1966-10-18

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps before the min ster proceeds with the statement which yesterday I invited him to make, I may say that the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona communicated with me earlier today and mentioned that he wanted, as he should have, to indicate the motion that he proposed to move if, yesterday, a question of privilege had been declared to exist by the Chair. This does complicate things a bit for the Chair procedurally, to have no question before the house and I submit that the hon. member should be allowed to read the motion which he should have read yesterday.


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonton-Strath-cona):: May I apologize to the house, Mr. Speaker, for overlooking this motion previously. I thought Your Honour would make a ruling on the prima facie case and I awaited the call of the Chair but I should not have. I should have indicated the motion; and since the minister can comment not only on the charge but on the motion he should have heard it.
If I may read it now in order to get it before the Chair, my motion is:
That the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona this day-
That refers to October 17, yesterday, and is the question of privilege found on page 8715 of Hansard.
-together with the charge, formally made on Wednesday, October 12, 1966, Hansard page 8577, against the Minister of National Defence, Hon. Paul Hellyer, be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections to deal with and to inquire into the evidence and the witnesses before the standing committee on national defence during this session of parliament, and the practices and procedures involving witnesses, and evidence in appearances before the said committee, and in particular with regard to Admiral Landy-more's appearance and evidence, and should further report on the conduct and statements of the hon. member and the minister made in connection with this matter before the house and to the press.


Mr. Speaker:: I would invite the Minister of National Defence to limit his remarks to the point of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member yesterday.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. gentleman did not make his motion yesterday, or read the intent of his motion, I am not in a position to do anything except to comment in accordance with the invitation so graciously given yesterday in respect of the narrow point which had been raised by the hon. member when he rose on a question of privilege yesterday afternoon. The matter complained of appears on page 8715 of Hansard. First of all I should like to quote from the Ottawa Journal, Saturday, October 15:
It is apparent that he has had second thoughts and is now engaged in the complete "back-off" which substantiates my contention that the charge was "spurious" designed to damage my reputation rather than to get at the facts.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona then continued:
Those are Mr. Hellyer's words. The minister was speaking about me and his statement clearly imputes an improper motive. His words are so strong as to impugn my very honour and integrity. [DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The operative word in the quotation attributed to me in the Ottawa Journal is the word "designed". The Concise Oxford Dictionary, fourth edition, gives several meanings for the word "design", including "mental" plan; scheme of attack upon; purpose (whether by accident or)".
In order to be a genuine question of privilege based upon imputing motives, the allegation would have to be that the charge was designed deliberately or knowingly by the hon. member for the purpose of damaging my reputation. The use of the word "designed" by itself indicates quite clearly that the charge could have the consequences I described accidentally, rather than deliberately or knowingly.
I stated in the house on Thursday that I imputed no motive to the hon. gentleman; neither did I in the newspaper article referred to, nor do I now. I did not intend to impugn the honour and integrity of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.

October 18. 1966
Question of Privilege


An hon. Member:: Who is backing off now?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he has already made his statement. A statement has been made by the minister, and I am sure it is not the wish of the house to engage upon further prolonged debate at this time on this question.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, it is open to me to suggest whether I accept this statement, or to bring certain matters to your attention. I think the rules do permit that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a point of order now, suggesting that the rules permit him to answer the statement that has been made by the Minister of National Defence. I have some serious doubt about that, but perhaps he would speak to the point of order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: With regard to the citation which was quoted yesterday by Your Honour as to the method of dealing with this problem, which perhaps has been alluded to only fleetingly before, where complaint is made against a member, and before being required to withdraw while the house considers the matter, he is given a chance to make a statement. I do not have the citation in May in front of me, but if some explanation or clarification is required in answer thereto, he may be heard further. I would ask Your Honour to consider-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly give me the citation? I can assure him that this is something entirely new to the Chair. The citation he will find in May is to the effect that the member who is accused and whose statement or conduct is being impugned-in this instance the Minister of National Defence-should be given the opportunity to make a statement, which is what has now been done. I am sure there is no suggestion in May or any precedent to the effect that after that statement has been made the hon. member who raised the matter originally should be allowed to make a second statement. Perhaps the hon. member could find for me the citation or a precedent which would justify the position he is now taking.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The citation is in May, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour quoted last night the citation at page 143, and it follows immediately thereafter and concerns the method of
[Mr. Hellyer.l
dealing with these points. It says that where a member makes a statement it may be accepted by the house or he may be asked for clarification. I think it follows within one page thereafter.
I do not want to mislead Your Honour, and I do not have May in front of me, but it does seem to me that a statement is not always completely explanatory and that the house may ask for clarification of it; and I am asking for clarification of it from the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rose on a point of order claiming that there is a precedent or a citation which he can bring forward in support of his claim that he should be allowed to make some clarification of the statement made by the minister. I have May in front of me; the hon. member can obtain the book from the table. The hon. member said that within one page of the citation that was quoted yesterday there is such a statement. I have the book before me, but I certainly cannot find anything here to justify the claim made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
Far from trying to limit the hon. member in his contention that he should be allowed to speak a second time on the question he has raised, I think he will admit and all hon. members of the house will agree that I have been as lenient as possible.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order, I have not asked to speak a second time on the point I raised. I asked to speak once on the explanation raised by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The advice I have received is that there is no precedent to justify the position the hon. member seeks to take now. I have looked at the citations. I am advised from the table that there is nothing to support the contention advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, and I must take my responsibilities and face the situation as it is.
The hon. member yesterday raised a very limited question of privilege. It had nothing to do with that general motion which he seeks to move at this time and which I suggest to him far exceeds the very limited signification of the point he raised yesterday. The hon. member suggested that the Minister of National Defence had used words outside the house which impugned the very honour and integrity of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. I have studied those words. I have looked into the matter. I can
October 18, 1966

assure the hon. member that since yesterday I have given a great deal of thought to it. I have looked at precedents. I have looked at the rules. I have considered every possible aspect of this matter. I find the difficulty is that the words, as spoken by the minister, were uttered outside the house.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: He has not backed off them. He must be taken to adopt them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I do not
know whether Your Honour is prepared to hear argument on what I suggest is the question before you, which is whether there is a prima facie question of privilege. As I understand it there are two things which Your Honour has to decide; first of all, does this motion involve a prima facie question of privilege, and second, is it raised at the earliest possible moment? It seems to me we are now at the point where the question is, whether Your Honour will hear submissions on either or both these points before making a ruling. It would be my submission that it is in order for hon. members to address themselves to that point entirely to assist Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member thinks he has a question of order I will certainly allow him to speak on the point of order which he seeks to raise at this time. An alleged question of privilege was raised yesterday. The minister was allowed to make a statement. The hon. member has suggested that he should be allowed to speak on the point of order, and I will hear him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The only point to which I should like to address myself briefly is the one upon which I understand you are now required to make a ruling, namely whether the motion now presented by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona does involve a question of privilege and whether, if so, it has been raised at the earliest possible moment in order for the question of privilege to be taken under consideration at this time.
As I understand the rules of the house they are that if, in fact, what has been raised by way of this motion does involve a question of privilege, that question must be taken under consideration and given precedence over other questions in the house. This is the point to which I should like to address myself.
Question of Privilege
If I understand Your Honour's difficulty correctly, it is, first, whether the motion today presented by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona on the face of it goes, beyond the question of privilege which he raised yesterday and which surely and admittedly was raised at the first possible moment, namely on the Monday following the Saturday when the article appeared in the press; and second, whether, if the point does go on the face of it beyond the subject matter of the question of privilege raised yesterday, it can refer back to the earlier charge of tampering with evidence.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Here I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that in his press statement reported in Saturday's Journal the Minister of National Defence said the charge made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona in that respect was spurious, the charge made that the minister tampered with evidence or with witnesses. If then, the allegation by the minister that the charge is spurious does involve a question of privilege,, as I submit it does, then it cannot be considered in isolation from the earlier charge made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
I submit that the minister's reply today does not dispose of the question of privilege. He referred to the question of the implication of the word "designed". In my submission that is not the question at all. What the minister said on Saturday was that the charges made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona were "spurious" and were designed to blacken his reputation. This, I submit, is a reflection upon the motives, the conduct, the very purpose of the hon. member and as such raises a question of privilege.
It follows, therefore, that the member for Edmonton-Strathcona was right in raising this matter and bringing it before the house yesterday. Today he has founded a motion upon that question of privilege. That motion necessarily goes back to the charges which he himself made earlier and which are now alleged to be spurious, something which in itself, I suggest, involves the whole question of privilege.
I submit that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, having now put forward a motion for reference to the committee on privileges has, substantially, two points; first, that the word "spurious" and the press comments of the minister involve a question of privilege reflecting on himself; and second,

October 18, 1966
Question of Privilege
that the matter must necessarily embrace the whole question of tampering with evidence which is the charge now alleged to be spurious. The word itself cannot be dealt with in isolation from the subject of the charge to which it refers.
Since this is now the subject of a formal motion before the house, the hon. member has complied with the requirements; he must raise with you, sir, a matter involving privilege in order that you may apply the rules of the house which recognize the importance of taking such question under consideration at once.
If you find that there is a prima facie case of privilege involved and that therefore, notwithstanding the statement or explanation of the minister, this motion should go, as suggested, to the committee on privileges and elections-and I submit with respect that I do not see how Your Honour could find otherwise than that there is a prima facie case of privilege raised here-then, I submit, this matter having been raised yesterday at the earliest possible moment, the motion should be taken into consideration now by the house.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: May I speak to the point of order? I should like to ask Your Honour to clarify a ruling which you made last Thursday when I raised a similar question of privilege. The minister rose at that time and without withdrawing his remarks made certain statements difficult to comprehend, after which Your Honour felt and ruled that he was not imputing motives in my case going beyond my duty as a member of this house.
The substance of my argument on the question of privilege which I submitted yesterday was that the statement he made, and to which I objected yesterday, went beyond the simple statement that my allegations were spurious, which tied in the whole course of conduct with this case and made it such that the sole point of making that statement was to impute a motive.
I therefore suggested to you, sir, that it is no more a case of the possibility of the minister explaining it away or withdrawing. I would point out to Your Honour that I listened very carefully to the minister today, and while he gave us a lesson which showed that apparently he is able to look in a dictionary and read the meanings of words, there was nothing that could be accepted by any member of the house as an explanation of why he made the statements, never mind a suggestion that he was not imputing motives. As a matter of fact I suggest to you that his

statement today was so carefully made that no one could accuse him of withdrawing a word of his original statements that would impute a motive.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest I need a clarification of your statement on this point with regard to the motion. Your first point, if your ruling is as I remember it and as I read it in Hansard, is that there is no question of privilege unless a motive is imputed; and since it is so very obvious here-and the minister has not denied imputing a motive-I must take it from your ruling that where a motive is imputed then I have a prima facie case of privilege, and I suggest the situation is very clear.
I do not want to bother the house every day with this, but the situation is very simple. The minister has been formally charged, and stands charged now, and he is the one member who blocked a review of the facts to determine whether he was guilty or not. I say that he brought a base and scurrilous attack against me last week-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: -and the Chair has allowed him to do it again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member is speaking to the point of order?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am, sir. The point is that last Thursday on an explanation that was not satisfactory to me-but it is the Chair that must be satisfied-the Chair on that occasion was satisfied that apparently no motive was imputed. I am certain that Your Honour could not be so satisfied with the words spoken by the minister today. There was no suggestion by the minister that he was not imputing a motive, and I suggest that if a man in his position does not have the honour to try to clear his name of very serious charges in this house, and goes on to make these scandalous and scurrilous attacks on me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but will he please resume his seat. I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona will agree that he has been given every opportunity on a number of successive days to make the statements he wanted to make. On each day I have considered them as objectively as possible, and I am prepared to do so again today. But
October 18, 1966



the hon. member is now, I understand, speaking to a point of order, and he knows what a point of order is. It cannot be a substantial speech, and he should limit his comments strictly to the point of order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I will. I am sorry; I got a little carried away. This is not a personal quarrel between myself and the minister. What is at stake here is a very serious breach of the rules of the house. What is at stake is the standard of honour and integrity that should prevail in the house.
If a member is to make a charge-and that is why the rules are so specific-he must stand on his feet and make the charge and take his responsibility, which is what I have done. But I think there is a corresponding responsibility that if another member is going to make remarks about me he must take responsibility for them; and certainly the standard of integrity of this house is such that where there is a difference such as in this case, then we have a duty to the house, to the honour, integrity and high standards of parliament, to search everywhere to find a way by which the matter can be inquired into and a proper finding made as to who is abusing the privilege of the house.
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but a look at the motion I have drafted and brought before the house will indicate that it is a very deep, very important question. The remarks of the minister as to his powers and authority in briefing witnesses are certainly something that affects the very working of parliament and in this connection I would only bring to Your Honour's attention the way in which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), when there was a suggestion of irregularity in his election, immediately jumped to his feet and asked the house for an inquiry-and got it, sir.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I suggest that certainly when the matter is as serious as the entire existence of our committee system, its effectiveness, what may be made available to it, and the question of the responsibilities of ministers to bring forward all the facts, in view of the remarks made by the minister all I am asking this house is, that these very serious charges I have made in the only proper way be investigated and pursued so the minister's case can be cleared, or otherwise. In the name of the honour and integrity of this house these spurious charges cannot be allowed to stand.
Question of Privilege
Otherwise there is no way we can bring about an investigation to defend one hon. member or another.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their assistance in enlightening the Chair on the point of order. I thank the Minister of National Defence for his ready acceptance of the suggestion I made yesterday to say a few words in explanation of the statement he is alleged to have made against the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Kamloops there are two points before the Chair at the moment. One-and it is not an easy point for the Chair to decide-is whether the motion presented today by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona follows upon the question of privilege which he raised yesterday. I think in fairness to the Chair it should be pointed out that no motion was moved yesterday, and that today the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona presented a motion which he submitted to the Chair. In my mind, looking at it very objectively, it certainly goes considerably beyond the scope of the limited question of privilege raised by the hon. member. This is the essence or purport of the words or the thought I was trying to express a moment ago before the point of order was raised by the hon. member for Kamloops.
Obviously, to my mind, this proposed motion is not limited to the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. It seems to revive a point on which there already has been a ruling by the Chair. In looking at it, obviously it is the type of motion which the hon. member might have wished to move as a substantive motion, the type of motion which I suggested to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona he should have given some thought to last week and should not submit it to the Chair to accept as a privileged motion, and also suggesting to him that this is a matter of substance.
His motion actually is a motion of substance; but this is the second point. His argument would have to be considered and would be particularly relevant if I had ruled there was a prima facie case of privilege. The hon. member said that because I referred to the question of motive the other day, I must conclude that the moment there is an imputation of motive there is automatically a question of privilege. I suggest to him that is drawing a rather wide conclusion. It is a very

October 18, 1966
Question of Privilege
generous interpretation of the words I used the other day when I was trying to give a ruling.
The minister is reported as having said that a charge against him is spurious and designed to damage his reputation. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona argued that the minister's statement imputed an improper motive and concluded that his honour and integrity have been impugned. As I also mentioned a moment ago, if the statement of the Minister of National Defence had been uttered in the house in the course of debate and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona had risen on a question of privilege to claim that these words were unparliamentary and that the minister was imputing motives-well, this is done regularly, and the Chair would have intervened, I suggest, and would have brought to the attention of the minister that he has no right to impute motives. The minister would have been given an opportunity to explain. Whether it should be explained to the satisfaction of the member complaining is another thing.
If this statement had been uttered in the course of debate and the members offended had not been satisfied by the explanation given by the member, I wonder whether he would have considered it a question of privilege sufficient to send to the committee on privileges and elections the conduct of the member who uttered the words which allegedly offended another member of the house.
What we have to determine, I submit, is the seriousness of the alleged offence in order to decide whether there is a question of privilege. The hon. member said that the statement made by the Minister of National Defence impugned his very honour and integrity. I have some doubt about this. I suggest to the hon. member that this is really the whole point; do the words spoken by the Minister of Natiofial Defence in fact carry such a serious import or serious connotation that the very honour and integrity of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is impugned, or that his integrity and his honour have been placed in question. He may feel they have, and some hon. members may feel his honour and integrity have been placed in jeopardy. But it is the judgment of the Chair that has to be considered, and I must say that in my judgment the minister's words-in spite of the fact that the hon. member may have been aggrieved, in spite of the fact that he may have a very serious grievance

against the * minister for the words which were spoken as reported in the Ottawa Journal-did not impute an offence to him.
I suggest the offence is not so serious that it could be considered by this house as impugning the integrity and honesty of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona to the extent that the Minister of National Defence should be asked to explain his conduct and his words before the committee on privileges and elections. I understand from precedents that it is only on very rare occasions that words spoken either in debate or outside the house by a member of this honourable house were investigated by the committee on privileges and elections. I understand this may have happened only perhaps two or three times in some 20 or 25 years.
In all objectivity and in all fairness to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, to the minister, and to members of this house I have looked at this matter, and to the best of my conscience I cannot see that these are words-recognizing the prima facie case of privilege-such as would justify sending the matter to the committee on privileges and elections. With regret for the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, and in full appreciation of his difficult position, I must rule accordingly.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of what you said regarding the motion. I apologize to the Chair for not having presented the motion. There might be some suggestion that I had not been ready, and I should like to ask Your Honour to remember that last Wednesday when I gave the notice of the question of privilege I presented to you at that time a motion which I intended to move. I did the same thing on Thursday. On neither occasion was I asked to move a motion though I had one ready. I should like to make clear that at all times I had a motion ready and was waiting only for the prima facie case to be established first.


Mr. Speaker:: I sustain the hon. member on this point. When he came to see me shortly before 2.30 to bring me the motion I did indicate to him that I recognized he had not been invited to make a motion. Perhaps we were both at fault. If it has caused any embarrassment to him, I apologize. It becomes theoretical, however, because even if the motion had been made I would have had to rule against it unless I considered there was a prima facie case of privilege.
October 18, 1968

[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Churchill:: I should like to rise on a point of order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the house I should like to refer to the point raised by the house leader the other day when I mentioned some things in respect of Admiral Landymore's affidavits. Let me make it plain to the house that if hon. members wish the affidavits and attached exhibits tabled, I am prepared to do so. I did not originally offer to do so, but if any member has any question in his mind as to the validity of what 1 have said I shall do so today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order for the purpose of obtaining some assistance from the Chair to clarify matters of privilege. It has been my understanding up to this time that when a matter of privilege is raised in this house Mr. Speaker makes a ruling as to whether it is in fact a matter of privilege. If the Chair rules that it is, it may be followed by a motion to be dealt with immediately or referred to a committee.
We seem now to have reached a different situation, and this is where I wish some guidance, as a result of suggestions made in this house last week on a matter of privilege presented by the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona. Today the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has strengthened his matter of privilege with a motion. That having been done, apparently the house is not to be given the privilege of deciding whether that motion is acceptable. We now have a ruling to the effect that there is no matter of privilege and, therefore, the motion is superfluous. I should like to know why there was a request last week that a motion be presented. Perhaps we should have some guidance for future matters of privilege that may be raised.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking an abstract question. I do not believe the Chair should at any time be placed in a position of having to advise an hon. member as to what should be done in any instance, or what ruling will be made. Certainly I do not wish to enter into an argument with the hon. member who has had infinitely more experience than I. I respect the point he is trying to make, but the decision I have made is based particularly on the authority contained in a statement made in this house by Mr. Speaker
Private Bill
Macnaughton as reported on page 4141 of Hansard of June 10, 1964, as follows:
I suggest that hon. members in future when raising questions of privilege, such as those raised last Thursday, should at the very beginning of their speech advise the Speaker that at the end of their statement they will conclude with a motion so that, if such a matter is found to be a prima facie case of breach of privilege and also if it has been raised at the earliest opportunity, the house may deal with it according to the rules and the recognized practice.
That is my understanding of the rules and practice. I shall certainly look into the matter further in an attempt to buttress my position with further precedents, and if a question of privilege is raised at any time in the future I will perhaps be in a stronger position to support the stand I have now taken.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West)
presented the eleventh report of the standing committee on transport and communications, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on justice and legal affairs-Mr. Cameron (High Park).


Mr. Patrick T. Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty) that:
The petition of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, for a bill to amend its incorporation act, filed after the time limit provided under standing order 93 be referred to the standing committee on standing orders, together with the 17th report made thereon by the clerk of petitions and presented to the house on Monday, October 17, 1966 so that the committee might consider making such recommendations as may be deemed advisable.


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


Mr. Peters:: Without prejudice.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
8786	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE

[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 National Defence. In view of the allegations placed be-for the house by the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona regarding certain excisions, alterations and substitutions in respect of the evidence which Admiral Landymore was to present, which took place while it was in the possession of the minister's office, will he now table the evidence that Admiral Landymore intended to give which was placed before the minister, and the final evidence which the committee had before it following the deletion of certain pages and the substitution of innocuous ones?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take the liberty to bring to the attention of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that there is a motion for production of these papers which appears on today's order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I say with great respect that this cannot interfere with the right to ask a question. Surely this house will not be denied the opportunity of learning whether this minister or anyone connected with him induced an admiral to alter his evidence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that there will be a shortage of 1,500 men required to man the remaining ships of the Canadian navy if all the older destroyers and frigates are disposed of, why did the minister refuse to let Admiral Landymore give that evidence to the committee on defence?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there are too many allegations in that question for it to be dealt with on orders of the day, but if the hon. gentleman would check some of the information I gave at a press conference very shortly after-


Mr. Horner:: Can we believe the hon. member's information?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -he would be more up to date than he is.

DEBATES	October 18. 1966


John George Diefenbaker: What information did the
admiral give?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: What did you tell the women's association on Saturday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The statement I read was from Admiral Landymore's testimony which the minister refused to let appear before the committee. I ask the minister whether he is now stating in the house that the submission Admiral Landymore intended to give to that committee was wrong.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not so contend, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact the situation is difficult, just how difficult will be determined in the intervening months. However, I personally stated at the press conference to which I referred earlier that there was a shortage of 1,500 personnel. The admiral, in his evidence to the committee, stated there was a desperate shortage but that how many ships will be manned next year will depend on what will happen in the intervening months. On my trip to Halifax recently I was assured by the commander that every effort would be made to find from the available manpower pools people to man the ships next year, and we are hopeful we can man them all. I am not saying we will be able to, but we will be making every effort to do so next year.


Mr. Lambert:: Does the minister agree this is desirable?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister the following question: Is it not right that by May 1967 we will be able to man only 13 or 14 of the total of 23 destroyers and have those 13 or 14 in full commission?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the wrong time for a question of that kind, but I certainly think that forecast will prove to be very pessimistic.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why did the minister not permit that information to go before the committee on defence?


John George Diefenbaker: Why did he delete it?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; in view of the fact that the Minister of National Defence just admitted that Admiral Landymore said the shortage of manpower was desperate, would the minister care to explain to the house why he was so
October 18, 1966	COMMONS
desperately anxious that this should not be revealed to the committee and therefore no such statement was allowed to appear in the brief submitted to that committee?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I was not despa-rately anxious, and as I will explain to the committee on defence when it meets-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that question is clearly argumentative.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the imminent threat of a strike by the postal workers and the serious consequences which would follow from such an event, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government would consider setting up a conciliation board to investigate the wage demands of the postal workers, assess their wages to comparable posts in industry, and report on what they would consider to be the basis of a fair and reasonable wage settlement?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there are certain processes of law that have to be followed in connection with matters concerning civil servants and public officials in disputes of this kind. Those processes are being followed at the present time. Whether any exceptional procedures are required in a matter of this importance is now under consideration by the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Civil Service Commission is a government agency, and may not have the information with respect to wages paid in industry for comparable types of work, would the Prime Minister not think that the setting up of a conciliation board might be of considerable assistance to the Treasury Board in resolving this problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the first case I do not think my hon. friend is accurate in referring to the Civil Service Commission as a government agency. Second, I just told him we are taking this matter under consideration at the present time.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: On
a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wonder
DEBATES	8787
Inquiries of the Ministry whether the Prime Minister would give us a firm assurance that there will be no interruption in the mail service in this country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope there will be no such interruption.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement reported today by the Postal Trades Unions Council that unless the decision of the Civil Service Commission is reviewed there will be a strike shortly after November 5, can the Prime Minister or the Postmaster General tell the house what action this government proposes to take so that we will not sit idle until the crisis is upon us?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that it would be quite improper at this stage of the proceedings to give an answer to a question of that kind without doing a great deal of damage to the negotiations that are now taking place.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he tell us whether he anticipates imports of butter for Canadian consumption during 1966-67? If so, can he tell us how extensive those imports will be?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this question might be placed on the order paper.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the situation existing in the Middle East at present and described yesterday in the United Nations as a fragile state of peace, and the statement this morning or late last night by the prime minister of Israel that retaliatory action will be taken against sabotage by Syrian forces, does the minister have any statement which he could make to the house in regard to this situation?
October 18, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, this matter is now before the security council. I would hope that the discussions taking place there will serve to bring a moderating influence in the Middle East.



HATE LITERATURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the promise he made that legislation on hate literature will be brought down during this part of the session, can he tell us whether this legislation will be brought down now in view of its importance?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not recall saying it would be brought down in this part of the session, but we are studying this matter and we do hope to bring forward legislation which will deal effectively with this matter as soon as that can be done.


Michael Starr: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this legislation can the Prime Minister say how long it will take to study it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. To some extent it will depend on how long it will take to deal with the legislation we are now considering.


Michael Starr: I have another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister avoided answering my question, will he say when this legislation will be placed on the order paper?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it will be placed on the order paper as quickly as possible. I hope my hon. friend will co-operate so as to make that even quicker than possible.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it expected that this legislation also will come into effect on July 1, 1968?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York Souih):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question relating to certain lay-offs by Douglas Aircraft at Malton. On Friday the minister gave a
[Mr. Thompson.1
partial explanation and indicated he was seeking to obtain more information regarding the lay-off of some 80 odd employees by Douglas Aircraft. At the same time certain other things happened.
Does the minister now have any further information about that lay-off, and particularly any comments as to steps to be taken to relocate the people affected?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, arrangements have been made whereby a committee composed of officials of the company, representatives of the provincial government departments concerned and a representative of this department has been formed to examine the full record of experience of the people being laid off as well as the experience record of the immigrants who are expected on October 25, with a view to absorbing both groups of affected employees elsewhere in the labour force. Qualifications, rates of pay and conditions of work will dictate the most appropriate course of action that can be followed under these unfortunate circumstances. Local 112 of the United Automobile Workers has been kept informed of the action that is being taken.


David Lewis: May I ask a supplementary question. Reports have suggested that there were certain cut-backs in the operation of Douglas Aircraft because of certain events in the United States. Can the minister inform the house whether these cutbacks are permanent or merely temporary, and if they are only temporary is there any way of keeping these 80-odd people on the work force pending better circumstances?


Jean Marchand: I do not know if they are permanent or temporary. I know that Douglas Aircraft cannot obtain certain parts from the United States and for this reason had to curtail production, but for how long I do not know.


Michael Starr: May I ask a
supplementary question. When application was made for admission to Canada of some 80 assemblers and 20 machinists by Douglas Aircraft, was the minister aware at the time that there were going to be lay-offs for some 89 assemblers and these people from Great Britain were to replace them on the jobs?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware and I have no indication that the company was aware of the situation either.
October 18, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: should like to address this question to the minister. He has just explained the unique and complete system under which arrangements are being made for people laid off by Douglas Aircraft. Is he giving consideration to doing the same thing for the 3,000 people who were laid off in the car industry, particularly in Oshawa?


Jean Marchand: Definitely yes, Mr. Speaker.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Russell Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
I may have overlooked some information, but I would like to know whether the minister intends to make a statement in the house concerning winter works for 1966-67?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that has already been done more than a month ago.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is it the intention of the minister to table the report of Mr. Justice Wood so the house can ascertain the nature of the recommendations contained therein? May I ask a related question? Is it the minister's intention to bring in veterans legislation before the end of the current year?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: In answer to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I may say I have not yet received the report. This matter will be considered when the report is at hand.
In answer to the second part of the question, it is not intended that legislation, beyond those amendments dealing with pension rates and war veterans allowances, will be introduced before the end of the year.
DEBATES	8789
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. J. N. Ormislon (Melville):: May I ask a
supplementary question? Can the minister tell us when the veterans affairs committee will be called together to evaluate the wealth of information which was recently acquired, and which would assist the committee in making recommendations to the minister to improve the Pensions Act?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: As the hon. gentleman knows, this is a matter for the committee itself. Certainly I would welcome an opportunity to have the committee discuss the results of the work during the course of the summer. I think it would be helpful to the public and to veterans. I hope an occasion could be found shortly to convene that committee, but that is in the hands of the committee itself and its chairman.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I ask a supplementary question? Does the minister intend to institute any of the recommendations made by the veterans affairs committee in its 1963 report?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I think I dealt with that question on two or three occasions but I would have to check back on that to be more specific.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the Canada Assistance Plan became law in July of this year, retroactive to April, can the minister advise the house why the provincial officials who administer the plan at Brantford, Ontario, have not been advised of the existence of the plan, because they are refusing to attend to cases referred to them under this plan, stating they have not received instructions about it?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts whether this question qualifies for acceptance at this time. Perhaps the hon. member may want to take this up with the minister or discuss it later today.


James Elisha Brown: Ten o'clock.
8790	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS



UNITED KENO HILL MINES-CURTAILMENT OF PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Greene:: Welcome back.


Erik Nielsen: Not having a Jetstar to get around in like the minister of northern affairs, it takes me a little longer. May I ask a question of the minister of manpower? What action is the government intending-he is gone.


Mr.   McEwen@: Another cabinet shuffle.


Erik Nielsen: May I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the hope that he can answer. What action does the government intend to take to avoid the announced curtailment or early closure, because of inflationary costs, of the operations of the mining complex of United Keno Hill Mines, directly affecting 2,000 people, four communities in the Yukon and 20 per cent of Canada's silver production?


Hon. Arihur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, my first inclination is to say, "welcome home". In reference to the announcement made by Mr. Fraser in respect of Keno Hill, I think the hon. member would agree with me that if a careful study is made of the statement the very pessimistic interpretation put upon it by certain people in the Yukon and elsewhere seems scarcely justified. I am hopeful that the statement attributed to someone in the company yesterday to the effect it was hoped the mine would not be closed at all is much closer to the actual situation. We are making inquiries and asking for explanations of the statement made by Mr. Fraser. I am hopeful that we can probably clarify what I thought was a measure of optimism in the rather gloomy prediction that was first made.



COPYRIGHT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to

DEBATES	October 18, 1966
the Minister of Industry and Defence Production on a matter which is of interest to many people in this country. Can the minister inform the house with regard to the latest developments in United States copyright law as they affect Canadian printers and publishers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this type of question should be placed on the order paper.



REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH UNION PRESIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it is his intention to meet the request of the president of the U.M.W.A. and, if so, when he intends to meet with him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, offhand I am not aware what the request is.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I
ask a supplementary question. Am I to understand that the Prime Minister has not received any correspondence requesting a meeting on the Nova Scotia coal industry? Is the Prime Minister leaving the impression with the house that he has not received any such correspondence?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. member would stop using initials when he speaks, I might be able to understand him more easily. This matter is under consideration.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question. Am I to understand from the Prime Minister that under the circumstances-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from the Prime Minister that under the circumstances now prevailing in Nova Scotia he is unaware of what the U.M.W.A. is?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware. If the hon. member would not mutter the initials I might be able to understand them.
October 18, 1966


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that I cannot get across a question of privilege to the Prime Minister without him imputing motive also? I now ask the Prime Minister to answer my question. It is the government's intention to meet the request of the president of the United Mine Workers of America to hold a meeting on the coal problem in Nova Scotia, especially in view of the $25 million promised by himself, by the Minister of Transport, by the former minister of labour now the Minister of National Health and Welfare, by the minister of mines and by the Minister of Finance?


Michael Starr: The whole government
promised it.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary
question. May I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he will be so kind as to advise the Prime Minister that we have a union in Nova Scotia called the United Mine Workers of America, and would he acquaint him with what is going on in Nova Scotia and that we do have a coal problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that there are approximately only six weeks left in the seaway shipping season and that new contractual arrangements are being drawn up now, is the minister now in a position to state the policy of the government with regard to tolls so that new arrangements can be made?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Unfortunately no, sir.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister tell the house what he hoped to prove by his well publicized shopping trip, and whether he feels he was successful?
8791
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think that question is out of order.

QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO CROP INSURANCE On the orders of the day:


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he tell us if he has had talks or has exchanged correspondence with the Quebec minister of agriculture, Mr. Vincent, on the matter of crop insurance? If so, would he tell us if Quebec wants to join the crop insurance plan of the federal government?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the province of Quebec will take part in that program.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. On October 6 he advised the house that the Montpetit report relating to conditions in the Post Office Department would be presented to him not later than October 18. I should like to ask him whether this report has been filed with him and what action he intends to take in regard to it.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Poslmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the Montpetit report was received this morning and it will be tabled tomorrow.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Postmaster General say that he is willing to turn this report over to the committee which is now discussing the civil service matter so that representations can be made based on that report?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am not the one who should decide that matter but I agree with what the hon. member has said.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have been seeking an opportunity to address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which arises from a question addressed a few

Ociober 18, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry days ago to the Minister of Agriculture recorded at page 8447 of Hansard and entitled "Saskatchewan-Preservation of Indian Shrine". As I think the minister knows, the matter involves the possible flooding of an Indian shrine by the rising waters behind the South Saskatchewan river dam. What steps is the Indian affairs branch or the historic sites and monuments board taking or being asked to take to ensure that this ancient Indian shrine will in fact not be destroyed by the rising waters behind the South Saskatchewan dam?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we have had some rather frightening estimates about the weight of this stone varying from 200 tons to 450 tons, with cost varying up to $150,000 and so on. I think the Minister of Agriculture has been speaking to some of his people in P.F.R.A., and there has been a suggestion that at least a modest part of the stone be removed. I have no knowledge whether a subdivision of the stone would be satisfactory to the people who are interested in its transfer.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Has the government been in touch-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I made that suggestion months ago and I hope it will be followed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The question I was going to ask was whether the government has been in touch with any of the authorities who have become expert in the techniques of moving such stones to higher ground.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is it not possible to take a portion of that stone and set it aside? It is regarded as something sacred to the Indians, and with a government that has spent so much on so many things surely this shrine should be preserved in part. Does the minister not agree?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I must say that an Indian friend of mine not so long ago said there had been so much talk about the stone in the house that he was surprised it had not moved itself.



REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION OF GOVERNMENT ELEVATORS AS DELIVERY POINTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Leihbridge):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Would the minister consider asking the board of grain commissioners and the wheat board whether it might be possible to lease the various government terminal elevators located in Calgary, Lethbridge, Moose Jaw and other points and designate them as delivery points so that the farmers would be able to haul grain directly to them and make use of the storage space there?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as this question relates to my responsibilities as the minister reporting for the wheat board I would take this question as notice and pass along the suggestion. Of course the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for the board of grain commissioners.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, is the minister in charge of Canada's national parks in a position today to reply to the question I posed several days ago regarding a winter works program for the Cape Breton Highlands National Park, which at the time was kindly taken as notice by the Minister of Veterans Affairs?


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Speaker, not at this time.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the minister of Indian affairs in relation to the recent report and recommendations of the commission on government in the north. Will the people in the north have an opportunity to express their reaction to the recommendations of the commission prior to their implementation by the government?

October 18, 1966	COMMONS


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, there has already been wide distribution of this report and we expect to have a great deal of comment. We have no plan for any formal hearings at the present time. As a matter of fact, I believe the commission itself saw and spoke to almost 4,000 people in its visits through the territories, which I would think is between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of all the adult citizens there.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can the minister tell the house if his department, with the help of its ice-breakers, will encourage winter navigation to the Montreal harbour this year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a very big question, sir. I do not think I can answer it properly at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that the question is not very urgent at this time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Labour but in his absence I direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Does the parliamentary secretary know whether the revised formula for the payment of transitional assistance benefits to the laid-off automobile workers has been submitted to cabinet and whether a decision has been arrived at yet?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I can only bring that question to the attention of the minister on his return tomorrow. 23033-556J
DEBATES	8793
Inquiries of the Ministry COAL



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Some months ago he informed the house that he would make a formal statement on what he intended doing with the Donald report when it came down. The other day the minister suggested that he is continuing to study it. May I ask him now when the house may expect a statement of government policy with respect to the Donald report on the Cape Breton mines?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, when we got the Donald report we said that we would expect representations to be made by the concerned parties. To answer a previous question, I hope to go to Cape Breton as soon as I can to receive these representations personally. After receiving these representations the government, which is studying the report, will make its policy known.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the minister has informed the communities, the company and the miners' union of the specific dates that he is going to be there and has invited their representations. When is this to take place?


Jean-Luc Pepin: When I came back from Calgary just a few hours ago I received a telegram from one of these groups. I mentioned in my answer that I will make myself available in about ten days time.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, since I might be pardoned for confusing initials, I wonder if the Prime Minister would take it upon himself to do a bit of research and inform the house what the initials O.H.M.S. mean?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of
October 18, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Finance. When is the minister going to enter the debate on medicare to explain to the house the relationship between medicare and inflation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have been looking for an opportunity to enter the debate. I thought the most useful time would be when the house is in committee, when I can deal with two or three matters which could be of particular significance to the Minister of Finance.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the urgent financial needs of many Ontario college students and the widespread dismay at the restrictive terms and delays in the Ontario government's student award program, can the minister assure the house that no delays or restrictions have been imposed or dictated by the government of Canada? Also, will he press the province of Ontario to ensure a prompt and fair distribution of the funds which have been committed to student aid by this house?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this would require a rather longer answer than would be appropriate on orders of the day. I do intend to make a short statement on motions at an early date.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister is making that statement will he also explain why the 10,000 $1,000 scholarships are not being awarded?


Mr. Ricard:: They were in the program of the Liberal party.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Would the minister inform the house when the new appointment will be made to the senior position with the C.B.C. and if the policy of alternating between French speaking and English speaking presidents will be maintained?
[Mr. Prittie.l


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say that the appointment will be made at the time Mr. Ouimet leaves office. I should also like to say that the speculation I have seen in the press, both in news columns and in columnists' articles, is wholly without foundation.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister anything to report to the house on the housewives' boycott of food chain stores in Ontario and Quebec?


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



CHURCHILL, MAN.-STORAGE IN TERMINAL ELEVATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Canadian National is satisfied it has sufficient box cars available to fill the elevators at Churchill and in view of the fact that the wheat board is of the opinion that the Canadian National has not sufficient box cars to haul the grain which the wheat board would like it to haul, will the minister not ask the top authorities of the Canadian National and the wheat board to get together to decide whether the elevators in Churchill can be filled this winter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of the questions asked yesterday I have had a conversation with the wheat board. I should like to read a sentence or two from the message I received from the wheat board as to the reasons for its policy. I think it will answer the hon. gentleman's question.
When the shipping season at Churchill was completed the board had the choice of filling the terminal at Churchill or continuing to incur substantial demurrage costs at the port of Vancouver. We chose to ask the C.N.R. to divert the cars immediately into the Vancouver movement so that its sales commitments could be met.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not feel that
October 18, 1986

this does not clear up the question inasmuch as the Canadian National still will not say whether it has sufficient box cars to do both jobs?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the position of the Canadian National. The Canadian National has a large but after all limited number of cars and it uses these cars as the wheat board directs in order to meet the shipping program and the needs of our customers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a supplementary question.


John (Jack) McIntosh: A supplementary	question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister has read part of the message from the wheat board, would be now table the entire message?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a message that I received yesterday in response to a conversation. This is between myself and the wheat board. I have put these words forward because this is what the wheat board reported to me. I do not think I am under any obligation to table the rest of the message. Though I have no particular objection I think this is a matter in which the minister must exercise discretion. He should not be compelled by the house to lay before hon. members privileged messages.


John (Jack) McIntosh: On a point of order, I think the rules of the house make it necessary that the minister table the document, if requested to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that that is the exact rule.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. About a week ago I asked the Postmaster General if he had received representations from the International Association of Machinists in Toronto protesting the inadequacy of the pay increases granted to its members. After orders of the day the minister indicated that he would take the matter under advisement. Has the minister done so and is he in a position to respond?
Medicare


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: I have received the letter, Mr. Speaker. I must advise the hon. member that increases in salary for all civil servants including postal employees are the responsibility of the Treasury Board.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, October 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mac-Eachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-227, to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rynard.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last night I was making the point that medical care legislation is fundamentally a provincial matter and that in giving financial assistance to such plans the federal government should not attempt to rewrite them or to dictate them contrary to the wishes of the provincial legislatures. Each province knows what it can afford; it understands its local and immediate problems and is aware of the political philosophy which its people support. The fundamental requirement for federal support of a medicare plan should be social justice, that is, free premiums and care for those in need and assistance for those with low incomes. The remainder of the plan should not concern the federal government.
That is not what the present plan seeks to do. It would force upon the provinces a plan favoured by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) under the threat of withholding financial support. The mere fact that the plan is being postponed for a year for economic reasons is a potent argument in favour of the amendment before the house.
The fundamental difference between our approach as Conservatives and that of the Liberal party and the New Democratic Party is that we would provide first of all for the needy and for those in the lower income brackets whereas they are calling for a massive re-direction of income into state coffers for the payment of premiums. This not only directs more power to government but it.

October 18. 1966
Medicare
reduces the freedom of the individual to choose the services and insurance he requires.
I wonder whether some members on the government side do not ask themselves why this bill is receiving such unanimous and enthusiastic support from the New Democratic Party. It is not because it provides for the poor and needy. The Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia plans already do that, as do the plans proposed by other provinces. The real reason is that this plan is in accord with the socialist philosophy of the New Democratic Party.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Also the Hall report.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I would say to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) that the Hall report did not spell out in detail what the plan for medical care should be to the point this bill does and to the point he has indicated. It supports an agreed medical care plan and we also support a medical care plan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the hon. member point out any provision in this bill which is not fully supported and recommended in the Hall report?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I was coming to that question by a reverse process. The Hall report does not suggest this bill in its totality. I have read the report and it says, basically, that medical care must be provided for those in need. But I have seen nothing in the report to the effect that it must be a plan compulsory for every person in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is exactly what it says.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I beg to differ.


Mr. MacEachen:: Well, read it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have read it and I am sure most of my friends have read it carefully. I say this bill is not what the Hall Commission recommended.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is exactly what it recommended.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I think we are wasting time discussing it because we have all read the report. The commission made recommendations which are general in nature, not specific, to be implemented by agreement.
In addition to the fact that this bill reflects the philosophy of the N.D.P. it throws a gigantic burden suddenly on the national economy. Moreover, it is not simply a plan to

provide for the needy. This could be achieved by supporting the three plans now in existence and, in due course, the proposed plans of other provinces. It constitutes another giant step toward socialism and it is unnecessary as a means of providing social justice. If the government really wants to provide free medical care across Canada for those who need it at a price the economy can afford and do it now, then the party opposite should support plans which provide, as a minimum, free premiums for those in need, reduced premiums for those with lower incomes, and membership for others on a voluntary basis at ordinary premium rates.
By supporting such a plan as the medical insurance plan in Ontario the government could move into the field of prepaid medical care across Canada in a reasonable and gradual way without swamping the economy. To put it bluntly, we could have federally supported medicare plans all across Canada by the original target date for this scheme, and ensure that all needy persons were looked after, if the government were to accept the principle of the amendment now before the house. By insisting on all or nothing, those who reject the amendment and push through the original bill will be depriving the needy in Canada of assistance in obtaining medical care for at least one additional year in six of our provinces.


Mr. Knowles:: I wonder whether the hon. member would comment on the plan he is advocating in the context of a means test? Is he not importing a means test into medical care by proposing that medicare be made available free to those who cannot afford it at all and that others should pay part of the premiums? Would it not be better to stay away from a means test in this important piece of legislation?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have to admit that I do not like a means test. At the same time, I have seen the Ontario plan in effect for some months and it appears to be working satisfactorily. It works well. People who have no taxable income have their premiums paid and those who have low taxable incomes get reductions. No one goes around to individuals who apply asking them what their incomes are, how they live and so forth. The plan is based entirely on the statements of those who make application. As I say, if they pay no income tax they pay no premiums. I do not like a means test but I think that in the context of what we are doing a plan on the basis of the Ontario plan is satisfactory and
October 18, 1966

acceptable to the majority of the people; I should not say to everybody because there are always people who feel that any plan is improperly administered. I merely say that I think the Ontario plan is a suitable one, that it is working well, and that in my view the federal government could easily support it as of July 1, 1967.
In the same way, the government could support a number of the other plans, paying the premiums of the needy and of those living on low incomes. It could do this without swamping the economy as the present plan appears likely to do on the admission of the government itself. I am offering an alternative which would work, though I recognize that the hon. member and myself have different philosophies on this question. I do not hesitate to say that I prefer that those who can afford to pay their own premiums should not pay them under the government plan but should pay them somewhere else.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit one more question? He and I have different philosophies, but I want to get to the bottom of this. How does he reconcile his statement that he does not like a means test with his support of the proposition that a person has to declare his poverty in order to get free medicare?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: He merely declares his income. If he has an income that is not taxable then that fact is declared and accepted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is poverty.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I do not think it is a case of poverty at all. In fact, I suspect there are a lot of people who do not pay income tax who should not get an exemption, but this is erring on the wrong side. They may well be liable to income tax but do not declare their income. Nevertheless, the principle is that what they declare for tax purposes qualifies them.
I do not particularly object to this system. I have seen it work. If I had not seen it work I would be talking about something I did not know anything about. As I say, I have seen it work and nobody has ever complained to me about somebody from the government coming around and asking how much they use to support a wife and children, what further income is earned and so on. It is not that sort of plan.
Medicare
My theory is that if the people of Saskatchewan want the kind of plan that the hon. member suggests, a universal plan, then all right, the federal government should support it. I do not say that the federal government should not support it, because that plan is providing for the needy and for low income people. If Saskatchewan wants that sort of plan, if the provincial legislature has passed it and the people have accepted it, then fine, the federal government should support it.
Likewise, if the people of Ontario are satisfied with the plan which that province's government has come up with, then the federal government should support it. Further, if the people of Alberta and British Columbia are satisfied with the plans their provinces have promulgated, then the federal government should say; "All right, that is your plan and we will support it." My contention is that the federal government should not come along and say, "We don't care what you want in the provinces. This is what we consider is a proper plan and we will give you money only for it."
My objection is based on constitutional grounds. The federal government is walking in over the top of the provinces and telling them: "This is your jurisdiction. We know we have no business in this but we won't give you any money unless you meet our standards." I am not going to argue against a universal plan if that is what is wanted and brought into effect in any province, but it is not the business of the federal government.
I have spent a little more time on this particular subject than I intended, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to mention another matter before I sit down. Sooner or later, unless the amendment is carried, we are going to have to vote on second reading of the bill. I must admit that my approach to voting on second reading has changed drastically since my experience with the Canada Pension Plan bill. At that time the house and the public were assured by letters from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) which I asked to have tabled and which were tabled-there were about a dozen of them-that once the Canada Pension Plan was passed in principle the government would be happy to hear all sorts of people make representations and to alter the plan to suit whatever the special joint committee recommended. It was a very magnanimous offer: "Give us second reading and you can do anything you like with the plan afterwards."

October 18, 1966
Medicare
I went along with this. I voted for second reading because I believed in a pension plan, but when I came to serve on the committee, on which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also sat, I found that the government had no intention of making any changes in the pension plan bill, and it did not.
The government opposed every amendment that was put forward. It cajoled witnesses who were against the general philosophy that the government was putting forward, and I got the feeling that the assurances that had been given to us were not given with any intention of carrying them out but merely to get the bill past second reading.
This makes a very difficult problem for me and several others who might support second reading of this bill on the general idea that we would be supporting a bill for medical care, but my feeling right now is that unless there are some definite assurances that the government is not only going to consider amendments but will look at them wholeheartedly, we will be making a mistake in supporting the bill on second reading.
The interpretation which the government put on second reading of the pension plan bill was that we had supported every section of the pension plan. Every time in committee that we raised a question about a clause, they said that it contained one of the principles of the bill and we had approved it when we approved second reading.
The government had better let us know what it is going to do in the present case. We know one clause it is going to amend, the one stipulating the commencement date, and to my mind that is a pretty fundamental clause. Today the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) told us that in the committee stage he is going to make some major policy statements. This is not what I understood to be the purpose of committee stage at all. I think that on second reading we should consider the principle and then in committee consider details.
I am not at all satisfied about this yet, Mr. Speaker. From the experience we had with the Canada Pension Plan bill we can see there is something left very much up in the air. In the case of the pension plan bill a lot of people felt very much let down, and felt there was not a wholehearted-


Mr. Munro:: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: When I finish my sentence. A lot of people felt that there was not a wholehearted and forthright effort made by the government in that special committee really to come up with a plan that would be acceptable.


John Carr Munro: Would the hon. member accept a question now?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member sat on the joint committee on the Canada Pension Plan. Would he not agree there were several fairly significant changes that came out of that committee and were implemented in the legislation?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember one important change that was made in that committee. One point I do remember is that one of the hon. members from Vancouver seconded my motion in connection with a change in widows' pensions affecting what are called death-bed marriages, but even with the support of one Liberal member we did not get it through.


John Carr Munro: What about the transition period?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The only things we got through were the amendments proposed by the government and they were not proposed after evidence or after debate. In each case they were introduced at the beginning of a hearing and government members said, "This is what we are going to amend". The hon. member may shake his head, but I never had such a traumatic experience in my nine years in this house. There was nothing which government members would accept.


John Carr Munro: The amendments were worked out by agreement.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The amendments were voted upon and every opposition amendment was voted down; that was the end of it. I think the government can do this because it is their bill, but let us not go into the committee with any false understanding. That was the situation at the time of the committee hearing on the pension plan bill. In this particular case there is no special committee. The minister does not want to hear the arguments twice; once is enough. He is going to hear them in committee of the whole house, and I cannot blame him for not wanting to hear them again in a special committee.
October 18. 1366

We are on the horns of a dilemma. If I could trust the government to do what they have expressed their willingness to do I would support second reading. But I cannot because I do not think they have any intention to make any fundamental changes except in the date by moving it on a year.
Having stated my views, Mr. Speaker, how shall I vote? I am going to vote, of course, for the amendment. Second, if there is a choice later between the proposal we have before us and a better one, I will choose the other one. If voting against this bill will force introduction of another and better bill, then I will vote against it. Finally, if there is a choice between some type of medical care or none, I will vote for medical care now. We will have to see how things develop during the debate. Whatever happens to the amendments-and the other parties may bring forward amendments or the government may do so-I hope some good sense will find its way into the minds of the government members so that as a beginning we will have a responsible medical care plan for the needy and for the low income people immediately. If it has to be expanded later, that will be up to the provinces and not the federal government.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend who has just taken his seat would be called a hell-dodger in religious circles in respect of his last remarks.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: What?


Harold Edward Winch: A hell-dodger, one who goes to every church in the hope that when he dies he will not go to hell but to heaven. The hon. member has taken the same position on medical care. He has introduced so many "ifs" and "buts" that he is a political hell-dodger hoping he will come out on top no matter what happens. If that is not an example of political expediency demonstrating the attitude of Conservatives on this matter, then I have not heard one.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I do not know exactly what the hon. member's words mean. I am expressing an honest opinion. I do not care whether he likes it or not, and I do not care whether I am being philosophical. I believe in medical care for the needy.


Harold Edward Winch: Of course my hon. friend is expressing his honest opinion. A hell-dodger wants to get to heaven and goes to every church in the hope he will go there. My
Medicare
friend is the same. He wants to be on the top of the heap no matter what comes out. He uses all these "ifs" and "buts" so that, despite his tribulations, he can go to the people and say: "This is what I stand for because I stood for everything".
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak on second reading of this most important bill now before us. I appreciate the opportunity to speak this afternoon because it will not be possible for me to be in my seat tomorrow. A subcommittee of the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate on penitentiaries is going to make its first visit to a penitentiary, namely, St. Vincent de Paul.
When I think of a penitentiary, Mr. Speaker, I think of the inmates, and when I think of the inmates I cannot help but think of the relationship between the inmates and the Liberal government so far as medicare is involved. Inmates of a penitentiary are considered to be anti-social because they have broken the law of the land, because they have not accepted a commitment and because they have not demonstrated an understanding of what authority, commitment or responsibility means to people generally. On this issue I have in my mind this relationship between the inmates in a penitentiary and the present Liberal government. I believe it is a very definite one because, in light of the basic principles of morals and ethics, the Liberals gave a commitment of policy to the people of Canada in the last election. Every Liberal candidate gave a commitment to the electorate. That commitment was a trust, because when you are running for election and give a commitment you are giving a trust that the promises you make you will fulfil.
What was the promise given by every Liberal candidate? The promise in the Liberal program was that if they were returned as a government they would immediately introduce and put into operation a universal over-all medicare plan. That was the commitment, Mr. Speaker; it was a trust to the people of Canada. I speak not only of the campaign, because I shall make reference to speeches made in this House of Commons only a few short months ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) gave a commitment to the members of the House of Commons that the medical insurance bill would be proceeded with and go into operation on July 1 of next year.

Oclober 18, 1986
Medicare
We have now been advised in the past two or three days by the self-same Minister of National Health and Welfare that we shall vote on second reading on the same bill in principle that was introduced a few months ago but that after adopting the principle on second reading it will be amended so as to postpone it for a further year until July 1, 1968. I say that the Liberal government has definitely betrayed the commitment and trust given to the people of Canada. It has betrayed not only the people of Canada but also the House of Commons both in respect of the statements made and the trust. Surely it is understandable that henceforth because of this betrayal the people cannot trust the Liberal party in the future nor can the House of Commons trust statements made by a Liberal Prime Minister and another cabinet minister in the House of Commons because they themselves have proven that they are guilty of betrayal.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
It goes beyond that, Mr. Speaker. It is my contention that the government in general-I do not like to say this but I refer to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in particular-have not only betrayed their commitment and their trust but by their actions they have and are aiding and abetting influences in this country which would undermine the parliamentary system itself. In 33 years of campaigning I think I have stated at every meeting I have attended that I believe the parliamentary system is the greatest institution ever devised by man for the solution of man's problems. I stand by that proposition. It is also my belief that in the past few years, the last two or three in particular, the institution of parliament has been undermined and brought into ill repute and disrespect because in this forum there has been too much of personalities, prejudices and party expediency. As a result, "politician" to many people is now a dirty word. Convinced as I am about the correctness of what I say, let me add that in my estimation this Liberal government has done more to bring the institution of parliamentary democracy into ill repute and disrepute in the last few days than any other government by its actions over the years. They have done so by their betrayal of a commitment and a trust.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the majority of the speeches made during the second reading stage of this bill, as a result of which I believe I now have an understanding of the position being taken by

the various parties. The Liberals are in favour of universal over-all medicare and want this bill passed in principle, but they want to postpone its effectiveness from year to year. The Conservatives also believe in a system of universal medicare, but rather than supporting over-all coverage they have moved an amendment which, if adopted, will effectively block any introduction of universal over-all medicare in Canada for at least the next 12 to 14 years. That is what they will accomplish if they have their way.
It is also evident from speeches made by members of that party that they believe universal over-all coverage can only be adopted on the basis of a priority given to private enterprise. This makes it evident that they put the profits of private enterprise in the medical insurance field ahead of the health and well-being of the people of Canada under a government operated non-profit system. To me this is a completely anti-social, inexplicable and unreasonable attitude on the part of a political party in this day and age.
I must admit I am not quite certain where the members of the Social Credit and Creditiste parties stand, but I think I am correct in saying that no matter what their final position is it will be a waffling one and one of political expediency, because that is their record in this house.
The position of the New Democratic Party is well known. We stand for universal overall medicare in Canada and we mean by that a plan instituted now. We will, however, accept the commencement of this plan on July 1 of next year and will do everything in our power to block any postponement of the effective date. We intend to be, if I may put it this way, the conscience of the Liberal party in order to prevent it from postponing its commitment further. Just as we try to reclaim and save those who break the law, we are going to try to reclaim and save those political heathen who have betrayed Canadians by proposing that medicare be postponed.
We were very glad to hear this afternoon that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is going to speak on this bill during the committee stage. Personally I would prefer him to speak during second reading. As a matter of fact, he owes it to this house and the people of Canada to make it known on what basis he reached the decision to exercise his whip of persuasion and get the cabinet and the Liberal party to agree to this postponement. He owes it to us, when we are discussing the
October 18, 1966

principle of this bill, to indicate how a one-year postponement is going to assist in curbing an inflationary trend. He owes it to this house to tell us what pressure was brought to bear on him from outside in order to persuade him to exert pressure on the cabinet and the government. It is my personal belief that his decisions was not reached only because of the inflationary trend but also as a result of pressure from outside. I believe that outside pressure forced the government to kneel abjectly because it is in a financial jam and requires the co-operation of the monetary powers to refund bonds and float new loans. We should like to hear an intensive, detailed, factual and honest statement by the Minister of Finance on second reading before we approve this bill in principle.
It is imperative that I explode a myth expounded yesterday by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein). I listened very carefully to what the hon. gentleman said and rather than take any chance I may misquote him I should like to read from his speech as reported at page 8742 of Hansard. He said in part:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of medicare.
At page 8743 he said this, and it is a jewel of Liberal wisdom:
It is far more important that this legislation be passed by this house than that it shall come into effect on July 1, 1967 or July 1, 1968. The important thing is that it does become part of the legislation of this country.
Surely that is the greatest bit of political eyewash and political hogwash I have ever heard. He suggests that it is important to get the legislation on the statute books, but that when it is to come into operation is not important. Surely the only interpretation we can possibly place on those words of the hon. member for Cartier is that the Liberals' word is good, particularly after they introduce legislation and it is placed on the statute books. The implication is that the Liberal government, having introduced legislation and having had it placed on the statute books, would put it into effect. My hon. friend should look back on the record of Liberal governments in this country. Not only does their word mean nothing, not only does their commitment mean nothing, not only does their honour mean nothing, but their own legislation does not necessarily mean anything.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I had the honour of being a member of the British Columbia legislature from 1933 to 1953. In 1933 the Liberals campaigned on two
Medicare
slogans, "work and wages" and "over-all medicare" to cover every citizen of B.C. On November 2, 1933 they were elected with an overwhelming majority, so overwhelming that in a 48-member legislature the official opposition of which I was a member only had 7 seats. What happened to the Liberal promises regarding work and wages? Apart from the time of war when Canadians had to kill or be killed and our production was for destruction and not for consumption, there was no fulfilment of the work and wages policy.
How about the over-all medical plan which was promised to all the citizens of B.C. in the campaign preceding the 1933 election? The Liberals kept their word and in 1936 they introduced over-all medicare for every citizen of British Columbia. The B.C. legislature unanimously passed it and the commissioners were appointed. An advisory board was set up, literature was printed and the legislation was to be put into effect. But then what happened? The medical men of British Columbia said to the B.C. Liberals: "If you put that legislation into effect we will go on strike". That is what happened. Was the grand old Liberal party interested in their own magnificent medicare legislation for the citizens of British Columbia? No. They said to the B.C. medical association: "We bow to your wisdom". That is what they did. The legislation is still on the statute books of British Columbia in 1966 and we still do not have over-all medicare in our province.
The hon. member for Cartier had the unmitigated audacity to rise and say, speaking on specific medicare legislation: "Do not worry about when it starts. Just get the legislation on the statute books." Having had the experience of Liberal promises and kowtowing to the kind of pressure I have just mentioned, we want the legislation on the statute books and we want it written into the legislation that it will go into effect on July 1 of next year. I think we have the right to demand that what we request be granted and that the Liberal promises be fulfilled.
This government operates in a very peculiar manner. Day after day we read the pronouncements of that "Sharp" Minister of Finance sitting on the other side in regard to guide lines and in regard to holding the line on increases in the wages paid to the workers of our country. We are told that these increases should not exceed the increases in the gross national product. They should be held down to 3 or 4 per cent annually. The government tells the useful people of Canada,

October 18. 1986
Medicare
the workers, what they should do and what increases they should receive, but I have not heard any complaints from the Liberals about the action in the last few weeks and months of the doctors of Canada who have increased their fees in one fell swoop by 25 to 50 per cent. Newspapers of the last week end have reported that increases in doctors' fees in Ontario have been as high as 37 per cent. I presume that every member in this house received this morning a statement from the Seafarers' International Union regarding what is happening to their welfare and medicare plan. The increases are going into effect almost immediately.
Visits by doctors at a hospital have increased from $3 to $4, visits at the doctor's office have increased from $4 to $6 and visits elsewhere than at a doctor's office or at a hospital have increased from $6 to $8. The over-all increases amount to 25 to 50 per cent. They have gone away above the guide lines which the useful people of Canada, the workers, are supposed to follow according to this government. As a result of all these increases the average person cannot afford a single illness. That is why it is so necessary to have universal over-all medicare so that not only can the wealthy help the poor but so that the healthy can help the ill because the day can come to almost anyone when the healthy will become the ill.
The only interpretation I can give to the Conservative policy is that of medicare on the basis of a means test. Basically it is medicare for the needy and the indigent, but how many of them are there? The Conservatives have not mentioned how many needy and indigent there are. I was most interested to read this morning's newspaper report concerning an interview given by Dr. R. K. C. Thomson of Edmonton, president of the Canadian Medical Association. He does not like the government plan, nor does he like universal medicare. He agrees with the Tories, that is, he agrees with medicare on a means test basis. However, whilst the Tories do not state how many people would be affected according to Dr. Thomson the figures, 20 to 30 per cent of the population, or possibly 5 million people, require to be covered by a medical plan even on a means teSt basis because they cannot afford to pay for medical help and assistance.
I must say that the plan before us goes far beyond the indigent and far beyond those who definitely cannot afford to pay. The individual cost of medicare cannot be borne
by 90 per cent of the people of Canada because it is such that one serious illness can bankrupt or put into serious debt any average working class family. A major illness today can run you into thousands of dollars, and I wonder how many working class people have $1,000 in their bank accounts. Everybody needs medical protection, and we insist that this the only progressive policy that can be considered at this time.
So, Mr. Speaker, we support the bill as originally introduced. We support the principle of universal medicare and we want to see it go into effect as soon as possible and not later than July 1, 1967. We will do everything we can in the interest of the people of this country to see that this is done and to stop the reactionary Tories and Liberals from postponing the date of the commencement of the plan.


Mr. Boulanger:: 
Harold Edward Winch: I have not read the last speech made by Mr. Cliche.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate on medicare during the last few days and have also been interested in earlier statements made about it. Frequently it has been an exercise in Canadian political history with a Liberal government and the New Democratic Party in the opposition, striving very hard to indicate that each of them was very much in the forefront in staking out the original claim on the homestead of medicare. Admittedly many years have gone by, and I suppose there is nothing sadder to the original homesteaders than to find that the people who follow after them may not have quite the same high regard for the homestead as they had when it was originally staked out.
We have heard some rather surprising speeches today, particularly the one just completed by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). Some members of this house must wonder just what the explanation is for some of these speeches. This afternoon I should like to give the house some explanation of the phenomenon that has been occurring. I am indebted to an interesting little book recently published called "The Elite In The Welfare State", which has a great deal to
TMr. Winch.]
October 18, 19S6

say about our present political situation in Canada. As we move ever increasingly into the welfare state, we seem to be running into sharp conflict as to just who composes the elite of this welfare state.
I should like to quote a bit from this-*


Harold Edward Winch: Who is the author?


Howard Earl Johnston: The author is Piet Thoenes, a Dutch sociologist. The book is available from the parliamentary library. I quote:
It is a characteristic of the elite that its superiority imposes a task upon it. This task, either as a right or as a duty, includes that of determining the destiny of others. By accepting this task, every elite takes upon itself a certain burden of responsibility. Hence the selection of the ruling authority on which this responsibility is to be laid determines its character.
An elite, however, does not consider itself obliged to be answerable to its actual or future subjects. Indeed it has not received its commission from these people-
I believe this statement is true of the New Democratic Party who have never been given a commission from the people of Canada on a national basis.
Mr. Scot! (Danforth): Neither have you.


Mr.   Johnsion@: I have not complained about that at all. I continue quoting:
-but this does not imply that it has, on this account, no sort of responsibility; it simply means that the elite seeks its responsibility from some other source, from the place from which it supposes itself to have received its commission. In abstract, this means that it will justify its actions by calling on an idea, a divine message, or a scientific law-a biological, psychological, economic or sociological law-or even a system combining a number of these elements.
This is one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we have had so many references to history and why, at the opening of this debate, the spokesman for the New Democratic Party referred to this as being such a historic moment or he had hoped it would be but was afraid it would not be the historical moment that he had expected. It is important that a very heavy gloss of history be laid over this debate. I continue quoting:
In practice this means that it seeks a blessing on its ideas from an ecclesiastical or scientific authority, either one which is already in being, or else one which the elite itself has brought into existence.
From what sources of inspiration, from what divine promptings or scientific laws have certain groups been able to derive their claim to be set in the position of the elect? Although some elites imagine themselves to have been commissioned by a higher authority-sent down from on high- nevertheless the sociological observer finds that in
Medicare
actual fact they have never fallen from heaven. There has always been a concrete social situation which has resulted in their being called into the existence as a group.
Later the author goes on to state:
Generally speaking, elites as groups are not bom easily. It is true to say that it is always flattering to human vanity to know oneself to be a member of an upper set; yet on the one hand, to cut oneself adrift from the greater, original whole and on the other to run the risk of failing to bring it off satisfactorily, demands of the people concerned a truly exceptional amount of courage-or, if one prefers it, of pride.
I have one more short quotation:
Now, if a group sets itself up as an elite under favourable conditions, then generally speaking it will need a different source of inspiration. The greater the difficulties in the way of acceptance of an elite, the more irrefutable a claim and an inspiration it has to have. The more revolutionary the character of its emergence (owing to the requirements of its situation) the more will it attempt to surround its message with a gloss of inevitability, of absoluteness and incontrovertability. A group in this sort of situation quite easily comes to confer upon its message the nature of a revelation.
Certainly we have the revelation, I suppose you would call it, in the Hall report. This report has been treated as absolutely divine writ which must be accepted without argument and must be implemented completely by the government of the day without alteration of any kind. In all of this, Mr. Speaker, the thing I find most surprising is that the government is always allowing itself to be pushed into a position where it seems to lose its own claim to being the elite in the welfare state. It has seemed so willing to hand its position over to the New Democratic Party without really any sound ground for so doing.
The book from which I am quoting has a sentence which applies to the government:
On the other hand, a group which moves in a situation of stimulating change can carry on in a somewhat calmer fashion.
I think the government has been wise in its decision to delay the implementation of medicare for a year. I feel it might have carried on in a somewhat calmer fashion and delayed the legislation as well. There is really no sound reason why we should be involved in this debate at the present time. The government is in charge and has been given a sort of mandate from the Canadian people. It should not always put itself in the position of being pushed into a series of panic reactions, fearful that somehow it may lose a particular position.

October 18, 1966
Medicare
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I will return to the book a bit later. The thing that has amazed me about the many speeches has been the contrast between the speeches we had a few weeks ago on the back to work legislation when there was such tremendous concern expressed for the wishes of a vocational group, the railway workers who were involved in the legislation then before the house. Now the wheel has come completely around and we find the concern is that the government might consider the wishes of the vocational or, if you prefer the word, professional group involved in this matter. A completely converse point of view is taken. While it is certain that no back to work legislation totally repugnant to the railway workers would ever have been effective,
I think it also behoves us to pay particular attention to the medical profession who are the people most directly involved and concerned in the question of medicare.
I feel that the bill can be supported in principle on second reading. Various provinces have shown how medicare can be instituted with the co-operation of the medical profession and the blessing of the people in the province concerned. One thing about the welfare state is that it finds itself in conflict with the democratic process. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) spoke movingly about his faith in parliament, but he might recall that this is not the only parliament in the country. There are legislatures or parliaments in the various provinces which have instituted medicare programs by the due processes of parliamentary democracy. I suggest it is not significantly or particularly democratic of this institution to lay down, somewhat after the fact, a set of principles for medicare that will be so stringent as to come into conflict with the schemes already in operation.
This is why I trust that in committee of the whole paragraph (c) of clause 4 (1) will be examined very closely and that the figure of 90 per cent will be seen as a somewhat variable figure and not as another bit of revelation that must be accepted as if it had been handed down. I suggest it is a figure that might bear alteration.
I also trust that when considering sub-section (2) on page 4, which refers to "the designation by the provincial authority of an agency or agencies to carry out any responsibility in connection with the receipt and payment of accounts rendered for insured services", the widest possible interpretation

will be placed upon that wording so that the provincial governments will not be forced into instituting a monolithic organization which is unwanted by the medical profession and will be one of the things more than anything else which will jeopardize the success of the plan on the national level.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in committee of the whole it might be possible to amend the bill further to allow some of the groups who are not currently mentioned in the bill to be added. I speak of optometrists and chiropractors who perform functions of benefit to the Canadian people, who are regarded by average people as fulfilling medical functions and to whom they go for healing and relief. I suggest there is no reason why the bill cannot be so amended and these groups included in it.
I should like to conclude with another very brief quotation from "The Elite In The Welfare State":
Democracy Is still an immature system requiring care and attention if it is to thrive. Alongside this political system there is nowadays, moreover, an even younger social structure with a slightly different name, the welfare or the social security state. Both the political and the social form have many features in common, they are of the same family, so to speak, and live in the same house. Nevertheless, a close analysis of the character of the welfare state raises the query of whether there is the possibility of tension between the welfare state and democracy. Is there an equal chance of peaceful co-existence? Or, must one of the two go under? Such questions have certainly more than sociological interest alone, even though it is only within a sociological framework that the concept of the elite may be seen to lie at the heart of the problem. An elite appears indispensable to the welfare state and difficult to co-exist alongside democracy, for, it is always an essential characteristic of an elite as defined here that it is not obliged to make itself responsible for its actions to its de facto or its anticipated subjects. Democracy implies that it should be thus responsible.


Mr. G. L. Chaiierion (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, the first question that occurs to me in speaking on the medicare bill is why the government brought this measure before the house at this time when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) have stated that it will not be implemented until July 1, 1968. The question is particularly pertinent when there are so many matters that require the urgent and immediate attention of this house. For example, there is the problem of inflation. Some effective measure to deal with inflation should be immediately brought before the house by the government. Then there is the matter of assistance to education, the promised bursaries and scholarships for students.
October 18, 1966

Why not bring that matter before the house at this time rather than this medicare bill?
Another problem that has become almost critical is residential construction. In the October issue of the Monetary Times the following extract deals with the problem of residential construction:
Squeezed by tight money and sharply rising costs, the industry-if their press notices are to be believed-is crumbling at its foundations, and this year will build only 140,000 houses, 110,000 short of the nation's needs. Those that are being built are horrendously costly in terms of the average wage earner's capacity to pay.
In the "Homebuilding News" for September there is a headline which refers to residential construction and states "July Starts Down 27 Per Cent". There is a resolution on the order paper, government order No. 101, in connection with amendments to the National Housing Act. Why has the government not brought this matter before the house at this time, deferring the medicare bill until a later date?
The New Democratic Party is making what appears to me to be a planned attack to try to pin the Conservative party with the label that we are trying to kill the medicare bill. I should like to place on the record, at least for the benefit of the people in my riding who will be reading my speech, the terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) on behalf of the Conservative party:
This house, while of the opinion that provision should be made for medical services to be available to all Canadians at an adequate level on a prepaid basis, is nevertheless of the further opinion that no legislation for the provision of insured medical care services in Canada will be satisfactory unless it:
(a)	secures co-operation of the governments of the provinces of Canada;
(b)	recognizes the principle of voluntary choice by the individual;
(c)	makes adequate prior provision for sufficient medical research, the training of adequate numbers of doctors and other medical personnel, and
(d)	immediately provides for those persons who are unable, for financial reasons, to provide medical services for themselves.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, how the socialists can interpret that amendment as designed to kill a national medicare scheme is beyond my comprehension. This falls into line with their holier-than-thou attitude. If our party tries to the best of its ability to improve a government measure, we are labelled as intending to kill the measure. To my knowledge all members of our party are in favour of a national
Medicare
medicare scheme. What we are trying to do is present to the government a plan that we think is better, a plan that will be more effective and that will help those who need help. We want to provide the help now, not on July 1, 1968.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who was naturally very sad that the medicare starting date was to be postponed, had a good point when, as found on page 8620 of Hansard, he said:
This is a sad day, first, because we have before us today an open betrayal of the pledged word of the government of this country. Second, this is a sad day because the action of the government in proposing the postponement of medicare for a year is a discrimination against the needs of the people in this country, particularly their medical needs, and I refer particularly to those people who cannot afford the medical care they require. I submit that to treat the people of this country in this way is a shocking denial for which this parliament should not stand.
If our proposal is accepted it will do what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wants, namely, provide immediately medical insurance for those people who need it. Roughly one third of the people of Canada cannot afford to pay the premiums required today for an adequate health insurance scheme.
Referring to the various clauses of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe East, we see that first of all the plan must be one which secures the co-operation of the governments of the provinces of Canada. Three provinces already have their own medical care plans. Other provinces have prepared studies and I believe are considering introducing their own plans. What assurance have we that if this bill becomes law the provinces across Canada, the major ones being Ontario and Quebec, will join the plan? We might end up with a statute that is not effective. The premiers have already indicated their objections and reservations with respect to the proposed government measure.
We say that to have an effective medicare plan that will be operative in every province of Canada the government ought to present a plan that will be clearly accepted in advance by the provinces. I do not hold any brief for the Canada Pension Plan, but the government had advance notice from the province of Quebec that the Canada Pension Plan which the federal government would seek to have passed would be approved of by Quebec. In other words, Quebec indicated it would institute a similar plan. There is lots of time before this plan is implemented in July of

October 18, 1966
Medicare
1968. We say that the federal government should consult with the provinces to design a plan that will be acceptable to them. I am sure it would not be difficult to amend the present bill to make it acceptable to all provinces across Canada.
The next point in our amendment is:
(b) recognizes the principle of voluntary choice by the individual;
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) has gone to a great deal of trouble trying to make it appear that the government proposal is not compulsory. It is obvious from the terms of the bill that it will be almost impossible for the provinces if they want to participate in the benefits, for which they have been taxed, not to compel their people to join the plan that the federal government is putting forward. In every sense of the word, therefore, it is compulsory. I do not know why the government should insist that the plan be compulsory. In view of the constitutional position, why does the government not give the provinces the option of joining the plan in such a way that the provinces can give an option to their people in regard to joining?
Another point overlooked by many people is that if the compulsory part of the plan is adopted those people who now contribute toward a private medical insurance plan and who have part of their premiums paid by their employers will lose the advantage of having their employers make that partial payment. It seems incongruous to have persons paying for two insurance schemes. Something like 60 per cent of the working people of Canada have private schemes into which the employer pays part of the premium. Once the compulsory scheme comes into effect those people will lose that privilege. I maintain, therefore, that it should be up to the individual to say whether he wants to join a government scheme-I refer to schemes such as exist now in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia-or whether he wants to stay with his own scheme, which might be better so far as he is concerned.
In case the government is of the opinion that the compulsory feature of this measure has been accepted by the people of Canada, I draw the attention of the house to "News & Views" of March 26, 1966, containing the result of a poll. The Toronto Star on February 10, 1966 printed the results of the most recent Canadian Institute of Public Opinion poll on compulsory medical insurance. According to this poll, as printed in

"News & Views", 52 per cent of the people who gave an opinion were in favour of a voluntary government scheme as opposed to 41 per cent who were in favour of a compulsory scheme.
The next point in the amendment is:
(c) makes adequate prior provision for sufficient medical research, the training of adequate numbers of doctors and other medical personnel;
I go back to my original statement. We propose a plan that will be effective. If a universal plan is passed and medical insurance is available to everyone it does not mean that medical services will also be available. It does not mean that at all. The fact of the matter, from what is contained in the Hall Commission report, is that, particularly if the government scheme is implemented, there will be a grave shortage not only of doctors but of all the other personnel involved in medical care.
For example, the Hall Commission report indicates that four new medical schools must be established by 1971-72. The report states elsewhere that it takes from eight to ten years to establish a new medical school. A fifth medical school should be established shortly after the other four. The report also recommends that the existing schools expand their enrolment. When the house is in committee I hope the minister will be able to tell us how the actual enrolment in medical schools existing in Canada has been increased.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The Hall Commission report also points out how a shortage of doctors may arise or be increased. At present in Canada the ratio of population per physician is 857. This ratio steadily improved between 1951 and 1961. The Hall Commission report points out that if the ratio continues to improve at the rate it has, by 1976 there will be a shortage of 4,691 doctors and by 1986 there will be a shortage of 13,329. We should keep in mind that today there are roughly 24,000 doctors in Canada. The commission indicates that the ratio of population to doctors might well remain as it is at present. However, judging from the circumstances in other countries, I submit there is room for much improvement in Canada with respect to the ratio of people to doctors.
In the United States, for example, there are 752 people per doctor, in New Zealand, 700, and in the U.S.S.R., 550. It seems obvious that in Canada, because of the vast distances to be covered and the way in which population is
October 18, 1966

distributed, there must be a major improvement in the physician-population ratio. I maintain there is a real danger that if the plan now proposed is implemented even by 1968 people will be insured but will not be able to get adequate medical treatment because of the shortage of doctors and other personnel involved in medical care. Our amendment says, in effect, that adequate provision must first be made for the supply of such personnel before a national scheme is adopted.
The last point in our amendment is that immediate provision should be made for those who are unable for financial reasons to provide medical services for themselves. Surely our primary responsibility is to take care of those who are not able to care of themselves. This is a basic principle when government interferes in private fields and it does so because the private sector has not been doing the job of caring for those who cannot take care of themselves. There is no need for the government to help those who are capable of helping themselves, particularly when they may not desire government help.
As I have indicated, a large percentage of the working people of Canada have their own private insurance plans. In many cases the whole of the premium is paid by the employer. In others, half is paid by the employer. Many of these people would prefer to retain their own schemes. Why should they be forced to take part in a government scheme when they do not need it and in many cases do not want it?
So we maintain that the scheme should take care immediately of those who cannot provide for themselves by insurance. It may be expected that the provinces which have already introduced their own schemes have borne this thought in mind. In British Columbia, for instance, the province pays 90 per cent of the premiums of those who have no taxable income. In cases where the taxable income is less than $1,000, the province pays 50 per cent of the premiums. If the federal government were to assist the provinces further, surely the provinces would extend their insurance to cover not only physicians' services but all services, including eye and teeth care.
It is the people who are in need who should receive full coverage in respect of all medical treatment. It is more important to provide those who are in need with comprehensive coverage than it is to provide merely
Medicare
physicians' care for everyone in Canada. If we accept the fact that there is a shortage of medical personnel, which I think this is clearly demonstrated by the Hall report, then instead of acting initially to extend coverage to everyone in respect of physicians' fees only we should concentrate on those who cannot afford to provide their own insurance and make comprehensive coverage available to them.
I hope the government will consider our amendment in the spirit in which it is offered. We are in favour of a national insurance scheme and we feel that our proposal if accepted would provide for a more effective and a more equitable scheme in Canada.


Mr. Walker:: The hon. member has been suggesting that there are not enough doctors or facilities at present to take care of a universal, comprehensive medical care scheme. Has he some idea as to the length of time which might be needed to acquire the necessary facilities?


George Louis Chatterton: According to the Hall Commission report five new medical colleges are required. Remember, that report was submitted in 1964. It takes between eight and ten years to establish a medical college. The commission also made recommendations as to increasing enrolment in the existing colleges. I think the responsibility rests on the government to make an assessment of the position today and say five years from now. There is a possibility of shortening the length of time necessary to establish a medical college and perhaps of shortening the medical course. The health resources fund, it will be remembered, was not approved until this year, two years after the Hall report was submitted. So I maintain that even by 1968 there will be a serious shortage of doctors.
I think it has been shown by the experience in Britain and in Saskatchewan that with the introduction of universal medicare there is an increase in the number of visits paid to doctors. So there is bound to be a shortage of doctors with an adverse effect on the quality of medical services, and I believe the situation will be worsened if we adopt the plan now proposed in its present form.
I maintain that the government should first make a thorough assessment of the position today, two years after the Hall report, as well as a year or two years from now, and that over-all coverage should be delayed until such time as the government is satisfied there

October 18, 1966
Medicare
are adequate personnel to take care of all reasonable medical needs.


David James Walker: One further question. Presumably the delay might amount to as long as five years, optimistically, or ten years, pessimistically. Is it the hon. member's suggestion that a comprehensive universal scheme should be delayed for that length of time, whether it is five years or ten years?


George Louis Chatterton: The first thing we think should be covered-and immediately, as of January 1 of next year-is the situation of those who are in need.


An hon. Member:: They are already taken care of.


George Louis Chatterton: No. We should cover them immediately and others who wish to join should do so on a voluntary basis as is the case in British Columbia.


David James Walker: My question was this: the introduction of a universal, comprehensive scheme is recommended by the Hall Commission and, if I understand the hon. member correctly, he is suggesting that such a scheme should be deferred until facilities are available even if this means a delay of ten years.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


George Louis Chatterton: Our proposal provides first of all for the coverage of those in need and then for anyone thereafter on a voluntary basis. It could be introduced immediately as a national scheme. It is not compulsory; it is voluntary. It could be introduced immediately, and if there were a delay in respect of those not in need that would be all right. Our proposal could be implemented immediately, not in 1968 but right away.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have followed the course of this debate with considerable interest and it is not my intention, in speaking briefly, to repeat the many excellent arguments that have been advanced by members of our party for the introduction of a national health services insurance plan on July 1, 1967. However, during the course of this debate I have discovered that I am a pioneer in this respect in the advocacy of the need for a national health services insurance plan.
I find that I am the only member of the House of Commons at the present time who campaigned during the federal election of 1921 in support of a national health services insurance plan, which was adopted at the

Liberal convention held in the fall of 1919 as the result of a motion moved by the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King, seconded by the present Senator Turgeon. I will never forget that at that time my father was with me in that campaign because we were both interested in this type of legislation.
I might say I am very glad to note that many younger members of the house who have grown up since, and some who have even been born since that date, recognize the vision which many Canadians had with respect to the need for this plan at that time, and the essential soundness of the ideas which they expressed in resolutions from various local Liberal organizations to their provincial organizations, to the national organization and other conventions shortly after the termination of the first world war.
I remember quite clearly the atmosphere that prevailed at that time, the feeling that we had fought the last world war and were now provided with the opportunity to do something to build a sound society. I remember very clearly there were two things that particularly concerned the people of that day. The first was the need for a national old age pension plan and the second was the need for a national health services insurance plan.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, these plans were discussed at local organizations and there were what would be called seminars nowadays. I am not quite certain as to the exact meaning of that word, but there were get-togethers in the area I come from, the Kootenays, between various groups that discussed with great conviction the need for these two programs at that particular time, and also the need for the co-operation of local people if any plan, whether it be national, provincial or municipal, were to succeed.
I remember in my own case I happened to be the president of the local hospital board. The board met and members of the hospital society met and discussed what they could do in respect of our hospital facilities with respect to a plan of this sort and discussed the matter with the local doctor. There was that spirit of local participation which I think must be engendered and must be revived if any national plan of consequence is going to succeed to the full.
This was in a period when the majority of people looked forward to the end of all world wars and seized the opportunity to build a just and sound society. However, over the intervening years we have been disillusioned by the course of events. There is no need to go
October 18, 1966

Medicare
into recent history in that respect, including the failure of successive federal governments to introduce a national health services insurance plan.
The demand for a health services insurance plan was strong in British Columbia and this ferment continued from 1919 until the Liberal party was re-elected provincially in November, 1933. As I say, it was a subject discussed at all the local meetings of the organization and by other organizations. I remember that once again I campaigned as a member of the Liberal party in support of this program, but once again there was a delay in giving legislative effect to the overwhelmingly expressed will of the people.
When he spoke this afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) referred to what happened in the legislature of British Columbia. However, the pressure was so strong in this respect that in 1936 Dr. Weir, the minister responsible, introduced legislation in line with the Liberal provincial program which provided for a health services insurance program on a provincial scale. The legislation was passed by the legislature. A commission was established, but that was the end of it. I ask why, because we have heard nothing since of that legislation? The reason that plan was not given effect to, although the legislation is still on the statute books of the province of British Columbia, was that the medical profession at that time opposed the introduction of the plan on a provincial basis, although I did know of some who thought it could be more satisfactorily introduced on a federal basis.
Since that time more and more people and organizations have come to realize that all Canadians should be covered by a national health services insurance plan. Successive Liberal governments have been aware of public sentiment in this respect. The late Right Hon. Mackenzie King was very aware of it. In fact, I remember on one occasion having a conversation with that former prime minister of Canada on this subject because he stopped me to tell me to send his kind congratulations to my father who was having a birthday in the near future, and I did so.
This desire was emphasized by trade unions, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, farmers unions, women's organizations of various types, and other organizations, and the government mildly responded to these representations by the introduction of legislation to provide for further research into this problem, to provide for grants for hospital
beds when hospitals were being constructed, and by legislation to provide for further contributions toward provincial hospital insurance plans that were appreciated at that time. When those plans were introduced members of this party actually thought the government was introducing those proposals before launching on a national health services insurance program.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I rise at this time, Mr. Speaker, to express my support for the principle and purpose of the bill, although I must say it has suffered from a very Sharp frost in recent days, and to express my opposition to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). I have great respect for the hon. member, but on reading his amendment carefully I am of the opinion that he has, in somewhat different terms, expressed the opinion of the Canadian Medical Association. I read their letter when I received it and at this point I would like to quote in part from a letter I received from Dr. R. K. C. Thomson, president of the Canadian Medical Association. This is what Dr. Thomson had to say:
The enclosed letter in respect to Bill C-227 was forwarded to the Prime Minister and will be discussed with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We hope that all members of parliament will seriously consider and support our more practical approach to medical services insurance-
1.	which would provide insurance for those who need financial assistance;
That means on a means test basis.
2.	which could be serviced by existing medical personnel;
That was the very same argument used in 1921 with regard to the national program proposed at that time and in 1936 when the legislature of British Columbia adopted a bill to provide for provincial health insurance.
3.	which would maintain the quality of medical care;
We also heard that argument on those two occasions.
4.	which would not be too costly for the provinces or the federal government;
Surely, Mr. Speaker, we in Canada with our vast natural resources would not find a social welfare measure of this type too costly when the governments of Great Britain and other European countries have had plans of this type in effect over a good number of years and have improved them as a result of experience.
5.	which would have the support of the doctors of Canada.

October 18. 1968
Medicare
I must say, after listening to the hon. gentleman and the terms of his amendment, I cannot reconcile his speech and the terms of the amendment with the remarks made by his leader when the Hall Commission report was tabled. At that time and in the press later in eulogistic terms he said that that report laid the foundation for legislation which his government intended to introduce.
As a matter of fact, very similar arguments were used by some sections of the medical profession against the introduction of the national health services insurance plan in 1921 and again in 1936 when Dr. Weir introduced a similar plan in the legislature of British Columbia. I remember the disappointment among many members of the Liberal party at that time who were sincerely concerned about these matters. I remember one cabinet minister who was very disappointed-the hon. member for Vancouver East will bear me out on this-the former Hon. Mary Ellen Smith, who was a social reformer and who did great work in the legislature of British Columbia, particularly in connection with establishing the rights of women, nondiscrimination and so on.
Although I know outstanding doctors who supported the plan-as does the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe) whose remarks we listened to the other day with great interest-in this house and in the country, I think that owing to the political climate which existed between the federal and provincial governments in Canada in 1921 and even in 1936, it would have been easier to introduce even a modest national plan at that time which could have been developed with co-operation and experience. I am not suggesting for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that any plan which is designed as a result of legislation will not be open to improvement. There will be defects. We will find there is a shortage of doctors in certain areas and that there are certain requirements which have not been foreseen. But our point in this group is that we should have got on with this legislation years ago.
I oppose the amendment also because on page 91 of the Hall Commission report the following appears:
While we are aware that shortages of physicians, dentists, nurses, and other paramedical personnel will make it difficult to establish the full personal health services program our charter envisages, nonetheless the fact that there are shortages must not be used as an excuse to delay initiating programs and plans.

I think the Hall report completely offsets the remarks made by the hon. member for Simcoe East. I presume they mean that some members of the medical profession are also opposed to what they are pleased to term socialized medicine. I am always interested to see how some doctors are sort of confused concerning the application of socialized measures. What about socialized education? According to Hansard of April 22, 1964, the actual cost to the community for each doctor who graduates in Canada is $16,900. Multiply this by the number of doctors in Canada and it amounts to a considerable total.
I fully realize the need to increase the number of doctors if the Canadian people are going to receive the medical services to which they are entitled, and I will support government assistance to that end because when this legislation is adopted we want it to work as effectively as possible. When we come to the matter of training doctors, however, we do not hear any objection to socialization of education in this regard; yet I have heard doctors object very strongly to what they call socialized medicine. Without a doubt experience will indicate, as I said before, the need for amendments to this legislation and the need for the inclusion of dentists, optometrists, chiropractors and other medical services. If the government does not see fit at this time to include these groups, we hope the plan when it comes into effect will indicate that if people are going to have over-all medical attention these other groups should be included.
Let us recognize the wishes of the majority of the people as expressed by numerous organizations and as expressed during the last election by the votes that were given on behalf of the Liberal candidates, by the votes in many cases given on behalf of Progressive Conservative candidates, by the votes given to members of this party who have always taken a firm stand on this issue, and by some votes given to members of the Cr6ditiste and Social Credit parties who have indicated a support for the principle some time in eternity when they hope sufficient doctors will be available.
As I said before, if the people of Great Britain and Europe can give effect to sound health insurance plans, surely we in Canada with all our vast natural resources, if we manage them properly-and all wealth depends on natural resources; the foundation of all wealth is natural resources-can do even better than the people in those countries have
October 18. 1966

done to date. I find in volume I of the Hall Commission report on health services, page 6, these paragraphs:
The enjoyment of the highest attainable standards of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.
The health of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and security and is dependent upon the fullest co-operation of individuals and states.
There is no question that it is economic insecurity which raises the risk of war in a good many parts of the world at this time. Therefore, because I have believed in the need for a national health services plan since I returned from the first world war and have advocated it on all occasions whether I was a member of the Liberal party, the C.C.F. party or the New Democratic Party. I have no hesitation in supporting the second reading of this bill. I shall look forward to its implementation soon and, as a result of experience, its improvement and amendment.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), Public Service

representations respecting salaries of postal workers; the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), Historical Monuments-Sherbrooke, Que.-demolition of Sir Alexander Galt's house; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), Old Age Security-continuation of payments to dependants of deceased pensioners.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill C-227, to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rynard.
Medicare
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in this debate to express my position in respect of Bill C-227. I have lived for a number of years with the troubles and worries of Canadian workers and citizens brought about by the expense of illness and adversity. During the past years unions in this country have been able to raise the standard of living of industrial workers through collective bargaining. As a result these Canadian citizens enjoy a high and excellent standard of living. The unions have been able to negotiate the institution of medical plans which offset the worries of the average Canadian who now knows that in time of sickness his expenses will be covered. A great many people in this country have no protection in this regard and are unable to take care of themselves.
Bill C-227 does not in effect institute a universal medicare program in Canada. Medical health care is under provincial jurisdiction and four provinces now have medical plans which cover the people who are unable to provide for their own needs. The province of Manitoba is now in the process of devising a plan to cover these people in that province.
This bill will not institute a universal medical plan in Canada. By its very title one can see this. It states that it is:
An act to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
All this bill does is ask parliament to authorize the government to set aside moneys to be paid to provinces, which now have or will institute medical schemes, to the extent of half of the cost of their medical schemes. The bill states as an objective that these plans shall be universal. That is a laudable objective. By the provisions of this bill payment will foe made to those provinces which institute a program of medical care insurance. Some provinces may not do so, in which event this will not be a universal plan. As a matter of fact, it is doubtful that through the provisions of this bill all the costs incurred by provinces under their own medical schemes will be covered.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has said time and time again throughout this country during election campaigns that he hoped by July 1, 1967, the centennial year of this great country, he would be able to provide a medicare program for all the people of Canada in commemoration of this event. However, since those promises we have heard sharper words
88X2

October 18, 1968
Medicare
which have overruled the laudable aims and promises of the Prime Minister and of every Liberal candidate, because the bill now before us will not institute a universal plan.
I disagree particularly with the provision of the bill which puts medicare on a compulsory basis, because Canadians are not prepared to accept compulsion. We have observed some evidence to that effect as a result of the Canada Pension Plan. The Canadian people are resentful of compulsion. In spite of my belief in this regard, and because I believe in the principle of medicare, I will support this bill on second reading.
The hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) proposed the amendment before us because we believe in medicare and hope to improve the bill now before us. A great deal of criticism has been made of this amendment. I do not know why that should be, except perhaps because those who have levied the criticism are playing politics.
What is wrong with the first part of the amendment which states that the government should secure the co-operation of the governments of the provinces of Canada? If the plan is going to be universal it is important that all provinces institute a valid program to cover their residents. In that way only can it be a universal plan. Naturally we need the co-operation of the provinces, which is something the present government does not have.
The second part of the amendment refers to a recognition of the principle of voluntary choice by the individual. It is my belief that if the government does not accept that principle it will be making a mistake. In spite of any mistake it might make in this regard I will support and vote for this bill on second reading.
Third, the amendment suggests that we should make adequate prior provision for sufficient medical research and the training of adequate numbers of doctors and other personnel in order that we may provide the care and attention that people will need under the coverage of a universal plan.
The fourth part of the amendment suggests that the bill should immediately provide for those individuals who are unable for financial reasons to provide medical services for themselves. Are these people in the various provinces to wait until July 1, 1968 before they are covered? If they must wait until then, they wait because of a whim on the part of this government.

It is utter nonsense on the part of anyone to suggest that because we support this amendment as an improvement to the bill now before us we are against medicare. Surely we are here to put forward suggestions as to how to improve legislation brought forward by the government. We have merely suggested some alternatives to what the government has brought forward in an effort to improve this bill to the benefit of those who will be covered. I am sure that it would be more readily acceptable in the form we have suggested. That is why we have put forward the amendment. It was not proposed for the purpose, as has been suggested, of killing this bill in opposition to the principle of medicare.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the hon. member would permit me to ask for the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions in order to permit the Prime Minister to make a statement.


William Arnold Peters: Will the minister agree to a recess between seven and eight o'clock after the Prime Minister's statement?


George James McIlraith: I do not think that suggestion is agreeable at this time because we are trying to get this very important legislation through.


John George Diefenbaker: Yet it does not come into effect for a year and a half.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will ask the question again. Is there unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: If we do, we should have some indication that we will have a dinner hour afterwards, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Make it seven o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will repeat the question. Is there unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
October 18, 1966	COMMONS



URANIUM


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked for permission to make a statement at this hour will, I think, become apparent from the nature of my statement because I would like to inform hon. members of the successful completion of negotiations between Rio Algom Mines Ltd. and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for the sale and purchase of a minimum of 8,000 short tons of uranium oxide (U308) for delivery to Britain from Rio Algom's Elliot Lake properties during the 1970's. This uranium is needed by Britain for her civil nuclear power program.
The contract was signed subject to the approval of the Canadian and British governments and the issuance of the necessary export permits by the Canadian authorities.
The new contract provides for a continuation of deliveries by Rio Algom to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority following completion of deliveries under previous contract arrangements which run until 1971. A minimum of 8,000 short tons of uranium oxide will be supplied up to the end of 1980, and at the option of the buyer that amount may be increased to 11,500 tons. The basic annual rate of delivery is 1,000 tons, but within prescribed limits the quantity may be varied from year to year.
Mr. Speaker, on June 3, 1965, I stated in the house the policy of the government with respect to exports of uranium. At that time, in recognition of Canada's major interest as a world supplier and the vital importance of the Canadian industry being in the best possible position to take advantage of expanding markets for the peaceful uses of uranium, I announced that the government would be prepared to authorize forward commitments by Canadian producers for fuel supply to reactors in operation, under construction, or committed for construction, for the anticipated life of such reactors. 1 also announced that the export of reasonable quantities of uranium for the accumulation of stocks in importing countries would be authorized for periods up to five years.
The arrangements which have been made by Rio Algom to supply uranium oxide to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for Britain's civil nuclear power program are consistent with these features of our policy.
DEBATES	8813
Uranium Contract with U.K.
An important feature of the Canadian government's policy in respect of foreign sales of uranium is the requirement that the government of the importing country accept appropriate verification and control to ensure that the uranium is to be used for peaceful purposes only.
The British and Canadian governments have agreed that uranium supplied under this contract will be used for peaceful purposes only, and that safeguards based upon the principles and procedures of the International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards system will apply to the use of this material. Discussions on detailed arrangements for the application of these safeguards will be held between Canada and the United Kingdom before commencement of deliveries scheduled to begin after 1971. Such arrangements will be in accord with our international obligations, including those which might arise under a non-proliferation treaty to which the two countries might adhere.
The arrangements that have been made for safeguards and the fact that the contract is in accord with announced government policy on the export of uranium have made it possible for the government to authorize this contract.
Mr. Speaker, the new contract which has been entered into by Rio Algom with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority augurs well for the future of the Canadian uranium industry. It is concrete evidence of the greatly increased world demand for uranium for peaceful purposes to which I referred in announcing government export policy in June, 1965.
Hon. members will appreciate my satisfaction in making this announcement which ensures continuity of operations at Elliot Lake until at least 1980. This city, which was born of such great promise, has endured much with resolution and fortitude. Its people will now be in a position to look ahead with greater confidence than has been possible for some years.
This contract between Rio Algom and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is, as I have said, an indication of the increasing world demand for uranium. Other countries are also demonstrating interest, and in the knowledge that uranium will make an increasingly important contribution to meeting world requirements for power for peaceful purposes, we can look forward to the revival of this important segment of our economy.
October 18. 1366

Uranium Contract with U.K.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is always a matter of gratification when any of our products are sold, and I am naturally pleased that this arrangement has been entered into. I think it is only a matter of coincidence that it does not apply to uranium from any other part of Canada than Elliot Lake, but I would point out that there are other parts of Canada which produce uranium and would have appreciated being included in any agreement that was made. One is in the province of Ontario and another is in northern Saskatchewan. The fact that the agreement is restricted to only one area is, I believe, purely coincidental.
I would also point out that it is significant that in the last few days there have been unexplained fluctuations in uranium securities on the market. Yesterday the hon. member for Northumberland asked what the reason was for those fluctuations, and it might be worth while to look into the reason why some people on the exchanges seem to have had information which caused rapid fluctuations in the prices of uranium securities in the last few days.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister is very happy at being able to announce the completion of negotiations for an agreement to sell these large quantities of uranium which has been signed by Rio Algom Mines Limited and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. I am sure the Prime Minister, both in his capacity as head of the government and also as the member for Al-goma East where Elliot Lake is located, is pleased at the outcome of the negotiations. I think all of us are delighted with any contract which will expand our exports, particularly exports of a commodity which has been having a rather difficult time in the last few years.
I do not object to the fact that Rio Algom Mines Limited is getting this particular contract because undoubtedly Elliot Lake has suffered more than any other mining community in recent times. But I do want to say to the government, having in mind the concluding remarks of the Prime Minister indicating that there will be an increasing demand for uranium and that there is likely to be an expanding market in the future, that I hope the government will keep these other areas in Canada in mind.
(Mr. Pearson.]
I am thinking in particular of the government's own crown corporation, Eldorado Mining and Refining Company which has had to curtail its operations very considerably. At the time when the government first began to curtail the production of uranium, the house will recall that many members of our party advocated that the government continue to produce uranium and in particular use its own crown corporation to the maximum to stockpile uranium because we were convinced there would be a growing demand for this resource. All indications throughout the world with reference to existing supplies and possibilities for future demand were that the uranium industry was bound to come back. This has proven to be the case. I hope that in this expanding situation the government will not forget its own crown corporation and will use this expansion to the benefit of the Canadian people. I hope the government will take advantage of the greater demand for uranium.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
We are glad also to have from the Prime Minister the assurance that the policy of ensuring that exports of uranium from Canada will be used for peaceful purposes only is being continued. The Prime Minister says that the British and Canadian governments have agreed on methods for ensuring this. I hope that at some future time, either on estimates or orders of the day, we will get some statement from the government as to what these steps are so we can be fully assured, not only with reference to this order but other orders, that exports of uranium will not be used for other than peaceful purposes. I want to congratulate the government upon completing this agreement. I hope, and I am sure, it will be of great assistance to the people who are employed in the uranium industry.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: We are
equally pleased, Mr. Speaker, with the announcement the Prime Minister has just made to this house and to the Canadian people concerning the export of uranium. It is one of our natural resources which has undergone many fluctuations in the past and this is particularly true of Elliot Lake in the Prime Minister's riding. I believe this will be welcome news for these people and they can thank the Prime Minister for having thought of them. They have undergone their share of hardships resulting from the closing down of the mines.
October 18, 1966

In the latter part of his announcement the Prime Minister referred to the fact we can look forward in the future to an increased demand for uranium on world markets. As producers of uranium we in Canada have to give consideration to the use to which this uranium will be put. As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has mentioned, if this uranium is going to be used for peaceful purposes we can look forward to other orders of this kind, not only for Rio Algom mine but for mines in other areas of Canada. Exports of this nature, of course, will have a favourable effect on our economy. We must emphasize the peaceful uses of uranium because we must remember that the same product can also be used for the destruction of the world.
It is the responsibility of the government before any contract is signed to make certain the uranium will be used for peaceful purposes and for advancement in fields of endeavour that will ensure a better living standard for nations of the world. Since I come from a mining district I can appreciate the hardship that results from the closing of a mine. I can appreciate what happens to those people who are left without jobs. 1 think the Prime Minister has had this in mind and we can be grateful to him for that. As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has said, there are going to be further contracts in the future because there will be an increased demand for this product in world markets. I think the Prime Minister would do well to keep in mind giving other districts an opportunity to share in these contracts to as great an extent as possible. The government should keep an eye on the movements of this product to ensure that they not only help the Canadian economy but help people all over the world.


Robert Norman Thompson: It would be redundant at this point, Mr. Speaker, to say more than that we express our satisfaction at the announcement which has been made concerning the export of uranium to Great Britain. I am sure the remarks the Prime Minister has made will be greeted with particular satisfaction by the people of Elliot Lake and the other constituents of Algoma East. I am certain they are grateful to their member of parliament for his role in making such an event possible. I believe that this announcement tonight points up the fact that we are immensely rich in natural resources. If we can just put our own economy in sound shape, and not only export such natural resources as uranium but also develop within
Uranium Contract with U.K.
Canada processes such as that requiring heavy water for the nuclear reactors that Canada is building all over the world, this will augur well for Canada. If we can make certain that our own economy is in a position to develop these resources and that our government has the ability to conclude these trade agreements, then these resources will benefit not only Canadians but people all over the world.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronfenac):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians will be very happy to learn of the Prime Minister's announcement tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
recognize the interest of the hon. member but the usual practice in the house is for statements to be made by representatives of the different parties.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the Prime Minister and all members would agree that the hon. member who has just risen has a very vital interest in this matter because of the fact that uranium mining is an industry in his riding. I hope the house will agree to allow him to say a few words on this matter.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am certain all Canadians will be happy to learn-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member again, but if the hon. member is to speak I hope it is by unanimous consent. I refer hon. members to standing order 15.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I am certain all Canadians will be very happy to learn of the announcement made by the Prime Minister tonight. However, in spite of the numerous promises made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry to the people and the many delegations from the Bancroft area who have visited Ottawa that they would be given every consideration-


Lester Bowles Pearson: And they were.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: -if any new contracts were signed, the fact is that the present government has closed the uranium mine in the Bancroft area resulting in economic problems for the people there. Mr. Speaker, I plead with the Prime Minister and the government to reconsider the allocation of these contracts and share them with the people of Bancroft and the area.

October 18, 1966
Medicare
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Public Works thought of permitting us to have 40 minutes for a supper break?


Michael Starr: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the current debate has been going on at considerable length and we do not seem to be making much progress. During a supper hour we could get a few more speeches on the record and this would enable us to get on with the debate. I think everyone is eagerly awaiting passage of this bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can assure the minister that we would make a great deal more progress by having a supper hour than by sitting right through.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: No.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-227, to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rynard.
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in participating in this debate I am inclined to disagree that we are not making any progress. This is a very important and vital matter to the people of this country and every member of this house may wish to express his opinion on this subject. I think that we have been making very good progress in dealing with this important matter.
I do not agree that we should rush this debate because, after all, the bill is not going anywhere. The government does not intend to pay the provinces anything for their medical services schemes until after July 1, 1968. If the government were to come forward and amend the bill to help those who are not now covered in provinces which have no medicare scheme and were to give those provinces

encouragement by contributing 50 per cent out of federal funds to cover medical care for the needy and the poor, especially in the maritime provinces where the people cannot afford any coverage at all, there would be a great deal of urgency to this whole matter and we should put the bill through so that these people might receive coverage now. But the government is not prepared to do this.
The government says that we should put the bill through because they have to prepare to put it into effect possibly after July 1, 1968. What is the rush? Is it merely a question of passing this bill which will authorize the federal government to pay 50 per cent of the cost to any province which puts into effect a medicare scheme so that the Liberals can wave it around the country and enable the government to say that they were responsible for this?
What is to be done for the people who are not covered now? Will they have to suffer and carry the heavy cost of medical services in this country until 1968 simply because this government is torn asunder by a political battle in the cabinet and in the caucus? Who are the victims of the battle that has been raging within their midst? The victims are the people of this country.
I charge, Mr. Speaker, that the government has been playing politics with this very important matter. It has postponed the effective date of this legislation until July 1, 1968, for no purpose except a political one to pacify those in the cabinet and in the caucus who feel that the financial participation of the federal government will cause inflation. This step has been taken to combat the present inflation. Even if this bill does pass in its present form permitting the government to participate financially in this medicare scheme, the bill will not go into effect until July 1, 1968.
I suggest that the government should consider the position of the provinces which are not able to finance a medicare scheme for their own people. These provinces should be given an incentive now, not on July 1, 1967 or July 1, 1968, but now, to look after their needy and poor who cannot look after themselves.
The Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that our objective is to have full medicare in operation on Canada's 100th birthday, July 1, 1967". This was the theme throughout the election campaign last November. The Prime Minister promised the people of this nation medicare by July 1, 1967
October 18. 19S6

and he said that a Liberal government would bring this about. He said that this was one of the reasons the Liberals had to have a majority. But they did not get one. This is not the reason that the government is not bringing medicare in now. No one is stopping them from doing so. The Liberal government is deliberately putting medicare off for two years, they are doing that and nobody else.
It has been pointed out that this is not a bill which brings in medicare but a bill which puts off medicare for two years. It is a delaying, a postponing bill. Let us suppose that the opposition brought in the kind of amendment which this muddled government proposes to bring in. What would happen? We would have been accused across this country of putting off medicare by the same people who are now doing exactly the same thing.
Because this Liberal government is going through the motions-I repeat, going through the motions-of placing before this house a meaningless bill with the label "Medicare" printed on it, we are told that the government is bringing in medicare. What the government is doing is condemning Canadians for two more years to go on bearing the heavy cost of medical bills which the Minister of Finance has said are such a burden. He said this with a great deal of emotion at a Liberal convention in order to pacify those who want medicare to be brought in now and in order to heal the wound that has been created both in the cabinet and in the caucus.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that medical costs are a terrible burden to the ordinary family. The Minister of Finance weeps crocodile tears at a Liberal convention and agrees. The Liberals decided that everything was lovely in the best of all possible Liberal worlds, that God was in his heaven while the Liberals were in office, and they knuckled down tamely while the main plank in their social welfare platform was taken out and ruthlessly scrapped by their smiling Minister of Finance.
The Liberals promised medicare by 1967. They trooped right across this country telling Canadians they would get it. The Prime Minister of this country pledged his word. The situation now is that Canadians want medicare, that Canadians are entitled to have medicare, that Canadians should have medicare and should have it now, not in 1968.
I do not know what some of the hon. gentlemen opposite think of this, but I recall 23033-557J
Medicare
that many of them travelled about the country during the last election campaign promising medicare by July 1, 1967. It is interesting to note that on October 5, 1965, the present Prime Minister said that with provincial cooperation the Liberals hoped and expected that medicare would be a fact on Canada's 100th birthday, July 1, 1967. Well, Mr. Speaker, happy birthday to you too. What has happened to all those hopes and expectations the Canadian people held? In one word -"Sharp's" the word.
The Liberals now come before parliament in a terrible rush saying that this bill must go through. They also say that they made a mistake, that the Liberal party cannot bring in medicare by July 1, 1967. They want to be relieved of their promise but still want to get the credit. How foolish and ridiculous can a government be? This is all a mess of their own creation. The important thing now is that they are trying to use the parliament of this nation as a rubber stamp to absolve them from their sins of omission. We on this side of the house will not buy this. Canadians will not buy this because Canadians from coast to coast know what the Prime Minister promised and they cannot be snowed by this government.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member but I do not see a quorum. I think it is incumbent on the government to maintain a quorum in view of the position that was taken.


An hon. Member:: The quorum is there.


Eric Alfred Winkler: The duty is clear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce rises on a point of order and points out that there is not a quorum present. It is my duty therefore under the standing orders to ask the Clerk to count the house.


Mr. Pennell:: I should point out that when the hon. member for Ontario was addressing the house there was a quorum present.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
recognize the argument that the hon. minister is making but I point out that the attention of the Speaker has been called to the fact that there is no quorum present. That does not give rise to debate or comment. May I ask the Clerk to count the house?


Lawrence T. Pennell: There are 20, sir.

October 18, 1965
Medicare


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Standing order No. 3 states:
3. (1) The presence of at least twenty members of the house, including Mr. Speaker, shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the house for the exercise of its powers.
I declare the house to be properly constituted. The hon. member for Ontario.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, it is terrible that the government, which is bringing in this important bill, this bill that must be passed without too much debate, that must be put on the statute books now to bring it into effect on July 1, 1968, does not show enough interest to maintain more than a bare quorum of its members in this house.
I say to the government that it should bring in medicare if that is what it wants to call it. In fact the bill is not a bill on medicare. It is a bill to provide payments to provinces which want to institute medicare. The bill will not be universal unless every province has a scheme of its own. I say to the government, do what you said you would do. Put this measure into effect by July 1, 1967 and parliament will back it. But we will not back this government on another dodging, squirming, unprincipled retreat, because we want medicare now. All Canadians want medicare now. They are entitled to have it and this government must keep its promise.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I would be derelict in my duty to the constituents of the riding of Broadview, if I did not express their bitter disappointment and my own at the intended postponement of medicare by the government from July 1, 1967 to July 1, 1968. For the Liberal party to campaign during the election that they and they alone would implement medicare forthwith and then to procrastinate, delay and postpone after the election has made many Canadians disgusted with their performance and has completely erased faith in the promises of the Liberal party.
The Canadian people are now fully aware of the dragging delays of the Liberal party, begun in August, 1919 by Mackenzie King and still continuing today, 47 years later, with promises still unfulfilled with regard to complete medical insurance. This indicates the patience of the Canadian people and the apathy and callous disregard of the Liberal party of their promises to the electorate.

In debating the resolution on medicare the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated as found on page 7549 of Hansard:
Members of the committee may be interested in knowing that some 6 million Canadians still lack any medical insurance coverage, and 3 million more have only limited coverage. Probably not more than 10 million Canadians at the present time have what could be called adequate comprehensive coverage. Those without adequate coverage include primarily residents of rural areas and people with moderate or low incomes, unable to acquire low-cost group insurance. I might mention that these figures do not include those who will benefit from the health provisions set out in the Canada Assistance Plan.
The minister is saying that 6 million people do not have coverage and that another 3 million probably have restricted or inadequate coverage. He indicated the response of the provinces to the intended medicare scheme. I quote again from page 7549 of Hansard:
The response from the provinces has, I must say, been most encouraging. Some provinces have already indicated their readiness to proceed by our target date of July 1, 1967. Others have not been in a position to commit themselves, although some of these pointed out that they would be able to change existing plans to meet the principles described above. I should like to state that no province has stated that it will definitely not participate although, as hon. members are undoubtedly aware, the premier of Alberta has expressed criticism of the proposal.
These statements indicate the need for medicare, and the response was set forth by the minister during that debate when the leader of my party, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), asked the minister when the government intended to proceed with the legislation. The minister replied:
-I am not in a position to indicate what the situation will be or at what stage we will terminate, but I should like to have second reading of this bill today if possible or before the summer adjournment. That is not a commitment on the part of the government; it is what I should like to see.
One can appreciate the thinking and the feeling of the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to the need for medical care insurance and the responsibilities of the different provinces. Also, when asked by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) whether the bill would be referred to the committee on health and welfare he repeatedly stated that he felt it was not necessary to refer the bill because the bill merely embodied the principles regarding the requisites for the provinces to be entitled to payment.
October 18, 196S

All this took place on July 12. We in the New Democratic party told the minister we would be prepared to give the bill second reading before the summer recess. It was not done, however, and the next announcement of government intention came not from the Minister of National Health and Welfare but from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) in early September at the end of the emergency session on the railway strike. What does this mean? It means that the Minister of National Health and Welfare carries little or no weight in the cabinet and that some of the other cabinet ministers can blandly disregard his well-meaning intentions.
* (6:40 p.m.)
It would be interesting to speculate what the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) would have done in these circumstances. Would he have resigned or would he do what the minister is now doing-sit in the house hearing members underline the shameless course of events and the spinelessness of the minister?
The least the government could do would be to make the Minister of Finance tell us in detail why he thinks this measure of social welfare is inflationary and back up his statement with figures, not speculative fantasies. The Minister of National Health and Welfare set forth the estimated cost of medical care insurance when he spoke during the debate on the resolution. He said, as reported at page 7549 of Hansard:
It has been estimated that approximately $600 million would be spent next year on physicians' services if no change were made in the present methods of providing these services.
I would ask hon. members, therefore, to compare the estimates on which we are basing public expenditures for public programs covering the whole population if these go into effect next year, namely, a total of $680 million including the provincial share of half the costs. Thus, by redistributing the estimated $680 million and adding another $80 million, all residents of all provinces of Canada will have physicians' services available to them.
This indicates that all we are talking about here is the sum of $80 million and I ask: Is this inflationary? If the estimated cost is $680 million and the Canadian public spends, by and large, $600 million, all we are talking about now is the difference between $600 million and $680 million. There are many ways of taking care of this small amount. One is by means of government savings in all . departments. Doubtless the savings brought about as a result of the integration policies of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Medicare
Hellyer) would in themselves amount to double the $80 million required.
Opponents of medicare have made many statements about the additional services medicare would necessitate. It would be as well to remind ourselves again of the experience of Saskatchewan where full medical insurance has been in effect since 1962. In an article which appeared in one of our periodicals under the heading, "Saskatchewan Medicare Costs Now Actually Going Down", we read the following:
Opponents of medicare who prophesied that the cost of a comprehensive plan, like the one set up by the former C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan, would steadily mount, are being confounded by the facts. The costs of the medicare plan in Saskatchewan are now actually going down.
The Liberal government of the province, upon taking office, raised the premiums without waiting to find out from experience if it was necessary, but they found no reason for any further increase and have announced that the premium rate for 1967 will be the same as for 1966.
When the C.C.F. government first set up the plan the rates for combined hospital and medical insurance were $72 for families and $36 for single people. After the plan was well launched the C.C.F. reduced the premiums to $52 for families and $26 for single people. When the Liberals took office in 1964 they almost immediately raised the rates again to their original level. Now they are making money on the plan and may have to face a public outcry for a return to the lower level set by the C.C.F.
The strongest indication that the plan was being successful in every way came at the time of a meeting of the general council of the Canadian Medical Association in Edmonton this summer. At that time Dr. E. W. Barootes of Regina, who had been the most vigorous leader of the opposition to medicare, told his colleagues that some of his profession's fears about medicare had proved unfounded.
Dr. Barootes made a courageous admission when he said, "Some of the qualms we have had have been disproved and some of us should revise our thinking."
The idea that total medical care results in constantly mounting costs has been shattered," he said. The fact is, he said that the total cost of Saskatchewan medicare dropped last year by $500 000 from $23 million to $221, million.
He said in an interview later he could not explain why medicare costs have not shot up as he and other doctors had predicted. He said it may be because Saskatchewan residents have been saturated with medical service-that they now have been treated for all the ailments that, before medicare, went untreated.
When one compares the rates of medicare insurance in Saskatchewan with those in effect in Ontario some startling figures confront us. In Ontario, for hospitalization a single person pays $39 a year and a married person with children pays $78 a year. Under

October 18, 1966
Medicare
the medical service plan commonly known as OMSIP, a single person pays $60, a married person $120 and a married person with children $150. If we add up the cost of hospitalization and medical insurance for a single person in Ontario we find it amounts to a total of $117. A married person with no children pays $198 and a married person with children pays a total of $228.
If we compare this with the rates in Saskatchewan, $72 for a married couple and $36 for a single person, we can well appreciate why so many people in Ontario are anxious to have this federal medical care insurance plan implemented immediately. It would mean that the people of Ontario would find their premiums cut by 50 per cent at least, with consequent relief from some of the financial pressure caused by the high cost of living.
We in the New Democratic Party were hoping that the legislation would be open-ended so that the provinces would have an opportunity to include among their services dental care, optometric care, chiropractic care and any other necessary services which would advance the health and well-being of the people. We feel that the government should make such changes in this legislation as are necessary to provide for the inclusion of these services as they become available in the provinces.
Many Liberal speakers, especially those on the back benches, have underlined their faith in the principle of medicare during the course of this debate and have expressed their regret that the government does not intend to make the legislation effective on July 1, 1967. They have full right to do so. But their speeches are indicative of the disregard which members of the cabinet, particularly the Minister of Finance, have for their views.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Some backbenchers have indicated in their speeches that we in the New Democratic Party are filibustering and holding up an increase in pensions to senior citizens. This is not so, Mr. Speaker. According to the government the medicare legislation will not come into effect until July 1, 1968, so time is not of the essence, even according to the government itself. With respect to blocking any pension increase for our senior citizens, legislation to provide for that could have been introduced at the commencement of the session when the opposition parties moved an amendment and subamendment to increase

old age pensions to $100 a month at age 65. But this the government rejected. At no time have opposition members raised any blocks with regard to legislation that could be introduced to take care of our senior citizens. Therefore the fault lies not with the opposition but fully with the government.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare would be helping many Canadians, more especially those Canadians who are not covered and those who have restricted and inadequate coverage, if he were to make the effective date July 1, 1967. He would also establish his position as a Liberal leadership candidate by showing members of the house his determination to lead in something that he has believed in, something he has fought hard for, and something he has now been pushed back on. We in the N.D.P. will give full support to the bill on the basis of the legislation being implemented on July 1, 1967.


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskaioon):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended originally to become en-snarled in this debate but some of the remarks I have heard from my left and from the government side of the house require that I should try to straighten out the thinking of those hon. members to a slight degree, if this is possible.
I must say, in view of the statement made by the house leader about the urgency of this debate, that I as a new parliamentarian found it rather strange that he and most of his colleagues immediately left the house, leaving only one member of the cabinet in the chamber. Apparently the urgency does not extend as much to the government as it does to the other side of the house.
Since I come from Saskatchewan-I believe I am the first from that province to speak in this debate-my views will naturally be coloured to a certain extent. We do have comprehensive prepaid medicare as you, Mr. Speaker, have heard from some hon. members. All is not sweetness and light as they, of course, would have you believe, but it is a plan that is working, a plan which no one in our province would ever change except to improve it. It is a plan with which the majority of the doctors are now quite satisfied, and most certainly the patients are satisfied.
My hon. friends in the N.D.P. are so fond of taking credit for implementing this scheme, but I would point out to them that it took 23 days of withdrawal of service and numerous arguments, negotiations and so on
October 18, 19G6

before a plan was arrived at that was acceptable to both sides, something that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas)-I am sorry he is not present-is fond of forgetting. However, I was happy today to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) point out that it is he, and not some of the others in his party, who is the real pioneer. But I found it rather strange that when he was a pioneer he was a Liberal. Nevertheless, to him I extend my congratulations and best wishes on being the true pioneer in this house, having supported medicare since 1919 and in the election campaign of 1921. Incidentally, I am one of those who were not around when he was supporting it.
With respect to the decision to delay the introduction of medicare, I support the remarks of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr). I think it is wrong for the government to delay this plan. As you can understand, Mr. Speaker, my remarks are perhaps coloured a bit by my experience in Saskatchewan, but all this delay is going to mean to my province is that we are not going to get $14 million, $14 million we need and need now, to take care of some of the deficiencies of the plan brought in by the government of Saskatchewan, deficiencies because of the fact that the provincial government of that day, as with the federal government of this day, did not listen to reason, did not listen to some of the problems placed before it by the medical profession.
I am not speaking, as has been suggested about the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), for the Canadian Medical Association. This is a red herring that is always thrown by socialists into any debate involving medicare. As a matter of fact, I am a little surprised that they are not claiming the American Medical Association is in on this as well, because they certainly did that in 1962 and previously.
The government claims that the delay is due to inflation. I am not going into all the reasons that have already been given as to why the delay has nothing to do with inflation, but I can say just one thing, that the simplest method to control inflation, as most economists would agree, is to increase taxes. That is a simple economic fact of life, and to bring this plan into being the government will have to increase taxes. I am sorry the sharp Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is not present so that I can point this out to him.
There are other reasons, Mr. Speaker, and some of them have to do with points in our
Medicare
amendment such as the shortage of doctors. But before I deal with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe East I would like to point out what we would have done and what we will do when we get the money from the federal government as its payment for medicare. I and other hon. members outlined some of the deficiencies back in July when the resolution stage of this bill was being debated, and I would like to mention a few briefly.
Under the present plan in Saskatchewan, which I am sorry to say does not provide the quality of care that we would like, we do not have sufficient doctors. Some hon. members from Ontario say that this is a specious thing to talk about. As recorded at page 8641 of Hansard for October 13, the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe) referred to "the old cliche that there is insufficient personnel to handle medicare at the present time." He went on to say, "I am fed up with this old cliche."
I would point out that Ontario has a ratio of one doctor to every 756 people. Saskatchewan, with a medicare plan, has a ratio of one doctor to 1,100 people, and in the mari-times the ratio is about one to 1,900 or more. It is all very well for this hon. gentleman, who practices medicine in the province of Ontario where they have a much better doctor-patient ratio, to say it is an old cliche, but in Saskatchewan it is a fact and in many other areas of Canada it is a serious fact. In Russia, for example, the ratio is one to 550. The hon. member says it is an old cliche. Really. Far from being a cliche it is a very serious problem indeed.
There are deficiencies in the Saskatchewan plan. There are deficiencies in proper care for the chronically ill, in home care programs, and in nursing homes with proper rehabilitation facilities. We need proper clinics for the mentally ill. We need all these things but we do not have the money to provide them. We need equipment for our hospitals. And in case there are those who have not heard that medicare, unless it is properly brought in, results in deterioration, let me cite a few specific examples.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
Because of the lack not only of personnel but also the lack of facilities in our University Hospital in Saskatoon this year, accreditation by the specialty boards has been removed in all except one or two specialties that were training specialists at this hospital. It has been removed because they feel there

October 18, 1966
Medicare
is not sufficient personnel. We do not have the money to obtain the personnel nor do we have the money to keep them there-and I will go into that a little later. We do not have the facilities. There is a serious deterioration in the quality of care. The government wants us to train more doctors, but as a result of lack of funds and a lack of proper planning we are in no position to train them.
I have heard hon. members say that we need more general practitioners. Yes, we do; we set up this medical school in Saskatchewan for this purpose; but as a result of lack of facilities and many other things in that province, what do we have? We have a situation where, while formerly 46 per cent of our graduates remained in our province, now the figure is well below 25 per cent. It has been going down in the last few years. What has this government proposed? I am sorry to see that neither the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) nor his parliamentary secretary are here. I think these are the two persons who should be learning what is happening.


Lawrence T. Pennell: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I have a watching brief for the minister and I am following very carefully the interesting remarks of the hon. member.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I am glad to hear this, and I am sure that the minister's discussions with the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be of benefit to that minister. I am optimistic. What about research. We do not have sufficient research facilities in Saskatchewan. I heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare make statements about the health resources fund and these other funds which will provide money for research. I have somewhere placed on the record-and I could read it into the record again if it is so desired-the discrepancies between what this government proposes and what has been proposed by the Wood Gundy report, the Canadian Association of Medical Colleges and the Canadian Association of Clinical Investigators. It has been pointed out that we need much more than has been provided so far. Because in Saskatchewan-and this is true also all across Canada-we have this lack of research and we cannot get the clinical teachers we need. I am going to go into that in a little more detail in a moment.
May I make a proposal which I hope will be carried to the minister. I am sure, according to some of his remarks, that he would have no objection to this. I should like to see

made available now this $14 million which our province needs. We need it to round out our medical plan. I should like to see a medical research fund set up in our province. I should like to see $7 million or $5 million of the $14 million put into this fund to provide a ready source of immediate funds for research, so that we could attract doctors back into our province, those who have gone to the United States. Seven million dollars is a lot of money, but it is what we need. I may point out that only 12 million is to be paid out by the medical research council for the whole of Canada; but I would like to see $7 million brought into Saskatchewan so that we will have an opportunity to attract proper teachers to our medical school. This would enable them to obtain the kind of assistance which is needed in research. Just as it is needed in every other part of Canada, we need it now, and not in 1968.
While I am on the subject of 1968, I wonder just what the date really will be when the government will bring this in. There has been enough said on this subject. They have promised this and promised that. What guarantee do we have that this promise will be kept, any better than the others we have heard before. I think we need it now. I see that the minister now is in his seat and has with him his legal advisor. Perhaps he will agree that he has said that so long as the provinces comply with the four criteria he has laid down we can take the money for medical care and use it as we see fit, and that none can be taken back. We do comply with this in Saskatchewan. I take it that the minister now has the impression I am in favour of the principle of prepaid medical care.
As soon as this bill is in effect Saskatchewan will be in a most fortunate position, because we have the $7 million to put in the research fund and the other $7 million we hope to use to fill in the other gaps in respect of the supply of equipment for hospitals, to take care of the operating costs and the costs of research at the University Hospital and other hospitals, and also to take care of premiums for those who still, despite the widespread nature of the plan, have a great deal of difficulty in paying the premium in Saskatchewan.
This is all right for Saskatchewan. We are going to be in a very fortunate position. There is a proviso, of course-as to whether the present premier will see the light; and he has not yet done much about research or
October 18, 1966

anything else. Since it is all right for Saskatchewan, what about the other provinces in Canada? Since taxes will be collected from all parts of the country, is it not reasonable to assume, if the funds are used for research, for the training of doctors, for the bringing back of teacher-scientists for training of ancillary personnel-and you could go on-that the government should allow the provinces this money to take care of the plans they do have?
I think it is iniquitous that there should be an idea that the government will take the money from them, and then say: "Either you do exactly as we say or we will not give you any money at all." I think this is wrong. I should like to take a look now at our amendment, to show why I support this amendment. In this I am sure I will be agreeing to a large degree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr). The amendment, as set out at page 8618 of Hansard of October 13 reads as follows:
This house, while of the opinion that provision should be made for medical services to be available to all Canadians at an adequate level on a prepaid basis, is nevertheless of the further opinion that no legislation for the provision of insured medical care services in Canada will be satisfactory unless it:
(a)	secures co-operation of the governments of the provinces of Canada;
I merely echo the words of my colleague for Ontario when I say that surely this is basic to any plan, any plan that will work in this country. Without this co-operation how is the government going to get portability. It must have the co-operation of the provinces and these provinces should have the opportunity now to discuss this with the minister and with the government in the long, long time before this will be made law by the present government. Then turning to paragraph (b):
(b)	recognizes the principle of voluntary choice by the individual:
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
I think that is also basic. The minister has said, and I can quote him if he likes, that there is no problem in respect of choice. When I questioned him on July 12 in the house I asked him how we could have a voluntary choice for the physicians when their services are insured. After all, the government is insuring people against the cost of medical care, as its bill suggests

and I will discuss this in greater detail at the committee stage-but then it goes on to suggest that physicians' services will be insured. Any 23033-558
Medicare
physician who takes out somebody's appendix or tonsils, or in the case of some members of this house, a larynx-and that might be very beneficial to mankind-he is performing an insured service? In spite of this the govern-outside of this act. How could he do so when everything he does in his profession is an insured service? In spite of this the government calls this an insurance program, and I cannot understand that.
What are they insuring? Are they insuring people against the cost of medical care, as members of the N.D.P. have said, or are they insuring the doctors' services so that each and every doctor will come under the direct control of the provincial government of the province in which he carries on his profession, and the control of the federal government as well?
The minister said that every doctor will be free to practise outside this plan if he so desires. Let me point out that in the province of Saskatchewan doctors can practise outside that provincial medical plan because doctors' services are not insured. In Saskatchewan the people are insured against the cost of medical services. This is a point which I will discuss in greater detail at the committee stage.
A great deal has been said about the fact that we should recognize the principle of voluntary choice by an individual. We should recognize that principle in those provinces which feel that this is the kind of plan they want. In spite of my objections I will, like the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), support this bill because I believe in its principle.
Paragraph (c) of the amendment states that no medical care service will be satisfactory unless it

-makes adequate prior provision for sufficient medical research, the training of adequate numbers of doctors and other medical personnel.
Let me read into the record two paragraphs from the summary which appears at the beginning of the Woods Gundy report, which is entitled "Medical Research in Canada; An Analysis of Immediate and Future Needs". The first paragraph begins:
Medical research is essential to the provision of high standards of medical education, health services and health care. This fact must be recognized in any programs aimed at broadening health services and raising health care standards in Canada. If these are to become objectives of public policy, provision must be made for expansion of medical education in Canada and this, in turn, necessitates a greatly expanded scale of medical research effort.

October 18. 1966
Medicare
The Hoyal Commission on Health Services recognized the need to expand Canada's output of physicians to overcome a prospective deficiency between physician supply and requirements. The task of expanding Canadian medical education facilities is made even more urgent by the likely introduction in the near future of a comprehensive medicare program.
This is a pessimistic report, but when it says that a comprehensive medicare program is likely to be introduced in the near future, surely it is optimistic.
The report then continues:
It takes eight to ten years to plan, build and recruit staff for a new medical school and to graduate its first class, and a further eight to ten years for such graduates to become trained teacher-scientists that will staff new schools.
The minister is well aware of this fact because he pointed out when he spoke to a dental convention in Halifax in June that it would take 20 years to provide enough dentists to increase the dentist population by 5 per cent or 10 per cent. He now proposes to double the doctor population in a year.
At page 2 of this same report the following is stated:
Medical research is inseparable from medical education at the level of under-graduate, postgraduate and continuing education. Teacher-scientists provide the research-oriented education that is appropriate to medicine and science in universities today. It is essential that Canadian universities be staffed with leading teacher-scientists if they are to train effectively new generations of physicians and scientists in their rapidly changing fields.
I will skip a line or two and read the next paragraph as follows:
Medical research is therefore a key consideration for the expansion of medical education and for the development of future health services in Canada. Immediate provision of expanded programs of medical research is required if future physician requirements are to be met and if standards of health care are to be safeguarded and improved.
Let me point out that this is a basic difficulty which faced the national health services in Great Britain. I am sure the minister has seen the editorial which appeared in the Gazette on Wednesday, October 12 of this year, which reads in part as follows:
In Great Britain, the 20-year-old national health scheme has helped to promote real difficulties in personnel. Only last month the health minister, Kenneth Robinson, admitted the shortage was becoming acute. The British Medical Journal said recently 550 doctors left Britain last year. In mid-September a record 600 British doctors took examinations in London to qualify for practice in the United States.
I will not read the whole editorial as I am sure the minister has seen it, but I think it

would be appropriate in view of the situation at hand to read the last paragraph, which is as follows:
It may be hoped that between now and July 1, 1968 there will be more discussion about the real issues which medicare raises, and less about the secondary ones: more about substance, and less about style.
The heading of that editorial is "Not Just When But How". I have heard a great deal of talk during this debate about when this scheme is to be instituted, but very little about how it is to be instituted. We in this party have said a good deal about how it should be instituted, in fact so much so that I felt perhaps we should refer our suggestions to the minister on indian affairs.
Let me read one line from page 3 of the Woods Gundy report as follows:
Although financial support has been increasing, medical research in Canada today is being conducted on an inadequate scale.
The report then quotes from the Royal Commission on Health Services, which has been quoted often during this debate. The debate is beginning to sound like an evangelical meeting at which everyone is fighting with everyone else to ascribe different meanings to the Scripture they are quoting.
Let me point out that this is an excellent report from a commission that was established when the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister. This is a report to which we subscribe; but we read it in full, and I will have a few more words to say about that before I conclude.
The report then states:
A substantial increase in capital and operating support for medical research in Canada is needed at once.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
I do not think there is any question about this. I can quote extensively from this very excellent report which, incidentally, was not paid for out of government funds but was a result of the co-operation between the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges and university teachers. It is very commendable indeed that they brought in this most excellent report.
In the summary on page 45 of this report they say:
Deficiencies exist, however, at all levels and in all categories of support-
Here they are referring to support for research. They go on to say:
And it is apparent that these deficiencies stem more from a shortage of funds than from a lack of scientific merit in the applications.
October 18, 1966

In other words they point out that a lot of these various difficulties in research have been caused by a lack of funds. I can give hon. members the statistics, but they are very long so I will not bore the house with them. The report goes on to say:
This lack ox fuller support for medical research in Canada has a serious effect on the individuals conducting, or considering engaging in, medical research. If a major expansion in their numbers is to be brought about, the degree of support must be greatly increased above present levels.
The minister will undoubtedly say that the answer to those problems is to be found in the health resources fund bill, which, however, does not deal with the operating costs necessary for research. The Royal Commission on Health Services points this out on page 113, volume 2, where it is said that the operating cost was found to be 28.2 per cent of the entire operation. The minister will agree that this is a very substantial amount. We know that the projections of researcher requirements are much higher than allowed for by the government, and that is why our amendment reads-
(c)	makes adequate prior provision for sufficient medical research,
I could read all of this subclause into the record, but I already did this when speaking previously on this bill.
A few minutes ago I said I thought it would be useful if we in Saskatchewan could use the money for setting up our own medical research fund. The Gundy report suggests at page 65 that the federal government is not alone in its concern. It uses the expression "for scientific development, and within that broad field for medical research." And it continues "As has been observed, provincial governments are also interested in setting up their own funds for this purpose." And I suggested a method in which this can be done. I could go on at length but I do not think this will make the point any clearer.
I now wish to deal with the fourth part of our amendment, which reads as follows:
(d)	Immediately provides for those persons who are unable, for financial reasons, to provide medical services for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I think this requirement also is a basic one. I have heard a lot of pious statements from the left side of the house regarding how tough it is going to be for the people who are not able to afford medical care. I agree with that statement. But then hon. members from that party go on to say they will not support an amendment which provides for this category of people. I cannot 23033-5582
Medicare
understand this attitude, in view of this statement by hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on October 13 as reported at page 8620 of Hansard:
This is a sad day, because the action of the government in proposing the postponement of medicare for a year is a discrimination against the needs of the people in this country, particularly their medical needs, and I refer particularly to those people who cannot afford the medical care they require.
We on this side of the house agree with this statement, and that is why I wish to ask hon. members of the New Democratic Party whether they do not also agree that this is a necessity which should be provided now.
On page 8620 of Hansard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said:
We want this bill to go through and we are prepared to vote for it, but when we vote for it we will be voting for it in its present form.
Of course he is referring to the fact that his party does not wish this legislation to be deferred. However the hon. member is not prepared to vote for our amendment because he thinks we are trying to stymie medicare. This is not so, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Hymmen) quoted a passage from the Hall report which I now wish to read, and which was also referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). It appears on page 8680 of Hansard and is as follows:
While we are aware that shortages of physicians, dentists, nurses and other paramedical personnel will make it difficult to establish the full personal health services program our charter envisages, none the less the fact that there are shortages must not be used as an excuse to delay initiating pror grams and plans.
We agree with this absolutely. The hon. member went on to say that we are using this to try to kill the bill, and to try to delay everything. The contrary is true. We think there should be no excuse for delaying the initiation of programs and plans. We want the scheme started now. These two hon. members forgot to quote the rest of the passage, which I happen to have in front of me. I will quote from the Hall report, part of which appears on page 7585 of Hansard of July 12. I do not like quoting myself, but since this passage is the handiest one at the moment I will do so now.
I am quoting from the Royal Commission on Health Services, page 1, volume 2, where it says:
We consider quality as the most essential element in health services, and every aspect of the programs must be constantly directed to that end.

October 18, 1966
Medicare
A few lines further on they say:
Quality depends primarily on the supply, availability, knowledge, skill, and dedication of professionally qualified personnel, second on the facilities at their disposal and third on the organization of the services.
Those are your priorities: first, supply; second, facilities; third, organizations, and in that order. Those who use the Hall Commission report as their bible should pay some attention to the report and should not quote it out of context. When we say we are in favour of starting programs and plans now, we mean it; we mean now-not in 1968 or on whatever other date the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will decide. Of course we do not know it because who can read his mind.
I must confess that I consider the speech made by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein) to have been one of the most fatuous speeches to which I have ever listened. I am amazed at some of the statements he made. For instance he mentioned that we should cut down the standards of medical care and let more people in so we can have more doctors. Does the hon. member mean to tell me this could possibly be the government's policy, that what we want is just quantity, not quality? I could not believe my ears when I heard this in the house yesterday. He made some further comments which are quite beyond belief. 1 do not think they are even worthy of comment. I sincerely hope, for the sake of the hon. member's profession, that the same does not happen to his particular profession of law.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I do not believe that this bill need be delayed. I think this is a smokescreen to cover some of the difficulties that have occurred in the cabinet. It is a smokescreen to cover up the fact that we do not have enough doctors to properly implement such a plan, and we do not have the co-operation of the provinces. Just imagine: We are unable to bring in a medical care plan now to cover those who are in need, and this during a time of prosperity. If we cannot bring it in now, I ask you Mr. Speaker, when we will be able to do so. Will it be in 1968, 1969, 1970 or 1975? This complete disregard of those who need help now is something to which we on this side of the house will never subscribe.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
There are those who say we are trying to kill this bill by the introduction of an amendment. I ask them to go back to the railway legislation and the amendment introduced on

August 30, 1966. This amendment can be found at page 7804 of Hansard, and reads in part as follows:
This house declines to proceed with the second reading of a bill-
Surely that amendment and the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) would have had the effect of killing the bill. Evidently they believe it is all right to do this in connection with the railways, but not medicare. As a result of those amendments we got a bill that was at least acceptable to the railway workers, so why can we not get a bill which will be acceptable to the people of Canada and to those who have to provide the service?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I
regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Barry Mather: It is
not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to repeat at any length the criticisms my colleagues have so ably made of the government's failure to proceed with medicare. I do not think there is any need to reiterate the fact that the government has actually reneged on a rather basic undertaking to the Canadian public. Nor is there any need for members on this side of the house to emphasize the fact that many members, particularly the backbenchers on the other side, are embarrassed by the situation in which they find themselves. There is no need to say again and again, as has been pointed out by many members, that government spokesmen have not really given any realistic explanation of why after all the promises, the government is not going to proceed at this time, with medicare. Certainly, there is very little need to underline the fact that the failure of the government to go ahead, as they had undertaken to do, is leaving a great many Canadians in need of medical care, without that care.
I noticed in the newspapers today, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Medical Association, a body not usually given to enthusiastic support of the principle of medicare, has said that the government by its failure to go ahead with this undertaking to introduce a comprehensive universal medical plan, is leaving some five million people who really need medical help right now without that help. I have no doubt that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and some of his colleagues in the cabinet have already brought these or similar
October 18, 1966

facts to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and his colleagues. I think a good many members on the other side of the house, well meaning people, who really want to see medicare brought in, just as we do-and as the Conservatives do, if I can accept their word for it-are feeling rather embarrassed and rather miserable tonight as a result of the situation in which the government finds itself.
I have no wish at all to add to that embarrassment. I want to say that, do what we will in the New Democratic Party, which I think it is fair to say is the only party in the house at this time which stands clearly for the introduction of a comprehensive universal health insurance plan by the government on the proposed date, we are not going to be successful in stopping the retreat of the government from this undertaking. The government is going to be successful one way or the other in shelving for a year or a year and a half, perhaps more, the implementation of a system that is so much needed in this country and which it is so obviously appropriate to introduce right away.
I have heard arguments about the need for medicare or health insurance by people who do not say exactly "no" to it but who certainly say "whoa" or "slow", and I believe these arguments sound very much like the arguments I have read and which were expressed nearly one hundred years ago concerning universal, comprehensive education. The same sort of criticism was expressed about that plan. There is no question but that there is a need for health insurance in Canada. There is no question that we can supply it. Nor is there any question that if we do so, collectively, we can save money and get better results for all those concerned.
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that having made very little criticism of the government for its failure to act, I have a proposal to make to it at this time. I suggest that they give consideration to this proposal, namely that on the date originally scheduled by the government for the introduction of this comprehensive universal medical plan in Canada, we make a decision in the house to introduce a federal-provincial medicare program to cover at least all those citizens who are 60 years of age and over. I have three reasons for making this proposal. In the first place, such a plan would at once reduce the cost of living, and in some cases the cost of dying, to a great number of people in Canada. A great number of these people are those who are least able to afford the cost.
Medicare
Second, if the government should make a start next year upon medicare for all those citizens over 60 years of age, this would improve our national health. If a comprehensive medical plan were put into operation it would permit the cure and prevention of disease, thus easing the health problems of a great number of our citizens in the age group I have mentioned.
Third, Mr. Speaker, it seems obvious that if we are going to make a start, even at the postponed date in 1968 which the government has suggested, it would probably be a practical thing for us to introduce a plan of health insurance across Canada for the age groups of 60 and over, so that we would have a practical test run of health insurance in this country. So, Mr. Speaker, without more criticism of the government or anybody else in the house, I leave the idea that if we cannot proceed with the national medicare plan on the date originally planned, at least we should give consideration to implementing that plan for all those citizens 60 years and over, beginning in our centennial year.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand), in whose speech I took particular interest. I was very much impressed by his convincing argument and sound logic put forward with full professional medical knowledge. I also congratulate all other members who have taken part in this dabate.
I am a layman with no qualifications to speak in medical terms and with a limited knowledge of many of the references that have been made, so I am going to put forward by argument to the best of my ability from the standpoint of a layman-citizen-taxpayer of this great country of ours.
I followed with interest this debate on medicare, which concerns a subject vitally important to all of us, affecting as it does every citizen of Canada both today and in generations to come. One theme running through the whole debate to which I believe all in this chamber would subscribe is the need for a medical health plan. As we approach our centennial year, for the good of the country and in the interest of unity among the people we should have a functioning medical plan by 1967. But the government says no; it balks.
At this point I should like to refer to an editorial which appears in this evening's issue of the Ottawa Journal entitled "A strange promise on medicare". I should like to attach

October 18, 1988
Medicare
a little footnote of my own and entitle this editorial "The psychics and their indecision". Because the government through their action are qualifying themselves to become psychics, to be seers into the future.
The article begins:
The curious noise heard across the land last week end was that of Liberals purring in satisfaction that they had been so courageous and wise as to postpone medicare for a year, from July 1, 1967 to July 1. 1968.
We must put the country's welfare first, said Mr. Pearson proudly, and so said they all, all proudly.
Is not the medical health of the nation the most important welfare consideration in the country? The article continues:
The Journal believes it was wise to postpone medicare. But what are we to make now of the Liberals' all-out pledge to bring in medicare July 1, 1968?
They seem to be saying this:
"We can't give you medicare now; with inflation and our general financial position as it is it might be fatal to the national interest. But we will give it to you without fail not later than July 1, 1968 . Presumably on that magic date-
-and this is why I call the members of the government psychics-
-no matter whether inflation is worse or trade has gone to pot-come hell or high water medicare will be given us July 1, 1968, the national interest be hanged.
This is pitiful policy, reckless promising.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but I will just quote the last paragraph of this very sound editorial.
It is annoying to the average Canadian to have his leaders speak to him as though he were a nincompoop. This unnecessary promise must also be annoying to the provinces which are by no means in agreement with the government's medicare scheme even now and who in a year and a half could be still less in agreement.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you would agree with me about the folly of passing a bill at this stage which will not come into effect until July of 1968. Many of my colleagues have risen to support the amendment that has been so ably presented by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). We have heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) boasting of the brevity of his bill-only nine clauses, he said. As a medicare measure dealing with the health of 20 million people inhabiting an area of 3| million square miles, the bill certainly does not qualify in that regard.
Bill No. C-227 is simply a financial measure. It refers to such terms as "the insured person", "contributions", "the calculation of 
contributions", "advances" and "payments". The reason that the bill clings to this narrow language is that medicare is not a federal responsibility. In other words, the federal government cannot compose and put before this house a bill containing numerous clauses dealing with medicare because the entire responsibility for medicare lies with the provinces. All legislation regarding the health and welfare of the people comes within the power of the provinces. Yet this government-and this is typical of their legislation in the past as well-tries to impose Bill No. C-227 upon all the provinces of Canada. I say that this will not work.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has my political sympathy in that again he has been frustrated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and by the upper echelons of the cabinet. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has spoken. Medically speaking, he has assumed the role of the great witchdoctor of the Liberal party and of the cabinet. He has even put on the record implausible excuses for postponing that for which the people of Canada were hoping. He uses the unsound excuse that medicare will contribute to inflationary tendencies.
Why did the Liberals not say this when they were advocating medicare one year ago? If the Minister of Finance knew that medicare and inflation are directly related, he should have made allowances for this not only in the election promises of the Liberals last November but also in the legislative program that now ensues, or that the Liberals are contending ensues. The excuse of the Minister of Finance is simply poppycock. The people of Canada, provincially, collectively, geographically and individually are too intelligent to have this poked down their throats, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister, the members of the cabinet and the government have painted themselves into a corner. In their election promises the Liberals promised that priority would be given to medicare. Why, then, did they not give priority to medicare in their legislative program? This is nothing but a grand deception, Mr. Speaker, to delay the adoption of medicare on the ground that it is inflationary. The Liberal party cannot be depended upon any more, as far as the electors are concerned. That statement was made by one of their respected delegates to their recent convention held in this city.
October 18, 1966

The Ottawa Journal for Thursday, October 13, quotes a delegate from Oshawa to the recent Liberal convention as saying this:
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
Voters treat our candidates with a considerable amount of scorn. We can't put up our candidate as a man of confidence, judgment and influence and be believed any more.
It is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that such a great party which has done so much for our great dominion, has now sunk to such an unreliable level because of its fooling around with the rights and wishes of the Canadian people.
The house has agreed that medicare is a provincial matter. Of course, the federal government has jurisdiction over the health of the peoples inhabiting the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. On the recent trip made to the Arctic by the committee on northern affairs and national resources, of which I have the honour to be a member, it was found in many areas that there was a lack of general health services for the Eskimos and the Indians. We found the medical services in the town of Frobisher Bay rather good, but the remainder of the eastern Arctic depends on the ship C. D. Howe which calls once a year to bring medical attention to the outposts. This ship, which costs $15,000 a day to operate, was stuck in the ice for 15 days in 1965. I remind the house that at that time it was unable to bring the vital medical services to the Eskimos of Baffin island and to those of the eastern Arctic. I found by asking questions at a meeting held with the Eskimos at Frobisher Bay that there is no doctor, and no medical service of any kind at Clyde River, which is an outpost of 300 people on the upper coast of Baffin island on the Canadian side of Davis strait. Medical services are needed immediately at Clyde River and at another point called Pond Inlet, which is a village of 250 people.
We found that medical services in the central Arctic were intermittent and not as effective as they should be. The public health nurse at Fort MacPherson on the Peele River in the Mackenzie delta has a transportation problem and badly needs a car for transportation services for the Indian patients. I would hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would take note of this and see that this problem at Fort MacPherson is solved.
I have said that this bill is strictly a financial measure. It is also a discriminatory
Medicare
measure in that it does not democratically define the term "medical practitioner". It is discriminatory against the optometrists of Canada. This is a shame, since so many people need and use the services of optometrists. I now quote from a letter received by all hon. members I presume, from the Canadian Association of Optometrists, 807 Metcalfe Building, here in Ottawa:
To put it bluntly, the medicare bill, which is Bill 227 and called the Medical Care Act, discriminates against optometrists, and their patients. It also discriminates against other health professions which regularly perform services which are also performed by physicians.
The letter quotes clause 2(d) of the bill and comments as follows:
The stickler is that all services, including those of ophthalmologists, will be covered. And who will decide which services are "medically required?" As it reads, 2(d) advocates discrimination against optometrists, and their patients.
Next the letter quotes clause 2(f), which reads:
"Medical practitioner" means a person lawfully entitled to practise medicine in the place in which such practice is carried on by him;
The comment of the Canadian Association of Optometrists is that they will be pushing strongly in Ottawa to have this definition amended so that it will read that for the purposes of the act a legally licensed optometrist will be regarded as a medical practitioner, as he should be regarded.
I quote again from their brief, where they confirm that-
-unless the bill is changed the following can be expected to happen:
The public will be deprived of its traditional and fundamental right to freedom of choice of health practitioner. Optometric patients (almost six million, or 65 per cent to 70 per cent of Canadians who seek vision care) will be influenced to quite naturally seek out the favored-by-legislation practitioner, i.e. the medical practitioner.
Optometrists would be placed in the suicidal position of having contributed to public funds which will be used to drive patients out of their offices.
What a chaotic situation this bill will create in that respected profession. To continue
the quotation:
It will have a serious impact upon the number of young people coming into optometry. There would be little incentive to study for five years to become a member of a profession legislated to fade from the scene.
It will provide a service which if restricted to medical practitioners will be unavailable to a great proportion of the public, particularly outside the metropolitan areas. The optometrist is the only vision care practitioner in 60 per cent of the communities where there are optometric practitioners.

October 18, 1986
Medicare
There are almost 1,500 optometrists in Canada and only around 300 certified ophthalmologists. The need for both practitioners seems obvious.
We recommend that the restrictive and discriminatory elements of the bill be removed and that the definition of ''medical practitioner," for the purposes of the bill, be changed to include optometrists.
I am sure the house will agree with me that the recommendations and request I have read are reasonable. Then according to clause 2, paragraph (f) of the bill, eye examinations cannot be conducted except by a medical eye practitioner or ophthalmologist. Such person is not the only person licensed to provide professional services to the general public, because the optometrists are licensed and do provide most of these services in most communities. By this bill optometrists are excluded and discriminated against.
Yes, the house can see that this is a financial bill. I remind the minister that this is public money he is spending and that the 1,500 optometrists of Canada are also taxpayers of considerable stature. They are being taxed by this bill as it now stands to help to pay for services to the general public, which services, they are precluded from providing.
Optometrists provide and perform services for the following departments and government bodies. I shall name some of them: the Department of Indian Affairs, the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Workmen's Compensation Board headquarters in Toronto; the boards of education across our country and county health units. But the optometrists are not recognized in this bill. They are provincially and federally licensed.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
I submit that this bill outlaws itself when it discriminates against any professional persons who are licensed to practice their professions and who are professionally and academically qualified to minister to the physical needs of our people. The same principle applies to the government's discriminatory attitude toward the chiropractors of Canada; they, too, should be included within the provisions made by this bill. There are many people in Canada who suffer from disabilities-spinal ailments, for example- which require the attention of chiropractors. Medical practitioners appear to be of little use to patients suffering from this kind of affliction.
In connection with medical care and the concern shown by this government for the health of some of the people of this country, I

should like to draw attention to some additional fields in which the government could be rendering valuable assistance to respected bodies who work unstintingly and voluntarily in the interests of the health of the Canadian public.
First, there is the Victorian Order of Nurses, an order well known and highly respected across our land. They need assistance and the government could do nothing better than to make grants of a size which would help this altruistic and charitable organization. Then there is the Canadian Cancer Society whose campaigns I have assisted in our county. This organization is in the forefront of the fight against cancer in Canada, and the government might well manifest a greater interest in its work and support the society extensively.
I have here a clipping from the Toronto Star of Monday, October 17 under the heading: "New cancer case every 56 seconds U.S. society's prediction for 1967". This information comes from a convention held in New York city at which an increase in the incidence of cancer was predicted. As I say, the government might well participate to a greater extent in the work of the Canadian Cancer Society.
Another organization which I wish to commend is Alcoholics Anonymous for its great work in rehabilitating the wrecks of men and women-wrecks created by the government sale of alcoholic beverages. All governments across our country will soon have to face the fact that we derive millions of dollars in revenues from the alcoholic beverage trade, while doing little or nothing to assist helpless victims of alcoholism. I say to the minister and to the government: You are trying in a very ineffective way to manifest your concern for the health of the Canadian people. I have outlined a few fields where we should be at work. Do not let your acute concern for this bill restrain you from wrestling with the problems I have just outlined.
I wish, now, to congratulate the government of the province of Ontario on the medicare measures now in effect in that province through OMSIP. I am sure all the provinces will put their own versions of medical programs and medical care into effect in accordance with local needs and conditions. I wish at this point to express my admiration for the Hall report, the work of a commission which was set up before I was elected to this chamber.
October 18, 1966

Medicare
I have read all I have had time to read from those two copious volumes which were, of course, sent to every hon. member. I appreciate the work which was done by the commission and the storehouse of knowledge which has been placed at our disposal. Indeed, as one member of this house, I would venture the opinion that we do not use it to the extent we should. The government is certainly not following the guidance offered by the commission in the bill now before us, but I hope that in the near future hon. gentlemen opposite will wake up to the value of the recommendations of the Hall report and be governed thereby.
I firmly support the amendment which was put forward so ably by my hon. friend from Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). We appreciate the professional knowledge which he brings to this house. I support the amendment because it voices the principle of co-operation with provincial governments. Moreover it recognizes the principle of voluntary choice by individuals. I do not think we have the right to legislate a private profession out of business or to make it unlawful for any person to employ the professional services of his family doctor and pay for them out of his own pocket, if he wishes.
Our amendment would also make adequate prior provision for sufficient medical research, the training of adequate numbers of doctors and medical personnel to cope with future demands.
I should like to quote a letter I have received from a member of the Department of Pathology at Queen's University. I think I am fortunate to have received this letter. I quote this learned doctor as follows:
I am concerned that Mr. Sharp included the reduction of expenditures to research in his statement about the projected baby budget. It is of course difficult for me to write to you in what would appear to be completely logical or objective terms since I have a very personal interest in research. Nonetheless, I should like to make the following comment, which I believe can be made without reference to my own personal interest in medical research.
In the past few years, almost every responsible member of government, and responsible advisory board, such as the Canadian Economic Council have emphasized that the one way to prevent inflation in our nation is to have a higher percentage of university graduates, highly skilled people and scientists, in order to increase our productivity through the application of the most advanced means known. In this context, it is also true that to train some people in a highly skilled fashion has the effect of influencing the productivity of our whole nation through a relatively small expenditure of money. It would seem, therefore, that one
of the anti-inflationary methods would be to increase money in education and research, rather than cut back these expenditures. It is, therefore, rather alarming to hear a statement from a responsible member of government, since the statement seems to indicate a lack of knowledge as to the effect this would have on the very abnormality he is concerned with treating. I trust his comments have been a mistake. In any case, if they were not a mistake I trust other forces within the government will do what can be done to re-assess this possible action.
I think we are very fortunate to have advice voluntarily conveyed in this way from such a learned professional person with regard to the legislation now before us. Has this government manifested any interest in medical research in the past? Does this bill manifest any government interest in medical research at the present time? The answer is obvious: It is, no.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
One of the election promises made last November was that 10,000 university scholarships would be created. Mr. Speaker, the government has welched on even that promise. Not long ago they announced they were not interested in that program. I did have the words in my text, Mr. Speaker, that they are no longer interested in the scholarship, but I will not make that accusation because I hope that at some time in the near future they will come to their senses and become interested again in these 10,000 scholarships. But at the present I reiterate that it is obvious that they have welched on them and are not now interested in them. You must agree, Mr. Speaker, that 10,000 government scholarships, if they were now in force throughout the universities across this country, could serve well the cause of medicare in all our provinces, could serve well the principle of scientific research along medical lines, something we lack so badly today.
Finally, our amendment would immediately provide for those persons who are unable, for financial reasons, to provide medical services for themselves. I have heard various figures and it has been estimated that there are up to one third of the Canadian people in that category.
I had an appeal yesterday, before I left home for Ottawa, from a man with a family. He is 48 years old, partially crippled but not totally disabled. He earns a meagre living under the greatest of physical difficulties as a hired agricultural labourer. He cannot afford medically to protect his family. In fact he deserves assistance commensurate with his physical handicap but so far he has been

October 18. 1966
Medicare
turned down. Does the government show any concern for this category of Canadian citizen in Bill C-227? The answer is no.
The government refuses to recognize any amendments. But I will make one prediction, Mr. Speaker. This bill will be amended, and in more than one instance, before it becomes operating legislation in July, 1968. It will not suit the provinces as it now stands. That is why I support the amendment as put forward so well by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), and now I urge all hon. members in this chamber also to support it.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, when implemented, the measure now before the house, will have a far-reaching effect upon all Canadians for many years to come. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) has moved second reading of Bill C-227 which authorizes the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans, and I think it only fitting that members of parliament in all parties give careful consideration to this legislation.
At the outset I wish to state it is my sincere belief that plans for comprehensive medical insurance are not only necessary but are also feasible, and that physicians' services should be available to all through co-operation within existing plans and the government, or through voluntary non-profit plans and the government. These plans should be acceptable to the doctors as well as to those receiving the services.
Since the government first talked about medicare-and that is going back to a long time ago-many people have expressed their concern over the cost of free medical care. In fact it is evident that this factor is of vital concern to this administration, for despite the announced pledge by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) last fall during the election campaign, that the Liberal party would have a full medicare scheme operating in Canada by July 1, 1967, that date has now been moved ahead to July 1, 1968, as a curb against inflation.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the press in recent months has decried the low esteem in which parliament is held at present. But, Mr. Speaker, how can it be otherwise when this country has a Prime Minister, supported by a cabinet, whose statements cannot be accepted by the public as truth? All too often this Liberal government has taken a stand, only

to retreat from that position, and this indecision and this lack of leadership have caused confusion throughout Canada, and a disregard for parliament which must be laid at the feet of the government.
At this time I think it advisable to examine the medical services we have, and what we hope to achieve by this legislation. Today in Canada almost all citizens in all ten provinces are covered by basic ward hospital care through a comprehensive plan of hospital insurance, substantially financed by the federal government but administered by the respective provincial governments. This program was initiated by a Liberal government and implemented by a Conservative government, and it has won wide-scale public approval.
The legislation as enacted goes beyond the provision of ward care coverage. Diagnostic services are included as insured benefits. The medical profession in Canada does not agree that laboratory and radiological services are hospital services, but has asserted that these services are medical services. Nonetheless, they are now insured services when in hospital, and private physicians believe it is grossly unfair for them to be required to compete with a free service when they provide this type of treatment in their own offices. I mention this because it is just one area in which problems have arisen.
As stated earlier in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, the government's main excuse for deferring medicare is its cost and the effect it will have on inflation in Canada. In view of this attitude I am concerned, and I think this house should be concerned, about the longterm implications, as they could affect this legislation. I ask, will rising costs in the future suggest to the administering agencies certain budgetary restrictions which will be reflected in reductions in the quantity and quality of the services available? Will the inability or unwillingness of governments to assign sufficient revenues for this purpose adversely affect the general implementation of scientific advances in medicine? We have already been made aware that these things are possible by this deferment to July 1, 1968, of a national medicare program.
It is with this background that Canadians must analyse and assess the future of physicians' services, and especially the future of medical services insurance. Most Canadians have now made the philosophical decision that health services should be provided by
October 18, 1966

the provinces, assisted by the federal government, and that the next step, medicare, is a problem only of timing and finance.
Hospital care and medical services are different in kind rather than degree. Hospital care is an impersonal, institutional service, but few relationships are more personal than that which exists between a doctor and a patient. Hospital care is controlled by the doctor, but medical services are initiated by the patient. Therefore to me the implementation of a medical services program that is compulsory for all, and controlled by government, is an entirely new concept which requires a quite different philosophical decision. Few of us can resist a bargain, and medicare, underwritten by government, is almost irresistible.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I am opposed to compulsion in any form in what is supposed to be a free democratic society. I believe we should recognize the principle of voluntary choice by the individual. After all, the cost of free medicare cannot be analysed except in terms of its success in attaining its legitimate objectives. Health insurance is one manifestation of a deep seated concern in each of us for protection against the hazards of medical costs. It is a part of our search for security, a phenomenon which is not confined to our generation. Health insurance began in Europe more than 200 years ago. With the advent of the industrial revolution, workers banded together to form craft guilds. These were the forerunners of the friendly societies which still exist in Europe today. An important feature of these guilds was their attempt to meet collectively the financial hazards of illness. At first participation was voluntary, but widespread compulsion was introduced in Germany in 1884.
Compulsion was first applied on a selective basis to wage earners below a stated income. However, subsequent developments saw political pressures being used to widen both the occupational groups and the income classes to be included in the scheme. Bismarck's reasons for introducing a compulsory form of health insurance were not humanitarian; they were political. One of his biographers stated:
To his mind, the state, by aiding the workers, should not only fulfil the duty ordered by religion, but it should obtain in particular a claim on their thankfulness, a gratitude that was to be shown by loyalty to the government and by loyal pro government votes in elections.
Medicare
His program was financed by premiums from participants with some employer and state contributions. His scheme only provided a minimum level of medical service because only a minimal service was available, but Bismarck's pattern was adopted by a number of countries during the early years of the 20th century. However, the social security schemes built on the Bismarck pattern were not geared financially to accept the change from preventive to curative medicine, with its consequent increases in expenditure.
Additional moneys could not be allocated for health insurance because of more pressing demands on limited funds. It was not politically possible to demand that employees and employers increase their contributions, so substantial reductions were made in the benefits provided and in the method and amount of payment to doctors. A few countries did learn something from the failure of the Bismarck plan. In 1945 France introduced a program which did not attempt to provide insurance against the full expense for medical services. Payment to the participant represented 80 per cent of the cost of the medical services, if obtained from a physician who by contract had agreed to charge not more than a scheduled amount. The participant, if he wished, could obtain services from a private nonparticipating physician and receive the same amount of reimbursement, but of course under these circumstances he was required to make a larger contribution from his own resources since the fees of private physicians were likely to be higher.
Norway and Sweden adopted arrangements similar to those of France, insuring all, or almost all, of their populations and providing an indemnity basis or a reimbursement basis. Both these countries amended the French system to suit their own specific purposes. Both schemes have worked out reasonably well. One other country has avoided a major degree of compulsion and has used a government subsidy of much smaller proportions. This is Switzerland. Switzerland has a large group of health insurance associations of varying size which, for the most part, provide health insurance on a voluntary basis. In addition to premiums of subscribers, these organizations receive a subsidy from the federal government of approximately 15 per cent of their total expenditures. Under Swiss law participants in these funds are obliged to meet directly a proportion of their own medical care expenses, usually about 15 per cent.

October 18, 1966
Medicare
I mention these facts to illustrate that in many other countries of the world the trend has moved away from a relationship of direct control between the government dominated plan and the doctor, and now is based on a refund system which returns to the participants a major proportion of the expenses incurred, but which requires a personal contribution from the insured when he obtains a service. In Australia and Switzerland the trend to compulsion has been reversed. The activities of government are limited to the provision of a subsidy.
One measure of the cost of free medicare is the total of the expenditures made, weighed against the benefits obtained. We must also remember that a change to a government service does not automatically increase the supply of physicians, which is Canada's most pressing need at the present time. I believe a much more practical method to relieve the medical needs of those of low income would be through a process of selective subsidization of medical services insurance premiums. This would greatly reduce the financial commitment of government and as a result would allow the government to concentrate financial assistance in depth to those areas of real need.
Too often the introduction of a government system, backed by relatively limited finances, has resulted in the provision of an unsatisfactory system for all, without substantially alleviating the area of real need. For example, why has the government of Great Britain now found itself in a position where it cannot provide the service it promised at the outset of the national health service? There is one basic reason. Under the national health service the government promised to provide and pay for health services rather than assist in their payment. Thus the government is placed in a position of providing and paying for a service without being able to control the demands for services. This does not apply to any other service underwritten by government. Governments decide what grants shall be made to education and what buildings should be built. In each instance the government controls the amount of expenditure and can defer projects to next year if financial resources are not available. This is not true in the case of health insurance. The basic decision in respect of whether or not he should see a doctor is made by the participant, and his visit can set off a chain of 
events reflected in expenditure by the government on medical, hospital, and other services.
If the demands and the expenditures are too high, there can be no deferment of payment until the next fiscal year. The only action the government can take is to restrict its services and when this happens the government negates its reasons for introducing this program. For these reasons I believe the government should confine its activities at present to providing assistance in areas of real need to the low income groups and the aged. Eventually a voluntary participating program could be implemented along the lines I have mentioned. As stated, I am opposed to the compulsory aspect of this bill. I believe the medical profession must be allowed freedom of thought and action so that as free-thinkers they will continue to make progress in their chosen field.
These are not my views alone. Since this bill was introduced I have received numerous letters from doctors in my constituency, and I am aware that this also has occurred in respect of other members. I should like to quote from one doctor who wrote to me as follows:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In accepting such schemes as Maritime Medical Care, Physicians Services Inc., we have accepted the basic philosophy of medical insurance, but only as pure insurance.
Now then as to whether these insurance schemes should be run by ourselves or by the government. The government would have the advantage of being more comprehensive, probably taking in a larger sector of the public than our schemes could afford to cover. I feel we must have the freedom to develop our philosophy of, and skills in, medicine as free men only can do. This means, of course, that we must resist being put in the position when any bureaucrat, medical layman can say to us, in regard to the practice of medicine, you must do thus and so. We just have to resist developing this slavish mentality that acceptance of such dominance will entail. We just cannot permit considerations of party politics to come between our duty and our patients. If 'government' is the sole paying agent, remembering that he who pays the piper calls the tune, consideration of party politics will inevitably intervene. The future of medical care of our patients will be subject to that all too prevalent political coercion, political expediency, political patronage.
It is my sincere belief that the consumers of our medical care would suffer just as if, by analogy, the press were nationalized. It is not difficult to see how the consumers' interest would suffer also.
I believe this quotations sums up the views of many medical men in Canada. The medical profession must find and train the doctors who will provide the increased volume of services
October 18, 1966

required by our people. Governments must assist the low income groups to obtain insurance, and must subsidize the older age groups whose expenditures are double the average and whose costs continue to rise with advancing years. We must set up a system which is flexible and which can adjust to the challenges of tomorrow. It is for these reasons I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), for it will provide immediately for the people in need in my province, a thought which I would commend for the consideration of the minister from Nova Scotia.
Thank you.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to participate in this debate. At the outset I should like to object strongly to those on the other side of this house and those of the fourth estate who suggest that because a member participates in this debate he is protracting the debate, obstructing the passage of this bill or filibustering.
As a result of this legislation we will write into our statute books a piece of social legislation which will remain with Canadians perhaps for all time. I have very little patience with those who criticize us because we participate in this important debate. I wish only that members opposite, such as the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner), would take part in the debate, as members on this side have done.
Having singled out the hon. member for Peterborough, and before he rises on a question of privilege, let me say that I agree with him. I know what he and the young Turks who met at Peterborough think. There are people in this party who think I perhaps could be a young Turk. Where in the world are all the young Turks tonight who are worried about this important piece of legislation? Surely we in this house should be concerned with this measure and should present our views. I hope the hon. member for Peterborough will rise in his place and state his opinion. I hope that other hon. members opposite will participate as actively as members in this party, and in the party to my left.
I come from a province which has Dal-housie as the fountainhead of medicine in the maritimes. I do not apologize for participating in the debate on this bill dealing with medical services. Let me point out that only last week a graduate of the same class to which the previous member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings belonged won a Nobel peace
Medicare
prize in the field of medicine. I wish I could speak with the knowledge as well as with the conviction and sincerity which would be obvious if that man had the privilege of speaking on medical matters in this house. I refer of course to Dr. Charles Huggins of Chicago who graduated from Acadia in 1920.
I am sure that eastern Canadians as well as other Canadians have a very real interest in this bill. We support the principle of medical services, without qualification,' for all Canadians. The hon. member for Peterborough I am sure wants to say something. In view of what he has said in private at certain week end seances I will sit down and give him the opportunity of speaking.


Mr. Faulkner:: Mr. Speaker, I rise-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Let me remind the hon. member that when a member rises to speak he must be in his own place.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to relinquish my opportunity to speak, but simply to allow the hon. member for Peterborough to state his question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the hon. member is now back in his seat.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on what I hope will be accepted as a question of privilege. I should like to take exception to the remarks of the hon. member to the effect that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It appears that the hon. member intends to argue with his hon. friend across the house. An argument is not a question of privilege.


James Hugh Faulkner: My question of privilege relates to the suggestion that I came into this house in order to-


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is already a question of privilege before the house. I will hear that question and then listen to the hon. member's point of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: On the
contrary, there is no question of privilege in what the hon. member has to say. He said he was not rising on a question of privilege. I heard it on this side of the house, and I am sure the Chair, heard it. Unless the hon. member states his question of privilege the Chair should put him back in his place, now that he knows where it is.

October 18, 1966'
Medicare


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the point I wish to assert is that I came into this house when I was advised that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings was going to speak, because I was sure he was going to make a useful contribution. I did not come here simply to josh and interfere, as he has alleged.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am often amazed at the divine powers that are sometimes possessed by hon. members on the opposite of the house. If the hon. member for Peterborough knew that I was going to take part in the debate tonight he must possess some occult powers, because I had intended to speak tomorrow. Let me say that I did not yield the floor, but simply sat down as a matter of courtesy to give the hon. member an opportunity of presenting his question of privilege, which he has done now in a somewhat agitated way.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I spoke with some conviction, perhaps because I do not always agree with the general attitude adopted by members on this side of the house. One thing that made me chuckle this week end was an article which appeared in a good old Tory Toronto newspaper, and before I refer to it let me ask how many members there are on this side of the house who are from good old Tory Toronto. This paper, in recounting events during a recent convention, suggested that those people were not playing politics, but that they were going for ideas. I have not seen any hon. members on this side of the house or on the opposite side going against the current, but I still think that it is necessary for some members to do so from time to time. That is why 1 was willing to give up my position to the hon. member for Peterborough, to allow him to hold forth his views in public-which some people suggest he may have already expressed in private-or at some meeting, some place, somewhere. However, since he does not want to speak now, he can follow me, because there have not been too many hon. members on the opposite side of the house participating in this debate today-in fact none have-and he can add to whatever I say, or answer anything I have said.


Eric Alfred Winkler: They haven't got the guts.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am glad to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare listening to me from behind the curtain, because I have a few things to say to him about Nova Scotia. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I believe that

all hon. members should participate in a debate of such consequence to the health of all Canadians concerning legislation which will affect the taxpayers of Canada forever after.
With all due regard to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) and any aspirations he may have, or statements he may have made in the past, I think this country will be here for a long time to come and I hope he thinks so also, despite certain things that have happened lately. Nevertheless I am of the unequivocal opinion that there is no member on any side of the house taking exception to the principle of this legislation. Be that as it may, we have to be realistic.
I think that the problems in the area from which the Minister of National Health and Welfare comes are especially serious. In this legislation he is not selling a Trojan horse from which soldiers come out under the cloak of darkness to bring havoc and problems on Troy; and yet the lack of doctors in this country and the lack of medical facilities make it necessary to implement this program. This is especially so in Nova Scotia, and in the east generally, where this problem should be dealt with regardless of whether it be in July of 1967 or July of 1968. The people there are anticipating legislation on medical services, and yet this legislation does not guarantee the provision of this service to the taxpayers of Canada and to those who cannot pay taxes. I am directing my attention to those people in particular in view of the amendment of the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard).
This legislation does not guarantee that service to the 20 million Canadians; all it guarantees is that the bills will be paid, and although I support this as much as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) supports it, let us not kid ourselves. Much time will elapse before this legislation is implemented, in spite of all this hocus-pocus across the way, this Liberal convention and this leadership convention and the Prime Minister's speech on heirs apparent and heirs-not-so-apparent, and senators apparent and not-so-apparent. I understand the Prime Minister has been anointed again, so we do not have to worry about any leadership problems. That side of the house should be worried about leadership because leadership provides vitality to the party and therefore I do not want to go into any further leadership problems.
October 18, 1966

I will suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that he comes from an area where the ratio of doctors to people is so high now that it even surpasses the figure given by the hon. member for Simcoe East, as applying to the whole country, of one doctor to over 2,000 patients.
I was disappointed that the minister did not speak a little longer. Usually he is concise and very logical but-and it is the first time that I can say this of any hon. member opposite-he was too brief on such an important piece of legislation. I do not know whether the reason for his brevity was his disappointment at not speaking at a certain time with some of the people around, or whether it was because of some problems within the hallowed sanctuary of the caucus or of the cabinet-because we never know what goes on in caucus or in cabinet, even though we read the papers, and we read Peter Newman. The fact of the matter is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare was abnormally brief, even though he had the grace to make a short speech.
Usually I make short speeches, but tonight I do not think I will be as brief on this very important topic as was the Minister of National Health and Welfare who, as a member of the house advised the Prime Minister both when he was in office and when he was out of office in the twilight years not too long ago. Those twilight years may return if this government continues to force this bill down people's throats without regard for the opinions of the people at the grass roots level in the area from which the Minister of National Health and Welfare comes, and continues to rely on the opinions of the professors and retired civil servants who dominate hon. members opposite.
I will now deal with the question of cooperative federalism about which we have heard so much in the past two or three years. I will refer to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and also to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), not because I think they will enter into the debate, like the hon. member for Peterborough did, but perhaps because they would not find too much fault with what I will say. I will ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare who, when in the ivory tower advised the present Prime Minister-and unfortunately too many hon. members on the opposite side are still in their ivory tower-how he could reconcile the compulsory nature of
Medicare
this legislation with what was done previously in the case of hospital insurance.
As I understand it, Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Mackenzie King had a formula. Part of the problem in politics today is that there is no demarcation line, and the old rules and traditions and precepts of politics have gone by the board. Mackenzie King, St. Laurent and now Mr. Pearson have all upheld the ideal of co-operative federalism, which is now being done away with. I believe that in the matter of hospital insurance, which is a related subject, the plan was only to be brought into effect if 50 per cent of the population of the provinces agreed to it.


An hon. Member:: You are wrong.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) can correct me, but I understand this was the basic guide line which applied to Quebec and Ontario, the two largest provinces of Canada. I think the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), who seems to have some problems with the lower part of the anatomy of this head-which is most abnormal because normally that part of his system works very well-should be concerned because Quebec and Ontario are the two biggest provinces of this union and yet this plan which involves matters under their jurisdiction is to be rammed down their throats.
I am in agreement with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) who, when speaking on the resolution, suggested that this government is setting a precedent in the way it is dealing with this legislation for setting guide lines on education. We all know education is a hallowed subject and we are not to discuss it now, but the principle in both cases is the same. If we do not rely on principles in politics, then the disenchantment with this government will continue in this country to the extent that in time hon. members on the left side of the house will be helped.
They would be misguided if they followed this precept. But as far as the principles of the two main parties are concerned, there is a real disenchantment on this side of the house, even though there have been many catcalls from the other side of the house. Even though I may disagree with some of the things which the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has said, a good many of the things he has said in the last few years have come about. The hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) made a speech last night regarding the principles involved in this

October 18, 1966
Medicare
legislation, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is time we got back to principles. This brings me back to co-operative federalism, which is a fine sounding principle and the Prime Minister supports it.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Precedents have been set when the majority of the provinces have agreed with the policies of the federal government regarding areas under their jurisdiction. Yet this time, when we are concerned with a field that cuts right into provincial jurisdiction, the 50 members from the province of Quebec, even in the light of the precedent on education, have hardly uttered a murmur. I have great respect for la belle province, since I worked there for three summers,-although my language would not seem to justify it. I find myself amazed at the compliance, the aquies-cence, the lack of intestinal fortitude, of these members from Quebec to stand up on a basic jurisdictional question.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) has now to take these plans back and have a conference with Mr. Johnson. This has not happened. I have some good friends over there, and I hope I will have even after tonight. However, I believe the people of Quebec can quite rightly condemn the members of that province for their failure to take a stand on this issue. The people of Quebec have quite rightly urged the people in the other nine provinces to have regard for the constitution. I do not go along with this myth that the B.N.A. Act cannot be changed. I am all for change. There could be a constitutional conference.
I am not saying this B.N.A. Act is a hallowed instrument. It has given certain basic rights, and it has provided the basic seed for change in Quebec. You can call it a quiet revolution or a loud revolution, but it is a revolution that is going to be good for Canada. Unfortunately, there are too many members from Quebec on that side of the house. I believe that Canada would be a better place if many uncommitted young people from Quebec would come on this side. There would be a better dialogue, a better discussion. In this case, we have a vacuum,-we have a vacuum in many areas. But this is a fundamental area, because a precedent will be set for any government to say to the ten provinces, "We have a certain pot for educational purposes; if you subscribe to certain rules you can have some of it, but if you do not, you do not get it".
[Mr. Nowlan.l
The political power flowing from this position is fantastic because, while so many of the provinces in Canada today agree with the principle of medicare, they do not have the fiscal ability to implement it. Well, the carrot is held out by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Trojan horse has been wheeled up beside the wall, but it is not going to seduce the people behind the wall. They are going to have to do something about that horse. Any provincial premier in any of the provinces of Canada has to react to that horse that has been placed there. I say that it is a gilded horse; I say it is a tainted horse. This horse has no more substance than the wooden horse of Troy-and I am not talking about the ends of the horse. As I say, this horse is made of wood and I think the intentions of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to implement a basic service in Canada are built of the same wood because we are not going to have the service. We cannot have the service. We are going to have our bills paid, and I am all for that. I want my bills paid, too. Most of us in this house are the fathers of children and we have some bills to pay. I am happy about the principle of the payment of bills.
I come back to this vacuum in the dialogue between members. I am not going to single out any member. I may have embarrassed one member by singling him out. I can see a member sitting in the backbenches who was very vocal in the press and on the radio and was a member of the thinkers conference. Since he is a new member, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we are in the same class. I feel he and I are colleagues at the bar, so to speak. I read his columns with interest. However, as I say, there is a passive acquiescence in connection with this fundamental problem. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) spoke to me once privately, and I echo what he said at that time. I do not know whether or not he has made a speech, but he said that those at the grass roots quite often are not concerned about fundamental, constitutional problems. This is understandable. They want their bills paid, and this is understandable, too.
I spoke at a meeting in Digby last night, and I know that area is quite concerned about an announcement that the base at Cornwallis is going to be closed. I believe this question may come to the floor of the house. I drove by the base at two o'clock this morning. It is understandable that such people are not too concerned with anything connected with constitutional problems. They want their
October 18, 1966

Medicare
bills paid, and I want mine paid. However, as members of parliament, and I include members opposite, we have a higher responsibility than to just sit back and say that we all want medicare; we all want our bills paid. We have to protect some of the basic, constitutional rights of the people. In spite of this, we have this passive acquiescence opposite on so many constitutional problems, and this has caused problems within that party. This will be taken as a precedent in the future in connection with a field that is as basic as education.
A future government is going to look at this medicare bill, and will take the lack of a constitutional stand as a guide line. There will not be too many members who will be able to stand up and say, "This is a very bad thing because it cuts into provincial jurisdiction, so we really should complain." The members of the government of that day will then be able to say; You sat silent on medicare which covers a fundamental provincial responsibility. This should be a provincial problem because the ability of the people of a province to handle this basic problem of human need varies from province to province. The Minister of National Health and Welfare knows this better than anyone else. My province cannot provide the services that Ontario can provide. Perhaps with federal guidance, federal co-operation and consultation, we can get a good plan that will work across the board. However, we cannot have it forced down our throats.
We did not have hospital insurance forced down our throats. Many members opposite were not in the house when that bill came forward. I know that right hon. Mr. St. Laurent was a political scientist, and many years ago there was a formula on these things. This is all being swept away. I spoke about health insurance, and that involved another government in another day. I come back to another field within the jurisdiction of health and welfare, and it represents a complete contradiction of this phrase "cooperative federalism". This Madison avenue ballyhoo has given that phrase a fine sound, but what does it mean? Does it refer to what happened at the health resources fund conference? The health ministers of the provinces were to discuss their needs with the federal government, but then the day the conference was to meet there was an announcement in the newspaper that the federal government had $500 million to be applied in a certain way. This announcement
was made before the health ministers from each province had discussed and defined their needs. Is this co-operative federalism? When the Prime Minister talked about this $500 million, Mr. Speaker, I noticed it was to be spread over 15 years and there were to be special regional payments for the maritime provinces.
I know that at one time in Nova Scotia we thought, perhaps somewhat selfishly, that we were going to get the benefit of the $20 million. We liked the sound of that. Once again, however, an announcement was made without consultation with the health ministers of the provinces, and we hear that in Newfoundland they are going to build a medical hospital and a medical education centre, and that in New Brunswick there is going to be a medical health centre to train doctors. We need those doctors, but we have an institution now in the maritimes which has been performing that service for the maritimes and the rest of Canada in a very admirable way. I do not believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare would object too much if I say that institution has provided doctors for this country and for the United States. We need more doctors, and we could utilize them in Nova Scotia. We could utilize this $20 million in Nova Scotia; but this is a selfish point of view, and the fund could have been apportioned after there had been consultation. But no, Mr. Speaker, co-operative federalism means the answers beforehand and the dictation afterwards. That was certainly the case with the statement that was made about health resources.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I do not imagine I have disturbed too much the very able and amiable Minister of National Health and Welfare, though as far as this legislation is concerned he is more amiable than able. He is a man who is logical, and who before he came to the house devoted his attentions to an institution which also had some logical people inside it. This is why I am a little disturbed that the minister is acting in such an illogical way on a matter affecting provincial jurisdiction, and in an area where provincial members speak out every day for the people who want their bills paid.
We have a responsibility to the future and must be guided by the past. If the minister has been guided in this legislation by the action which was taken on health resources, then he is ignoring the past. He is ignoring Mackenzie King and Louis St. Laurent, two

October 18, 1966
Medicare
previous Liberal prime ministers, as well as the former prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). So I am wondering where co-operative federalism leads.
I notice that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) made a statement, which was reported in Saturday's Montreal Star, when he addressed a dinner meeting of the Canadian Alliance. I am a little surprised that some hon. members did not ask the minister about this statement on Monday. I was out of the house on that day or I would have asked him whether this was another stated change in government policy. I do not know whether I should quote the minister directly or paraphrase. I heard some paraphrasing earlier in this session which sounded almost like a direct quote, and I do not know whether that is good or bad. However, according to the Montreal Star the minister, who also believes strongly in provincial jurisdiction, rights and priorities, said that Ottawa had systematically invaded fields of provincial jurisdiction since the war and that this would have to stop. Then the minister went on to say that the federal government must get out of fields of provincial jurisdiction. That is, I presume, other than education.
With the constitution and tradition which we have, there is no more fundamental field of provincial jurisdiction than the administration of health in the provinces. This is a subject which touches human needs and compassions, and with regard to which we need a program for all Canada in order to have close administration at the provincial level of the medical needs of the people who unfortunately become afflicted with disease, and who require assistance to pay their bills. This is a basic in education. Yet here is the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who choses to remain silent in this debate on a bill which is basic to provincial rights, last Saturday having the temerity and effrontery to insult the people of Quebec and the rest of the people in Canada. I know he is a fine man, but on this particular point, as a constitutional lawyer and as a responsible minister, he makes the statement that Ottawa should get out of provincial jurisdiction, and does not try to reconcile that statement in this house with the provisions of the bill.
The Minister of Finance, long before there was any conclave at any Chateau close to these hallowed halls, told a fiscal meeting of finance ministers on September 14 that he was going to bring forward a whole new

concept in order to help implement this cooperative federalism that we have all heard so much about. Among other things, the Minister of Finance suggested that we must recognize that the provinces have more and more wanted to assume full responsibility for initiating and operating their own programs, and that their ability to do so has grown demonstrably since the war. He said that this has been especially true of Quebec and that we must recognize the aspirations of the provinces.
You have probably heard that statement before, Mr. Speaker, which was uttered by the present Minister of Finance; whether he is heir apparent or heir not-so-apparent, I cannot say. He is a responsible minister and was pinpointing the real and valid interest the provinces have in their own fields, and how Ottawa should not cut into these fields, as is the case here.
I have talked about the constitutional problem and why I think members opposite should speak out on it, especially the great phalanx from the province of Quebec. I have no hesitation at all in voting for the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). This postponement has had several birth pangs. I think in the early stages of the debate the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) said something about midwives. That was in connection with immigration; but there have been many stages to this gestation period. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) said, we must not forget this long period of 47 years which it has taken hon. members opposite to bring forward medicare. There have been many stops and starts.
This is why once again I find it illogical for the minister of health not to pay heed to the part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East which suggest we institute this pilot project to which I have referred. If there is a doctor shortage, as we suggest there is, the problem will only be compounded by giving the provinces an across-the-board payment. Let us start with a pilot project. What is wrong with that? I think especially of those who cannot pay for medical care now, such as those on provincial assistance, old age assistance, those over 65.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government meet this cost, especially in view of the increasing cost of living. Why is this suggestion so revolutionary? The Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) made a speech yesterday in Vancouver, which was reported in
October 18. 1966

the press, in connection with certain guide lines which had been laid down by the government opposite and to which some Liberals take exception. Nevertheless we have the plain fact that members of the government opposite were called in to approve a wage contract which gave 85 cents an hour increase to the longshoremen in Montreal and to the seaway workers.
Yet the same government is not prepared to increase by 85 cents a day the old age pension. If you work it out, Mr. Speaker, 85 cents a day comes to $25 a month approximately, which when added to the existing pension would give our pensioners $100 a month. If there ever was a need to pay the old age pensioners $100 a month, in view of certain actions which have taken place in Montreal in connection with the wage contracts of the longshoremen and the seaway workers, it is now, in a time of spiralling cost of living.
I agree with the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) that the cost of living is not due solely to an increase in wages or to any one contingency; it is a combination of factors. But when you boost a wage structure by over one third in a two-year contract, there are bound to be spiralling costs. Yet the government is not prepared to give 85 cents a day to the old age pensioners, even though they have given 85 cents an hour to the longshoremen. They should make this concession to the old age pensioners because they need this money now to pay their doctor and hospital accounts.
Therefore I suggest that the government regard this action I have suggested as a pilot project, so that by the time July 1 comes along we will have learned something. If the plan is implemented on July 1, 1968 any of the kinks which exist in the plan will have been ironed out. I suggest that this is a logical approach and I am a little surprised that the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not subscribe to it.
Another factor in connection with this plan is this. The government will not take a piece, but want the whole shot. In other circumstances this might be acceptable, but it is not in this case, especially when they think the matter over and give it the proverbial six months hoist. In fact, they have given it a 21 months hoist. As far as I can see, this program does not give any consideration to the provinces for their cost of administration.
Medicare
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
We have heard much of Mr. Justice Hall's report in two volumes. He spoke of a comprehensive program, and we have used the term "comprehensive" pretty loosely in this chamber in the last few days. This plan will not give us the comprehensive program that the Hall Commission recommended. It is going to pay for physician services. It is not going to pay for dentists' care and psychiatric care and the many other cares and needs recommended by the Hall Commission. In fact, this plan does not follow the Hall Commission. The Hall Commission says: Lay the groundwork first and then come in with the plan. This plan does not do that, and it is not comprehensive. That brings us back to the Trojan horse which the minister has dragged before the Canadian people. This plan calls for treatment by a doctor when there is a doctor to treat anyone. The bill proposes paying for medical services to those who are lucky enough to have a doctor in their area.
I suggest that we should have a pilot project to iron out the kinks which we are bound to get. Let us have a plan which will pay for the cost of the administration. The Minister of National Health and Welfare will explain no doubt, in his closing statement, what has been done with respect to the escalation of costs. In every federally administered scheme costs escalate. We have seen what happened to the costs of social security in the United States, and how those have escalated. We see what has happened in England. Frankly, I think government schemes go up more quickly than private schemes. This is where I disagree with my friends to the left.
Let us have some provision so that the provinces may have a chance for a dialogue to probe those areas, and to provide some protection where costs might escalate. Let there be a dialogue so that you will not have a situation as described by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. McQuaid) and deplored by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) where you have one doctor for 2,400 people. What difference will a medical scheme make to those people? Their doctor is overwhelmed now. But in the areas where there are doctors, and where costs will increase, protection to the provinces ought to be given with respect to escalation of those costs.
I have spoken frankly in an area where all members should speak frankly. In his closing statement I hope the Minister of National

October 18, 1986
Medicare
Health and Welfare will state the position as it relates to costs of administration, and the escalation of those costs.
Canada is a land of compromises. Why cannot we compromise on this scheme. We have already had a compromise from hon. members opposite, which came as a result of other problems, and which was thrown around at another meeting not too long ago. Why cannot all Canadians in this country compromise, and have a compromise at a national level regardless of party politics? I suggest to the minister seriously that we should iron out some of the kinks of the scheme, but that we should at least go so far as providing this service to those who need it now but who cannot afford to pay for it. I refer especially to the old age pensioners. If you are not going to give them any old age assistance increase, at least let us have a pilot project to help them. With that we could also iron out the kinks of the plan. Before ramming a compulsory provision down the throats of the provinces, why not have a dialogue to discuss with the ministers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous agreement to carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members of the house for listening to my rhetoric. This is the first speech where I have gone the full length-whether in committee where you can speak for 20 minutes, or in the house where you can speak for 40 minutes. I have been so long because of the importance of the speech, and because I have tried in a limited way to express my conclusions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who I hope understood the spirit in which they were expressed. I do not want to trespass on what any other hon. member might wish to say, but I hope the minister shows to the Canadian people that he has the capacity for logic and that he can meet problems, and not just use many, many words.
I hope that the minister can bring the ten provinces together in a spirit of compromise, because we have had that spirit and we shall continue to have it if we are to continue growing. I suggest that the greatest pilot

project and the greatest birthday present for Canadians would be to have such a project implemented by July 1, 1967, for those who cannot pay for it and who need it. I think there should be discussions with the provinces about the ramifications of this scheme, so that we can have a plan that is not rammed down our throats, that does not trespass on provincial jurisdictions but that not only the members of the government but all members of the house can be proud of -because all members of the house are in favour of the principle.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Now you will get it.


Malcolm MacInnis: -may I inform the Liberal members across the way who have indicated that they do not want to hear anybody on this side of the house that I should be perfectly willing to relinquish the floor if anybody would guarantee to me that they would get up and tell the truth. If my hon. friend for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) could not think of a name to apply to the minister, the minister ought not to worry: I know another name.
On Thursday the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) when speaking on this bill mentioned two reasons why the medicare program is delayed. He said, first of all, that the provinces representing 85 per cent of the population of this country have refused to go along with it, and that the remaining 15 per cent of the people would be unable to make it work successfully.
The second reason is, as the Hall Commission report made very clear, that we do not have enough doctors, dentists, nurses and medical technicians to enable this program to operate successfully. The hon. member for Northumberland should have mentioned a third reason, a reason which throughout my province and throughout the maritimes is gaining publicity. The minister is basking in the glory of that publicity.
I do not think he has allowed this type of publicity to circulate throughout the maritimes, but an impression has been left with many people-and as I say, it has not been created by the minister-that the medicare program was blocked by the Minister of Finance in order to stymie the bid of the Minister of National Health and Welfare for
Ociober 18, 1966

the leadership of the Liberal party. This is ridiculous I think, and I do not subscribe to it; but I have not heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare take occasion to deny this story, for the simple reason that he must be getting much favourable publicity from it. I say this because as recently as Saturday of last week, in the Halifax Herald there appeared this blazing headline: "Mac Wins Medicare...".


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes?


Malcolm MacInnis: "Mac" I presume is the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When he comes before the house on another occasion I hope that he will be able to win another battle of equal importance to the welfare of the Cape Breton miners. I hope he will make sure that another very important promise will not be broken. I do not think I need interpret that any more clearly for the minister to be able to understand what I am talking about. This article in the Halifax Herald goes on to explain how "Mac" won the medicare battle:
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
When Health Minister Allan MacEachen finally brought the revised scheme for medicare before the Commons this week, the one seat on the front benches noticeably vacant was that of Finance Minister Sharp.
And I would remind him he is battling on that other promise with that same minister. The article goes on:
Mr. Sharp had good reason for his absence. He had gone to Montreal to fill a luncheon speaking engagement but many in the Liberal benches regarded it as a trip on which he would be licking the wounds of the first real defeat of his political career-even though his aides had been able to project the idea here in recent days that the latest revision in government plans for medicare was a major victory for him.
There is the odd person who can claim victory out of broken promises, but how anybody with a reasonable approach or a common sense approach can consider a broken promise to be a victory is beyond me. I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker: It could only happen on that side of the house among the Grits.
In the tense rounds of cabinet infighting over the postponement of medicare's implementation from July 1, 1967 to July 1, 1968 the chief adversaries were Sharp and MacEachen.
The former took the stand that it was necessary in order to cool the fires of inflation and prevent a stiff increase in taxation.
It is interesting to note that they come along at Liberal conventions where they pass
Medicare
resolutions referred to by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) as "only resolutions passed by political parties" and leave the impression across this country that if things improve medicare will be implemented no later than July 1, 1968.
Is this not a ridiculous situation-a situation nobody else but those on the Liberal benches could bring about? We have a Minister of Finance who says medicare has been postponed to kill the fires of inflation. Then we have a Liberal convention and Liberal ministers going before the people of Canada and saying: If things improve, we can have the scheme. What needs to be improved? The economy of the country, they say. Now the medicare program has been postponed because of the economic condition of the country-it has been done in order to slow down the fires of inflation as the Minister of Finance says-to slow down the boom. How are we going to improve on a boom? What improvements will take place to allow the Minister of Finance to permit medicare to come into operation not later than July 1, 1968? How in the name of heaven can any Liberal reconcile these two things, which are by their nature directly opposed-on one hand, "slow down the boom," and on the other, "if things improve we can put medicare into effect"?
The Minister of Finance took the stand that it was necessary to slow down the inflationary trend. However, the Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) could not accept this and he is reported to have made his views plainly and vigorously known. The report in the Chronicle-Herald goes on to say this was because-
-medicare would not come into operation until half way through 1967, and because only some of the provinces would be ready to participate, the federal cost in the first fiscal year would run to no more than $40 millions.
I would remind hon. members that the Minister of Finance, in a defiant and arrogant manner in this house the other day when questioned about the $7 million which will be spent on the B and B Commission said it was all right to spend such a large amount in that way, though he would say nothing in favour of medicare which would cost only $40 million in the first year.
Of course, the $40 million needed could easily be provided if this government would look closely at some of the programs it has initiated this year. There is the $7 million for the B and B Commission; there is the $10

October 18, 1366
Medicare
million provided for the arts-whatever they are-and there is to be a Canadian film association formed, or something. A few moments ago the minister found it necessary to go behind the curtain. This time it looks as though he has found it necessary to come over to our side. Maybe while he is over here we can sell him the idea. Don't let him get away. The article continues:
But Mr. Sharp was able to sell a majority of cabinet on his case-and proceeded to announce the postponement to parliament early last month while Prime Minister Pearson was in London.
Still unconvinced by the Sharp argument, Mr. MacEachen advised the Prime Minister on his return from the United Kingdom that as Minister of Health and Welfare, he could not, with a clear conscience, introduce the necessary amendments as they were proposed in the Commons and speak in favour of them.
This left the Prime Minister in a difficult quandary.
So what's new?
Should he reverse the postponement of the decision and risk a resignation by Mr. Sharp, one that would follow that of former Finance Minister, Walter Gordon by less than a year.
Should he go ahead with the decision and risk the resignation of Mr. MacEachen, one of his closest associates in government?
Should he undertake another cabinet shuffle to give the health portfolio to another minister?
Whatever course he followed would cause himself and his government embarrassment and invite a new stage of ridicule from the opposition.
He found the possibility of solution in an offer by Mr. MacEachen to accept some form of compromise.
The Prime Minister asked the Health Minister and Manpower Minister Jean Marchand, who was supporting the MacEachen position throughout, to try to work out one with Mr. Sharp.
With Mr. MacEachen scheduled to fill a speaking engagement in Vancouver last Friday, Mr. Marchand took on the role of negotiator.
And while the minister was still on the west coast he was able to telephone to him the news that Mr. Sharp had agreed on changing the fixed postponement date of July 1, 1967 to July 1, 1968 or earlier if national economic conditions and government finances took a change for the better in the meantime.
Here again, I would remind hon. members ot the other statement which is a denial of the policy announcement of the Minister of Finance, and his request that medicare be postponed because, he says, we must slow down the boom. Then they say they will wait to introduce medicare until the economic situation has improved to such an extent that it can be implemented. The article goes on:
Mr. MacEachen readily agreed to this new measure of flexibility. And Mr. Marchand went happily off to Montreal to fulfil an appointment there.

But by the time he got back to Ottawa last Saturday, the Minister of Health was informed by the Prime Minister that Mr. Sharp was not ready to go along with any change.
The issue was back where it had started-and to make matters worse, 1,800 delegates were beginning to stream into Ottawa from across the land for the big Liberal party policy conference at which medicare was certain to be a contentious issue.
Here again I would refer to the resolutions passed by the Liberal convention and what they mean to the Liberal government-they are "only resolutions passed at a party convention." The article goes on:
The Prime Minister felt that in his convention opening speech he had to say something about medicare. Unable to get an agreement between Mr. Sharp on one hand, and Mr. MacEachen on the other, he proceeded to write into his speech that July 1, 1968 remained at that point, the commencement date but by adding that the government was keeping a flexible approach to it, inferring there could be a change.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Then with the convention's chief policy makers hot on his heels for a resolution which would be acceptable to the gathering, he called all three ministers, Sharp, Marchand, and MacEachen, to his Chateau Laurier suite to get the matter settled in a face to face environment.
While MacEachen and Sharp remained relatively cool, Manpower Minister Marchand is reported to have exploded in anger at the finance minister for, as he saw it, welching on the agreement reached the previous Friday.
May I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is supposed to have exploded at the Minister of Finance for welching on an agreement made the previous Friday. Why do not the Liberal backbenchers, led by this same minister of manpower, explode because there has been a broken promise? They are not only welching on themselves but they are welching on the Canadian people.
Reports seeped out into the conference halls below that Marchand had threatened to resign if July 1, 1968, was to remain as the firm date and that Mr. MacEachen might follow him.
Turning to his diplomatic best Mr. Pearson was able at the end of the controversy, covering a few hours, to get an agreement from all three ministers on the "not later than July 1, 1968."
The wording of the amendments to the bill was settled and everybody gave his blessings to the text of the statement Mr. MacEachen would make to the house in introducing second reading.
This was the statement which Mr. MacEachen delivered in the house:
"We are determined not to proceed later than July 1, 1968 .... In the meantime the government will keep the financial and economic climate under close scrutiny .... nothing would please the government more than to proceed with it before that date."
October 18, 1966

Medicare
The Prime Minister sat attentively in his seat and when Mr. MacEachen had finished, nodded his approval with a smile and left the chamber.
Mr. Marchand, who followed every word with equal attention was also happy. From the gallery above one could almost see the five other ministers present also heave sighs of relief that another cabinet crisis was apparently over.
But backbench M.P.'s who were in the know of what really happened, were wondering what Mitchell Sharp was thinking as he sat somewhere beyond the confines of the house.
If there was a victory for anyone, the odds were
on the side of Mr. MacEachen and Mr. Marchand___
not on the side of Mr. Sharp as the stories that were circulated around the Liberal conference had implied.
The implication here is that the majority of the people at the Liberal convention were on the side of the Minister of Finance and the inference that there has been a real battle going on between that minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare is probably quite factual. Now we have this medicare legislation before us, and the government has taken the position that it has to watch the economy. The Minister of Finance says it is being delayed to slow down the boom, and out of the other cheek tells us that when economic conditions are better they will introduce medicare not later than July 1 1968.
One wonders what goes on with this government when it wants to rush this legislation through, legislation that actually means nothing unless it is implemented. Just the other day a question was ruled out of order when a member asked about the 12 mile territorial limit. It was ruled out on the basis that it was asking for a policy statement. That was not the case. Legislation to establish a 12 mile limit was rushed through by the government two years ago, but has never been enforced.
At that time we had what was referred to as the Pearson gunboat philosophy, and we may have been able to exercise that gunboat philosophy if it were not for the fact that we have a Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) who has stripped our gunboats. But possibly we can now depend on the fact that just today President Johnson signed a bill to invoke a 12 mile limit in the United States. Who knows, the Minister of National Defence may now go to the United States for the necessary equipment to implement the gunboat philosophy.
This legislation has been rushed into the house, despite appeals from this side that at first there should be at least a pilot project.
In the past the Minister of National Health and Welfare said it would only cost $40 million to put medicare into effect for the latter part of 1967.
The latest word I heard from the Canadian Medical Association over T.V. last night was that they want medicare for people who cannot afford to pay doctors' fees. They also made it quite clear to the minister that if he puts the over-all plan into effect there is not sufficient medical personnel to implement it. I ask, why cannot the government agree to make medicare available now to those who need it, since the doctors say they cannot possibly service the whole program if it is put into effect immediately? They will not even be able to service it should the Liberals finally get around to keeping one promise, and we do have medicare implemented by 1968.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I say it is my hope that "Mac" will win another battle concerning the health and welfare of the miners in Cape Breton. Despite the interpretation of a few people that he has this time won a victory, when the minister gets on his feet to wind up this debate I hope he will explain for me, because I cannot understand it, how anybody can say people gained a victory out of a broken promise.
No matter how you look at it, Mr. Speaker, this government stands condemned regardless of how you examine their position and regardless of the arguments of the Minister of Finance. This still constitutes a broken promise, and the Minister of Finance has led the way in breaking it. What is most discouraging to me as a Nova Scotian is the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, a Nova Scotian himself who should be fully aware of the implications of this particular program, has given formal approval to breaking that promise.
To test the attitudes of the government all one needs to do is quote the words of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). On September 1 in this house he turned right to the Prime Minister and said, "The Prime Minister as usual will have to backtrack." Those were the words of the Minister of Transport spoken directly into the face of the Prime Minister. With the Prime Minister backtracking it has become a simple matter for the government to break promises from which it elicited considerable mileage during election campaigns, and I cannot see how broken promises mean a victory.

October 18, 1966
Medicare
This medicare bill is discriminatory. Clause 2(d) reads:
"insured services" means all services rendered by medical practitioners that are medically required
This means that the services of ophthalmologists will be covered but not the services of optometrists. In like manner oral surgeons and other dentists are not included, but if a physician performs the same services then those services will be covered. This I feel is quite discriminatory.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
It has been pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that somebody else is blasting the government. Second, this will also impose an undue hardship on those citizens of the country who dwell in rural areas and small centres. Ophthalmologists tend to locate in larger urban areas which have hospitals in which they may work. Optometrists on the other hand, not needing such facilities, tend to practice in smaller semi-rural areas. By not making the services of the optometrists available to people dwelling in such areas, these people will be forced to pay doubly, either to engage a local optometrist outside the coverage of Bill C-227 or by having to absorb the'cost of lost time from work, and the cost of having to travel to the large centre where the ophthalmologist is located. In addition he will have the loss of the inalienable right of Canadians to the choice of practitioner.
Another aspect to be considered is the fact that optometrists constitute the largest body of legally qualified practitioners in the vision care field. Already they are performing their services at all levels of government and are serving over five million Canadians, or 70 per cent of all Canadians seeking visual care. At the present time 1,500 optometrists are available, compared to 300 ophthalmologists. Thus, to cut off the public from the optometrists, as in Bill C-227 as it now stands, would be detrimental to public health and would produce chaos in this field.
The solution to the problem lies in the definition of the term "medical practitioner", as it appears in clause 2, subclause (f) of Bill C-227. This definition is as follows:
"medical practitioner" means a person lawfully entitled to practice medicine in the place in which such practice is carried on by him.
If this definition were broadened to include all duly qualified-legally and professionally -practioners, whose services are covered by Bill C-227, these problems I have mentioned would be solved. In other words,

where one profession performs a service that another profession legally is licensed and qualified to perform, and which is covered by the terms of the act, then the second profession also should be covered.
Again I have pointed out only one very discriminatory aspect of this particular bill. In the area from which the minister comes he should know the ratio of patients to doctor. He should know this also from the information provided to him by other speakers in this house. Today we do not have and cannot possibly have available in this country, in order to make medicare work effectively, the trained doctors, nurses and technicians required to carry on a successful program. This should be known to the minister, because in his own home town and own area it has been pointed out to him by qualified people- people in the medical profession-that there are areas where there are over 2,000 persons for each available doctor.
I should like to suggest to the minister that he give every consideration to the appeal made last evening on national television, I think by the president of the Medical Association of Canada, that medicare be implemented at once for those in need or those who cannot afford to pay. This is very acceptable to them and they are prepared to service this type of program. Bear in mind also that the medical profession, those who should have access to this information, have made it quite clear that they do not have the personnel to service the over-all program when it is implemented. The minister also is aware that we have had a certain form of medicare in our own area of industrial Cape Breton for a number of years now.
In order to substantiate my arguments, I suggest to the minister that it might not be a bad idea for him to go into the mining areas of Nova Scotia, where he will find out that those who are hard pressed for assistance cannot anywhere near keep up with the demands made upon them. He should be very much aware of the fact that not only throughout this country but in our own neighbourhood there is a great need for more trained personnel, in order to make the present facilities function as they should, let alone handle those which will be in effect once the medicare legislation is brought to fruition.
I should like to appeal to the minister that he give every consideration to those persons who cannot afford the needed services. I am quite sure he would get a lot of support from
October 18. 1966

Medicare
his own followers, although they are not very vocal in their support for any of their ministers at any time. They just sit back and never speak for or against. I think the attitude of the Liberal backbencher these days is "I am neither for nor against it". In fact it is the reverse; they themselves will speak privately outside this house concerning what this medicare program needs.


Mr. Pilon:: Do not coach him.


An hon. Member:: You will find he does not need coaching.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
Liberal whip seems to have something to add to the debate. I will be only too happy if he says yes. I have invited the Liberal whip and he has accepted the invitation. I will ask him to appeal to his minister to put the medicare program into effect for those who need it. Let us now hear from the Liberal whip, who has invited me to give up the floor.


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


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker; my colleague on this side of the house suggests that the Liberal whip be given an opportunity to speak. We all are anxious to hear what he has to say.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Macleod appeared equally anxious to speak and I have recognized him.


An hon. Member:: The whip was saved by Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for saying I am anxious to speak. I do not know how true it is. I do, however, have a few matters concerning medicare which are tremendously important to the people in my riding, and which I know are important to the people in western Canada, in particular Alberta. No more important bill has been brought before this house. After reading the bill I am to a large extent disillusioned to note the number of things it does not cover. I refer specifically to the clause which has to do with adequate provision for medical research. The minister should know that there are two basic types of research; one is what you might term basic research and the other is applied research. In the field of medicine you have these two separate fields.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Basic research relates to work done by skilled individuals in biochemistry and other fields, and is essential to the proper treatment of human diseases and to the alleviation of suffering. Once knowledge and hidden methods of treatment are brought to light by these skilled people it must be translated into practical knowledge so that members of the medical profession can apply this knowledge. That is what is called applied research. There are these two fundamental fields of research, basic and applied; yet there is no mention of either in this bill, although research is referred to in the amendment.
Let me now refer to another weakness in this legislation. There is no mention of any method which might be used to encourage young people to train as doctors, dentists and technicians. Aside from the lack of any reference to medical research in this bill, I think it is inadequate because the government has not included any provision for the encouraging or training of young people in the medical profession. We must find more people to train in these basic fields of research and applied medicine before any adequate medicare program can be implemented.
Although the adoption of training programs in universities falls within the jursidiction of provincial governments, surely this federal government can provide some encouragement. Nothing is being done to help provincial governments train people in the field of medicine, or in the field of dentistry. Nothing is being done in this way by this bill, although there is mention of such a need in the amendment before us.
This bill seeks to take care of the medical expenses of those who are unable to pay, but it will not come into effect until 1968, 18 months from now. For that reason it will not take care of the needs of those people who are unable now to meet their medical bills. There is a great deficiency in this legislation in that it does not make those services available now to at least those groups who are unable to pay for adequate medical care.
In the province of Alberta there is now in effect a medical insurance plan commonly referred to as M.S.I. This plan is going through a gradual evolution, but it is not offering everything I should like to see offered to the citizens of Canada through a universal medical scheme. M.S.I. coverage now costs approximately $114 for an unassociated individual and his wife. Surely we

October 18, 1966
Business of the House should adopt some scheme under which everyone would contribute approximately the same amount, except oi course those who are unable to contribute. In those cases the government would have to pay the major part of the contribution.
It is essential in order to devise an adequate universal medical scheme to obtain the co-operation of provincial governments. That is fundamental to any adequate scheme. This should be worked out completely before any legislation of this sort is brought into being. Individuals must also have the right to choose their own doctor, and surely a doctor must have the right to decide whether or not he is able to look after patients, in view of time limitations. He should not feel he is duty bound to accept more patients in these circumstances. There must be freedom of choice on both sides of this medicare service coin.
It is my belief that the postponement of the effective date of this scheme to July 1, 1968 was a second thought on the part of this government. Certainly the minister and those closely associated with him are disappointed because of this lengthy postponement. When this legislation is implemented I hope that as a result of amendments it will contain the necessary elements. If it does I am sure it will be of great assistance to many people in Canada.
I have spoken privately to the minister about the serious medical needs of many people in my area. As late as this evening I spoke to him about that need in the Gleichen area where there are approximately 3,000 Indians who require adequate medical attention from time to time. There is at the present time no doctor in that area, so the Indians and others who live close by have no access to proper medical attention. I mention this fact to emphasize the need for additional trained people, so that every citizen in every community in Canada may take advantage of the services which can be provided.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the house leader indicate the business for tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue with the debate on second reading of the medicare bill. At the conclusion of that we will consider item No. 48 on today's

order paper, the committee stage on the bill to provide assistance to livestock feeders in eastern Canada and in British Columbia. This will be followed by a consideration of item 83 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill C-220, to make provision for appeals to an immigration appeal board. We will then consider item No. 101, the resolution preceding a bill to amend the National Housing Act, followed by item No. 100, the resolution preceding a bill to encourage scientific research and development.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the house leader whether he would consider bringing forward this week estimates of the Department of National Defence.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if we can get through some of this other business. We also have to bring forward the bill dealing with the armed forces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not on the order paper as yet.


George James McIlraith: No, it is not, but we will try to bring it forward as quickly as possible.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Should we not deal with the estimates first, before we start on new business?


George James McIlraith: I will take the point under consideration but I think it would be well to have the bill before the house so that the discussion which I anticipate-if I anticipate it correctly-will be relevant to the subject matter before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I put a question to the house leader? Is it not the intention of the government to proceed immediately from second reading of Bill C-227 to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole?


George James McIlraith: The second reading stage has taken a bit longer than I had anticipated and we have some other legislation which it would be desirable to move forward. There are also some motions to come to the house tomorrow which need immediate attention. I had proposed a break of a day or two before the committee stage, but there is no intention to delay it any further.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is this not an urgent bill to be implemented in 1968? Should we not go to the committee stage quickly?
October 18, 1966


George James McIlraith: I think it is a bill of major importance to this country and I think there is some urgency in getting it through so that the provinces can make their plans and decisions consequent upon it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe if the government will have a break of two or three days it might reconsider its intention to delay the implementation of the legislation.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, last October 12, I put the following question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing), and I quote:
In view of the fact that the minister, last Thursday night, notwithstanding his wishes, did not have time to finish his remarks on the memorial to Sir Alexander Galt, would he inform the house today of the nature of his project?
Well, we all know now that Sir Alexander Galt's house has been demolished. It is not my intention to revert to the matter. The minister gave explanations the other day. Tonight is not the time to comment on that.
What we want to know is the policy the minister wants to pursue for the present and for the future. There are still some outbuildings adjoining the Dominican Sisters' convent that the Eastern Townships Historical Society would very much like to preserve.
I would very much appreciate a quick decision by the minister, for the reverend Dominican Sisters are in the process of erecting new buildings and it is important that the minister take a decision in this regard before they demolish those outbuildings.
I would also very much appreciate it if the minister would contact the Eastern Townships Historical Society, the vice president of which is Mr. Desmond McKeon. I received,
Procedings on Adjournment Motion this very day, a telegram from the vice president of that society, which reads as follows: [English]
We extend our thanks and congratulations for your efforts to save what remains of the Galt Home. Please continue to fight until Laing promises to save what remains.

Well, the minister can decide to restore the outbuildings and to appropriate a certain amount in order to carry out this project or, following an investigation, he may prefer to purchase part of the property that the Dominican Sisters are ready to sell to the department for the purpose of erecting a monument.
I do want to stress once again the importance of honouring the memory of Sir Alexander Galt, who was member of parliament for Sherbrooke in 1867 and also one of the Fathers of Confederation.
When the minister makes his decision, I would ask him to advise the Eastern Townships Historical Society, as well as to the member for Sherbrooke, so that I may be kept informed of developments in this matter.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Sherbrooke, I wish to say that I think it is one of the happier circumstances that matters of this nature are being more seriously considered by our people in Canada all the time. It is essential, I think, that we do preserve these buildings and these places that are of historic importance. I want to thank him, and I want to thank the hon. member for Rich-mond-Wolfe (Mr. Asselin), who has persistently brought this matter to my attention.
I think the fact that we were unfortunate in attempting to move the building has not dimmed interest in preserving the Galt home. The other night I did have the opportunity of reminding the house that the previous government of Quebec had undertaken to support, to the extent of 50 per cent, the cost of maintenance of the Galt house, were we successful in moving it. I want to tell the hon. member that this support was not forthcoming from the present government. They withdrew the offer and said they could not carry that. This had no effect whatever on our intentions and hope of moving the building, which was otherwise going to be torn down in any case.

October 18. 1966
8850	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
We somewhat hurriedly put people in to move it, and our attempt to move it was abortive. I am of the opinion we should not attempt to move that type of building in which the mortar is over 125 years of age, because it crumbled as soon as we moved it. I want to tell the hon. member that the idea for the preservation of Galt house originated with our Historic Sites and Monuments Board. They recommended that we do this, and we undertook it. It was unfortunate that we failed. I am going to refer this matter again to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, and leave it to them to suggest how we can commemorate Galt's name and that particular era which, historically, is so important to us.
I do want to thank the Historical Society of Sherbrooke and the city of Sherbrooke for their co-operation in this venture. I hope when we get a recommendation from the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, which is a very valuable body to my department and to the government of Canada, that we will be able to carry out that recommendation, and that we will do justice to the thing we attempted when we lost the house.



OLD AGE SECURITY-CONTINUATION OF PAYMENTS TO DEPENDANTS OF DECEASED PENSIONER

Barry Mather: Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, on orders of the day I sought to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like to quote the question I raised at that time, as recorded at page 8661 of Hansard:
Can he say what consideration is being given to the request of the pensioners and senior citizens federation of Canada that the old age pension of a deceased pensioner be continued for six months in order that the surviving spouse be enabled to meet debts incurred by terminal illness?
At that time the suggestion was made that this question should be more properly put on the order paper, and this suggestion resulted in the question being raised on the late show. We have, I think, hundreds of these cases across Canada in which old age pensioners are suffering as a result of the last illness of one or other members of their families. I do not think there is any need for me to stress that fact; I am sure every member of the house is aware of many cases of this. We have all had contact with elderly couples suffering in one way or another from the physical, emotional and financial pressures which are bound up in the final illness of one or other of them.


[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The proposal which was raised by the senior citizens and pensioners organization seems now to be a very pertinent one, particularly at this time, Mr. Speaker, when the government has indicated that there is to be no real, basic increase in the old age security pension, and at the same time has indicated that there is to be a delay in the implementation of health insurance which might have helped these people at least one year earlier.
My question is this; Is the government sufficiently impressed with the practical need for action in this sphere by continuing the old age pension of one deceased pensioner to his or her surviving partner? To help the government give consideration to this matter, Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out that the statistics I have indicate that, in respect to people in the age group 64-69, if this proposal were taken up and implemented and the pension continued to the surviving spouse after the death of the other, the cost would be approximately $6 million a year to the country-and this at a time when my figures also indicate that the taxpayers are paying approximately $4 million a day by way of defence costs. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the government whether they will consider this request which has been made by the national organization of pensioners.


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will sympathize with the motives behind the hon. member's proposal, but I would point out that some provision has already been made by this parliament in this area. Also of course there are a number of difficulties involved in a general program of the nature outlined by the hon. member.
The first is the question of cost. There are approximately 1.2 million pensioners in Canada now receiving payments of $75 a month. This amounts to $1,080 million a year in federal expenditures.
In addition, the government will shortly be introducing a program to provide a guaranteed income supplement to old age security recipients. It is estimated this program will cost more than $225 million per annum.
An additional program to provide the estate of a deceased pensioner with a further six months benefit-at $75 per month-would cost at least $38 million a year. This is based on the current death rate of 85,000 per year in this age group.
October 18, 1966	COMMONS
As hon. members know, the Canada Pension Plan provides for a death benefit equal to six times the monthly retirement pension of the deceased contributor. As the plan comes into full operation, more and more people will be covered for death benefits under this provision.
It should be remembered as well that the Canada Assistance Plan-which was recently approved by this parliament-makes provision for supplementary payments to needy
DEBATES	8851
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion pensioners. These provisions can include such things as funeral expenses.
The Canada Assistance Plan of course is a provincially administered program in which the government of Canada reimburses the provinces for half the cost of various payments made to persons in need. This would apply to any expenses relating to the death of a pensioner who is eligible for benefits under the plan.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.17 p.m.



END OF VOLUME VIII