and said they believed the same useful benefit would attach to our committee if it went to Detroit. They also offered to make the necessary arrangements for such a meeting if we decided to take advantage of their offer.
At a recent meeting of the committee when we had the Canadian Automobile Association officers before us, whose sole concern is automobile safety, they suggested it would be a wonderful idea for the committee if it could take advantage of this offer. Then the members of the committee decided in their wisdom that they probably should take advantage of the offer and go to Detroit if this could be arranged. This first step was unanimously supported by members representative of all parties in the house, and I had the necessary report prepared asking permission of the house for the committee to make this visit.
Apparently the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and members of the press thought that this was an all expenses paid

trip. It is nothing of the kind, Mr. Speaker. The manufacturers offered to plan for our trip, and the visit by the committee would take a day and a half.
I did not say anything at all in the house last week in support of this motion. I do not normally do so because such reports are usually unanimously adopted, and I would not have spoken on this occasion except for some of the things that the hon. member for Lapointe has said. I believe the hon. member is a just man but he has intimated that the members of the committee who go to Detroit will be wined and dined by the manufacturers' association. There is not a word of truth in that, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: He also intimated that members of the committee would come back and make a report in which their opinions would be seduced by the entertainment to which they had been subjected. There is not a word of truth in that either, Mr. Speaker. It is a reflection on every member of the house. But I do not care about that. If the hon. member wishes to make reflections of this kind on his associates in the house, he is free to do so, but if he were a gentleman I think he would apologize.
The only thing I want to make clear for the benefit of the press gallery, some of whose members indicated that the committee had rushed to accept this wonderful invitation and then, in the face of the attack by the hon. member for Lapointe, had to retreat, is that such is not the case. There was no motion formally made at the time the hon. member spoke. The motion is now being made. We are not retreating. We still think it is a wonderful idea and the committee will decide, if the house gives us permission, whether or not to take advantage of the invitation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, following the appeal made by the hon. chairman of the committee on justice and legal affairs, I should like to say that I do not impute any dishonest motives to him. On the contrary, of all the hon. members around me here, I think that if I had to choose a member to be congratulated on his honesty and gentlemanliness, I would choose him.


Mr. Allard:: Come, now.
Oclober 25, 19G6	COMMONS


Gilles Grégoire: Let us say with the exception of my colleague from Sherbrooke here.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be chosen.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to impute any motives to him. I am ready to believe that he is disinterested; I am convinced that the hon. member is probably the one who will best resist temptations such as those he mentioned.
However, I would like to enlarge on the ideas I put forward the other day. The hon. member has just said that the motion he is now asking the house to carry was approved and supported by members of all parties of this house. Now, Mr. Speaker, from the same press report quoted by me the other day, which was drawn from the Montreal La Presse of Wednesday, October 19, 1966 and which is entitled: "Parliamentary committee on justice agrees to travel to Detroit at the expense of car manufacturers", I quote the following:
The hearings of the committee got underway half an hour late, for the meeting did not have a quorum {9 out of 20). And, a few minutes later, the number of members present suddenly dropped to 8, but nobody raised the matter with the chairman.
It means that that motion was agreed to by the committee on justice and legal affairs when there was not even a quorum. And the chairman of the committee tells us that it was agreed to by members of all parties in the house. But, Mr. Speaker, I say that a newspaperman who was there wrote that there was not even a quorum at that sitting of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the other day the letter published by La Presse. Here is the first paragraph:
After approving unanimously the idea of a trip to Detroit, expenses paid by the automobile manufacturers-
It is written here:
That the members of the committee go to Detroit, visit the plants to find out what steps are taken to give Canadian citizens the greatest safety in cars.
I am not against that. I object to the trip being paid for by those same automobile manufacturers in whose plants the investigation is to be made. I object to that because I find it indecent that the travelling expenses of a parliamentary committee should be paid by those who are being investigated.
DEBATES	9071
Justice and Legal Affairs
And in the letter which the chairman of the committee on justice and legal affairs has just read, it is said here in the last paragraph:

We would be pleased to make any necessary arrangements so you might fit this into the committee's program.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)

They say they will be pleased to make all the necessary arrangements. What do they mean, Mr. Speaker, by necessary arrangements?
The hon. member read the main paragraphs earlier. I can read the whole letter if you wish and if you think it advisable. We are ready to ask that the letter be tabled, so that it may be printed in Hansard tomorrow. But we would like to know what is meant and what the terms of the invitation are. We have not been informed. What are the conditions of the invitation? Is the manufacturers association to pay the cost? If so, I object.
I tried to get the report of the committee on justice and legal affairs to see what were the discussions concerning this invitation from the manufacturers but unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the report of the committee had not yet been published and I could not get a copy, in English or in French.
Therefore, it is difficult for us to pass this report without knowing exactly what we are agreeing to, since all the report says, as shown in the Votes and Proceedings of October 18, is that the committee recommends that it be authorized to sit in various areas. Under what circumstances will it sit in Detroit? This is what we do not know and will not know until the publication of the report of the committee on justice and legal affairs, where those matters were discussed.
Mr. Speaker, according to the information given in the newspaper La Presse by a news-reporter who attended the meeting of the committee, at least I believe he did, since he wrote about this particular committee sitting; where the parliamentary committee is said to have unanimously accepted to take a trip to Detroit at the automobile manufacturers' expense, according to this information, as I was saying, and also in view of the fact, as reported by this same gentleman, that the committee did not even have a quorum, since only eight members were present, and no
October 25, 1966

Justice and Legal Affairs one pointed this out to the chairman, well now Mr. Speaker, I believe that we must object to that report being agreed to today, unless the chairman wants to elaborate on the principle behind this trip, telling us that the manufacturers are not going to foot the bill, that they will not go as guests of the manufacturers, but simply as a committee whose aim it will be to make an on-the-spot investigation into what is being done or accomplished in the field of highway safety, in the field of car safety. Now, this has not been explained, and this is what we would have liked to hear; unfortunately, the committee chairman did not believe this was necessary.
Mr. Speaker, if the expenses of the trip are to be paid by the automobile manufacturers, I believe it is the duty of all the members in this house to object to the trip. If the expenses are to be paid by the government, which can afford to pay the expenses of its members, all members are permitted to travel by train free of charge, as far as Windsor, Ontario, and from there, all they have to do is take the ferry across to Detroit, and that does not cost very much, and will also give each member making the trip an opportunity to gain useful knowledge, I agree, but if the expenses are to be paid by the automobile manufacturers, I believe it is the duty of each member to object to such a trip, since it is unthinkable for a Canadian parliamentary committee to conduct an inquiry at the expense of those who are being investigated.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) about the point of order he raised, even though we have often disagreed on certain matters. I also feel that the conditions and motives of this trip must be divulged by the chairman of the said committee, so that the house may be kept fully informed of all negotiations and discussions held within that committee.
Otherwise, it is hardly acceptable that the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association could invite at its own expense a parliamentary committee, whose duties are as responsible as that of the House of Commons itself, to investigate the activities of some of its members. Such a situation is completely inconsistent with the principle applicable in this case: A man is paid by those for whom he works. In the present circumstances, I


would not dare apply that principle or explain that saying.
Somewhat along the same lines, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a precedent which may not have gone that far, but which nevertheless gave rise to a discussion in the committee on external affairs. There was some question at that time of certain people of Rhodesia who had invited the Canadian parliamentary committee on external affairs to go to Rhodesia at their expense. The Rhodesian government was ready to pay the delegates' expenses. The proposal was deemed unacceptable, because members of that committee wondered how they could make unbiased and honest judgments if they were to go there at the expense of their hosts.
The same thing applies in this case, since the problem is similar.

One cannot imagine this Canadian parliamentary committee going to Detroit on a trip, the expenses of which will be paid by the automobile manufacturers, to make inquiries and investigations in respect of the matters before the committee. If the parliamentary committee decides this trip is necessary as a business trip-I imagine it is and I will admit that point-then it is the duty of the Canadian government to pay the expenses of these parliamentarians so that they will not be subjugated by anybody else but will be in a position to do their job without any obligation and without having to undergo any brainwashing. They should be able to go there entirely free. If they are to go there to do a job for the Canadian public, they should be financed by the Canadian people and not by the United States Automobile Manufacturers Association. I agree with the hon. member for Lapointe that this motion should not be accepted at this time until further clarification has been given.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say two or three words on this subject. I am a member of the committee chaired by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron). Personally I resent the suggestion and implication by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that members of this committee are not able, as adult and mature members of this parliament, to make an independent decision on facts presented to them. I resent also the
October 25, 1966

repetition of the incorrect statement, as I understand it from listening to the remarks of the hon. member for High Park, made by the hon. member for Lapointe and repeated by the hon. member for Megantic that the expenses of the committee are to be paid by the Automobile Manufacturers Association.
Having heard the hon. member for High Park, I understand that the expenses will be paid by the House of Commons. I think it is redundant and improper to repeat an incorrect statement after the hon. member for High Park has placed before the house the exact and correct situation. I believe we should vote on this motion. I believe also that it is a reflection on all hon. members of this committee when we hear debate in this house which suggests that hon. members are not able to assess the evidence presented to them and come up with an independent and impartial report to the House of Commons.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member. I would just like-

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to ask the hon. member if he was present at the committee meeting when this motion was adopted? In fact, this is all we want to know. We have no desire to throw discredit upon anyone but, we want to know whether or not it had been decided at the committee meeting that the trip would be made at the automobile manufacturers' expense? First of all, was he there?


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I was not present at the particular meeting. I am not a member of the steering committee. I am prepared, however, to accept the statement that the chairman of this committee made in the House of Commons today, and I think all hon. members should accept it.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of this committee I should like to speak briefly on this motion. In the first place, I believe the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) does, not only to himself but to this house and this country, a disservice by his intemperate outburst, based on a newspaper report, against the committee on justice and legal affairs without being aware of the true facts. The reputation of parliament at the present time is not 23033-574
Justice and Legal Affairs too high, and an unwarranted attack on on members, which in effect wrongly accuses them of being willing to prostitute their principles for a cocktail, can serve only to bring parliament into lower repute.
The true facts concerning this proposed visit are these. We were asked to inspect the proving grounds in Detroit and we wished to accept the invitation. The trip is only in the planning stage. The date has not been set. So far as I am concerned, my understanding is that it is a fact-finding trip and that the government will bear the expense. Traffic safety in this country is a tremendous problem. In 1965, some 5,000 Canadians were killed.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The trip was considered in light of an honest endeavour on the part of the committee to make the committee work more effectively. It seems ironical to me that the hon. gentleman, who by the widest stretch of the imagination could not be accused of dedication to national causes, now becomes so involved in this so-called national safety campaign. I simply say this. If the hon. gentleman by casting aspersions on this committee by innuendo and inflammatory words is instrumental in cancelling this trip, he in essence is hampering the promotion of traffic safety in this country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to say that we in this party would be opposed to a committee looking into automobile safety having its expenses paid by the automobile manufacturing companies if it were going to visit the research facilities of those companies. Even if they were not influenced or seduced by the fact that their expenses were being paid, the public would have reason to feel that their decisions were somewhat less objective than they ought to be. I understood quite distinctly that the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron), who is chairman of the committee, gave the house a categorical assurance that there is no truth in the story that these expenses are to be paid by the automobile manufacturers but that the situation will be the same as it is in respect of any other fact-finding committee of the House of Commons, with expenses being paid out of the House of Commons allotment.
It is my belief that the committee cannot refuse to visit these research facilities. They are investigating a very important matter, and the automobile industry has been under
October 25, 1966

Justice and Legal Affairs great criticism because of its failure to cope adequately with the problem of automobile safety. If the committee were to bring in a report without having visited these facilities I think it would be said that they had refused to examine all the facts available. I believe that the committee ought to go and ought to go at the expense of the people of Canada. The committee ought to go entirely on its own, freely and independently, to assess the safety work of the automobile industry.
Since the hon. member for High Park has given us an assurance I can see no objection whatsoever to concurrence in this report.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, all I want to say is that if we are to support the principle involved in what has been said here this afternoon in condemnation of the action of the chairman of the committee we as members of parliament had better look to our own morals because of what we do from day to day in our actions as parliamentarians. If we are going to be seduced, as has been suggested, by a glass of wine, then I think we had better look at our entire system, because such a suggestion is a pack of nonsense.


Mr. Yves Forest (Sianslead):: Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour of being a member of the committee on justice and legal affairs; I am in fact vice president of the committee, and there was never any question of going to Detroit at the automobile manufacturers' expense. On the contrary, we would have refused to go on those terms. This is simply a tempest in a tea cup following the erroneous report of a newspaperman who did not remain at the meeting during the entire sitting.
As the chairman has already explained, it is precisely for this reason that he introduced a motion and, in the meantime, we must await the authorization of the house before we go to Detroit.
This is a tempest in a tea cup. We will only go to Detroit at the government's expense and I believe it is important and essential that the members of the committee visit the plants of the manufacturers who invited us precisely to refute allegations made by certain persons before the members of the committee.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, if a delegation of the parliamentary committee is invited by the Automobile Manufacturers Association which would pay the


expenses to visit their plants, their manufacturing methods, for the sake of public security and at the expense of the manufacturers, it should be established, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) said a moment ago, whether that invitation by the automobile manufacturers has been planned so as to exert a great influence on the members of the committee who would visit the automobile factories in Detroit.
If we apply the same principle to other fields, for instance, last year, a Canadian parliamentary delegation, of which I was a member, went to Russia and Czechoslovakia and the expenses were paid by the Russians and by the Czechoslovaks. It is strange, Mr. Speaker, but I did not come back from there a Russian communist or a Czech communist. I came back a Canadian and I always had the feeling of being completely free in my movements. In my statements as well as in my convictions, nothing had changed. Now, if a group of parliamentarians or members of the parliamentary committee go to Detroit to visit the automobile factories, even at the expense of manufacturers, this would have a dreadful and baleful influence on Canadian parliamentarians.
In other fields, we have seen furniture salesmen make trips to Hawaii and elsewhere in the world, at the manufacturers' expense. Have we ever seen any of them become slaves to the industry? One of my colleagues is an undertaker; he occasionally sells coffins. Do you think the manufacturer has much influence on him? He influences the manufacturer to obtain better workmanship far more than the manufacturer sways him.
Mr. Speaker, it seems we must dot the "i"s and state the facts as they are. We must not act as morons or people who cannot understand anything. I am convinced that if the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) goes to Detroit, with the committee, to study then and there what steps manufacturers must take to protect the public, the member for Lapointe will not be influenced at all by a banquet or reception the automobile industry may hold for them over there. Nor, for that matter, would the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), who is not in his seat this afternoon. There is a limit to being overly scrupulous. I can see that if we are convinced that everyone has been bribed then, obviously, the public will get the impression that everyone is dishonest; but that is not the impression I have. I feel that an honest man,
October 25, 1966

whether he is invited by automobile manufacturers to Detroit or Russia, or Iran, or anywhere else in the world, a man who has convictions, who is convinced that he is on solid grounds, will come back here to parliament in Ottawa and inform us, throwing light on facts of which we may know nothing now.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why there is so much objection to free people going to see, freely, hands and feet unbound, what goes on in the automobile industry so that we might protect the public where road safety is concerned.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, just a word to ask the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to forget his objections, because there is no question of establishing a precedent, and I think that we should accept the statement of the chairman of the committee. Just to give another illustration, I would say that, tonight at six o'clock all the Quebec federal members are invited to a buffet in room 112N given by the labour leaders of the C.S.N. and at their expense. They come here to state the problems brought about by federal bills, and I am sure that the hon. member for Lapointe will be there also, sure of his objectivity and while the labour leaders of the C.S.N. will treat us to a buffet, I am convinced that we shall remain quite objective in our thinking.
I shall therefore ask the hon. member for Lapointe to reconsider his stand-I understand his objections-so that the house may resume the order of business. I should like the hon. member to attend the function tonight because important problems will be discussed.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Knowles:: Question.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member for High Park leave to make a further statement, because he has already taken part in this debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that first of all I am a Canadian and a Scotsman, and the idea of someone paying my expenses is not one that appeals to me at all. There is no question about the fact that if the committee go to Detroit they will go at the expense of the 23033-5741
Justice and Legal Affairs Canadian government. All that the automobile manufacturers suggested was that meetings of the committee be held there. May I give every hon. member the assurance that there is no question of the automobile manufacturers association paying the expenses of the committee if, as I say, they do accept the invitation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe will admit that the situation is somewhat difficult. He cannot speak a second time during this debate unless he is given unanimous consent of the house which is not forthcoming.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order. My point of order is based on a section which I could find in a minute if you wish. This standing order provides that a member can take a few minutes to explain his intervention if he believes that he has been misinterpreted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member resumes his seat, I will say to him that he is absolutely right and that if he now rises to the point of order which he has just suggested, he is then certainly entitled to speak a second time, not to bring in new facts but simply to clear up things in connection with his previous intervention in the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, there is a standing order, I cannot find its number, but I see that you know about it, which deals with the matter. I wish to give the following explanations. In my first intervention, I mentioned that I did not object to the trip of the committee to Detroit at the expense of the House of Commons, but that I objected to the payment of travelling expenses by the manufacturers. Now, the member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) tells us-if he had said so in his first statement, I would have been pleased-that it is out of the question that travelling expenses he paid by manufacturers. Then, I accept his word, Mr. Speaker. I feel that the trip should be made at the expense of the house, since it is an investigating committee and not a sight-seeing committee. I accept his word.


An hon. Member:: To attend receptions. [English]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
October 25, 1966
Legislation

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the thirteenth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, presented to the house on Thursday, October 20, 1966, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up very much of the time of the house. This is a request to the house for permission for the finance, trade and economic affairs committee to be able to hire staff in the same way as has been done already by the committee on consumer credit and the cost of living. This staff is necessary to assist the committee in its study of the bank legislation which is now before it.
[ Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I simply have a question to put to the hon. member for Essex West. I would like to know whether those experts who will attend the meeetings of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, for consideration of the amendments to the Bank Act, will also be at the disposal of the hon. members who would like to study thoroughly certain aspects of these amendments to the Bank Act?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This will be up to the committees, Mr. Speaker, and it may be discussed in due course.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty) leave to introduce this motion for concurrence in the third report of the standing committee on standing orders on behalf of the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Jim McNulty (for Mr. Asselin, Rich-mond-Wolfe) moved: that the third report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Friday, October 21, 1966, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Gregoire.i


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the time of the house is very much at a premium this afternoon due to the events that have occurred, but the subject matter of the adjournment which I propose to ask the house to permit is so urgent that I feel I cannot leave it until tomorrow. Therefore I ask leave under standing order 26 to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent national importance, namely the right of the government through the Minister of Industry to give in writing permission to the Stude-baker Company of Canada to enter into a deal and to use the Canada-U.S. car treaty as a means of avoiding paying approximately $1 million duty on Volkswagen cars imported into Canada. Just yesterday-


Mr. Drury:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman would not want-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister would wait for just a moment. According to the practice the Chair should ask the hon. member to address the house on the question of urgency of debate. At that time the minister can raise a point of order, if he has one. I would now ask the hon. member to address the Chair and the house on the question of urgency of debate; then perhaps the minister's point of order might be considered.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I wonder whether I could ask the hon. gentleman a question? If I understood the wording of the proposed motion correctly it made reference to an authorization given in writing by the Minister of Industry. I should like to ask the hon. member whether to his personal knowledge the Minister of Industry gave such an undertaking, because I can assure him I never did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think this is a point of debate. The minister will have an opportunity to assist the Chair in deciding whether we should adjourn the house to consider this matter. For the moment we will hear arguments on the question of urgency of debate.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to present arguments in support of why I feel a
October 25, 1966

debate on this matter of national importance is urgent. Only yesterday we learned in this house that Volkswagen Canada Limited and Studebaker Canada Limited had taken advantage of the United States-Canada auto pact. According to an article by Roger Newman which appeared in the Globe and Mail of today, October 25, each of these companies made approximately $500,000, or a total of $1 million. This is a scandalous and shocking situation. The taxpayers of Canada have been shortchanged by $1 million by means of tax evasion. This should be sufficient reason for proceeding at once with the debate. I submit it is urgent that we adjourn the proceedings of the house at this time to allow for a full debate on this complex treaty and its effects on the Canadian people.
You may say that debate is not urgent, Mr. Speaker, because this shocking evasion of the payment of duty happened approximately six months ago or in the spring of this year at a time when the Studebaker Company was still in operation. However, I would remind you, sir, that only yesterday we learned of the existence of this avenue of evasion. Indeed, we tried to find more about it by asking questions of the minister but we were ruled out of order. We should like to know how many more loopholes there may be in this treaty, and I think it is urgent that we find out.
If Your Honour should rule that this debate is not urgent because the Studebaker Company is no longer in business, may I submit for your consideration that what has taken place may affect other Canadian manufacturers who are still in business. What we should consider therefore is not the fact that the Studebaker Company is out of business but the fact that these regulations apply to the companies which are now in business and that the loopholes in them may be utilized. This is what we wish to find out by means of a full-scale debate.
Every day that goes by may cause the Canadian taxpayers to lose more money, and this is another reason for the urgency of this debate. We want to know what other deals may have been made, for the purpose of evading the tariff, under the treaty which allows cars to be imported from any country of the world as long as car manufacturers have export credits.
Mr. Speaker, while Nero fiddled Rome burned and, similarly, while parliament fiddles 3,000 men in Oshawa are out of work. It is therefore urgent that we discuss this matter so as to discover ways of helping these people. I think it is superfluous to point
Motion jor Adjournment out that this matter is of national importance because we all know that this treaty affects every Canadian citizen regardless of whether or not he drives a car. We should therefore be allowed to debate this important issue at the present time.
May I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I hope Your Honour will rule in favour of the urgency of this debate on the basis of the points I have brought to your attention because, first, the auto treaty has been used to evade the tariffs; second, an evasion of this sort must not be allowed to continue any longer and, third, we want to know whether there are any other loopholes in this treaty which would permit such evasion. Thousands of men have lost their jobs owing to this treaty and I think it is very urgent that we do something in regard to it. I therefore hope Your Honour will rule that this matter is urgent and is of national importance.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word with respect to the question of urgency in this matter. First of all, the transactions which were alleged to have taken place occurred several months ago. I wish to point out to the hon. member and to the house that if an evasion of duty was involved my department will see to it that the matter is rectified. I would also like to say that the particular transactions are at present being investigated by the officials of my department and they will decide whether or not in the entry of these particular vehicles the law was complied with.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the explanation given by the Minister of National Revenue in the few words which he uttered indicates there is something rotten in the state of Denmark and that is why an investigation is taking place. The minister said that his department is looking into this matter. Here again one minister does not know what another minister is doing.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house might address itself to the question of urgency and not enter into a debate or an inquiry into the facts of the case. I hope the right hon. gentleman will address himself to the question of urgency and not to what might or might not have happened.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated that all is not well, and I simply
October 25, 1966

Motion for Adjournment wish to point out that yesterday Mr. Karl Barths, president of Volkswagen Canada Ltd., was interviewed and according to the Globe and Mail he said:
He always had some misgiving about the arrangement, even though it appeared to have the support of the federal government. Therefore, he said, Volkswagen decided not to proceed with more deals after the first one was completed.
A little farther on the Globe and Mail says:
Reports circulating in the Canadian auto industry say Studebaker was able to stay alive only because of its deal with Volkswagen.
It is further indicated that the government gave its approval. Mr. Barths said: "Before we entered the deal, we got clearance in writing from the federal government as to its legality".
The hon. member for Wellington South presented his argument clearly and definitely. Surely we have a right to know what is going on. Is the treasury of Canada allowed to milk the Canadian taxpayer by giving a written assurance regarding the legality of the deal? This is an urgent matter, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: We also want to know what is behind the scenes.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Surely no one is going to say that a million dollars handed away is not a matter of urgency.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. There is only one question before this house and that is whether under our rules this is a matter of national urgency. I suggest we should refer to what the hon. member for Wellington South said, and he said this was not a national issue.


Michael Starr: He said it was.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He said this is clearly not a question that is urgent.


Michael Starr: What a distortion of the facts. What a cover-up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me we are getting involved in more difficulties. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor now. I should like to take the liberty, if I may for just one moment, to remind him that we are discussing the question of urgency of debate. The Acting Prime Minister has sought to intervene on a question of privilege or a point of order-I am not too sure which one it is-but it seems to me this is a point of debate that he is making

now to enlighten the Chair on the fact there should not be an adjournment of the house. I suggest we should return to the point at issue and the statement by the Leader of the Opposition, unless he has completed it.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Before he resumes, I should like to take the opportunity of reminding him that the only point at issue is urgency of debate, whether a motion to adjourn the house for the purpose of considering this matter should be entertained.


John George Diefenbaker: As I mentioned when I was directing my remarks-


Alfred Dryden Hales: I rise on a question of privilege. I think I have the right to correct the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and tell him exactly what I said on the point of urgency.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Wellington South may in a moment, if he so desires, speak again when the Leader of the Opposition has completed his remarks. He may then clarify his statement. Certainly, he has no question of privilege at this time.


Mr. Churchill:: He should clarify what the minister said.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the method that should be followed. This was the method followed by the hon. member for Lapointe to clarify a misstatement about which he complained. The hon. member for Wellington South will be given that opportunity in just a moment.


John George Diefenbaker: I am surprised that anyone would argue there is no emergency when a plan of the government of Canada, according to a press statement, would permit a foreign industry to come into Canada and mulct the treasury. In my opinion this is a matter of deep urgency. This house has a right to know how any provision can be justified whereby a special privilege is allowed to anyone to evade and avoid the law. The rest of us have to obey the law. I would have thought the government would have rushed in and said, we want an opportunity to clear this up. If this went on last year, and these are the facts-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: -the house would like to know whether this is going on now.
October 25, 1966


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: A point of order from the Acting Prime Minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is now arguing the virtues of the matter. There is only one question before us and that is whether within our rules this is a matter of urgency. The hon. gentleman is making very serious allegations-


John George Diefenbaker: No, facts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -without any basis and without an opportunity given to those on this side-


John George Diefenbaker: Give us the answers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -to deal with them. These answers will be given by the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Industry within the rules of this house.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you with the greatest respect that the right hon. gentleman has been out of order. There is only one issue before us, and that is for you to determine whether or not within our rules this is a matter which is urgent. May I ask, with great respect, that you give that decision?


Michael Starr: Oh, wait a minute.


An hon. Member:: Closure.


John George Diefenbaker: "When I do ope my mouth, let no dog bark."


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: On
the question of urgency of debate, Mr. Speaker, which is the question Your Honour has to decide, I should like to point out that it is exceedingly touching to have the Acting Prime Minister argue that there is no urgency of debate in this matter. Going back just a few years I am reminded of his most eloquent pleas, and how exercised he was, at the time of the 74 per cent excise tax on automobiles. He argued the case of urgency on the same basis and the adjournment was granted by Mr. Speaker of that day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: submit to Your Honour that there is a very strong case for urgency in this matter. The fact is that only yesterday did the Minister of Industry reveal that Volkswagen cars were brought into Canada by the Studebaker Company under the terms of the Canada-U.S. agreement. Most of us had considered, on the
Motion for Adjournment basis of information given to us by the minister, that a company would not be allowed to bring in cars except those which it manufactured itself or parts for cars which it was manufacturing. Since that statement yesterday statements have appeared under the name of Mr. Karl Barth, president of Volkswagen Canada, to the effect that in the fall of 1965 Studebaker brought in 5,000 Volks-wagens, thereby evading the 17 per cent tariff and paying Volkswagen only a small fee.
This was done, according to Mr. Barth, with written authorization as to the legality of the deal from the government of Canada. The president of Volkswagen Canada said he always had some misgivings about this arrangement. If the president of Volkswagen had some misgivings and as a result of those misgivings did not follow up with other deals, surely this parliament ought to have some misgivings and this parliament is entitled to an explanation.


Michael Starr: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We all agree on that.


An hon. Member:: Let us have the debate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of National Revenue said this happened some months ago. The information has only come to the house as a result of the minister's statement yesterday and Mr. Karl Barth's statement which appeared in the press this morning. As a result this is the first opportunity the hon. member for Wellington South has had to raise this matter. Certainly it is a matter of such great importance that I think there ought to be no delay in giving the government an opportunity of stating the facts. The facts as given by Mr. Barth must be taken to be accurate until the government gives us an answer.
We have a right to know also whether there are similar deals being undertaken by others of the four automobile companies which signed the United States-Canada auto agreement. We ought to know if there are any other loopholes by which one of the signatories to this agreement can bring European cars into Canada, thereby evading a proper responsibility to pay duty. It is not sufficient for the Minister of National Revenue to say that his department is looking into this matter to see whether or not duty should be paid. If duty should be paid, then they will have to pay it.
October 25, 1966

Motion for Adjournment
What we have to know is, was written authority given by some department of the government authorizing this deal? If so, who gave that written authority saying that this deal was on all fours with the terms of the Canada-U.S. agreement? Mention was made of the fact that 5,000 Volkswagen cars were involved. These are things we have to know, and we have to know right away. There are a great many other things about the situation we would like to discuss. I take it the motion made by the hon. member for Wellington South limits this matter to the importation of these Volkswagen cars. We ask, who is responsible? Was this proper under the Canada-U.S. agreement and will other deals of a similar nature be permitted?
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I think we in this parliament would be derelict in our duty if we allowed this matter to go further without there being a full explanation from the government, and there is no better time to get that explanation than today.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I think that the hon. members who spoke before me have pretty well expressed the views I intended to submit. However, it seems that the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin) wishes to discuss the urgency of debate which does not inevitably mean urgency in itself. The matter of urgency means urgency of debate; I apologize here-

The English version of Beauchesne which I have before me refers to urgency not within the rules but to urgency of debate whenever a question such as this comes within the knowledge of the members of this house.
As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said, if there are any loopholes and we are given no guarantee that they will be closed, what assurance have we that this situation will not occur again in the future? The only person who can give this assurance to the house and enlighten hon. members is the minister. I would suggest that we have a full-scale debate so that we can plug these loopholes and correct any fancy skating around the law immediately.
The over-all effects of such breaches will necessarily fall upon the taxpayers who will have to foot the bill on behalf of somebody who is not fulfilling his commitments or is contravening the law. Any loss to the federal


treasury will ricochet on to the Canadian taxpayers. Therefore this matter should be looked into immediately.
I submit this matter is urgent. We are here to make sure that laws are observed and to make everybody toe the line, whether he be big or small. Anyone who tries to be smart in this respect will have to pay the consequences when he is caught.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, we should take an immediate look at this question, correct any obvious errors and block any loopholes which exist, thus preventing further actions of this type by those who have imported Volkswagens or any other merchandise by means of fancy skating around the law and evading the payment of duty. As I say, in the end we have to balance the budget every year, and if it is not balanced in one way it will have to be balanced in the other way, which means that the Canadian taxpayers will have to foot the bill. Under the circumstances we need to take a closer look at this question. Let the minister give the explanation that is necessary and let us remedy the situation where required.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to address myself exclusively to the question of urgency. Two grounds have been urged for an immediate debate. The first is that there is apparently, or there is thought to have been, some evasion of the law.
In respect of that particular contention we have just heard the assurance of the Minister of National Revenue that his departmental officials are at this moment examining into and trying to determine the propriety or otherwise, as the case may be, of the particular transaction complained of. I suggest to the house that little useful purpose would be served by uninformed members thrashing around on the strength of newspaper reports in relation to a topic which is under semijudicial investigation by the department of the government charged with this operation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the minister mean by "semi-judicial"?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Second, in respect of the question of urgency two members, the hon. member who introduced the motion and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, have said that this is the first time they have learned that under the automobile agreement, to use
October 25, 1966

the words of the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam, foreign cars can be brought into Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The phrase I used, Mr. Speaker, was "European cars", if the minister would take the trouble to check.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I accept that, but I suggest that my point is equally valid if I refer to European cars.
In answer to a question put by the hon. member for Medicine Hat to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as reported at page 12836 of Hansard for March 26, 1965, the minister made this statement. I will first of all read the question:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, asking him whether he is aware that the 15 member committee established to examine the accord involving reciprocal easing of tariffs on cars between Canada and the United States has reported that this accord would clearly be a violation of GATT's most favoured nation rule, to which both Canada and the United States have agreed. If so, what is the Canadian position now in respect of this tariff accord which was signed between the two countries in January?
This has reference to the agreement with the United States. Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, surely we are now debating the substance of the matter. If the minister is now going to give interpretations I suggest he is out of order because we are not yet debating this matter.


Michael Starr: He is disobeying the rules of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that most of the members who have taken part in this debate so far have perhaps somewhat transgressed the rules and not limited their comments to the question of urgency of debate. I would remind hon. members once again that the discussion that we are having at this point is very limited in scope. Their remarks should be directed to urgency of debate. Is there that urgency to the matter that we should at this time adjourn the business of the house for the purpose of discussing it? I hope that the minister will bear this in mind.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am addressing myself, as I said before, exclusively to the question of urgency. The particular question here concerned the surprise that was expressed by two mp"'h"rs that they were 23033-575
Motion for Adjournment learning for the first time that cars of European origin were going to be allowed into Canada under this agreement.
A year and nine months ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce made this reply:
Mr. Speaker, it is true that the GATT committee has been examining the provisions of the Canada-United States agreement in the light of the GATT agreement, and in particular to discover whether the United States position, which differs from the Canadian position, may require special GATT action. The committee which has been looking into this matter has not yet reported its findings.
So far as the Canadian government is concerned, the right of duty free entry of automobiles and original equipment parts extends to all countries without discrimination. The Canadian government has therefore expressed in GATT its firm belief that Canadian participation in the agreement is fully in accord with its GATT obligations. It might be noted that the press item, from which my hon. friend has presumably obtained his information, raises no question in this regard.
This reply was followed by a supplementary question from the mover of the motion, Mr. Speaker, who was apparently also taken by surprise.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Alfred Dryden Hales: My question is supplementary to the one just asked by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. On March 5 I addressed a question to the Minister of Finance and asked if Canada had received protests from members of GATT concerning Canada's stand on this automotive pact. He said yes, protests had been received. Could he advise me from whom those protests were received and what action was taken?
The then minister of finance, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), undertook to provide the information next week. The information provided next week was a further reaffirmation that Canada for its part was observing the terms of the GATT agreement and was allowing free entry under this agreement from all countries of motor vehicle original equipment parts.
Also, in this matter of being taken by surprise and learning for the first time that it was possible for cars of European origin to come in under the agreement, I refer to the motor vehicle tariff order of 1965, Order in Council-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister but again I have to bring to his attention the rule having to do
9082	COMMONS
Motion jor Adjournment with the urgency of debate at this time. I must say I am not too impressed by the arguments made by some hon. members in the course of the debate that for the first time they had heard this and that this was the first opportunity, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether there should be a debate at this time. Whether there has been notice before is not relevant to the decision the Chair has to render.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the urgency of debate I will state what I have to say as briefly as I can-


Mr. Speaker:: I did not mean by my interruption necessarily to bring the minister's contribution to an end. On the other hand, if he has concluded I shall recognize the hon. member for Ontario.


Michael Starr: In my opinion the question as to urgency of debate is very simple. A motor car company, the Studebaker Company, was going out of business in Canada. It had almost ceased operations in Canada. It was in the throes of moving back to the United States and it made a deal with another company in Canada that imports cars from Germany in order to evade the duty on these automobiles. The government is a party to this because it sanctioned the importation. Immediately on these cars arriving in Canada there is a saving to I do not know how many persons, but certainly to the Studebaker Company and the Volkswagen Company. Because this matter was brought to our attention yesterday there is tremendous urgency to find out the real facts of this deal.
The auto pact was made for the purpose of bringing a benefit to the economy and people of this country. To my mind and to the minds of many hon. members the pact did not bring advantages to the economy. We should know the facts, and that is why there is urgency.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on the question of urgency, under the rules the matter must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.


An hon. Member:: It has suffered.


John Napier Turner: Why should this question be given immediate attention. I suggest that it can only be because of two arguments advanced by hon. members on the other side who are in favour of the motion presented by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales). The first argument is that the same

DEBATES	October 25. 1966
company might do the same thing again. The hon. member admits that the company is going out of business and it cannot happen again.


An hon. Member:: What about other companies.


John Napier Turner: The second reason he adduces is that it could happen again with other companies. In other words, he alleges-I do not admit the allegation for a moment-that there may be a loophole in the treaty and this loophole has to be covered. On the basis of that allegation I want to direct Your Honour's attention to citation 100, subsection (8) of Beauchesne, found on page 91. If this alleged loophole in the treaty, which I do not admit, is to be covered it can only be covered by an amendment to the treaty or an amendment to the legislation. An earlier Speaker of this house decided this question in these words:
I do not think that, under the standing order of 1882, a motion on a subject, of this kind, having such a very wide scope, was ever contemplated. What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs. But I do not think it was contemplated -if the house will allow me to state my views- that a question of very wide scope, which would demand legislation to deal with it in any effective manner, should be the subject of discussion on a motion for the adjournment of the house, because, if that was so, we might have repeated motions made by the Opposition of the day, not so much in the direction of censuring the government for action which had been taken or not taken, for bringing to notice some grievance demanding instant remedy, as in the direction of wishing to introduce legislation on some particular subject. That is not the purpose of the standing order of 1882, and would, I think, cut at the root of the order.
In other words, on the question of urgency, if the only remedy suggested by the hon. member who introduced the motion is an amendment of the treaty, and I do not concede that argument for a moment, what he is asking is beyond the scope of debate within the meaning of urgency under this rule.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the discussion that has taken place within the last half hour, or whatever length of time it has been, demonstrates the urgency of debate with respect to this matter. The Minister without Portfolio said just now that the only remedy being suggested is by way of legislation. I suggest that a remedy might be found in a clear statement by the government as to what the situation is.
October 25, 1966

As I see it, the house and the country have suddenly become aware of certain facts. Whether the house and the country should have been aware of those facts some months ago is beside the point. We have suddenly become aware of certain facts which have created a sense of confusion and a certain amount of consternation. The simplest of common sense calls for a statement to be made to a mature parliament to get the matter cleared up.
Unfortunately our rules do not permit this kind of problem to be dealt with adequately on the orders of the day. I do not think it could have been dealt with by a statement on motions because all that would have happened would have been a statement from the government side and four speeches from this side. We seem therefore to be faced with only one other choice, and that is a debate under standing order 26. It is unfortunate that it is usually assumed that if a question under standing order 26 is allowed, there goes the day. That is not necessarily the case. It is possible, and on occasions it has happened when a motion has been allowed under standing order 26, for the house to deal with the matter before it for two to three hours, clear it up and get on with its regular business. I think we need something between what can be accomplished on orders of the day and a full day's debate. I believe we could have that under standing order 26.
Yesterday Your Honour gave the benefit of the doubt to an hon. member who had raised a question of privilege. I think Your Honour ought to do the same today. You should give the benefit of the doubt to the hon. member for Wellington South and permit this opportunity for a statement on this urgent matter. I am of the opinion that this is not the sort of thing that will take a full day. I think it would be very unfortunate if the confusion and consternation which have arisen are not resolved, not, as the Minister without Portfolio says, by the method of legislation but by a statement in the House of Commons today.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, the longer this debate on the question of urgency continues, the more urgent it becomes that the matter be given full disclosure by the ministers. The government cannot have this both ways. We have had an example of one minister quoting an answer given in March, 1965, that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was being fulfilled, and 23033-5751
Motion jor Adjournment a few minutes before that we had the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) saying that this matter was under investigation by his officials and if a breach had occurred the company concerned would be forced to pay.


Edgar John Benson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that what I said was that the particular transactions were under investigation.


Mr. Fairwealher:: Exactly what I said, and what the minister repeats.


Michael Starr: He must have some doubt about the transactions.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The minister bolsters my argument by saying that his officials are investigating the authenticity of this deal. You cannot blame the opposition for being slightly confused about written authority because we have had a demonstration by the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) who repudiated the written authority given by his officials.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member's contribution at this time should be with a view to assisting the Chair, and I can assure him he is not helping me at all now.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Because I am one who
believes that the Speaker should be sustained at all times I shall say nothing more than that it is urgent that the matter should be cleared up because two ministers, by their statements to the house, have shown us that they are under difficulty about the legality of this deal.


Mr. Speaker:: I assume hon. members will want me to make a ruling now and I shall try to make it as short as possible. The hon. member for Wellington South made a very strong case in showing the urgency of the matter and that it is of national interest and importance. I agree with him on that last point, but at the same time I remind him of the requirement of our rules and practices that urgency refers to urgency of debate and not necessarily urgency of the matter itself.
What I have before me at the moment is a motion which does not deal with the very general matter raised by a number of hon. members during the course of the discussion. The motion is a very limited one which refers to a very specific instance. The hon. member for Wellington South seeks to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of

October 25, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry discussing a matter of urgent national importance, namely, the right of the government through the Minister of Industry to give in writing permission to the Studebaker Company of Canada to enter into a deal and to use the Canada-U.S. car treaty as a means of avoiding paying approximately $1 million duty on Volkswagen cars imported into Canada. Obviously the motion is a proposal that the house should discuss this particular happening, this particular incident, and I must say that I do not see in what way the situation of which the hon. member is complaining in his motion could be helped by a debate at this time.
I am satisfied that the argument advanced by the Minister without Portfolio is substantially correct. What the hon. member for Wellington South is complaining of is whether or not what has been done is in accordance with the treaty which I believe is involved. If it is in accordance with the treaty, then so that there will not be a repetition of this we would have to have an amendment to the treaty or to the legislation. Then we also have to consider the citation quoted by the minister, which I shall not repeat. Further, if what was done is an evasion of the treaty, the Minister of National Revenue has said he is looking into the matter, and I suggest that a debate at this particular time would not accomplish very much more than what has already been accomplished by the miniature debate we have already had.
I am sure that this miniature debate should be satisfactory to hon. members to some extent in that they have brought to the attention of the government matters which they tried to raise yesterday, something which they thought could not be accomplished by asking questions on orders of the day because of the limitations but has been raised through the attempted motion of the hon. member for Wellington South. For these reasons I feel I should not accept the motion. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said yesterday that I very properly gave the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona the benefit of the doubt. I would be pleased to do so today but I have no doubt.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Is there any

foundation for the statement by Mr. Barths, president of Volkswagen Canada Ltd., that before the deal in question was entered into clearance in writing from the federal government as to its legality was secured?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could take this particular question as notice. I do know that a letter was written-


John George Diefenbaker: By whom?


Edgar John Benson: -by an official in my department. An inquiry was made whether certain transactions, if carried out in a certain manner, would fall within the provisions of the automobile treaty. As I recall it, the letter said that if they were carried out in that particular manner they would fall within the treaty. The question now is whether they were carried out in that particular manner, which is the reason for the investigations I mentioned somewhat earlier. I would not like to quote from the letter without having it in front of me.


John George Diefenbaker: Then perhaps I might ask this question. If the letter was before the minister would he not be able to answer unequivocally whether or not permission was given for the mulcting of the treasury of Canada in this way?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I can answer that unequivocally. No permission was given for the mulcting of the treasury of Canada. An opinion was asked whether or not a certain transaction would fit within the automobile treaty-


John George Diefenbaker: What was the transaction?


Edgar John Benson: I have not the details in front of me and I do not want to go beyond that-whether it would fit within the automotive treaty being administered on the customs side by the officials of my department, and an opinion was given by my department.


John George Diefenbaker: Will you table that letter in the house?


Edgar John Benson: Pardon?


John George Diefenbaker: Will you table that letter in the house tomorrow?


Edgar John Benson: I would like to look at the letter first.
October 25, 1966


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Revenue. If, as Mr. Barths states, what happened was that Volkswagen sold the cars to Studebaker and Studebaker brought them into Canada under the Canada-U.S. trade agreement and sold them back to Volkswagen of Canada Limited at a price which included the duty which Studebaker had evaded paying because of the U.S.-Canada agreement, are those the circumstances to which his department gave approval?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, before I could answer that question I would have to read the letter submitted by the persons involved in the transaction and the answer in full given by an official of my department. I would be pleased to do this and inform the hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would have thought that since yesterday the minister would have had an opportunity to read the letters, but as a further supplementary may I ask the Minister of Industry if he is aware of the terms of this transaction and is the transaction as Mr. Barths has outlined it, namely, that Studebaker bought these cars, brought them into Canada and sold them back to Volkswagen of Canada Limited, thereby making a handsome profit out of cars that they themselves were not selling to the public?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I am merely being asked, was I aware, or whether I am supporting the allegations made in this question. I should point out to the hon. member, although I think he probably knows, that the responsibility of the Department of Industry in relation to this operation is not the administration of our tariffs, which is done by the Department of National Revenue. The day to day movement of automobiles and equipment parts under the terms of the treaty and in accordance with Tariff Order P C. 1965/99, which authorizes the entry into Canada duty free from all those countries having m.f.n. or British preferential tariff, is under the administration of the Minister of National Revenue, and is not monitored by the Minister of Industry.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry. Would he consult the Department of Justice as to whether or not this transaction was legal?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of National Revenue has indicated to the house that the inquiry as to what would be permissible under the tariff was addressed to him, not to the Department of Industry. As he has indicated, a reply was given thereto. This communication was not, as the hon. member I think mistakenly assumed, addressed to me.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question which I should like to address to the Minister of National Revenue. Did the minister consult the Department of Justice concerning the legality of this transaction?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to indicate that the correspondence was not addressed to me as minister but rather was addressed to the officials of my department who customarily carry out rulings.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Who is responsible?


Edgar John Benson: I accept responsibility for my department. The officials of my department are constantly in touch with the legal officers in my department and in the Department of Justice for the purpose of obtaining opinions. I should like to advise hon. members, as did the Minister of Industry in the debate yesterday, that under the motor vehicles tariff order 1965 a manufacturer qualified as such under the terms thereof is permitted to import vehicles and original equipment parts duty free. There is no restriction as to the source of such imports beyond the fact that they must be of British or most-favourednation origin. It is thus open to such manufacturers to select the production of any company in such country, associated or otherwise, always provided that the manufacturer meets conditions in respect of production in Canada.


Michael Starr: They are going out of business.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that his department, having investigated this particular transaction, subsequently gave approval. Has some new evidence come to light or is the transaction different from the one about which he was asked to give an opinion in the first place?


Edgar John Benson: I would not like to pre-judge the judgment of my auditing department in this regard, but there seemed to be some doubt as to whether or not the transaction was carried out in the manner in which they had given an opinion.

October 25, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am wondering
whether at this point we might go on to another subject. However, if the hon. member feels he has a legitimate supplementary question he may ask it.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: With due deference, Mr. Speaker, I do. Is it anticipated that Canadian manufacturers other than Studebaker will be able to fit themselves within these guide lines and bring cars into this country?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, these are not departmental guide lines as such under the automotive pact. Companies in Canada may import automotive parts and new automobiles from other countries. Canadian manufacturers generally speaking do not manufacture outside Canada so anything they import is made by another company. In this regard there are such things as motors and accessories made by other companies in the United States, for example, which are brought into Canada under the Canadian automotive pact.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue which relates to a question asked earlier about the Studebaker-Volkswagen deal. Will the minister be kind enough to inform the house when the auditing inquiry started, whether he or someone else ordered it and when it was ordered?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a question that could be answered in a more appropriate fashion as a result of a question on the order paper. Let me state, however, that the inquiry was started before yesterday and that the matter has been under consideration for some time. It was started as a routine matter by the officials of my department who are looking into the particular transactions as part of their normal duties.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether or not the report is true that the members of the postal workers union who have threatened to strike have decided to

postpone their strike until after Christmas or are considering doing so?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that the question is in order. The hon. member knows he cannot ask whether or not a report is true. The hon. member might wish to rephrase his question.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to rephrase the question. Would the minister tell us whether or not in his negotiations with the postal workers he has been advised that there is consideration being given to putting off the strike until after Christmas?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the strike in question does not come under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act which I administer. I think the question should be addressed either to the President of the Treasury Board or to the Postmaster General.


Robert Norman Thompson: I will readdress my question to the Postmaster General or the President of the Treasury Board.


Edgar John Benson: With the consent of the Postmaster General I will reply. I, along with the Postmaster General, will be meeting with the civil service alliance, which represents group D employees outside of postal workers, and with the postal workers on Thursday this week. At that time we will be able to determine their views more accurately. They have been dealing with the staff of the Treasury Board and have requested a meeting with the minister. This meeting is to take place on Thursday.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. A published report today states that the number of German soldiers executed for desertion to the allies has reached 12. Can the minister give the house any information in this regard?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think I would prefer to take this question as notice.
October 25. 1966


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister has recently stated that although a reference regarding offshore mineral rights will be made probably next month in the British Columbia case he would possibly meet with the provincial authorities regarding this matter and have political discussions with them. Would the minister advise us whether or not he will meet with the premiers now in Ottawa at this time or at an early date on this matter?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there is something in what the hon. member said which is not correct. What I said was that there was a reference with regard to the western coast before the Supreme Court of Canada. I then quoted the Prime Minister of Canada who said at a federal-provincial conference on July 25, 1965, that the reference did not exclude the possibility of a discussion on the same subject between the federal and provincial authorities.


Howard Russell MacEwan: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it from the minister's reply that there will be no discussion, until the Supreme Court of Canada has reached a decision, on the question of recognizing British Columbia's offshore rights.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have to repeat what the Prime Minister said on July 25, that the reference did not exclude discussion between the federal and provincial authorities on this subject.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Could the minister tell us whether he entered into negotiations with representatives of the Quebec government or of Hydro-Quebec respecting the construction or the
Inquiries of the Ministry establishment of a second nuclear power plant in the province of Quebec?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to address a question to the Minister of Finance and I sent him notice. I realize that he had to go to another important meeting and therefore I shall address my question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the C.B.C. news report this morning to the effect that the Peace River and the Columbia River Treaty projects to date are over-expended by $100 million because of the later imposition of the 11 per cent sales tax, would the minister undertake to correct this inaccurate news report?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look into the matter but if it is an inaccurate news report I would be pleased to correct it at the first opportunity.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Labour concerning the settlement of the railway strike. Is the minister aware that the railway workers have not yet received their retroactive salary increase, and could he ask the management of the railway companies when the employees will receive that increase?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this matter to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Transport.



CANADA PENSION PLAN

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO REFUNDS TO EMPLOYERS On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Has the study of the matter

October 25, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry of the refund of contributions by employers to the Canada Pension Plan been completed and what is the decision?


Edgar John Benson: No, it has not been completed. As I indicated earlier, it is our intention after the end of the present fiscal year when the returns come in to study all the problems involved to see what we can do in this regard.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Will the minister arrange for an intensified patrol of Halifax harbour to civilize visiting oil tankers and possibly the oil refineries and oil using vessels before the lobster season commences? I hold up a sample of oil-polluted water from Halifax harbour as proof of the need for drastic action.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the matter raised by the hon. member will receive the immediate attention of the Department of Fisheries in so far as it comes within its jurisdiction. Perhaps I could go further and bring this matter to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Transport.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Has he received a telegram, a copy of which has been sent to me from my constituency, in which the correspondent complains of what he terms an arbitrary cancellation of builders' loans? He also complains that he and his firm have been caught with a large amount of money invested in lots as a result of a commitment of the government to the effect that loans would be available until December 31. Has the minister any comment in respect of that telegram?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I did receive the telegram in question, and I think the best way to answer the last part of the question put by the hon.

member is to read two paragraphs of my reply to the telegram, which are as follows:
Early in May I announced that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would be authorized to make 31,500 direct National Housing Act loans during 1966, and in July it was announced that C.M.H.C. would begin taking applications from merchant builders without the usual requirement that the house must be sold. The purpose of this announcement was to provide a substantial increase in mortgage funds to the housebuilding industry, and at the same time to assure a large volume of construction work in housebuilding during the winter months.
There has been an active demand for these direct C.M.H.C. loans, and, in the 11 weeks since the 1st August, the corporation has processed almost 20,000 applications for home ownership loans from builders and individual home owners. In most parts of the country, I regret to say, it will no longer be possible for C.M.H.C. to accept applications for speculative builders' loans. The corporation will, however, endeavour to take care of the most urgent needs of individual home owner applicants.
I have every confidence that we will be able to accomplish this objective, but if we are faced with a choice of making funds available to builders who are engaged in speculative ventures or to individuals who want to purchase homes in this country the preference will go to the individual home owner.



ACTION TO BE TAKEN FOLLOWING ASSISTANCE REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has he received a telegram from the Cape Breton district command of the Royal Canadian Legion, which represents 30 Legion branches, protesting the Donald report and urging that the industry not be phased out and that the promised $25 million be made available for modernization of the mines and the opening of a new mine at Lingan? If he has received that telegram, will the minister indicate his reply?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In my opinion the question as asked is not in order.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, since I am not too familiar with the rules of the house, may I inquire under which rule this question is out of order? It is a question of national importance and urgency.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I simply direct the hon. member's attention to the fact that
October 25, 1966

whether or not a minister has received a telegram is not ol national importance. That was the hon. member's question.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect and deference to you, the telegram was not the entire subject I wished to bring to the attention of the house at this time. A telegram had to be sent to advise us and the house generally about this problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member ask his question in such a way that it can be accepted by the Chair?


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he has made any reply to the telegram to which I referred and, if so, was it an encouraging reply?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if I recall well, the telegram only referred to the principle of phasing out the coal industry and phasing in new industry. In my answer I mentioned that this was a principle being considered by the cabinet at this moment and that government policy would be announced in due course.


Robert Muir: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister indicate whether he has made any final decision regarding the other part of the telegram which requested that the money promised by the hon. member for In-verness-Richmond over a year ago be made available, and is there going to be a new mine opened at Lingan?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As is well known, Mr. Speaker, ministers have to obtain approval of their policies by the cabinet before announcing them.


John George Diefenbaker: What answer did the minister give regarding the carrying out of the promise of $25 million? Did he advise the parties that the $25 million is going to be made available?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is unaware of the fact that the question he has just asked was asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria. As a result of his supplementary question, a reply was made by the minister. That reply may not
Inquiries of the Ministry satisfy the right hon. Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, but the fact is that the question has been asked and answered.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soufham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is based on an announcement made by a national parks officer, as reported in the Saturday edition of the Ottawa Citizen, to the effect that two more national parks will be established shortly in Canada, one in Alberta and one in Newfoundland. Will the minister advise the house what has become of the plan for a second national park in Saskatchewan as announced on April 22, 1965?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt very much that this question is of such urgency it should be asked at this time. I suggest that the hon. member place it on the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberl C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Did he give an assurance to the premier of Prince Edward Island that the
R.C.A.F. base located at Summerside would be retained after the base consolidation program has been completed?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Carman Coates: I have a supplementary question. Will that mean that any decisions regarding bases in Nova Scotia relating to their closure or reduction in size will be to the benefit of the Summerside base?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There will be no direct effect on other decisions, Mr. Speaker.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the acting

October 25, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry house leader. In view of the commitment I gave on behalf of this party last evening, can we expect legislation regarding the old age security pension to appear on the order paper tomorrow?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should take that question as notice and refer it to the Acting House Leader.



OMISSIONS FROM RECENTLY ANNOUNCED SALARY INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is he aware of the fact that salary revisions tabled in the house on Friday, October 21, did not classify tailors, barbers and masseurs as tradesmen, as a result of which they did not receive justified increases?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should actually be addressed to the Chair and since questions cannot be asked of the Speaker I suggest the hon. member get in touch with the Speaker. I am sure I can give him a satisfactory explanation.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. This may be a question which he may wish to take as notice, but I ask it now because the employees affected are deeply concerned. Can the minister indicate what is the present status of the C.B.C.'s application for deferment with respect to Part I of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code so far as its technical employees are concerned?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice. I will look into the matter and give a reply at an early date. I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will the minister indicate whether he has received a complaint from the Cowichan Indian band of British Columbia as a result of their dissatisfaction with housing conditions, and a notification that they have decided to march on the Vancouver Indian affairs office on December 5, 1966?


Mr. Speaker:: I must say that I missed the first part of the hon. member's question and -well, perhaps it would be simpler to allow the minister to answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I was advised by a member of the press gallery just before the sitting today that a communication had come from Vancouver to the effect that there was going to be a march by the Cowichan Indians on the Indian Affairs office in Vancouver on December 5. My only comment was that I was not impressed by marches and I would hope that the energy to be expended in that march would be put to a better purpose on the reservation.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, October 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mac-Eachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-227, to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister is waiting with restrained anticipation to conclude this debate. Coming into the debate at this late hour, there are one or two
October 25. 1966

matters that I am going to deal with which have not as yet-as I have read the record of the debate and followed it in the house-received full attention. I say at once that the various members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition who have spoken in the course of this debate have dealt with the matter of medicare in a manner that in my estimation has brought honour to them. The study that each of them has made of the problem and the devotion of this party to the principle of medicare have resulted in a continuing demand by members of this party for action to implement a medicare plan that is not a sham and a delusion but a practical, legislative enactment.
The view of our party in regard to the need of a national medicare plan, because the provinces have the entire legislative and constitutional responsibility for health, is that the provinces should be consulted. A plan should be arrived at not by the compulsory edict of a minister or a government but by consultation and agreement. Plans should be practical and practicable, not an instrument which has all the appearance of providing medicare but fails to take into consideration the responsible and reasonable position taken by several of the provinces.
On December 21, 1960, as reported at pages 1023 and 1024 of Hansard, I announced in the house that the government had decided to set up a royal commission, the scope of whose authority and the personnel of which would be announced early in the new year, to investigate this matter thoroughly. On June 20, 1961, as reported at page 6600 of Hansard, I announced the setting up of the royal commission with the task of looking into the field of medicare, assuring that the government would have the fullest information so that whatever plan was brought into effect would have behind it the information and research necessary. Appointed to head that royal commission was, of course, Mr. Justice Hall, and representatives from across Canada were appointed to it. There were two medical representatives on the commission, Dr. Arthur Van Wart of Fredericton and Dr. David Baltzan, chief of staff of the Department of Medicine, Saskatoon, and one of the outstanding authorities in Canada on the subject of medicare and medical assistance.
Out of that commission came a report which was widely acclaimed; indeed, it was described by various newspapers and commentators as a health charter. The Toronto Star, which has never been a transcendent admirer of the Conservative party, stated in
Medicare
an editorial on June 20, 1964, that when the royal commission on health services was set up in 1961 sceptics suspected that it was intended as a delaying device to enable the government of the day to postpone decision on a national health plan. The editorial also said that the commission's report, which had been released that week, triumphantly refuted these suspicions. It said that the report was a landmark in the history of Canadian welfare programs and if carried into effect would give Canada one of the most advanced systems of public medical care in the world.
The program has not been carried into effect. This government made promises about what it would do. Throughout the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson)-and this is a matter that was stressed over and over again-said that medicare would be brought into effect by July 1, 1967. The Prime Minister's speech prepared for delivery on September 21, 1965, stated as follows:
Our objective is to have full medicare in operation on Canada's 100th birthday, July 1, 1967. We need a mandate to realize this objective.
They got the mandate and returned to office, although one of the ministers was lost in the shuffie because he made a wrong prediction as to the outcome of the election. What has happened since September, 1965, in the economic life of Canada? What changes have taken place that make impossible the carrying out of this program?
As recently as July 14 the minister answered a question asked by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) in these words:
Mr. Speaker, we propose to proceed with the medical care program in accordance with the bill which is now available to hon. members.
Then the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) asked the following question:
-I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he has had any opportunity to consider the appeal I made to the government last night to give consideration to proceeding with second reading before the house adjourns for the summer recess?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The Prime Minister replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I read my hon. friend's statement on this subject, but we propose to follow the plan that has been outlined and proceed with second reading of the legislation shortly after our return.
That legislation, and I have the bill before me, provided for the commencement of the plan on July 1, although there was a joker in

October 25, 1969
Medicare
it. One of the clauses of the bill was obviously placed therein for the purpose of providing an outlet for their refusal to carry out the undertaking. I would like very much to know the meaning of clause 6 which states:
It is a condition of payment of any amount as or on account of a contribution by Canada to a province for a year in respect of a medical care insurance plan of the province
(a) That the provincial authority will (i) on or before the first day of July, 1967 or the date of commencement of the plan, whichever is the later, in the case of the year that includes the later of those dates-
None of us took that provision seriously. We believed the Prime Minister and we believed the ministers.
But what has happened to the economic situation in Canada in this last year to cause the government to break its pledged word? The promise that was made was a most solemn one. The government expected to break this promise, they had it in mind. I am not exaggerating when I make this statement because on January 11, 1966 a well known journalist wrote the following:
The betting in Ottawa is that a national medicare plan, now scheduled for unveiling July 1, 1967, will be postponed until after centennial year.
The article from which I quoted was written by Maurice Jeffries who today is on the outskirts of a cabinet position. Farther on he said:
The recent report of the Economic Council of Canada, stressing what governments and business must do in the immediate period ahead to maintain generally prosperous conditions and provide for the rapidly growing labour force, has led to second thoughts on the timing of medicare.
This journalist knew that but parliament did not. Sir, the action of this government in deluding and deceiving the Canadian people cannot be countenanced. Again, I quote a Liberal member of the Ontario legislature from a publication the name of which is "Liberal Action." It reads as follows:
The federal cabinet's decision to delay medicare for one year is a shocking breach of faith with the Canadian people.
This was said by James Trotter, M.P.P. in an interview and it was the view of quite a number of Liberal members when they made their pilgrimage to Peterborough. You will remember, sir, that in the old days in England pilgrimages were the order of the day. Some pilgrims went to Canterbury and others went to Peterborough, but the interesting fact is that those who went to Peterborough were the growlers who were not satisfied with things in general. This Liberal aggregation, [Mr. Diefenbaker.l
which I understand, included parliamentary secretaries and even ministers went there and said: "Not over our dead bodies". They are still alive because they have been told to stay alive. The breaking of an agreement means nothing to this government. Their explanation is that if this plan were brought in now it would bring about inflation. Well, we have inflation now and the plan is not in effect. So that was an excuse.
I may say, sir, that the minister is a charming fellow but after having read his speeches on what he was going to do I am surprised to see him sitting where he is. He made grievous threats and there were sounds of rivalry in the cabinet, as reported in the press. He said he was going to resign, that this was the last straw. But he is still there.
It was interesting to listen to his opening speech because for mildness and sweet compassion no speech by any other minister has ever equalled his performance. He was mild and restrained; he had a contrite heart and he revealed it in the lachrymose way in which he delivered his speech on second reading. He said: "Let there be medicare on July 1, 1967". but he was overruled by the strong man of the cabinet today. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) said: "You are not going to get this. I am not going to allow it." I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) is a man who carries out his promises and when I say that, I may add conjunctively that we all recall the $25 million promised in Nova Scotia. When I went to Cape Breton the Nova Scotians said to me: "We were promised $25 million and we are going to have the mine opened." This was another promise that was not carried out.
What does the government say now? They say: "We broke our word. We fooled the Canadian people. What we will do is put the plan into legislation now and we will keep our word." What guarantee have we that the pledged word of the government will be carried out because it is in legislation? What was the excuse? The Minister of Finance said, and all who listened were impressed: "We have canvassed painstakingly every possible way of meeting our commitment to medicare and our responsibility for the stability of the economy and the soundness of our finances." What happened to these finances and to the stability? Have things slipped so badly?
The minister said it did not appear to him they could pay for medicare, a guaranteed
October 25, 1966

income for the aged and the established programs of the government in the same year. He said they had to observe priorities. We have been asking them about priorities. What has happened to the priority of the old age pensioners? Day after day hon. members, including the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) have repeatedly asked for an assurance. They asked the government: "What is going to be done for the old age pensioners?" The answer was: "Wait and see. If only you get through this legislation we will go ahead with it." And yet they have not got it on the order paper.
Had we been elected we would have carried out our promises as we have done in the past. The reason the Liberals have not done so is that the economy has deteriorated and they could not carry out their promises. That is the excuse. They had not established any priority. Why should this house allow itself to be fooled? The people of Canada are being deceived. This is paper medicare, a post-dated-cheque medicare. This is not legislation, it is prophecy. In a year and a half from now they prophesy, if this parliament passes the legislation, we will have medicare.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Are they going to be any more painstaking in keeping their word because it is incorporated in a statute? A year ago they were promising action on the cost of living. It has been going up and up ever since and the major action taken has been by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) who, with proper pomp and photographic circumstance, went to the store and displayed what he would have done about solving the problem. He knew nothing, but he tried to tell the women of Canada to just watch Joe. They did. He knew what they had never found out with experience, that he could save 50 per cent and at the same time maintain the necessary nutritional level.


Eric Alfred Winkler: He made a fool out of his executive assistant.


John George Diefenbaker: I would not say he made a fool out of the women. However, he did succeed in at least identifying that quality in another.
This is the way promises are carried out. I must refer to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon). He said, I like this medicare plan. They took him and threw him out. I could just imagine them saying to him, "Yon Cassius hath a lean and hungry look; he thinks too much." They got rid of him and
Medicare
they kept the Minister of Finance who has all the other ministers under his thumb today. The Minister of National Health and Welfare laughs, but he knows what excruciating hours he went through as he contemplated the situation. On the one hand there was principle and on the other, power. He decided for power. One part of the government does not know what the other part is doing.
Today we had two examples of this. Somebody has complained that the government did not consult the provinces in connection with this health legislation. Worse, they did not consult each other. They are closed compartments. The Minister of National Health and Welfare thought he was going to get this bill through. He forgot to ask the Minister of Finance.
What is the plan? The medicare plan was given a fine funeral at the Liberal meeting. Floral tributes were given to the minister. People said, there is a man. Whatever he is told to do, he will do. If it was not so serious, it would be laughable. The minister laughs because he knows; he has been in the hot seat. They told him what to do. Then he went out into the night. I can imagine the debate that went on. Should I go? After all, I made a $25 million promise which I did not carry out, but I am still here. Will I accept this? Finally, the other ministers get around him and they say, we will just postpone it. After all, what is a year? This is not good enough. Promises have to be carried out. If they say cynically, regardless of our promises we are not going to carry out this plan, then this represents the epitome of degrading of election promises.
We have advocated a system of medicare that will work. The reason the Prime Minister imposed the four principles was that he knew they would not be accepted. There could not have been any other reason. He just said to the provinces, you take these rules or we are not going to press forward with medicare. How many provinces today are in the favour of the government's plan? Where is the universality when one province after another says it will not accept it?
Today there are only three provinces, so far as I know, that are prepared to accept this plan. Are there going to be amendments? This is the question that faces all of us. So far as I am concerned, the Conservative policy with regard to national social justice was enunciated at the last annual meeting in February, 1964. In the declaration there was an acceptance of the plan of medicare. The resolution dealt with the question of mental

October 25, 1966
Medicare
illness and the need for action to be taken in that regard. We believe in medicare.
We are placed in this position. If we vote against this bill, then it will be said we are denying the principle of medicare. If we vote for it, we will be voting for the principle, and in committee we will demand that certain changes take place. If those changes should be accepted, we will know whether or not this government is indeed sincere. So far as the policy of this party is concerned, I enunciated it following the declaration at the annual meeting of the party on a number of occasions during the last campaign.
At Calgary on October 14, 1965,1 said:
In the field of medicare we set up the commission to look into the whole problem. The Hall commission gave its recommendations. The present government rushed in with a plan in which it said to the provinces, you will either take it or you won't get any assistance. That is not the way to approach a matter which is within provincial jurisdiction. We intend to give the provinces the opportunity to provide medicare and assist them but without regimentation and with complete freedom of choice.
That was the declaration of this party, and it was repeated over and over again. We think that this government, even now, should recognize that confederation cannot be maintained without co-operation, and that following second reading of the bill there should be a canvassing of the provinces, whose responsibility this matter is to ascertain the basis upon which terms could be arrived at which would be fair to the nation and fair to the provinces. There is no rush to get this through. What is the haste to get a bill on the statute books which will be effective only 18 months from now? The only reason for the rush is that it would be disconcerting to Liberals opposite, who promised it in the election campaign, to defer the bill. If I started to read all of the promises to implement this plan by July 1, 1967, made from the parliamentary secretary up and then down again, it would take a long time. They said that that day would be one of the greatest days in history, for on that day they would have completed their social security program. Then they threw the whole thing overboard.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
There should be amendments made. It is going to be very difficult to formulate an amendment to carry out their promise, and we want to help them. I would throw them a lifeline. Will they accept an amendment to enable them to carry out their promise so
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
that they can at least extricate the Minister of National Health and Welfare from the embarrassment that he obviously feels? One has only to look at him to realize the excruciating suffering to which he is subjected by not being able to carry out at least one of the two promises he made.
What about the inclusion of optometrists? Optometrists conduct 60 to 70 per cent of eye examinations. Are they going to be discriminated against?
What about dental surgeons? I am not saying that dentistry should be included in a medicare plan, but I do say that there should be included oral surgery on the part of dentists. As far as the dental profession is concerned, it does not ask that all dental services be included, but it does ask that those who perform operations and are trained to perform operations in oral surgery should not be denied the right to inclusion under the act. If this is not the case, the dental surgeons across Canada who perform oral surgery will find themselves discriminated against in that people requiring their services will have to go to a physician and surgeon to do what the oral dental surgeon is in fact trained to do.
There are many other matters, Mr. Speaker, that might be dealt with, but I want to give the minister an opportunity to place his views before the house and the country. These plans cost money, sir. I see hon. gentlemen opposite bowing their heads in affirmation. They seem to forget that this is what they were promising.
I think I ought to make a passing reference to the New Democratic Party. Their members were not here yesterday for quite a considerable period of time; no doubt they were attending a caucus. I would have liked to hear them make some of the promises they made before they came into office in Saskatchewan on the subject of social security. They promised social security from the beginning to the end. They told the people of the province: You put us in office and we will show you how socialism works; it will not cost you because what we will do is simply incorporate a number of companies and we will go into business.
On listening to my hon. friends, and I always listen to them because they study and speak well, I find that they do not talk socialism any more. This is a strange thing, Mr. Speaker. It is the socialist party that never mentions socialism; they keep it in cold storage. I think it was Mr. Fisher, lately one of their members, who said that that is one
October 25, 1966

subject the N.D.P. does not want to discuss. They want us to believe that only they have the heart and the soul that bring about a love for their fellowmen. That is the impression they leave. They look upon lesser mortals, such as my colleagues and those sitting opposite, as people who do not understand these problems.
I know that the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) will recall the elections of 1944 and subsequently. I thought at that time that we were about to go into the millenium. Let me say this, not with any degree of satisfaction but simply to keep the record straight. They told us they would go into business. I am not going to refer to their record unless they provoke me to, but for almost the two decades they were in office they used to say: "We can have all these things and it won't cost you." That is what it amounted to.
What a business venture that was. They speak today as if they had a monopoly on trying to help old age pensioners. What about the person between the ages of 65 and 70? The government of Sakatchewan could have assisted those persons, but they gave them less assistance than that given by any other province in Canada but one.
They started all kinds of businesses. They were in leather and in shoes, but their shoes got too big for them. They went into various types of companies. Generally those companies failed. They went into a paint spraying business, a woollen mill, a box factory in Prince Albert, a sodium sulphite plant, and so on I could go.
We did not get social security for nothing in Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker. Those companies, with the profits they were to make, were supposed to give us freedom from the fear of taxation. I just wanted the record to be clear, Mr. Speaker, having listened to them wrapping themselves in the garments of sophis-icated sanctity as if they were the only ones who had the answer. Without going into details, though I could do so-


David Lewis: The truth might come out then.


John George Diefenbaker: What is that? Do you want the details? I would be very glad to furnish them.


David Lewis: We want the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: All right, let us have the facts. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has just a theoretical knowledge of
Medicare
this subject gleaned from a distance. We lived under it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You lived pretty well under it.


John George Diefenbaker: We lived under socialism. However, everyone started to leave the province and our population went down and down. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam used to say that so many of our people went to British Columbia because of the weather and came back because of the climate. But they left, and our population fell and fell. And what happened, Mr. Speaker, to our membership in the House of Commons? If it had not been for the action of the St. Laurent government we would not have lost several seats in 1953. This time we are losing four through redistribution.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Two or three times lately my hon. friends of the N.D.P. have tried to leave the impression that we in this party are reactionary. We recognize facts, and the theory of socialism did not work in Saskatchewan. The hon. member for York South asks me for particulars. He wants facts. I will give him just a few, just a homeopathic dose. The first was a leather factory or tannery in the city of Regina. The purpose was to tan cow hides. It went bust, losing $73,000. There was no social security in that. The second one was a shoe factory. They said they could manufacture shoes for $2.75 a pair and still make money. Despite all this, after a few years the plant went bankrupt and closed down, and they lost $83,000. Then a paint spray company was formed to paint the rural buildings in Saskatchewan. The farmers were not anxious about that, and the company ceased operation. Then they started a woollen mill which was finally forced to close, with a deficit of $830,000. There was not much social security in that.
Then the housing corporation was set up to convert military huts into housing accommodation which could be rented. That lost $42,000 and went out of business. The hon. gentleman asked for facts. I always try to accommodate. Then they had a box factory in Prince Albert. There was an institution for you. It was expropriated from a private company, ran for more than a decade, and the deficits ran up to $352,000 before the company was closed down.


An hon. Member:: Tell us why they expropriated it.

October 25, 1966
Medicare


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman
forced me into this. Then there was a sodium sulphite plant at Bishopric which was taken over from private enterprise. Can anybody tell me where Bishopric is now?


An hon. Member:: Still there.


John George Diefenbaker: Socialism works in theory. But the people of Saskatchewan found out this fact: Socialism promises the moon, the stars and the whole firmament of heaven, but the promises do not turn out. I mention that because I would have thought that the N.D.P. in the finest tradition of socialism would have been advising the minister as to what companies he might form so as to pay the costs of social security. It cannot be done that way.
Now I return to the subject. We in this party have taken a stand on behalf of medicare, namely the acceptance of the principle. Personally I believe the stand in favour of the principle should be taken among our members, although there will be a wide diversity of opinion as to method. Those coming from Alberta will feel that the Alberta plan is fine. Those coming from Saskatchewan will feel that the plan, when it comes into effect, will mean several millions given to the province of Saskatchewan which would otherwise not be available. Those from other provinces will have their views. But the acceptance of the general principle of medicare was essential and of the essence of our policy, and was never deviated from. That being so, I am in a position to say that I do not think this plan was ever intended to work. But, I do not propose to have the kind of interpretation given to this stand that so often was given to the Conservative party's position during those years when it was alleged to be against social security.
Since I became leader of this party we have followed the course of change based on need. Changing conditions deserve new concepts. We believe that the Hall Commission gave a message to all Canada, and we in this nation must not allow any of our people to be subjected to a denial of the best medical attention. That was admitted by the Minister of Finance when, in his exculpatory paragraph at the Liberal meeting he said that a terrible thing faces some poor people, namely the possibility of overwhelming medical expenses and the like. We do not meet that without taking some action. I am asking this government, and I ask the minister of National Health and Welfare to assure the house that When this bill has received second reading,

should the house so decide, he will not stand stubbornly against necessary amendments but that he will show that flexibility, that capacity for compromise and retreat that characterized him in recent days as he went through a period I can only describe as one of deep mental concern, weighing the alternatives between becoming a backbencher or continuing to occupy the august position of Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I ask the minister to give the house the assurance that that wonderful trait he displayed under duress-I think I can describe it in those terms-will now become a regular characteristic of his, so that when we go into committee he will say: Changes will have to be made to make this legislation effective. We want more than an act that will simply be on the statute books, ineffective in present form.
I want parliament to join in this. Let us make this an act that will bring about that which is the desire of most members of this house, namely the assurance that no one in this land, however poor he may be, shall be denied a reasonable equality of opportunity in the field of medical attention.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Before I call on the hon. member for Red Deer I should announce to the house the business on the adjournment debate. The questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown), Canada Assistance Plan-Brantford, Ontario-reported refusal to service applications; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), television-suggested curtailment of broadcast of Grey Cup game; the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance), Penitentiaries-new insignia on uniforms of penitentiary employees.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-227, to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
October 25, 1966
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware that this debate has carried on for a considerable length of time. I have not participated in it except at the resolution stage, and I have only a few brief remarks to make at this time.
In the debate we have often heard this bill referred to as a medicare bill. As I understand it, in no way can this legislation be termed as such, nor is it claimed to be such by the minister. It is an act to authorize the payment of contributions by the federal government to the provinces, to ensure services, amounting to approximately half the cost of medical practitioners' fees.
We are dealing with a very limited health insurance bill which we acknowledge is a step toward the medical health insurance which we all recognize must be available to all Canadians, according to their needs.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Second, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reemphasize once more that I am not against the principle of health insurance. For many years we in this party have advocated a system of health insurance that will make available to all Canadians adequate health care according to their needs, and not according to what might be their ability to pay. We are 100 per cent in support of the proposition that health care must be available to each citizen according to his need, regardless of his financial ability to pay.
What I disagree with, and this is the point I wish to develop briefly this evening, is the contention that it is the responsibility of the state to provide health insurance for everybody whether he wants it or not, whether he needs it or not. I do not see why it is necessary for government to assume the responsibility of providing health insurance for people who do not want it, for people who are perfectly able to take care of themselves and who want to take care of themselves. To impose the suggested type of health service on the Canadian people is to interfere seriously with the right of freedom of choice. This should in no way detract from our responsibility to assure that each citizen may have the best care when it is needed; and on that score comprehensive health insurance must be available for all Canadians.
Many speakers have justified their intention to vote for or against this bill on the ground that second reading merely represents a vote on the principle contained in the bill. If the principle were the provision by the federal
Medicare
government, in co-operation with provincial governments, of comprehensive health insurance, I would agree that that is a legitimate principle, and I could not help but be in support of it. In view of what this bill contains, and I must interpret its principle on that basis, I cannot agree with those who say they must give carte blanche acceptance to what they think is the principle.
I know that there are many differences of opinion on this matter. I know that in the party led by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) there are those who feel one way and those who feel another way, and this I can understand. Because of this difference of opinion it is very difficult for anyone to stand up and say this is, or this is not the principle of the bill. Both within my own party and within the ranks of the other parties I respect these differences of opinion.
I believe that on an issue such as this hon. members must vote according to their convictions, and I only wish all members of the house would do so. Certainly I know that within the ranks of the Liberal party there are many who have reservations about this bill, but are prevented by caucus discipline from expressing their personal convictions.
When he introduced the bill the minister laid stress on four fundamental points, and I wish to refer to them briefly because it is on the basis of some of them I find myself unable to accept the principle of the bill in relation to what it actually contains. The minister very carefully attempted to argue that universal coverage should not be confused with compulsory coverage, but this is something with which I cannot agree, unless he can enlighten us with some further explanation. His explanation that universal coverage does not mean compulsory coverage was, to me, not much more than an exercise in semantics.
What could be more compulsory than a requirement that practically the entire population of a province must be covered in order for that province to qualify for the financial assistance provided by this proposed legislation? It outlines a figure of 90 per cent coverage, rising to 95 per cent, and I think the minister would be much wiser to lower that qualification in the initial years.
If he wishes to include the plans in existence in Alberta, B.C. and Ontario, with perhaps some minor adjustments to them, it would be much wiser if universal coverage were defined as 80 per cent of a province's population in the first year of operation, 85

October 25. 1966
Medicare
per cent in the second year and 90 per cent in the third year. If the government retains this 90 per cent initial provision, then I am afraid this bill will bar from its operation three health schemes which are presently working well and which are acceptable to the majority of the people in three provinces.
I understand that a fourth province, Manitoba, is planning to introduce a scheme similar to the ones in operation in Alberta, B.C. and Ontario. We can also assume that Quebec will introduce its own plan, and if this bill remains unchanged it will thus eliminate half of the provinces from the benefits it is designed to distribute. If in the preliminary years the universal definition were lowered so that existing provincial plans could fit into the scheme, than it could not be called a compulsory plan in the same manner as it is now.
The demanded high coverage ceiling will mean the inclusion of a lot of people who do not want to come under a health insurance scheme such as this, many private insurance schemes which are presently operating satisfactorily will be eliminated, as well as schemes provided by industrial organizations and other organizations covering large groups of people. Why upset the status quo, when it is working satisfactorily for large numbers of people?
The minister also outlined the position with respect to the provision relating to public carriers, and said that in order to be acceptable a provincial health insurance plan must be administered by a public body. There are many ways in which carriers can be transformed into public carriers, making them non-profit organizations and subject to public audit by provincial legislatures; but by this provision the minister is wiping out the multi-carriers and many private carriers who now function effectively. To impose this as a qualifying requirement seems unreasonable, and I cannot accept the principle involved. In the first case that I have mentioned there is involved the freedom of choice of the individual, and in the second case the right and responsibility of a province to develop its own health plan suitable to its own needs. I have sufficient confidence in our provincial administrations that I believe they are better able to determine what kind of health insurance scheme is suited to their province than is any federal government.

[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The minister made two other points, and I should like to comment on these briefly because I find myself in partial disagreement with them. The minister has said that this legislation is limited to paying half the cost of the services of physicians. I presume he means by this medical practitioners. He estimated that cost to be $28 per capita, half of which is $14. It seems to me that if this legislation really is intended to cover the cost of health care in so far as those who administer health care are concerned, then it would not be so confining as it is. Why does it not include dentists; why does it not include optometrists, chiropractors and osteopaths? These are licensed professions rendering health service. Certainly if we are to take care of the over-all health, as it relates to health services, we cannot separate the care of the eyes, the teeth, and the specialized care given by the chiropractors and osteopaths.
I think therefore this legislation is much too restrictive. It does not accomplish what it gives the impression it intends to accomplish. Certainly it should be more inclusive. This afternoon I received a telegram-and I believe most members of the house must also have received it-from G. P. Holton, president of the Ontario Division of the Canadian Chiropractic Association urging that clauses 2 (d) and (f) of Bill C-227 be amended to include chiropractors. I am sure the discrimination to which he refers would also include optometrists, dentists and osteopaths as well. I expect this will be considered very carefully at the committee stage and that there will be amendments proposed in this regard to various clauses in the bill. At the present time I cannot agree to the bill in its limited form.
There is just one other point I should like to make. This refers to the fourth point made by the minister relating to the matter of portability. I agree that portability is absolutely essential if we are to have any kind of satisfactory health insurance scheme across the nation. However, with the three major provincial schemes, which are very similar, with another soon to be introduced, and with Quebec introducing a plan on its own, there can be portability. So far as the provincial governments are concerned, I am sure they want to accomplish and will accomplish this. Therefore it should be included, because unless there is portability we will be moving toward discrimination of another type.
October 25, 1966

I should like again to place on the record the fact that I am in favour of a national health insurance scheme which will guarantee to every Canadian the best health services that can be provided, regardless of ability to pay. However, I cannot accept the principle of the bill unless in his closing statement the minister might be able to clear up some of these things. I hope that he will. I should like him to give assurance that when we reach the committee stage the restrictive aspect of the bill so far as health practitioners are concerned will be changed, if it is the decision of the committee that it should be changed.
I believe that if, at the committee stage, the minister were willing to accept changes in this regard the bill would pass without any difficulty so far as an amendment is concerned. I believe also that if the minister would include in his statement a guarantee that it is the intention of the government through this legislation to recognize the basic plans already in existence and those which may come into being, and perhaps indicate that he would accept a lower percentage coverage in his definition of universality, it would be possible to agree to the principle of this bill. As the bill stands now however it is not possible for me to support it, having regard specifically to those principles which are enunciated in the bill itself. Again I am referring to the freedom of choice, first of all of the individual as to whether or not he wants a government health insurance plan; second, concerning which health service it will be; and third, freedom of action so that the various provinces can develop their own health insurance plans, which will reach the same objective as I am sure the minister has, in that we must have a health insurance scheme that will adequately meet the needs of the Canadian people.
So, with those remarks, I would just say again it is my hope that in his closing remarks in the debate on second reading the minister will indicate some willingness to consider some of these points which have been made both in my remarks and in the remarks of others, so that this bill will better meet the responsibility we have of ensuring that there is adequate health care for Canadian citizens.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The
Minister of National Health and Welfare. May I remind hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.
Medicare


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing into the eighth day of debate on this medical care bill. There has been wide participation in the discussion from all parts of the house. Many important questions of principle and procedure have been raised in the discussion by hon. members. I hope to have the opportunity as I conclude the debate to deal with the major subject matter of the debate, to indicate to the house the attitude of the government and provide explanations which I hope will have the effect-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. Does the Solicitor General have some comment?


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of National Health and Welfare will permit this interjection, I would suggest we now suspend the debate until eight o'clock and that the house now rise.


Michael Starr: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed that we suspend our sitting from now until eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Sitting suspended.



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner adjournment I referred to the fact that we are now concluding the eighth day of debate on Bill C-227. A large number of speakers have participated in this debate and have raised a number of separate issues in respect of the principles of this bill.
The four principles of medical care which are proposed in the bill as being essential to provincial medicare plans eligible for contributions from the federal treasury are portability, comprehensive coverage, public administration and universality.
During the debate no person that I recall questioned the desirability of portability; no member of the house questioned the desirability of comprehensive coverage in respect of physicians' services. Indeed a number of members urged that we ought to extend coverage by including, if not additional professions, at least the services provided by additional professionals.

October 25, I960
Medicare
In respect of the principle of public administration, there has been no sustained criticism of this proposal, except that which has been suggested, notably by members of the N.D.P. to the effect that this aspect of the bill ought to be strengthened. I hope when we reach the committee stage it will be possible to remove any misgivings in respect of the application of the principle of public administration referred to-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that I raised at least two and perhaps three of these categories.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be possible during the committee stage to remove any misgivings in respect of the application of the principle of public administration raised by members of the N.D.P.
Having regard to the fourth principle we propose for provincial medical care plans, namely universality regarding the population, there have been very sharp differences of opinion expressed during the debate, especially by members of the official opposition and members of the Social Credit party. I hope later in my remarks to deal with this particular aspect.
I should like to divide my comments into a number of different categories touching upon different subject matters. The first subject matter is provincial consultation and co-operation. The second is the issue of compulsion referred to during the debate. The third is the matter of medical manpower and personnel. 1 should then like to deal with the arguments that have been advanced continuously by members of the opposition to the effect that partial medicare plans are adequate and suitable as a foundation for medical care insurance in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister not include on his agenda some comment on the changing of the effective date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I had intended to treat as the fifth subject matter, in anticipation, those items that can best be discussed at the committee stage, including the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I should like to conclude with what I would call the part of my statement relating to a number of political and parliamentary aspects that require treatment in view of a

speech made by the Leader of the Official. Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and speeches made by certain members of the N.D.P. The impression has been created that the federal government has not consulted with the provinces in connection with the development of medical care insurance plans. We as a federal government have made a series of determined efforts to consult with the provinces, tO' inform them fully as to the nature of our proposal and, where possible, to amplify or elaborate the principles by the provision of details that have been requested.
Let me mention that the federal proposals were first laid before a federal-provincial conference on July 19 and 20, 1965 by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson). These proposals were discussed by the premiers of the provinces at that conference. Later in the same year, in the fall of 1965, a conference of ministers of health was held. To be specific, it was held on September 23 and 24, and the medical care proposals were discussed at that time.
This year, after I became the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I convened a conference in Ottawa to deal primarily with the health resources fund, but there was provision made at that conference held on January 31 and February 1 for a discussion on medical care insurance. The ministers of health took advantage of that opportunity to discuss our proposals, and the questions that were asked by the ministers of health in respect of those proposals were answered both verbally, and later, by letter, to the best of our ability.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
So we have had three conferences with the provinces in which it was possible to discuss medical care insurance proposals, and indeed advantage was taken of such opportunities. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is incorrect and mischievous to suggest that there has been no consultation with the provinces. There has been serious and sincere consultation in these conferences.
I might remind hon. members of the house that on June 30 of this year the minister of health for the province of Alberta wrote asking me to convene a further meeting of ministers of health to discuss a draft bill. It was not possible, for obvious parliamentary reasons, to convene a meeting of ministers of health to discuss a draft bill; but I did indicate in a wire of July 15, to all ministers of health in Canada, my willingness to convene a meeting to discuss the bill as it was
October 25, 1966

then disclosed in the House of Commons. I received replies from ministers indicating for *one reason or another their inability to attend the meeting at this particular time.
I do not complain about the fact that it was not possible for ministers to meet that particular schedule; but the opportunity had been made available and it was a continuing opportunity. So we have had consultation with the provinces and we will continue to have consultation. The Prime Minister has already expressed his readiness to discuss the medical care insurance proposals at the current federal-provincial conference.
In addition to the question of consultation, I wish to deal with the assumption that has been promoted in this debate, namely that the provinces are unanimously opposed to the principles put forward by the federal government. I think we have secured an encouraging degree of response from the provinces. In the various discussions that have been held on this matter only one provincial health minister implied that his government would not co-operate in a program embodying the four principles set out in this legislation.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Who was that? Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman indicate who that was?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have already indicated that the minister of health of the province of Alberta has taken exception to at least one principle embodied in these proposals.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Do they all agree with compulsion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: A number of provinces, including Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island! have stated, not once but more than once, their readiness to participate in this program. Indeed when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) announced the decision to change the effective date of the program, a number of these premiers expressed their regret that such a decision had been taken.


Eric Alfred Winkler: How do you feel about it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The province of Quebec endorses the four principles, in so far as I can read the statements made both by the former premier of that province, and the present premier. There have been in each case certain reservations with respect, not to the principles but to other aspects of federal-provincial relations.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Hear, hear.
Medicare


Allan Joseph MacEachen: British Columbia has indicated its readiness to co-operate, and Nova Scotia has expressed concern about the level of the proposed federal contribution. The province of Manitoba, through its minister of health, in a speech made in the legislature last year, indicated, despite reservations, its readiness and intention to participate in the federal plan. The minister was courteous enough to send me a copy of his address in the legislature, which I read with interest and appreciation. The minister of health of Ontario has explained that, with a few changes in the present program of that province, it could be geared to meet the principles set out in this legislation.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is quite right-all except compulsion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that in attempting to read the attitude of provincial governments, it is wrong to state that these governments are unanimously opposed to this program. On the contrary, there has been an encouraging degree of co-operation expressed in these principles by provincial governments.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? In expressing that view, would he not agree with me when I say that they all agree with all the principles contained in the bill except the principle of compulsion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal separately with the question of compulsion, as I indicated earlier, and I will be happy to put the question of compulsion in its proper perspective and context; because up to the present it has been a red herring drawn across the principle of medical care insurance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to say that I have no-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, may I interject once more? I want to be fair about this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The minister has the floor.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have listened patiently for eight days to speeches made by hon. members opposite. I am prepared to answer questions at the end of my

October 25, 1966
Medicare
statement, but during the course of my remarks I would like to have the opportunity to deal with this important legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sure that none of us, even members of the Official Opposition, are naive enough to think that expressions of complete and unalloyed co-operation can be expected from all the provinces before we proceed legislatively with this program. It would be an unexpected development in the field of federal-provincial relations if provinces did not reserve their position on a matter of this importance until the very last possible moment; and I do not blame them for that. To expect otherwise would be, in the words of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), to expect the mil-lenium; and if we waited for the millenium I am afraid we would never have medical care insurance in Canada on the basis we have proposed.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It is almost like waiting for that now-and we have to wait almost another two years.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wonder what the members of the Official Opposition mean when they talk about the co-operation of the provinces. Does it mean the same thing as it meant in 1958, when a Conservative government changed the hospital insurance legislation and said it would start federal payments on a certain date, regardless of how many provinces were co-operating? Is this the type of co-operation they have in mind? Or is it the type obtained in 1961-62 when a new tax sharing agreement was put into effect in the face of opposition from all 10 provinces? The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) seemed in his speech to pine for former days, the days of Mr. King and Mr. St. Laurent when there were formulae in the field of federal-provincial relations.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Presumably he had in mind the proposal in the field of hospital insurance put forward by the former Liberal government, that payments would commence when a majority of the provinces representing a majority of the people of Canada have hospital plans in operation. That was a policy adopted by the former Liberal government.
In approaching this legislation I was careful to avoid the formula which the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) suggested we might follow. We do

have a formula which is that on the effective date this government will commence contributions to any province having an eligible provincial plan in existence; and may I remind members of the official opposition that in doing this we are following the precedent set by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was prime minister of Canada.
When the Conservative government, after coming to office, brought in an amendment to the hospital insurance act in 1958 it removed the stipulation that had been put down by the former Liberal government. The effect of the amendment was to make payments to any province having a hospital insurance plan then in operation.
In fact only five provinces were ready to start, namely British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland. When the program came into effect on July 1, 1958, under this Conservative amendment, there was not a majority of the provinces representing a majority of the population. Ontario did not participate, nor did Quebec; in fact the province of Ontario did not come in until January 1, 1959. If the government of that day had waited to comply with the provision that had been exacted by my predecessor, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), the program would not have come into effect at all until January 1, 1959.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Would the minister permit a question on this point?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What we are now proposing-


Eric Alfred Winkler: The minister is talking of the previous government. Would he permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in the field of federal provincial relations is precisely according to the precedent set by the former government. I think it is a good precedent.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Will the minister let me ask him a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It should recommend itself to the supporters of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Eric Alfred Winkler: The minister does not want to answer my question on that point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal for a moment with the issue of compulsion in this bill. The idea has been promoted
October 25, 1966

that this is a compulsory plan, which is an undesirable feature, and that this is something new which has been imported into the legislation. The issue of compulsion can only arise, first, with respect to the financing of the program by a province; second, with respect to physicians practising within a medical care insurance plan and, third, with respect to patients. I should like to deal with each of these categories.
A province wishing to finance its share of medical care insurance through general revenue will automatically make available the services to all the citizens in that province, and there is no compulsion there whatsoever. Later I will mention the course that has been followed in the field of hospital insurance by certain provinces.
If a province decides to finance its share of the cost of medical care insurance by levying premiums on the residents of the province, then compulsion does arise in precisely the same way that it would arise in the levying of any other tax on the population of that province. To suggest that we are embarking on a new compulsory technique in any method followed by a province is really to raise a red herring that has no place in a serious debate on medical care insurance.


Michael Starr: You are asking for a 90 per cent participation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the issue with respect to financing. What about the physicians who may be involved in a medical care insurance plan? The arrangement between the doctors or the medical profession and the province is obviously a matter for consultation between the two parties. However, what we are proposing in this legislation will make it possible for any physician to practise outside the plan if he so wishes. He will have full freedom to practise outside the plan, as do physicians with respect to certain medical care insurance plans now in operation in Canada. The full freedom of the physicians is protected in any traditionally required way by the medical profession, and the medical profession placed a great emphasis on the permissive character of this legislation which would allow them to practise outside the plan.
We have met them on that point. Naturally I do not think that in any province this will be widely exercised by the medical profession, but it is a right which they wish to have
Medicare
and which I think they can have without affecting the operation of the plan.
With respect to patients, no patient will be obliged to use the services of any doctor if he does not want to. He will be free to choose his doctor. Certainly the proposals in this bill make it possible for any province to adopt the arrangements that I have outlined. There is nothing in the bill which denies or prescribes the principle of voluntary choice by the patient or by his doctor. This is permissive legislation. It gives the provinces wide choice in setting organizational and administrative patterns. Its purpose is to carry out the Hall Commission objective of providing adequate medical coverage to all residents of Canada. The methods by which the provinces themselves execute this objective is within their own discretion. As in the hospital insuran.ce program, universal coverage is automatically achieved in the provinces which do not use a premium system, and there is no issue of compulsion whatsoever. Financing by premiums for hospital insurance is used in only three provinces at present. Thus in seven provinces coverage is automatically universal for hospital care.
If provincial governments choose to use similar methods of financing their share of costs then, under this legislation, all the residents of these provinces will be automatically covered. In provinces using premiums, universal coverage may be achieved through imposing premiums on a compulsory basis, as is now the case with hospital insurance in Saskatchewan and Manitoba or on a partially voluntary basis such as now applies under hospital insurance in Ontario. As I understand it Ontario collects premiums, in industrial operations having 15 or more employees and the remainder is made up from general revenue. Therefore the Ontario Hospital Insurance program illustrates how a premium province can use a voluntary system of financing to achieve universal coverage.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I ask, Mr. Speaker, in view of the experience in hospital insurance, why hon. members opposite insist on attributing compulsion to these proposals? Ontario has achieved 99 per cent coverage under the Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan through a combination of voluntary and compulsory enrolment. This course can be followed by any province under these medical care proposals, if the province so decides. In any event, this program does not require any individual to take the benefits if he does not wish to do so under

October 25, 1966
Medicare
either approach. The freedom of the patient to choose the doctor, and the doctor to choose his patients, remains unimpaired under all circumstances so far as our legislation is concerned. Neither does the legislation prohibit a doctor from practising outside the scheme if he so chooses. So, Mr. Speaker, I think if we consider carefully the issue of compulsion we ought to recognize that it constitutes no serious impediment to the institution of medical care plans in any province in Canada.
May I turn for a moment to the question of medical manpower and personnel? We admit, naturally, the necessity for more doctors and additional personnel in all the health professions. Ideally, we will never likely have a sufficient supply of personnel and facilities. This will be a continuing demand that we will strive to meet and that will never be fully met. The experience has been that the establishment of a new program will stimulate efforts to increase the supply and will help focus attention on how to establish priorities in the allocation of our limited resources.
The same argument was used in the case of hospital insurance. I recall at the conference of ministers of health, the late Dr. Dumont from New Brunswick, said to his colleagues at the conference that, if the argument now applied to medical insurance had been applied to hospital insurance, Canada would not have hospital insurance as it now exists. We went ahead with hospital insurance. The fact that we took that step stimulated further efforts to create facilities and the result is we have one of the finest hospital insurance systems in the whole world.
The Hall Commission gave very serious attention to the argument made by members, especially of the official opposition-an argument that was imbedded in their amendment -to the effect we should not proceed until we had adequate supplies of medical personnel and sufficient research. The Hall Commission considered that argument and suggested that any shortage of personnel existing in this field should not act as a deterrent to the institution of medical care plans. The Hall Commission study was the most serious study ever undertaken in this field in Canada. This is the conclusion to which the Commission, came:
While we are aware that shortages of physicians, dentists, nurses and other paramedical personnel will make it difficult to establish the full personal health services program our charter envisages, none

the less the fact there are shortages must not be used as an excuse to delay initiating programs and plans.
We accept that conclusion of the Hall Commission. This argument about inadequate personnel is usually made and has been made by the official opposition, too, in their proposal, "Let us not have universal medical care now, but let us have a partial program bringing in those not presently covered or those in need of medical care." On the one hand, we argue that we have not enough doctors and, on the other hand, we advocate a partial program to cover only those not presently covered or to provide medical services for those not now receiving medical services. Well, the total position is contradictory.
This aspect of the matter was dealt with by the Hall Commission. The conclusion of the Hall Commission on this point must be related to the proposals made in the amendment moved by the official oppostion and also to the recent proposal made by the Canadian Medical Association, that we ought to take a step now to include additional millions of persons not presently receiving medical services.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Will the minister say he is prepared to increase the hospital bed grant? Will the minister answer that question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I merely wish to quote a paragraph from the Hall Commission report on this point, which is a conclusive answer, it seems to me, to this particular line of argument. The Hall Commission report reads as follows:
Proponents of the voluntary approach consistently made the point that their objective is 100 per cent coverage of the eligible population under a voluntary basis. Their intention and their hope-repeated many times in the public and professional press- is that everyone could be covered and this coverage would be complete at the present time, provided all potential members had the good sense to enrol with a voluntary plan.
Implicit in the proposal of the medical profession and implicit in the amendment moved by the official opposition, is the idea that, today, doctors are now capable of meeting all of the needs of all Canadians for medical services on a prepayment basis. You cannot advocate bringing in those not now covered, as the partial plan implied, to give total medical services for all the population, and argue in the same breath that we have not got enough doctors to institute a universal program of medical care. You cannot have it both ways. I am not asking the house to have it both ways. What we say is that we
October 25, 1966

believe we ought to make a start; that any shortages existing should not be a deterrent. Once we have made a start, it will stimulate further efforts to increase facilities and personnel. This has already been the experience.
Before 1 move on to that question, I want to make the further point that the Hall Commission examined the doctor population ratio in a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, France, West Germany and Sweden. These countries have a less favourable doctor population ratio than Canada, and yet they have instituted a prepaid system of universal medical care. Our situation is better than certain countries that have already taken this step. But we are not content to regard the present situation as desirable. Through the health resources fund, we have already established a program by which we can increase the expenditure of federal funds on capital facilities for the training of health personnel. We expect this will result in an increase in medical schools and other facilities for the health professions. This parliament has committed $500 million for these purposes. That $500 million, combined with the expected share from other sources of $500 million, means a total commitment by this country of $1 billion designed to increase capital facilities for the training of health personnel.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
At the present federal-provincial conference we are considering further measures to assist higher education in Canada. This will have its effect in meeting the opportunities for medical schools and medical education. We are increasing our expenditures on research, and that will have its effect as well. So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are moving ahead in a proper way with respect to our medical care insurance program.
Now I want to deal for a moment with the question of partial plans and with why the proposals which have been made in the house in support of partial plans are not the answer. As I recollect it, the official opposition moved an amendment asking the government to make immediate provision for those persons who are unable, for financial reasons, to provide medical services for themselves. That was their policy in the amendment that was moved. That is a partial medical care plan. It is a medical care plan for the needy. It is a medical care plan with a means test.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Yes, but today, not two years from now.
Medicare


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is a medical care plan under a subsidy. It is a voluntary medical care plan. It is an inadequate medical care plan. It is wasteful, it is inefficient; and on each of these grounds the conclusions of the Hall Commission support what I have stated.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the proposal made by the official opposition. That is the proposal which is contained in their amendment. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have witnessed a somersault in policy by the Conservative party in this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the minister to bring to the attention of the house that his time has expired.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a couple of questions at this stage of the debate?


Mr. Speaker:: We should first decide whether the minister should be allowed to continue beyond the time allotted to him.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am fully prepared to allow the minister to carry on, but I dislike his arrogance in refusing to answer questions. I should like to ask a question at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that we first make the decision. I understand there is unanimous consent for the minister to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The asking of questions is something between the minister and the member, whether he allows questions now or later.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer the hon. gentleman's question at the end of my speech, but now that we have come to a discussion of the proposal made by the official opposition to provide medical services for those in need, I want to lead into this part of my comments by reminding the house that we have already taken action this session through the Canada Assistance Plan to provide medical care for persons in need.
It may be helpful to refresh the memories of members by stating exactly what is provided through the Canada Assistance Plan. Through the plan, the federal government is prepared to contribute 50 per cent of the cost to provinces, and to municipalities in the

October 25, 1966
Medicare
provinces, of providing what are known as Mr. Bell (Carleton): Would the hon. gentle-health care services to persons in need.	man permit me a question. Has the Canada
Assitance Plan been proclaimed? Is it in Mr. Starr: Without a means test?	effect at all?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Health care services include medical, surgical, obstetrical, optical, dental and nursing services. The definition includes drugs, dressings, prosthetic appliances and any other items of health services necessary to, or commonly associated with, the provision of the specified service. It is clear, therefore, that the Canada Assistance Plan makes comprehensive provision for all health services that may be required by persons in need.
I should note also, Mr. Speaker, that the Canada Assistance Plan is effective as of April 1, 1966. Any costs incurred by the provinces after April 1 of this year with respect to persons in need are shareable by the federal government.
It might also be mentioned that there is a special provision in the act which enables the provinces to claim for the costs of health care services provided to persons who receive assistance under any one of a series of acts, notably the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act, the Disabled Persons Act or the Old Age Security Act. This section provides that costs for such persons may be claimed retroactively to April 1 provided-and I now reply to the question of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr)-that a test of need is applied at any time prior to March 31, 1967. This provision will be helpful to the provinces in alleviating the burden of providing health care services.
The health provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan carry out the intent and the spirit of paragraph (d) of the amendment disposed of by the house. I would also point out that in the implementation of the Canada Assistance Plan the federal government has secured the co-operation of all the provinces, and the extent to which these health services will be provided is a matter of decision for the provinces. So, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity now exists through the Canada Assistance Plan to provide health care for persons in need. I make that point because it is a principle of the law already passed.
We on this side of the house regard the health provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan as an interim measure until a universal medical care system is in effect.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course.


Thomas Miller Bell: In which provinces?


Mr. Jorgenson:: When was it proclaimed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Having made the point with respect to the Canada Assistance Plan-


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Would the hon. gentleman answer the question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Having made the point with respect to the Canada Assistance Plan, I want to return, Mr. Speaker, to the essence of the proposal made by the official opposition-


Richard Albert Bell: The fact is that it has not been proclaimed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -namely that we ought to rely upon a system of coverage for persons in need, one which I submit would fall substantially short of universal coverage.
In a number of provinces, Mr. Speaker, we have voluntary plans by which provincial governments undertake to subsidize the premiums of persons in need of medical services. Without in any way discounting the contribution that these plans are making to the health of the residents of these provinces, I want to remind the House of Commons that the Hall Commission considered this aspect of medical care insurance very carefully. They asked themselves whether it was good public policy to attempt to meet the health needs of the Canadian people on this basis.
I read, Mr. Speaker, only one paragraph from the conclusions of the Hall Commission. At page 743 of their report the following statement appears:
Our reasoning is as follows:-
That the number of individuals who would require subsidy to meet total health services costs is so large that no government could impose the means test procedure on so many citizens or would be justified in establishing a system requiring so much unnecessary administration. The health services will make enough demand on our resources. We must not waste them, o (8:50 p.m.)
To that argument made by Mr. Justice Hall in his commission report I merely add one further argument, and that is, that the use of voluntary partial coverage plans and the use of partial coverage approaches will not meet the problem of health care in Canada. I
October 25, 1986

merely point out that substantial numbers of families lack motivation to protect themselves against future costs through voluntary approaches of insurance, regardless of the smallness of premiums required. For various reasons certain low income persons are among those most unlikely to enrol on a voluntary basis, even with premium subsidy incentive.
After three years of experience under the Alberta medical plan only about 50 per cent of the estimated number of persons eligible for premium subsidies have voluntarily taken advantage of this assistance. The other 50 per cent of those persons remain uncovered. I am citing this example without any thought of casting a reflection on the Alberta plan, but I want to illustrate the argument that this approach will not provide medical care for persons who need it in the kind of approach that is contemplated.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask the minister a question. What is the source of his statistics, when he says only 50 per cent are covered?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am quite ready to tell the hon. member that these statistics have been prepared in the research division of my department but I take full responsibility for them.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Surely this is an argument against your plan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Hall Commission report cites the experience of Australia. The prime minister of that country had diligently attempted to provide medical care insurance on a partial or voluntary basis. He was sincere in that, and after quite a number of years experience the Australian effort ended up with 80 per cent of the population covered, the remaining 20 per cent being very likely the crucial part of the population that required medical services. That is why we are advocating a universal system. It is not for ideological reasons, not, as has been suggested, because we are in favour of compulsion, but because it is the only system that will bring health care within the reach of all the people. And it will bring health care within the reach of all the people without the spectre of compulsion, so frequently raised in this debate and so demonstrably proven a red herring.


Eric Alfred Winkler: We shall see.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I conclude this part of my remarks by saying that we have had consultation with the provinces. We have had an
23033-576J
Medicare
encouraging degree of response to these proposals. I argue that the issue of compulsion is not relevant in this debate; that though there are shortages of medical manpower those shortages should not deter us from beginning a program but should stimulate increased efforts to meet these needs.
I argue that the partial plan proposal put forward by the official opposition is unacceptable, not on ideological grounds, but because it will not reach the objective of providing medical care for those who need it most.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Oh, boy.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I turn now to another aspect of this debate, and I refer to the attitude that has been demonstrated by the official opposition. I had not intended making political or parliamentary comments in this part, but I excuse myself because the provocative speech by the Leader of the Opposition was bound to stir up a reply in the vein in which he discussed this subject matter. I appreciate the poignancy with which the Leader of the Opposition attempted to delineate the anguish and mental torture surrounding cabinet decisions and disagreements. I appreciate his poignancy, because he ought to be a past master in resolving internal disagreements and cabinet problems.


Eric Alfred Winkler: But not pulling the rug from under your feet.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to say three things about the official opposition: first, that their conduct in this debate has been irresponsible and inconsistent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Second, that the attitude they have taken in this debate has represented a sharp break with the policy laid down by their leader; finally, that they have presented a very confused picture to the house in the course of this debate-a very confused picture indeed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Mirror, mirror on the wall".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The picture is so confused that I can best illustrate it by referring to the fact that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) says he will vote against this bill; the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) says he will vote for it; the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) refused to tell us; the hon. member

October 25, 1966
Medicare
for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) says he does not know; and the Leader of the Opposition says yes at this stage, probably no at the next stage.
This is the confused picture we have received from the official opposition in this debate.


An hon. Member:: It is a confused bill.


Eric Alfred Winkler: We are not Liberals; that's for sure.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Members of the official opposition have chided and chastised the government for deferring medicare. They have poured ridicule and scorn on the government for deferring it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: We were not bludgeoned into submission, as you were.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yet, Mr. Speaker, they put forward an amendment.


Michael Starr: You are the most confusing minister in the place.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They have put forward an amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has the floor. If an hon. member wishes to ask a question-


Michael Starr: He has the floor with the consent of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister does not resume his seat to indicate he will allow the question, he should be allowed to continue his speech.


Michael Starr: He has to save what he can of himself.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have listened for eight days to members of the official opposition.


Eric Alfred Winkler: What kind of fight do you call that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not think it is too much to ask them after this passage of time, to listen to the final winding up by a speaker on behalf of the government.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises from the fact that the house gave the minister permission to continue. Having already stated that he would accept questions when he was finished with his speech, and

having been given the extended time, he then accepted questions from the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). Having accepted questions from three members of the house, I think it is a privilege, that I have along with these other three members, that he should accept a question from me and from the whip of my party.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to rule against the hon. member. It is a well recognized rule that when a member has the floor it is at his own personal and exclusive discretion to allow questions.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead and have your fun.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reactions of hon. members opposite, and I am sure they would like to draw a curtain over their attitudes, their contradictions and their inconsistencies that have been revealed over the past eight days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: You are a good example of that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They would like to draw such a curtain, but that is not possible tonight.


Donald MacInnis: The
Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is laughing at you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask the cooperation of hon. members to allow the minister to make his speech so that at least I can hear part of it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, members of the Official Opposition for eight days have criticized-


Michael Starr: Not long enough.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and chastised the government for taking a decision to defer medicare, yet what did they do? The first speaker for the Official Opposition, the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), who is regrettably absent from his seat tonight, moved an amendment-


Michael Starr: Absent because he is ill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Michael Starr: Well say so.
October 25, 1966


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Who is regrettably absent because of illness, and I am sure we all wish him a speedy recovery-proposed an amendment which was supported by members of the official opposition, the purpose of which was to kill this bill, to murder medicare.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: Nonsense; you have killed it yourself by postponing it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If that amendment had been carried medicare would not be deferred for a year, but it would be relegated effectively to a legislative limbo from which it would never recover, because it would disappear from the order paper. Members of the official opposition have the hypocrisy to criticize the government for deferring the implementation of the bill, but they voted twice themselves to kill it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


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


Donald MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to have the minister withdraw that last word he applied to the opposition. It is not parliamentary and the rules so state.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not my understanding that the word applied in a general way, as it was by the minister, is unparliamentary. I am sure that the hon. member cannot find a precedent for this.


Donald MacInnis: He cannot use the word.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by hon. gentlemen opposite, and supported by hon. gentlemen opposite, represented a very important somersault in Conservative policy which, if it were being described or epitomized by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), would likely be called by him one of the most monumental displays of intellectual elasticity and mental gymnastics ever witnessed in post-biblical times.


Michael Starr: You can't say it right.
Medicare


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is exactly the kind of words the Leader of the Opposition would use.
The legislation now before the house incorporates the main recommendations of the Hall royal commission. This was a commission set up by the official opposition when it formed the government of the country. The Hall commission called for a comprehensive, universal, publicly administered, prepaid medical insurance scheme. These are precisely the principles set out in this bill.
Spokesmen for the Conservative party grexted the Hall commission report warmly, and no doubt studied it carefully. Indeed the party in convention approved Hall-type medicare and enshrined the Hall proposals in the official party platform.
In this connection I would quote from an important columnist in the Conservative party, from an article he wrote two days before the last federal election. The quotation is as follows:
The Progressive Conservative party will institute a system of medicare, based on a universal, comprehensive program of medical and health services for every Canadian, as outlined in the Hall Commission report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That statement, Mr. Speaker, is from a by-lined article in the November 6, 1965 edition of the Toronto Star, and the author is the right hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has espoused the proposals of the Hall Commission. He put them in the party platform. He put them before the electorate of this country, but then his supporters, while he was away in the west, produced this amendment which totally contradicted the position taken by the party-


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is wrong.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and this has been the burden that the party has been attempting to bear ever since.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Thank you very much.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say one more word, or two, because I cannot miss the opportunity. The opposition in this debate has presented such a confused front that no one can figure out where they really stand. The most incisive demonstration

October 25, 1966
Medicare
of this was given by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) in these words:
I think the minister will understand, as I said originally, that we are not opposed to the principle of the bill, but we think the bill is a bad one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In other words-it is evil but we are for it. That has been the kind of attitude displayed by the members of the official opposition. I do not understand this position taken by the hon. member for Saskatoon, nor will the people of Canada.
The official opposition is divided on this bill. That is obvious.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Because we believe in freedom of speech and you don't.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the Opposition will vote in favour of the second reading. Will he carry with him the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Clancy) who said:
I am voting against it.
When he gets up to vote will the Leader of the Opposition carry with him the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who said:
So far as I am concerned, in this particular form this bill is unacceptable to me and I intend to vote against it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Thank God we are not Grits.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And will he carry the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) who said:
I propose to vote against it.
I do not think the members of the official opposition have any real cause to complain about the conduct of this party in the light of the inconsistent, confused and irresponsible approach taken when they are for the Hall report, they are against it, they are for universal medical care, they are for partial medical care. They set their sail to every possible wind on this issue. As the hon. member for Saskatoon said, the minister will understand. He said:
We are not opposed to the principle of the bill, but we think the bill is a bad one.
That is the attitude taken by the official opposition.
May I just say a word about my friends in the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: They will get all the credit for it and you won't.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The approach of the New Democratic Party in this debate-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Was responsible?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -was one of pure
humanitarianism and high statesmanship; no sign of partisan politics, no sign of exploiting for political purposes the decision to defer medicare. It was the result of inadvertence, the sheerest accident, that the main burden of their speeches was to attempt to convince the electorate that the Liberal party had cynically and hypocritically betrayed its commitment to do its part in instituting medical care insurance in Canada. It was only by accident that they sought to exploit the situation in what seemed to be a political way; but I give them the benefit of the doubt:	It was
humanitarianism and statesmanship.
The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), moved as he was by the warmth of his own eloquence, cried:
We will not have medicare.
He forgot what is important. No member speaking in this House of Commons has mentioned that in closing the debate on the introduction of this bill I stated that when we get to the committee stage we would, by amendment, provide sufficient flexibility to advance the date of medicare if economic conditions warrant it. Members of the official opposition have stated: We can debate forever; we can debate for 20 years on medicare because it is not coming into effect until July 1, 1968. Well, as did the New Democratic Party, they failed to mention that fact that we propose to move an amendment in committee that will, taking into account economic conditions, make it possible to advance the date of the medical care bill. Nothing will please this government more than to have the opportunity to advance the effective date of medicare in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We do not need to advance it. Just leave the date that is in there.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the house have talked-as did the Leader of the Opposition-about the excruciating embarrassment of the Minister of National Health and Welfare on this issue. Well, the decision to defer medical care insurance in the way that was undertaken by
October 25, 1966

the government was an agonizing and painful decision for me as Minister of National Health and Welfare-


Michael Starr: Why did you give in?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and for other members of the government and members of the Liberal party. That is true. There is no debate about the fact; the fact is there. The decision has been announced and it was an agonizing and serious decision.


An hon. Member:: A Sharp decision.
Another hon. Member: Was it a "sharp" one?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate all the commiserations I received from the members of the opposition. I thank them most warmly for their kindness to me. I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that despite this decision which had to be taken with regard to the commencement date-


An hon. Member:: Why?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -this government is
firmly committed to the substance of its medical care proposals, and it is now asking the house to approve the medical care principles. When and if approved by the house, the bill will constitute another landmark in the sincere and continuing interest of the Liberal party in the social welfare of the Canadian people.
What of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker? Well, it will carry out its wonderful role in this area of human development-"me too, me too, me too". I thank the house for allowing me to end the discussion with this political parliamentary adventure, or lack of adventure.


An hon. Member:: It certainly was political.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to conclude-


An hon. Member:: This reminds us of Judy LaMarsh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -by asking the house to take the very important step of approving the principles of medical care insurance. I ask members of the house: Will there ever be unanimity in the future that conditions are ideal for the introduction of a program of this size and this nature? If the arguments put forth in this debate were accepted, no country would have medical care and Canada would not have universal hospital insurance; yet, today we do have all our people covered
Medicare
in a well operating, universally accepted, prepaid, government sponsored hospital insurance program.
I repeat the point I made at the beginning. If the arguments made in this debate were carried, the inevitable result would be to deny the benefits of adequate medical care to a great number of Canadians. In essence a vote for second reading of this bill is a vote for the four basic principles set out in the bill-universality, comprehensive coverage, public administration and portability. These are the issues before the house, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the house will resolve them unanimously.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, following that political dirge and based on the fact that I believe the minister stated he would accept a couple of questions, I should like to ask him first, inasmuch as he quoted precedent in respect of hospitalization and what action was taken by the Conservative administration in 1958, whether he is prepared now to double the per capita hospital bed grant? I just wish an answer to the question; that is all I am asking.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the policy in respect of hospital grants was announced at the federal-provincial conference in January, to the effect that we would extend the period, but the level of assistance would not be changed. The policy stated in January still prevails.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is 
question No. 1-in other words there is no change. Let me ask question No. 2, now that we are about to vote on second reading of this bill. Will the minister indicate when we may expect the much more important piece of legislation regarding an increase in the old age pensions for our elderly citizens to come before the house?


An hon. Member:: Let's pass this bill.


Eric Alfred Winkler: We have heard promises week after week after week. When will this legislation be brought forward?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question posed by the hon. gentleman has nothing whatever to do with this bill.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I wilfully and carefully avoided posing this question because I anticipated the negative type of answer I would get. I did however pose it to the

October 25, 196S
Medicare
Acting Prime Minister, the acting house leader and the Minister of Finance, who perhaps can answer for the rest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he will take the time to explain what he meant when he said that the effective date would be advanced when economic conditions permit. How can he equate that statement with the statement of the Minister of Finance, who has said that the delay was brought about in order to stop a boom? Perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare could answer one part of that question, and the Minister of Finance could answer the other.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question and we should now hear from the minister.


Donald MacInnis: Apparenly the Prime Minister had something he wished to say about this matter. It may be that he can answer for both these ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen).
Why did the minister not explain in his remarks the reasons why his government denies fiscal compensation to non-participating provinces?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare one question. In view of his concern about how some members of this house to my right are going to vote, will he indicate whether it is his intention to vote for second reading of this bill with July 1, 1967, as the effective date and then turn around and vote for a change in that effective date at the committee stage?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the house ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there no answer to my question?


Mr. Ballard:: Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated the remarks of the minister during which

he appeared to answer many questions that had been posed by members on this side of the house. One question he did not answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is not entitled to make a speech now. He can ask a question, if that is this intention.


Harold Raymond Ballard: Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to be polite before asking my question. Several questions were asked during the debate as to the possibility of including optometrists and naturopaths under the medical care plan. The minister avoided making a reply to these questions, and it seemed to me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is in effect now making a speech. Let me bring to his attention that the minister, as a result of his reply, concluded the debate.


Harold Raymond Ballard: With all due respect to you, sir, I think I have phrased a question to which I should receive an answer.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will the house leader indicate whether or not we will proceed immediately following this vote with our committee stage consideration of this bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
The house divided on the question (Mr. MacEachen), which was agreed to on the following division.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
++YEAS
Messrs:
Addison
Alkenbrack
Allmand
Andras
Badanal
Barnett
Basford
Batten
BSchard
Bell (Carleton)
Bell (Saint John-Albert)
Benson
Berger
Bigg
Blouin
Boulanger
Bower
Brand
Brewin
Byrne
Cadieu (Meadow Lake) Cadieux (Terrebonne) Cameron (High Park) Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Cantelon
Cantin
Cashln
Chatterton
Chatwood
Choquette
Chretien
Churchill
Clermont
Coates
Code
Comtois
Cote (Longueuil) Cote (Nicolet-Yamaska) Cowan Crossman Crouse Danforth Davis Deachman Diefenbaker Dinsdale Douglas Drury
October 25, 1966

Dub6
Duquet
Emard
Eims
Ethier
Falrweather
Fane
Faulkner
Fawcett
Flemming
Forbes
Forest
Forrestall
Fulton
Gendron
Gilbert
Goyer
Gray
Grills
Groos
Guay
Habel
Haidasz
Hamilton
Harley
Hees
Hellyer
Herridge
Honey
Homer (Acadia) Howard
Howe (Hamilton South)
Hymmen
Isabelle
Jamieson
Keays
Kennedy
Knowles
Korchinskl
Lachance
Laing
Lamontagne
Langlois (Chicoutimi)
Laniel
Laverdifere
Leblanc (Laurier)
LeBlanc (Rimouski)
Leboe
Lefebvre
Legault
Lessard
Lewis
Loiselle
Macaluso
MacDonald (Prince) MacEachen MacEwan Maclnnis
(Cape Breton South)
Mackasey
MacLean (Queens)
McCleave
McCutcheon
Mcllralth
McIntosh
McKinley
McLean (Charlotte)
McLelland
McNulty
McQuaid
Me William
Madill
Marchand
Martin (Timmins)
Mather
Matheson
Matte
Mongrain
Morison
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Munro Nasserden Neveu Nicholson Noble Nowlan Orlikow Ormiston Pascoe Patterson Pearson Pelletier Pennell Pepin Peters Pickersgill Pilon Racine Rapp
R6gimbald Reid Richard Rideout (Mrs.)
Rinfret
Robichaud
Rochon
Rock
Saltsman
Schreyer
Scott (Danforth)
Scott (Victoria (Ont.))
Sharp
Sherman
Skoreyko
Southam
Stafford
Stanbury
Starr
Stefanson
Stewart
Tardil
Teillet
Tolmle
Tremblay
Tucker
Turner
Valade
Walker
Watson (Assinlbola) Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Lapralrie) Webb Whelan Winkler Winters Yanakis-182.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Aiken	Baldwin
Allard	Ballard
Division
Dionne
Gauthier
Godin
Gregoire
Hales
Harkness
Howe (Wellington-Huron)
Johnston
Lambert
Langlois (Megantic)
Laprise
Latulippe
Loney
Moore
Simard
Smallwood
Thompson-21.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Speaker, with particular regret I say that I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Brown:: I was paired also, Mr. Speaker. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Macquarrie:: I was paired with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin).
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the government house leader whether tomorrow we will be proceeding in committee of the whole on the medicare bill?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated-


Some hon. Members:: Why not?


George James McIlraith: As I indicated two or three days ago in answer to a similar question from the official opposition, we will not be proceeding with the committee stage of this bill at this time. Tomorrow we propose submitting for consideration of the house the resolution preceding the bill to amend the National Housing Act. At the conclusion of the resolution stage of that measure we will deal with estimates. We propose to continue dealing with estimates on Thursday and Friday, calling the Labour Department, Northern Affairs, Agriculture, National Research Council and Medical Research Council, Mines and Technical Surveys, the Transport Department and the interim supply bill, not necessarily in the order indicated.


Michael Starr: I thank the government house leader for giving an indication of the work for the next three days, but when he says "not necessarily in that order", I wish to point out that we have heard this continually during the past few weeks, and it puts the opposition at a disadvantage not to know which of the estimates may come up first. I think we are entitled to know exactly in what order these estimates will be proceeded

October 25, 1966
Business of the House
with, so that we can be prepared to deal with them in that order.


George James McIlraith: Well, Mr. Speaker, if we finish the housing resolution tomorrow we will call the labour department, and the northern affairs department, and start with them tomorrow, or on Wednesday, continuing until they are completed. I prefer to reserve indicating the order of calling the other departments until the day before they are called.


Eric Alfred Winkler: In regard to the business of the house, may I ask the house leader when we will proceed with the old age pension legislation?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just as soon as we can get the house to deal with some urgent legislation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: -which is required in order to permit the business of the government to continue in operation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I cannot hear the house leader.


George James McIlraith: As soon as we can get the necessary measures through, at the earliest possible moment we will deal with the pension legislation because the government is very anxious to get this important measure through the house.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of what has been said I want to find out specifically what order of business of the order paper the government intends to bring forward as measures more urgent than the old age pension proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to answer that question. I think it is important that the matter be clarified, because judging from the conduct of the official opposition in the last two weeks it is apparent that they do not understand the priorities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I must interrupt the minister, as it is after ten o'clock and the business has been announced.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

James Elisha Brown: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 18, I asked a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to this effect:
Since the Canada Assistance Plan became law in July of this year, retroactive to April, can the minister advise the house why the provincial officials who administer the plan at Brantford, Ontario, have not been advised of the existence of the plan, because they are refusing to attend to cases referred to them under this plan, stating they have not received instructions about it?
Mr. Speaker, I asked this question because I believe a rather serious situation prevails in Ontario and certainly at Brantford. Less than two weeks ago I referred one or two cases, which I had thought most surely would come within the provisions and scope of the Canada Assistance Plan, to the officials at Brantford who are charged with the administration of this act. These are provincial officials. I wish to assure members of the house that these persons are competent officials. At all times in the past they have given prompt attention to cases which I have referred to them. They are dedicated. I do not wish to cast any aspersions against them in the discharge of their duties.
I should like to know from the minister, however, why it is that months after the passage of this legislation implementing this plan these provincial officials disclaim any knowledge of the existence of the Canada Assistance Plan? These matters involve cases of need. They are cases which come within the scope of this legislation. They are cases which never would have come within the scope of any welfare legislation which existed in the province of Ontario or within the scope of any federal act which was applicable in our province prior to the implementation of the Canada Assistance Plan.
This legislation now has been passed by parliament, and I am sure this house will be quite concerned about why, in my province of Ontario the government, its officials and employees still even at this late time in the year, although well aware of the nature of the Canada Assistance Plan-they were aware of it long before it ever was introduced
October 25. 196B
into this chamber-are neglecting to administer the act. Welfare officials cautioned members of parliament not to kill this bill when it was brought before us, not to destroy the bill, and now they are not implementing its provisions.
Because on behalf of my constituents, I am anxious to ensure early application of the principles of this bill, and because I am anxious to see it truly available to every Canadian family, I ask the minister tonight why the plan is not being put into effect.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question by the hon. member for Brantford I would emphasize that he was quite right in noting that the Canada Assistance Plan was enacted in July of this year with retroactive effect to April 1. I should point out, however, that the plan is a federal-provincial measure through which support is provided to strengthen and extend public assistance and welfare services programs in the provinces. Thus, while the federal government can make the funds available under the plan, the implementation of specific programs is dependant upon provincial and municipal action.
The hon. member will appreciate from the nature of the legislation that it requires the development of regulations and also of federal-provincial agreements. In order to achieve the greatest possible degree of agreement on the direction in which the plan should develop, intensive discussions have been held with all provinces since the enactment of the legislation. The regulations are now in the drafting stage and it is anticipated that they will be completed and agreements signed within the next few weeks.
In the meantime we are able under the terms of the plan to pay additional funds to the provinces in respect of mothers' allowances. The hon. member will be interested to know that the province of Ontario has received some $5 million in this way since the enactment of the legislation.
The provinces have, of course, been free to proceed at any time with the development of programs that will come within the scope of the legislation, since provision is made for retroactive reimbursement. Some provinces have, indeed, done this. Ontario, for example, took steps in this direction during the last session of its legislature when it passed the family benefits act which, I understand, will soon be in effect. This is a comprehensive 23033-5771
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion measure which will provide benefits on the basis of need for persons now covered under a number of separate programs, including old age assistance, blind persons allowances, disabled persons allowances, mothers' allowances and widows' pensions.
I hope that these comments will serve to clarify the situation with respect to the question raised by the hon. member for Brantford.



TELEVISION-SUGGESTED CURTAILMENT OF BROADCAST OF GREY CUP GAME

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I must say that I am a little bit relieved by the fact that the Secretary of State is not in the house. The last time I engaged in a debate with her I came out so badly and there was such confusion that medicare almost got through second reading without anybody knowing about it.
The point of my question relates to the duplicate coverage, for some 80 per cent of the Canadian public, of the Grey Cup football game. When I raised this matter initially, perhaps because of the way I phrased my question, there were some who thought I was against football and others who thought I was against beer. Fortunately those who know me will never accuse me of the latter, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that at the proper time in November I will be watching the Grey Cup game and drinking beer. I hope that no one will call me to interrupt me during those sacred hours.
The fact is that it is ridiculous in this country to have one event telecast by two television stations, with one commentator during the game for both stations, and another during the colour follow-up program. Let me add that the same commercials will be telecast to this effectively built-in captive audience. I hope that when Ottawa beats the best of the west by 24 to 13, nothing like this duplication of broadcasting will be permitted.
Perhaps I am being optimistic in this hope because nothing can be done to change the situation at this time, but we as parliamentarians are going to have to have a meeting of minds, so far as our views are concerned before, during and after the game, to prevent this from occurring in the future. In the meantime I raise my small voice against this type of broadcasting. I do so because it is a broadcasting principle which effectively provides a captive audience for both the game and the commercials.

9116	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
If we are going to play up this game, largely played by American mercenaries in Canada, and consider it as a great national sport, it would be better for the C.B.C. and the C.T.V. channels to get together to broadcast and televise this game on a co-operative basis. That type of endeavour would at least make some sense.
Sir, the remedy that I suggest is a poor one, and let there be no mistake about this. I do not think you should legislate against a nuisance; you should try to make those who cause the nuisance see common sense and regulate the nuisance themselves, rather than attempting to have legislation put on the order paper and putting it in the hands of the charming minister to deal with.
We do not want any hocus-pocus in this field. A better answer is that the C.B.C. and C.T.V. get together, not as they did a couple of years back but by coming up with a common sense answer, whether it be that one network broadcasts the game one year, and the other the next year, or whether the national network broadcasts the games in their entirety.
This is the obvious answer. If this is not done, we as parliamentarians should unite behind the minister, the C.B.C. and the C.T.V.-and above all, the Board of Broadcast Governors, which is supposed to fill the heads of that corporation with the sawdust of common sense-with suggestions for not permitting such an intolerable situation to develop. Then thousands of mothers, children and non-football fans of this country will rise up and call us blessed; and as far as the football fan males are concerned, they cannot watch two football games at the same time.
I told the minister before she left this evening for the dominion-provincial conference that tonight I would be nothing but kind to her and her parliamentary secretary; but we as parliamentarians must have regard for the wishes of the people of this country. In raising this question I do not think anybody in Canada would fault us for standing up once in a while for common sense.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, on October 19 last the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) asked the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) a question in regard to duplicate coverage of the Grey Cup game by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the C.T.V. network. As we can see by the remarks of the hon. member this evening, he

DEBATES	October 25, 1966
is not satisfied with the answer given him that day. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this evening I have to give the hon. member the same answer as that given by the minister.
As the hon. member may be aware, the arrangement for coverage of our national football final is part of an agreement between the two networks in regard to television coverage of the Canadian Football League. This agreement, concluded in 1962 after a somewhat unpleasant episode over Grey Cup coverage-the hon. member must remember this, because we were in opposition at that time-also provides that the C.B.C. and C.T.V. share coverage of regular season and playoff games regardless of which network or third party purchases the right to these games.
We have spoken to the Chairman of the Board of Broadcast Governors about this situation and are informed that in the board's view this co-operative approach between the two networks has been a beneficial one in ensuring orderly coverage of these games. As for the Grey Cup game, I think the board's view is that this is a once-a-year attraction of such national interest as to justify coverage by both networks.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)



PENITENTIARIES-CHANGES IN SHOULDER FLASHES OF STAFF UNIFORMS

Mr. Georges C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, I put a question to the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Pennell) concerning the new badge on the guards' uniforms at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. It seems that the badge now reading "Department of Justice" will be changed to "Penitentiary Department of Canada".
I also asked the Solicitor General whether it was true that such a change would soon be effected and whether that would not come into conflict, I dare say, with the spirit of rehabilitation in the penitentiary field.
Mr. Speaker, my question is a short one. I should like to know this evening whether it is really intended to replace the words "Department of Justice" by "Penitentiary Department of Canada"?
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I would agree to a reference to the Solicitor General of Canada, since this service comes under his jurisdiction.
I wonder, however, if it would not be advisable to improve the situation and change
October 25, 1966	COMMONS
the shoulder badge of the uniforms to "Rehabilitation Service of Canada" or something of the sort which would correspond more closely with the spirit of rehabilitation.
But for pity's sake, Mr. Speaker, let us not choose a shoulder badge on that uniform bearing the words "Penitentiary Department of Canada" I would not venture to say that it is degrading, but for those who wear it, this is not at all the same thing. While previously we had "Department of Justice" we now have "Penitentiary Department of Canada." Following my visit to St. Vincent de Paul, I heard comments in that connection and not only is this change unwelcomed but
DEBATES	9117
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion there has been some objection to it. Mr. Speaker, I know that the Solicitor General of Canada will take those comments in consideration and I hope that he will see to it that the change is not made but that a more adequate badge is selected.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the matters raised by the hon. member are now under study and I can assure him that his interesting submission will be given serious consideration.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Wednesday, Oclober 26, 1966