Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 5 (26th Legislature, 3rd Session)

26-3-5

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Name ALEXANDER, Keith BAIZLEY, Obie BJORNSON, Oscar .F. CAMPBELL, D. L. CARROLL, Hon. J.B. CHRISTIANSON, John Aaron CORBETT, A. H. COWAN, James, Q. C. DESJARDINS, Laurent . DOW, E. I. EVANS, Hon. Gurney FORBES, Mrs. Thelma FROESE, J. M. GRAY, Morris A. GROVES, Fred GUTTORMSON, Elman HAMILTON, William Homer HARRIS, Lemuel HARRISON, Hon.Abram W. HAWRYLUK, J. M. HILLHOUSE, T.P.,Q .C. HRYHORCZUK, M.N., Q.C. HUTTON, Hon. George INGEBRIGTSON, J. E. JEANNOTTE, J. E. JOHNSON, Hon . George . JOHNSON, Geo. Wm . . KLYM, Fred T. LISSAMAN, :R. 0. LYON,H on. �rling R., Q.C. MARTIN, w·. G. ·McKELLAR, M. E. McLEAN,H on.

Stewart E.,Q .C. · MOLGAT, Gildas MORRISON, Mrs . Carolyne ORIJKOW, David PAULLEY, Russell PETERS, S; PREFONTAINE, Edmond REID, A. J. ROBERTS, Stan ROBLIN, Hon. Duff SCARTH, W .B. , Q.C . SCHREYER, E. R. · SEABORN, Richard SHEWMAN, Harry P. SHOEMAKER, Nelson SMELLIE, Robert Gordon STANES, D. M. STRICKLAND, B. P. TANCHAK, John P. THOMPSON, Hon. John, Q.C. WAGNER, Peter WATT, J. D. WEIR, Waiter WITNEY, Hon. Charles H. WRIGHT, Arthur E. Electoral Division Roblin Os borne Lac du Bonnet Lake side The Pas Portage la Prairie Swan River Winnipeg Centre St.

Boniface Turtle Mountain Fort Rouge Cypress Rhine l and Inkater St. Vital St. George Duff erin Logan Rock Lake Burrows Selkirk. Ethel bert Plains Rockwood-Iberville Churchill Rupertsland Gimll Assiniboia Springfield . Brandon Fort Garry St. Matthews Souris-Lans downe Dauphin Ste. Rose Pembina St. John's Radisson Elmwood Carillon Kildonan La Verendrye Wolseley River Heights Brokenhead Wellington Morris Gladstone Birtle -R ussell St.

James Ham iota Emerson Virden Fisher Arthur Minnedosa Flin Flon Seven Oaks Address Roblin, Man . 185 Maplewood Ave., Winnipeg 13 Lac du Bonnet, Man. 326 Kelvin Blvd ., Winnipeg 29 Legislative Bldg ., Winnipeg 1 86-9th St . , N. W. , Ptge. la Prairie, Man . Swan River, Man . 512 Avenue Bldg ., Winnipeg 2 138 Dollard Blvd ., St. Boniface 6, Man • Boissevain, Man . Legisla tive Bldg ., Winnipeg 1 Rathwell , Man . Winkler, Man . 141 Cathedral Ave ., Winnipeg 4 3 Kingston Row, St. Vital , Winnipeg 8 Lundar, Man.

Sperllng, Man . 1109 Alexande r Av e., Winnipeg 3 Holmfield, Man. 84 Furby St ., Winnipeg 1 Dominion Bank Bldg ., Selkirk, Man. Ethelbert, Man. Legislative Bld g., Winnipeg 1 Churchill, Man . Meadow Portage, Man . Legislative Bldg . , Winnipeg 212 Oakdean Blv d., St .James, Wpg. 12 ·Beausejour, Man • 832 Eleventh St., Brandon, Man . Legisl ative Bldg ., Winnipeg 1 . 924 Palmerston Ave., Winnipeg 10 Nesbitt, Man . Legisla tive Bldg . , Winnipeg 1 Ste. Rose du Lac, Man. Manitou, Man. 179 Montrose St., Winnipeg 9 435 Yale Ave.W., Transcona 25, Man . 225 Melrose Ave., Winnipeg 15 St.

Pierre, Man. 561 Trent Ave ., E.K il d., Winnipeg 15 Niverville , Man . Legisla tive Bldg ., Winnipeg 1 407 Queenston St., Winnipeg 9 Beausejour, M� . 594'-.Aj:iington St. , Wfunipeg l.i> ·Morris . Man. · Neepawa, Man. - R�s�ell �. Man�_ 381 Guildford St. , St. James, Wpg. 12 iiamiota , Man . Ridgeville, Man. Legislative Bldg ., Winnipeg 1 Fisher Branch, Man . Reston, Man . Minnedosa, Man . Legislative Bldg . , Winnipeg 1 4 Lord Glenn Apts .1 944 Main St ., Wpg.1 7 . /

THE LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2: 30 o'clock, Monday, February 20th, 1961 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions MR. W. G. SCARTH, Q. C. (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of the University of Manitoba Foundation praying for the passing of

an act to amend

an act fo in corporate the University of Manitoba Foundation. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions. MR. J. D. WATT (Fisher): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of John James Norris and others praying for the pass ing of

an act to incorporate the Manitoba Automobile Mus eum Foundation. MR. SPEAKER: Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Comm ittees Notice of Motion Introduction of Bills Mr. Lyon introduced Bill No. 6,

an Act to facilitate the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judg ments. Mr. Lyon introduced Bill No. 7,

an Act to facilitate the Enforcement of Maintenance Orders. Mr. Hutton introduced Bill No. 5 ,

an Act to amend the Fruit and Vegetable Sales Act. Mr. Molgat introduced Bill No. 18,

an Act respecting the Rural Municipality of Whitewater and The Minto Ceme tery Com pany. Mr. Reid introduced Bill No. 21,

an Act to amend The East Klldonan Charter. Mr. Stanes introduced ·Bill No. 17,

an Act to amend

an Act respecting The School District of St. Jame s, No. 7. MR. SPEAKER: Comm ittee of the Whole House. HON. GEO. JOHNSON (Minister of Health and Publ ic Welfare ) (Gimli) : Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Education that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into Comm ittee of The Whole to consider the follow ing proposed resolutions standing on the Order Paper in my name . Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried, and the House resolved itself into a Comm ittee of the Whole House . MR.

SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member for Wellington please take the Chair. HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): It's the Member for St. Matthews, Mr. Speaker who is the Chairman of the Commi ttee. MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, the Member for St. Matthews please take the chair. MR. GEO. JOHNSON: The Lieutenant-Governor having been informed of the subject matter for the proposed resolutions recommends them to the House . MR.

CHAffiMAN: Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting The Department of Health and to provide, among other matters for the appointment of a deputy minis ter and other staff of the department, and for the payment of the remuneration of persons so appointed. Shall this resolution be adopted ? Then it is passed. Resolution No. 2.

Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measu re respecting the Department of Welfare and to provide, among other matters, for the appointment of a deputy minister and other staff of the department, and a Welfare Advisory Comm ittee and for the re appointment of The Old Age Ass istance and Blind Persons' Allowanc es Board, and for the pay ment of the remuneration and expenses of persons so appointed. Shall the resolution be adopted? MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakesi de): Mr.

Chairman, I take it that this is just in pursuance of the notice that was given in the Speech from the Throne, that it is the intention to divide the Department into two. Wlll that divide the length of the speeches in to two? MR. JOHNSON (Glmli): Mr. Speaker, these resolutions are simp ly in line with the announcement from the Speech from the Throne that the Department of Health and Welfare February 20th, 196 1 Page 67

should be split into the Department of Health and the Department of Welfa re.

In describing the activities of these two departments I could challenge the Leader of the Opposition into quite a lengthy talk because the activities as you know of these two departments have become very great and while personally concerned to see these departments split in one sense, it certainly is I think, in the opinion of this side of the House that in the public interest it would be far better to see a minister in charge of Welfare matters and a minister in charge of health with the intro duction of the Hospital Services Plan and the concept of the department now changed so greatly in that care activities and sick people are now a direct concern of the department that the scope of their responsibilities is now very very great.

I think anyone should be most happy to serve as minister to either one of these departments , the deputy ministers and staff of whom, I think, are unexcelled in the Dom inion of Canada, and I mean that. I think that the Province of Mani toba is very, very fortunate to have the calibre of men that we have in our various departmental heads and throughout the department as a whole , and I think some measure of congratulation should be given to the former government also for their role in this area, in getting these people. That's really all I have to say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Call in the Speaker.

The Comm ittee of the Whole has adopted certain. resolutions and directed me to report same and ask leave to sit again. MR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews) : Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre that the report of the Comm ittee be received. fare. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. Mr. Johnson (Gimli) introduced Bill No. 16 ,

an Act respecting the Department of Health. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. Mr. Johnson (Gimll) introduced Bill No. 15,

an Act respecting the Department of Wel- Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Before the Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay on the table of the House the report on the financial estima tes of the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan for the years 1960, 62 and 63. HON. STEWART E. McLEAN, Q. C. (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Mr.

Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I would lik e to inform the House that today a team of examiners with necess ary equipment is leaving to give tests to bus drivers - school bus drivers and school buses throughout the Province of Manitoba to ensure that these vehicles are in good condition and that the drivers are fully qualified to drive them. MR. MORRIS A GRAY (lnkst er): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day and on a point of privilege, may I make a very brief statement. All over the western world, Brotherhood Week is celebrated during the month of February.

This year the week designated for the pur pose began on February the 19th. In view of the turmoil in the world these days I think perhaps it would be advisable if the three leaders in the House would make some comment on the signi ficance of Brotherhood Week. It maybe sound like said irony to speak of Brotherhood in a world of strife and turmoil in which the most horrible weapons of mass destruction are poised to wipe out mi llions of innocent lives at a moments notice. But maybe Brotherhood Week has assumed a deeper meaning than ever before just because of this pathetic situation.

Let us all remember that Brotherhood of all mankind is based on the Fatherhood of God for all mankind. Maybe these refle ctions of the occasion of Brotherhood week will help us to progress through its mutual understanding rather than over its mutual destruction. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, if I may just follow my honourable friend on this import ant subject, I should like first of all to thank him for giving me notice that he intended to raise this matter this afternoon, and to express my appreciation to him that he has done so.

Through out a long and distinguished career as a citizen, as a member of this House, the Honourable Member for Inkster has made this one of those matters closest to his heart and I think it is entirely right and comm endable that he should on an occasion such as this , bring this matter to our notice, as I am sure that everyone in this House will agree entirely with what he said. Peace in the world must begin in the hearts of men.

Governments may negotiate and we may pass laws , but it is the reactions, the attitudes, the determination of individual people that decide these great issues over the long course of the ages, and I have nothing but appreciation Page 68 February 20th, 1961

(Mr. Roblin, cont•d. ) ..•.• for my honourable friend's action in bringing this to our notice, and in saying on behalf, I am sure, of everyone here, indeed of all the people of the province, that we hope that the observance of Brotherhood Week again this year will strengthen and confirm those feelings which he so well expressed when he spoke to us a minute or two ago. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Speaker, like the honourable , the First Minister, I think that it is very appropriate that in these days of tenseness and trouble and very uneasy peace in so much of the world, that it's appropriate for the honourable , the member for Inkster to remind us once again of the fact that there is an active association sponsoring in this country what is called Brotherhood Week; because surel y all of us would agree , Mr. Speaker, that what is needed more than anything else in the world today is some spirit of brotherhood rather than of mis understanding and suspicion.

I commend also the Honourable Member for Inkster who through many years in this House as a representative of a group of people who have known through the centuries what it is to be not considered in different countries as bretheren, that that representative should continue to rem ind us in Canada here of the appreciati,gn that they and other groups and religions and races, have for the freedoms that are enjoyed in Canada, and I think the thought that all of us need to have in these times is that those of us who -are cast for the tirre be ing in positions of responsibility should endeavor to see that we so conduct ourselves and that public business is conducted in such a way that those freedoms as well as the responsibili ties that attach to them should be safeguarded and enshrined in Canada for all time to come.

MR. RUSSELL PAULLEY ( Leader of the CCF) (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join my col l eague in this brief pause in our deliberations to consider Brotherhood Week. When we look around the world at the various corners, look at Congo, Africa, Laos, Cuba, even in deed in that great democracy to the south of us , we can see and find out how in many quarters of the gl obe we have forgotten to live as brothers. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that even we as Canadians today, should not take the attitude that we are pure.

We have many and great prob lems that we have to solve here in our dominion, and indeed in our own province. We only have to consider many aspects and conditions under which our Indian and Metis friends are living to pinpoint to us that we have as yet not reached a goal of true brotherhood. We find in some parts of Canada that even our negro friends are subjected to persecution today. I think this is an admirable time for us to reassess as Canadians and as Manitobans that we have a job to do ourselv es.

I am happy to join with the First Minister and the Leader of the Opposltlon in this observance and in doing so, may I comm end that Mr. Speaker to all of the members of this legisl ature, that we reassess our own position and that we go forth ln true brotherly love to all of those who are our brothers of humanity irrespective of their color, their race of their creed. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, may I ask the honourable, the Minister of Health and Publ ic Welfar e, if there are copies for all members of the report that he tabled a few minutes ago. MR. JOHNSON (Giml i): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I left copies with the Clerk of the House and they will be distributed forthwith for all members . MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplemental question to that of the Leader of the Opposition?

The Minister, speaking on Friday last, mentioned the setting up of a com, mittee to peruse the report and to hear representations of the administrator, I believ e , of the hospital scheme and others in connection with it. Could the honourable the Minister inform us as to when a resol ution, if that is the intention, will be introduced setting up the comm ittee · and when does he anticipate that will be done in the comm ittee to meet. MR. JOHNSON (Glmli) : Mr. Speaker, I anticipate we will proceed to this very shortly. HON. J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Public utillties & Minister of Labour) (The Pas): Mr.

Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to lay on the table of the House the annual report of the Manitoba Tele phone System for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1960, together with a copy of the progress report for the year 1960. MR. GRAY: Before the Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a ques tion to the Honourable Minister of Health and Public Welfar e. About a week ago I asked the head of the Social Allowanc e Act to give me certain figures of the number of recipients, the amount and so on. He advised me to apply to the Deputy Minister.

When I phoned the Deputy Minister he left a mess age at the CCF office here that he is going to give it in the afternoon. Then a messa ge was received that I should get it through an Order for Return. I also February 20th, 1961 ____ __]

(Mr. Gray, cont1d. ) .•..• telephoned the secretary of the Honourable Minister to remind the Minister about it. Now I see that the Old Age Pension resolution is in the order paper for today. The Information which I had asked for, Is important In my submiss ion of the resolution. My question Is, has an MLA or a me mber of the legislature a right to phone a department for cer tain Information which is not high top secrets? MR. JOHNSON (Glmli): Mr.

Speaker, I thought the First Minister explained the other day that -- I'm rather green at certain procedural practice, but I understand that if an Order of Return is submitted we'd be glad to get this information. I don't think the staff have relegated In their duty. They simply brought lt to my attention that the honourable member had spoken to them about this information. The Information is being obtained. I'll take notice of the parti cular information he requires and give it to him. I just wonder If he wishes to make that an Order for Return or ..... MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker ....••.••. that wlll take time. MR.

ROBLIN: I wonder If I may just make a brief comment on the situation, Slr. I'm sure we'd be wllling to allow the honourable member's motion to stand. -- It's very early in the sessi on -- until he does get the Information so that when he speaks he will have that available, but I would suggest that an Order for Return is the right way under present circumstances - the House is si tting that's the way to do it -- I suggested that the other day. We'd be happy to give the Information, and happy to let the resolution stand until it is provided so my honourable friend is not placed under any handicap. MR.

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Mr. Johnson (Gimli} presented Blll No . 3,

an Act to facili tate Cornea Transplants from the Bodies of Deceased Persons to Living Persons, for se cond reading. MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Minister of Education return to his seat until I put the motion ? Mr. Speaker put the questlcn.. MR. JOHNSON (Glmli}: Mr. Speaker, the basis of this Act is that it is really a model Act approved by the Commiss ioners on Uniformity in Canada, and during the past four years apparently the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in consultation with the Canadian Oph thalmological Society have been endeavoring to develo p

an Act acceptable to the professi on and one which can be recommended to provincial governments. In May of 1959 a Conference of Commis sioners on Uniformity of Legisl ation in Canada was held in Victoria, B. C. , and a draft blll developed in Ontario was subm itted for consideration, and further to this a meeting of all Canadian National Institutes for the Blind superintendents held in Toronto in June of last year.

Reports were made on negotiations with provincial governments at that t.ime and in most pro vinces in Canada this Act is now before the legislatures as it is written here and also in the province of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island it Is already passed. It's already passed the Ontario legislature and it has passed in Alberta and all other provinces are now entertaining simi lar legislation and the number who have dealt with the matter plus those who have contem plated the legislation have apparently indicated to the CNIB that they expect no difficulty in its passage .

There is one little addition to our bill here respecting the procedure to be adopted in the last part of the blll: we make provision for certain regulatio ns, should we require same. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, as the Honourable the Minister has pointed out, this is very interesting legislation, and I am sure, very Important legislation. I just wish to ask for .an amplification of what the mi nister said with regard to the other Provinces. Is it strict ly a uniform act that is being proposed in all legislatu res?

I understood him to say that two or three have already passed it; and an exactly simi lar act, I suppose, is be ing presented to every legislature. Is that correct ? MR. JOHNSON (Gimli) Mr. Speaker, that's the information that has been given to me by the Deputy Minister of the Department, and in talking to this CNIB, this was their strong point they felt they didn't want us to amend this in any way because it was pretty uniform and has been approved by all bodies.

One matter which we felt here there should be a slight change In the blll by way of an addition, was respecting the procedure to be adopted where under this new act as this act stands, the eyes of a person are to be removed and furthermore his body delivered to the Department of Anatomy under that Anatomy Act. There's a sl ight variation there, but otherwise it Is identical with the legislation passed in four other provinces and as anticipated will be passed in the remaining provinces . Page 70 February 20th, 1961

Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No . 10 -t he Honourable Minister of Health and Welfare. Mr. Johnson (Glmll) presented Bill No .1 0,

an Act to amend The Marriage. Act, for second reading. Mr. Hutton presented Bill No. 4,

an Act to amend The Water Supply Districts Act, for second reading. MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce that Bill No. 4,

an Act to amend the Water Supply Districts Act be now read for the second time. Are you ready for the question? HON. GEO. HUTTON (Minister of Agriculture)(Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively si mple amendment in terms of words, but I think most of the members in the House wlll know that at the time that the Water Supply Districts Act was passed, it llm lted the powers and the duties of the Commiss ions and Water District Boards such as the Lower Red River Valley Water Commiss ion to the consideration of water supplies for potable usage only.

Now it is becoming crystal clear that because water has so many uses and because any com munity has so many different requirements for water , that it is in the public "interest that Boards such as this should consider the overall requirements of a community for water supply. As a matter of fact it was the Lower Red River Water Supply Water Commissi on that brought this matter to my attention and we are in agree ment that it is desirable that the people in the communities affected should be permitted to consider the overall requirements of their com munity rather than be confined to one consideration .

I think that covers the amendment. MR.

SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Arthur for an address to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in answer to his Speech at the opening of the session; and the proposed motion in amendment thereto by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition: "But this House regrets that Your Honour's government with many of its pre election promises unfulfilled, has greatly added to the burden of the Manitoba taxpayers , both provincially and municipally , and at the same time has drastically increased the provincial debt"; and the proposed motion in further amendment of the Honourable Leader of the CCF: "Has not taken the initiative in proposing a Provincial or a Federal-Provincial comprehensive plan for Health Insurance to provide for the mental, physical and social well-being of the citizens of our province �" The Honourable Member for Seven Oaks .

MR. A. E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend to you my good wishes as you again resume the duties of your high office. I also offer my congratulations to the Honourable Member for Arthur and the Honourable Member for Cypress for the very able way in which they moved and seconded the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. May I say welcome to the Honourable Member f{)r Pembina.

I think this house should have more lady members and I apologize for this side of the House ln its failure to elect sim ilar capable representatives, in spite" of the fact that we have many, should I say, self-styled ladles' men in this si de of the House, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker in the last sessi on I made the prediction that the big issue in the next Pro vincial election would be Compulsory Comprehensive Medical care. The CCF Government in Saskatchewan staked its future on this issue and scored a resounding victory, despite powerful opposition on the part of the Saskatchewan Medical Assoc iation.

It is no accident that Health Insurance should be so much in the public mind. There has , without a doubt, been a much greater preoccupation with good health and health care in the last generation than any time in human hisj;ory. The reasons for this are not hard to find. The last generation has seen a phenominal development ln the Medical Arts. Medical knowledge and skills have increased to a degree unimaginable, even a half century ago. Great discoveries have been made in medical techniques, in the development of new drugs, in the control of disease and in the relationship between environment and well-being.

The improvements in liv ing standards which have taken place during and since the last war have also played their

part in making people realize that good health is a practical objective. Higher incomes, a greater degree of leisure, the avail ability of goods and services which make for a more comfortable life, have all underlined the importance of good health. For of what value are the good things of life, if good health which makes their enjoyment possible, is lacking? Good health is part and parcel of a good standard February 20th, 1961 Page 71

(Mr. Wright, cont'd. ) .. .•. of living and now that people are aware that there is this knowledge that can make good health a possiblllt y, they are inclined to look askance any artificial barriers which stands in their way of getting it. There are such barriers now and they are unnecessary. Furthermore the experience with insurance techniques has by now made it clear that there is no longer any need for anyone to have to rely exclus ively on his own lim ited resources to protect himself against the hazards of illne ss and accident.

What we are concerned about here, is not so much whether good health care is to be had, but in what context. In large measure it is the institutional framework within which medicine is to be practiced that matters, as well as its availablllty. It is not the insurance principle alone we are concerned about. Removi ng the fear of the cost of illne ss is important and for that reason alone , Health Insurance could be justified. But merely to superimpose a procedure of pre-payment on the status quo would be to betray the health needs of the people.

The economic burden of ill health might be taken care of but the degree and quality of medical care would re main unchanged. In our estimation, the emphasis in the term Health Insurance is not so much on the insurance as on the healt h aspect. Since our emphasis is on health, Mr. Speaker, we feel we owe you a definition of what constitutes good health. We can do no better than to quote the definition of the World Health Orga nization Constitution,

Article 1, which reads: "A state. of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". This definition may appear to go beyond what we hope to achieve in the near future, but we submit that this is the kind of goal every government should seek to achieve.

In the words of Sir Arthur Newsholm -- this was taken from the booklet, "Medicine and the State· - the Relation Between the Private and Official Practice of Medicine" -- Sir Arthur says: "The health of every individual is a social concern and res ponsibility and as following from this, medical care in its. widest sense for every individual is an esse ntial condition of maximum ef ficiency and happiness in a civilized community.

" We assert that it can and should be the right of every citizen, without regard to his soclal and economic status to have access to all those services and facilities which are or should be available to keep him in good heal th, as long as possible and to aid him in recovering his health when he is struck down by illne ss or accident. In other words we believe that the ful lest possible range of health care should be available to the citizens of this province as a right by virtue of legislative action.

It is to some extent an anomoly that we should, during the latter half of the 20 th century, have to appear before such a body and seek to justify something like health insurance. We would be disposed to argue that it should be on the other way around. Cause should be shown for the failure to have introduced health insurance earlier.

Canada introduced hospital insurance relatively late in the day, largely as a result of the example set by the Province of Saskatchewan, and it is in effect throughout Canada, but so far as health insurance as a whole is concerned Canada remains one of the few countries of the world which does not have a publ ic program of health insurance. In perusing through the book, "Socia!

Security Programs Throughout the World ", pub lished by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare , in 1958, we find eight countries had enacted legislation prior to 1900 and forty-four countries have followed suit at various times up to 19 57. Such countries, Mr. Speaker, as Germany, 1883, Austria, Czecho slovakia, Rumania, 1888, Denmark, 1892, Norway, 1909, just to name a few of the countries having introduced it prior to that.

It wl ll be seen from the foregoing that Canada and the United States remain in splendid isolation as the two richest countries in the world still without health insurance. The list indicates that health insurance was introduced in some of those countries as far back as 77 years. It does not, of course, tell the whole story. It is simply an indication of the extent of legislation in the health insurance field. We do not for a moment suggest that all the existing legislation is of the same standard nor would we undertake to endorse all of them as be ing what we desire -- some are very good, others much less so.

We are sim ply making the point that there is nothing novel in the proposition of health insurance for Canada or any of its provinces. Its introduction is at best a belated effort to catch up with what is now common place in many parts of the world. It would be hard to claim that health insurance, even apart from this recital of its existance elsewhere is a novel proposition in Canada at this time. Not only has it been a subject of political agitation but it has actually been on the agenda as a mat ter of serious consideration by the federal and provincial governments.

We refer to the so-called green book, "Proposals of the Government of Canada at the Dom inion-Provincial Page 72 February 20th, 196 1

(Mr. Wright, cont'd. ) .. •.. Conference on Reconstruction ln 1945. " In this document the Federal Government stated and I quote; "Health lt1surance has been widely adopted because it is regarded as the best means of meeting and of distr ibuting fairly the cost of illness and in conjunction with preventive services of improving the general health of the nation. ". It is worth recalling that the Federal Government's proposal for a first stage of the in troduction of health insurance included general practitioner's servi ces, hospital care and vis iting nursing servic es.

Subsequently the government proposed to substitute laboratory and radiological diagnostic services or nurs ing services in the first stage. Accordingly, fifteen years after this proposal we have just reached the stage of hospital care. The rest is yet to come, Mr. Speaker, as it is just as inevi table that comprehensive medical care will come about as it was that hospital insurance was to become a reality. A reality despite the.fact that most Provincial Governments were loath to accept it at first.

I well remember a conference of the Urban Associa tion at Selkirk in January , 1956 , when the idea was so bitterly opposed, especially by the Liberals. I'm not convinced that either of the old parties were happy over hospital insurance becoming a reality, but when it becomes a matter of political expediency in trying to give the people som ething they really want, there is never any hesitation about grab bing planks from the CCF platform to mend their fences. I need only to refer you to the last Liberal convention when comprehensive medical care was so eagerly adopted as party policy.

An editorial dated February 20th, 1960, in the Toronto Star Weekly, quotes Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan as predictingthat: "National health insurance will be a fact by 197 0. " . It goes on to say that; "If Saskatchewan adopts medical insurance it will spur demands for simi lar-legislation across Canada, just as hospital insurance did when it was introduced in 1947 . " Because hospital insurance lived up to its advance promises it can be hoped that the appeal of medical insurance wlll spread at an accelerated pace.

A recent study of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics of urban family expenditures for health, made in seven cities, showed that the costs of physicia ns services and drugs have risen rapidly. In 1955 the average family health expenditures were $193. 00. In 1957 , which was the latest sample year, they were $288. 00 -- an increase of 18% in two years, and they are still climbing. Findings just published by the United States Department of Health, Educa tion and Welfare, show that in 1958 Ameri cans spent 4. 4 billions of dollars for drugs and 4. 3 billions of dollars for physic ians services. Mr.

Speaker both figures are a record, but for the first time drugs are costlier. Ris ing medical costs should help persuade the medical profess ion that it will serve itself and the public interests best by helping governments devise the best medical insurance plan poss ible. In any event such insurance is inevitable. I would like to read, Mr. Speaker, from the journal here, the official journal of the C�uadian Labour Congress, an

article here saying that "MDs should participate". Doctor E . Kirk Lyon, Deputy to the President of the Canadian Medical Assoc iation told a Montreal meeting of tne College of General Practice of Canada, and I quote: "I sometimes have difficulty trying to determine what the doctors of Canada want. Discussi ng the relationships between govern ment and the professi on, " Dr. Lyon asked, "would we go back to the days of poor public health measures, to the days of no government' assist ance to hospitals or to medical education? I think not. " I'm still quoting Mr.

Speaker, "Call it co-existence if you will, but it is here to stay and we would be better occupying our time bending our efforts to guiding, ass isti ng and directing all measures genuinely designed to improve the health of the people of Canada, thru1 opposing new ide as si mply for the sake of opposing them or because we have not tried them. "· Few Canadians are so rich that they can escape a haunting fear that si ckness or accident might burst a landslide of medical bills on top of them.

No matter how thr ifty, most cannot save enough to guarantee against all medical emergencies, or if they have a nest-egg put by for old age it can be wiped out in a month by sudden illness. Medical insurance banishes this fear; we all pay a small sum and when a few of us fall sick our expenses are covered, The magic of a verages comes to the rescue of mi llions. As well as being humanitarian it is also financially possible, without ruinous taxation -- a conclusion drawn in a study two years ago by the re putable Canadian Tax Foundation. Our record here Mr.

Speaker, in Manitoba regarding the acceptance of new ideas is not particularly bright but I hope some of the daring and the wi lling ness to try when there seems to be so much to gain and so little to lose, will rub off on us here in Manitoba from our neighbors to the west. Because in Saskatchewan today the banner February 20th, 1961 Page 73 j

(Mr. Wrlght, cont1d. ) .•... "humanity first" files proudly from the masthead. Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment. MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question. MR. N. SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Lakeslde that the debate be adjourned. MR. ROBLIN: Before you put the question I wonder if we might inquire lf there are other members who wlsh to speak this afternoon in view of our new rule. MR . D. M. STANES (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this if I may.

May I first offer my congratulations to you on your occupancy of your high office. In doing so Mr. Speaker, I recall those rather hectic days for yourself during the previous legis lature in 1958 and 1959, when, if I may be so bold as to say, you earned your laurels and the respect of every member of this House.

I was very interested to hear the Honourable Leader of the Opposition state that fairness is probably the main qualification for the Speaker of a legislature, and I was also very interested to hear him say --supported I believe, by the Hon ourable Leader of the CCF that he considers or they consider you, Sir, to be one who makes a sincere effort to be fair. This I think is congratulations indeed and with these thoughts in mind I do wish you Sir, a long tenure of office. May I also offer my congratulations Sir, to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Both have shown their abilities in their contributions to the debates in this House. May I also Sir, congratulate the Honourable Member from Pembina for the well deserved honour that she was payed by her constituents in being elected to this Legislature. We on this side of the House are most fortu nate in many respects, not the least of which is to have the Honourable Members from Cypress and Pembina to help us in continuing the forward thinking, aggressive, and responsible govern ment which our Province of Manitoba is receiving today, but unfortunately deprived of for so many years.

The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition ln moving his amendment and the Honourable the Leader of the CCF in moving his amendment to the amendment laid great stress on the seriousness of the present unemployment situation. I am quite sure that every member of this House would agree, and the government has again repeated its earnest desire to relieve the situation by including this matter and stressing this matter in the Speech from the Throne. It is a very serious and important liablltty to our society and our economy which is having far reach ing effects.

I believe that it is so important that any relief, however small, should be grate fully received. Tile tact that the government, with the help of municipalities and other various bodies have beEln able to create relief to the extent of one in approximately every four people is something which is considerably helping the situation. I am sure that all of us would like to see a greater result, but this is an improvement on that which has been achieved in· th� past.

This is a problem effecting almost every corner of our country, involving every local government, but of course the chief responsiblltty and power rests with· the Federal Government who have, . and are making every effort to relieve the tragic situation. Destructive criticism in my opinion of a partisan political nature will surely be realized in its true ltght and rejected by the many thinking people of this province, of whom we are greatly blessed. It is so easy, Mr. Speaker, to talk around and about these problems, but is another thing to make suggestions after their cure ..••..

Maybe that this is the correct political approach, but I personally feel that this matter is of such importance that airing of views in this matter wlll tend to help to find the solution. In the case of the construction industry which I would like to briefly mention, which as you all know is one of the largest employers of labor and one of the hardest hit in this winter unem ployment, the main causes of unemployment in my mind are two-fold: Economic and human nature --and both really have been created to some extent, in fact to a large extent, by our present level of prosperity.

Economic: The cost of construction during the winter months are considerably higher than those at any other time of the year. Many of the materials such as sand and concrete cost more. Productivity per man hour is less and therefore production costs more or construction costs more. Methods used to make winter construction possible, such as a cocoon method of building, are an additional expense, and there are other various reasons probably familiar to most of the honourable members which increase the cost of construction in the winter period.

Against this increased cost must be added the fact that more sktlled labor is available, and of course the sooner a building ls completed the sooner it is producing revenue Page 74 February 20th, 196 1

(Mr. Stanes, cont1d. ) •.... in cash or in kind. However, :Mr. Speaker, from the informa tion I have received, and I think is available to most of the honourable members, the increased cost still outweight the advantages, and I cannot see any other solution to this problem except in reducing costs -- and among these costs is, of course, the cost of labor. Surely a man is better off to be working at a reduced rate per hour during th is period that sitting around at home.

His family are better off; everybody is better ofL I cannot see why it should not be easy for agree ments to be brought about and to be agreed upon by the various parties, at the same time respecting and guaranteeing the principles of all parties. :Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Leader of the CCF group stated: "We do not need reduction in wages, but an increase to put more purchasing power in the hands of labor. " Any increase will widen the gap in th is question of the unemployment in wintertime and in fact the economy throughout the year, and also bearing in .mind the export economic problem.

It is quite untrue that increasing wages increases the purchasing power because there is an inflationery step which reduces the value of the dollar, and in some cases one can finish up worse off. I've said before, Mr. Speaker, in this House and I repeat again, it does not mat ter what a man takes home in his pay packet; what does matter is what that money will buy.

It must also be remem- . bered that all these inflationery tendencies by increasing the costs put an additional burden on those who are within a fixed income and drive them nearer to ass istance at public expense, which we all have to pay for through one tax or another. The same economic philosophy applies to our economy the year around and also to our export bus.iness. I believe that the Honourable Leader of the CCF stated that we should not worry about costs but look for new markets .

I have never yet found a customer who is not interested in the price of the product and I think that this is universal throughout. The other factor, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned is the human element and I would like to read if I may, a little

article here which many members may have had from the CMA in the

Article "industry" which refers to a letter that the Hon. George Nowlan, Minister of National Revenue received. The essence of it is in this letter. "T his person felt he knew me so well that he called me "Dear George". He said he started working last spring, worked all the summer and last fall, then he said --"Last week I went to the unemployment insurance office and asked for my unemployment benefits. What do you suppose they did to me, George? They offered me a job. Dear George, why did they play this dirty trick on me ? You have to do somet hing about it. " I know these are isolated cases, Mr.

Speaker, and many of us have heard cases -I have sever al I could repeat right here -- but it is a factor, and with the increasing of our costs th is factor becomes larger. Now before closing, :Mr. Speaker, I would llke to comme nt very briefly if I may, on the remarks of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. He stated that he was surprised that there was no mention in the Speech from -the Throne regarding the Metropolitan Council and its progress .

I am .s ure that the honourable gentleman does not wish me to remind him , Sir, that this legislature set up this body and the people duly elected their representatives on this coun cil, and as far as the initial work is concerned the work of this legislature has been done -- and in my own personal opinion, well done. I personally feel that they are ma king haste a little too fast. I also feel that perhaps the salaries are a little too high, but surely th is is a matter for tho se elected by the people, and I do not personally feel that this is a matter that should be debated in this legislature.

If on the other hand, perhaps some members feel that there should be an airing in this matter, then surely it should be by form of comm ittee, and those who are elected should be in a pos ition to answer the qw stions. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I did not wish to interrupt my hon ourabl� friend while he was speaking, but it is my understanding, Mr.

Speaker, that as a result of the comm ittee on rules which was held last year, that it was agreed upon that we would hold to the rules themselves which states in rule number 30 on page 15, "that the speeches shall be direct to the question under consideration." I think Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me that we agreed on that. The members of my own Caucus have been informed that th e subject under consideration is that on the amendment which I raised myself dealing with com prehensive health insurance. As I say, Sir, I did not wish to interrupt my honourable friend at th e time he was speaking.

May I suggest to you Sir, that any further debate be pertinent to the motion before the House. February 20th, 1961 Page 75

HON. STERL ING R. LYON, Q. C. (Attorney-General) (Fort. Garry): Mr� Speaker, speak ing also on the point of order, I recall as well the discussion that we had in the rules committee last year. This matter was considered by the House -- I don't think the Press were present one day but there was a general discussion to the effect of the problem that the House got it self into when the amendment was not couched in wide enough terms to permit of a general discussion -- and by alluding to this discussion that we had in committee , I am not casting any barbs at my honourable friends opposite at all.

I think we all appreciate the point of order that he raises. I think we also all appreciate that what I am told and what I have been able to observe from the Journals of the House, and what I have heard from other senior members of the House, such as the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, it has been for many years the custom and the practice of this House to permit very great latitude in the debates even on the sub-amendment or on the 11-mendment itself.

I would refer -- and I am sorry I don't have them in front of me -- I would refer, how ever generally, my honourable friend and you, Sir, to the debates of the senior parliament of this country, namely the House of Commons, wherein one will find not only the leader of my honourable friend's party but indeed all members of the opposition flinging about quite wildly in general statements and general debate, on the sub-amendment and on the amendment itself, and I am not saying that if the House of Commons at Ottawa is wrong that that is any reason for us to be wrong here, Sir. But I do suggest that the general

interpretation that has been given by Mr. Speaker at the House of Commons and indeed, Sir, by yourself on other occasions and by your predecessor, has been one of considerable latitude in allowing members to address themselves generally to matters which have been raised during the course of the amendment and the sub-amendment. I appreciate my honourable friend waiting until the Honourable Member for St.

James took· his seat because one can more or less anticipate now that this discussion will arise annually and all I am attempting to do at this time, Sir, is to state what I believe to be the general approach that has been taken in the past and while acknowledging the technical point made by my honourable friend the Leader of the CCF party to suggest to you, Sir, that in your wi sdom you see fit to permit a certain amount of latitude in this debate as otherwise all members of the House whether they be government members or opposition members, are going to be inhibited and restricted to a considerable extent until we pass over this· sub-amendment and move on to the first amendment which is of a more general nature.

Now I make these rather gratuitous statements·; Sir, and I hope that they will be of some help to you in reaching your decision. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I may just briefly in answer to the Honourable the Attorney-General, I appreciate the fact as he states that it was the former practice that this be permitted under the sub-amendment, but it is my

interpretation and recalling the delibera tions which took place in the committee which established the present rules, that that would apply generally to the first amendment offered by my friend the Leader of the Opposition, but when we came to a speclflc item such as we have before us this afternoon as the sub-amend ment, then on the sub-amendment topic these speeches would be held completely within the confines of that amendment.

I don't know if my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition would substantiate that in general but that was my understanding, Sir, of the agreement at that committee, and following that Sir, and on that understanding, when my colleagues in my own party were going to take

part in this debate I suggested to them that they should speak strictly relevant to the motion. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to assist you in recalllng what happened at the committee in which you were I think present on every occasion, I would like to give my remembrance of the situation. It is the same as that of the Honourable the Leader of the CCF Party that we had quite a discuss Ion on this question.

We admitted that there had been a great deal of latitude in the past and I thought that we resolved by unanimous agreement that from now on that the rules of the House would be enforced, and I thought that was one of the reasons that we changed the very first general rule.

Where we had previously said that if our business would be conducted in accordance wlth the rules, orders, usages and custom of this House, and to get away from that usages and customs of this House, we left that part out and said quite specifically in the new rule that proceedings in the House and in all committees thereof shall be conducted in accordance with the rules and with the sessional and other orders of the Page 76 February 20th, 196 1

(Mr. Campbell, cont1d. ) ..... Asse mbly. Then sub-sect ion 2 of that rule, in any case for which provis ion is not made In the rules or by sess ion or other orders, the usages and customs, not of this house, Mr. Speaker, but the usages and customs of the House of Commons of Canada , as in force at the time, shall be followed so far as they are applic able in the Asse mbly. I thought that the reason that we were doing that was to spec ify that we were getting away from those old usages and customs that we adm ittedly had here.

And so I sub mi t, as the Honourable the Leader of the CCF party has, that under Rule 30, which he has already quoted, speeches shall be direct to the question under consideration or to a motion of order. I think under that, which is our own rule, that there is no question -- here I am arguing the case, I think, for the government rather than for the Opposition, because surely it's to the advantage of the government that the discussi on should be relevant at all times.

If we are allowed to debate it, every subject on every amendm ent and sub-ame ndment, then I think the debate is bound to last longer than otherwise. I thought that there was an agree ment from this si de as well as the government's si de that from now on we would try and observe the rules exactly as they appear in our little red book -- our new little red book -- and like the Honourable the Leader of the CCF I certainly didn't want to raise the point when the Honourable Member for St. Ja mes , who was a comparatively new member, was speaki ng.

But I think it is better for all concerned that we get it settled now. Let's understand what we are going to do and then we won't have to have this si tuation aris ing many times. Mr. Speaker, I know that you are conversant with the si tuation generally, and anything that I have sai d here -- I do not pose as an expert or even proclaim my long acquaintance with the proceedi ngs of the House, because after all, we can all make mist akes and we can all forget what happens.

But I think we should try now, under our new rul es, following a comm ittee that worked very hard at it and had a good deal of unanimity, to try and arrive at exactly what they are and then abide by them . MR. J. M. FROESE (Rhineland) : Mr. Speaker, while we are on the subject under dis cuss ion, I mi ght say that I agree with the Attorney-General that some fl exibll ity should be giv en, espec ially in cases llke myself where I am unable to make any amendm ents of my own to the Throne Speech, yet I would lik e to have a wide range in order to speak on the debate.

Therefore, I feel that my si tuation is not covered under the rules and some flex ibllity should be given. MR. SPEAKER: ........ observation on the point of order ? MR. R. G. SMELLIE (Birtle -Russell): Mr.

Speaker, if my memory serves me correct, when the committee was discussi ng this particular matter there was considerable discussi on about the dranghtlng of the amendment and the sub-ame ndment, and there was substantial agreement by the members of the comm ittee at that time that the amendment and the sub amendment should be draughted as closel y as poss ible to give great scope to the range of debate and -- (Interject ion) -- no, the ame ndment and the sub-amendment, and I agree with you, the Honourable Leader of the CCF, that at that time w.e did agree that the rules of the House we would try and enforce, but on the understanding that the amendmEnts and sub amendments would be of such a nature as to allow great la titude in the debate.

I think that was the understanding of the Comm ittee at that time. MR. W. B. SCARTH, Q. C. (River Heights}: I have not the advantage of having attended on the comm ittee, but it would seem a remarkable rule if, say oppos ition members -- the leaders of the oppos ition members could bring forth point after point after point against the Throne Speech, and then other members were restricted from even bringing up the points which they brought forward.

That would seem to me to be mos tly a one-sided debate, Sir, and all that a member would have to do is get up in the oppos ition groups , slap the governmmt from every si de and then say no, you of the government ranks must deal absolutely strictly within what is contained in my amendm Ent. I cannot unders tand that

interpretation of any ruling, Sir. MR. s. PETERS (Elmwoo d} : .•••...... of this si tuation is this , that under the sub amendment, you deal with the sub-amendme nt, you deal with the sub-amendtre nt only and when you come to the main amendment then you can deal with anyth ing that you want. There fore, the government members would have every opportunity to have their two cents worth. MR. SPEAKER: I must say that the object of rules are , of course , to bring order lnto February 20th, 196 1. Page 77

(Mr. Speaker, cont'd. ) ....• debate and we also are a democracy and we don't wish to restrict debate too much. I am of the opinion that poss ibly I might take another look at this and let the debate continue this afternoon. I think that we should come to some definite arrangement and stick to it, because we can't allow one man to have one set of rules and another man an other set of rules. I'll take a very careful look at it and report to the sess ion tomorrow, and, in the meanti me, the debate will continue on the amendment. to the amendment. MR. PAULLEY: Specifically or broadly ? MR. SPEAKER: Broadly.

Some latitude wlll be given this as was given the last speaker. MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. Joh n's): In ris ing, I would like to congratulate you on being in your seat again. I'd also like to congratulate the mover and the seconder on the Speech to the Throne for their contribution to the debate. Mr. Speak er, I did not expect that I would be speaki ng on this am endment at such an early time.

I would have thought that at least the member for LaVerendrye who, accordi ng to the Pre ss, is going to try to give a new directi on to the Liberal Party would have paid some attention to the deliberations of the National Convention of the Liberal Party held recently, and would have at least arisen by now to express his opinion of the amendment which we have pre sented.

It may be, of course, that like most Manitoba Li berals he has not yet read of the deliberations which took place in Ottawa, and I want to take a moment just to quote something of the resolution which they passed, with the hope that if he hasn't heard of it until now that he will give it some thought and poss ibly he, at least, will vote for this amendment. I want to quote from an

article which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune, February 3rd of 1961, headed: "A $750 mi llion Liberal prom ise". Here's what the

article says : "The princip al plank in the Liberal platf orm for the next Federal election will be a national medical insurance plan. Liberals promise a medical plan covering doctor's bills and prescribed drugs. It looks as though the Liberals are talking about an initial medical plan. Dental , optical and nurs ing ser vices are promised for late r, costing in the area of $750 mi llion a year. " Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals really meant what they were talking about at Ottawa, there is no reason why every member of the Liberal group in this House ought not to vote for the amendment which we have proposed.

And, Mr. Speaker, the great white father in Ottawa, Mr. Diefenbaker, not to be outdone, has already announced the appointment of a Royal Commissi on to study the whole question of Health Insurance, to be headed by the Chief Justice of Saskatchewan. I would suggest, Mr. Speak er, that some of the members oppos ite ought to give serious consideration to the support of our amendment. Mr. Speaker, the speech of the Minister of Health and Welfare was typical of the speeches which he has given with regard to this resolution. He almost ignored our amendment com pletely. Mr.

Speake r, I would suggest that the Minister ought to give some real thought to it, because in 1962 the Province of Sas katchewan will institute a program of Health Insurance and when they do that, Mr. Speaker, this province and this government, like the government of every other province in Canada , will have to start consideri ng Health Insurance ser iously, just as they had to consider Hospi tal Ins urance seri ously; and just as from 1947, when the Province of Sas katchewan began their hosp ital plan, until 1961, every other province in Canada has adopted a form of Hosp ital Insurance. Now, Mr.

Speak er, I want to comment just briefly on the speech which the Minister made with regard to hosp ital costs. Somebody once said that if you have a poor case you are apt to make a long speech, because in the long sp eech and in the figures you use, people will poss ibly forget that you have a weak argnment and that, Mr. Speak er, is precisel y what the Minister did. The Minister suggested that the rise in premiums which this government instituted within this last year was due in part, at least to the poor planning of the former government. Mr.

Speaker, I don't know that it is necessa ry for me to defend the former government. I only want to make this comment about that part of his speech. I under stand that the former government used as their chief advisor in se tting up of the Hospital Insurance Plan, Dr. Malcolm Taylor, and I am told that Dr. Taylor not only helped to institute the plan in Manitoba but that he was the advisor in Saskatchewan and three other provinces, including the Conservative Government of Ontario. Incidental ly, I notice that the Minister made some complimen tary remarks about the plan in Ontario.

Well the plan in Ontario was set up with the same advisor as the plan in Manitoba. Now, Mr. Speake r, we in this group are not surprised that the cost of hosp ital ization is Page 78 February 20th, 1961.

(Mr. Orlikow, cont1d. ) ..•.. going up. We are not surprised because we always said that the former methods of paylng for hospital costs, the Blue Cross Scheme , a voluntary scheme , was not adequate; that it did not provide for the proper utilization of hospitals. And when we see the costs going up, as they are going up, we are not surprised because we recognize and we accept the fact that hospitals are now be ing used in the amount required rather than on the ability of the people to pay for the plan as before. But, Mr.

Speaker, I do want to make some com ments about the method used and the amount of the increase. And, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that there is anything which I could say which could put the case better. Incidentally, Mr.

Speaker, nothing the Minister said in his speech on Friday answers the case which was made to the government in a brief submitted to them by the Manitoba Farmer's Union on July 11th, 1960, and i- I want to quote from the brief made by the Manitoba Farmer's Union and I want to say that the people I :.. ·epresent, the people in the cities and the labour organizations, can endorse the criticisms made of this government by the Manitoba Farmer's Union one hundred percent. And I want to read some of the things which they said. MR. G. JOHNSON (Gimli): .•... •.... every bit of that brief?

Did the honourable member say that all of that brief is accurate and that they endorse it as it is written? I am referring, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that that brief was a little misinformed. At one point they mentioned that we were loading T. B. and other things under the premium system. Does he believe that? MR. ORLlKOW: Mr.

Speaker, I wlll read the parts of the -- I'm not saying that I agree with every word, that I would cross every t and dot every i, I'm saying that I and the people I represent, the organizations such as the Manitoba Federation of Labour, endorse the major points made in this brief completely and the major points, incidentally, which were ignored almost com pletely by the Minister in his speech on Friday. Here's what they say, Mr. Speaker. "It has been the policy of the Farmer's Union to support a comprehensive hospital insurance program.

Therefore, we were pleased when our government implemented such legislation in order that all people in our province may be assured of adequate hospitalization whenever required. However, we believe that both individual and family contributions into a hospitalization program should be set at a level which would not embarrass people in the lower income groups and yet, at the same time, not leave a feeling that they are getting something for nothing.

We fully recognize that hospital care must be paid for, but we question that the exorbitant increases in hos pital administration costs in our province have been fully justified, not to mention the 50% increase just recently effected in the premium rate in our hospitalization program. Any family living on less than $3, 000 annual income will find it impossible to pay these increased rates without lowering their present standard of living to subs istence level.

We are sure our government is aware that a vast number of our farming population fall into this category, and in view of the critical economic position the farmer finds himself today, he will find it an extreme hardship to meet these increased premiums. The rather abrupt announce ment of increases ln premium rates has raised a storm of protest and much critic ism . We had our twelve district conventions across the province at which over 800 delegates unanimously too took a strong stand opposing the drastic increase in hospital premiums.

The increase in premium rates effective now places Manitobans in a posttion where the hospital premiums are the highest of any province in Canada, in some cases more than double that of other provinces. On the basis of information concerning premiums charged in other provinces, we question whether a 50% increase is fully justified in Manitoba. " Further they say, Mr. Speaker, and I quote again, "The Manitoba plan operated in 1959 with a surplus of $17 5, 000. To show this position the Manitoba Government only required to contribute $3 , 000, 000 from general levy.

Publicity to date indicates that your preliminary survey showed costs for 1960 to be over last year by an estim ated $1. 8 mlllion. Even if such higher costs should materialize the increased rate the government has put into effect wlll be far higher than required to take care of any deficits. We are informed that the increase to slngle premium payers, an additional $1. 6 mlllion will be raised from 139, 000 ratepayers in March; and under family premiums, an additional $4. 4 mlllion wlll be raised from 19 3, 000 ratepayers.

This means that the increase in rates will produce an additional .$6 mlllion for the program to cover an anticipated increase of 1. 8 mlllion dollars. In our frank opinion we believe there is no justification for such a heavytaxloadbeing placed at this time on the Manitoba public. We do not believe that hospital operating costs ln Manitoba are any higher than they are in Ontario, and yet indications are February 20th, 1961 Page 79.

(Mr. Orllkow, cont'd. ) •.... that the Ontario Government is anticipating only a ten percent increase in rates. Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this argument is valid and it was not answered at all by the Minister. Mr. Speaker, we have said and we will continue to say that to charge almost the entire cost of the province's share of hospitalization to the consumer, as we are doing in Manitoba, is wrong in principle and wrong in practice, because this method does not differen tiate between those who can afford to pay and those in the lower income brackets .

Only a system whereby only part of the cost is paid through premiums and part through the general revenues of the province would be fair. This is already done by other provinces. This government should not shirk its responsibility; should not be blami ng the Legislature; should not be asking the Legislature to face the responsibllity which is the government's one for devis ing a plan along this line. It ls suggested by the Minister that the increase of almost 50% in hospital premiums was made necessa ry by increased costs.

The increase in premiums will bring in about $6 million annually, as already pointed out, to cover a deficit this year of$1. 8 million. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this House and the people of Manitoba will only know the real increased costs when we see how much money the Federal Government will pay as their share of the costs for 1961 as compared to what they paid in 1960. I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that the real reason for this tremendous increase in the rates is the desire of this government to avoid another increase in 1962 and another increase in 1963 , by which time of course they hope that the electorate will have forgotten the tremendous increase and by which time the election will be over. That's the real reason for a 50% increase on the part of this government; an increase which we have not seen in any other province in Canada. Now, Mr� Speaker, I would like to deal in some detail with our amendment, calling for a com prehensive system of health insurance.

The World Health Organization has said that the highest standard of health is the inalienable right of every individual. Health is not merely the absence of disease but is the achievement of the highest standard of physical, soc ial and emotional well-being of which the individual is capable. Money spent on health, Mr. Speaker, by a provincial government, is money well spent. In 1958 the Province of Saskatchewan spent 28% of lts budget, over $38 million on health, while we in Manitoba were spending only 11% of our budget, a mere $11-3 /4 million.

Sas katchewan's infant mortality rate in 1958 was only 25 per 1000, down from a figure in 1950 of 30 to 1000; while Manitoba's infant mortality rate was 30 per 1000 down from 35 per 1000 in 1950. Saskatchewan was spending $43 on health in 1958 per capita, while we in Manitoba were spending $14 per capita. Now it's true that we've increased our expenditure since 1958 but I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we still have a long way to go. It has been argued, Mr. Speaker, that medical care of high quality is available now in this province and that a government sponsored program is unnecessary. The fact remains, Mr.

Speaker, that there are many people who do not seek medical care, which they need, because of the high cost involved. A Canadian sickness survey conducted by the Federal Government in 1951 pointed this out quite clearly. It showed that the low income groupwere found to have more illness and days of disability tl:J.an did the higher income group. On the other hand, the volume of medical care received by the iow income group was much less than that served by those in the higher income brackets.

Provision of medical care presents a recognized economic problem because no individual or family can know in advance when he or she will be ill, or for how long. We can be sure that the cost of illness will be very evenly distributed. The majori ty of people will have only minor illnesses in any one year and the cost · for them will not be beyond their means. A sma ller group will have more illness and sub stantially higher medical bills, whlle a few will find the cost of medica l care so high that the financial consequences will be a catastrophe for them.

Insurance against illness frees the individual of the uncertain prospect of medical bills that may never amount to much but may reach staggering proportions. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be too critical of the voluntary plans which we now have. Voluntary plans have been fine for a large number of people and they are fine as far as they go but, unfortunately, they do not and they cannot cover the entire population.

The Man itoba Medical Service, which is one of the better plans and for which I think the medical pro fession of Manitoba may well be congratulated, covers substantially less than half the people Page 80 February 20th, 1961.

(Mr. Orllkow, cont•d. ) .. •.. in this province, and if you ask yourself who is left out, you will see that the people who are left out, Mr. Speaker, are those who need it the most. The old people are left out; the sick people are left out; people on low incomes are left out; the farmers are to a large extent left out; and, in fact, if any person or persons has too big a medical bill means will be found, if they can be found within the legal provision of the M. M. S. regulations, to get rid of those people. I have a friend, Mr. Speaker, who belonged for a number of years to a group.

No questions were asked about that group but,. lo and behold, when he ran into some very serious and continued illness in his family, an examination was made and it was dec ided that this group was not a legitimate employee group, with the result, Mr. Speaker, that the group was dis solved. More than that, this man was not permitted to join the M. M. S. except on the "H" coverage plan, which means he would only have medical coverage when he or his family are in the hospi tal.

Well, fortunately for him nobody is in the hosp ital; but unfortunately for him, his wife has an illness which required her to see the doctor twice a week. The doctor spends from half an hour to an hour with her each visit. I think the doctor is being pretty reasonable by his standards, but the doctor bill to this man for his wife alone is running <at $50 a month. The man has three children and he estimates that the cost of their medical bills is between $10 and $15 a month. So there you have , Mr. Speaker, a doctor bill for one n:ian running between $60 and $65 a month. I want to suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that there are very few of us who can afford to remain solvent with this kind of medical bill. I'm not blaming the M. M. S. They have to protect the people who belong. They have to protect the rates as they exist, but because they cover a limited group they cannot afford to carry the people who really need the service. And so, Mr. Speaker, the voluntary plan, as good as they may be, simply doesn't meet the needs of the people of this province or of this country. Now, Mr. Speaker, a government sponsored plan must be built on a pre-payment princ- _iple .

Paid for on an insurance basis doesn't mean that collectively the people would pay less for medical service. It does mean that the costs would be spread over the entire population instead of being borne as they are now by those unfortunate enough to be ill. Medical care plan must have universal coverage. Every person must be covered, the good risks as well as the bad, so spreading the cost over the entire population. There must be a high quality of service. Quality of service can and should be improved and a better distribution and availa bility of care needs to be accomplished.

Medical personnel in rural areas is inadequate at the present time. A government plan, applicable to every person in the province, which would encourage group practice both graduate work and refresher courses could, with government participation in health insurance, insure adequate care for people in rural areas. Present voluntary plans do not and cannot permit integration of curative and preventative services. Medical programs need to be concerned not only with curing people after they get ill but also with the more desirable objective of keeping people well.

A government sponsored program must be administered by a public body responsible to the government. If people's money is to be used to provide medical services then government must take the responsibillty for how the money is spent and for the administration of the program. Mr. Speaker, I reject completely the suggestion of some people that all we need to do is to have the government pay into M. M. S. the money for the people who cannot afford to belong to M. M. S.

When the government is paying for people then the government should administer the service, and the government would be responsible t0 the people; and if the government didn't do a job the people could take care of it at a subsequent election. A government plan must be in a form acceptable to those providing the service, which means the doctors, and those receiving it. But this can, Mr. Speaker, be done.

Between 20 and 25% of the doctors in Canada are already working on a salary and there is no reas9n why, either through a salary plan or through a per capita plan, we cannot devise a plan to meet the needs of the people of Canada as have other governments in other countries. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this has already been done in a pilot project in the area of Swift Current, and I want to read, Mr. Speaker, a few excerpts from an

article which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune on June 6, 1960 written by Don McGillivray headed "Dull Weather for Medical Insurance". Here's what, in part, Mr. McGillivray said and I commend it to the members of the House if they haven't seen it till now, and I quote: "What Swift Current has done today Saskatchewan may have next year; the rest of Canada may have within a decade. What do the 52, 000 farmers, ranchers, businessmen, February 20th, 1961 Page 81

(Mr. Orlikow, cont•d. ) ..... housewives, school children and toddlers in the region get, and how much do they pay for it? They get more than is provided in most voluntary medical care plans. They get the services of the 42 doctors in the region and payment of specialist fees for treatment outside the region as required. The get x-rays, laboratory work and physiotherapy, all paid for by the region. There is dental care for children up to the age of 12. There are no waiting periods, no maximum liability by the region, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions or age. What do they pay?

There are three kinds of payments. One is a personal tax of $24 for a single person; $40 for a family of two; and $50 for a family of three or more. Another source of revenue is the property tax which raises about $25 0, 000 a year, and there are deter rent charges which the doctor may make on each home or office call. The fact ts, though, that relatively few doctors make a practice of charging deterrent fees unless a patient is mak ing a nuisance of himself. It all works out to about $19 per person or an average of about $50 per family.

For this amount of money some residents have received an enormous amount of medical care; others have received practically nothing. Last year, for example, 19% of the insured population didn't have to visit a doctor; but this is a feature of any insurance scheme. Some of the other disadvantages, which are supposed to dog any health insurance scheme, either haven't shown up or have been successfully controlled by the Swift Current region. The doctors haven't deserted the scheme en masse. When it started there were 19 doctors in the region.

There are now 42, a growth that parallels the increase ln the profession in other parts of the province. There has been a fairly blg turnover of doctors, only three now practis ing in the region when the scheme started, but the average income of Swift Current doctors is above that for doctors in other parts of the province. Nor is there any evidence of a decline in the standards of medical care or of interference in the doctor-patient relation. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this is. an example of what can be done when government decides that the job needs to be done .. Now, Mr.

Speaker, health insurance instituted by governments can assure the right of every citizen, without regard to his social or economic status, to have access to all those services and facilities which are or should be available to keep them in good health as long as possible, and to ••..... MR. CAMPBELL: I was wishing to ask the honourable member, Mr. Speaker, if he is in favour of a deterrent in such schemes, because I notice that the one that he's quoting mentions a deterrent. MR. ORLIKOW: Mr.

Speaker, I don't think that I or anybody else in this House can answer that question at the moment, or can answer that question until we get down to the actual planning of the details of the plan. This is a very important question and is one that wlll be dealt with at the time that the plan is instituted by any particular province. It goes into the question of the cost, and I don't think that the detail whether you have a deterrent charge or not really has anything to do with the basic principle of whether you adopt a health insurance plan or not. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Speaker, may I ask the honourable mem ber if he considers a deterrent just a detail ? MR. ORLIKOW: Just a detail ? MR. CAMPBELL: Just a detail, MR. ORLIKOW: Yes, it's just a detail which will be handled in one way by one province . and another way by another province. I certainly cannot say how we should deal with it today because I don't know when this government will get on wit h this job. When I do, maybe we can have a discuss ion of it then. Now, Mr.

Speaker, gallup polls have shown that the Canadian people want health insurance; Canada's political parties have endorsed health insurance pro grams and plans; and I have already indicated when and where they did it. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come when we stop talking about it and we get on with the job of starting the job of giving the people of Canada, the people of Manitoba the kind of protection so they will have good health which they want and which they are entitled to . MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I was wondering - I perhaps drew the wrong inference, but there seemed to be a suggestion in the earlier part of your speech that a case that you referred to of a group having been changed from an employee-em ployer group back to a family group, that there was some suggestion, as I drew it from what you said, that this was done falsely by the Manitoba Medical Service? Page 82 February 20th, 1961.

MR. ORLIKOW: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. LYON: Well let us be actually clear on the point. MR. ORLIKOW: I think I was very clear and I think Hansard wlll bear me out. All I said was that from my observation and from the people I talked to, when bllls get high M. M. S. starts to look very carefully at the groups involved; and this is a legitimate position for them to take. The closer they watch the cost the more they can keep the general cost of the prem iums down. All I'm saying is that M. M. S. is not equipped, and no voluntary plan is equipped to carry people who have very high medical bills. That 's all I'm saying.

And so, therefore, they are -- I'm not being critical of the fact that they look at all groups. They went through north Winnipeg and I think the Honourable Minister knows it quite well. They went through north Winnipeg several years ago, took a number of groups which were not really em ployee groups but which they had been very happy to have in the initial stages, groups built around various fraternal and ethnic groups and wiped them out and offered them precisely what I say they offered to this individual, the"H" plan, which is really of no ass istance to old people at all. MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr.

Speaker, I looked up the responsibility of the Minister of Health concerning the operation of a plan such as M. M. S. a non-profit plan which the honour able member falls to .....• MR. PAULLEY: .•.•.... the Minister if he is asking a question? MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): I am asking a question. The reason I am asking this is that should there be some grave doubts in the mind of the honourable member as to the validity and practice of the M. M. S. , I understand that he can, according to the act under which M. M.

S. operates which I looked up the other day, he can, through the Minister of Health, he can ask any question or open any aspect of M. M. S. operation that any member of the House cares to do. - MR. ORLIKOW: I don't know that that was a question, but I'll give a suggestion to that would-be question. I would suggest to the Minister that he might consider doing for Jll .. M. S. what the Manitoba Farmer's Union suggested be done for hosp italization and that is that -- and it is on page 3 of their brief in case you have forgotten it -- when the M.

M. s. wants an increase in rates or wants to change the regulations they might very well be required to make their case to the Public Utilities Board before they get permission to make an increase. That would take away all doubts as to the validity of their increases. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, is the honourable member suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Board of the Manitoba Medical Services does these th ings without reference to the public interest? MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, may I suggest on a point of order here that if any of the honourable members opposite have a question that th ey would like to ask my colleague that they do so, Sir, through you, but not conduct a debate at this particular moment. They have ample opportunity to .. ...••.... MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable the Attorney-General wish to ask a question? MR. LYON: I know the answer before I get it. . • . . . • • • Continued next page February 20th, 1961. Page 83. J

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Selkirk. MR. T. P. I:llLLHOUSE , Q. C. (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I am going to confine myself strictly to the amendment to the amendment , and hence I will dispense of the usual courtesies of love-making. Now a great deal has been said, during the course of this debate on the amendment to the amendment , regarding the Liberal Rally at Ottawa. Now I was there , and that rally was called for the purpose, the primary purpose of getting the thoughts of the grass roots as to the various problems that were facing Canada .

There were some 26 committees set up, at which were processed the various resolutions which these committees were dealing with. There was one resolution come in regarding a comprehensive medical scheme.

Now the Honourable the Minister of Health, on speaking on this matter the other day , spoke of the __ tremendous costs of it; 3.J1d I would like to make it abundantly clear that -- and the government knows the Liberals are the opposition in Ottawa - but I want to make it abundantly clear that even if the Liberals do form the next Government in Canada it's not their intention to bring in that comprehensive medical scheme until the country is in the financial position to carry the load -- (Interje ction) -- No, that's true . If anybody was listening to the Honourable Lester B.

Pearson the other evening when he spoke over the nation"s business, I think he made it abun dantly clear that night that this scheme would only be inaugurated when the country was able to face the financial costs of it. MR . PAULLEY: May I ask the honourable member a question? MR. I:llLLHOUSE: Yes. MR. PAULLEY: Did not the Honourable Lester Pearson likewise say that we could have a reduction in taxes at the same time? MR. I:llLLHOUSE: He suggested a reduction in taxe s but that's got nothing to do with this amendment , and I am speaking strictly to your amendment to the amendment.

A great deal has been said about this proposed comprehensive medical scheme of the Liberal Party , and the Honourable Member for St . John, who just sat down, said that it was impossible to in,. troduce a comprehensive medical scheme of health insurance in Canada unless it was compul sory, and � suggest to the honourable member that the scheme that was submitted by a resolu tion to the Liberal Rally at Ottawa is not a compulsory scheme; it's purely voluntary.

It doesn't rule out the right of an individual to take the coverage under any scheme that's for sale by any organization or insurance company whatsoever, and even if an individual does not have that type of coverage himself, he still doesn't have to take the benefits of the scheme . The only thing is this, that if an individual does take the benefits of the scheme , the amount of benefit that he receives is added to his taxable income.

That's the way the scheme is going to work; so that those people who have no taxable income and who do take the benefit of the scheme, and the amount of which is added to their income , they will only be taxable in the total if it's above their taxable income; but if their income is such that the amount of medical care that they get doesn't bring their income into the taxable bracket, they don't pay anything.

Now that's the scheme in essence, and as far as I am concerned, I think it one of the finest schemes that has ever been proposed because it hasn't got that compulsory feature which is obnoxious to most of us; it doesn't rule out the competition of private enterprise; and you don't have to take it unless you want it. Now the Honourable Minister has criticized the Liberal Opposition, when they were in government, for introducing into Manitoba the M.H .S.P .

I wonder if the honourable member recalls that when his own leader was in the opposition he kept urging the government of that day to introduce some type of hospital aid scheme, and I believe, too , that the Honourable -First Minister, when he was leader of the Opposition, voted for the M. H. S. P. scheme when it came into this house in 1958. Now there is no one on this side of the house, who was on that side of the house then , wishes to minimize the difficulties that would be encountered when that scheme came into being.

We realized and realized fully, that although we had sufficient beds at that particular time to take care of the ordinary needs of the people of Manitoba, the minute such a scheme came into being more hospital beds would be required; and as the scheme got going, still more hospital beds would be required.

We realized that and that was the reason, I believe, that in 1959 when the Honourable Leader of the CCF intr oduced a simi lar amendment to the Throne Speech, as he has today , why I voted against it; because I felt at that time that the Honourable Minister of Health and Welfare -- it was most unfair to try and Page 84 February 20th, 1961

(Mr. Hillhouse , cont'd .) ••••• saddle him with some other problem when the problem of hospi talization was still to be solved. We appreciate fully, on this side of the house, the fact that it is going to take several years to iron out all the problems involved in a hospital scheme; but there is one thing though that we do feel , and that is this, we feel that if the government had not spent the surplus which was left in the Post-War Emergency Fund the way they had done, that they might have been able to use some of that money to take up some of the shock of the increased premiums.

Now regarding the method of collecting premiums under this scheme, there are several methods that can be used. There is one, a sales tax, and I don't think anyone in this house . would support such a method because , in my opinion at least, I think that a sales tax is the most iniquitous type of tax that can be imposed. It's imposed without any thought of ability to pay.

Now there is another type that could be used and that is used by the Federal Government in collecting contributions to Old Age Security, and I suggest to the Honourable Minister that he should take that method under consideration with a view to seeing whethe r the Federal Government.would not act as an agent for the Province of Manitoba in collecting premiums in a similar manner. Now I am not suggesting to the Honourable Minister what the premium would be , but I would suggest to him that it would be a maximum premium, the same as it is under Old Age Security today.

I think that the maximum premium that any individual has to pay in Canada today is $60 .0 0 a year -- that is the maximum. I suggest that that method would be an equitable method, because you say yourself that you are paying the premium for 41, 00 0 inhabi tants of this Province. You would still have to pay their premiums no matter what type of scheme you had, but you would at least be collecting premiums on the basis of ability to pay, and I think that that is the most equitable method of imposing and collecting any type of pre mium.

Now I appreciate and realize that no changes can be made in this agreement without the concurrence of Ottawa, but I do suggest with all sincerity that when you are discussing with Ottawa the question of variations in that agreement, that you should keep in mind this method of collecting. There is another advantage to that method too. It has been suggested in the newspapers that the premium to be charged would be on a sliding scale, on the basis of ability to pay. Now if that method is adopted by the Provincial Government it means that you would have to make your own means test.

It means, too, that you would have to have an addi tional staff to take care of that matter;

whereas if you used the Federal Government as your agent to collect premiums through Income Tax, the means test would be applied by the proper officers of that department; and I suggest that it would be a very easy way of dealing with the situation and would eliminate the main objection that most people have to this premium today, that it is not based on ability to pay, but it is a universal premium flat across the board. Now the Honourable Minister of Health also suggested, I believe that I am correct, that he would like to see some voluntary aspects to this scheme.

Is that right? -- (Interjection)- Did I misunderstand you, that you still wish to keep the scheme as a compulsory scheme? M. H.S.P. ? MR . JOHNSON (Gimli): I didn't mention that in my address -- (Interjection) -- I just think I made reference , Mr . Speaker , to the important role of the volunteer in future . MR. HILLHOUSE: Oh, I see, that's what it was . You might also too , Mr.

Speaker - the Honourable Minister of Health might also too consider the method that was proposed at the Liberal Rally at Ottawa for collecting premiums -- to give people an opportunity, if they wish to have coverage under a·private scheme they could still have it under a private scheme, but base the amount of premiums that they would have to pay on income. Now the Leader of the CCF' s amendment criticizes the government for not having taken the initiative in proposing a Provincial or a Federal-Pro vincial comprehensive plan of health insurance.

Now I can't support the provincial aspect of it -- that is going it alone. I think any government in Manitoba that ever tried to go alone on this scheme would be committing not only political suicide but financial suicide, and it would be most unwise to embark on such a scheme alone. Now as to taking the initiative in a Federal-Provincial scheme, well I under stand that two-dab John has got a Royal Commission studying this question just now, and to pass such a resolution -- (Interjection) -- The Prime Minister.

There is a Royal Commis sion set up to study this scheme and I submit that if we did pass such a resolution that a Federal-Pro vincial comprehensive plan of health insurance be embarked upon, that the February 20th, 196 1 Page 85

(Mr. Hillhouse , cont' d.) •••.• answer you would get would be that we are waiting on the report of this Royal Commission, so I think as far as the amendment to the amendment is concerned, it is purely academic; it is simply put on the Order Paper for the purpose of establishing a platform for the CCF Party, or the new party, whichever you want to call it.

Now I am going to vote against the amendment to the amendment, but I want to make it abundantly clear that I still think that the day is not far distant in Canada when we are going to have a comprehensive medical scheme; but I don't think that the time is ripe for it now. I don't think that the economy of our country could stand it just now and I do not think the economy of our province could stand it; and I think that the government would be well advised to resist the temptation of embarking on a scheme which might meet with approval of some people but would get you into untold trouble. MR . FRED GROVES (St.

Vital): I would like first of all, Mr . Speaker , to say that we see very ample evidence of your good health and your good disposition and I wish you well in your tenure of office , which I think is going to be much longer than those in the two opposition parties are prepared to admit. I would also like to extend my personal congratulations to the new Member from Pembina.

Our chamber is now graced with a second lady who I am sure will acquit herself well to her province and to her constituency, and as an aside on the Member from Pembina, I might say that her presence in the House is perhaps an indication that, we can take with a grain of salt or with our tongue in cheek, many of the things which the CCF might have to say at this session, because if they sincerely believe that hospital insurance and the many other matters that are dear to them are issues, they had an opportunity to test them in the by-election in Pembina.

The fact that they failed to do so is open, I think, to our own in dividual

interpretation. I might also say that we on this side are proud of the -- (Interjection) -- I might also say; Mr. Speaker, that we are very proud of the efforts of both the member that moved and the member that seconded the Address of the Speech from the Throne, and I would like to add my congratulations to the many that have been given to them.pr eviously in this debate and to the many that they will receive, I am sure, as this debate proceeds.

I have been intrigued ever since I became a member of. the House with some remarks that were made on March 23rd, 1959 by the Honourable Member from Inkster, on Page 202 of the Hansard of that year, in which he said, "All progressive legislation put in the statute books of this province in the last 25 years was advocated, demanded and created public opinion by the CCF, and in the earlier days by the Independent Labour Party'' .

This, I think, is a pretty wide claim that has been repeated many times, with little variations by himself and by his Honourable Leader, and if the number of CCF resolutions that I have seen presented to this House is any indication of their past performance, then the CCF have looked into their crystal ball and covered the field of practically everything that could possibly happen so thoroughly that no government could possibly bring in legislation that doesa't touch on some of these items that are covered in their resolutions. It is one thing, Mr.

Speaker , to sit back and fol low the logic of human progress and to come pretty close to what's going to happen five, ten or fifteen years from now, but it's another thing to be able to convince the electors of the pro vince to have sufficient faith in your group or your party to let them form a government and to do something about those things that the people want now. Thus, despite 25 years of pious resolutions, the CCF has failed to do; and I predict will fail to do for many years to come.

After all, 25 years ago we used to read the Buck Rogers comic strip, and we are coming pretty close now to those things that this comic strip wrote about some 25 years ago. And those of us who have read Jules Vern's books on science fiction are amazed, I think, to see how close we are coming now to the things that he mentioned, that must have been considered utter insanity at the time he wrote his books. And, Mr.

Speaker, if year after year one was to bring in a resolution urging the government to reserve property in the Greater Winnipeg area for the erection of a landing site for a rocket ship from Mars, I would suggest that such a resolution would be laughed out of the House. But that member might live long enough to have the last laugh for it may well be that that might be a very good acquisition for the Province of Manitoba. However, I am advocating no such thing, and so much for the CCF ability to see into the future. Now speaking to his amendment, and at this point in the debate, Mr.

Speaker, I intend to confine the rest of my remarks to the said amendment, and I am sure that this will be strictly within the rules and that it will accommodate my good friends to my right . Perhaps I could Page 86 February 20th, 1961

(Mr. Groves, cont'd.) •••.• start my remarks on this matter of a prepaid compulsory medical scheme by reading a paragraph from a letter that was issued by the Welfare Council of Greater Winnipeg. The first paragraph of their letter which deals with the universal compulsory medical scheme is this, "A medical service , both universal and compulsory for Canadians will be raised as an issue in the foreseeable future. This issue could be decided on its merits and necessi ty or, unfortunately, on the opportunism and motivation of a political event.

If permitted, however , it could be resolved to the best advantage of our country if wise men in government, the medical profess ion, and among citizens at large are able to establish with thoughtfulness and courage the facts pertaining to our national health needs, our ability to pay for them, and the manner of administering and providing the measures required. " And I sug gest, Mr.

Speaker, that in the field of health, as in no other field, people more than anything else want to see their needs met, and as long as this is done , I don't think it makes any differ ence to them whether the government operates a plan; whether the plan is a private or a co operative one ; whether the plan is operated by the medical profession; or whether the plan is a partnership of the medical profession and any one of the other three.

I am sure that if the facts were known and all the points of views were fully discussed that a poll would reveal, firstly, a desire for such a plan, but a preference for one not operated and financed and con trolled by the government. Let us look at the cost of such a plan. Let us also remember that a government-operated plan is one that is state owned, state controlled, state run and state financed. Let us also remember, too, that when the government pays the government controls . He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Based on some information that I compiled, along with the help of some statistics from the Department of Health and Welfare , these give us some idea of what the ultimate cost could be of such a plan for the Province of Manitoba. We'll assume for the purposes of my calculation that the scheme includes medical care , drugs , dentures and glasses . Now dealing with medical care , in the Province of British Columbia for welfare cases a doctor received 50% of his fee. The cost -- average -- $22 .0 0 per year per recipient. In Saskatchewan the cost averaged $21 .0 0 per year per recipient for the same thing.

In Alberta, I don't have the figures but I understand that it's somewhat less, but the average for the three western provinces is about $21.0 0 per recipient. Most plans, however, pay the doctor 75% of his fee s. So if we take the $21.0 0 average and add 25% we arrive at a figure of $30.0 0 per recipient, and if we multiply $30 .0 0 per recipient times 850, 000 for the population of Manitoba, we arrive at a sum fot medical care alone of $25,0 00, 000.

As to drugs, the average cost in Saskatchewan for drugs per recipient is $1 4.00; and under a compulsory program , since there would be more people included, it would be expected that this would be more than the $14.00. Dentures would run anywhere from $50.0 0 to $1 00.00 per recipient. Glasses, we take the wholesale price of lenses and fraines at say $1 5.0 0 per recipient. In addition, we have wheel chairs, crutches, artificial limbs, hearing aids and many other medical necessities that we cannot possibly get at their ultimate cost.

If we take then these figures we arrive at a total cost estimate of between 50 to 60 million dollars to institute such a plan for the Province of Manitoba, and if we divide that by the population of say 850 ,000, we arrive at $55 .0 0 per capita. Now this 50 to 60 million dollars sounds like an awful lot of money , but it compares somewhat favourably with the British plah which I understand averages out to about $40.0 0 per capita.

And if we add to this 50 to 60 million dollars for a health scheme the 27 to 28 million dollars that it presently is costing the Province of Manitoba for hospitalization, we arrive at a total bill that is more than three-quarters of the present provincial budget. This then, Mr. Speaker , is what this sub-amendment means to the Province of Manitoba, or means in terms of money. It's interesting too, Mr. Speaker, to see what the Manitoba Medical or the Canadian Medical Association says about hospital insurance .

Dated November, 1960, the Canadian Medi cal Assoc iation sent out an information bulletin which says that "The Canadian Medical Associa tion believes that the highest standard of medical service should be available to every resident of Canada . Insurance to prepay the costs of medical service should be available to all regard less of age , state of health, or financial status. Ce rtain individuals require assistance by paid medical service insurance costs, and the efforts of organized medicine , government, and all other interested parties should be co-or dinated towards these ends.

While there are certain aspects of medical service in which tax-supported programs are necessary, a tax-supported February 20th, 1961 Page 87

(Mr.

Groves, cont'd.) ••••• comprehensive program compulsory for all is neither necessary nor desirable." And I agree with the statement of the Canadian Medical Service in this con nection, and particularly I agree with points 6 and 7 of the principles that they have outlined to support this statement of theirs , and that is , that each patient has the right to have all informa tion pertaining to his medical condition kept confidential except where the public interest is paramount; and that the duty of the physician to his individual patient takes precedence over his obligation to any medical service insurance program.

Health care, Mr. Speaker, is a basic right that I think must be within the reach of all , and I think that we can achieve this aim without a government control of monopoly in this field. We do need, however, the government's financial help in outlying areas where otherwise no medical care would be available . We also need the government's financial help to take care of our welfare cases, and I think that this should be totally a government responsibility. I think that the government and the medical profession have a joint responsibility in the case of indi gents or those in the borderline wage category.

For others, I think that it should be strictly on a voluntary basis and that the matter of fees should be strictly a matter of negotiation, either between the patient and his physician, or by the physician and whatever scheme, volun tary or otherwise, that the patient cares to belong to. I'm convinced, Mr. Spea ker, that few people want complete state control in this field, and as long as they can get their medical needs met they're going to be satisfied with a scheme that will meet these needs at a reason able cost.

After all, -even in our own Manitoba Medical Service there are abuses by the patient member and there are abuses by the medical members , both of which are causing the present board of M.M.S . serious trouble. A state plan, I sug gest, would only tend to multiply these abuses. And I think while we're discussing this sub-amendment, Mr.

Speaker, that we might keep in mind that in Great Britain originally only 17% of the doctors agreed voluntarily to sign up for the plan and that this percentage was raised to 47% only after the doctors were told that they would go ahead with the 17% that were prepared to proceed and, in addition, that they would be prepared to buy the goodwill of the practices of the doctors that initially went into their plan. These are things I think, Mr. Speaker -- (Interjection) -- I haven't the slightest idea -- (Inter jection) -- that may well be . Perhaps, Mr.

Speaker, there is one most important aspect of this subject that we are all forgetting. Here we are considering the expenditure of some $50 to $60 million dollars -- for what? Firstly, to bring medical care within the reach of those of our people whom we think, because of low income and inability to pay large �medical bills, are not availing themselves of the high calibre of medical service that we have in this country; and this is good. I think it is commendable and right that we should concern ourselves about these people.

Secondly, we are considering the expenditure of these huge sums of money to improve medical services for those who can afford to pay for it. And thirdly, we are considering the expenditure of some of these millions on a comprehensive health scheme that will provide medical frills to those who are well able to pay more than we would charge for this service . What about, Mr. Speaker , the huge under-developed areas of this world with their countless millions of unfortunate people who have no medical care at all? What can we , in this land of abounding riches, do for the se people who get no medical care ?

Might not our national government be well advised to take some of these millions of dollars to improve the lot of others? Even in our own selfish interests , should we not give up some of our own comforts to those who are not long going to be satisfied with lowest class medical care and lowest class other comforts and necessities of life when they can observe, at fairly close range, the abundance that we have around us . If we are going to have legalized Robin Hood, Mr . Speaker, better to use some of it to build where it can do the most good.

We have no evidence that such a scheme as we are discussing on this sub-amend ment is wanted, provided that we can meet the needs of the people with the sources that are available to us now. A state monopoly, I maintain, will interfere with the conduct of the affairs of the medical profession.

A state monopoly will, I maintain, interfere with the private and confidential re lationship that exists now between the doctor and the patient; and it is a well-known fact, and I emphasize again that when the government pays the government controls, and there is a great deal of danger in our being rushed on a matter such as this by matters of political expediency Page 88 February 20th, 1961

(Mr. Groves, cont'd.) ...•• or otherwise. There is a great danger, Mr. Speaker, because we cannot easily retreat any steps that we take along this path. We must use, I think, an evo lutionary approach to this problem; not a revolutionary one. A complete take-over of this field by the government should be avoided. Such a course will lead eventually to all doctors becoming salaried officials of the state , just as sure as there are indications now that the ulti mate in our own hospital plan could be the taking over and actual running of our provincial J:los pitals by the gove rnment.

The Fe deral Government has set up a commission to study this problem and the Provin cial Government has set up a commission to study one important aspect of it. The medical profession has a national committee and provincial committees also studying this problem from their point of view. The final reports of the se various bodies will make very interesting reading. In the me an time , it is my opinion that we can meet the objections to our present system; that we can meet the medical needs of our people .

In fact, in Manitoba we have m:rle a great deal of progress in this manner with our Medicare program for those who are unable to pay the premiums for themselves. These things we can do , Mr . Speaker , without a govern ment controlled monopoly in this field. MR . SCARTH: Mr . Speaker, in congratulating you, I, like the last speake r, the Honour able Member from St. Vital, am a little more optimistic about your tenure of office and, Sir, if predictions are any good, it is my suggestion that you will be in the south end of the Chamber until such time as you voluntarily retire at an advanced ripe age .

There is one more member I would like to congratulate, Mr . Speaker, today, and that is myself. I sit between two charm ing ladies. As such, I am the envy of the Honourable the Leader of the Oppo sition. I wouldn't be surprised to see him over here any day. The light will suddenly come upon him. And then I was thinking, Sir, now why did the First Minister put me here ? Then looking over the ranks of our own party I came to the conclusion , but he has not confirmed this, that I mi ght be the one who would, of the whole party, least detract from the beauty of our two ladies here .

May I again, Sir, congratulate the Honourable Member from Arthur and my seat mate here , the Honourable Member from Cypress , who is now absent, on carefully prepared, well-delive red speeches. It was most refreshing for us all to hear such able addresses from two comparatively junior members of the House . Now Sir, we have heard a little discussi on on rulings this afternoon as to what one may or may not say today; and then the Honourable the Member from Selkirk got up and he said, "Mr .

Speaker , I am going to conform absolutely to the rules", and then he proceeded to tell the House what the Liberal Party at Ottawa did not decide . So, Sir, if I am just a little con fused, please forgive me . It will not be intentionally. I now refer to the speech of the Honourable the Leader of the CCF -- (Interje ction) - and since the gentleman has reminded me , I would like to speak of that -- the bet. As he stated, it was done facetiously, Mr . Speaker -- the bet. And like him, I will not divulge the quality of the merchandise or the type of merchandise that was exchanged from the loser to the winner.

The number was 12 , but if one might speak of the quality of the merchandise, I would remind the Attorney-Gene ral that on very rare occasions the scarcity of water in Manitoba could prove a blessing. Sir, I am grateful for the last speaker, the Honourable Member for St . Vital, for giving us figures on the subject matter of the CCF proposal . The figures are rather startling, and we all realize in this house that in medical care , those who cannot look after themselves should be cared for by the state .

That is general thinking, I think throughout, but I am going to ask the Honourable the Leader of the CCF to explain how he will get, or how he suggests that the Treasury gets this enormous annual fund required to support this scheme -- (Inte r je ction) -- No . Well, we have heard that before, but then you never seem to get where you are dire cting the rule except in one province, which is much misled. Does the Honourable Leader of the Opposition sugge st a sales tax? If so , I am going to ask him, upon what items, the amount and so forth. MR.

CAMPBELL: Is the honourable member referring to me , or did he use that term inadvertently? MR . SCARTH: I thought I said the Honourable the Leader of the Oppo sition. MR . CAMPBELL: That's what you said. February 20th, 1961 Page 89

MR . SCARTH: I am sorry, I would not wish to confuse the House to that extent . MR. CAMPBELL: Because I would be glad to answer that question. MR. SCARTH: I'll go to the Honourable Leader of the CCF. Does the Leader of the CCF suggest there be an increase in the g-as or diesel tax? Does he suggest an increase in the Liquor Tax? Incidentally, perhaps coming from River Heights I should not mention liquor stores, but I did anyway, but these, Mr. Speaker, are questions which should be answered and the House should know them.

Now anybody can get up and wave his hands around and say, let's have state medicine; let's do this for everybody and anybody. It's a vote catcher, yes, with those who do not think or do not understand; but then if we are going to have criticism , let's have something constructive and let's find out what the CCF have actually in mind to implement their own suggestions. So far they have come up with nothing. Now the Honourable Leader of the CCF did mention mining. I wish the CCF caucus would engage a tutor, Mr.

Speaker, to lecture them on, let us say, certain elementary points regard ing to economics and mining and the mining of oil. But I will just give you a small one now . They will, of course, come forward and say in the usual manner when you corner them, let us put on a tax for those exploiting our natural re�ources. I can just hear it coming up. But I would like to tell the honourable members of the CCF that the mineral tax, I speak now of hard . rock , is practically equivalent to that which is maintained in Quebec, Ontario and in Saskat chewan.

There are slight variations in certain respects, but basically, the mineral taxes are pretty well unifo rm. Coming to oil, we extract all our oil in Manitoba from the west and southwest portions. That area was settled some time before 1890 , with the result that appro ximately only 17% of the oil operated lands in Manitoba are owned by the Provincial Govern ment . As opposed to this, in Alberta and Saskatchewan, I am informed that over 90% of the oil lands are government owned; that is, the mineral rights are owned by the Saskatchewan and Alberta -governments respectively.

So , therefore, if the members of the CC F see a small re turn to Manitoba from oil and a very much larger return from the other provinces , they should bear in mind that the ownership in the Crown is about 90% compared to 17%. I am not clear to what the Honourable the Leader of the CCF -- or the points he was in tending to make when he referred to the $2 billion defence monies that we spend in this country. But if it was critical, I am going to suggest that in this country there is no room for compla cency, Mr .

Speaker, and sometimes I do wish the people of Manitoba and the people of Canada would wake up to the situation. In 1914, Kaiser Wilhelm ll of Germany could press a button as to whether there would be peace or war. Well, we had war. In 1939, Hitler had 11 or 12 gang sters around him. They decided to go into Poland. We know what happened. We know how many men and children were slaughtered and butchered by that fellow.

We have got, toda y , in the Kremlin about 13 men who are more autocratic and with wider powers than Hitler ever had, and I say, Sir, the only thing that will deter them is that if in this country and all the people realize that we have got to be ready for .anything that happens and to hit back just a little harder than they do, if occasion requires. And so, Sir, adding up all that the honourable the member of the CCF has made in regard to his points and argument, may I point·out that nothing plus nothing plus nothing still leaves nothing. MR. SPEAKER: Question? MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr.

Speaker, does my adjournment still stand? MR . SPEAKER: Do it again. MR. SHOEMAKER: I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Honourable Member for La- Verandrye, that the debate be adjourned. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Proposed motion by the Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR . SMELLIE: Mr. Speaker, before proposing this motion I would like to say, Sir , that I, as the Chairman of the Special Committee to consider the Elections Act, appreciated the spirit of co-operation with which all the members of the committe e entered into the debate.

I would not like to suggest, Sir, that our opinions were unanimous on all occasions; but I do think that the members of the committee did conduct themselves with decorum and I felt that there was a spirit of co-operation amongst all of the members of that committee and I wish to express my personal word of thanks to them. I would move , Sir, seconded by the Honourable Member from Roblin, that this House does concur in the report of the Special Committee Page 90 February 20th, 1961

(Mr. Smellie , cont'd.) .•..• appo

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-3-5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 3rd hansardpdf 5.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	59e6797a78d228d9d89d259030657509a909a732

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).