1966-03-08

Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-15 (from the Senate), to authorize the construction of a bridge across the St. Croix River between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry in connection with designated areas. May I ask him whether he has received any communication or complaint from Mr. John R. O'Dea, president of the Atlantic provinces economic council, wherein he presses strongly for	inclusion of	the	metropolitan	areas ofHalifax, Saint John and Fredericton in the Atlantic designated areas? Is the government giving any reconsideration to such designation in order to meet the serious situation regarding employment and the lack of it in the	three particular	metropolitan	areas to
which I have referred?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I have not, to my recollection, received any representations from Mr. O'Dea. I rather imagine	that	he would be addressinghis	remarks to	the	government	of Nova
Scotia. I think the right hon. gentleman was probably speaking loosely of his knowledge of distressing employment conditions in Halifax, Saint John and Fredericton.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister say once and for all, yes or no, whether these cities are in or out of the area industrial incentive plan, particularly in view of the fact that Nova Scotia has introduced
its own legislation to deal with the matter? Unfortunately in New Brunswick-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Miller Bell: -we have a premier who is not interested in this question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister was ready to make an answer, and if he had not answered my question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member had what appeared to be a valid question until he ruled himself out of order by adding comments and making statements.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then may I rephrase my question. Will the minister state definitely whether these cities have any hope of being included in the incentive plan this season?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the three cities in question nearly as well as the hon. gentleman does, and he perhaps is in a better position than I to tell what their hopes may or may not be.
[Later: ]


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister which is supplementary to questions asked earlier today. In view of the fact that there is a continuing appeal for the inclusion of the whole Atlantic area under the designated area policy, will the Prime Minister give consideration to reconsidering the government's policy in this regard?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the Minister of Industry has said. My hon. friend should be grateful for what has been done for the Atlantic area in this respect.


Thomas Miller Bell: As a supplementary question, will the Prime Minister direct the Atlantic Development Board to take this matter under advisement, as was indicated by him to the delegation from maritime cities a short while ago?
March 8. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



HAMILTON, ONT.-CESSATION OF OPERATIONS OF STUDEBAKER COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry. I want to ask him, since the matter was raised yesterday, whether he has been in touch with the officials of the Studebaker Company regarding the closing of their auto manufacturing plant in Hamilton, and has he as a result of any discussions with them any proposals as to what can be done to prevent this plant being closed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think I mentioned yesterday-I am sorry the hon. gentleman did not hear it-that the Department of Industry was canvassing the possibilities with Studebaker and other companies as to possible alternative industrial uses of the property. At the same time the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has sent some of his officials to Hamilton to make a survey of the labour that might be available for alternative employment as a consequence of Studebaker closing its operations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Do I take it from the minister's remarks that no investigation is being made into the possibility of continuing the Studebaker plant as an auto manufacturing company?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There have been discussions with Studebaker as to this possibility but I regret that it does not seem to be a likely one.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister supplementary to one already asked. What action is the government taking to keep in Canada the automotive employees of the Studebaker plant?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This question has already been answered, Mr. Speaker. Everything possible is being done.


Edward Nasserden: I wonder whether the
Prime Minister would tell us one or two things-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is

he in a position to report on the team that was sent to	investigate	the tool	and die
situation at the Ford Motor Company in Windsor?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Not	yet,	Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Since the whole Spencer case will be reviewed by the judge appointed by the government, can the right hon. Prime Minister tell us if this judge will also be authorized to look into the Munsinger case, so that the Canadian people and parliament might get definite information on this case?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the order in council which has been tabled indicates the work that the commission is expected to do.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. According to the Globe and Mail this morning, Mr. Speaker, a senior spokesman for the Department of External Affairs claims that when Pakistan authorities approached Canada for aid on February 10, they were advised that no wheat would be available until July, but that there was wheat flour available almost immediately. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the house whether any further steps have been taken to provide Pakistan with wheat flour in response to this request for aid?
Kon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, this matter is under review at the moment. I would think that some day this week I will be able to give a more definitive reply.
March 8. 1966


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I wonder if the minister would advise the House of Commons if flour mills allegedly owned by firms in the United States are milling flour which can be exported overseas, or are the mills I have referred to still refusing to mill wheat for export?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think all mills in Canada are engaged upon the export business to various destinations.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh no, no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I asked a specific question. Are those mills that are owned by United States firms and operating in Canada milling wheat for export, or are they still refusing to mill it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know, no mills of any kind have refused all business for export, although some of them, I gather, have been reluctant to accept orders for some particular destinations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What are those particular destinations? Are they Russia or China?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: My
question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that Canada's current account deficit with the United States for the first nine months of 1965 was $1.3 billion, and it is estimated that the figure will be between $1.7 and $1.8 billion for the whole year-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to send the hon. member to the penalty box but from the way in which the question is framed I would think it could not be answered at this moment. The hon. member knows that questions should attempt not to convey information but should rather seek information.


George Harris Hees: I will rephrase my question. I might point out that the figure I quoted came from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: In view of the information I have just given the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: -will the hon. gentleman advise the United States secretary of the treasury of the guide lines which the Canadian government intends to impose to overcome this most serious situation.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am still not sure what it is that the hon. member is asking me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: -but may I say that the United States was fully informed about Canada's position at the recent meetings, and I think the outcome was eminently successful.



SUGGESTED TRANSFERS OF FUNDS BY SUBSIDIARIES OF U.S. INSURANCE COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp). Could he tell us whether subsidiaries of American insurance companies doing business in Canada have asked for transfers of funds from Canada to the United States recently?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to take that question as notice.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should
like to ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to make some announcement to the house now regarding an increase in old age security pensions.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinily-Concepiion):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the many questions which have been asked by members of this house regarding the seal fishery and the interest taken by so many Canadians in this activity, will the minister advise us whether he is in a position to report on his trip to the seal fishery and whether, in view of the large
2354	COMMONS DEBATES	March 8. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry quantity of seals spotted, he is considering increasing the quota from its present level of 50,000?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my understanding that the house in committee will be considering the estimates of the Department of Fisheries this afternoon. The hon. member might ask his question at that time.



POSSIBLE PROHIBITION OF SALE OF ANTIBIOTIC THROAT LOZENGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I would like to take notice of that question.']
Hon. J. W. Monleiih (Perth):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister be taking action along the lines taken today by the United States food and drug directorate in ordering a sweeping removal of all antibiotic throat lozenges on the ground that they do not serve any useful purpose and are, in fact, dangerous to health?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a very general question and it appears to me the matter is not so urgent that it might not be placed on the order paper.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh no, this action was taken just this morning by the United States food and drug directorate.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the event to which the hon. member has referred did happen this morning, but the action he is now suggesting the government might take does not appear so urgent that his question should be asked at this moment. That is the suggestion I make to the hon. member.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
Could the minister tell the house whether he received a message recently from General de Gaulle about NATO reorganization as suggested by France?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet received any letter.


[Stage Direction]
MEDICARE-POSSIBLE SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of my question is based on the fact that the government has plans relating to medicare. I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if recently-and I underline the word recently-the government has received information to the effect that Canada will soon be faced with a grave shortage of doctors?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The question may be very urgent but I bring to the attention of the hon. member that we will also be considering the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare later on this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
R.C.A.F. OVERHAUL AND REPAIR CONTRACTS On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norfh):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Is it correct that overhaul and repair contracts for the R.C.A.F. have been grouped into three categories and have been let to three large corporations, two of which are American subsidiaries, with the result that a considerable number of smaller Canadian companies, which are dependent for their existence on this work, are now going to have to close down?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take notice of that question.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can we expect the Prime Minister to announce cabinet changes to eliminate unilingual ministers, in view of the statement by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys that no civil servant can expect to attain a senior position unless he is bilingual?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please.
March 8, 1366



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scot! (Danforth): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister in a position to advise the house as to the date on which he will be bringing down his budget?
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite in that position but I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
[Later: ]


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to address to the Minister of Finance. Has he yet set a date on which he expects to bring down his budget, and if not can he state whether it is going to be before Easter?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me this question was asked earlier today.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Justice and ask whether the government has retained or appointed Mr. Jules Chicoine of Montreal, and Staff Sergeant Frederick Plummer of Ottawa as special investigators into bankruptcy rackets in Ontario and Quebec?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Acting Minister of Justice):: I would like to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he will give an assurance that press releases from the Department of External Affairs will not be devised in the future in such a way as to cause acute embarrassment to his colleagues?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe my hon. friend would think there would
Inquiries of the Ministry be any release from a department over which I would preside that would have that intention.


Michael Starr: You read it in the house.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member could perhaps raise his question of privilege when the question period is over.



CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a report from the cabinet committee set up to study the continuing, alarming increase in the cost of living?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Cumberland.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, may I put another question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
Could he tell the house if the purpose of Mr. Chester Ronning's trip to Viet Nam is to arrange an early meeting between Canada, India and Poland and whether we can hope that such a meeting may take place soon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the hon. member did not ask that question at this time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Earlier this session the Prime Minister told the house that the committee on election expenditures-I think that
March 8. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry is the right name-was expected to report this month, in March. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he has inquired into this lately, and whether that report is likely to be made soon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I inquired the other day. I understand the report is practically completed but there remains the translation and printing of it.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys whether he is in a position to give an outline to the house of his discussion with members of the U.S. government last week with respect to the urgent problem of pollution on the Great Lakes, which the minister told us he was going to take up with them, and with respect to the effects of a law of the United States Congress authorizing a study of the waters tributary to the Great Lakes?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is now asking for a lengthy statement on the part of the minister and this cannot be asked at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I was asking whether the minister was in a position to make a report on the matter. The minister can make his report as short or as long as he wishes, so long as it is factual.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for a report, which report normally would not be expected to be made at this time.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Has the minister as yet had any discussion with either the Ontario of Quebec governments concerning the question of pollution?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, a meeting was held yesterday in my office with the Ontario Minister of Energy and Resources, and his officials. At that time we discussed mostly projects having to do with the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act. At the end of the meeting there was the beginning of a discussion on pollution, and this discussion is to be followed up in two weeks time.


An hon. Member:: Were your conversations in English or in French?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege; an hon. member on the other side of the house asked me whether my conversations with the Ontario officials were in English or in French.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister is rising on a question of privilege and I would like to hear it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Northumberland asked me if my conversation-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege; the hon. member for Northumberland said nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, we will hear one question of privilege at a time. Would the minister state his question.


George Harris Hees: He did not say anything.
[Later: ]


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will be glad to know that I have discovered a way of putting my question within the terms of reference you gave me. I should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys whether he will make a report to the house at an early date regarding the important matter about which I asked him earlier today?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to do that, and I will do so in English because the question was asked in English. I always try to answer in the language-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Kon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):	Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position today to make any statement regarding the question I addressed to him last week concerning bilingualism in the civil service?
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have stated in answer
March 8, 1966	COMMONS
to the question that I would be making a report on this matter in the house, I hope this week. Yesterday my hon. friend from Carleton asked whether the cabinet committee considered the matter or whether the cabinet had decided whether it would discuss this question with the civil service organizations. I said I would look into this matter to see whether such a meeting could be arranged. I am hoping to have this meeting as soon as it can be arranged. It will be only after that meeting that I would report to the house.



WINNIPEG, MAN.-INQUIRY CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. As a result of conversations I have had today with spokesmen in Winnipeg, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has as yet received any request from the Manitoba government for aid to the storm-stricken southern half of that province?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge, unless it came in just before lunch.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister be able to say whether he would be responsive to such a request when it comes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CHRYSLER CORPORATION-ANNOUNCEMENT TO RAISE FUNDS IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I asked the Minister of Finance if he could ascertain whether or not the Chrysler Corporation intended to raise any of this $15 million in Canada which they had announced for their capital requirements outside of Canada? Would he answer that today and also inform the house whether this practice will be building up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question might be placed on the order paper.
DEBATES	2357
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



GRANTING OF ASYLUM IN CANADA TO YUGOSLAV SEAMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can he tell the house why the 12 Yugoslav seamen who deserted their ship in Saint John were not granted asylum in Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice and answer it tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult in a case such as this to determine whether there is urgency. If my understanding is correct, that these seamen have already returned to their country, probably the question should be placed on the order paper.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, they were deported last night, to the best of my knowledge without reason.


Mr. Speaker:: The question might be placed on the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture, asking him whether he can advise the house what success he met with during his recent discussions with the secretary of agriculture of the United States regarding the very low quota for Canadian cheese entering the United States, especially in view of the fact that there is no restriction on United States cheese entering Canada?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this was probably the most important topic discussed during our discussions with our United States compatriots. There were some discussions about guide lines and other things, but this was the important subject.
This question involves a tariff matter in the United States, but Mr. Freeman, the secretary for agriculture, is considering the matter. I will be in touch with him and I hope we will have some success in this regard.
March 8. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry BONNYVILLE, ALBERTA-REQUEST FOR ACREAGE PAYMENTS
On the orders of the day:


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to say that the hon. member for Athabasca asked me a question yesterday which I did not quite hear at the time. He asked whether there had been any request for aid from the province of Alberta respecting the Bonnyville district. I did not catch those words, "the Bonnyville district", and I offer my apology. In this regard there has been no request for aid at any time from the minister of agriculture of Alberta in respect of the Bonnyville district.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Aihabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. I hold in my hand a brief dated March 1, 1966 of the Farmers' Union of Alberta directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder whether the minister has received a copy of this brief regarding this particular subject?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I receive many briefs and I cannot recall this specific one. I will check and let my hon. friend know whether I have received it.



NELSON RIVER-REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SALES TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the severe financial penalties imposed on the Nelson river project by the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, and in view of the recent unanimous approval of the Manitoba legislation given to a motion calling for its removal, will the minister indicate that early action will be taken in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, I never anticipate any announcement of government policy of that kind.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
When he spoke about bilingualism in Montreal last week, did the minister talk

about it as a condition for promotion within the civil service commission or as an essential qualification?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is out of order.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
Is it true that the international committee on the Richelieu waterway has completed its studies? Could the minister report to the House of Commons about its findings?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, that matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Maurice Allard: Then, Mr. Chairman, I shall repeat my question and ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to answer it.
Is it true that the international committee on the possible project of the Richelieu river waterway has concluded its studies, and is the minister going to report on such studies and findings?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question as put is out of order. The hon. member cannot ask, as a matter of urgency, whether a report has been completed or whether the minister wants to report at this time, without asking the minister whether he intends to report to the house in due course.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to ask the minister to submit a report to the house in this connection.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, there is a report which will now be considered by the Cana-da-U.S. joint commission.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture and 1 hope that he will be able to reply tomorrow. Can the minister tell the house how many cheques for
March 8, 1968	COMMONS
last years' supplementary milk payments are still outstanding or unpaid?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information, but I understand we are doing very well in this matter. I will indicate to my hon. friend tomorrow how many are outstanding.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Is the department considering at present the repeated requests of the people of Chibougamau and Chapais for the extension of free C.B.C. radio and television services to that area?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be put on the order paper.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberi Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, on March 3 I directed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who very kindly stated that it would come under the purview of the Minister of Finance. He said the question would be given to that minister for reply. Is the Minister of Finance in a position to reply to that question with reference to pensions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I understand that when I was absent last Thursday the hon. member inquired about the government's intention to introduce legislation which might affect the payments of returns of contributions from private pension plans.
There is really not much more I can add to what first I, and later my parliamentary secretary, said as reported on pages 1152 and 1219 of Hansard of February 14, 1966. The details of this proposed legislation on particulars such as those mentioned in the question of the hon. member will be disclosed to the house in due course.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I have a supplementary question. Will that be disclosed this session?
DEBATES	2359
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my hope and expectation that parliamentary business will proceed at a sufficiently accelerated rate that that will be possible.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has as yet decided upon the question of establishing a royal commission on crime and, if so, whether there has been any communication with the provinces in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No decision has been reached as yet, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister had any formal request from the province of Quebec in respect of the establishment of such a commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge.



CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago the Prime Minister informed the house that he would make inquiries regarding the delay in the report by the Economic Council of Canada which made a special study about a year ago regarding prices. Has the Prime Minister made that inquiry and can he tell us when we may expect this report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did get in touch with the president of the Economic Council of Canada, who informed me that they were doing their best to expedite this matter.



COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY-TABLING OF REPORT OF PERMANENT ENGINEERING BOARD, 1965

Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, would the house agree to reverting to motions in order that I may table a document?
23B0	COMMONS
Columbia River Treaty Report Tabled


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: The
minister now proposes to table the document that I was anticipating, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I have the consent of the house to table this document, Mr. Speaker?


Michael Starr: What document?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The annual report to the governments of Canada and the United States coming from the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board, 1965.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the minister proceeds, I unc'erstand that the question period has now to: minated. There are no further questions and therefore we might revert to motions for this purpose.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement that the house revert to motions to allow the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to table the document to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I table the annual report to the governments of the United States and Canada from the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board?


Erik Nielsen: Is it in both languages, English and French?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I am afraid we did not get the significance of your earlier statement. Was Your Honour assuming that the question period was over-because it is not.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I was assuming that because no other hon. member rose to ask a question. If I had called orders of the day we would then, of course, have been in committee and this document could not have been tabled. Therefore, no further questions being asked, the motion was made and accepted. I should like at this time to ask the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres to state his question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the motion of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, since no mention was made about this, can he tell us whether the report was tabled in English and (n French?

DEBATES	March 8, 1966


Jean-Luc Pepin: It has been tabled in English only, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we object.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no discussion at the present time. The minister secured the consent of the house to table the document and has tabled it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we are not giving our consent to table this document as long as it is in English only; we want it tabled in both languages.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I can-


Gilles Grégoire: We object, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that the document has already been tabled-


Gilles Grégoire: There was no consent-


Mr. Speaker:: -if the hon. member will just open his eyes, he will see that the document has indeed been tabled.


Gilles Grégoire: Without the house's permission, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: The document was certainly tabled without the unanimous consent of the house, because we did not give ours.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raised his objection too late. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) has the floor.



PRIVILEGE


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, here is my question of privilege.
I received within the last few days the last issue of the Labour Gazette and I find that the French edition represents the October 1965 issue and that the English edition represents the February 1966 issue.
That means a gap of almost six months. I always understood that it was the privilege of the French speaking members to receive the French version at the same time or practically at the same time as the English version. I would like to complain about that situation, Mr. Speaker.
March 8, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In my opinion, this is more a grievance than a true question of privilege. I suppose that the hon. member does not intend to move a motion to follow up the question he has just raised. I suppose also that having formulated his grievance, he will now let the matter rest.



The house in committee in supply, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
Administration-
1. Departmental administration, $2,330,100.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I am just waiting for the house to quiet down, and then I will continue my remarks.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. May I ask hon. members in all sections of the house to carry on their conversations in an undertone so that the hon. member who has the floor may be heard by the committee.
[Translation\


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind intervention in order to get at least a little quiet in the house. When the other members have the floor they like to be heard and, on this side of the house, we also want to be heard when we have the floor.
I was saying last night, before the house adjourned, that we are considering a health insurance plan which would be open to all Canadians and under which the government would pay premiums to all families and all unmarried people.
Those people, families and unmarried people, should be left free to choose their group insurance plan, if you wish, or their health insurance plan; they should be left to choose the company they prefer. They should be left free to choose their physician, the kind of medicare program they want. If they prefer a plan which costs more than the premiums paid by the government, then they should pay the difference and get the insurance plan they want.
Last year, the province of Quebec decided, as reported in Le Devoir on March 24, 1965-
Quebec will have its own health insurance plan within two years.
It means that in March, 1967 a health insurance plan would be submitted in Quebec and, as a matter of fact, there was a lot of 23033-150J
Supply-Health and Welfare talk about it a few weeks ago when the Premier stated that it would cost the province $355 million to set up a medical insurance or medicare plan, as it is commonly called.
It would mean $55 per capita in the province of Quebec. Any insurance company, or all the private insurance companies together, would give the citizens of Quebec a full insurance plan including medical care, drugs, operations, all that for approximately $30 per capita, in the province of Quebec, which would represent savings of $25 per Quebec citizen.
Mr. Chairman, all this shows that private enterprise is still the most logical and the cheapest way to grant services to the Canadian people, as long as they have the means to finance that plan or the plan they choose.
Mr. Chairman, not so long ago, that is on April 20, 1965, the former minister of National Health and Welfare, now the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), said this before the members of the Optimist Club at Niagara Falls. I quote:
Under the Canada Assistance Plan-
I would change the word "assistance" which smacks too much of poverty, of public difficulties, and say instead "the right to live" of each individual.
-we are willing to match, dollar for dollar, the present provincial outlays in the field of allowances to mothers, assistance to those mothers who have dependent children.
We are willing to share the cost of health services given by the provinces to the recipients of assistance.
The minister said this, but what the people did not know, and what we must tell them, is that we have a bureaucracy to pay here in Ottawa, and also another bureaucracy to pay in Quebec. We pay two administrations for exactly the same thing, which means a multiplication of expenses and a division of services or a subtraction in respect of the needy.
The hon. minister added:
We will take steps to include the costs of medical, nursing, dental, optical and pharmaceutical care.
However, it will be for the provinces to decide on the scope of such services and they will be responsible for taking measures to provide the health services they consider best adjusted to their particular case.
This health legislation is interim legislation, which will be in operation only until the coming into force of a medicare scheme, which I hope will be very soon.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the government should get together around a round table with the responsible authorities and
March 8, 1966

Supply-Health and Welfare officials of the medical associations in Canada, with provincial officials, as well as the executives of existing companies in the country and in our provinces, in order to establish the cost of a medicare plan, under which the government would pay premiums to families, as well as to single persons, so as to insure the whole Canadian population.
Mr. Chairman, no one ever thinks of meeting with the heads of insurance companies, medical bodies and the provinces to discuss the best objective means of providing services and giving results to the Canadian family, to the private individual in Canada. Instead, we think of setting up plans and, when those plans are conceived in the government services, we think of other plans to adjust those that are not always adequate. And it is because of all those plans that we drum in each other's head that we end up in the situation we are now.
Mr. Chairman, the people are not asking for plans, they want results. The worker, the farmer, the miner are not asking the government to draw up plans for them. Workers, farmers, miners, journeymen, people in all classes of society are asking the government to provide the private individual with the financial help that will enable him to choose and set up his own plan in a country that could truly be called democratic.
Mr. Chairman, such plans have been presented at every session. This year there is medicare, called for by the members of the C.C.F party, the Canadian socialists, for 25, 30 and even 35 years. All sorts of plans are demanded by people who want the government to dominate the individual, the human being.
Mr. Chairman, as I said last night, we have asked for higher family allowances in Canada. We have increased the allowances of the members of the house and the senators, and so on, but we cannot increase the revenue of Canadian citizens, and yet it is the taxes paid by farmers and all classes of society that enables us to vote increased allowances for members of parliament and senators.
Mr. Chairman, as I said last night, we are not opposed to larger salaries for members of parliament, because the cost of life has increased; but it has increased not only for members of parliament but also for mothers of Canadian families.
Ask a Canadian mother about it; the hon. ladies who sit in this house are surely aware that it costs more today to clothe, feed and

house a child properly than it did 20 or 25 years ago. Conditions should be adjusted according to the times, according to 1966 rather than 1945.
In 1965-66, family allowances cost $599,500,000 to the government and the Canadian people; those are the estimates now under consideration and we hear ministers say it is costing too much, when the administration costs only of that department exceed $500 million and when $1,185 million are paid in interest on the national debt, that is, more than twice the amount paid in family allowances. This is the tribute paid for the financing but nobody is heard protesting against such a situation.
When a claim is being made for Canadian children, the cry of inflation, of demagogy goes up, the masses are being called to rise against lawful authority.
Mr. Chairman, there is no question of rising against anything, but we want to put the facts straight, pass laws according to human rights; and the most elementary justice requires that we give to human beings, to Canadians, so that democracy can survive, if there is any meaning in the word, so that we have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and no longer a government for finance, of finance and to serve finance.
Let us start to serve the Canadian people and we will thus discharge the duty for which we were sent to the parliament of this country.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a few points in this afternoon's discussion of the estimates for the Department of National Health and Welfare. First of all, I should like to speak on a problem which is related to physical fitness, a matter which I believe has been given considerable attention by the department, and to raise a problem which has been brought to my attention from within my constituency, but which I am sure is a problem in many other parts of the country too. The problem relates to amateur sport, and this might be the time to reiterate the demand for a study of amateur sport in this country.
There are many facets to this complicated problem. Some of them have been raised earlier in connection with the national sport of hockey, but there are also a great variety of matters which I think the Department of
March 8, 1966

National Health and Welfare probably should investigate.
One particular problem is the question of the increased expense incurred by amateur athletes in attempting to compete in amateur athletic events across the country. These events increasingly are becoming the preserve of the wealthy, or else demand a tremendous local effort in order to send athletes to such competitions.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I had, for example, a letter from Vernon, dated February 11, regarding a rather outstanding athlete in the constituency. The boy, Steven Lattey, referred to in the letter last year was Canadian national junior skiing champion. This week end he has been invited to participate in an international ski meet at Banff. Next week he is to fly east to defend his junior championship and participate in a ski meet at Quebec City. All these trips are at his own or his parents' expense. I suppose he could simply give up and not represent the west in the beautiful province of Quebec. However, we do have these sporting events that are competitive on a national scale. A severe problem exists in getting to the places where these events are held, particularly for the individual athlete whose sport does not have spectator appeal or the resources that more highly organized team activities have.
I have noticed a one-shot effort along this line to be made in the centennial year, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of January 21, under the centennial commission's program for school fitness tests in 1967. A whole variety of events has been lined up. The centennial commission is considering asking corporations to offer awards for outstanding achievement and the suggested award will be a $3,500 expense paid trip for 12 to 18 year old athletes to participate in the PanAmerican games. This is the sort of thing that should probably be put on a more continuing basis for the good of amateur athletics in the country. We should not be concerned only about what is going to happen in 1967 but also about what is going to happen throughout the following years. If some policy were worked out on the national level we might benefit and be able to participate in international meets to much greater effect than has been possible in the past.
The question of an investigation into amateur sports has been raised in connection with the game of hockey and the control that seems to be imposed by professional sport on amateur sport and on those taking part in the
Supply-Health and Welfare amateur sport from a very early age. I think this matter deserves serious consideration. I think the Department of National Health and Welfare might concern itself with the field of organized sport which is so constituted as to include children of extremely tender age. There is a warning in the March 5 edition of The Canadian in an article entitled, "The Big Machine That Runs Kids' Hockey". I recommend that article to the minister and his staff. The aspects covered in it could well be considered from the point of view of the health of children of tender age who are involved in what is a highly organized game which demands tremendous physical output and which has a high injury risk and a great deal of nervous strain. I wonder whether the department should not seriously be considering studies of the effects of such highly organized team sports when they involve six year old children and in which the most intense competition is encouraged. The age level is becoming lower and lower. I should think there might be real danger to the health of these children from such a sport not only at the time but also later in life.
It may be worth while looking into the cumulative effects of these sports in relation to the health of very young children who participate in extremely active sports. These sports might even be worth looking at from the viewpoint of the diversion of public funds into the very expensive and complicated facilities that are necessary for the numbers of very small children who participate in them. Frequently expensive facilities are necessary for children of tender age. When there is such a crying need for housing for the aged there may be a danger of too much public money being diverted to what is a more immediately popular use for the money. This too might be a question that could be studied by this department.
I should also like to raise an issue about the construction of homes for the aged. I have in mind particularly a home for the aged in my constituency. I do not think we would deny the need that exists for these homes. The home I refer to was built privately on the initiative of a person who is of very advanced age, an age at which many people have completely given up making any worthwhile contributions and are subsisting on welfare assistance from the government. Through the initiative of this individual a retirement home for 50 senior citizens was constructed. Unfortunately the building was subject to the imposition of the 4 per cent
March 8. 1966

Supply-Health and Welfare sales tax on construction materials, a tax which has since risen to 11 per cent, which again shows the evil aspects of the tax. It discourages the very type of construction we would most like to encourage.
Some provisions were made for exemption from this tax on certain types of construction. However, on application for the exemption it was discovered that this home for the aged did not qualify because to qualify it would have had to be in receipt of aid annually from the government of Canada or from a province for the maintenance of persons specified in the preceding subparagraph of the provisions. Unfortunately for this institution it is not receiving a regular grant from the province although it is receiving from the municipality in lieu of taxation something in excess of $4,000 each year. There is therefore a grant from one level of government which happens in this case to be the wrong level of government. The Excise Tax Act specifies that there can only be provincial participation in this sort of thing. I think that the federal department in conjunction with the provincial department might well consider allowing participation at the municipal level.
When the Act speaks of aid being received from the government of Canada for this sort of endeavour the words are misleading because apparently there is no aid at that level. The only effective aid which is covered is that given by a province. It would make much more sense to remove the words "government of Canada" from the Act and speak instead of a province or municipality so that one block to the construction of housing for the aged could be removed.
Finally I should like to say a word regarding the issue of medicare about which a great deal has been said. I am afraid I shall have to disagree with my friends to the right who last night urged the government to make sure it stood very firm on the four principles enunciated.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Considering the remarkable retreats we have witnessed in the last few days I am sure it would not be at all difficult for the government to abandon the compulsory features of its medicare proposal or to consider a provincial scheme to be adequate in the absence of compulsory features. Several of the provinces have gone ahead and developed medicare schemes and it seems to me it is now too late for the federal government to insist on one monolithic compulsory scheme if it turns out there is opposition from the provinces and if

the schemes which the provinces have instituted seem to be providing the extent of medicare which the people living in those provinces demand at certain times. We have become enraptured by the possibilities of a welfare state to the extent that "universal" and "compulsory" have become words of high praise, words which would seem in the minds of some people absolutely essential in the description of any scheme which might be considered worth while.
We know that the medical profession is not at all pleased about the suggestion that there should be a compulsory scheme. We know that a medicare scheme can succeed only with the co-operation of this most important group. I feel that the government in its negotiations with the provinces should consider carefully the desirability of taking any action in the area of medicare. I notice that in the words chosen to refer to medicare in the Speech from the Throne there seems to be a certain softening in the attitude initially taken by the government and I urge very strongly that the government should not insist on the one feature which would make medicare a source of intense dissension throughout the country rather than an area in which federal-provincial co-operation would provide the people of Canada with the degree of social assistance which they feel they can afford at this time. I believe it is quite possible for the federal government to work out the problem of providing for portable benefits without making the scheme monolithic and without making it compulsory.


Mr. Isabelle:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief because I know what I am talking about.
May I rise to speak during the review of the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare not to criticize but just to bring forward recommendat;ons which could be implemented if they were deemed useful after consideration. However, I will point out that if the provinces, in the course of their history, have decided to divide health and welfare into two different departments it is because thorough stud es on the subject have shown this was required by the increased responsibilities and administrative burden.
The last province to follow suit was Manitoba, in 1961, which, for the reasons already outlined has divided its department in two. If we consider the development of the Department of National Health and Welfare before the merger, in 1944, we see that it was
March 8, 1968

not a department, but a health branch which came successively under the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the Department of Immigration and the Department of Commerce and Industry.
Only in 1919 and at the request of the Canadian Medical Association did the department become the Department of Public Health.
In 1929, the Pensions and Civil Re-establishment Division had become less important and a Pensions and National Health Division was created. Later, following the introduction of social security programs such as old age pensions and family allowances, related in a way to para-medical problems, the Department of National Health and Welfare was set up in 1944.
Since then, Mr. Chairman, other extensive programs were added to those already administered by the department, such as hospital insurance and several national health grants. Very soon the department will also be responsible for drawing up and implementing the national medicare program and the Canada assistance plan, not to mention the Canada pension plan which is already operative.
For those reasons, the Department of National Health and Welfare should be divided into two distinct units, so that we could reorganize the whole administrative framework. When you consider also the tremendous expenditures this department expects to make to carry out its future programs, I do not think there is any other way than the one I have just mentioned. First, this would make it possible to do away with administrative routine which, when it becomes too heavy, tends to bog down and thereby ceases to advance.
Then, this would give the departments more leeway for adequate planning to provide them with greater administrative flexibility and to justify the old saying: to govern is to foresee.
We have long been bogged down in an administrative stagnation where new ideas, lest they result in small mistakes and failures, have been completely set aside, at the expense of normal progress.
Finally, that will be one of the very important recommendations of the royal commission on health.
I pay tribute to the Department of National Health and Welfare which, in 1965, developed
Supply-Health and Welfare the Canada pension plan, one of the most daring undertakings to date of the department.
Those sir, are the few remarks which I wanted to make and which are really a combination of findings and suggestions, in the best interests of Canada.
Let those who criticize when the government advocates a program such as the health insurance plan know that we are aware imperfections can slip in. But if we had to wait for the legislation to be perfect to introduce or pass it-and even then, there would be criticism-we would never have that type of legislation in Canada.
Only to the extent where time has polished them have laws become almost perfect as human standards go, and I ask all doctors throughout the Canadian nation, my colleagues, to try to understand and appreciate our breadth of views on what seemed, a few years ago, an unattainable dream: health insurance.
That is one proof that the government wants the state, here in Canada, to exist for the individual and not the individual for the state.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, I have been impressed with the need for having these estimates passed but with the exception of one brief contribution on the transport estimates I have said nothing s.nce the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were before us. I say this because I believe it is absolutely necessary that certain things be said at this stage with regard to one of the most urgent problems facing Canada today. I refer to the question of old age pensions.
I am glad that the new minister and his assistant come from two provinces where this question is never far removed from the public gaze, which is the case also in my province and indeed, the other provinces. The urgency is great. A part of the problem is to provide security for the aged, to provide thousands of our people w.th the modern standard of comfort or well-being which they so desperately lack. The other part of the problem is the method by which we are going to pay our debt to those people who helped build this country, who helped create the standard of affluence which we know exists but in which they share so little. This is the double problem involved.
March 8. 1966

Supply-Health and Welfare
The old cannot wait. We must seek to provide food for the living rather than following the practice, as we do so often today, of providing flowers for the dead. Food for the living is something that should be provided in much greater abundance than we are providing it today, and it must be provided now.
I want to point out several milestones in connection with old age pension legislation. Believe it or not, very few hon. members can remember as I do the debates which took place in this chamber and the other place when the first old age pension legislation was introduced in 1927, over 40 years ago. Prior to that time there was only one way by which many hundreds of old people could get assistance or relief. That was by dragging their sons or daughters into court and having the court find to its own satisfaction that their sons or daughters were not able to support them. The old age pension legislation was the first federal social security legislation put on the statute books of Canada.
Those who know anything about my history will know I have a particular reason for being interested in that legislation and its evolution, because today I consider that first social security legislation has become a monument to the memory of one man. Many helped but increasingly it has become well known as his monument.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Winona Grace MacInnis: The
first old age pensions were very meagre indeed, $20 a month at the age of 70 with a means test, but even then it was recognized we were establishing a principle and this was the first milestone with respect to old age pensions. At that time we established the principle that the elderly were persons entitled in their own right to our consideration and not merely as appendages to their sons and daughters. Prior to that they were considered as appendages to their sons and daughters to be looked after on a basis of charity and good will. It was only when the indignities heaped on old people had become so great and the physical and mental suffer-ring so unbearable that we took that first step.
Some improvements were made to the legislation during the 1930's and 1940's but they were minor. Then in 1951 came the second milestone in old age pension legislation in Canada, the passage of the Old Age

Security Act which was universal in its application and gave the pension to everyone at age 70. The pension at that time was raised to the amount of $40 a month.
This afternoon in this chamber I heard a member regretfully wishing that universality not be incorporated into our medicare legislation. I reply that the feature of universality in old age pensions which we established in 1951 is one of the finest things we have ever incorporated into Canadian social security legislation because it established a new principle. In 1951 we established the principle that every person at the age of 70 should be entitled to receive a measure of security from the community, regardless of any other consideration.
Let me add further that we did not do that just as nice Nellies or do-gooders. We did it because it was essential to establish that new principle. The earlier principle was that the elderly were entitled in their own right to receive consideration and a measure of security, and that was advanced in 1951 when we said that when people reached the age of 70 they were entitled to receive a measure of security from the community for the rest of their lives not as charity but as of right.
Sociologists in the United States, despite the fact that that country has so much piecemeal social legislation, are now eyeing with tremendous interest the idea of universality which we built into our scheme in 1951. When I hear the idea being mooted that we should place old age pensions in categories and give some of them free and others on the basis of a needs test-this needs test is recognized by all old people as a means test of a more frightful variety-I can only hope the government will not go back on one of the things which a preceding Liberal government enacted when it provided a foundation for old age pensions, medicare and other forms of security.
The principle of which I speak had another reason behind its establishment. Technology had advanced to the point where we were able to establish it and in fact had to establish it. In 1951 we recognized that there were a great number of people who, because they had spent their lives working in a period when wages were low, had not been able to put sufficient money aside for their old age. We also recognized or at least we were getting it through our skulls, which as human beings are pretty thick, that if we were going to have constantly rising incomes, constantly
March 8, 1968	COMMONS
rising revenues and constantly rising production we had to find ways and means of distributing buying power among the population so that production would move out of the factories and could be sold, thus creating a demand for more production. All of us have not yet learned that lesson but we will learn it in a bitter way unless we learn it in a humane and wise way before it is too late.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Let there be no more of the argument that we are going to give the old age pension only to people who really need it, that we are going to scrutinize every case and will not give it to those who do not need it. On the matter of cost, when you have a whole army of social service investigators going around making these inquiries all the time the cost is very great. It is also useless and unnecessary. The social welfare people are getting fed up spending their time doing this instead of doing rehabilitation work and getting people back into a position where they can be self-supporting even if only to a certain extent. We are wrong in trying to do it in this way.
The most fair tax in Canada or anywhere else is the tax on income. I see no reason that we should not take the old age pension, old age security pension or whatever pension we are giving to elderly people, make it available to everybody at age 65 and then use the instrument of the income tax to take back according to the person's ability to pay. That is what the income tax can do and it is the fairest way of seeing that people pay their share of the cost of security across this country. If the government should have other ideas in mind, those of us in this party will want to take a long hard look before we are pushed off the solid rock of the income tax which is the fairest and the universal way of seeing that it is done justly and in a sensible way administratively as well.
I heard the hon. member for Villeneuve this afternoon talk about wasteful expenditures of one sort or another among governments. Let me suggest that one wasteful expenditure is the probing and digging into people's affairs by reasons of a means test and a needs test, quite apart from the indignity which is involved.
I should like to say also that there were increases in the old age security pension in the 1950's and 1960's. In 1957 it went up from $46 to $55. In 1962 an increase again in the old age security pension brought it up to $65. In 1963 it went up to $75. By this time the elderly people of Canada were beginning to
DEBATES	2367
Supply-Health and Welfare think that the only way they could get an increase in the pension was by having elections. Had I been on the old age pension I imagine I would have thought that an annual election was about the only way to try to catch up to the cost of living.
The cost of living has continued to rise. Because of the rising cost of living the older people have been dropping farther and farther behind. Let me point out what has happened since the last increase was given in 1963. The cost of living has gone up 5.4 per cent. With today's prices we would have to increase it to $79 even to make it equal to $75 in 1963. Something else has happened which we must not lose sight of. In this period the standard of living has been rising, wages and salaries have been going up, profits have been going up and income has been going up. When this has been happening the people on low fixed incomes have been falling farther and farther behind. The production of goods and services also has been going up. So merely increasing the pension rate a little bit, even to meet the cost of living, will not bring the old age pensioners up to the modern standard of living which they must have if we are going to do the job we should be doing at this time.
I say, Mr. Chairman, it is now time for a third milestone-1927, 1951, and now 1966. We are waiting to see whether the government proposes to make this year a milestone and the older people across the country are wading to see what is going to be done to make it a milestone. I am going to say categorically at this time that we should establish a new principle, the principle that every person at age 65 shall have the right to a pension which will provide a modern standard of living with neither a means test nor a needs test. I do not think we can do anything less than that. Certainly we have to fight for that with all the ability we have.
I am going to suggest now the things that we in this party, and I would like to hope members of other parties, feel must be embodied in this legislation when it comes in. First, I should like to say that it should be made a right and not a charity, that it become universal in Canada and that we give it to people from age 65. That is the first point.
Second, I wish to say that it must include neither a means nor a needs test which involves checking into the affairs of people, and an unwarranted interference with the older people. In the past this has been one of
March 8. 1966

Supply-Health and Welfare the reasons many of these people have tried their best to stay away from it as long as they possibly could. We hope that this pension will be given to everyone and that the surplus will be taken back in income tax according to their ability to pay.
The third principle is that the levels must be high enough to provide a modern standard of living. I know a general stand has been taken in support of the idea of pensions in the amount of $100 a month at age 65. I suggest the authorities have to reach the conclusion that that is not sufficient to provide a modern standard of living in the face of today's cost of living and standard of living. The committee which met in the other place suggested we should make the amount higher than $100 a month. They have suggested $105 a month for a single person and $185 a month for a couple.
As late as last fall the Toronto Metro Social Planning Council came to the conclusion after a careful study that for a minimum standard of living, health and decency the amount would have to be $126.47 for single persons and $213.02 for a couple. Last January, with the cost of living again having risen, the Conference on Ag ng met in Toronto and set up a sub committee of welfare people, social workers and experts in other fields. This subcommittee came to the conclusion that the amount for a minimum of health and decency should be $138.96 for a single person and $223.82 for a couple. These are figures which are given by competent and responsible people across this country.
I think it will be up to the government to consider these points carefully before it brings in its proposals. As I say, we must remember we live in a society where we can afford these things and where we must afford them if we are going to keep our production rising constantly. We must bring our ideas up to date. It is our ideas which are penurious and backward. I might point out that this is a much better type of national defence than all the bombers, battleships and bastions that we could possibly devise. This is the sort of thing we must do if we are to be strong economically in the modern world.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I now come to the fourth principle I suggest should be embodied in our legislation. I know some will suggest that this is a far-out suggestion, perhaps including some hon. members of the party to which I belong, but I think the time has come, and sociologists agree with me, to take the ceiling off earnings 
and other incomes of recipients of old age pensions. We talk constantly about creating incentives for people to save and be thrifty, incentives for people to go out and work while they can, rather than just sitting around until they become sitting ducks for doctors' offices and welfare workers. Why in the name of time can we not allow these old people to go out and perform baby sitting or the other part time jobs they can find in order that they may salt away a few dollars without being penalized? I have known of cases, as I am sure others have, where people have had to spend every last cent they had set aside for their funerals, as the welfare people express it, before being able to obtain supplementary assistance. I suggest it is time to do away with this kind of ox cart mentality, this penny-pinching line of thought that does not fit into our society today. This type of thing is economically a detriment rather than a help.
My fifth point is that pensions must be geared not only to the cost of living and made adjustable to that level but also to the rising standard of living that we enjoy. I am not going to take much more time but I want to refer to two or three people who live in my riding and the circumstances of their situations. I am sure hon. members could do the same in respect of older people living in their ridings.
In Vancouver there lives a couple aged 78 and 77 who are self-respecting people trying to get along on just their pensions. They attempted to obtain more but they were unsuccessful because one had $48 in a bank account and the other had a little more in a credit union. They were told they could not receive supplementary assistance until they had used that money and they decided to attempt to manage on $1,800 per year.
This couple is managing to get along on their pensions alone because they own their own house. They pay taxes of $84 per year which would be $184 were it not for the efforts of the provincial premier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Winona Grace MacInnis: You
may congratulate him, but let me tell you that he has been successful in this regard only by starving the municipalities.
The couple to whom I have referred pay $40 per year for insurance on the house, which is all they can possibly afford. They pay health insurance premiums of $60 per year. This would be cheaper if we had a
*March 8. 1966	COMMONS
universal health insurance plan. The old gentleman bought glasses last year which cost $32. He needs a dental plate very badly but cannot afford one. In January they both had the flu and his wife had to have a prescription filled at a cost of $6.50. I should like to know how any of us could manage to budget for two people with $1,800 per year. This couple manages to pay these fixed costs in a self-respecting way by cutting down to a diet *of bread and tea with precious little else.
This kind of treatment is not good enough for people of this quality or calibre, nor is it .good enough for another woman to whom I wish to refer who lives not in my constituency but in a small Ontario town. This woman writes in these terms:
My husband is 70 years old and we have to live on his pension. He is a very sick man with [DOT]emphasema, a form of asthma. Each month it cost him $25 and sometimes $30 for pills. I am *62 and not old enough for a pension. I can't work, my heart is very weak. We have to pay $35 rent and telephone $3.55-something we have to have in an emergency. Lights too are high.
There is something else that is high. That woman's courage is high. These people have precious little to work on but hope-hope long deferred. I am sure that every member of this house could cite cases exactly similar to the ones I have cited this afternoon.
What are we going to do about this situation? We must find an answer. Are we going to turn a deaf ear to these people or are we going to give them what they need and must have?
I intend to bring my remarks to a close very quickly but I want to suggest that time has almost run out for these people and we cannot afford to let them wait longer. We owe them a great deal for all the work they have done. We are not giving them charity; we are paying a debt.
As a final word I should like to quote from a letter from a Miss "K", and I use her initial rather than her name. This woman lives in my riding and in part she writes:
I am 68, retired, and thought twenty years ago that I would be able to live comfortably on the pension I had arranged. . . What can I do? It costs 40 cents bus fare to get to town-no tea-no meal. Even window shopping must be avoided as a way of life. Is this living? How does one enjoy one's self?
People were never meant to be pigeonholed alone, in one room. Even dogs to be healthy must have 'running' room and, I believe, not to be kept alone.
I wish it were possible, for just one of our top politicians, for one week, to try to live as a lot of our older folk are forced to do. How much fortitude would they have at the end of it?
Please raise your voice-*
DEBATES	2369
Supply-Health and Welfare
Then she ends by saying:
Let the last ten years of life be a reward, a blessing, not a curse.
That is my appeal and my belief. I do not blame any of us singly for this state of affairs because I believe we are all guilty of having failed to keep abreast of the needs of our senior citizens. Let us make amends this session. Let us provide pensions worthy of a country such as Canada. Let us not forget that the life we save today may be our own tomorrow. Who knows what is going to happen in the interval? I hesitate to make such an appeal, but today I suggest that we are all tied to one community and we cannot neglect today the most miserable, neglected and down-hearted older person in this country without storing up future trouble for ourselves. Let us today have the courage to provide the kind of foundation that will mark 1966 as a milestone along the road to social security for the aged.


Mr. Brand:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on these estimates with great reluctance. I intend to make more extensive remarks during our consideration of the new estimates, at which time I will deal with medical research, medical education and the like. However, after listening to the comments last evening of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I cannot allow some of his remarks to go unchallenged despite my very serious desire to see these estimates approved as quickly as possible. So far as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is concerned, I compliment her on her address but I must say that I may succumb to her charm but never to her blandishments.
It is my understanding that the bill on medicare to be proposed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be enabling legislation making moneys available to plans on a shared cost basis with the provinces. As such the government will be providing the means for some kind of medicare program for these provinces. Surely it is within the jurisdiction of the provinces to decide the type of program that each will or will not undertake.
I know that the present government has proposed four conditions surrounding the grants formula: Universal coverage, comprehensive care, government operation and portability from province to province. Surely it is equally obvious in view of the positions that several provinces are now taking that the formula will have to be amended. I refer
March 8. 1966

Supply-Health and Welfare specifically to the most recent member of the medicare club, Ontario.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggest because the Ontario plan does not meet the first provision laid down by the federal government that Ontario should not qualify for any federal aid? Is that what he is suggesting? Does he feel that because there are still some provinces which look realistically at what such programs cost and decide on programs within their means, they should be penalized for careful budgeting? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also takes the hon. member for Simcoe East to task for mentioning how slow the Liberal party has been in implementing a plan for health care. Has the hon. member forgotten that in Saskatchewan in 1944 the C.C.F. party rode to power on a program of universal medicare that did not come into being until 1962 and then only after the party to which he belongs mounted an attack on an honoured profession with such intensity and force that the wounds opened then have still not completely healed?
When I hear such things as how terrible the means test is, I wonder how sincere these comments are. It takes me back to the nightmare years of 1960, 1961 and 1962. What a smokescreen. Whenever someone such as the hon. member for Simcoe East suggests that there are areas of need in medical care such as more doctors, more medical schools, funds for the chronically ill and mentally ill, up go the smokescreens and we are treated to a heartrending story of how evil and debasing is the means test. Every time they speak they attempt to show that the socialists are the only ones in favour of all that is good. If anyone else attempts to raise any objections, however sincere they may be, they are treated to this display of socialistic virtue.
But, Mr. Chairman, let us look at the record very briefly. When the party these hon. members represent was in power in Saskatchewan, did they abolish the means test? If you were an old age pensioner who needed supplementary allowances, did you get them without a rigid and degrading examination of your finances? If you were a widow on mother's allowance and needed more milk for your children, did you get it without this rigid and degrading means test? As a matter of fact, I recall cases-I can give hon. members the details at any time-when mothers did not even get the milk and a 
widow would have to go to the social aid department of the city to get money in order to buy milk for her children.


An hon. Member:: Where?


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: In Saskatchewan. Where else? Here is another point. Could you get a university scholarship or loan from the government of Saskatchewan without a means test? Ask anyone who has tried. Ask me. I did not object to it and I was grateful for what they did. It is this duplicity, Mr. Chairman, that has prompted me to rise in reply today.
I could go on to discuss hospital beds. We have heard laudatory comments concerning the hospitalization plan and features of it that have been a boon to doctors and patients alike. This I do not deny; we have had these things. But what have we on the distaff side? I listened very carefully to the speeches made in this connection and examined Hansard again last night to see whether there was anything more on this subject but there was nothing.
Consider my province of Saskatchewan. There we have a real paradox. Our patient-bed ratio is among the best in the world and yet we are faced with long hospital waiting lists. Even cancer patients have to wait months for a bed and some heart attack and fracture cases have been turned away because there are no beds for them. Imagine the situation at the University Hospital where for months complete wards are closed because of the critical shortage of nursing and other personnel. These situations have all existed; they are a matter of public record. Hospitals are faced with ever-increasing costs of operation but still there are not enough funds to provide some of the modern equipment that is considered to be so essential in running a hospital today. These are facts, Mr. Chairman, not fantasy but grim facts.
I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not turn out to be another of those who fail to see the situation in its true light and blunder on blinded by the brilliant beam of political opportunism. I sincerely hope he is not one of those. I could go on and discuss medical care and the increasing demands on doctors' services, the over utilization, the ever-increasing costs, the deterioration in quality care, but I do not wish to prolong these estimates at this time more than is necessary. Suffice it to say that we must look very closely at these other areas of need in this country. I ask the
March 8. 1966

government to look again at the Hall Commission report wherein they point out that we need doctors and we need health resource funds immediately to start building in the next few years for the number of doctors and the other personnel that will be necessary at that time.
I favour prepaid medical care. I work now under the scheme in Saskatchewan and have done so since its inception on July 23, 1962. But I would hate to see any more schemes introduced in this country by following the same rough road by which the scheme came into being in Saskatchewan because it caused heartache and disturbance among the profession and the people of that province. I do not wish to see this happen anywhere else.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I favour prepaid medical care but not at the expense of the entire economy or the quality of medical care. Surely in growing up we must first crawl and then walk before we run. Surely it is wise to provide care primarily where it is needed and specifically where it will do the most good. Provide the doctors, provide the nurses, provide modern hospitals with modern equipment, an adequate number of beds and all those other things I have mentioned and you will remove most of my objections to this plan.
Above all-and may I address this request to the minister-do not forget to have adequate consultation with those providing the service. This is something that got lost in the shuffle in the province I represent. Remember that the Canadian Medical Association asked the former prime minister, now Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to set up the Hall Commission. Give the medical profession ample opportunity to discuss the matter with you, Mr. Minister, and you will find the path ahead a smooth one. Given such consultation, even the smokescreens of socialistic sophistry will dissipate in the cool winds of reason and understanding.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, if the present government often considers its administration with satisfaction, it happens, on the other hand, that millions of Canadians are unhappy about the huge sums of money spent on national defence and the complacency of the government with regard to the interest on the public debt.
Faced with poverty and increasing needs, those Canadians are asking the government to increase family allowances.
Supply-Health and Welfare
The Family Allowances Act was sanctioned on August 15, 1944 and went into effect on July 1, 1945. At the outset, the allowances decreased progressively with the number of children, but the government corrected that situation in 1949.
Apart from a small increase in 1957, the allowances have remained much the same until now.
Here is how the system works today. For each child under 16, the government pays $6 or $8 a month, according to the child's age. Under the terms of another act passed in 1964, that is the Youth Allowances Act, young people between 16 and 18 who are still going to school get $10 a month.
I wish to point out that since 1945, the allowances have hardly increased, whereas the cost of living went up sharply. As a matter of fact, between 1945 and 1965, the cost of living jumped by 87.7 per cent whereas family allowances increased by 9.4 per cent only.
Is it necessary to recall that in 1945, milk cost 8 cents a quart and bread 10 cents a loaf? We know that today, just to give a few examples, the price of milk has tripled and the price of bread has more than doubled. Those are undeniable facts.
Moreover, since 1945, our economic growth and our national production have increased considerably. Production increased not only in value but in volume and quantity.
I realize that each year the central government allocates huge amounts for family allowances. Thus, in 1965, Ottawa spent $550,571,248 for 6,849,095 Canadian children. We also know that since the fiscal year 1957-58 Quebec is no more the province which draws more allowances in this field, but Ontario.
If Ottawa already spends large sums in family allowances, one must not conclude that its contribution is sufficient. On the contrary, this question must be discussed considering not only the high cost of living but the families' limited income and acute needs.
I am thinking, for instance, of the situation of Quebec families. Mr. Jacques Henripin, a demographer and University of Montreal professor, drew the following outline in a lecture he delivered in November 1965 to the Family Social Services Federation congress:
Out of the 994,000 non-farm families, 18 per cent have an income lower than $2,500; 24 per cent have an income between $2,500 and $4,000; 29 per cent are in the $4,000-$6,000 bracket; and the remaining 29 per cent have an income higher than $6,000.
March 8, 1966=

Supply-Health and Welfare
Therefore, one finds, sir, that family needs, even though I choose only those of Quebec, as an example, become alarmingly greater.
That is why there is only one imperative solution and the initiative is a matter of urgency: the family allowances scheme must be amended without delay if hardship and poverty are to be fought effectively in this country.
At the last federal-provincial conference of Ministers of Health and Welfare in January 1966, the representatives of five provinces at least called for such a revision: those of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Newfoundland.
If Ottawa delays any longer, the provinces which will take action will not be to blame. Hon. Rene Levesque announced at that conference that Quebec would take action shortly in this field if the central government failed to do so.
Besides, it is to be wondered whether the administration of this program should not be entrusted to the provinces. Any province would then be free to set up within its boundaries a better comprehensive scheme including every aspect of social security.
It already seems as if the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) sees no objection to the provinces handling the distribution of family allowances. This attitude became apparent during an interview with parliamentary correspondent Charles Lynch over the English network of the C.B.C. on January 18, 1966.
It would seem, however, that the federal Minister of Health has no desire whatever that Ottawa should abandon the administration of family allowances.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I feel that this problem is under provincial responsibility, because it is an area touching upon social and educational fields. The constitution of 1867, in its spirit and in its wording mainly under chapters 92 and 93, gives the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over social and educational matters.
The fact that Ottawa entered this field of action in 1944 by not giving the provinces their fiscal revenue does not mean that the federal government was constitutionally empowered to do this.
It must be pointed out here that Ottawa passed its legislation on family allowances without first using a constitutional amendment. It proceeded differently with regard to unemployment insurance in 1940 and old age pensions in 1951.

In fact, the federal Family Allowances Act of 1944, as that of 1964, which provides for payment of allowances to children, in addition to dealing with social needs, constitutes indirect interference in the field of education, since a child must go to school in order to be eligible for the allowance.
Therefore, it would be to Ottawa's advantage-and it would have plenty of time to do it-to devote itself to the national and international matters specifically mentioned in the constitution and to hand back to the provinces the responsibility for and the administration of family allowances.
While waiting for that development to take place, since it is urgent to amend the system of family allowances, we must ask ourselves what should be the social philosophy behind such a change.
Family allowances are related to the essence of human dignity and social welfare. The state should especially encourage its younger citizens and support the family, which is truly the basic cell of society.
As the taxpayers supply the amounts of money the state distributes, it is fitting that, in this field, the plan should be universal, just as in the case of old age pensions, health insurance and superannuation plans.
However, it is fitting that we should consider various degrees and standards in its application. For instance, with regard to allowances, family needs can be catalogued. The extent of the needs shall be studied without discrimination. The number of children per family, their age, as well as the father's income, should to be taken into consideration. Allowances could be paid according to a realistic and selective scale.
On the basis of these general principles, one can imagine various family allowances schemes.
Whatever the scheme to be adopted by amending the present one, I suggest that the new formula should be comprehensive, in proportion with the number and the age of children, based on needs, not on the simple wish to increase buying power it should take into account the father's income and the increase in the cost of living and it should be accompanied by an adjustment or exemptions concerning income tax legislation.
The new plan, in spite of realistic features, should not eliminate the first child from the benefits. The first child cannot be set aside mathematically. This child does not choose his rank upon his birth and he is a citizen
March 8, 1966

like the others and he has needs; he often grows up in a needy environment and, later, he will pay taxes for thousands of other children. Consequently, any discrimination against the first born should be rejected.
It is understood that an early change to the family allowances program will increase government expenditure under the Department of National Health. But this increase, under National Health, could be compensated by reductions in other areas, by elimination of waste or by permitting the institution of a provincial lottery.
One fact stands out, in conclusion: The government must take measures to increase family allowances considerably and thus effectively fight poverty through a more equitable distribution of national income. Such is the fundamental requirement of a truly democratic government.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to take part in this debate. However, I noted that the hon. member for Saskatoon seemed to spend most of his time making an attack on the former C.C.F. government in the province of Saskatchewan. He began his speech by saying that he did not want to hold up the estimates. Then he proceeded to make a provocative speech which I think he must have known demanded a reply.


An hon. Member:: Resist the temptation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not want to resist the temptation.


Michael Starr: No willpower.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a matter of fact, I thought it would be a very good idea if the statements of the hon. member for Saskatoon were drawn to the attention of the people of this country and particularly to the people of the province of Saskatchewan.
The first comment of the hon. member was that the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan took from 1944 to 1962 to set up medicare. If he was as well qualified as he pretends to be he would have told the committee that the C.C.F. government was elected in Saskatchewan in 1944 on a promise to set up, stage by stage, a comprehensive health insurance program. The medical care program even in 1962 did not constitute the final stage as it does not cover drugs, dental care, glasses or other ancillary services. The hon. member might have pointed out to the committee that one of

Supply-Health and Welfare the first things the C.C.F. government did in 1944, with a total provincial budget of a little over $30 million, was to set up completely free care for the mentally ill, both mental in hospitals and psychiatric clinics, followed by the first completely free cancer program covering treatment, deep X-ray therapy, surgery and post-operational care. The provincial government set up completely free health services for the first time in Canada for all assistance groups such as old age pensioners, those receiving mothers' allowances, wards of the government and blind persons.
The province set up in one health region the first completely universal medicare program for all residents of that region, some 65,000 persons, by way of a pilot project as early as July 1, 1945. That plan is still in operation. It provided the statistical data upon which the provincial plan could be based and also provided a good deal of the data which was of use to the Hall Commission. On January 1, 1947, the provincial government set up the first comprehensive hospital insurance program in Canada and on this continent. We in the provincial government made it very clear to the federal government, first Liberal and later Conservative, that if at any time they were prepared to pay a substantial part of the cost we would be able to proceed with comprehensive medicare.
It was not until 1961 that the province felt it had sufficient revenue to proceed with comprehensive medicare, because the entire burden of this program had to be borne by the provincial government. Therefore, for the hon. member for Saskatoon to suggest that there was any delay in implementing the promises of 1944 is either an attempt to mislead the committee or is a woeful betrayal of ignorance. Knowing the hon. gentleman, I can make my own selection.
The second matter he referred to was the question of means tests. He referred to the speech made by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway and said that while the members of the New Democratic party decry means tests, nevertheless in the province of Saskatchewan under the C.C.F. government means tests were retained.
Means tests were retained under the Old Age Assistance Act which provides for a pension to be paid jointly, in part by the federal government and in part by the provincial government. The regulations are laid down by the federal government and under them the provincial government is required
March 8. 1986

Supply-Health and Welfare to impose a means test. We expressed our willingness at federal-provincial conferences, both under the Liberal federal government and under the Conservative federal government, to pay our share of the cost of the government would be prepared to remove the means test. The hon. member for Saskatoon has not pointed out that during the six years the Conservative government was in office the means test was retained and that there was no willingness on their part to remove it in spite of our repeated requests.
It is true that with reference to provincial programs a means test had to be retained, particularly with reference to supplementary pensions for the old age security group. It is also perfectly apparent that with the limited financial resources a provincial government has it is almost impossible to pay a universal pension to everyone at a certain age, because a provincial government does not have the power a federal government has of collecting back in income tax a substantial part of the pension from those who do not really require it.
I want the committee and the people of Saskatoon to notice that the hon. member is arguing for the application of a means test to medicare. Does this mean that the conservative party members have now become the exponents of means tests? Does this mean they propose that the old age security pension now universally paid should be rescinded and a means test applied? If a means test is fair and equitable in medicare, it is equally fair and equitable when applied to a pension. Is the Conservative party now, through its recent more reactionary acquisitions, announcing that it has taken the backward step of supporting means tests in social welfare and health problems?
I hope that Conservative members, particularly from Saskatchewan, who have campaigned a great deal on the question of removing the means tests, will now make it perfectly clear whether the hon. member for Saskatoon was speaking for the Conservative party and particularly for the Conservative members for the province of Saskatchewan.
Another thing to which the hon. member made reference was medicare and his opposition to the four basic principles of the Hall Commission report which the Prime Minister endorsed on July 19 and 20 of last year. The hon. member for Saskatoon took some credit for the fact that the administration of the present Leader of the Opposition set up the Hall Commission. For that they deserve full
IMr. Douglas.]
credit, particularly for choosing such an outstanding person as Mr. Justice Hall. Having taken the credit for appointing the Hall Commission, I wonder why the Conservative party has not come out and endorsed the report and the recommendations of that commission.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The Conservative party has been lying in the bushes so far as the Hall report is concerned. They have carefully avoided coming out into the open and saying where they stand on the recommendations of the commission. In the recent election there was no clearcut forthright statement from the Conservative party saying where they stood on the Hall Commission report. It has been left to the hon. member for Saskatoon to say that the Conservative party is opposed to the first basic principle laid down by the Hall commission, namely, that medicare should be universal and should apply to every citizen of this country irrespective of race, colour or financial circumstances.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he familiar with the meaning of the word "universal" as it is used in the Hall report? If not, I am perfectly willing to acquaint him with it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am perfectly familiar with it. I am perfectly familiar with the paragraphs in which Mr. Justice Hall argues against any kind of means test and contends that the indignity and humiliation of any kind of test is totally uncalled for.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: May I ask-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member can sit down. I suggest he study the Hall Commission report. If he would do that instead of making the rather asinine statements he was making this afternoon I think he could make a more useful contribution to this committee and to his party.


Michael Starr: Don't get mad.


Mr. Lambert:: Come to Alberta and say that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a matter of fact, I can tell the hon. member for Edmonton West that I said exactly the same thing in the province of Alberta.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And where did it get you?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Of course, the hon. member for Edmonton West is very interested in where it gets one. That is why the Tory party had one program in Alberta and another in
March 8, 1966	COMMONS
Saskatchewan. That is why when they were in office they wiggled from one side of the fence to the other and never did anything about medicare. That is why there were no great forward steps in health and welfare legislation while we had a Tory government.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We got the whole Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.


An hon. Member:: We set up the royal commission.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am suggesting that the Tory party should now tell this committee and tell the people of Canada whether they agree with the hon. member for Saskatoon that medicare in this country ought not to be on a universal basis, that there ought to be discrimination so that only those who can qualify on a means test basis will be able to get medicare under a government sponsored plan. Do they support the kind of plan that has been set up in Alberta? I think they should tell us. That is what the plan in Alberta amounts to.
It means an arrangement whereby those who are able to pay for private insurance can do so while those who cannot pay the very high premiums demanded may, if they are willing to undergo the indignity, get the government to contribute part or all of the premium provided a means test can be passed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You have a means test attached to many other programs.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I notice a great many interruptions from the Tory benches but I have not yet heard any person in the Tory party say whether or not they stand for the universal application of medicare to all citizens without any means test. We are very anxious to hear just that.
The hon. member for Saskatoon took my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre to task for urging the minister to press on with medicare by introducing enabling legislation to allow the provinces to come in if they choose to comply with the four conditions laid down by the Prime Minister taken directly from the Hall Commission report. What the hon. member is suggesting is that the federal government should depart from the Hall Commission recommendations and allow each province to establish any kind of medicare program it wishes.
This means that persons moving from province to province would find totally different conditions for qualifying. We would find
DEBATES	2375
Supply-Health and Welfare that the transferability, the portability of medicare would be completely destroyed. The only way in which you can have national medicare is by having uniformity and the only way in which you can have uniformity is by having universal application so that people can move from Quebec to British Columbia or from Ontario to Nova Scotia and find they are capable of qualifying wherever they may go.
The hon. member for Saskatoon warned the minister against having medicare meet what he called the "long, rough road" it had in the province of Saskatchewan. Mr. Chairman, medicare only had a long, rough road in Saskatchewan because there were mossbacks like the member for Saskatoon who fought against its introduction. There have always been antediluvians who live in the past and who fight every kind of progressive measure when it is first introduced. Yet the medical profession in the province of Saskatchewan has since come out and said that the plan has been operating successfully.
Much of the opposition was totally unnecessary. I simply want to say that I hope the medical profession has learned from this experience and that its members are prepared to sit down with representatives of the government in Ottawa and with representatives of the various provincial governments to work out suitable arrangements whereby we can have the universal application of medicare to all Canadian citizens.
Let them make no mistake about this. They can fight rearguard actions. They can make the kind of speeches we heard this afternoon from the hon. member for Saskatoon. But the great bulk of the Canadian people want universal medicare and they are going to have it in spite of all the reactionaries, and I want to say to the minister that the people will give him their wholehearted support if he has the courage to put the legislation on the statute books.


Mr. Skoreyko:: If the Minister of National Health and Welfare introduces the kind of program which the hon. member suggests, would he risk his seat in Burnaby-Coquitlam so as to allow the minister to be re-elected?
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would come over here.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be allowed to make a few brief remarks in
March 8. 1966

Supply-Health and Welfare response to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I thank him for having made those observations. I seem to have touched a nerve somewhere. I do not wish to take away any credit from the hon. member or from the government he had the honour to lead when he brought about many useful and progressive measures in the province of Saskatchewan, measures which are working very well at the moment. But I do not wish him to take credit for those he did not bring in and I noted that he mentioned the cancer program. This was started by one of the members of the Hall Commission, Dr. D. M. Baltzan, of Saskatoon, during the Conservative administration. It was first started as a pilot plan and it was made free by the Liberals, admittedly as an election bribe in-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask my hon. friend a
question?


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Just sit down. I have not finished. The hospital insurance program which your government brought in did an admirable job. I merely pointed out in my address that nothing has been done to take care of the distaff side, and I would ask the hon. member to listen carefully. As I suspected, the means test was once again used by the hon. member as a smokescreen, and this is exactly what I meant. I said nothing about a means test in any medicare scheme. I made no pronouncement about the policy of our party. I asked some questions which the hon. member did not take time to listen to, and so we have had more sophistry.
The hon. member said I opposed the four main points. If he reads Hansard tomorrow I think he will find that is not the case. He said that I said we had not endorsed the Hall Commission report. I invite him to read the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, and I think I shall send him some of mine also.
May I just read from the Hall Commission report, paragraph No. 2, under the heading "Health Charter for Canadians":
"Universal" means that adequate health services shall be available to all Canadians wherever they reside and whatever their financial resources may be, within the limitations imposed by geographic factors.
I understood the hon. member to suggest that he thought the medical profession had learned its lesson. I thought he had learned his in Regina a few years ago. May I point out that the plan at present in operation in Saskatchewan is not the plan originally proposed. Admittedly the idea is there but the plan was changed. The legislation was

changed by a special session of the legislature called by Premier Lloyd of Saskatchewan after the meeting of the doctors and the Saskatoon agreement on July 23.
This plan operating in Saskatchewan is not the plan originally proposed by the hon. member's government. That plan outlawed the private practice of medicine in the province of Saskatchewan. Certainly the present plan is working well now. The reason it is working is that the doctors are still dedicated individuals who are working hard to give the best possible care to their patients despite the fact that there is overutilization of their services, despite the fact that they are working much longer and much harder than they ever worked. But I am afraid that by reason of the amount of work they are doing they are working in less depth than they should be in medical practice, and these are things which must be considered by the committee and the government in any proposals for medicare throughout the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not want to delay the committee, Mr. Chairman, but may I just make two points. Reference was made to the free cancer program in Saskatchewan. First of all, I want to point out to the hon. member for Saskatoon that the free cancer program which had been set up by a Conservative government in 1932 or 1934, if I remember correctly, provided only for diagnostic services and not one dollar was ever paid out for cancer treatment or cancer surgery until a C.C.F. government was elected in the province and supplied the necessary funds for that purpose.
The hon. gentleman also made reference to the fact that the hospitalization program was set up with not sufficient attention having been paid to the supplying of what he calls the distaff side. I suppose he means hospital equipment, plant and facilities. I would point out that between the time our government took office and the time the hospital insurance plan was established we doubled the number of hospital beds in the province. I have not looked at the figures for the last two years but for years Saskatchewan had the highest ratio of hospital beds per thousand of the population of any province in Canada and was only equalled by one state of the union, namely, the state of New York.
When the hon. gentleman points out that the medicare plan operating in Saskatchewan is not the same plan as proposed originally he
March 8, 1966	COMMONS
is really playing with words. The plan brought in did not outlaw private practice. That was the interpretation which was given it by certain persons who opposed the plan. It certainly was not concurred in by the law officers, but in order to satisfy any who might have fears in that regard, Premier Lloyd did agree to bring in amendments to the Act. But at the time the Act was introduced in the legislature I made it perfectly clear that our understanding and interpretation of the legislation, on the basis of opinions by the law officers, was that it left the medical profession the right, if they chose, to stay outside the plan.
I contend that the basic principle of having medicare available to each person, without requiring him to prove he is indigent or comes within a special category, has worked successfully, and I am convinced that if it is made applicable to all Canadians it will work equally well and be generally acceptable to the Canadian people.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise one particular matter with the minister relating to an individual case which on the surface at least looks rather unique. It involves an individual who is the recipient of old age security payments and has a deduction from his cheques in order to cover what is claimed to be an overpayment made to him by the Department of Veterans Affairs. So far as I can understand, this is because of a provision in the Financial Administration Act. I should like to read into the record a letter sent to this individual by Mr. Bone, regional director of the federal department in Victoria, B.C. The letter is dated in September of last year. The amount of the overpayment is significant and I draw particular attention to it. The letter begins:
As you know, an overpayment amounting to $6,926.34 was made to you by the Department of Veterans Affairs which is administered by the federal authorities.
An overpayment of $6,900 is a fantastic amount. I understand the individual in question was receiving war veterans allowance at the rate of $55 a month which, if the overpayment total is correct, would mean it extended over a period of some 10 years or more, an inordinate and unreasonably long period before it came to the attention of the authorities.
The letter continues:
Since these authorities were not successful in effecting collection of that overpayment the matter was referred to the federal Treasury Board. The
DEBATES	2377
Supply-Health and Welfare board has instructed, under the terms of the Financial Administration Act, that the amount of the overpayment be recovered by monthly deductions from payments of your old age security pension.
In the first place, this is news to me. I thought payments under the Old Age Security Act were inviolate and were not liable to attachment or deduction no matter what the reason, but apparently in this instance this was done.
I read further from the letter:
Beginning with the month of October, 1965 and continuing up to and including November, 1980, monthly deductions of $38.00 will be made from your cheque. A deduction of $10.34 will be made from your cheque for the month of December, 1980. Beginning with the month of January, 1891-
There must be a typographical error there.
I think that should be 1981.
-payment will resume at the full monthly rate.
The gentleman who wrote to me has enclosed his cheque. He does not know what to do with the balance of $37 left after the deduction was made. There is an interesting point I should like to draw to the attention of the minister. This gentleman obviously is 70 years of age now. Presumably deductions will be made from his old age pension cheque for the next 15 years. If he is 70 now he will be 85 when the repayments are finished. On the surface it just seems wrong. First, I think the Department of Veterans Affairs, if there was an overpayment of almost $7,000, is guilty of not discovering it earlier than they did.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I have inquired among my colleagues in respect of the cases of overpayment they have heard of in their years in parliament and they say that from memory they do not recall anything of this magnitude ever being involved and that an overpayment of an amount up to $1,000 would be the maximum. An amount in the neighbourhood of $7,000, however, is completely unheard of.
In the first instance, I think there is a degree of error on the part of the Veterans Affairs administration which permitted this sort of thing to happen. I do not know what took place. I have no knowledge of the background circumstances. I have no knowledge of whether or not the declaration that there was an overpayment is correct or whether it is based on correct information. I am not going to go into that aspect.
However, from the fact that the Veterans Affairs people have said there is an overpayment of $7,000 it seems to me that they admit their error in not discovering it much sooner
March 8, 1966

Supply-Health and Welfare than they did. Second, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice under the Financial Administration Act to make a determination whether the overpayment is recoverable and the cabinet subsequently adopts an order in council, Treasury Board minute, or whatever the mechanism is, providing that the individual's old age pension will be cut in half even though the overpayment resulted in part from the error of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I do not know what probability there is that the overpayment will be completely cleared up. Who knows how long a person will live? I do not know this gentleman's age at the moment but presumably he is at least a year or two over age 70. Whether the individual himself will continue to receive the old age pension for a sufficient length of time to pay off the indebtedness is problematical, all other things being equal.
I would seriously urge upon the minister that he institute a review of this matter and take into account the probability that the Department of Veterans Affairs made an error in not making this determination sooner than they did and also take into account the good possibility that even if you persist in deducting $38 a month from his $75 you will not recover the full overpayment in any event because of the passing of time. If Treasury Board must insist on balancing its books in so far as this one individual is concerned, I would ask that they be kind and gracious enough to wipe some of the overpayment off the books. If they feel they must make a deduction from his cheques in order to cover some of the overpayment, then let them think in terms of a deduction of $5 or $10. This is the usual amount, the hon. member for Kootenay West tells me, and he has had many years of experience in dealing with the Department of Veterans Affairs. He tells me that usually $5 is considered to be the proper token deduction to make in order to reduce overpayments.
I seriously urge this upon the minister. I have refrained from giving the individual's name but the minister is certainly welcome to the correspondence. I will send the correspondence to him later so that he will have it in his possession. I hope he will do something worth while for this individual and see if he can approach the problem with some fairness.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to say I was both shocked and angered by the reply of the Prime Minister

today to the effect that we in the Atlantic provinces should be grateful for what this government has done. I hope that my remarks this afternoon will not be considered in this light by the representative in the cabinet from Nova Scotia. This is an example of the Liberal philosophy about which I complained earlier in regard to presenting estimates in the house and it is a philosophy which must disappear if we are to hope to achieve the mutual and merited consideration of proposals when they come before the federal government.
I should like to recommend to the minister the speech of the hon. member for Simcoe East last evening. He in effect told the minister it is not realistic to try to provide the Canadian people with second rate medicare when they are deserving of the very best. He went on to say that they can receive it only if certain actions are taken by the government to provide the facilities which the doctors must have to work with if they are to be given an opportunity to provide the kind of service that Canadians want.
I recall a difficult situation that developed very recently in the Maritime provinces because we do not have the facilities to provide the kind of medical education desired by those who would like to have it. We do not have adequate facilities at Dal-housie University and there are none in New Brunswick, none in Prince Edward Island and none in Newfoundland. As a result Dalhousie medical school was under very severe criticism because of the number of applications they were willing to consider from areas other than Nova Scotia.
I know there has been a long discussion by the medical association of New Brunswick about the possibility of the establishment of a second medical school. Certainly something must be done in our area if we are to produce the number of doctors we need to service our people. Surely it would be very unfair to inflict upon doctors in our area an even greater load than they already are carrying simply because of the desire to meet a deadline.
No one in the Conservative party wishes to do anything but see to it that people in every part of Canada receive the very best medical attention. No one in the Conservative party wishes any person in Canada to be deprived of medical attention when he or she needs it. But we also appreciate the fact that certain actions which have not been taken must be taken on a priority basis before we can
March 8, 1966	COMMONS
expect to have universal medicare or anything like it.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I do not intend to say anything more on that subject because I believe the hon. member for Simcoe East has put forward these arguments in a very cogent manner. It is my hope that the minister will give very serious consideration to them as he goes ahead with his plans.
There are two other aspects of the minister's department about which I should like to speak. First of all, I want to refer briefly to the special committee of the Senate on aging.
I do so for two reasons. We have heard a great deal of criticism of the other place recently. Whether or not it is warranted is not for me to say, but I do suggest that a report of the committee indicates the value of that body to Canadians. If there is some difficulty with regard to the other place, it is one that can be rectified by the government provided it wishes to take appropriate action rather than the kind of reform we noted in certain recent appointments to that chamber.
The highly qualified men of the other place should be given the kind of useful objectives to work toward that would be of benefit to all Canadians. I refer particularly to the deliberations of that body on land use and the fact that our ARDA legislation flowed from their report on that subject. Today the ARDA legislation is very much a part of our agricultural and resource policies.
The Senate report on aging contains many recommendations which if implemented would do much toward eliminating the poverty now evident in our country. Indeed, perhaps the implementation of these recommendations would do more than any other step the government could take.
The minister has a department through which tremendous things could be done. It is a department which deals with individual Canadians in difficult circumstances, a department from which will flow great material benefits to everyone in Canada provided the minister is willing to use the facilities available to him to take the kind of action that is required.
I wish to refer specifically to a recommendation on page 19 of the Senate report on aging. It reads as follows:
The committee endorses in principle the institution of an income guarantee program for all persons aged 65 and over and recommends to the federal government that this proposal be given immediate study.
DEBATES	2379
Supply-Health and Welfare
I want to draw the minister's attention to the discussion we have had during this debate about the means test and the Senate committee's recommendation to the effect that the means test should be eliminated and should not apply in considering the needs of the older people of this nation. At page 17 of the report the following is stated:
Any suggestion that these older people, when the $75 pension is not sufficient, should be expected to depend for supplementation on public assistance after a needs test is utterly unacceptable.
It is certainly unacceptable to me and I believe it is unacceptable to this committee. Again on page 17 of the report the following is stated:
The question is how best to provide such benefits. One possibility would be to increase the Old Age Security Pension by some agreed amount as has been done at intervals in the past.
That is exactly what we proposed during the election campaign and exactly what we have proposed during debates in the house since this session began. This is the logical step to take and I hope the minister will get in touch with the provincial governments in this regard if he finds that necessary. I think funds are available in the federal treasury to provide for the increase if the minister wishes to take that step. If the minister feels it necessary to consult the provincial governments I am sure he will find they will be willing to join in an effort to increase old age pensions to $100 as we have recommended or to $105 as recommended by the Senate committee as the very minimum guaranteed income for Canadians 65 and over.
The other matter I wish to raise and direct to the minister's attention relates to allowances for blind and disabled persons. I have been concerned for some time about the fact that individuals receiving allowances of this type are faced with the greatest difficulty anyone in life can face in being unable to work. These people have medical requirements beyond those of the average individual; yet in many cases they are asked to subsist on $75 per month. What is even worse, the regulations laid down by the Department of National Health and Welfare are interpreted by provincial governments in such a way that many individuals are ineligible for these benefits. This is creating shocking inequities.
I might have taken dozens, even hundreds of cases from my files and read them into the record to show the circumstances of these people who are incapable of working but cannot meet the qualifications for additional
March 8. 196&

Supply-Health and Welfare allowances set down in the regulations of the Department of National Health and Welfare. In order to meet these qualifications one almost has to have, as the old saying goes, one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel because of the way the regulations are interpreted today.
I would ask the minister to find out whether or not something can be done about the regulations in order to bring them more in line with the incapability of these people to work. I know of several cases at this time that are shocking, but whenever I write the minister of public health and welfare of my province I always receive a reply to the effect that the medical review board in interpreting the federal regulations issued by the Department of National Health and Welfare finds it is impossible for the individual concerned to qualify.
In this regard I should like to refer again to the Senate committee report on aging wherein at page 26 the following is stated:
The committee recommends:	That the N.E.S.
devote greater attention to the field of part time employment with a view to discovering the nature of the demand and offering a more effective placement service.
I suggest that recommendation might apply very well to many of these people now unable to exist on disabled and blind pensions.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
During the last election campaign one of the Progressive Conservative party's planks was the elimination of the means test in regard to blind and disabled allowances. Perhaps it was not a significant plank in our platform but it is a plank which indicates the real appreciation this party has for the welfare of the citizens of this nation. It exemplifies the fact that we are willing to produce the kind of program which will meet the needs of the people of this country. It exemplifies our concern for the suffering evident everywhere today in this nation among these people. I hope the minister will give very serious consideration to broadening the regulations so that employability will be a factor as well as disability.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) on his appointment to that post and I regret having to draw to his attention certain steps of doubtful value that were taken under his predecessor.


It could be that the former minister was not informed of the unwholesome work performed under his department's authority by certain medical doctors who probably wanted to justify their jobs and enhance their prestige before their friends.
In any case, those wretched individuals took advantage of the cow's product to cowardly bring honest citizens before the courts. Some farmers are now charged with having: put poor quality milk on the market. I am convinced that to force someone to stand trial, one must be sure that the accused is morally guilty. Therefore, in this case, the person who can honestly prove that the farmer is guilty, as far as the quality of the milk is concerned, is not yet born, for the very good reason that dairy milk is never bought but taken on consignment by the processors concerned. They go to the farmers to take delivery of the milk, they see to it that it is weighed and they only have the right to accept or return that product, and often, the product processed in several ways will be put on the market before the farmers get a penny.
At the present time, the dairy producers in the riding of Champlain are awaiting the verdict following a trial which took place before the courts in Trois-Rivieres.
Other farmers in my riding are awaiting their trial which has been set for March in Quebec City. It is through the R.C.M.P. that they learned that they had put milk of poor quality on the market on May 4, 1965. The farmers, who normally sell their milk $5.50 per cwt. get from their dairy a first, second and third notice when such a thing happens. Sometimes the farmers must stop delivering milf for a week or two, that is long enough to enable them to locate the trouble. But there is never any talk of a trial. However, in the case under consideration, that is dairy milk, for which the farmers get only $3 per cwt. when it costs them $3.50, there was not any first, second or third notice.
And what is most ridiculous about this situation, Mr. Chairman, is that the processor never stopped getting milk from those farmers.
I have here the quantities supplied by a producer for each day in 1965. They total 63,669 pounds. Either his product was good or it was not. If it was, the dairy did well to accept it. But if it was not, it might have been due to the herd which should have been killed. But it might have been due also to the refrigeration method. If the milk was considered unsuitable for making some products,
March 8< 1366

because it had been badly kept, the processor had the right and duty to refuse it; then, thousands of consumers would have been truly protected. The reputation of the farmers would not have suffered; and only a few lawyers would have in their pockets a few dollars less from the Department of National Health and Welfare.
The minister made a serious mistake when he mobilized the R.C.M.P. on Christmas eve to hand out summons to farmers throughout the province of Quebec, because around that time the same police officers might have focused their attention on Quebec City to prevent the distribution of thousands of pounds of meat from the United States which had been declared unfit for human consumption and, in addition, had been previously refused by the city of Montreal.
I ask the minister to look closely into this deplorable situation and to get in touch without delay with the farmers involved who are greatly concerned over what the future holds in store for them, because departmental employees who came to testify at the trial in Trois-Rivieres behaved in a manner which would please Fidel Castro very much.
We should not forget that there are in your department some employees who, for these same reasons, they obtained their job, could be somewhere else. The officers of the department use the law to do their job. All laws are good, provided they are not abused. Every citizen can use certain laws. Take my case: this very morning, had I wished, I could have sent to jail the owner of a restaurant where I had breakfast. This afternoon, just with a written charge, I could have any hon. member in this house locked up. I will not do it, because we live in a democratic country and mutual co-operation should rank before felony.
In conclusion, I ask the minister to do Whatever is possible not to cause prejudice to the Canadian farmers, and particularly Quebec farmers, since 75 per cent of them are no longer masters in their own house, because they owe their land to federal or provincial agricultural credit, their machinery to the banks, their cattle to the Caisses populaires, as a result of loans granted to them. Actually, they only have their wives left.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
And, although the minister is unmarried, I am sure that he will not need the law when, one day, he asks a woman to take his arm.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, we did not intend to speak at length on the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, but since the discussion seems to drag on we thought it our duty to ask certain members of our party to speak in order to remove the obstruction which seems to rise on our extreme left.
We have several comments to make, but we had agreed to make them at another time. However, as we see that it is almost impossible to reach an agreement on that point, we thought we should speak immediately.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to put certain questions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), to whom I wish much success in his new duties.
I would like him to answer the questions I shall put to him when, a little later, he gives reply to the questions hon. members put to him. If he cannot do it now, he could answer them at a later date.
The first question is this: Mr. Chairman, it will be remembered that in 1963, his party, through the present prime minister, promised to extend student allowances to the age of 21.
It will be remembered that the former Minister of Justice, who now fills a high post in London, said to the house that the right hon. prime minister always kept his promises, and that he was giving himself four years within which to keep his promise to grant students allowances till the age of 21.
We would like the minister to tell us if he has had the opportunity, since he has become Minister of National Health and Welfare, to study the prime minister's promise, and to tell us when the government or himself expect to be able to grant these allowances to students until they are 21.
I ask that on behalf of the numerous Canadian families which see that family allowances have remained almost stationary since 1945.
If one compares the cost of living percentage points for 1945 with those of today, one sees that family allowances no longer meet the purposes for which they were granted in 1945.
I do not have figures here, this afternoon, but if my memory serves me correctly, the cost of living, according to the index set in 1949, was 100. In 1945, the cost of living would have been 75, according to the 1949 index. Today, we know that the cost of living increases very fast, particularly since the last two or three years. It even exceeds 140 points.
March 8, 1966

Supply-Health and Welfare
This means, Mr. Chairman, that if the government is ready to launch a war against poverty in Canada, the opposition is ready to support it.
We note that large families are apt to be poverty-stricken. This is a fact and it is our duty to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to take immediately the necessary steps to increase family allowances in order that they may be more consistent with the present cost of living.
I state this suggestion in addition to that I made a few moments ago concerning allowances paid to students.
Now, there is another matter about which I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I do not know if, to date, he has had any opportunity to meet his Quebec counterpart, Hon. Rene Levesque. But we have been hearing for many months that the hon. provincial minister intends to take over administration of family allowances. He suggests that these allowances would be granted by the government of Quebec and the latter would receive fiscal compensation from the federal government.
Would the hon. minister disclose the present stage of the discussions with Hon. Rene Levesque to this effect. I wish to point out that the statement of Hon. Rene Levesque to the effect that the first and even the second child of a family will not be covered by family allowances has led to many protests.
In some letters I have received from families with three, four or five children, it is said that it is no use doubling family allowances if nothing is paid for the first and second child. Anyway, they say, it would be the same.
I should like some enlightenment from the minister on the intentions of the federal government as far as allowances paid to students up to age 21 are concerned and on the intentions of the federal government concerning the readjustment of family allowances to the cost of living, and also on its intentions concerning the wish of the Minister of Health of the province of Quebec to have control over family allowances and to get fiscal compensation from the Ottawa government.
Now, sir, I conclude not by placing before the minister all the requests received by me in connection with family allowances, but by telling him once more, and this is my own opinion, that if we are to fight poverty in Canada, we must give thought to large families. I have no doubt that if family allowances were geared to the present cost of


living, which is always on the increase, we could render a very great service to our large Canadian families.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Clément Vincent: Certainly.


David Réal Caouette: I appreciate his position with regard to an increase in family allowances. Would the hon. member tell the house why his party, which was in power for five years, forgot during that time, to increase family allowances according to the cost of living index?


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, if I were to take the time, this afternoon, to say-


David Réal Caouette: Take the time.


Clément Vincent: -all that was possible to do-


David Réal Caouette: Physically.


Clément Vincent: -during that period of five years, well, it would be too long. But I am sure, as the hon. member for Villeneuve very often says it, I cannot recall his expression: "All that is physically possible"-


David Réal Caouette: Must be financially possible.


Clément Vincent: All that is physically possible must be financially workable.


Mr. Choquette:: And really desirable.


Clément Vincent: One must consider that this is the year 1966 and that this government has been in power for four years already. The hon. member for Villeneuve is exerting pressure so as to raise family allowances; let him keep on joining us in order to ask this government to act in the direction we all want, namely raise family allowances.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to be very brief.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I see that is welcomed on the government side of the house. I want to congratulate the minister on his appointment. He has a formidable task ahead of him in the next few years which will tax all his skill, his tact and his patience. I also want to compliment the parliamentary secretary on her appointment. I know she is keen about her responsibilities and takes them seriously. I want to say in passing that she adds a charming dash of colour to a very drab male landscape.
March 8, 1988	COMMONS
I pay my tribute to the staff of the department who carry on their work throughout the year as do members of other departments. I think they should receive greater recognition than they do from a very large percentage of the Canadian people. I notice some of them are here. I know they do not mind listening to this debate because it is an annual Roman holiday for the Department of National Health and Welfare. Others from the Department of Public Works are listening carefully behind them.
I support all the proposals made by members of our group with respect to a national health insurance plan, raising old age pensions to $100 a month at age 65, introduction of the Canada Assistance Plan and improved housing for senior citizens. In short, I support all those things that our party has stood for throughout the years.
On this occasion I rise particularly to deal with one item only, physical fitness and amateur sports. I must say we were very pleased with the announcement made by the minister recently that further funds are to be provided for the coaching of amateur athletes in this country, making it possible for them to take part in international competitions. I particularly wish to compliment all those organizations in Canada which are working in this field, including the Royal Canadian Legion.
I think the Legion has done very good work in this respect and has co-operated with the government, with the athletes concerned and with the communities in which Legion branches operate. I might say that the Legion branch in Kootenay West has taken great interest in the development of amateur sports and holds an annual track and field meet to promote interest in this program.
I must mention the excellent success that the University of Notre Dame has had in solving the problem of being able to combine attendance at university and good average marks with the development of sport of international championship calibre. I know that this is a unique development in the combination of educational opportunity and high calibre athletes in this country.
I stress the skiing part of the program because Kootenay West is known everywhere for its development of champions but particularly in the skiing field. In this connection I wish to quote from Sports Scope, volume 1, No. 1, now being published by the Royal Canadian Legion in the interests of the development of amateur sport. It is further 23033-151
DEBATES	2383
Supply-Health and Welfare evidence of the Legion's willingness to cooperate with the people, with communities and with the government in developing amateur sport. I feel in all fairness I ought to place this on the record:
Some studied historian may one day be able to pinpoint the week end upon which Canada became a major ski power. An unstudied guess, however, would have to be the first week end of last April.
One week before the Crystal Mountain meet in Washington, the Americans had done poorly against the relentless racers from France, Switzerland and Austria. So they went on to the National Alpine event hungry for a chance at redemption. Then somebody let the Canadians onto the course, and for the Americans it was a Bay of Pigs on skis.
And wasn't I pleased.
With stunning suddenness, the Americans faced a new threat. It was almost as if a fifth column had struck secretly from within while American attention was focused on European racers.
Nancy Greene swept the slalom, the giant slalom and the downhill that week end. Rod Hebron pulled a third in the slalom and coach Dave Jacob's skiers were scattered throughout the top ten positions.
The men's slalom at the national was only the beginning. In the national, Rod Hebron, Bob Swan and Peter Duncan all placed higher than the nearest American. In the next three slalom races on the circuit, the best Canadian placed higher than the best American.
Meanwhile, Nancy Greene had hit her stride. She won the two giant slaloms, a qualified first in a downhill, fourth in a slalom and one disqualification in a slalom after a run which was a full second faster than her nearest competitor.
The Canadian team which had gone to the U.S.A. as country cousins returned to Canada as serious contenders for world skiing honours.
By fall the racers were back in permanent quarters at Nelson, B.C. Those with an academic standing of grade 12 or less must attend high school. Others are encouraged to attend the local Notre Dame University or the Arts School.
The Canadians has apparently solved the problem which is confronting the Americans: how to combine school and ski. But on the other hand, the U.S.A. has solved a problem which still confronts Canadian skiers:
And other athletes in this country-the
question of funds.
Whereas the U.S. program has a budget of $450,000, the Canadian Ski Association is having considerable difficulty in raising $150,000. If it can't, Canada's skiing ambassadors or their parents will have to dig down into their pockets to foot the bill.
I just want to mention that the Canadian Legion appreciates the sports training plan and took the opportunity to record this appreciation formally when presenting the Legion's brief to the Prime Minister on November 25 last. Reference to this will be found in The Legionary.
The Legion's national clinic for track and field coaches is recognized as one of the best
March 8, 1866

Supply-Health and Welfare in the world. The Legion admits that the success of the program has been largely due to financial assistance received from the Department of National Health and Welfare. I think we must give credit where it is due.


An hon. Member:: Time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have 30 seconds to finish. In view of the success to date of the sports and physical fitness program I urge continued and close co-operation by the government with the universities and other organizations interested in the promotion of amateur sport in Canada through the provision by the government of further financial assistance for the coaching of Canadian athletes who will be participating in international sporting events. I also urge that where further assistance is required it be given.
I also wish to pay tribute to Nancy Greene who lives in Rossland in the riding of Kootenay West and is one of my constituents of whom we are all proud.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Medical Services-
20. Administration, operation and maintenance including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the total of all amounts to be paid by the governments of provinces and territories under agreements to be entered on terms approved by the Governor in Council with such governments in respect of health assistance to persons residing on Indian reserves other than Indians and to residents of the territories other than Indians and Eskimos, $32,002,500.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I hope this is the correct vote under which to raise a question which has to do primarily with medical services to native Indian people. I want to mention two or three points to the minister. In British Columbia we have a means test type of medicare program and native Indian people who make application for coverage under that program are advised that they are not eligible to be covered because their medical coverage falls under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada. I think this matter was raised a few years ago. The policy with respect to coverage for native Indian people in British Columbia was that if it was considered that the individual had sufficient funds to pay his own medical bills they fell on his shoulders but if it was determined that the individual did not have sufficient funds to pay his medical bills then the department paid them.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
In other words, there was a means test in application then in the case of native Indian

people who cling to what I might call their aboriginal right and feel that the cost of their medical coverage should be borne automatically by the federal government. This feeling is perhaps stronger in British Columbia than elsewhere because in British Columbia the native Indian people have not signed any treaties with respect to their lands. They feel that the Crown, having invaded their territory and exploited resources formerly exploited by the native people, has a concomitant responsibility toward them. They feel rightly or wrongly-rightly, I think-that coverage is the responsibility of the government and should not be dependent upon the application of a means test.
If this is still the policy of the federal government, and from what has been said I believe it is, we find the native Indians in British Columbia facing two means tests. First, there is the means test approach which the federal government has imposed on them for some time. Second, if they want to apply for coverage under the British Columbia medicare plan they find themselves confronted with another means test, a means test which amounts to a prohibition because the attitude of the provincial government is: We want nothing to do with you because you are a federal responsibility. As a result the native Indians find they are covered by no one so far as medical care is concerned.
I wonder whether the minister would care to reply and give an account of the policy of his department in this area. Perhaps he could tell us whether any steps are being taken to overcome the difficulty which native Indians are experiencing in getting medical coverage.
At the same time he might tell us what the situation is with respect to the so-called medicine chest case in Saskatchewan. A year or so ago a court found that the present day application of a provision in one of the old treaties meant that these people should receive medical coverage from the state.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Skeena but I see it is six o'clock.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: When the Speaker resumes the Chair I propose to ask that we waive private members' hour.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
March 8, 1966



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), Labour Conditions-Timmins-skilled labour shortage in gold mining industry; the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro), Industry-Hamilton, Ont.- cessation of operations of Studebaker Company; the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates), Broadcasting-Fowler Commission-acceptance of recommendations.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask unanimous consent to forgo the private members' hour today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent at this time to forgo the private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Only on condition that it is postponed and not abolished.


George James McIlraith: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the private members' hour just be postponed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
Medical services-
20. Administration, operation and maintenance including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the total of all amounts to be paid by the governments of provinces and territories under agreements to be entered on terms approved by the Governor in Council with such governments in respect of health assistance to persons residing on Indian reserves other than Indians and to residents of the territories other than Indians and Eskimos, $32,002,500.
Frank Howard: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, a year ago or perhaps longer a court in Saskatchewan decided that a clause in a particular Indian treaty meant, in present-day terms, that at least the Indian people covered by the treaty should have their medical coverage provided by the state. The implications of this decision were extremely 23033-1511
Supply-Health and Welfare far reaching and would, I think, lead us in the direction which I for one would like to take, namely that of providing medical care coverage not only to native Indian people but to others.
This court decision brought the matter to a head. I understand that the government of Saskatchewan appealed the decision. Why, I do not know; presumably they did not like it. I should like to know from the minister what is the current status of this case. If it is still pending as an appeal before the courts I think we are perhaps prohibited from saying very much more about its merits. Before I go further, perhaps the minister can tell me the status of this particular case.


Mr. MacEachen:: In connection with the first question asked by the hon. member, the one relating to Indian participation in the medical service of British Columbia, the department does of course provide medical services to the Indians. However, at the present time it is attempting to provide a method by which Indians can participate in the British Columbia insurance scheme and secure coverage under the provincial medical aid plan. So far the department has not been fully successful in achieving its objective but it is continuing its efforts.


Frank Howard: What about the court case?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sorry. I was otherwise engaged when the hon. member mentioned the case in Saskatchewan. Would he be good enough to repeat it briefly? Then I will try to give him the necessary information.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


Frank Howard: This is the so-called medicine chest case. I do not recall the name of the Indian group involved. It related to an early treaty which said that a first aid kit or medical facilities of that kind should be kept at the Indian agent's office. As I recall, this was subsequently determined by the court to mean full medical coverage in present day terminology. The decision was appealed and I should like to know the status of this case now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to tell my hon. friend that it has not yet been decided.


Frank Howard: Then I shall say no more about that aspect. However, what the minister had to say with respect to negotiations with the provincial government of British Columbia to bring native Indian people under the B.C. medical plan was interesting and
March 8, 1966

Supply-Health and Welfare revealing. It was an amazing statement for him to make because his own Prime Minister has declared on more than one occasion that he is in favour of the four fundamental points set out in the Hall Royal Commission report on health services, one of them being that medical care should be universally applicable and that there should not be a means test. I presume it is still the position of the government that when it comes to the question of medicare the government's policy is to make it universally applicable without a means test.
But in the face of that the minister now tells us he is negotiating with the province of B.C. to bring native Indian people into a plan that has a means test. He and the Prime Minister are running in opposite directions. In recent days it has been shown that there is a divergence between what the Prime Minister thinks and what some of his ministers think, but if the Minister of National Health and Welfare wants to be consistent with the Prime Minister's policy he should be leading the way in medicare with regard to people who are his direct responsibility under the constitution so as to provide medical coverage without a means test for native Indian people not only in B.C. but right across the country. The B.C. plan has a means test as an integral part of it.
I hope the minister is not successful in these negotiations because I know what will occur in that event in B.C. and I know what is occurring now. People have to go to the premier of the province and disclose their bank accounts and how much property they have. They must make full disclosure of all their personal circumstances in order to get medical insurance coverage. This is contrary to our way of thinking and contrary to the thinking of the minister's party. As I say, I hope the minister is not successful in these negotiations and I hope he will seriously reflect on this matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not precisely clear as to the point the hon. gentleman is making with respect to the means test. The objective of the department is to have the Indian population treated in precisely the same way as other citizens in British Columbia who are served under the B.C. medical insurance scheme and in that way to secure the kind of integration that is a goal. But this does not in any way detract from our general policy with respect to the universality of medical insurance. As has been stated several times today and yesterday, we will assist provincially

administered medicare plans which meet the four principles, one of which is universality.
I was encouraged the other day to read in the press a report made in the provincial legislature of New Brunswick to the effect that it was the intention of the province of British Columbia to enter the general plan. If that report is correct, then it is very encouraging and will remove the difficulty my hon. friend foresees.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, this sounds something like the Bomarc philosophy, that you get something and once you get it you do not want it; you want something else. It also hinges on the prospect of the government bringing in a medicare program and the minister has not shown any indication that it is going to do that yet. I still say he is going in the wrong direction. If he wants to provide full medicare coverage involving the principle of universality, then let him start with the human beings who come within the jurisdiction of the federal government. We have applied a means test philosophy to them for donkey's years which has resulted in the degradation of these people and the development of an inferiority complex on their part. The minister is now attempting to perpetuate the same sort of system by bringing them under the B.C. medical plan, which involves a means test, on the same basis as everybody else.
If the minister wants to negotiate with the B.C. government for coverage of the native Indian people across the board so they will be covered regardless of the means test in the provincial plan, then that is a horse of another colour and I wish him success. But obviously he is not trying to do that. He is trying the approach of integration and integration is a pretty foul word so far as the native Indian people are concerned because the implication is that it is a one-way street.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, there may be a misunderstanding here. I do not see where the fact of a means test enters into the service that we are attempting to provide or that the means test is any way applicable to the Indian population if they can be served under the B.C. medical plan. This is our feeling about it.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister realizes my intervention is meant only to be helpful to him. There is a section in the Indian Act which says that the Governor in Council may make regulations for the purpose of providing health services for
March 8, 1966	COMMONS
the Indian people but even though the Indian Act has been in existence for many years apparently the Governor in Council has not yet got around to making regulations in connection with health services for Indian people. Indeed, one might almost argue that the activities of the minister's department in this connection are without any real statutory foundation. I suggest that without waiting for legislative action respecting a national medicare scheme regulations could be enacted under the authority already given to the Governor in Council by which, without application of a means test, the services available under the British Columbia medical plan could be provided for the Indian people of B.C.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I suggest to the minister that this is a course of action he might consider. I think the few of us who know the situation at all, in respect of the approach currently in effect in providing Indians with medical services through the Department of National Health and Welfare can argue that the present situation is a most unsatisfactory and unhappy one. The Indian people themselves do not know where they stand from one day to the next so far as their eligibility for health services is concerned. So far as I have been able to find out, most of the persons who are administering the services, certainly the people in the Indian Affairs branch, do not know where they stand in trying to tell the Indian people what they may or may not be eligible for.
I suggest to the minister that there is open to him an immediate course of action for which there is statutory authority, to bring all the Indian people of British Columbia into the coverage of the British Columbia medical plan without in any way creating the situation which the member for Skeena has been discussing with respect to the proposals which I understood the minister to say are being considered or discussed with the government of British Columbia at the present time. I suggest this might be a very useful interim measure and that the problem of med'cal care and services for the Indian people could be resolved immediately under the authority of the legislation now in existence. In many ways it would simplify, at any rate, the administrative situation in respect of Indian health services. In fact, if the Governor in Council were to adopt regulations which in effect would prepay the premiums for the Indian people so that they would be
DEBATES	2387
Supply-Health and Welfare eligible for the full benefits of the British Columbia plan, this need not cost the federal government any more for health services in British Columbia than they are spending at the present time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My information is that the department is quite ready and eager to do what the hon. member suggests.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister says his department is eager and ready to do it. Is the government eager and ready to do it? Are they going to do it and, if so, when?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
25. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including payments to hospitals and other institutions which care for Indians and Eskimos as contributions toward the construction of hospitals and related facilities, $5,050,000.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, there is one brief comment I should like to make concerning a hospital close to Prince Rupert known as the Miller Bay Indian Hospital. Originally it was a hospital for tubercular patients. With the decline in tuberculosis it has been transformed into a sort of general hospital for native people from the whole northern part of British Columbia and I presume part of the Yukon Territory as well. In fact, I think I met a native person from the Yukon who was a patient in that hospital at one time.
The hospital facilities are second world war army or air force buildings. They were built during the second world war for military purposes and are pretty antiquated by present day standards. About a year ago an attempt was made to close the Miller Bay Hospital. This was forestalled because if it were closed there would not be sufficient hospital facilities available in the area to take up the slack and provide accommodation for the patients who normally might expect to be in the Miller Bay Hospital. So it has been kept in existence.
So far I have heard no thought expressed nor plan ennunciated with regard to what is scheduled so far as the Miller Bay Hospital is concerned. My thought and that of a large number of the native people there is that we would just as soon see the Miller Bay Hospital closed and go out of business because these people would rather have hospital care and attention provided to them in the same type of hospital and with the same facilities as those provided to other people. They do not

March 8, 1966
Supply-Public Works
want to see the perpetuation of the system of establishing separate facilities for people based on their racial origin.
I am wondering whether there are any plans for the government to work in conjunction with the British Columbia government to expand the hospital facilities available under British Columbia law to the extent that they will provide sufficient beds for the expected number of native people who might have to use them if the Miller Bay Hospital were eventually closed. I should like to hear about this and so would the people in this area. Can the minister tell us anything about the plans in respect of Miller Bay?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I can tell
my hon. friend it is the wish of the department to do precisely what he wishes, that is, to wind up this hospital. It is a question of getting alternate facilities.


Frank Howard: How soon will it be proceeded with or how soon will the alternate facilities be available?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I regret I do not have the information on this particular hospital with me at the moment. If it will satisfy my hon. friend, I will assure him that I will obtain full particulars and give them to him by letter as soon as possible.


Frank Howard: That is quite agreeable, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


[Stage Direction]
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $14,892,700.
Mr. Keays:: Mr. Chairman, is the minister going to make a statement on this item?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I did not plan to make a statement because these estimates cover works for the year just ending and which are nearly completed. I think the items which really are of interest to hon. members are those in next year's estimates which I hope will be referred to the Standing Committee on Housing, Urban Development and Public Works in the very near future.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, we do not wish to delay the passing of these estimates unduly but we would like the assurance of the minister that the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1967 will be sent to the

standing committee as soon as possible after the new fiscal year begins.


George James McIlraith: I will gladly give that assurance right now.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


James Russell Keays: At this moment it is quite evident that we have to ask ourselves whether there is co-ordination in the work of the department, whether there is a meeting of minds and also whether the different branches of the department are directing their efforts to the same cause when they are studying the feasibility of projects and undertaking studies. It seems that the equilibrium has been upset somewhere along the line and I should like to say more about this a little later.
It seems to me we are not heeding the danger signs of inflation in the nation and if we are we are not applying the solutions all across the country. Some areas of the country have been declared as designated areas because there is high unemployment and a great deal of available labour. It seems to me that the measures we are using in this regard are not being applied elsewhere in the country and I hope that the people in the department are aware that domestic measures must be taken to curtail the dangerous inflationary trends. I hope they also realize that an appraisal of government spending programs must be made so that priorities can be applied to certain projects with others being postponed.
Duff Roblin, the premier of Manitoba, tried to impress upon the government some time ago that we could not afford all the requirements of government at once but that priorities must be set in order to deal with them in turn as we can afford them. Many of the projects included in the estimates now before us have not been started. We have items in the present estimates for projects which are of grave necessity but which have been postponed for a number of years.
A few moments ago I suggested there was not a meeting of minds concerning some of the projects which have been undertaken. Before coming into the house yesterday I read an article which appeared in Le Soleil, edition du Bas St. Laurent, concerning port facilities being built in the area of Gros Cacouna. I understand this project will cost in the neighbourhood of $4 million. We are now endeavouring to find out how we are
March 8. 1966

going to utilize these facilities. In the article there is this statement in French:

The decision to make an operational survey of those harbour improvements should also be announced shortly. The survey would be conducted by a specialized firm.

This project is practically complete but we are now going to undertake the study of a portion of it. Does that mean that the branches of the department that studied the project before it was started did not consider all the factors or that there have been changes in the plans of certain individuals who wish to establish industries in the area, or does it mean that this project was simply built to answer the wishes of the people of the area?
The hon. member for Riviere du Loup-Temiscouata is not in his seat at the moment but I want to assure him that I have no objection whatsoever to this project. I do object, however, to the fact that many projects of a more pressing nature have not been proceeded with yet. I think of many small repair jobs that have to be done to wharves and small necessary dredging jobs which would cost from $200 to $2,000.
There seems to be some confusion in this regard. When it comes to these small but necessary jobs they are not proceeded with but when it comes to jobs costing millions of dollars they go ahead. This seems to be a pennywise and pound foolish policy. I refer to the inshore fisheries of the lower St. Lawrence and eastern Quebec. The fishermen there cannot carry out their operations because of sand which has moved into the entrances of the harbours. They must wait until high tide before they can get into or out of the harbours. The dredging of these harbour mouths would entail very small expenditures. It seems that the powers that be get around to doing these small jobs in the month of November after the fishing season is over. When spring arrives the same situation exists because the sand has been carried in again and the fishermen cannot get out to the fishing ground. I know of 25 instances of this kind.
In this same regard I cannot help but think of many slipways which have been built. I trust that professional engineers had nothing to do with the planning of these slipways. Some of these slipways have been built with a stone or concrete wall four feet higher than low tide and I should like to know how a fisherman can get his boat up on the slipway
Supply-Public Works at low tide. There are eight or ten such slipways in my area alone.
On the other hand, I can think of areas where wharves are necessary for the deep sea fishing fleet but because of the lack of repair ships are not able to approach these wharves. There is a lack of bumper facilities, rubber or otherwise, for the protection of these ships. In many instances there are large nails protruding and ship owners refuse to use the unloading facilities. These jobs require small expenditures but they are very essential to the fishermen in the area.
Without taking too much more time I want to refer to the Chandler project and the study which was made by the research council in 1959. This project was proceeded with because of the urgent necessity of having a new harbour at Chandler. In that area there is a pulp mill. One paper machine has been installed and I am sure a second one will be installed in the near future. The company in the area cannot operate efficiently or profitably by using the present facilities at Chandler. The government has asked the company to contribute a certain amount of money toward the project. To date the company has refused to make this money available because of certain conditions which have been imposed. Apparently the contribution amounts to $525,000 payable in two instalments, one of $50,000 and one of $475,000 upon completion of the project. What hurts the company concerned is the fact that the $475,000 is an amount of money which the Department of National Revenue says the company will not be able to charge against operating expenditures.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I have never heard, and I doubt that too many people have, of a case where a private company has been asked to contribute a large amount of money to a capital expenditure for a project belonging to another body or person. In this case the new installation will be the property of the government or the public and the company will be asked to contribute a large amount of money which it cannot deduct from its expenses. I think we have a new approach in this regard and I should like to suggest that the company would accept additional wharfage charges or rental charges involving large amounts of money because they would be able to charge these expenses against their operating costs. In this way the amount of money asked from the company by way of a capital expenditure would in the period of a few years be doubled.

March 8. 1966
Supply-Public Works
I would therefore ask the minister to endeavour to settle this case as soon as possible because the situation is urgent. I hope that necessary repairs to facilities will be carried out as soon as possible next spring so that those people who wish to work may do so. We should encourage people to work and they should be given the opportunity of pursuing their trade without great difficulty.
We wanted to speak about the tendering system employed by the department. We also wanted to speak on the question of awarding contracts on a regional basis up to a limited amount of money. However, we will delay our discussion of these matters until the estimates for the next fiscal year are before the committee.
As a final request of the minister and the government I ask that a little initiative and perhaps imagination be used in building across this country in maritime areas marinas for those who wish to travel by boat on their holidays. Boat travel is a new trend. There are hundreds of thousands of boats in use across this country by people who use them for their holidays.
I am sure it is important to these people to know that when they are at sea they can use these marinas as resting places and to obtain protection from the elements of nature. Marinas are needed in the St. Lawrence and gulf areas; they are needed on the lakes. I am sure that with our centennial year approaching many American tourists will be coming to Montreal by yacht and it would be unfortunate if disasters occurred because of the lack of marinas along the St. Lawrence up to Montreal.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure there is a tendency to wish to discuss on a regional basis the proposals made recently by the Department of Public Works. However, I think we should perhaps wait until the minister's estimates for 1966-67 are before us. I am in agreement with the proposition that even though we have not authorized in a technical sense the payment of money for the operations that have taken place under the Department of Public Works, eleven twelfths of the money has been expended and payments under contracts must be made. I do not think that at this late date we shall renege with regard to the operations that have been undertaken in the last year.
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a matter that has been drawn to my attention quite forcibly in the last few weeks. It concerns a change in the practice of

the department to which I as a member of parliament am opposed. I have looked at the list of staff members of the department to see how many executive secretaries the minister has because every time I write a letter to the minister or the department I receive a reply from an executive secretary saying that what I am inquiring about cannot be done.
I do not know what qualifications are necessary for one to be an executive secretary but some of the problems I have referred to the department are of a highly technical nature. I have been asking the department for advice whether a project is feasible and have received the reply that the project will not be undertaken. In my opinion it is not for executive secretaries to say whether a project is to be undertaken and in most cases I am not asking for this type of advice but for one of the officials of the department to decide whether it is feasible. As a member of parliament I am asking for this information.
I know this system is adopted in other departments when requests are made of an official and I can see some merit in it in that members of parliament are supposed to deal with these matters at a certain level. However, I believe the Department of Public Works is a pretty broad organization and it is also a fairly technical organization in many aspects of its duties. For this reason I suggest strongly that unless the executive secretaries are Solomons they should leave it to the heads of the various departments to decide whether something can be done.
The matter that I raised with the department was a very simple one and referred to a particular type of soil. My inquiry was whether this soil could be used in greenhouses and, if it could, would it be possible to lease a certain portion of land from the government? I received a reply saying that the government had decided they needed this land and were not going to lease it. There is no point in leasing it if the material is of no value. We can negotiate for the land after it is decided whether it is valuable. My request was for technical advice.
No doubt the minister is well aware, after listening to some of the speeches that have been made previously, that in the field of public works there are wide ramifications. There are highly trained and highly skilled people in his department and I believe that members of parliament can benefit from the advice these people are able to give. When it comes to a matter of policy I agree that this
March 8, 1966	COMMONS
should come from the minister but the system of channelling letters from a member of parliament through the minister's executive secretary is one that I believe the minister himself does not agree with and as a member of parliament I disagree violently when my inquiries are subjected to this delaying type of tactic. Under this practice the suggestion is that the answer is given from the top, which is not necessarily the place at which you wish to start. Therefore I suggest that if this is a new policy, and I am informed it is, it should be discontinued.
There is one other matter I should like to mention, Mr. Chairman, and it was mentioned by the hon. member who spoke before me. I refer to changes that have taken place by regulation. One such change has bothered me because it was an issue in the last election campaign. It was a decision of the Prime Minister to make a change in the harbour facilities for pleasure craft. We have always been interested in knowing why the government had not moved into the field of providing services for this changing environment, particularly on inland waters. I live by a body of water that is a boundary between two provinces. This area has had considerable commercial activity in years gone by but that commercial activity has now changed. While the activity is no less commercial and in fact the volume, moneywise, has increased, it has completely changed. We were interested in the change that could be made by regulation at the insistence of the Prime Minister while visiting British Columbia. He had the opportunity then of involving himself with the yachting society in the area, taking a trip and finding the facilities not suitable. We are all well aware of the fact that the facilities are not suitable in many areas.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
This is something to which the federal government should give consideration. I am surprised that this was done for political purposes. I hope the minister intends to give the house before long some indication of what is the government's intention in this regard. I believe that in every province in Canada tourism is a growing industry. Some aspects of it in some areas are international and in other areas interprovincial and really not the responsibility of the provinces, but no jurisdiction has yet been established in regard thereto.
The minister will probably have to reconsider the regulation which was passed in response to the generous gesture of the Prime
DEBATES	2391
Supply-Public Works Minister but which I think has not been thought out too well. If that is done, then assistance and technical advice can be given areas which will benefit from it in the provision of the proper type of harbour facilities, thus projecting the trend which has developed over an extended period of time.
These are only two considerations to which I should like the minister to pay attention. I hope that when the estimates of the Department of Public Works are brought before parliament in the next few weeks they will be referred to the committee for detailed study because I believe it is a department which affects every member of parliament and we have got bogged down because of the way we have been handling estimates in the past. If we do what we are doing now and relinquish our opportunity to speak on each of the items in these estimates which concern our ridings then there should be some method, as there is in England, to compensate for this loss of scrutiny and give a member the opportunity to make some recommendations regarding public works in his riding. In my opinion this is not possible under the present system of handling the estimates.


David Réal Caouette: I only wish to say a few words on the estimates of the Department of Public Works. The minister is rightly anxious to have his estimates passed, since they have been spent. I want to point out to the minister that he is more anxious to see his estimates passed than to comply with the suggestions and the requests we submit to him rather often.
I wish to call his attention to the Rouyn post office in the riding of Villeneuve. A few years ago, before I came to this house, this post office was enlarged. Now, this extension gives the impression that, instead of a post office in Rouyn, we have some kind of a henhouse.
It should not be overlooked, Mr. Chairman, that the city of Rouyn is the metropolis of northwestern Quebec. It is the largest city and the nerve centre from the economic, social and every other point of view, of northwestern Quebec.
We have very nice post offices in Val d'Or, Malartic, Noranda, we have small post offices in Cadillac, Duparquet, and Evain in the riding. I sometimes wonder what architect in the Department of Public Works had the idea of building a henhouse to serve the population of Rouyn.

March 8. 1966
Supply-Public Works
This post office should be completely done over. And if the minister ever went through Rouyn, he must have seen this shameful building there. The most populous city of the county and of all northwestern Quebec.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) asked me to make representations to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), so that changes may be made to give us a post office which not only looks like a post office but which meets the needs of our city of Rouyn.
I know that the estimates which we are studying will not allow him to enlarge or improve post offices, but he could use those for the fiscal year 1966-67 to see that the exterior or appearance of the Rouyn post office is changed. It is a sorry sight as it now stands.
Mr. Chairman, I should also like to point out to the minister the pressing need of two airports in our region, one at Val d'Or, the other at Rouyn. In the case of Val d'Or, the necessary credits have been voted and the Minister of National Defence will probably attend to it. In the case of Rouyn, the Minister of Public Works will have to see to it.
All we have now is a small shack, 20 by 24. Fifties of people go to the airport to catch the plane. We have been asking for an airport for at least four years, but the minister has turned a deaf ear.
Another thing:	people from different
municipalities, in that part of the province, of the country, have asked the federal government to help with the construction of wharves on certain lakes in our region. They were told every time: "Since it is intended for tourist purposes, we are not really eager to build those wharves."
I remember, for instance-it may have been about 15 years ago-that under the Liberal administration here in Ottawa, and the present Minister of Public Works sat in this house at that time, authorization had been given for the construction of a wharf at Taschereau. The name was not Taschereau then; the area was known as Pontiac county, but, at Taschereau, a wharf had been built in the middle of a field, approximately 300 feet from lake Robertson. The wharf is still there today and people go there to fish in blue hay, where the water is about six inches deep. They fish for small perch.
This wharf, built with public funds under a Liberal government, is useless, except for a few young people who like to go fishing. As a matter of fact, this wharf is so far from the lake that I wonder whether the minister was
(Mr. Caouette.)
not asked to build a lake along the wharf in order to justify its existence. I wonder.
At any rate, I sincerely believe the minister should give some thought to the building of wharves along certain lakes in the Duparquet area, for instance, an ideal spot for tourists which attracts thousands of persons every year from the United States and everywhere.
People who arrive at the lakes with their fishing gear and a boat are disappointed by the lack of wharves and ramps in our area, and they cannot enjoy their holiday. The Minister of Public Works should heed those requests and authorize the construction of wharves in our area.
Mr. Chairman, these are a few comments I had in mind. I know the minister is anxious to have his estimates passed, but I would ask him to be slightly more anxious to reply when we ask him something. It is all very well to say yes, yes, yes but something must be done.
We cannot be satisfied for ever with "yes" and promises. It may be more difficult to pass the 1966-67 estimates than those we are studying now. Let the minister ask his officials to accede to the legitimate requests not only of the people of my county but also of other counties.
I wish to insist particularly on the building of an appropriate and nice looking post office in Rouyn, so that the one which we have now can be demolished.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, normally this is the time when each member should have the opportunity, and take the opportunity of raising questions of a local character respecting the administration of the Department of Public Works in his constituency. I am not going to do that this afternoon. I am going to confine my remarks, and even those will be brief, to the policies of the government, and in particular to the administration of public works on what I would consider to be the national scale.
First, Mr. Chairman, I should like to impress on the officials, and on the Minister of Public Works, that there are a large number of people across the country who feel that the federal government is not following through with the terms and the intent of the Trans-Canada Highway Act that was passed in this house. I think if you were to examine that piece of legislation, it would be found that it was not the intention that the federal government should give only one payment to
March 8. 1S66

the province, as a share of building the highway in the first place. The intention was that Canada should have at least one highway from coast to coast built to sufficient standards to accommodate the requirements of traffic on that highway.
I suggest to the minister as well that the specifications that were called for in 1950, or thereabouts, for a highway across Canada have changed substantially since then. Yet there has been no indication from the government that it intends to continue to assume the responsibility of the federal government to see that there is a modern highway from one end of Canada to the other. The government simply made a payment, I believe in the first place on a shared cost basis of 50-50, and when that highway was completed across any province that was the end of the federal responsibility. Mr. Chairman, we do not accept that as being in keeping with the intention of the Trans-Canada Highway Act.
On looking back you may see many occasions where the federal government has in fact amended the provisions of the Trans-Canada Highway Act by moving forward the completion date, and also changing the federal government's share of the cost of the balance of the unfinished highway, if you like. The result has been that some provinces which were very conscientious and very swift to proceed to build this highway across areas for which they were responsible have in fact been penalized.
We had a debate in the house respecting this matter a few days ago when, I believe, the hon. member for Gaspe introduced a notice of motion respecting some aspects of it. I am not going to talk at any length now, but I believe that there is a need to advance the standards respecting the highway to meet the needs of highway traffic. The federal government should not withdraw from that responsibility. A particular section I have in mind at the moment is a stretch of approximately 70 to 80 miles, from Calgary to the border of the Banff National Park. In view of the Alberta department of highways decision to construct a two-lane highway in the first place, there has been a failure in its capacity to take care of traffic using it.
It has been suggested that when the provincial government proceeds to upgrade the standards of that highway to four lanes, the federal government will refuse to pay a part of the cost of increasing the capacity of the road to meet new traffic conditions.
Supply-Public Works
Mr. Chairman, without taking a great deal of time, I think that the federal government should announce that it intends to participate on a continuing basis in the keeping up to modern standards this highway across the country.
I think, too, that the federal government should change its attitude-if I may use that word-with respect to the disproportionate share that has been paid to some provinces which have been able to delay the completion of the highway.
Participation has moved from 50 per cent to 75 per cent, and in some cases to as high as 90 per cent. We think that this is discriminatory and that it should be changed.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take time to go into some of the other details, although as I said at the outset, I think this is the appropriate time to do that. I will not do so, because we are in the last month of the fiscal year.
I hope that the minister is ready to give some favourable response to the requests which have been made of his department, that the federal government should not withdraw completely from its responsibilities in keeping up to modern day standards this highway from one end of the country to the other.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments along the lines which have been made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat with regard to, first of all, the Trans-Canada Highway, what to me has become an entirely inexcusable, discriminatory treatment of various provinces with regard to the completion of the Trans-Canada Highway. It seems that those provinces which dragged their feet either intentionally, or otherwise, got the better treatment. Those provinces particularly the western prairie provinces, which completed their construction early were discriminated against. It is true that in that part of the country it is a good deal easier to build roads than in other parts. Surely, they are entitled to the same percentage contribution as some of the other provinces, in so far as the Trans-Canada Highway is concerned. I think what has happened is entirely wrong. I think that the prairie provinces should not have been penalized.
I want to underline what has been said by the hon. member for Medicine Hat with regard to the section between Calgary and Banff. On the one hand we have the government support of the application of Canada for

March 8. 1966
Supply-Public Works the winter Olympics of 1972 which will require an expansion of the road facilities between Calgary and Banff. This notwithstanding some of the bureaucratic nonsense which has come out of the department of northern affairs where some of the senior officials seem to think that it is their duty as administrators to determine when the point of saturation has been reached in the usage of our national parks.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
This is nothing less than bureaucratic arrogance. Our national parks are for the enjoyment of the people. The trans-Canada route was designed to lead to the majority of the national parks in the Rockies, and it is incumbent on us to develop the roads to them but not to penalize the provinces. I think that with regard to this section of the road, the province of Alberta is entitled to additional contributions, in the same way as the province of Newfoundland receives a higher rate, some 75 per cent in respect to the highway. In the same way as the province of Quebec receives particular contributions toward trans-Canada highway construction because of Expo. In addition to that Quebec receives a lot of fringe benefits, if I may call them that, with regard to highway construction in and about the city of Montreal.
I do not understand why there should be this discrimination-and it is rank discrimination. I think a great deal could be said in this same vein on behalf of the province of British Columbia. I wish to draw the attention of the minister to this matter in no uncertain terms. We shall be back dealing with this question time and time again during consideration of the estimates for 1966-67. This is an injustice which must be redressed.
The other point on which I should like to speak briefly tonight concerns the re-organization of the minister's department. It has now become a service department. We want to hear a great deal more about this reorganization than the minister has told us. I have become aware of certain tendencies which might be disquieting. There may be a logical reason for them, but we should have an explanation. Are we to have a series of little empires with planning sections, tendering sections and so on, with "big Father" in Ottawa still looking over the shoulder?
Is there to be a diminution of function here in Ottawa or is this to be merely a proliferation of administrative layers? We must have a detailed explanation. I do not expect we

shall get it tonight but we shall look forward to hearing one at the earliest opportunity.
While the Department of Public Works is engaged in this business of decentralization into the five regions, it is curious to note that some of the other departments seem to be reversing this tendency and are doing away with the co-ordination which is inherent in a regional directorate. I think it is right to allow more authority in the field, but let us consider what other departments are doing in this regard. I have a suspicion that they are missing the boat. As I say, I hope there will be a full and frank disclosure of what has been done in the Department of Public Works, and that an explanation of this new philosphy will be given us at the earliest possible date.


Frank Howard: I should like to support, briefly, the proposals made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat and the hon. member for Edmonton West in relation to the Trans-Canada Highway. We have long contended that inherent in the concept of building this highway was a concept of discrimination as between one area of the nation and another.
I do not wish to go into this matter further. I am sure the minister knows my views both with regard to this particular subject and with regard to proposals for additional highways, also to be built on the basis of federal-provincial participation, and usually referred to at home as the second Trans-Canada Highway. This is a matter we can deal with subsequently when the opportunity is available and when more time is at our disposal. I just wanted to say we completely support the thoughts of the two hon. gentlemen who have just spoken on this subject.
I should like to refer briefly, perhaps "for home consumption", as the phrase is, to two or three communities which are affected by decisions of the minister. These are the communities of Hartley Bay, Kincolith, Kitkatla and Kitimat.
I have had correspondence with the minister about the needs of these communities in recent days. The need of each one of them is the same, namely, a harbour or breakwater system to protect the fishing boats and the people who live in these communities.
The case of Kitimat is a particularly grievous one because an amount for the construction of a breakwater or harbour system at Kitimat had actually been set aside in the estimates, or, if it was not in the estimates as
March 8, 1966

such it was contained in the advance planning provisions or whatever is used by the department to suggest that a certain project is to be carried out almost immediately.
During the period around election time in 1962, funds were on the point of being set aside for the purpose to which I have referred. A decision has been made to proceed with the construction of a breakwater and boat harbour at Kitimat, but it was wiped out by the austerity program which immediately followed that election. Since then it has not been restored.
It was always my assumption, that these projects were placed on a list which was reviewed at least annually so that the correct priority could be determined. It would seem to me that if a decision was made at least three years ago to slate a project for construction, and if this decision was cancelled because of a national emergency at that time, it should have been reinstated at the first opportunity following the end of the emergency. The emergency has been over for a long time now. For this reason, the absence from both this year's estimates and next year's estimates of any provision in respect to this particular boat harbour is particularly grievous. I understand it has been set down for some time in 1967-68. I ask the minister to have somebody in his department advance this particular project as far as possible. Let us see whether it cannot be carried out during the current calendar year or during the current fiscal year.
The needs of the other communities I mentioned are no less urgent. They are all visited by strong winds in the fall, winter and spring. There is no protection to speak of in any of them from southeast gales. The people who live in these places have made fairly large investments in fishing boats, and these vessels need the protection which harbours and breakwaters would afford, o (7:20 p.m.)
I would, therefore, ask the minister to look into this question and give it priority so that the necessary work can be done. I do not mean by this that it be done in 1967-68 but that it be done during the coming fiscal year by way of supplementary estimate, which is the only possible way since the main estimates have already been tabled.
I also wish to make a brief reference to the national capital commission item. Hon. members from the Ottawa area may think it is a bit presumptuous for someone from 2,000 or
Supply-Public Works 3,000 miles away to comment about our national capital in the manner which I propose, but quite frankly I think the highway and road system in the capital is a ruddy disgrace. Many people who come to Ottawa express this point of view. They are shocked at the condition of the streets, especially at this time of year. The potholes that develop, seemingly in a matter of minutes are a disgrace to the national capital.
During the daytime I see people out in the streets filling in these potholes with hot asphalt, or running a hot iron over them, but they must be working in two shifts. They must go out again at night and dig them out, because next day no one would notice any change. This goes on year after year after year. Every spring it is the same blessed thing. To put it bluntly, the roads here are a disgrace to Canada and to the national capital.
At this juncture I am not particulary concerned whose responsibility it is, but we do have a National Capital Commission and I presume one of its functions is to beautify the national capital, to make it a pleasant place in which to live, and a pleasant place to visit. But with the potholes and the roads the way they are, it is a deterrent to people enjoying themselves and having a pleasant time driving around the city while they are in Ottawa.
I understand that a few years ago somebody sponsored a pothole contest. I do not know if it is still in existence, but you could win a prize by pointing out the biggest pothole of the week. Somebody once turned in a whole city block but they ruled his entry out because they thought that was going too far.
Somewhere along the line this situation has to be altered. I know there was conflict between the National Capital Commission and the city hall over some of these questions but surely to heavens, if we have any pride in our national capital, we should do everything we can to find ways and means to improve these streets because, in this modern age of motor vehicle transportation, their condition is something which affects everybody.


Mr. Loney:: Since the minister has assured us that his estimates for 1966-67 will soon be coming before us I shall not make the extended remarks I ordinarily would. However, I do wish to support the hon. member for Gaspe and, without reiterating his words, would urge the minister to consider the request that slow growth areas, depressed

March 8, 1966
Supply-Public Works areas, or areas that have not been designated should have priority in an accelerated program of public work projects. I do not mean large scale projects, but those coming within the range of $1,500 to $15,000 for which local contractors and labour would qualify.
Before putting several questions to the minister, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the officials of his department who, within the confines of their responsibility, have been most receptive to and considerate of requests I have made.
I do not expect the minister to give me a detailed reply tonight, but if he can let me have the information later I will be satisfied. With respect to the sum of $4,600 for exhibits, advertising, films, broadcasting and displays, I should like to know whether tender advertising is included and, if so, would the minister provide me with a breakdown of the moneys spent on such services by district in each province, for public works construction, public buildings accommodation and maintenance, harbour facilities, construction, repair and dredging.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the item does not include advertising which covers tender notices. It includes the kind of displays the department might put up, for example, at a meeting of the Royal Architectural Institute. However, I shall be happy to provide the hon. member with the detailed information he has requested.


Edison John Clayton Loney: Under which item does tender advertising come?


George James McIlraith: It comes under the vote for general expenditure for projects, depending on whether it is for harbours and rivers, building construction or other headings. There is no advertising item as such. I have noted the hon. member's question and I shall provide the information in full to him.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, as usual under these circumstances I shall be quite brief. I have always been interested in this department because I have been closely associated with it since the beginning years of this century. I have supervised the building of miles of highways, wharves, other things of that sort, and so I know something about this type of work.
I shall never forget when we had the first wharf on the Arrow Lakes. We did things formally in those days. We had a dinner in a backwoods village, where there were no roads, nothing but black tar. In passing, may

I say that sometimes I wish those days would return again.
As a result of the building of the dams on the Columbia River, naturally a number of communities will be flooded out, and wharves will be needed in other locations. I should like to ask the minister what proposals are being made for the relocation of these wharves when this project is completed, and who will bear the cost of relocating them along the lakes and along the river?
I should also like to ask what amount is available this year for the maintenance of the wharves still being used and operated? What plans has the department for the maintenance of a supervisor in Nelson, and of a headquarters office? If the minister cannot supply the answers now, I shall be happy to get them from him later in writing.


George James McIlraith: I shall be very glad to give them in writing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
25. Construction or acquisition of equipment, $1,161,500.
James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, would the minister give some consideration to the purchase of more plant and equipment for the dredging operation. As I mentioned some time ago a good deal of our dredging operations can be conducted only during the fall when the fishing season is over. With more plant and equipment, I wonder whether it would be possible to get this work done at the proper time of the year.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I would be very glad to consider that suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
40. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for roads, bridges and other engineering works provided that the amounts within the Vote to be expended on individually listed projects may be increased or decreased subject to the approval of Treasury Board, $6,400,000.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, contained in this item is an amount of $4 million toward Canada's share of the cost of constructing highway No. 6 in the counties of Matane and Gaspe North, Quebec. Would the minister explain this to us, tell us how it arose, and what is involved?


George James McIlraith: I will have that information in just a moment. I remember something which occurred in that part of the province last year when I was in another department, but I hesitate to give an answer of which I am not sure at the moment.
March 8. 1966


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You are quite wise.


George James McIlraith: Let it stand for the moment.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make reference to the Prince Edward Island causeway. As the years go by we have been delighted to see that we are getting closer to the actuality. Our people were delighted with the call for tender. Naturally, we regret that certain incident which took place at the opening ceremonies, which perhaps is better forgotten. In a moment of panic after a certain event on November 8, one of the minister's colleagues made a comment, which is recorded in the Charlottetown Guardian, to the effect that we spent $100 million in Prince Edward Island and did not get a seat there. The Charlottetown Guardian said it was asinine statements like that which made them lose the two they had.
I will say no more except to commend the minister on the furtherance of this very important project. I hope he will move forward, as have his predecessors, in a venture which is economically feasible and which his department has demonstrated not only is feasible in an engineering sense but is imaginative and challenging. I think we will have a structure there which will be the pride of his department, and we look forward to its actual completion.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, if I might answer the question of the hon. member for Skeena, the explanation in respect of that item is that in 1962 legislation was passed by this parliament to provide for the construction of a railway in that area. When the economic studies were made, it was found that this would not be a use of that amount of money that would bring the best value to the area. Instead an arrangement was made that the necessary funds available under the policy as announced by the Minister of Transport-under whose responsibility it was that the government provide transportation assistance in an equal amount-would be provided for the construction of a highway in that area to give the area some very badly needed transportation.
In respect of the second question, asked by the hon. member for Queens, concerning the causeway, I am very happy to be able to advise him that the first contract has been let, as he knows. The project is proceeding well on schedule. If what he says has some reference to a certain other incident, I would remind him that at that time there well might have been a little confusion in some minds
Supply-Public Works
owing to the fact that all the provincial premiers from certain provinces-I think six provinces-across the country appeared in a flattering picture with the national leader of a party and included, at least in the advertisements in the rest of Canada, as the premier of that island, that very fine province, was another man, a very handsome man, whose name I think is MacRae. Perhaps that is how the confusion arose.
In any event, the causeway construction is proceeding, as was indicated it would, when the announcement was made.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I notice the item referred to says "toward Canada's share". Would the minister tell us what percentage of the total cost Canada's share toward this highway at Matane and Gaspe North would be? What is the total cost? What percentage are we paying of that total cost, and what is the length of the highway? Over what period of time is it estimated the construction will be carried on.


George James McIlraith: The gross amount to be contributed toward highway construction *under this item is $13 million. The arrangement was that they were to accelerate the construction to the greatest extent possible. That $13 million covers 87 miles of highway in the north Gaspe area. The estimate for this year was $4 million. I do not have the estimates for the payments of the balance, because these depend on how rapidly the province proceeds with the construction of the highway. The province does the actual construction. We inspect the work and pay only after it is done and inspected. The decision in respect to the speed with which the work is done is theirs, however, our limit date for the project is November 1, 1968.


Frank Howard: What percentage do we pay?


George James McIlraith: It is not in terms of percentage. We would pay the $13 million that parliament enacted. The $13 million would go toward highway construction in the immediate area where it had been indicated the railway was to go.


Frank Howard: Would the minister consider, in this current calendar year, introducing a bill in the house to build a railway in northern British Columbia. We do not want the railway; we just want the act passed so that we can get some money for highways.

March 8, 1966
Supply-Public Works
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


James Russell Keays: With all due respect to those who believe it is not economically feasible to build a railway in the designated area, it is my belief that their forecasts within a year or two will be proved wrong. This amount of money provides for the construction of 87 miles of highway at a cost of $125,000 and $25,000 for paving. I should like the minister to inform me at some future date the number of bids which have been received for the different jobs in that area. It is possible that this government is going to pay the whole shot, and I should like some information in this regard.
I want to remind the hon. member for Skeena that had he voted for a railway when that bill was before this house a few years ago, there would be no need for him to ask questions at this time about highways.


Frank Howard: Nonsense.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Capital Commission-
60. Operation and maintenance, general administration and interest charges on outstanding loans that were made for the purpose of acquiring property in the national capital region, $6,809,000.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, only ten months before the centennial year one would anticipate a major discussion on the National Capital Commission estimates. It is only because of the mood of the committee tonight that I refrain from engaging in such a discussion, but I do point out to the committee that not since 1961 has there been a genuine discussion of the National Capital Commission estimates in this house. In fact, I think there has been only one speech made on the subject since 1961. Since 1955 there has not been an examination of the activities of the commission by a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons. So I am going to ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works to reconsider the proposal I made earlier during this session, that the estimates and the activities of the commission be referred at this session to a joint committee for study.
Mr. Chairman, I did not make that proposal for the purpose of seeking an investigation of the commission. Quite to the contrary, I made it to give the commission the opportunity of having its fine story heard and to indoctrinate the members of this house, who must vote the money for this National Capital Commission, with regard to the fine work that is being done. If the minister does not

agree to my proposal to send these estimates to a joint committee, I suggest he make a major presentation at this session, before the standing committee on Crown corporations, or the standing committee on housing, urban development and public works. If he will do that, it will be exceedingly useful.
In order to prepare the national capital for the centennial year I believe a crash program is urgently needed. By reason of the lack of co-ordination between municipal and federal authorities, the Department of Public Works and the National Capital Commission, the central part of this national capital last year was an unholy mess.
I think we must make absolutely certain there is co-ordination, and that we have a crash program to prepare the capital for what we hope will be a wonderful celebration only a matter of months from now.
My hon. friend, the member for Skeena, took his usual pot shot at the potholes in the city of Ottawa. I should like to say to him that many of those potholes are the result of the neglect of this parliament during the past 15 or 20 years in depriving the taxpayers of Ottawa of the moneys that were properly due. If there are these potholes today, it is because of that lack in days gone by. I hope this lack will be made up, and that under the fine leadership of the hon. member for Ottawa West we will have a crash program to prepare the capital as it should be prepared for the centennial year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: This concludes the estimates of the Department of Public Works. We shall now proceed to a study of the estimates of the department of the Secretary of State.


[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, $481,600.
Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Chairman, does the hon. lady intend to make some introductory remarks before we deal with these estimates?


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of making a lengthy statement about these estimates. I would prefer to deal with specific matters that might be raised by hon. members.
Having regard to the individual votes, I should like to point out to hon. members of the committee that there is at least one separate vote for each of the 12 departments or agencies for which I am responsible, plus a statutory item for the office of the representation commission.
March 8. 1966	COMMONS
I should ask also that hon. members who wish to speak on any of these matters wait until the appropriate vote, under which an agency or commission is called, before making their remarks.
As to the estimates in general, I think the key point to be noted is that they indicate a continuing transition of functions of the department of the Secretary of State. Some of the departments and associated responsibilities which traditionally came within this portfolio, as hon. members are aware, have now been transferred to the President of the Privy Council in anticipation of the establishment of a new department. At the same time, more and more of the so-called cultural agencies have been collected together under the aegis of the Secretary of State. This is still in the process of transition, however, and that fact is reflected in the estimates now before the committee.
There are still one or two anomalies that remain in this regard. For example, vote 20 which deals with patents and copyrights is listed in the Secretary of State's estimates although this responsibility now lies with the President of the Privy Council. Members will note that vote 40, which covers the Economic Council of Canada, is also listed under my department although that organization now reports through the office of the Prime Minister. On this occasion, however, I will deal with administrative questions which might be raised with respect to this council.
With these few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I should like to recommend to hon. members that the estimates for the current fiscal year, almost now expired, be approved after such discussion as hon. members may see fit.


Robert Simpson: I should like to thank the hon. lady for her explanation, but I wonder whether she can give us some idea of the order in which these subjects will be dealt with at this time.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think it would be the order which appears in the blue book starting at page 420. We might start with the board of broadcast governors at page 48, followed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at page 52, then the office of the Chief Electoral Officer at page 56, the Civil Service Commission at page 80, the National Film Board at page 276, the National Gallery at page 280, the PubUc Archives and National Library at page 364, the Public Printing and Stationery at page 370 and the Secretary of State's department at pages 420 and 421.
DEBATES	2399
Supply-Secretary of State


Mr. Fairwealher:: Mr. Chairman, as the house anticipates that before too long the hon. minister will have before us a resolution to set up or recommend the setting up of a committee on broadcasting, it is not the disposition of the official opposition to make any comment in depth about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the Board of Broadcast Governors at this stage. Hon. members know that we have been considering the estimates now, to use a legal expression, from time immemorial. We want to give the hon. lady, at a later date, an opportunity to discuss the wider aspects of broadcasting which I am sure interest all hon. members. There will, at that time, be detailed explanations requested and I am sure the hon. lady will be glad to give us answers in this regard. These will be related to various aspects of the corporation's plans for different regions of Canada, but in view of the mood of the house at this time I do not think this is the time to go into a philosophical discourse on our national broadcasting system.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
The hon. lady mentioned the co-ordination, if that is the word, of cultural activities under her aegis. I think this is a good step, and because cultural activities suggests to me self-discipline I am going to exercise self-discipline by not going into any further consideration of these estimates at the moment.


Mr. Priitie:: Mr. Chairman, I say the same as the hon. member for Royal, that the time is not right for extensive comments on the various matters affected by the minister's department, particularly broadcasting. There is certainly a great deal that needs to be said on this subject. However, we are informed that the committee will be meetmg before too long and these matters can be discussed at that time. That is all I will say, Mr. Chairman.
There is one question, Mr. Chairman, that I should like the minister to answer, either during discussion of her estimates or in the house before very long. This is the question of the building plans of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in three major cities of this country, namely, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Some plans which were going ahead in Montreal were delayed because of the Fowler Committee investigation into broadcasting. I do not think that all of these plans can be delayed indefinitely until the cabinet committee has finished its discussion of the Fowler report or until the House of
March 8. 1966

Supply-Secretary of State Commons committee has finished its discussions. I suggest it is a matter on which some decision has to be made shortly, and I should like to hear from the minister on this point.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will be making some reference to the point when we come to the C.B.C. At the moment the item before the committee concerns the Board of Broadcast Governors.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I should like, while we are studying Secretary of State estimates, to draw the attention of the minister to a problem about which she is aware. Ever since 1962, we have repeatedly pointed out to the government and the Secretary of State the problem which exists in my riding, the Chapleau riding, with regard to broadcasting and television in the cities of Chibougamau and Chapais.
At the present time, radio and television networks cover practically the whole country; over 90 per cent of all Canadians have access to these services, but there are still some centres, cities in Canada, where there is no television and radio.
That may not be exactly the case for Chibougamau and Chapais, for the citizens of these two municipalities do have television, thanks to a cable and microwave system.
These people are served, but they must pay a fortune to get television signals, while the organizations of both these municipalities have already, on several occasions, submitted briefs and resolutions to the Department of the Secretary of State and to the government with a view to obtaining the same radio and television service as every other Canadian region.
I have here the last of the resolutions submitted recently to the Department of the Secretary of State asking that these services be provided without charge, as they are in every other part of Canada.
This brief, submitted by the Chamber of Commerce of Chibougamau was endorsed by the local public bodies, namely the municipal corporations of Chibougamau and Chapais, the Chambers of Commerce, the Labour Unions and the Owners' League, in short, the whole population of these two cities.
The brief submitted recently read as follows:
Whereas, on several occasions, requests were made to the C.B.C. and to the Department of Transport to get free television in the region of Chibougamau-Chapais, and that such requests never produced anything;

Whereas the cities of Chibougamau and Chapais are remote cities which pay practically the highest taxes because of their geographic location;
Whereas the cost of living in our region for gas, groceries, etc., is higher than elsewhere;
There is no doubt that, in a region very remote from other centres, the transportation costs increase, thus lowering considerably the purchasing power.
I now resume reading the resolution:
Whereas most salaries in Chibougamau and Chapais come from the mining industry and are therefore higher than in other regions, they bring more money into the public treasury;
Whereas we are not asking for more than the others around us are getting but that we are asking for at least what we are entitled to;
Whereas there are approximately 15,000 people in Chibougamau-Chapais and that we are happy to say that our region does not live off the government, the spectre of unemployment does not exist in our part of the province;
It is quite true; as soon as someone becomes unemployed, the cost of living is so high that he cannot stay long and has to leave.
I continue:
Whereas television in a Canadian home is no longer a luxury but just a means of information, entertainment, culture, etc. and that it becomes a necessity and a right which is ours as it is everywhere else in Canada, and without charge;
Whereas in the larger centres colour television will soon be available to all and that it should at least be given in black and white in our region;
I wish to point out to you, sir, and to the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) that the people of Chibougamau and Chapais are not asking to stop preparations to give colour television to the other regions but at least that television in black and white be given to
them.	They are not asking for what belongs to others but only for what belongs to them.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
I go on:
Whereas, at present, some people can afford black and white television with poorer results than elsewhere and by paying the following prohibitive prices:
First, a television set costs more than elsewhere, secondly, the sizeable sum of $200 must be paid for the connection with the community antenna and
then,	a fee of $7 a month of $84 a year, plus a 6 per cent provincial tax that other areas do not have to pay;
And they can only get one channel. But if they do not pay that amount, they are without any television at all.
Whereas the only benefit in living in an area such as ours is that we can earn our daily bread, while the handicaps are many such as:
1. Gravel roads that easily wreck a car within the first 30,000 miles.
March 8* 1966

2.	Gasoline at 12 cents a gallon more than elsewhere;
3.	Fuel oil 3 cents a gallon more than elsewhere with heating required twelve months a year;
4.	Being further away, we have to use the telephone service more often than elsewhere, and this is anything but free;
5.	Transportation of all materials increase substantially the cost of living in our area;
6.	Electricity costs about twice as much as elsewhere plus 6 per cent additional in taxes.
7.	Rents are higher than elsewhere;
8.	Building costs are higher because of transportation and the tax on materials;
9.	The great distance from large towns is detrimental to the education of our children beyond a certain level.
For all the reasons listed in this brief, which is a positive statement of the plain, definite ideas of the people of Chibougamau and Chapais, we urge the authorities concerned to study this brief seriously and to answer us, not by ambiguous statements, but by immediate action.
The Chamber of Commerce of Chibougamau.
That, as I said earlier, was endorsed by all the public bodies and the people in Chibougamau and Chapais.
On many occasions, Mr. Chairman, I myself asked the previous Secretary of State to correct that situation I was told that we had to wait until the Fowler report on broadcasting was presented. We have now had this report for several weeks, several months even. But the government does not seem too much in a hurry to implement its recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, what I want to point out to the minister is the fact that the people of those two towns are the victims of a serious injustice on the part of the C.B.C.
And here, I submit to the Secretary of State that the Fowler commission put the finger on what is happening to those people. As a matter of fact, on page 68 of the report, it is said:
All Canadians pay for the national broadcasting system-not just for the C.B.C., but for the whole system, including the private radio and television stations. They pay for about a third of the total cost when they pay their taxes. They are paying for the other two thirds every time they run around to the corner store for a can of soup or a loaf of bread. Many of them are thus paying for broadcasting services they cannot enjoy. Clearly, much remains to be done.
Well, Mr. Chairman, that is the case with regard to the people of the cities of Chibougamau and Chapais, they pay for services which they do not enjoy. That is unfair and the government must not tolerate this situation any longer. It must immediately order that the C.B.C. be given the necessary
Supply-Secretary of State funds to enable it to extend the radio and television services not only to Chibougamau and Chapais but everywhere in Canada where it is physically possible to do so at the present time.
A little further, on page 83 of the English version of the Fowler Commission report, these words struck me:
Therefore, during the next five years, a firm degree of restraint should be applied to the licensing of new stations, public or private, taking the real need for broadcasting service, radio or television, into account.
It cannot be denied that the needs are obvious as far as isolated centres are concerned. They need those services for entertainment, culture and information.
On page 83 of the same report, it is said:
We believe that, for the next five years at least, the formula now being used by the C.B.C. to determine the eligibility of communities for television service (2,000) or radio service (500), either in English or French or both, is sound.
However, we are not satisfied with the planned rate of expansion to meet the needs disclosed by the formula; we think that, given the necessary approval and financial provision, it could and should be accelerated;
It means that the government should put at the disposal of the C.B.C. the sums needed for its expansion to enable it to serve the people who are not yet getting any service.
The recommendations follow:
1.	That, during the next five years, no new C.B.C. stations should be opened in centres that now have service as determined by the formula presently used for eligibility.
2.	That consideration be given to the feasibility of accelerating the rate of progress now planned by the C.B.C. for extending coverage, both radio and television in English and French, to centres eligible for public service under the formula.
Mr. Chairman, in the light of these recommendations, the government is no longer justified to hesitate and it must accede immediately to the request of the towns of Chibougamau and Chapais with regard to radio and television services.
On page 124 of the Fowler report, I notice another paragraph in which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation says how it conceives the mandate it has received from parliament:
Whether Canadians live in remote or heavily populated areas, the national system should serve them as adequately and equitably as possible.
This suits very well those areas and I invite the minister to study carefully the resolution that has been submitted to her and to give a very special and immediate consideration to these legitimate requests. I am
March 8, 1966

Supply-Secretary of State
convinced of this and I am sure the minister is also.
When C.B.C. officials are asked whether it is materially possible to achieve these purposes, they answer yes, but that the government does not make sufficient funds available to the Corporation, suggesting it is too costly at present to serve those areas.
As far as the Chibougamau-Chapais area is concerned, it is served by private enterprise at present, as I said earlier, but at a prohibitive price for these people. Out of the 2,400 or 2,500 families living in this area, at least 1,000 are unable to afford these services which are provided free of charge everywhere else.
So, C.B.C. officials tell us that their policy is to give a perfect signal in any area served. Well, Mr. Chairman, what the citizens are asking for immediately is not so much a perfect signal; as a matter of fact, they would be quite satisfied with what they have at present provided it would be free of charge as anywhere else in Canada.
Consequently, I suggest to the hon. Secretary of State, that she invite the officials of the C.B.C. to meet representatives of private enterprise which actually serve the area, as well as representatives of the two cities to come to an agreement. It would cost less to the C.B.C., expenses would be less than they are now and the service supplied to the two cities could be improved gradually. I am sure this would give the whole population, which has been waiting for a long time, the same service that can be found elsewhere in Canada.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope the Secretary of State will consider the recommendations I have suggested to her tonight. A delegation of about 15 people from that area came to Ottawa today at their own expenses, which is quite a sum. They have not come here for the fun of it, but to see that justice is done, and I am convinced that the Secretary of State can render this delegation immediate justice.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Robert Simpson: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that we were going to deal with these subjects separately. Apparently at this time we have launched into a discussion of C.B.C. subject matters. I have a few remarks to make to the committee and to the hon. Secretary of State. It is not my intention this evening to go into a discussion of the inner workings of the C.B.C., mainly because coming from an area that has as little C.B.C.


service as we have, I probably do not know a great deal about the inner workings. However, I did want to say that I am not going to discuss programming or anything of that nature. We shall probably be hearing from other hon. members of the committee on this subject.
It has been mentioned by previous speakers that this is probably not an opportune time to go into these matters to any extent. It has been mentioned that a committee of the house has now been set up to study broadcasting. However, I am not quite as optimistic as some of the other hon. members with respect to this subject. I shall be ready to discuss these matters when this committee does meet. Until that time, I think that some questions can be asked this evening.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Chapleau, and his remarks have a very familiar ring. In fact, I almost thought that I was listening to one of my own constituents, because so many of the problems which he covered were applicable to the constituency of Churchill.
However, it is not only on behalf of the northern parts of Manitoba that I make my remarks this evening; it is on behalf of all areas that are as yet not served by C.B.C. television. It may be taken for granted that the northern Manitoba area is of particular interest to me.
I have been told by the member for Yukon that in the Yukon there is only one television outlet, and that is a cable service at the capital. All of the areas up there are still waiting for some type of service. As I say, at Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory there is one cable system. There, the residents are obliged to pay $15 a month for the privilege of viewing the station.
I do know from experience that the C.B.C. has very generously supplied programming to the station in Whitehorse, as it has done to a number of stations, some of which are in the area I represent. On the subject of extension of services, I think it is generally accepted, particularly in areas not already serviced, that the C.B.C. does have a duty to go to the unecomomical areas where private enterprise feels it cannot or will not go. I think that although the C.B.C. does provide television service to some 92 per cent of the people of Canada, according to its records, it still has an obligation to go into other areas as quickly as possible. I think that the time is long overdue when these areas should be told just when they are going to get television service.
March 8, 1966

1 know that television service is difficult to provide, but not impossible. The C.B.C. has calculated approximately how much money it is going to take to service these areas, so that it becomes strictly a question of money.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Robert Simpson: Without too much fanfare, and I might say without too much criticism, the present government authorized the C.B.C. to make expenditures on colour television. I can assure the hon. lady and the corporation that there will not be too much criticism from unserviced areas about launching a program of colour television, because the people in those unserviced areas know that we must face up to progress. However, it is difficult for them to understand why-and I think the government now must accept this-if money is available for colour television, it is not available to provide service to other areas now unserviced. I do not intend to be unkind when I say that each year as we have looked over the C.B.C. estimates covering some millions of dollars, we do not see too much of a breakdown of how this money is to be spent.
I realize that the corporation puts out an annual statement, which is widely distributed. In that annual statement there is a breakdown to some extent of the manner in which this money is spent. However, it always amazes me when I see, looking at vote No. 1 under the corporation, the words:
Grant in respect of the net operating amount required to discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service.
It shows $96,799,000. Mr. Chairman, there are 18 words in that explanation which works out to approximately $5 million a word. I would have hoped the C.B.C. could have added three more words, something like "extension of service" because at $5 million a word we would have enough money to provide service to all of the people who are not as yet receiving this television service.
In the report of the corporation for 1963-64 it was pointed out that according to present planning it would take something over ten years to bring service to those areas which are now unserviced.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The sum of approximately $15 million would be needed. Many years ago I asked officials of the corporation whether the corporation would consider approaching parliament for a special grant of money to enable them to finish the job. It was felt by the
Supply-Secretary of State corporation at that time that parliament, unfortunately, would not be very receptive to a request for a special grant of this nature. Year after year no request was made. But in the annual report of 1963-64, the corporation did make this suggestion. I noticed with interest and pleasure that in the most recent annual report the corporation makes a similar request. In this instance, however, the corporation recommends that specific grants to the corporation should be made by parliament for this purpose. They say this was the procedure followed in the initial stages when radio was brought to the north under similar economic conditions. The corporation says it believes television to be an amenity which could do much to make life in the north more attractive and help the development of our frontier areas. The point here is that the corporation is recommending that parliament provide this special grant of money sufficient to enable it to finish the job of extending television services.
The corporation, as I understand it, has recommended that parliament provide sufficient funds to enable it to go into colour television. One of the questions which I believe the government should answer tonight is this-How was the decision made as to which of these recommendations was to be carried out? I believe it is important that the people in areas such as I represent get an answer to this particular question. In my constituency, at least, the many thousands of people who are interested in receiving this service are not greatly critical about the advent of colour television. What they say is this: if Canada can have colour television we can also have the extension of service.
I notice that the corporation has recently extended services into the Jasper area of Alberta, or else it is planning to do so. Services were extended recently in the area east of Kenora, Ontario. The people in my area look at these things and ask: how many are being served, and what does it cost? They want to know these things so that they may be in a position to decide whether any discrimination is being shown in determining which areas should be served first.
I have discussed this matter carefully on many occasions with officials of the corporation. Time and time again, we have gone over the formula which the corporation is using to determine which areas should be serviced. They use a cost per household formula. They tell us that in a certain area people can be served for $7, $8 or $10 per household, and
March 8. 1966

Supply-Secretary of State these people will naturally be getting service earlier than those where the cost may be as high as $15 per household.
I suggest that the use of this formula leads to discrimination, and I should like the Secretary of State to convey to the officials of the corporation the reason I believe this is so. In the most recent annual statement of the corporation we find the cost of production and distribution of television services in Canada amounted to a total of $91,863,839, almost $92 million. This is the amount which was required to service about 92 per cent of some four and a half million households in Canada. But suppose for the moment that this $92 million is servicing all the four and half million households in Canada. This is the figure which should be used, in all fairness when making these calculations. We would then arrive at the amount it is actually costing the corporation.
I say it amounts to discrimination when the corporation looks at the areas which are still to be served and says: We shall work on a figure of $4 or $5 per household because that is what it costs us to put television into one particular area. The cost should be figured on an all-Canada basis in order to be fair.
These figures can be juggled in a number of ways. When I look at this $92 million for the cost of production and distribution of television services, servicing 92 per cent of four and a half million households in Canada, I find that this works out to an average across the nation of some $20 per household. This is the basis on which I feel the corporation should look on further extensions. It all boils down to the fact that the extensions will take money. We are all agreed on this. I think the government of the day should at least make up its mind to tell the people in these areas whether or not it is prepared to grant a sum of money to the corporation sufficient to do the job.
Many times during the last session of parliament I asked the Secretary of State whether the government was considering providing such a sum. On each occasion I was assured by the Secretary of State that the government did not intend to consider any specific grant of money to the corporation until the Fowler report had been received.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
But before the Fowler report was received by the government some $15 million was provided for the corporation to allow it enter the colour television field. I do not see how we can get along quickly with these estimates

unless the government can give us a satisfactory explanation for doing that, and tell us when it will provide the money which the corporation says is necessary to service these areas.
The information which the corporation officials give us is helpful on many occasions, and what I have to say is not in criticism of them, but they tell us that within the next five or six years Canadians will have their television service bounced from satellites orbiting the earth. This is certainly feasible from an engineering point of view, but people in areas which are still unserviced are reluctant to sit back and wait for this to happen when they know that within the next 18 months the C.B.C. could acquire sufficient equipment to service their areas. All the C.B.C. needs for that purpose is a grant of money from this parliament. I also believe the corporation has an obligation to tell these people when it plans to service their areas.
Many of the people in these areas would be a lot happier if they knew they could get television reception in two or three years. The corporation should be able to determine the time it will take.
People in the northern Manitoba area who receive fringe reception from private stations carrying C.B.C. programs, or who may have the benefit of a cable system operated by private enterprise, are told by the C.B.C. that it cannot make application to enter the area because it is already serviced. Consequently, there would be duplication of services. The corporation does not say this in quite those words, but it feels the licensing authority would be reluctant to allow it to do so. It is probably quite right. The C.B.C. already has made application to go into the city of Saskatoon, but I understand that its application is being held up; I suppose temporarily, although I do not know.
However, I can recall that a few years ago the C.B.C. application to go into the city of Edmonton was granted. There was a public hearing at which those wishing to complain were able to do so. But the C.B.C. application was granted, and if ever there was duplication of services that situation in Edmonton was it at the time of the application, the city had ample T.V. service from private stations.
I said I was not going to cover the subject of programming, but with the advent of colour television more questions need answering. I noticed that the other day the Maple
March 8, 1966

Leaf Garden Corporation estimated that colour television would provide it with something like $9 million revenue from the program it has on the air within the next three years. I do not know how much profit there is for the C.B.C. from "Hockey Night in Canada" but it is certainly a popular program. Most viewers want to see it continue, but in view of the estimate made by the corporation sponsoring Maple Leaf Gardens I only hope the C.B.C. will get its fair share from that program.
The area in northern Manitoba which is asking for immediate service has a population of some 100,000 people. A considerable portion of the area already receives television service from the Yorkton station which carries C.B.C. programs. But I think I am quite safe in saying that if, in the first place, there had not been a hassle between the C.B.C. and the B.B.G. that area of Manitoba would have been available to the C.B.C. for network programming. However, it is still available, except that we are told there is no use in the corporation making application to service it since it is already serviced. But I repeat, that is exactly what happened in the city of Edmonton.
The part of the area surrounding Flin Flon and The Pas has been serviced with cinescope programming, films being delayed one week, and the picture reception is good. But there are some 20,000 people in that area who feel the time is long past when they should be receiving the network service.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
If you take the 100,000 people from Dauphin through to Flin Flon and on to Snow Lake, who are asking for this programming at the present time, they come well within this cost per household which I mentioned. I know the corporation can say there are other areas which they can service at a cheaper cost per household, but I think the figure they should use is the figure of $20 per household which you get when you look at the amount it costs to service the number of households which are being serviced in Canada.
Quite often one hears comments in respect of the advisability of a member of parliament rising to criticize the corporation for what it is or is not doing. I do not think this is the case, but I have been told that when one rises in the House of Commons and starts criticizing the present system of priorities, the area that one represents may find itself a long way down the list.
Supply-Secretary of State


Maurice Rinfret: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Churchill, but the time allotted to him has elapsed.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Maurice Rinfret: I understand that hon. members wish to allocate additional time to the hon. member to enable him to conclude.


Robert Simpson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should like to thank the committee for allowing me to continue. I was about to say I would not like this committee to get the idea that this is any threat which has been passed on to me through anyone connected with the C.B.C. This is not so. However, I hear this in my area. I am informed that if we continue to criticize, we may have to wait a long, long time for this service. I think the government can straighten this matter out in short order, if they will assure this committee they are receptive to the suggestion and are willing to provide this sum of money which the corporation already has recommended in its annual report. Then everyone would be quite happy.
I will be quite surprised if this is not a lengthy discussion, because we are told by the corporation-and I do not doubt their figures-that there are some 50 areas in Canada which remain to be serviced. So, if there are 50 other areas which are as anxious to get this service as is the area which I represent, then I would imagine we are going to have quite a long discussion, unless we receive an answer from the government.
I did not mean that I was speaking for all those other areas; I was merely referring to all the places which were not serviced. I have noticed, Mr. Chairman, on the many, many occasions when I have risen in this house to speak about television, that it always seems to me this is a subject in which perhaps not too many people are interested. I suppose mainly this is because most of the areas which the members represent already are serviced. However, one time during the hearings of the broadcasting committee a few years ago I mentioned that if there was any threat that the Grey Cup, for instance, would not be televised in Canada, every member of this house would be up on his feet howling his head off.
Strangely enough, about a year later, it appeared as though the Grey Cup was not going to be televised. If you think we have had some crises in this house during the past few years, just recall what happened on that
March 8, 1966

Supply-Secretary of State occasion. The house was in an uproar for a full day and it continued on spasmodically for the rest of the week, until somebody intervened, I understand, and the matter was resolved. This is the reason I say that the people who already have these services should realize what it means to the people who do not have them. If one of your favourite programs is discontinued, you are ready to howl. However, probably it is not too interesting to hear someone discussing the need for television.
I will listen, Mr. Chairman, with interest to any of the members who have problems similar to ours, in their areas which are not serviced. I think we should have several answers from the government or from the corporation. In relation to the areas which are still without the service, I think we should be told by the corporation what areas these are and where they are.
Also, I think we should be told what the priorities are for each of these areas at the present time in the C.B.C.'s planning. I recognize, as I said before, that it is difficult to expect the corporation to lay down a list of priorities and expect that those priorities will remain the same the next year or the year after; but I think we are entitled to know what priority each of these particular areas has at the present time.
I believe the main question we should have answered by the corporation is, on what date will each of these areas be provided with C.B.C. television service. As I mentioned, the government could eliminate the necessity of these questions being answered if they would assure the committee that they are prepared to see that a sufficient sum of money is provided so that the C.B.C. will be able to do this work immediately. This answer to that question will satisfy the people in all of these areas. I am hoping, as the debate progresses, that we will receive an answer to some of these questions from either the Secretary of State or from the corporation.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Goyer:: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak briefly concerning C.B.C., and more particularly on the housing conditions, namely, the building in which the C.B.C. operates while there are prospects of interesting sites offered by the municipal authorities.
The present situation in Montreal is becoming more and more permanent and it requires a rapid solution, because it is so

obvious with regard to administration. In fact the C.B.C. operates 17 different offices scattered almost everywhere in the city of Montreal from one end to the other; this, of course, leads to lack of co-ordination and to increased and repeated expenses which the C.B.C. could avoid.
It also puts the artists in a very awkward position. Under the present circumstances, they must, on very close and often crowded schedule, for some of them, run around the city to take part in various broadcasts. Accordingly, they have to turn down certain jobs because of the geographic situation.
It must not be forgotten, on the other hand, that Montreal is the artistic capital of Canada, and that the C.B.C., reflecting as it does a major part of the arts in Canada, should therefore be well served.
How can we solve that administrative breakdown, as far as premises are concerned?
The city of Montreal has offered the C.B.C. a plot of 27 acres. It gave the undertaking that it would clear this land, unfortunately located in a ward with many slums. The city of Montreal fulfilled its obligations; it cleared the land and tore down the slums. But the government delays its decision to have the new C.B.C. building built as soon as possible. The city of Montreal had put the deadline at October, 1965 for the start of construction, but today, we are still waiting for the first shovelful of earth to be taken up.
The grouping together in the same building in Montreal of all the services of the French and English networks of the C.B.C.-and everybody agrees on this, both C.B.C. authorities and the Fowler commission-would be a very good thing, and it is urgent.
From the administrative point of view, when the execution of a project is delayed, someone must take the consequences, and that someone is always the citizen who pays taxes, because of slow administration.
This is a field in which the government has had time to think, plan and act. The government is still taking its time and so risks losing the land placed at its disposal by the city of Montreal. This land was to be used before October 1965; it is now March 1966 and nothing has been done yet. It would be surprising if the city of Montreal were to wait indefinitely. This is why I think it is urgent that the minister and the cabinet make a decision, especially since Expo '67 is drawing near and this land, so rare in Montreal, is situated near the Expo grounds.
March 8, 1966	COMMONS
It would be unwise to keep unused indefinitely this piece of land located on Dorchester boulevard. If we want to show that Canada is prosperous, we must not leave a hole right in the middle of a city. Besides, it would be interesting to see to what extent, if not the government, at least the owners of old houses surrounding the C.B.C. square, would be willing to improve the district as soon as possible, so that the slums would vanish from the city that we are going to show to the world.
If we really want to live the motto "Man and his world", it is not enough to display it in a window, but to have it at home, to build it at home, in every street, in every district, in short in every city and in every province.
Before closing, I wish to say, simply from the administrative point of view, that, in my opinion, the Fowler commission and C.B.C. are again in complete agreement on this point; in fact, the Fowler commission raised the same problem in the city of Toronto. Therefore, an administrative problem does exist that the Corporation would like to see settled, that the Commission wants to see settled, but that the government, unfortunately, is in no hurry to solve, although it should do so as soon as possible.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, all the agencies for which the hon. lady is parliamentary housekeeper appear to be under discussion on item 1 of her estimates. Therefore, although the committee is desperately crowded for time, I make no apology for insisting upon an opportunity of dealing briefly but explicitly with what has become a very highly sensitive, indeed, an explosive issue in the public service, namely the inept and improper handling by the government and the Civil Service Commission of the problem of bilingualism. Precipitate and ill considered attempts to change the ground rules for promotional and other competitions are leading to discrimination against French speaking and English speaking civil servants alike, and to widespread discord throughout the civil service. Action taken surreptitiously and clandestinely by the Civil Service Commission, only partly revealed in an indiscreet speech made by the chairman of the Civil Service Commission on February 1, has placed the whole merit system in jeopardy and flouted the Civil Service Act.
An unfortunate, indeed, unbelievable statement of future recruitment policy by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys has
DEBATES	2407
Supply-Secretary of State intensified the problems, and an attempt made by the Minister of Public Works to pour oil on troubled waters has not been effective.
Sir, this is a very delicate problem where one may easily be misinterpreted. I seek only to bring justice to all civil servants, whether of French speaking or English speaking derivation, and I shall try to choose my words carefully and with moderation, although there is no doubt that the time has come to call a spade a spade and to appeal directly to the Prime Minister to stop the erosion of one of the greatest public services in the world.
I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement this afternoon that there will be further consultations with civil service staff associations, and I hope those associations will truly reflect the opinions of their members. For, sir, it is useless to blink at the fact that there is greater anxiety, more uneasiness, unrest and subdued anger in the civil service in Ottawa at this moment than at any time in my memory.
What is happening, sir, and I want to make it clear, is that in my view the civil service commission has confused job requisites, in which bilingualism is a most significant factor, with principles of personnel rating and evaluation, in which it has no place.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Because of that, the merit system is being outrageously flouted. I say that the whole basis upon which Canada has built the finest Civil Service in the world is in grave jeopardy. The Civil Service Act was completely revised by this house as recently as 1961, and it is clear and explicit as to job requisites. Section 47 of the act reads this way:
The number of employees appointed to serve in any department or in any local office of a department who are qualified in the knowledge and use of the English or French language or both shall, in the opinion of the Commission, be sufficient to enable the department or local office to perform its functions adequately and to give effective service to the public.
Those, sir, are the tests as to whether a job is to be bilingual or whether it is to be unilingual. These tests were agreed upon without complaint in a special committee of this house as recently as 1961, although there was some resistance in the house itself by the hon. member for Hull and the hon. member for Sainte-Marie. But the tests, I suggest, are twofold; first, adequacy of performance of departmental functions and, second, to give effective service to the public.
March 8. 1966

Supply-Secretary of State
No one can complain legitimately when the application of these tests results in the specification of a bilingual officer or the specification of a unilingual officer whether that unilingual officer be French or English. But when those tests of job requisites are falsely and improperly imported into the evaluation or rating of the merit of an individual to hold a job, which job does not require a knowledge of two languages, then I say the time has come to expose this fallacious reasoning.
Section 38(1) of the Civil Service Act is the enunciation of the merit system which has stood unbreached since the days of Sir Robert Borden, the father of the merit system. I want to put the words of that section on record, sir. They are:
The Commission shall examine and consider all applications received within the time prescribed by it for the receipt of applications and, after considering such further material and conducting such examinations, tests, interviews and investigations as it considers necessary or desirable, shall select the candidates who are qualified for the position or positions in relation to which the competition is conducted, and shall place them in order of merit.
We cannot play with words, Mr. Chairman. Merit is merit, not merit plus 10 per cent for some factor extraneous to merit which the Civil Service Commission chooses to import into the plain meaning of the word in violation of that plain and natural meaning. There is in the Civil Service Act one explicit departure from the merit system, the introduction of the veteran's preference. The mere fact that there is a statutory exception to the merit principle is a clear indication that there is no other. Section 33 is equally clear. It reads:
The Commission may in relation to any position of any class or grade prescribe qualifications as to age, residence or any other matters that in the opinion of the Commission are necessary or desirable having regard to the nature of the duties to be performed, but in so doing the Commission shall not discriminate against any person by reason of race, national origin, colour or religion.
In other words, the Commission has the power, and in proper cases the duty, to prescribe bilingualism as a job requisite, but it has no authority to discriminate when it comes to evaluation and rating of individuals on the basis of merit. Yet, what has it done? The chairman of the Civil Service Commission made a speech on February 1, 1966, in which he made the following statement:
The Commission has recently recognized proficiency in the two official languages as an element of merit in selection for appointments and promotions to positions in the National Capital area and

in other centres where the public being served is sufficiently representative of the two cultures of Canada ... In these cases, proficiency in the two official languages is considered as an additional asset and is accorded 10 per cent of the total selection rating score.
Well, sir, this speech and this procedure I say first flouts directly the will of parliament and is in contempt of parliament. Why do I say that? On September 19, 1961, as appears in Hansard at page 8573, the hon. member for Hull moved an amendment to add subclause (2) to clause 47 as follows:
At the time of competitions, those candidates who can establish that they possess a sufficient knowledge of the two official languages of Canada shall benefit by an added 5 per cent over all other candidates-
You find at page 8575, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment was negatived by a vote of 43 to 16. Yet in the face of that vote and without any further consideration by parliament, the Commission expresses its contempt of this house and institutes the very procedure this house rejected-it institutes it two for one. If this is the policy of the government now, there is a clear duty on the government to come back to this house and stake its life upon the adoption of a policy already so clearly rejected by the house.
This speech of the chairman of the Civil Service Commission was the first announcement that, surreptitiously and without the knowledge of any of the staff associations, a 10 per cent advantage had been put into effect in the national capital area and in other centres of Canada for those with proficiency in the two official languages. This 10 per cent, I submit, will be an effective barrier to unilingual candidates in most competitions, whether knowledge of two languages is necessary or not for the performance of their duties. Very rarely indeed in a competition is there such a wide margin between candidates, and the result is that tens of thousands of civil servants who entered the Civil Service under one set of ground rules will find their advancement or promotion blocked and barred. Frustration, dead-end, blind alleys -these will be the lot of thousands.
The introduction of this 10 per cent preference into the merit system is in my view without colour of right. It flouts completely, as I have submitted, the structure of the Civil Service Act. It is within the prerogative of parliament to do this; it is not within the prerogative of the Civil Service Commission. If parliament chooses to do this, it is one thing, but for the Commission to do it I say drives a horse and cart through the whole
March 8. 1366

merit system and discriminates equally against French speaking and English speaking civil servants. I emphasize that it discriminates against French speaking and English speaking civil servants alike. I say, Mr. Chairman, that it will lead to the demoralization of the civil service and will make a farce out of bilingualism.
I tell the committee that if it had been in effect in 1927, it would probably have deprived the Department of External Affairs of the services of one Lester B. Pearson. If it had been in effect later, I doubt whether the [DOT]civil service would have had the dubious advantages of the services within its ranks of the now hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate or the hon. member for Eglinton. Actually, Mr. Chairman, one of the major problems is to define objectively what is in fact bilingualism. Many people who profess to be such are truly not. Some objective standard, I submit, must be devised. Thirty years ago I was reasonably bilingual, at least to the extent of being able to make numerous speeches in the French language. Lack of opportunity has deprived me of any proficiency in that respect. Yet others scarcely more proficient than I claim to be bilingual.
This 10 per cent rule, I point out, will prevent promotions from other centres of Canada to the national capital.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
No longer will it be reasonable for a postal worker, a customs or immigration officer to expect promotion from Regina or Fort William, from Ville Marie or Rimouski, from Halifax or Saint John, to the headquarters of his department in Ottawa. Practically, an officer in these places cannot be bilingual. He cannot practise the other language to keep up his proficiency, and he cannot expect to circumvent the 10 per cent preference. The net result will be that the future civil service of Canada will be drawn from the very tiny group or segment, only 12.23 per cent of the population according to the last census, who speak both French and English. I repeat those figures, there is only 12.23 per cent who speak both French and English.
Eliminated from the civil service of their native country will be the 19.13 per cent who speak only French-almost 20 per cent of the people in the country who speak only French -as well as the 67.35 per cent who speak only English and the 1.27 per cent who speak neither. Within the present civil service, promotions will be confined to a select inner few made up of only a tiny percentage of the
Supply-Secretary of State total service. The fact is that the members of the Civil Service Commission themselves could not qualify today under the rules that they themselves have laid down.
Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman. Where the job requires a knowledge of the two languages, as many jobs do, of course, in order to provide proper service to the public under section 47, I believe that that must be clearly laid down as a job requisite. But to breach the merit system by an artificial, unrealistic percentage will set back rather than promote the cause of bilingualism. I have it confirmed in writing by the chairman of the Civil Service Commission that this 10 per cent rule is now in effect in all areas of Canada which have an English or French mother tongue minority of at least 10 per cent.
It is not easy to say these things, sir. It is very easy to be interpreted as being antiFrench. I have spent a large part of my life trying to bridge the gap which exists in this country. But as an Irishman, sir, I am neither anti-French nor anti-English. I seek tonight to be a Canadian interested in the welfare of the 87 per cent of my fellow Canadians, French, English, and other ethnic groups alike, who do not enjoy the undoubted advantage of bilingualism.
I am sorry that the Minister of Public Works is not in the house at this moment, for between us, the minister and I represent over half the civil service population. I make a direct appeal to the Minister of Public Works as a man of moderation, as a man of tolerant understanding, as a man of firmness and of character, to use his prestige and his moral stature within the government to reverse the unwise policies which have been embarked upon, policies which will do injury to French speaking, English speaking and other Canadians alike.
I say to this committee tonight, let us not completely stultify the best civil service in the world. Let us not permit the public service of Canada to founder upon illusory rocks which can only endanger the unity of the nation. I ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works to protect the civil service of Canada. If they fail in their duty we shall have a mass exodus of technical and professional personnel to the United States, to Australia and to New Zealand, which will do permanent injury to Canada. This cannot be permitted to happen, sir.
I ask every member of this house, French, English, or whatever their ethnic background, and I do so with the greatest sincerity at my
2410	COMMONS
Supply-Secretary of State command, to rise and to protect the greatest public service in the world from that which is being done to it.


Mr. Valade:: Would the hon. member permit a question. I heard the hon. member for Carleton make reference to some of my past interventions, but I did not clearly understand if he said that I opposed any revision of the act, or something of that nature. I should like him to make it clear, because it is important to me.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie was one of those who, in September 1961, joined in the support of the amendment which I read into the record. He, and I think the hon. member for Hull, were the only members who took exception to section 47 in the form in which it is.


Mr. Pelletier:: May I put a question to the hon. gentleman. Since he has been defending the principle of unilingualism in the civil service-


Some hon. Members:: Oh no.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Discrimination.


Gérard Pelletier: -may I ask him whether he knows many French unilingual civil servants in Ottawa?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, it is a total travesty of what I have attempted to say to suggest that I have been defending unilingualism. I know many unilingual French speaking civil servants in Ottawa, many more than the hon. member knows. The ones I know believe in what I have said in this house tonight.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of attention to the speech just made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell).
I have never taken him for a fanatic and I still do not want to do so tonight. In my opinion, the comments he made tonight merely reflect a general idea according to which, realizing that the monopoly held by a certain group is flowing away, some people are afraid to lose it to the advantage of all Canadian citizens, both English speaking and French speaking.
The fact that bilingualism is asked for in the civil service does not mean, Mr. Chairman, that competence must first be set aside. Certainly not.

DEBATES	March 8, 1966
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
What we believe should be a prime criterion for recruiting a civil servant, whether at higher or lower level, is the competence. Only in various degrees of competence-now I am talking only about competence-meaning the factors which can be used to assess the competence of officers in the Canadian civil service; well, language should be one of these factors.
If the employee speaks English only or French only and is bound to meet either French or English speaking public, then I must say to the hon. member for Carleton that bilingualism is a factor of competence for the civil servant who has to speak to his fellow citizens in one or the other of the two languages. It is a criterion of competence. That is why the civil service commission must take this criterion into account in the field of competence, that is bilingualism, as much as all other criteria. That is one of the fields which concern the competence of a civil servant.
I am convinced that, in this connection, the hon. member for Carleton cannot deny the argument I advance that in the case of a senior official dealing with the public bilingualism is a necessary and unavoidable asset of such official's competence.
This being said, Mr. Chairman, it must not be forgotten that we too often see applications-not only in the civil service, but in crown corporations, as I pointed out to the house recently-for instance, in the case of air hostesses, Air Canada, where it was said: Knowledge of English is required, but knowledge of French is a further asset. Why is one language required and another a further asset? Why are not both languages required, since an air hostess is called upon to serve both French and English-speaking Canadians?
When competitions are held within the civil service for positions requiring the official to deal with the public, such as in the Taxation Division, or here, for instance, in the house of commons where there are telephone operators. Four times out of five, the operator will tell you that she speaks English only, not French. If you want a French-speaking operator, you are told to hang up, that you will be called back. You wait 20 minutes before you get an operator who can understand and speak French.
Will the hon. member for Carleton now tell me that employees such as these should not have an increase of 10 per cent and even
March 8. 1966

more than 10 per cent. I would say that 33 per cent should be awarded bilingual telephone operators. Thirty three per cent of the members in this House of Commons speak French and want French to be recognized here as elsewhere.
How can the hon. member for Carleton deem it acceptable that telephone operators in the House of Commons be unable to answer in French when they are being spoken to in French.
Do you know when bilingualism includes French? When it is time to fill out income tax returns. If you fill out your income tax return and the government owes you money, send it in English. The money comes quickly. Send your income tax return in French and you must wait, perhaps a month, before you get your money. When you owe the government money, fill out your return in French: it will be a month before you have to pay.
Will the member for Carleton tell me that the officials of the Income Tax Division are competent, when one must wait a month, a month and a half longer if one writes in French instead of English?
Then would it not be appropriate to give a percentage of additional points to bilingual civil servants who have to deal with the public? If we want bilingualism to become a fact, civil servants in contact with the public will inevitably have to get a higher percentage for their competence, because they are bilingual and can speak and understand both languages.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the situation of the hon. member for Carleton. There are a great many civil servants in his riding. We cannot demand all civil servants to become bilingual overnight.
Although we ask for integral bilingualism, we do not want to break everything. There must be a period of evolution. When the day comes where our young people, in colleges and universities, know that additional credits are given for bilingualism in the civil service, then, our young people will learn French to be more "competent" when they enter the civil service.
It is an indication of competence when one can speak the two languages in a country like Canada. And this applies just as well to the French Canadians of the province of Quebec. When they know there will be more advantages, more points, if they speak the two languages, they too will realize, as will be realized in the other provinces, that in order to have more chances for promotion in the

Supply-Secretary of State civil service, they have to speak the two languages.
When we say 10 per cent, let us not disregard it. We complain that French Canadians are not sufficiently numerous in the civil service. Why? When French Canadians from Quebec, Montreal, Rouyn or Trois-Rivieres, apply for a job in the civil service, if they want to get to the top, they have to be extremely good in English, although their mother tongue is French. They must be very qualified and able to speak English, just about flawlessly.
If they do not keep this in mind, they know, right from the start, that they will not reach the higher echelons of the civil service. This is evident by the distribution and the cross-section of officials found in the civil service.
Ministers, deputy ministers, directors of crown corporations, all of them practically speak only one language, English. We should like to facilitate the unity of our country, by having more French speaking officials who are asked, right from the start, to be qualified, because otherwise they would have no chance for promotion.
The difference between you and us is that we are not asking for that. We are not asking for officials who speak French only or French reports only. The difference between you and us is that we are asking for both French and English. I do not call that being fanatic.
The University of Ottawa had to declare itself a bilingual university to get grants from the province of Ontario. McGill University gets as much if not more in grants from the Quebec government and it never had to declare itself a bilingual university; in fact, it is an English university in the province of Quebec. The University of Ottawa, which was a French university and which tries to give a French education to the people of Ontario, was obliged to declare itself a bilingual university to get grants from the Ontario government.
We are not that fanatic in the province of Quebec. I am not taking the floor to ask that all high officials be French Canadians. We are asking that they be bilingual, that they speak both languages. Can one be more reasonable, more logical? Is it not showing goodwill to ask that they be bilingual? We are asking it from all those who deal with the public, who work on trains, for the income tax division, Air Canada, from all those who work for crown corporations, in departments, who deal
March 8, 1968

Supply-Secretary of State with the public or answer the phone. Is it not normal?
I appreciate that the hon. member for Carleton may be worried. He says that almost 50 per cent of the civil servants live in his riding. It is not because such a situation developed gradually that it must be allowed to linger.
It should be possible to take the necessary steps so that from now on those who join the civil service will know that they have a better chance, qualifications being equal, if they are bilingual.
Some crown corporations have set up language laboratories. Once, in a hotel north of Montreal, I saw some employees of the C.N.R. who spoke English only and who were taking French in a language laboratory sponsored by the C.N.R. Those men wanted to learn French and they did. It did not take them so long and at least today they can deal with the public.
We must start with the young. All sensible, sincere Canadians must accept, must approve the decision taken by the civil service commission and congratulate it for giving an additional percentage of points for bilingualism in the civil service.
In all the departments, whether is it the Secretary of State or the Department of National Defence, language courses can be organized to enable the newcomers to the civil service, those with chances for promotion, to reach the highest positions. If they are French Canadians, they can take English courses; if English Canadians, take French; so that all can benefit from the two languages and thus gain greater competence.
Think about it. There are ministers and senior civil servants who have to do business in other countries of the world. Well, nobody in this house can deny that when a citizen understands and speaks French and English, he can go almost anywhere in the world and make himself understood. In the fields of diplomacy, defence, broadcasting, trade and finance, when you speak both languages you can be welcomed and you can make yourself understood almost everywhere across the world. Therefore, it is a level of culture and competence a good civil servant must try to reach.
It is one of the criteria, even though not the only one, that must be taken into consideration in the case of a civil servant.

[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


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


Gilles Grégoire: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought the hon. member needed a rest. I should like to ask him this: would he impose any restriction on people whose native language is other than English or French, those who speak Polish, Ukrainian, Italian, Greek, and so on. Would the hon. member oblige them to know both English and French before they could enter the Civil Service?


Gilles Grégoire: I admit this case is important. I know that in the prairie provinces, there are several people of Polish, Ukrainian or Hungarian origin, who already speak their own language, and it is expecting very much of them to speak two more languages in addition to theirs.
I believe that to become a good civil servant, they must speak one of the two official languages of Canada. It is a good start already and they are even more competent if they speak both official languages of this country.
I do not want to impose that on them, I do not want to ask that of them. On the other hand, between two persons of equal competence-and I really mean of equal competence here-which one should the government choose?
There is in St. Boniface, near Winnipeg where the hon. member comes from, quite a number of French Canadians. In Winnipeg, if two candidates apply for the same job, and they are equally competent though one of them is bilingual, speaking English and French, I believe the latter enjoys an advantage over the one who speaks English only. If the two citizens from St. Boniface speak French and are otherwise equally competent, I would say that, if one of them speaks English, he must have the precedence on the other.
I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) will admit that if two French Canadians apply for postmaster's job in the office where he collects his mail, the one who speaks English has an additional competence over the one who speaks French only.
That is what we claim and nothing else: Competence being equal, the one coming into
March 8. 1966
contact with the public and who can speak both languages is the one who should enjoy priority.


An hon. Member:: The two official languages of the country.


Gilles Grégoire: Obviously, let us not talk about other languages now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask another question. I take it the hon. member does not agree with the proposition put forward by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys who is reported to have been insisting that people entering the Civil Service must know both French and English. I want to speak on behalf of those whose native language is neither English nor French.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, quite understandably, this is a field where flexibility is required when such a suggestion is implemented. One must be flexible enough to admit that this situation exists and that, at present, most of our civil servants are unilingual.
The suggestion made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin) to allow a certain number of additional points to a bilingual civil servant seems quite normal to me, since he acknowledges and establishes the following principle, namely that a Canadian civil servant who must deal with the public and who can speak both official languages is necessarily more competent than another who speaks only one of those languages.
This is what such a principle should recognize. We have another solution to offer. Let us give an additional bonus of $200 or $300 to any civil servant who can supply proof that he can speak and understand both languages.
So, upon entering the civil service, everyone would be on the same footing, whether bilingual or not. Once in the civil service, if he wants to be entitled to the bonus, it is up to him to study in a language laboratory to learn French or English according to whether he is a French or English Canadian.
At this time, according to the program we proposed three years ago, to give an additional bonus to everyone who is bilingual upon entering the civil service for any department they would all be on the same footing, but once in the service, the bilingual employee would receive the bonus if he can understand and speak both languages.
Supply-Secretary of State
That will force civil servants to learn the other language. If they are French, they will learn English and if they are English they will learn French, should they want the bonus. And it would not take too long. I know that the former Secretary of State had conceived a plan for civil servants. Now, all that would be beneficial to those now in the civil service. They could immediately learn the other language that they do not know and then get their bonus. Besides, in six months or a year from now, they could speak French or English and be understood by everyone in his own language.
I think that the member for Winnipeg South Centre should be satisfied with this. He should find such an attitude or such a principle satisfactory.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I have another question, even though I think we should get the estimates through tonight and with that in mind I anticipate a short answer. Would the hon. member recommend a bonus for a person whose native language is English but who has learned Eskimo in order to communicate with some of our native people, and a bonus for others along the same line, for those who act as interpreters in Russian, German and so on?


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Chairman, the bonus would be for bilingual people, namely those who speak and understand the two official languages in Canada. It is rather exceptional to speak Russian, and a Russian interpreter gets a much higher salary, because he had enough determination to learn Russian; it is his bonus, because he has an extra qualification, due to the fact that he speaks Russian. I do not know Russian, but nobody would pay me the salary of the Russian interpreter either.
But to be bilingual, that is to speak French and English, that is an additional asset in the civil service, and it deserves a bonus, in order to promote the development of true bilingualism in Canada. This bonus, will be an incentive for the officials actually in service to learn French, if they speak English only, or to learn English if they speak French only. Does this answer satisfy the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre?

March 8. 1966

Supply-Secretary of State


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you very much. Do you mind if I leave now?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to see that the member for Winnipeg South Centre has gone to enrol in a French course. I shall be glad to help him if he needs it.
Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of State could certainly allow the member for Winnipeg South Centre to use the existing language laboratories.
This is, first of all, a political and social question, for Canada is officially recognized as a bilingual country by virtue of its constitution. That is the first and basic reason.
But for those who seem to object to that, I will recall that there is moreover a question of culture involved. The individual who can command two languages will unavoidably enjoy two cultures. That is obvious, Mr. Chairman. Those who wish to learn more, to know more, should do it for the sake of culture, for their self-improvement. It goes without saying that every human being tries to learn as much as possible, tries to add as much as he can to his personal background. Two cultures are definitely better than only one.
In the light of those facts, Mr. Chairman, I believe we must support the civil service's proposal to allot 10 extra points to those who are bilingual when they apply for a job. It was set at 10 per cent and I accept that percentage.
However, I would ask to consider also a supplementary bonus for those who are already on the job, during the period of transition, so that that period might not be too long. Then, you would see many officials register for French or English courses, as the case might be, with a view to learning the other official language of our country.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few remarks I wanted to make.
I think the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) will have noticed that I was not too fanatical in my ideas today. Those ideas are logical. We are not asking to take anything away from anyone, but merely asking to recognize the merit and competence of those who can speak the two languages, which are recognized by the constitution as the official languages of Canada.


Mr. Canielon:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to change the subject because I am sure it is


impossible to pour oil on these troubled waters. If I did, I am quite certain the head of the hon. member for Lapointe would come hobbling through, spouting words. I should like to say a few words about a matter very close to the hearts of my constituents, a matter which I have mentioned to the minister on another occasion, namely, C.B.C. coverage for Saskatoon-a new C.B.C. station for Saskatoon.
To refresh the minister's memory I wish to tell her my constituency receives only one type of program and we are very anxious to have two. If a C.B.C. station can be put into Saskatoon, then we expect we would be able to have a C.T.V. program, as well as a C.B.C. program.
In this connection there is another matter I should like to mention. We have a satellite station at a place called Pivot, which is served from Medicine Hat, and over the past few months a great deal of technical difficulty has arisen. We hope the minister will use her good offices to see that an improvement is made to the technical efficiency of this station.
While talking on this subject, I think it would be a good time to mention the CBOT radio station in Ottawa. Before coming here, from what I expect might be called a remote area, I was accustomed to having very good radio reception. In common with many hon. members, I enjoyed good music and good commentaries, much of which are to be found on the C.B.C. network. Unfortunately, CBOT is not a good station. It is almost impossible to get good music from it, and clearcut words from the commentators who broadcast over it. I do not know whether the minister can do anything about this but, if she can, I think something should be done to see that the technical competency of this station is improved. It is a disgrace to the capital of our country.
Much of the C.B.C. programming in recent weeks has, in my opinion, improved greatly. We no longer get those far out programs, if we can call them that, produced by the quasi-intellectuals among the programming group in the C.B.C. At least we have not had any in recent weeks. I think in the past they were attempting to follow the ancient Greek tragedies. Unfortunately, all they succeeded in doing was omitting the drama involved in those tragedies and giving the dirt. This is indefensible in a network which comes into the homes of everybody.
March 8. 1986


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two about the item which concerns the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. This office was held for a long time by a highly esteemed man, a man who gained the respect of every successful and unsuccessful parliamentry candidate. I think the office should be filled forthwith. It is not good to have this important office vacant, especially in a country that has had such a plethora of elections as we have had in recent years.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I should like to say further, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: You are too truthful, Judy.


William Arnold Peters: You are getting some help with your speech.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Yes, by this little contretemps between the lovely lady and this gallant gentleman.
I will continue. There is another matter of importance which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister at this time. I believe the elections act requires urgent and most careful scrutiny with a view to some far sweeping changes. We have had the habit in Canada of revising the elections act after an election. We have learned, I am sure, many things from the last few elections. The disenfranchisement of the students, for one thing, is very important and the disenfranchisement of many Canadians abroad, not only those in the Department of External Affairs, who do not have the opportunity to vote. There is the whole question of people who are out of their own area, and perhaps out of the country temporarily.
We could provide, I think, the necessary mechanism, if we moved toward the permanent voters list. I think this is an underpinning for absentee and proxy voting. Many persons believe the voting age should be lowered. I am one of those, but some of my colleagues do not belong to that group.
I should like to say to the minister that I believe the committee on privileges and elections should be activated as soon as possible, because there is a great deal of work to do in scrut nizing the act. I had the honour of presiding over the committee on privileges and elections the last time it held its sittings. We had many long meetings, long discussions and deliberations. I think the time is ripe for action in this regard. We must move toward having our democratic machinery up-dated. I 23033-153
Supply-Secretary of State do not think it is a good thing to have a vacancy in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, and have an act which has been allowed to grow out of date.
Following the precedent set by the member for Royal, I will indulge in brevity and postpone my voluminous remarks until the next time I have an opportunity.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the member for Queens a question. Does the hon. member for Queens think that the time for holding elections should be reduced to 30 days rather than 60 days as it is at the present time?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I believe, with a permanent fist, it could be done in 30 days.


Mr. Laiulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few remarks to make-I will not be long- about broadcasting in the constituency I represent.
My constituency has very bad service by way of broadcasting. For instance, at five and six o'clock in the afternoon, the frequencies are lowered and the power of private stations is lowered, so that the constituency is deprived of radio or French broadcasts in the evening. By lowering the broadcasting power of the private radio stations, it is impossible to tune in French stations. It is only possible to pick up American stations which are so powerful and take up all the power, so that it is impossible to get a single French word between five o'clock in the afternoon and eight o'clock the next morning.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation owns a small station, a small substation in the town of Megantic. This small substation is much too weak, it is not powerful enough to serve the population, with the result that American stations overpower it and the small transmission station of the C.B.C. becomes worthless. Not one word can be heard all evening; all through the night the C.B.C. station does not operate because it is too weak to be heard above American stations.
In order to listen to radio programs in my riding, one has to tune in the Sherbrooke station, which serves part of the riding. Afterwards, one has to tune in the Thetford Mines station, serving another part of the riding. Later on, one has to tune in the St. Georges de Beauce station that serves another part of the riding, and a great part of the riding is still not covered, even though we have to tune in three stations to cover the whole riding. Nevertheless, a great part of the riding is left out.
March 8, 1966

Supply-Secretary of State
My riding is made up of French Canadians, in a proportion of 97 per cent, while almost 80 per cent of the programs are American, not French. American stations run the show in my riding.
So we speak about French. The riding I represent is a French riding and we cannot even get French radio.
So I ask the C.B.C., and the minister to consider the requests I have made, for the riding I represent, for the Chamber of Commerce by which I am asked to make representations, for the Owners' League, in short for all public bodies of the city and the riding I represent.
We want an improvement in broadcasting. I don't believe the improvement we seek will cost too much to the government. To my mind, it would involve an increase in power of the C.B.C. station or the small C.B.C. relay station in Megantic, so that it will be strong enough.
It would also involve permission for the private stations to maintain their power high enough to enable us to tune in French stations after ten o'clock at night.
The government, I do not know why, orders private radio stations to reduce their power by half, maybe more. I am not too sure about the percentage. At any rate, we have no French radio programs from five or six o'clock in the evening until eight o'clock the next morning.
I ask the minister to take this request into consideration. I am sure that the municipal and county authorities will make other representations because, for some time, they have been putting a lot of pressure on me to ask the minister and the government to do something in that connection.
That is why I took the opportunity to take part in this debate tonight. Once again, I ask the minister to examine the situation and have an inquiry made in that area, in order to give justice to my constituents.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, a while ago, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) raised a very important question for the Canadian metropolis. Unfortunately, the minister did not refer or reply to the comments of his colleague, but I would certainly speak very briefly if the minister would assure us that the proposed C.B.C. complex which the previous government promised to carry out as early as October 1, 1965, and which was

delayed by his predecessor to October 1, 1966, will be carried out.
The minister undoubtedly knows that this is a very important project of a rather special nature, since it is one of the most extensive projects to be carried out in the Canadian metropolis and I refer to the C.B.C. complex.
If the minister can assure us to-night that there shall not be any other postponement after the final date of October 1, 1966, my remarks, Mr. Chairman, will be short. So, if the minister can give us an answer, inform the house, in a word, give us a definite answer and not a shifty one as has been given in the past, the house shall obtain a much more immediate co-operation from me.
Does the minister intend to reply to my question, Mr. Chairman? I shall take the liberty of renewing my request if I do not receive an answer to my inquiry.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I also wish to ask a question-


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I directed a question to the minister and I would hope that she would at least be courteous enough to give us an answer. It is a simple clear and important question; it deals with a project of some $35 million. According to my information, it is a revised project, and I would like the minister to assure us, tonight, in short to state that there will be no more delays concerning the execution of that project, the C.B.C. complex in Montreal. It is a matter of administrative responsibility, and I cannot understand how the minister can remain indifferent and refuse to answer this kind of question, unless we are to see in this another sign of indifference toward a metropolis which has sent to parliament 20 Liberal members out of 21 ridings. It would be an insult to the Canadian metropolis to refuse to answer this question and if the minister refuses to do so, I shall ask the support of the 18 other Liberal members from Montreal, who have common interests to defend; as the hon. member for Dollard Mr. Goyer)-and I congratulate him for doing so,-I shall seek their support in order to have an answer in respect of that huge project.
I realize that the hon. Minister has to discuss common interests with her colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hel-lyer) and the new Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), but I think that the Secretary of State should show a little more interest for her
March 8. 1966

responsibilities and give us an answer tonight.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I demand such an answer, for we have been playing and juggling too long with this project, that was decided upon, voted and approved by the city of Montreal, by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and by Parliament. With startling suddenness, and through a political scheme on the part of her predecessor, this project was postponed a few months prior to the federal election, so as to prevent the election of the member for Sainte-Marie as Conservative member of Parliament for the Montreal area. Liberals resort to all tricks, Mr. Chairman, and I am not surprised about that.
But since the electoral campaign is over, I think the Minister owes us such an answer and should tell us to-night whether or not it is her intention to see that this project about the C.B.C. center is effectively carried out, as was announced by her predecessor on October 1, 1965.
I do not intend to resume my seat without having had an answer from the minister. It seems to me that the matter is simple. If the hon. lady is aware of the administration, of the decisions the cabinet has made previously or at present, I believe that she should answer. If the minister is unaware of this, it may be that she is not considered important enough to be kept abreast of the main decisions taken by the present government. This is of consequence to us, and while I bow to your impartiality, Mr. Chairman, you happen to be my left hand neighbour in the city of Montreal, and I know that this question is of interest to you-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. If I may interrupt the hon. member, I would ask him not to refer to the person who is now in the chair since the latter cannot, on account of his office, take part in the debate in progress. I suggest that the hon. member carry on with his remarks without alluding to the member who is presently acting as deputy chairman of committees and who cannot therefore take part in the debate.


Georges-J. Valade: I must point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that I did not put forward any argument likely to place you in an embarrassing situation. I only said that as a member from Montreal, you were interested in the matter-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would

Supply-Secretary of State ask him to proceed with his remarks while making the points he wants to submit to the house. I would also ask him to overlook the fact that I am a member of this house, because being acting chairman of the committees of the house, I cannot take part in the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think you are perfectly within your rights. Up to now, you have performed your duty with fairness and honesty. I feel all members should make it possible for you to keep on performing your task as efficiently as in the past.
I think the hon. member for Sainte Marie (Mr. Valade) will agree with me on that point.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Lapointe and I would like to see him in the chair to spare us his interventions which are often out of place.
Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to tell the Secretary of State that this C.B.C. centre concerns all the members from Montreal. I do not intend to make it a question of party politics; I am not in a position to do so.
Everyone knows that it is the Conservative party which initiated that project, which conceived it, which endorsed it and which had it approved. Consequently, I am not here to gather political advantages. Let us hear from the government tonight that it will carry out the project approved by the house of commons under the previous administration.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member should not put his question in English to the minister so that she could understand and answer?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly able to understand, but I fail to see how I am able to answer the hon. member until he sits down and surrenders the floor to me.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I do protest against another intervention by the minister. I asked her earlier to reply and told her that my intervention would be short. Then I sat down and she refused to give an answer. Now she says that if I sit down she will give me an answer. I am just complying with the request of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres. I am saying to the leader of the
March 8. 1966

Supply-Secretary of State truth squad that we in this party are truly bilingual, at least we try to be. I have asked her the question in both French and English. Perhaps I should ask her the question in Spanish, Chinese or Eskimo, I don't know; but I have asked if she is ready to answer this question now. 1 impress upon the minister that I am ready to refrain from speaking on the subject if she will give me an answer, but she has not yet given any indication that she will answer my question. As the minister responsible for this project, will she say whether it will be completed on the date that was decided, namely October 1, 1966?

Mr. Chairman, I see the minister is surrounded by some other colleagues from Quebec-I ask her to tell us whether this project will materialize. I see the new Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) at her side; he is perfectly bilingual and he is a young man who rose to glory at a clip with Quebec minister Laporte. This project is no longer a joke. Our Liberal opponents once again want to fool the population of Montreal. I am happy to see them smile about this intervention which affects the economy of the East of Montreal. French Canadians complain of having been neglected in the past by the federal government.
Now that the former government has decided on a project of fantastic scope which will give a considerable impulsion to the city of Montreal, particularly to the east-I see the Postmaster General smile and I should like to know whether it is a cynical smile or whether he intends to fulfil the promises made during the election campaign.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: I rise on a question of privilege.


Georges-J. Valade: I ask the Secretary of State to answer my question.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The hon. Postmaster General is rising on a question of privilege.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: It seems that the member for Sainte-Marie wants to involve me in this matter. He says I have a cynical smile. I only ask him to sit down that I may answer him.


Georges-J. Valade: Since the Secretary of State is invited to answer by her colleague the Postmaster General, I leave her the floor if she wishes to answer.

[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, there have been a number of questions asked this evening, and I was waiting, particularly in view of the lateness of the hour, until all questions had been put before I attempt to give some brief answer prior to the termination of our discussion on vote No. 1.
Earlier this evening the hon. members for Chapleau and Churchill, as well as hon. members for Saguenay, Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, Northwest Territories and even the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate privately, and on many occasions, raised the question of the extension of the services provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, first of all to parts of Canada not yet reached by any service. I fully agree, as I am sure every hon. member does, that it should be extended to such regions as quickly as is humanly possible, if it is humanly possible.
As is known by these hon. members I have enumerated, though I am sure there are others who have not taken the opportunity to mention to me difficulties in this regard in their ridings, the C.B.C. has been unable over a number of years, because of insufficient money voted by parliament, to reach the complete population of Canada. Indeed, we could never reach 100 per cent of the population of Canada through the radio arm of the corporation as well as the television arm.
As a result of my predecessors' study of the matter-firstly the Minister of Transport who had a troika set up to study the question of broadcasting, and latterly my immediate predecessor who had the Fowler committee set up-one subject of intense interest was the extension of services to the ultimate level throughout the whole of Canada.
I share with all hon. members who have spoken a desire to see as quickly as practicable the extension of service to every Canadian in Canada who can receive it. Unhappily, I am not in a position to say-


David Réal Caouette: Would the hon. lady permit a question, please. She just said service would be extended whenever it is humanly possible. Now, is it a question of being humanly possible or financially impossible?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think I know to which slogan my hon. friend has reference. In the first place, I should like to say that it is a question of being humanly possible to some extent, because I am told that we cannot
March 8. 1S66

hope under present technological advances to reach 100 per cent of the homes of Canada. So, that is an ideal which we are not going to reach in the foreseeable future, or at least while I am responsible for the C.B.C. We do reach a figure somewhat less than that, though it cannot be too much less than that because we are already able to reach through radio something like 96 per cent of all homes, and through television something like 92 per cent of all homes. So, we do not have far to go.
I have asked the C.B.C.-and the C.B.C., as members of the committee can imagine, is eager to comply-to give the government an estimate of the cost of doing something similar to that suggested by the hon. member for Churchill, namely, to put aside a fund so that the last big step toward the outer limit of practicability can be reached in an orderly way. Then, the C.B.C. can lay out its priorities and make a start toward providing a national service which is received, if possible, in every Canadian home. Unhappily, I cannot tell members of the house at this stage when this will come to pass. Hon. members will realize that I have been responsible for this portfolio for only a little over two months, and that the estimates currently before the committee do not contain money for this capital expansion. Nevertheless, it will not be too many weeks before this committee will have an opportunity to see another set of estimates for this department, and will have an opportunity as well to discuss the affairs of my department before a committee of the house. I should hope at that point we shall be able to give further information to hon. members.
One hon. member was kind enough to say, in passing, on the question of the extension of services with respect to programming that he thought he saw an improvement within the last few weeks. Even though I am pathetically eager to find any kind of approval, and there was little enough this evening in any remarks of hon. members toward my stewardship in the last couple of months, unhappily I cannot claim responsibility for any improvement in programming. As has been said many times before, programming is the responsibility of the Board and the management. My responsibility is to act as a conduit pipe between the corporation and Members of Parliament.


An hon. Member:: Some pipe.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I hope that there would be a steady improvement of programs. It may be
Supply-Secretary of State the case, if programs appear to have improved to my hon. friend, that they may appear at the same time to be anything but an improvement to someone else in another part of the chamber. I was asked a number of questions by hon. members, for, I believe, Burnaby-Richmond, Dollard and finally by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie. The first question I was asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond concerned consolidation of services in the three largest cities of Canada, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
As all hon. members know, these questions were specifically referred to the Fowler Committee which has been studying the matter for a considerable period of time. This is part of the general, over-all study. I cannot tell hon. members when they are likely to receive a white paper or an indication of the government's assessment of the Fowler Report on broadcasting in Canada. I, myself, have very recently come to this field; and having soaked myself for about two months in all the lore of broadcasting, and in learning all the information that I have been able to reach in that department, I feel that I have only scratched the surface.
Broadcasting is perhaps one of the most important things in the field of communication. Certainly, the impact of television on Canadians is tremendous.
I hope that within the confines of this calendar year we will be able to pass through the stages of a white paper, a committee study by a parliamentary committee, and perhaps even the formulation of legislation. I would explain to hon. members that I would not want them to feel that I am to be bound by such a timetable, since it takes a long time to discuss and lay out the framework of broadcasting. However, such questions as the consolidation plans I think can be decided on an ad hoc basis. They are being discussed by the cabinet at this time.
I should like to make very clear, however-and this might be of interest to the deputy chairman of committee in whose constituency the premises exist-that the government fully intends to go ahead with construction plans for the C.B.C. Montreal consolidation on the site which has been expropriated by the City of Montreal.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
There has never been any suggestion otherwise. That is the site where construction will commence. But I do think it would be fool-
March 8. 1966

Supply-Secretary of State hardy for me at this point, while the Fowler report is being studied by the committee, to attempt to give hon. members here, or persons in the general public, a date upon which construction will be started or completed.
We are aware of the pressures which have built up in the city of Montreal with regard to this matter. Hon. members from Montreal, particularly the deputy chairman of committees, the hon. member for Saint Jacques, have brought this question to my notice almost daily. I appreciate that a great many people in Montreal have been dispossessed of their homes in this area so that the land might be cleared for this construction. For this reason,
I should like to pledge to the committee that there shall be no delay in reaching a decision.
Other matters were raised, in particular the question raised by the hon. member for Carleton and answered by the hon. member for Lapointe. 1 should like to have the opportunity to make a statement at some length with respect to what was said by the head of the Civil Service Commission and the policy which has been undertaken in the last few years. I am not attempting to be provocative, but I believe the hon. member for Carle-ton-and I am sure he would not want to do this-has done a disservice to the commission. However, in view of the lateness of the hour and the few minutes* left to me before ten o'clock, and since the Prime Minister indicated only today in the house that he would be prepared next week following a meeting with representatives of the Civil Service Federation to make a full statement in this chamber,
I feel this is not an opportune time at which to pursue the matter. My poor words, in any case, would do nothing but foreshadow words which are far more responsible and important to all those engaged in the public service in Canada. This being the case, I think I have completed my remarks. I hope I have dealt with all the other questions asked this evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We have refrained from mentioning the time. We did not even quarrel with the statement made by the minister a moment ago as to what time she thought it was. But we think there should be some understanding about what we are doing. My colleagues here are prepared not to notice the clock until the estimates of this department have been dealt with but we hope there may be an agreement after that point to call it ten o'clock.


George James McIlraith: On the point of order, I should like to appeal to the committee to complete all the estimates tonight. As outlined in an answer to a question by the hon. member for Medicine Hat on Monday afternoon, there is a situation in which certain casual employees of the department cannot be paid. A good many of the small service contractors cannot be paid and many persons are suffering real hardship since they cannot receive their pay because of the delay in completing the estimates.
I therefore appeal to hon. members to complete consideration of that item in the R.C.M.P. estimates which it was thought by all hon. members had been called yesterday with the estimates of the Department of Justice, but which was inadvertently omitted, as well as the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. If we could do this tonight, it would be very much appreciated.


Michael Starr: I want to say a word on the point of order. In the continuing spirit of co-operation which we have extended to the government in the consideration of these estimates throughout all the departments, and realizing the hardships which may be encountered by many who have to depend on their pay or salaries, we are prepared to sit until all the estimates have been passed tonight. We do this to help the government out of the predicament in which they find themselves, and in order that no hardship may be felt.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I heard the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) tell us earlier that the Government had no more funds to pay civil servants and contractors, and I intended to suggest that they borrow from Household Finance or some company of that kind in order to pay their employees.
However, I do want to tell the Government Leader that we are prepared to co-operate concerning the estimates.
The house leader of the Conservative Party also tells us that he is prepared to co-operate, but I should like to know what this means.
If that means that several Conservative members will rise and speak until two o'clock tomorrow morning, we object. As for us, we feel that the study of the estimates could be all over in five minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we do not know the intentions of the New Democratic party, or those of the Conservative party, for that matter,

March 8, 1966

but we feel that we should at least know what to expect.
For instance, if a definite time is set for ending the discussion of the estimates, say eleven o'clock, we are ready to co-operate. But if the idea is to have the debate drag until three or four in the morning, I suggest this is no longer co-operation but hypocrisy.


Michael Starr: I am rising on a point of order in view of what has been said by the hon. member for Lapointe. I have been here for some 14 years. He has been here only a few years. If I had nothing more to contribute than he has contributed over that period of time, I think I would take my seat.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we are all anxious to arrive at an understanding on a basis of mutual agreement. We are not trying to throw invective at each other, but I would point out that a certain place in another part of this building adjourned at 9.30. Therefore, no matter how long we sit tonight, the estimates and the final bill will not be put through tonight. It will take until tomorrow, in any case.
I think the more responsible way to go at things is to finish up the department that is before us, and finish the other two departments tomorrow afternoon. If we get into fisheries and the R.C.M.P. tonight we are likely to be here until quite late. We will be doing a disservice to the staff of the house and it will not speed up payment of salaries because the other place has adjourned.


George James McIlraith: I think I should explain the reference to the other place. The fact is that the other place, when it meets tomorrow afternoon, should have before it the bill from this House. It cannot have that bill if we do not start considering it until after the other place has met tomorrow afternoon. It is purely a matter of getting the bill ready before hon. members of the other place meet, so that they can have a short time to consider and pass it before the royal assent, which has been arranged for tomorrow afternoon.
I must acknowledge that the other place has been very co-operative during what has been a difficult situation over the last few days. They arranged to come and deal with these matters on Friday evening and again tonight. If the arrangement for tomorrow could be met, I think it would be a fair treatment of the whole subject. I would again make my appeal to hon. members-forget whatever differences there might be between
Supply-Secretary of State parties at the moment and try to complete all these estimates tonight.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think we should try to get all
the estimates passed, in keeping with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Ontario, but I also believe that we should do it. if possible, within a reasonable length of time. In other words, if we leave matters wide open for the Department of Fisheries and the R.C.M.P. item, without any gentlemen's agreement, we may be here until two or three o'clock in the morning discussing, for instance, the skinning of seals. Therefore, while we agree that it would be beneficial to have the balance of the estimates passed so that the appropriations bill can be sent to the Senate, we urge that it should be done in a reasonable length of time.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member indicate what he regards as a reasonable length of time?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would think some time between now and midnight, if there is just one department to deal with.


Michael Starr: I would agree with that and we are prepared, and give our word, that by twelve o'clock midnight we will pass all the items in all departments.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, individual
members have particular problems that they want to raise, and this is taking advantage of them.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
What this suggestion, in effect, would be doing, would be to almost eliminate the discussion of a vitally important department, namely, the Department of Fisheries. This department has been left until the last. If we proceed this evening to restrict ourselves as to time, in order to get the estimates through-and I am not objecting to that in principle because of the financial difficulty in which the government finds itself-we will be thumbing our noses at all the fishermen in British Columbia. Some 22 of them were down here recently trying to gain the support of members of parliament for their particular problems. I think the suggestion to brush this department to one side is unconscionable.
I think a better approach would be to proceed to deal with the estimates of the Secretary of State tonight and start off fresh in the morning on a fishing expedition. There is nothing better than fishing in the morning

March 8, 1966
Supply-Secretary of State when you are fresh and alert. Otherwise, we would be treating the fisheries and the problems of the fishermen with complete disdain. We would be asking members to pass the estimates through a process of exhaustion. I think we would be better off-


An hon. Member:: In meeting in the morning.


Frank Howard: You can meet in the morning if you like, but I think the house leader would be in a better position were he to propose that we should sit this evening until we finish the estimates of the Secretary of State and start tomorrow morning with the Department of Fisheries.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, we seem to be very close to an agreement or concensus on this. Would it be satisfactory to the hon. member if we could reach an agreement that we would finish the estimates of the Secretary of State; then give him an opportunity to take the full allocated time for his important speech on fisheries. I agree that this is quite an important department. If we could agree on a time limit in that way, it would permit the two hon. members to have their opportunity to make speeches on this very important subject, and they would be assured of their full time.


Frank Howard: You can pass the estimates of the Secretary of State right now-


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman-


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Maurice Rinfret: Does the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek wish to speak on a point of order?


John (Jack) McIntosh: No, Mr. Chairman. I have one short question to ask the minister.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie on a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order; I cannot say, if I intervene to correct a statement made by the minister, whether it will take me two minutes, five minutes, or ten minutes. I do not think this is the way in which parliament should be conducted. If there is a point which is of particular importance and interest to a member of parliament, surely it is his duty not to pass this opportunity because of the pressure of time. We did not bring about this pressure of time. It results from the election being held at a bad time. I do not think, when there is a project
[Mr. Howard.1
such as the one of which I spoke a few moments ago which concerns one million people and hundreds of millions of dollars, that I would be carrying out my duty if I went along with this suggestion.
I wish to make it clear that I intend to ask for more information on this point. I will try to make it very short, but I certainly will not yield my right to make this point clear to the minister.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order; we find ourselves in the position of stumbling from one minute to another. I think, in view of the failure to reach an agreement, the only responsibility which falls on your shoulders now, Mr. Chairman, is to say it is ten o'clock. It is unquestionably ten o'clock.


Michael Starr: Sit until one o'clock.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Skeena calling it ten o'clock?


Frank Howard: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall I rise, report certain resolutions and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I move, pursuant to standing order 6(2):
That this house continue to sit until one o'clock a.m. Wednesday morning.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It has been moved by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), that pursuant to standing order 6(2), this house continue to sit until 1 a.m. Wednesday morning. Is the house ready for the question?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I protest and ask that you seek to find out whether or not there are ten members who object.


Michael Starr: The Chair does not have to ask. Let the hon. members stand and be counted.
And more than ten members having risen, the question on the said motion was not put.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair sees 11 members objecting. Therefore, the motion to sit until one o'clock will not be put.
March 8, 1966	COMMONS


Michael Starr: Is it possible to have the names of those objecting recorded, Mr. Speaker? I ask that they be recorded.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Standing order 6(2) does not require that the names of those objecting be recorded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader whether he will agree to avail himself of the offer we made earlier this evening to consider and pass the estimates of the Secretary of State tonight?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question put to me I must say that there is a situation developing here in which it is difficult to reconcile the rights of parliament and the consensus of the committee to the rights of individual members. I recognize in the circumstances how important some of these matters are to individual members.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
But I must also reconcile that with the fact that parliament has a right to take a decision on public business. We have now had a very lengthy and thorough discussion of estimates in this session, and have in prospect another lengthy and thorough discussion of estimates in this session under a new, and we hope improved, system.
I cannot ignore without comment the remark of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who pretends that because some offer he made was not accepted parliament has somehow not acted correctly. It has acted wholly correctly here and the hon. member must, along with any other hon. members who may feel justified-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege


George James McIlraith: -in taking the position they have taken, assume his responsibility for what happens as a consequence of not passing these estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I will listen to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni because I have allowed the hon. Minister of Public Works to make a statement. But I suggest to the house that our procedure at the moment is quite out of order. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett).


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting myself and, in my view, all hon. members of this house.
DEBATES	2423
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Michael Starr: Speak for yourself.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would suggest that it ill behooves the government house leader to rise at this time with a self-righteous lecture on the responsibility of members of this house.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It is very reasonable. You know what the rules are.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the question of privilege?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to suggest the question of privilege is that for the hon. member for Ottawa West, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), to suggest that the Department of Fisheries is not worthy of a proper allocation of time and consideration by this house-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -is indicative of the fact that this government has been sloughing off fisheries as a matter of little consequence for far too long.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Send that little speech out to your constituents.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair must be guided by the rules and regulations which have been given to the Chair by the house. The Chair has seen that the provisions of provisional standing order 6(2) have been properly carried out.
It is therefore my duty pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform the house that a motion to adjourn the house has been deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore the question is that this house do now adjourn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on March 3 last, I asked-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
March 8. 1966
2424	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [Translation]


Gérard Laprise: Thank you very much,
Mr. Speaker. On March 3 last, I asked the future minister of manpower (Mr. Marchand) since the shortage of skilled labour is one of the main reasons for the closing down of a gold mine in the Timmins area, this month if he could tell the House whether he intended to direct our unemployed toward the mining industry.
It has been announced also that another mine in the Yukon, will be closing down; two others have announced their closing down in a few months, for the same reasons.
And it is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that for some months now we have seen in the newspapers job offers for qualified men in our mines, tradesmen, electricians, plumbers, machinists, drillers, dynamiters, and so on. We need qualified men in our mines.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration thought it had found a solution to that problem by attracting experienced miners to Canada. But this does not seem to satisfy our mining industries, for mining methods here are different from European methods. So, as the immigrants have no experience in our mines, they do not satisfy the needs of our mining operators.
I should like to ask the future Minister of Manpower to direct to the mining industry the unemployed and the young people who want to become acquainted with mining operations, mining work.
The federal government could help the provinces open mining schools so as to allow people displaced by automation or young Canadians who enter the labour market to gain elementary knowledge of our Canadian mining methods.
In closing, I should like to point out to the minister that gold mines, because their income is lower than others, are the first to suffer from this shortage of skilled workers.
The minister should take into consideration the suggestions I made to him tonight, in order to enable our young and our unemployed to take the necessary courses to meet the manpower demands of the mining industry.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe the suggestion which has been made is a very useful one. It says that we should try to train the men to fill in the available jobs in mines, and in the industries in general as well.
It is one of the projects we hope to be able to put into operation by next July 1, with higher allowances, we can probably better adjust from the professional point of view, the qualifications of our workers to the needs of the market.
There is only one thing that I would like to point out to the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise). Whatever the quality of our vocational training, whatever efforts we make to prepare our people, either for working in mines or at other trades, labour conditions in those mines or trades must be attractive enough so that workers will be interested.
I know that, in some businesses and mining operations, even if we import labour, even skilled labour, the workers will not stay because of the relatively low level of income. It means that when a high level of employment exists, as is the case in some regions of Canada right now, it is absolutely impossible to convince the workers, and I think they are right, to stay in jobs which do not pay enough.
Of course, gold mines are a special case since their operations are subsidized. But it remains that one of the problems in those operations is precisely that either the labour conditions are a little too hard, or the level of income is not enough to attract and hold Canadian workers.
There is one thing I am not ready to do as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and that is to allow labour to be imported so that it will be forced, directly or indirectly, to accept jobs which do not pay enough. It has happened that some businesses, in order to secure cheap labour, have loaned money to immigrants, paid their trip and told them that they will not have to repay their fare if they work for the business for two, three or four years. In my opinion, this is slavery, and I do not think that such a situation should be accepted in Canada.
The case presented to us by the hon. member for Chapleau is one which we may try to deal with to a certain extent through our rehabilitation and reclassification systems, but at the same time working conditions and wages must be on a level allowing these businesses to compete with others in the labour market.

March 8, 1966	COMMONS
[DOT] (10:50 D.m.)



BROADCASTING-FOWLER COMMISSION-ACCEPTANCE OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I posed the following question to the Prime Minister:
Can the Prime Minister inform the house when the cabinet committee studying the Fowler report will be in a position to indicate which of the recommendations of that committee will be accepted by the government?
Mr. Speaker found difficulty in determining the urgency of this question, and as a result I wish to enlarge on the reason it was asked.
In 1964 the Fowler Committee was set up by the present government, and it reported on September 9, 1965. On receipt of the report the Prime Minister informed the house that a special cabinet committee, headed by himself, would study the report. The expected result was that legislation would be proposed.
During the period the Fowler Committee sat we were informed that a freeze would be applied to those aspects of broadcasting under consideration by the committee. We were later informed that the freeze in effect during the committee hearings would continue during the period the report was under consideration by the cabinet committee.
I have been personally concerned in this whole matter because the action of this government has prevented my constituents from receiving the alternate television service they desire from the C.T.V. network through CJCH-T.V. Halifax. Many other hon. members have found themselves in a similar position. I point to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan), who has questioned the government on the same problem. Now, we hear that the Board of Broadcast Governors has heard and ruled on the application of the 11 member stations of the C.T.V. network to take over this network, a procedure opposed in the recommendation of the Fowler Committee but approved of very recently by the Board of Broadcast Governors. I think the recommendation of the Fowler Committee was to the effect that such approval should not be given.
We are also informed that the Board of Broadcast Governors will hear the application of Ralph Snelgrove Limited regarding the shifting of channel 3 from Barrie to Toronto. Surely, it is the height of stupidity to which only this government can aspire, to have under consideration by a cabinet committee recommendations which the Board of Broadcast Governors is presently ignoring in 23033-154*
DEBATES	2425
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the broadcasting field. This has led the Globe and Mail to editorialize in the following manner, and rightly so on Monday, March 7,
1966:
The public is left to wonder. In permitting the B.B.G. to defy this one important Fowler recommendation, is the Government saying that it also rejects the recommendation but is still weighing other recommendations, or that, in fact, it rejects the whole report? And if either or neither is true, surely the people are entitled to be told the Government's reasons for taking (or not taking) a stand.
But perhaps such public wondering is purposeless. In the accident-strewn history of this Government, perhaps we have just witnessed another accident.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the report of the broadcasting commission, commonly known as the Fowler report, was submitted to the government early last September and, as all members know, certain events took place last fall which affected not only the government but all members, and prevented the government from giving serious consideration to that report in the latter part of 1965.
In addition to the said report, the government also obtained the views of the C.B.C., of the Canadian Broadcasters Association and of several groups of persons concerned.
In early January, a special cabinet committee, headed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) himself, was set up with a view to studying the Fowler report.
I believe that the government has begun serious consideration of the Fowler report. For some time, the government has been doing a vast amount of work, in addition to absorbing a report of this size as well as all the representations made by C.B.C. officials and other groups. Obviously, some time is required.
In addition, it was emphasized in the house several times by the Prime Minister and by the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) that broadcasting was a most complex and most important problem and that decisions could not be taken lightly.
Several problems are involved, as is well known: programming, service expansion to areas not yet supplied with television, consolidation of services in Montreal and Toronto, financing of the C.B.C. and many others still.

March 8. 1966
Supply-Items Passed
These are problems on which we should not decide too quickly, and I believe that past experience shows that we should not jump to decisions.
The government's aim is and will always be to provide a true broadcasting policy which will give a certain amount of stability to this very important field for years to come. In addition, such a policy cannot be set out overnight. It is necessary to think about it very seriously and before finishing my remarks, I shall point out, for example, that if we scrutinize the policy which has been adopted following the presentation of the Fowler report in 1957 to implement the recommendations of that report, we see that the first decision concerning this report was taken at the beginning of 1958, that is one year after.
I should say also that the problems which have been raised in the report submitted in 1965 are not less important than those contained in the 1957 report.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11 p.m.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
Administration-
1.	Department administration, $2,330,100.
Health services-*
5. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants as detailed in the estimates $7,175,200.
10. To authorize general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $40,012,960, $32,000,000.
15. To authorize hospital construction grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $28,073,332, $20,000,000.
Medical services-
20. Administration, operation and maintenance including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the total of all amounts to be paid by the governments

of provinces and territories under agreements to be entered on terms approved by the governor in council with such governments in respect of health assistance to persons residing on Indian reserves other than Indians and to residents of the territories other than Indians and Eskimos, $32,002,500.
25. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including payments to hospitals and other institutions which care for Indians and Eskimos as contributions toward the construction of hospitals and related facilities, $5,050,000.
Food and drug services-
30. Administration, operation and maintenance, $4,883,000.
Medical services-
25d. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $700,000.
Food and drug services-
35. Construction or acquisition of equipment, $265,000.
Welfare services-
40.	Administration, operation and maintenance including grants as detailed in the estimates, $4,762,000.
40b. Administration, operation and maintenance, $838,000.
41.	Family assistance, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the treasury board, in respect of children of immigrants and settlers (formerly under Citizenship and Immigration), $2,300,000.
41d. Family assistance, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the treasury board, in respect of children of immigrants and settlers, $475,000.
45. National welfare grants-To authorize, on terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council, national welfare grants to provinces and welfare agencies including schools of social work, and to individuals in the form of scholarships and fellowships, $1,500,000.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS A-Department-
1.	General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $14,892,700.
Accommodation services-
5. Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, acquisition of furniture and furnishings for government departments, and authority to provide assistance to (a) the international civil aviation organization in the form of office accommodation at less than commercial rates and (b) the Ottawa civil service recreation association in the form of maintenance services in respect of the W. Clifford Clark Memorial Centre in Ottawa, $61,280,800.
5b. Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, acquisition of furniture and furnishings for government departments, $766,000.
10. Acquisition of equipment and furnishings other than office furnishings, $1,354,000.
March 8. 1966
[Stage Direction]


15. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of estimates, $34,025,000.
15b. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for public buildings (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of estimates, $1.
Harbours and rivers engineering services-
20. Operation and maintenance, $6,982,300.
20b. Operation and maintenance, $600,000.
25. Construction or acquisition of equipment, $1,161,500.
30. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, arbour and river works (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of estimates, $25,762,000.
30b. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of estimates, $1,200,000.
Supply-Items Passed
Hoads, bridges and other engineering services-
35. Operation and maintenance including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the operating expenses of the New Westminster bridge, $6,224,400.
40. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for roads, bridges and other engineering works provided that the amounts within the votes to be expended on individually listed projects may be increased or decreased subject to the approval of treasury board, $6,400,000.
40b. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, roads, bridges and other engineering works, $1.
Trans-Canada highway-
50. Construction through national parks, $515,000.
Testing laboratories-
55. Operation and maintenance, $1,146,000.
1967 World exhibition-
57. Towards federal share of the cost of construction of an ice control structure, $6,750,000.
B-National Capital Commission-
60. Operation and maintenance, general administration and interest charges on outstanding loans that were made for the purpose of acquiring property in the national capital region, $6,809,000.
65. Payment to the national capital fund, $12,100,000.
Loans, investments and advances-public works- L70. Loans to the national capital commission in accordance with section 16 of the National Capital Act for the purpose of acquiring property in the national capital region, excluding property being acauired for the purpose of establishing what is commonly referred to as the "Greenbelt", $9,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 9, 1966