1976-03-15

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. All of Canada was shocked at the murder of yet another policeman in the city of Calgary. It was a further shock when the public was informed that the two main figures involved in this tragic weekend drama, William Nichols and John Gamble, were released on bail after having been charged with attempted murder and murder respectively. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre):
That this House urge the Attorney General of Canada to contact all provincial attorneys general in order to discuss and set out rules and criteria regarding the granting of bail to dangerous offenders such as the said Nichols and Gamble who committed another horrible deed in Calgary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House before presentation pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Minister of Justice wants to agree to it.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, the motion cannot be put.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. According to the research department of Amnesty International at least 6,000 persons in Uruguay, about one in every 450 of that country's 2.5 million people, is a political prisoner. During the last few years one in every 50 persons has been subjected to interrogation, arrest, imprisonment or torture. The rule of terror in Uruguay is brutal and as far reaching as
any in the world. I therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That our Department of State for External Affairs send a controlled and dignified appeal to President Bardaberry of Uruguay seeking an end to such monstrous crimes in his nation.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion can only be presented with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since, according to the basic rules of our judiciary system, a Canadian citizen cannot intervene in the affairs of a court concerning a case submitted to justice and acts illegally if he does, and since members of a government must not only abide by the same rules as every other citizen but should also make it a duty, as established authority, to set the example by taking on, as it were, the leadership of integrity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House discuss immediately the statement made Friday by the Prime Minister to explain his refusal to accept the resignation of the Minister of Public Works, with a view to finding out whether in fact the rule of law can guarantee that justice be done in a case in which politics are involved, such as "the judges' affair", which concerns the House, and also to discuss the need to set up strict rules of professional ethics for parliamentarians in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.
11782

March 15, 1976
Canadian National


CONGRATULATIONS TO NEWFOUNDLAND ON WINNING THE CANADIAN BRIER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 with the indulgence of the House. On Saturday, March 13, in the city of Regina four of Newfoundland's finest took on the best curlers the mainland could muster and walked away with the Canadian Brier. Now, it is on to Duluth for the world's championship and in the words of Shakespeare: "Lead on McDuff-damn'd be he that first cries hold, enough". I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour):
That the House extend its congratulations to Newfoundland on winning the Canadian Brier and further that this House direct that they bring home the world cup from Duluth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the presentation of the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The application of CNR to increase its passengers rates in Newfoundland is contrary to an announcement by the Minister of Transport on November 14, 1975 that all federal Crown corporations whose rates are subject to review or regulation by federal regulatory authorities will be subject to the government's anti-inflation guidelines. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the application of the CNR to increase passenger rates by some 250 per cent in the province of Newfoundland be investigated by the Canadian Transport Commission and that CNR be directed to cancel advertising which states: "Your money goes further when you go CN" and that "one of the few bargains left these days is a CN train ticket".


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can only be presented with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion. Because statements made by the Minister of Public Works have raised serious doubts about the propriety of the actions of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to make a full and complete statement on his discussions with the Minister of Public Works concerning the making of representations on his behalf to Associate Chief Justice Hugessen or any other members of the judiciary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the federal government will have to pay an estimated $122,000 to put each of the Francophone cadets through the new bilingualism course at the Royal Military Academy and $72,000 for each English speaking cadet, and in light of present economic conditions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Howie):
That the matter of the bilingual courses at the Royal Military College be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for an evaluation of these courses to determine if the Canadian taxpayer is receiving his money's worth and that a report be prepared by April 30.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provi-
March 15, 1976

sions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the fears of many Canadians who live near the Beaufort Sea and who depend on it for their livelihoods that the offshore drilling program proposed by Canmar for the summer could result in serious pollution damage to the area. In light of the fact that Mr. Justice Berger has already taken evidence about the possible effect of the program I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent (Mr. Holmes):
That this House strongly recommends to the cabinet that it seeks a special report from the Mackenzie Pipeline Inquiry before making a final decision on Canadian Marine Drilling Ltd.'s application to drill in the Beaufort Sea.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONGRATULATIONS TO EGON BEILER ON WINNING WORLD WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIPS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Joe Flynn (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Mr, Egon Beiler of Kitchener, Ontario is a winner of gold medals at the British Empire Games, the Pan-American Games and the World Cup Games, and now is the first Canadian wrestler to win a gold medal at the World Championships, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lafon-taine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance):
That the House convey through Mr. Speaker heartiest congratulations to Egon Beiler of Kitchener for being the first Canadian to win a gold medal at the World Championships of Wrestling.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Get him to wrestle inflation.


Mr. Speaker:: Having heard the terms of the motion, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Oral Questions


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since the Deschenes report has determined the exemplary conduct of the judges involved" and pointedly excluded any examination of the ministers involved, does the Prime Minister intend to continue to keep from parliament the facts about the conduct of the ministers?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, Chief Justice Deschenes makes it clear why he does not comment on the ministers themselves and why he does not make an investigation of the ministers, and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might want to refresh his memory on that. In so far as investigation of the facts, we believe that the facts which have to be known, in so far as they might or might not have consisted of contempt of court or interference with justice, have now been made known by the courts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Ridiculous!


An hon. Member:: Stonewall.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Unless hon. members opposite believe that the Chief Justice is not telling all the truth-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are not telling all the truth.


Charles Joseph Clark: We on this side of the House are confident that the Chief Justice has made public all the information which was available to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We only wish the Prime Minister of Canada would follow that tradition and make available to the House of Commons the information he possesses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Since the matter of intent, as alleged by Mr. Justice Mackay, related to conversations among ministers which the Chief Justice did not, because he could not, investigate, will the Prime Minister tell the House why he asked the Department of Justice strictly to advise whether the letter of the Chief Justice provided grounds for laying charges? Since the reported approach contained statements that could have constituted an attempt to influence the court, why does the Prime Minister refuse to allow investigation of the events that led to a calculated approach to Mr. Justice Hugessen?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the premise of the hon. member's question is erroneous-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
11784

March 15, 1976
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -when he indicates in some way that Mr. Justice Mackay is concerned about conversations between ministers. I know of nothing in Justice Mackay's allegations that would support that premise. Therefore, the conclusion is false.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the premise of the Prime Minister's response is evasive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As a supplementary question I should like to ask the Prime Minister, just so that we might be clear as to where we stand on the rights of parliament to have the facts of this case, does it remain the position of the Prime Minister that the House of Commons and the people of Canada have no right to know about the events which the Prime Minister knows about-the events that led to an intervention by a minister of the Crown with the courts of the land?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think all the facts about that are known-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Not at all.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -in so far as they relate to the contempt proceedings. In so far as they relate to conversations between any two members of cabinet, I explained yesterday that that, like any conversation between any two members here, should not be the concern of parliament.


An hon. Member:: Conspiracy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If parliament suspects, as one member shouts, that there has been conspiracy or indeed something illegal there, I suggest they should make an accusation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crouse:: Double standard Grits.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- INQUIRY WHETHER MR. DRURY ASKED ABOUT APOLOGY BY CONSUMER MINISTER
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Chief Justice Deschenes said that an invitation to undertake an inquiry addressed to him in the House of Commons appeared out of place and he said that he was not going to act as any investigator for the House of Commons. May I put my question to the Minister of Public Works? Mr. Justice Hugessen stated that the Minister of Public Works asked:
... whether it would be possible for Mr. Ouellet to make a formal apology and thereby bring the proceedings to an end.
Is that in fact what the minister did and in doing so did he advise the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and "the other party" to the proceedings of his intention to try to solve the matter?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the question is in two parts. The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. The second part will not be answered by me for reasons given by the Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


An hon. Member:: Come clean!


Charles Joseph Clark: These are the facts that we have, are they?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -relating to the privacy of communications as between colleagues and myself.


Charles Joseph Clark: Relating to the arrogance of the government.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- POSSIBLE REFERENCE BY MR. DRURY TO GANGING UP OF THE ENGLISH AGAINST THE FRENCH
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works another question in light of the fact that we are trying to get the facts. In the Deschenes report it is stated by the Chief Justice that:
The view which Mr. Drury felt was being expressed in some quarters in Ottawa that the proceedings against Mr. Ouellet were in some way a ganging up of the English-speaking establishment against prominently placed French-speaking persons.
Is that what happened and in light of the judge's comment that he thought the minister was attempting to head off a confrontation between the judiciary and the executive, did the minister, in effect, warn the judge that the outcome of the case would have serious political repercussions and could threaten the courts?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think the answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is that the conversation I had with Judge Hugessen was in no way either intended by me, and I am quite sure from reading his report, interpreted by him as a threat of any sort, shape or form.


An hon. Member:: That is not the question.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- INQUIRY WHETHER MR. DRURY ACTED ON OWN INITIATIVE IN CALLING JUDGE HUGESSEN
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Public Works. The minister was asked outside this House if he went to Judge Hugessen on his own initiative. There was a slight pause and he said, as I saw it on television, that he went on his own responsibility. I should like to ask him if he was requested by any other minister of the Crown to have a conversation on that matter with Judge Hugessen and if so, by what minister?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised. The hon. gentleman watched the television program. I am surprised that he should pose the same question, because, on that television program, I made
March 15, 1976

it clear I acted on my own responsibility and that I accepted responsibility for what I did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: At whose initiative?


John Edward Broadbent: You have not accepted it yet.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, please allow me to finish.


Charles Joseph Clark: We will allow you to resign.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I made it clear that I accepted responsibility for what I did or did not do. It would be less than proper to shift the blame onto other shoulders. That is was the hon. gentleman is encouraging me to do.


John Edward Broadbent: Not at all.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I refuse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in a democracy a government does not conduct its affairs as if it were a gentleman's club.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the serious allegations about the minister's own conduct contained in the report of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec, tabled in this House on Friday, and implicating the minister in wrong behaviour, which he acknowledged last Friday morning, does he not think it is in the public interest for the public to know whether such course of action was proposed to him by another minister of the Crown?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is, categorically, no. There is a public curiosity. If I accept responsibility for what is done, it would be shameful of me to try to push it off onto others, in order to protect myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY CONSUMER MINISTER SHOULD MAKE STATEMENT ON TALKS WITH MR. DRURY CONCERNING INTERVENTION WITH JUDGE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, although I accept the minister's view that he is responsible for his actions-


An hon. Member:: Beware the Ides of March.


John Edward Broadbent: -may I ask the Prime Minister if he does not think that the kind of private conversation to which he referred before must be made public, if there is the possibility that one minister asked another minister to take inappropriate action vis-a-vis the judiciary. I ask this as it is on public record that a minister approached Mr. John Turner. Mr. Justice Mackay alleges that a minister then approached the Minister of Public Works, with no other intent, obviously, than that of influencing the judiciary. I ask the Prime Minister if he does not think that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who saw fit
Oral Questions
not to be in the House today, should make a statement on the matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I hope I misunderstood. I think the hon. gentleman, in asking the question, suggested that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had approached the Minister of Public Works, with the intent that they should interfere with the judiciary. Surely, in the first place, that is against the rules, and the hon. member should withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: Whose rules, Pierre? Yours?


An hon. Member:: Rules according to St. Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members opposite seem to have some doubt about ascribing intent to the ministers.


John Edward Broadbent: Answer the question.


An hon. Member:: The rules according to St. Pierre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Don't get excited over there.


John Edward Broadbent: You are not answering.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on matters of rules, hon. members can always appeal to you. I was going to say, so far as the question is concerned, that the reasoning of the hon. member would only be valid if there had either been some conspiracy or some illegality.


Mr. Stanfield:: That was not the position on Friday.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It has been established, Mr. Speaker, that neither of these is the case.


Mr. Andre:: Who established it first?
[Editor's note: At this point there was an interruption from the gallery.]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wonder who that is.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is the voice of the people.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I suggest the gentleman in the gallery is a few weeks late for the Tory convention.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. We are lucky to live in a democracy, which enables us to have

March 15, 1976
Oral Questions
the parliamentary system we have here today, quite under the constitution.
Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the constitution. For the last three or four days, we have seen on television and heard over the radio the comments by provincial premiers who fear that the constitution which the Prime Minister is prepared to bring back to Canada will include amendments. I understand it is a matter of patriating the document to Canada and the Prime Minister as well as the Parliament of Canada, have no right to amend this constitution as long as both the provinces and the federal government will not agree. Therefore, to put it clear in the mind of Mr. Bourassa or Mr. Moores or anyone else in Canada, does the matter of bringing home the constitution include the matter of amendments or do we patriate the constitution with a view to amending it after discussions between the provinces and the federal government? I think that the Prime Minister owes it to the country and to himself to clarify the issue so that we stop fooling around with public opinion throughout Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member gives me the opportunity to shed light for the benefit of the public. I suspect he has a clear mind on this matter, but he is right to say that the declaration I made eight days ago was quite distorted. In answer to the hon. member and this can be checked by any member or reporter by refering to the text, I never said that I would act unilaterally. I said I would consult the provinces...


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So, hon. members are surprised. They just have to refer to the text rather than to newspapers. I very clearly indicated that I would continue to consult the provinces and that I hoped we would reach an agreement with all provinces and, if not, then the government should consider introducing a motion before both Houses so that Parliament could act without the provinces. It is important that this first point be understood.
As to the second point, once again, Mr. Speaker, I think someone is trying, for reasons I ignore, to distort my words. I never said that once the constitution is back home the federal government intended to act unilaterally to give itself more powers or take some away from the provinces. On the contrary, I said that we should first patriate the constitution and then, between Canadians, we should continue to discuss the issue of sharing powers rather than go on discussing like we have been doing for one hundred years, when we have not even have patriated the constitution. I hope my answer is clear. Perhaps the hon. member wishes to ask a supplementary question? I would be glad to answer.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
As I understand, instead of speaking of the patriation of the constitution to Canada as such, the provincial authorities of Quebec and other provinces speak of the amendments which the federal government would like to bring to it unilaterally. Now, people are left to believe, and even

some newspapermen seem to be under that impression, that the right hon. Prime Minister wants to patriate the constitution and amend it unilaterally, while I understand that, first, if we patriate the constitution nothing will be changed and, second, if it is amended it will be amended once it has been brought back to Canada. So I would like to know if the Prime Minister fully agrees with this interpretation and if he can assure the House that there will be no constraint or abuse of power against any province once the constitution has been brought back to Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is a position I explained very clearly to the premiers of all provinces, and which I also publicly stated. It is this: as the hon. member said, it is a question of bringing back the constitution without in any way giving more power to the federal government, nor less to the provinces.
The premiers know that because this was the subject of our meeting of last April. I will even go further, Mr. Speaker, if people wanted to understand, and say that in the present situation, legally-not on the basis of tradition, but legally-being the only one empowered to deal with Westminster, the federal government could change this separation of powers. It would not be wise nor politically profitable, it would not be in conformity with tradition, but it would be legally possible. If we do as I propose, this will no longer be legally possible.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. In the midst of the strange controversy involving the executive branch of government and the judiciary of Quebec, and in view of the fact that one minister of the Crown finds it proper to resign whereas the Prime Minister finds it improper for him to do so, has the Minister of Justice noted the clear references by Chief Justice Deschenes to the rules and regulations of the bar act in Quebec, specifically sections 1 and 2, and regulations 29, 43 and 68; and will the minister advise parliament whether he has knowledge from his colleagues or other parties that the Quebec Bar Association intends to assume its full responsibilities in this matter by setting up a disciplinary committee to investigate the facts brought to light by the Superior Court of Quebec and affecting the judges' prerogatives and authorities?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the latter part of the question I have no such knowledge, as I understand the question. With regard to the first part of the question, I would also draw the attention of the hon. member to page 3 of Judge Deschenes' letter, in which he quotes the Department of Justice Act, which provides:
The Minister of Justice shall...
(c) have the superintendence of all matters connected with the administration of justice in Canada, not within the jurisdiction of the governments of the provinces-
March 15, 1976

Of course, the provincial law societies acts and governing bodies are clearly within provincial jurisdiction.


KNOWLEDGE OF CONSUMER MINISTER OF POSSIBLE INVESTIGATION BY QUEBEC BAR OF ALLEGED INTERFERENCE WITH JUDICIARY
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

I am being asked to reply in French, and I shall answer in French or in English, whatever I choose.
Without referring in any way to the proceedings that are now sub judice, I would ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to tell the House or to advise Parliament whether, directly or indirectly, he has been made aware of steps taken by the Quebec Bar Association concerning the so-called Ouellet case. If so, and if he is aware that the Bar Association intends to assume its responsibilities, could he table any correspondence or documents that either he or his lawyers may have received to that effect?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. member does not know my title. I remind him that I am the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Secondly, in reply to his question, I simply want to answer no.


POSSIBILITY OF GUIDELINES FOR PROPER INTERVENTIONS WITH JUDICIARY
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct the attention of the House to the statement on ethics on Friday. My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Now that the Minister of Justice has been set up as a sort of clearing house for ethical standards for ministerial interventions with the courts-having just read the statement and listened to the Prime Minister I can draw no other conclusion-does the right hon. gentleman intend to make public some sort of set of guidelines so that we will all know what standards are established for proper and correct interventions that the Minister of Justice is to monitor?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is that the Minister of Justice would monitor. Surely that is a misstatement, a misreading of what I said on Friday. What I indicated quite clearly in Hansard was that the communications would be through the Minister of Justice or through his officials. That is a different thing entirely.


Mr. Fairweather:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The embattled Mr. Justice Mackay stated in his letter that he believes the publicity will at least assure that never again will a member of the executive branch of the government communicate with a judge about a case which he is trying. Apparently the judge was optimistic.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Did you say optimistic?
Oral Questions


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Optimistic. That is a word that apparently is not much used these days. I want to know whether some time we will have an indication of what the Minister of Justice's role will be in-I do not know what word to use. Each word we use is apparently being shot down by the Prime Minister. How will anyone know what interventions can occur if ethical and proper standards are not established?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there are clear ethical standards which apply to me and members of my department, and it is those that will apply.


INQUIRY WHETHER MR. DRURY ACTED ON OWN INITIATIVE IN CALLING JUDGE HUGESSEN
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up the questioning of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, and my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. The Minister of Public Works-I assume today he is still Minister of Public Works-has just stated again that he takes full responsibility for his action of making representations to Justice Hugessen, but again he refused to say on whose initiative he acted. The Prime Minister implied on Friday afternoon that the conversations by the Minister of Public Works were in the nature of "seeking counsel and advice". Was the Prime Minister personally given that assurance by Mr. Turner and by the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In other words, is it the position of the Prime Minister that the minister acted strictly on his own initiative.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker. I cannot, of course, speak for the other ministers or for Mr. Turner, but I can speak for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in relation to myself and what he said about other ministers. I do know that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs came to me and said: "Well, you know, what should I be doing; I have this case against me; here is my defence and what do you think?" I am revealing these conversations, perhaps improperly, but I want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that I have discussed this matter with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and there has been no illegality or appearance of illegality between us.
If hon. members want to make any such allegations concerning the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs' conversations with me or with any other minister that, of course, is their right under the rules of this House. The procedure has been established for them to make this allegation and to defend it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Give us the facts.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am indebted to the Prime Minister for indicating at least some of the content of the conversation between one of his ministers and himself, but my question was directed to the conversation between the Minister of Public Works and himself. I am asking him again now, is it his understanding that the Minister of Public Works indicated to the Prime Minister that the Minister of Public Works, in making the improper

March 15, 1976
Oral Questions
approach he did to Mr. Justice Hugessen, did so on his own initiative.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not only the word of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but also the public statement of the Minister of Public Works that he did this, was not pushed to do it by anyone and that he took full responsibility.


REFUSAL OF CONSUMER MINISTER TO ANSWER CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE WITH JUDICIARY-OPINION OF PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I want to say to him by way of preface that he has refused repeatedly to disclose the nature of his conversation with Mr. Turner and the Minister of Public Works, and indeed has refused to say whether he was aware that the Minister of Public Works was making a representation on his behalf. I should like to ask him whether he has sought the view of the parliamentary counsel in respect of his claim that these matters are properly sub judice to the pending appeal in the contempt case so that we will know whether there is any solid basis of parliamentary practice or law for refusing to answer the questions put to him in this House.


André Ouellet: My answer is no.


REFUSAL OF CONSUMER MINISTER TO ANSWER BASED ON PRINCIPLE OF &quot;SUB JUDICE&quot;-POSSIBILITY JUSTICE MINISTER WILL SEEK LEGAL OPINION
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Justice, because this is an important matter we are discussing. Will the Minister of Justice consult the parliamentary counsel and make his advice available to this House so that we will know whether the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is resting his case on a fraudulent claim of privilege.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary counsel is the adviser to the House on matters of the rules and not the Minister of Justice who, throughout the years, has assiduously avoided being a legal adviser to parliament.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the recent Supreme Court decision in the Marshall Crowe matter and its relationship to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline hearings before the National

Energy Board, will the minister indicate what measures the government is now taking in order to ensure that these hearings may proceed without further delay.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board have had, I think, two meetings and are meeting right now considering this important question of how the panel should be struck so that the hearing can proceed. I think that by the end of the day or very shortly we will have an answer to the question asked by the hon. member.


COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN MINISTER AND BOARD
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister say whether he has had any telephone conversations or communications with the National Energy Board during the last two months.


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works who I know has been undergoing some soul-searching. Outside the House on Thursday, March 11, the Minister of Public Works denied reports that he had tendered his resignation by stating: "I have not resigned; I have not offered to resign-don't offer to resign". This would seem to imply that on Thursday at any rate the minister regarded the tendering of the resignation to be tantamount to a resignation itself. My question to the Minister of Public Works is: would he tell the House the reason for his apparent change of heart in this regard in a period of less than 12 hours. Is the minister now stating that his resignation was without foundation and without basis in fact?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of the hon. gentleman in a human interest story. I think it should be apparent to him that the basis on which I declined to answer the question in the House regarding what had happened was that until the Chief Justice had expressed his view, his judgment, it would be inappropriate either to make any comment or indeed to take any decision. It was only on receipt of the copy that was furnished to me of the opinion of the Chief Justice that I was able to come to a conclusion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I find that answer of the Minister of Public Works most strange. The Minister of Public Works has ample opportunity to search his soul, to look into the matter, after which he took a very curious step. He submitted his resignation. Now, I want to ask the minister this: After considering the entire matter at this particular point, knowing that it was serious, does the
March 15, 1976

minister still feel he was right in submitting his resignation on Friday?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House is grateful for this theosophical ramble. Yes. I thought then I was right. I still think I was right.


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for that answer. Will the minister now, because he has stated he was right in submitting his resignation, resubmit the same to the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -and insist that the Prime Minister accept his resignation.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, from a member of a democratic parliament, I find this doctrine passing strange.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Who is being philosophical now?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. gentleman is suggesting I make up my mind on what is right and insist on everyone else following it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: No; just the Prime Minister.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In tendering my resignation, in effect, I was putting myself to the judgment of my peers. I was not making the judgment unilaterally, as the hon. gentleman is inviting me to do. I put myself before the judgment of my peers, and if I do this I am required to accept that judgment, not, as the hon. member suggests, make a shambles of parliamentary democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTION BY JUDGE HUGESSEN OF POSSIBLE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND JUDICIARY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works who may have brought in a new parliamentary concept, namely, a conditional resignation with an option of non-acceptance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: In that section of the letter of the chief justice dealing specifically with the attempt to effect a solution undertaken by the Minister of Public Works, Justice Hugessen states that the minister was attempting, if possible, to head off a confrontation between the executive and the judicial branches of government. Can the minister indicate to the House precisely what Judge Hugessen meant by this statement, and can he say whether the Minister of Public Works or the Prime Minister did in fact anticipate a confrontation between the cabinet and the judiciary over the contempt proceedings launched against the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
Oral Questions


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, quite clearly it would be inappropriate for me to try to tell the hon. member what Judge Hugessen meant in writing the letter to the chief justice. I think the hon. member would agree that the words speak for themselves. I think he has as much intelligence as I have to read English.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Much more.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Perhaps he has more. I am not sure that I would accept that definition in respect of some other people.


Charles Joseph Clark: Call them, Bud.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sorry; I have forgotten the second part of the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: You have forgotten a great deal.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I appreciate the answers of the minister. Perhaps I could ask my supplementary of the Prime Minister. Was there or is there any substance to the proposition that the Prime Minister had suggested to him that a confrontation loomed between the executive and judicial branches of government over the case of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs because, if so, this is a very serious matter indeed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly I never discussed anything of that nature with the Minister of Public Works or, to my recollection, with any other minister. But I would not hesitate to say that I was concerned with that possibility and I take it that hon. members are concerned with that possibility too, except obviously the leader of the NDP. That is the very fear that surely every member must have when there is a question of the executive and judicial powers relating to each other. Surely, that is the basis of the fear which underlies this whole attitude of the opposition. So, I should not be surprised if that had crossed the mind of the judges or of any other ministers or even of hon. members opposite. It certainly crossed my mind.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER ON APPROACHING A JUDGE ON A CONSTITUENCY MATTER
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question as well to the Prime Minister. On Friday, the President of the Treasury Board indicated that he approached Judge Aronovitch "on behalf of the unemployment of my constituency" which the judge considered to be "not proper practice". Is it the policy of the Prime Minister that approaching a judge on a constituency matter is considered one of those warranted attempts to interfere with the proper administration of justice?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I dealt with that question in my statement on Friday, March 12. If the hon. member reads the words on page 11771 of Hansard he would see I said:
11790

March 15, 1976
Oral Questions
Indeed, it is clear that the rules on contact with judges vary somewhat not only in what they say, but in how they are customarily applied in the various jurisdictions of this country. Some hon. members of this House may even have different views as to what their duties to their constituents require them to do from time to time in getting in touch with judges.
I leave that to the hon. members to decide for themselves. In so far as ministers are concerned, I go on in the next paragraph to indicate what the rule is. Therefore, I have settled it for the ministers. Perhaps the hon. members opposite and other members of the House might want to address this question in the future: what is their duty to their constituents as an ombudsman if the case drags on? Are they or are they not entitled to find out, when a case drags on-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not giving the answer to that but hon. members opposite have to read Judge Arono-vitch to know that this practice, although he does not condone it, is one which has taken place in rare cases.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member has stated his code of ethics for himself, and that is fine. I stated it for the cabinet. I would not want to impose any particular code on parliament. I hope that parliament will make that decision for itself.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister and hopefully get an answer this time. The minister stated on Friday that he would reconsider any future attempts to influence the judiciary and he stated "of course I would not call Aronovitch. He does not like it". The question I want to ask the Prime Minister is whether he can assure the House that members of his cabinet will refrain in future from approaching members of the judiciary on matters before the court, whether they like it or not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I expect this is a rhetorical question. If the hon. member looks at the code of conduct I spelled out on Friday he would obviously have the answer.


INQUIRY WHETHER CONSUMER MINISTER SPOKE TO MR. DRURY CONCERNING POSSIBLE INTERVENTION WITH JUDGE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting for a minute the premise enunciated by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that he has privilege to hide behind in that some matter is sub judice but recognizing the minister's lack of candour and desire for self-protection, I should like to ask a question, which is not in any way to be considered sub judice in that it is not part of any of the facts in the case dealing with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs now on appeal nor would affect the interpretation of the law in relation to the case-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Paul Wyatt Dick: -did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs talk to the Minister of Public Works regarding his case of alleged contempt of court prior to the trial of that

case and prior to the phone call of the Minister of Public Works to the associate chief justice?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I have already said last week.


INQUIRY WHETHER CITIZEN CAN EXPRESS DISAPPROVAL OF JUDGMENT
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: In compliance with the ethical standards outlined by the Prime Minister, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
After all that has happened to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, could the Minister of Justice tell the House whether the average Canadian citizen will be allowed, in the future, to express publicly his disagreement with the decision made by a judge, without being charged with contempt of court or risking imprisonment?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think that is quite an improper question. It obviously invites me to comment directly on a judicial decision.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY-VIEW OF MR. LALONDE ON STATEMENT HE SOUGHT DELAY OF JURY DECISION
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the statements contained in the report of Chief Justice Deschenes quoting Mr. Justice Mackay to the effect that in the half hour visit which the minister had with Mr. Justice Mackay on Sunday, March 8, 1970, he said he was there to seek a delay in the jury's decision, would the minister now like to correct the statements he has made to this House to the effect that all he was doing was asking a question as to when the decision would be made?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBILITY OF ACTION BY PRIME MINISTER OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STATEMENTS BY MR. LALONDE AND JUDGE MACKAY
[Stage Direction]

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said today that Chief Justice Deschenes was telling the truth, and that he has said one thing and the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said another about the visit on Sunday, March 8, 1970, and since obviously one of these distinguished gentlemen is not telling the truth, should the Prime Minister not take his responsibility in this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member made an error when speaking
March 15, 1976

of Chief Justice Deschenes. He was problably talking about Justice Mackay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As quoted by the Chief Justice.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, yes, the hon. member is right. As between Mr. Justice Mackay's version and the version of the Minister of National Health and Welfare there is a difference, shall we say, of memory of the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I find myself in a difficult position to see how this House or I can ascertain which of the two is right in his memory.


John Edward Broadbent: A public inquiry would help.


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: That wouldn't change
anything.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A public inquiry would have to weigh the memory of these two men.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Motion to Adjourn



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, until the government comes to its senses, I see no reason for this House sitting. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That the House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. By virtue of the Standing Orders, a motion to adjourn is always in order and is not debatable. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Charles Joseph Clark: Cross-Examine the minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let me just say that Mr. Justice Mackay's memory has proved faulty in at least two instances.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Say that again, will you?


Stanley Howard Knowles: And say it
outside the house.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister's judgment has proved wrong a number of times.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)) which was negatived on the following division.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will say it again, if the hon. member would like me to. Mr. Justice Mackay's memory has proved faulty on at least two facts. The first time was in his original letter when he said that the events took place in 1969, whereas in his later letter to Chief Justice Deschenes, he corrects that and says 1970. His memory slipped. It is not a serious matter.


An hon. Member:: You didn't know how old you were.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As a matter of fact, there is another fact on which his memory obviously slipped. He said that my then principal secretary said I was skiing in the west, but it is established I was at that time doing an official tour up in Igloolik, and it is not possible-


An hon. Member:: That's the same thing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So obviously five, six or seven years later memories can be inaccurate, and in this case the judge was inaccurate in at least two instances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Then let us cross-examine the minister.
(Division No. 117)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Alexander
Alkenbrack
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Balfour
Benjamin
Brewin
Broadbent
Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Coates Crouse Ellis Epp
Fairweather
Firth
Friesen
Gilbert
Grafftey
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek) Hnatyshyn Hogan Huntington Jarvis Jelinek Kempling Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Korchinski
Lavoie
Lawrence
MacDonald
(Egmont)
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacLean
Marshall
McCain
McGrath
McKinnon
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich) Murta Nystrom O'Sullivan Paproski Patterson Peters Ritchie Rynard Scott Stanfield Stevens Wagner Wenman Woolliams Yewchuk-56
21419-54(4

Order Paper Questions
++NAYS
Messrs.
Abbott	Dupras	MarchandAllard	Faulkner	(Kamloops-Cariboo)Allmand	Fleming	MartinAnderson	Flynn	MatteAndras	Francis	Mclsaac(Port Arthur)	Gauthier	McRaeAndres	(Roberval)	Milne(Lincoln)	Gauthier	MunroBaker	(Ottawa-Vanier)	(Hamilton East)(Gander-T willingate)	Gendron	O'ConnellBasford	Gillespie	OuelletBeaudoin	Goodale	ParentBechard	Goyer	PennerBegin (Miss)	Gray	PortelanceBlais	Guay	PoulinBlaker	(St. Boniface)	RailtonBoulanger	Harquail	RainesBreau	Herbert	ReidBuchanan	Hopkins	RichardsonCaccia	Isabelle	RooneyCafik	Jamieson	RoyCampagnolo (Mrs.)	Kaplan	(Timmins)Caouette	Lachance	Roy(Temiscamingue)	Lajoie	(Laval)Clermont	Lalonde	Sauve (Mrs.)Comtois	Lang	SharpCondon	Langlois	SmithCyr	Laniel	(Saint-Jean)Danson	Lapointe	StolleryDe Bane	Leblanc	TessierDemers	(Laurier)	TrudeauDionne	Lessard	Trudel(Northumberland-	Lumley	TurnerMiramichi)	Macdonald	WatsonDouglas	(Rosedale)	Whelan(Bruce-Grey)	MacEachen	YanakisDrury	Marchand	Young-95Duclos	(Langelier)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,966 and 4,076.


Mr. McKinnon: By province, how much money was allotted by DREE, either on a loan or grant basis, for all projects in 1975?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: By province, contribution and loan expenditures for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1975 for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion are:
Expenditures 1974-75	Contributions	LoansNewfoundland	$55,925,525	$11,781,117Nova Scotia	29,205,264	10,471,733New Brunswick	51,345,654	11,279,816Prince Edward Island Other Atlantic Region	19,152,309	3,325,000activities	4,405,147	-Quebec	103,348,702	15,739,211Ontario	17,583,078	-Manitoba	21,034,250	1,580,548Saskatchewan	7,535,006	1,689,603Alberta	8,442,655	1,105,668British Columbia 	5,463,845


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Were grants given to the St-Felicien Zoological Garden since the adoption of the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act and, if so, in what amount up to and including 1974?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The answer for the Department of Regional Expansion is as follows: Yes, at 31/12/74, $1,123,655 had been committed to the development of the St-Felicien Zoological Garden under the terms and provisions of the Agricultural and Rural Development Act, DREE's share being $561,878.


Mr. Blais:: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I served you with the appropriate notice under the Standing Orders of the House of my intention to move today for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration by the House, namely, the Prime Minister's refusal to accept the resignation which was of necessity submitted to him on Friday, thereby rejecting parliamentary principles which are the basis of the moral authority of this House. If there was ever an indication of the necessity of that, it is that which occurred today-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The provisions of Standing Order 26 are well known to hon. members. I have indeed received the notice referred to by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). There will be no attempt to get into any complicated analysis of the subject matter or its reference to the Standing Orders. The fact is that one of the best known provisions of Standing Order 26 is that which relates to the considerations that should be in the mind of the Chair in taking into account whether or not such matter is proper to be discussed within the terms of the rules. I am referring of course, to section (5) of the rule which indicates that Mr. Speaker will have regard to the
March 15, 1976

reasonable opportunity of the House to discuss the matter put forward in the motion in some other way. In that regard, of course, tomorrow and Friday have already been designated as allotted days in which the opposition will control the subject matter of debate.
I think it would fly directly in the face of the provisions and the intent of such a rule if I were to hold this afternoon that the House would not enjoy a reasonable opportunity to discuss this matter when, in fact, tomorrow is a very excellent and forthcoming opportunity. I therefore would have to consider that at this moment at least the subject matter put forward in the notice of motion by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is not a proper matter to be discussed within the provisions of Standing Order 26.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate I should like to say, first of all, that I regret the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would want to delay my speaking in the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: I regret they would want to frustrate the proceedings of this House to the point of stopping us from speaking in the debate.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Call up the judge.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herb Breau: I hear my friend from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) asking about closure. This is not closure, because I am still speaking in the debate. The hon. member obviously does not know the difference between Standing Order 33 and Standing Order 75C. I would encourage him to read the rules; they are very interesting. The fact of the matter is that we are not applying closure in this debate. We are proceeding with allocation of time because the opposition has been irresponsible.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Withdraw!


Herb Breau: They have distorted the debate. I am happy that the hon. member for St. John's East is interested in
Medical Care Act
my speech. I was interested in his speech on March 3, and I will refer to it later. It was clear that either he had not read the bill or had not read the Medical Care Act, because I have some quotes from his speech and they have absolutely nothing to do with this debate, nothing to do with Bill C-68. The point I want to make is that members opposite have frustrated the proceedings of this House for many days to try to bring before the public-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: I congratulate them for the frustrations they have brought to the proceedings.


An hon. Member:: What happened to your majority?


Herb Breau: To that effect they have been successful, but they have distorted the debate. Most of their arguments have nothing to do with the Medical Care Act, they have nothing to do with the capping of expenditures of the federal government under the Medical Care Act, and most of their arguments have nothing to do even with the federal government in the area of hospital insurance. I wonder if many of them have read this bill and have taken the time to read the Medical Care Act.


An hon. Member:: Have you read it?


Herb Breau: Yes, I read it with particular interest. It is evident, if one examines interventions to federal bills, that most of the time they are the sorts of distortions one hears from hon. members opposite.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) moved the time allocation motion under Standing Order 75C. He did this because he feels that after parliament has had ample time to study and debate proposed government legislation, at a certain point it is in the public interest to allocate time to vote on the bill and allow parliament to consider something else. The majority in this House should be allowed to vote on the bill and dispose of it.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) walked between the Chair and the member who now has the floor.
I would like to read Standing Order 12(3):
(3) When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between him and the Chair, nor interrupt him, except to raise a point of order.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I have been speaking to the bill for the last few minutes.


Mr. Peters:: Say something.


Herb Breau: Members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are particularly concerned about the effects of this bill on the have-not provinces. They are worried about its so-called terrible effect on New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. I suggest that hon. members voicing such concerns either have not read

March 15, 1976
Medical Care Act
the Medical Care Act and Bill C-68 or, if they have, they did not understand what they read. I should be happy to explain what this bill is all about.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Grand Falls hospital.


Herb Breau: I missed the relevance of the point raised by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather).


James Aloysius McGrath: Tell that to the north shore of New Brunswick.


Herb Breau: They have supported me up to now. If you want an excellent example of distorsion, read what the hon. member for St. John's East is reported to have said on page 11468 of Hansard. I heard what he said and read his speech in Hansard the next day. I cannot accept his statement. I do not accept that the hon. member for St. John's East would tell the House something that is not exactly factual. I read what he was reported to have said. I hope he made a mistake and that he will correct it. I will gladly give him that opportunity now. According to Hansard, page 11468, he said:
Perhaps one could argue that the best ceiling that could be imposed upon the lower income provinces is their own capacity to meet their 50 per cent share of the cost.
He spoke about provinces sharing 50 per cent of the costs. In the next breath he mentioned lower income provinces. Let me point out that no low income province pays 50 per cent of the cost of the medicare program. The federal government pays 50 per cent of the average, national cost of medicare. I hope the hon. member slipped and did not intend to leave the impression that low income provinces pay 50 per cent of their own costs. He went on to say:
No one knows better than the minister of finance of the province of Newfoundland, who has to bring in a budget within a few days, that he must place restrictions on medical care payments in Newfoundland in order to keep our own health care cost under the 50-50 agreement within line. I think that fact has been lost sight of.
I hope the hon. member for St. John's East will admit he made a mistake. Or perhaps this was a typing error or a slip. Newfoundland does not pay 50 per cent of medicare costs. The provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island do not pay 50 per cent of their medical care costs. Their payments are based on the formula adopted by parliament when it passed the original bill in 1966 or 1967. I repeat, the federal government pays 50 per cent of the average, national cost of medicare. In the case of Newfoundland, the government pays 74 per cent of the cost, not 50 per cent. I hope that the hon. member for St. John's East, who is a respected parliamentarian, will agree that he made an unfortunate misstatement.
I think all hon. members ought to read Bill C-68 carefully.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are right.


Herb Breau: I am glad to hear the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) confirming my view. I say this because it is not apparent that those who have spoken in the debate so far read the bill. Their speeches do not make sense. Or if they read it, they cannot understand either the English or French versions. Clearly, the proposed cap of 13 per cent is not rigid. There will be increases

of 13 per cent, plus provisions to take care of population increases.
The hon. member for St. John's East is concerned about Newfoundland. He thinks the province's high birth rate merits special consideration. I am glad the Newfoundland birth rate is high. Provisions governing population increases will take care of the extra population. Bear in mind that although the hon. member for St. John's East is concerned about hospital costs, we are talking about doctors' fees. Does he think that doctors in Newfoundland do not earn enough? Does he think they should charge more? Well, Bill C-68 applies to doctors' fees; it does not apply to hospital insurance or hospital costs. So the opposition has debated this bill for 13 days on second reading because it thinks doctors are not making enough. It thinks doctors should get more than the 13 per cent increase proposed under this bill. The bill provides, as I say, for an increase of 13 per cent, plus an increase to take care of larger populations. I am not saying doctors should not get more. I think some sectors of society, doctors included, should be well paid. Doctors perform a valuable service, under tough conditions, particularly outside big cities.
Is the party opposite, which for years has chastised this government for spending too much on shared-cost programs and on institutional programs which the Liberal government first implemented in the 1960s, now suggesting that doctors should be paid more than 13 per cent extra in these times of restraint? I cannot take those members seriously. They are playing politics. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with playing politics. I enjoy it. If you want to play politics, do not stop the business of the country for 13 days while you play games. Go on a trip; come to my constituency and we will play political games. The previous Leader of the Opposition came to my home-town during the election campaign. I enjoyed his visit.


An hon. Member:: You won't enjoy the next one.


Herb Breau: The opposition is concerned that this bill does undue, harsh damage to the provinces. It says that doctor's fees should go up more than 13 per cent. It says that there should be no cap at all. That is the same party that has been telling us that medicare, the Canada Assistance Plan, higher education programs, and all the other shared programs have no built-in safeguards from the point of view of the federal taxpayer to control costs or spending. We are now asking the provinces to please keep their increase for doctors' fees to 13 per cent, plus the provision for any increase in population, and what does the opposition do: they filibuster the bill, saying that it is dangerous for the provinces.
The 13 per cent does not apply to every particular province. It is a capping of 13 per cent of the federal share of the national plan. If a province has controlled its costs, it might get more than 13 per cent. Other provinces might get less. The cost of the medical care program has been increasing at a much more modest rate than that of hospital insurance. It is now beginning to feel the inflationary effect. For example, during the current fiscal year which ends this March 31 costs are expected to rise 16 per cent over the 1974-75 costs. While some controlling measures are
March 15, 1976

needed, the proposed ceilings are not out of line with actual experience in recent years. Nor should there be any unfavourable effect upon the quality of care provided or the level of coverage enjoyed by the people of Canada.
I read that the leader of the New Democratic Party made a big case out of the fact that some communities and some provinces want to encourage less expensive institutions and clinics. There should be no system to indirectly encourage communities and provinces to give expensive health and hospital care to those who are really in need of care in a community clinic. One thing that was done in the June 23, 1975, budget concurrent with this bill was to give notice to the provinces as provided by the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. Formal notice was given to the provinces that in 1980 we would review our agreements on hospital care. One reason we want to review it is-as suggested by the leader of the NDP-to provide less expensive institutions. If some system can be developed that will be less expensive than a conventional hospital bed, it should be included in the agreement.
No one has suggested that we want to reduce the federal expenditure for health care. Again, the leader of the New Democratic Party, like other members of the opposition-


Mr. Kempling:: Give him an aspirin.


Herb Breau: I don't take aspirin. The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) might be interested to know that according to the latest statistics, people from the maritimes take less aspirin than those from Ontario. The reason is probably because we have less pressure and need less attention than more sensitive people like the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: They don't have to suffer the pressures of a Conservative government.


Herb Breau: I say to my friend, the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas), that we do suffer from the pressures of a provincial Conservative government. When the Conservative administrations in New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Ontario, who have friends here-and there is nothing wrong with that-have to make tough decisions or readjust their spending by, for example, reducing hospital beds or hospital services in some communities, I sometimes support them: I say it has to be done. However, the federal Conservatives try to drag in the federal government so that it will not appear as though this is being done by the provincial Conservative government but the federal anti-inflation program. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), who has proven that she is a very shrewd politician, smiles at what I say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: The record cannot show that she was smiling unless I mention it. That is why I do so. She knows that is the way politicians operate, especially in the maritimes. When her friend who supported her at the convention hears people condemning the federal government for cuts in health and hospital care, he does not say he was responsible for that. He hears his friends in the federal parliament give us hell for Bill C-68, which has nothing to do with hospital cuts, so that it will be reported as coming
Medical Care Act
from us and people will become confused. The people will begin to believe that it is not Hatfield who is responsible, but the federal government. When I am approached by my constituents, I do not say that the hospital cuts in New Brunswick are not needed. I say that they are needed and that Mr. Hatfield is doing something that is his responsibility. I would not lie to my constituents.
Bill C-68 does not have anything to do with cutbacks in hospital care. The reason for this filibuster is that the Conservatives wanted to drag us into their petty political games. If they want to play political games, let us play them some place where we will not frustrate the workings and proceedings of the Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) has the floor.


Herb Breau: I say that the opposition are pretty inefficient and ineffective when they cannot put their point across after 13 days of debate. With their research, their new leader and their shadow cabinet, they should be able to do that in one, two or three days. After that, the bill should be sent to committee for study. The bill is only IV2 or 2Vi pages. Those who have not yet done so can read it in committee. If they do not understand it, we can go there to explain what the bill means.
The annual federal contribution to each participating province equals 50 per cent of the per capita cost for the year of all insured services of the national program which are furnished pursuant to the medical care insurance plans of the participating provinces, multiplied by the number of insured persons in the province. The per capita cost for a year of all insured services of the national program is an amount equal to the aggregate of the cost of the insured services of the national program which are incurred by each of the participating provinces, divided by the number of insured persons in each of the participating provinces. I do not expect members of the opposition to understand that too quickly, so I suggest that they read Hansard tomorrow.
Some fears have been expressed that the capping of federal contributions will have a relatively greater adverse effect on some provinces. The hon. member for St. John's East and others have suggested that would be the Atlantic provinces. This is not so during the period covered by the definitive ceilings. The capping applies to the national average per capita cost and not to the cost of individual provincial plans. The present characteristics of the Medical Care Act remain; contributions will continue to take into account the varying annual rates of population growth between provinces. The implicit equalization of the national average contribution will continue. The incentive to control costs in each province in order to increase relative federal contributions will remain. The resulting variable rates of the federal share of provincial medical care costs will also remain.

March 15, 1976
Medical Care Act
It is particularly Ontario and British Columbia which have experienced the highest costs in medicare. Provinces like the Atlantic provinces have not been the highest, and that is the reason: by paying 50 per cent, the federal government pays 50 per cent of the average national cost, so it happens in the case of Newfoundland we get 74 per cent and in the case of British Columbia only 45 per cent- less than 50 per cent. As a matter of interest, Nova Scotia gets 56 per cent, New Brunswick 74 per cent and Prince Edward Island 67 per cent. In 1976-77, the proposed ceiling will raise the per capita contribution by 13 per cent, from $37 to approximately $47. It should be clear to everyone that there is an incentive for lower income provinces such as Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, to control their costs because if they do so, historically we see that costs in Ontario and British Columbia will go higher. If they control their costs they will get even more than 74 per cent.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member has kindly agreed to permit a question. Since he is citing the provinces to support his argument, can he explain to the House how he can reconcile his speech and his argument with the statement of the government of Prince Edward Island, which is a Liberal government, that under the new proposal "it will be difficult to maintain present standards of health care, with no hope of ever attaining the national standard"?


Herb Breau: I agree with what the hon. member has read as being the position of the government of Prince Edward Island. It will be difficult. I am not suggesting it is not going to be difficult for anyone. It will be difficult, but it will be possible. It is members of the Conservative party who have been telling us for years that under the shared-cost program affecting medicare we should control costs. There was a galloping increase in costs. The hon. member will have to reconcile that position with his position that it is going to be difficult in P.E.I. I suggest that in Prince Edward Island, as in New Brunswick, as in Nova Scotia, it will be difficult to increase the health care standard to the national standard.
Even if you gave $1 billion to New Brunswick today, or $100 million to New Brunswick, to improve health care, I suggest that the problem of health care, or medical care particularly, is not a financial one. The problem is that any new doctor who is originally from New Brunswick or who comes from outside and wants to live in New Brunswick would prefer to live in the cities. I believe that in certain cities in New Brunswick there is an overabundance of doctors, but in the rural areas there are none. In my area, for example, there is a shortage of doctors. We have hospitals which are inefficiently used because there are no doctors. My answer to the hon. member for St. John's East is that I agree it is going to be difficult for the government of Prince Edward Island. The governments of the Atlantic provinces are in a difficult situation with this.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is what I have been saying.


Herb Breau: Well, I have read what the hon. member said as reported at page 11468. He said it would not only be difficult but that it would have a disastrous effect and that Newfoundland would have to pay 50 per cent of the health

service costs. I have just pointed out to him that he made an unfortunate error in fact.


James Aloysius McGrath: You are sounding more like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) every day.


Herb Breau: That is a nice compliment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A double-standard guy. One standard for Grits and another for the rest of the country.


Herb Breau: I am sorry. I did not catch the hon. member's last statement.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I said you were a double-standard guy when you said you would like to be like the Prime Minister. We shall never accept that double standard on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) may have a grievance, but he will have to wait for the hon. member to complete his remarks.


Herb Breau: It is obvious that the hon. member for South Shore-


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: South Shore. Get it right.


Herb Breau: I said South Shore. I know it is South Shore. The hon. member either did not hear what I said or he did not understand it. I never uttered any kind of words such as he has attributed to me. I would like to review Hansard with him if he wishes. I would invite him to review it. I do not recall anything I have said, jokingly or otherwise, that would indicate the sort of thing he is accusing me of. I invite him to check the record. I think he misunderstood or misheard something from someone. I was making the point that for the lower income provinces there is an incentive to control costs, because the more they reduce their costs-


James Aloysius McGrath: -the more they reduce their services.


Herb Breau: No. The hon. member for St. John's East is either making fun of a very serious situation, or he doesn't understand. They control their costs because the formula- which might be complicated, but I know the hon. member has sufficient intelligence to understand it-in the act provides for the federal government to pay 50 per cent of the national cost, and not 50 per cent of the cost to any particular province this means that if his province and my province control their costs and keep them that much below the national cost, their share of the federal participation will be even greater. Right now we are getting more than 50 per cent: his province gets 74 per cent and my province gets 74 per cent.
The federal government is expected next year to contribute $124 million more toward the cost of provincial medicare plans than is the case this year. In addition, we expect to be paying an additional $340 million or so toward the cost of the provincial hospital plans which, incidentally, includes the services of most of the radiologists and pathologists in the country.
March 15, 1976

It is difficult to understand how people can refer to increased federal contributions of this magnitude as being a cutback. Next year, under the ceilings, the resources available to the provinces will be 13 per cent larger, in per capita terms, so not only will there be a 13 per cent increase but the sharing formula will automatically make allowance for a population increase. I hope we have more babies in Newfoundland again next year, and if we do there is provision for them.
The funds will be distributed among the provinces in exactly the same way as in the past. Since provincial costs vary from year to year in relation to each other-they never have have the same relativity two years in a row- some provinces will have more than a 13 per cent increase, some less. Next year, the range of provincial recoveries under medicare will again be from a high of around 74 per cent in two provinces to a low of approximately 44 per cent in the highest cost province. Without ceilings, the cost recovery range would be about 1 per cent higher on both ends. I should like to emphasize again that the provinces which keep their costs below the national average-which includes the less affluent provinces-will continue to receive a larger proportionate share of the costs than other provinces which are less careful about their costs.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Air Transport; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan)-The Canadian economy; the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)- Finance.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, may I bring to your attention that on March 11, 1976, as recorded at page 11737 of Hansard-this is the first opportunity I have had to raise this matter-there is a printer's error in the debate at that time. It refers to:
His monument lies also in the hearts o{ the various groups to whom he dedicated himself so undistinctly.
That last word should be "unstintingly". I wish that to be corrected, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock p.m, pursuant to the order made Friday February 27, 1976, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.


Jean-Jacques Blais: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the House leader of the other parties we have
Food and Resources
agreed that the matter to be dealt with is at page 59 of the order paper, motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald).


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is so agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the hon. member. Is it agreed to proceed with the consideration of motion No. 1, appearing in the name of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), and that all other notices of motions standing before this motion be stood at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 21, 1974, consideration of the motion of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the lead in establishing a world commission on food and resources, under the auspices of the United nations, to compile a comprehensive and regular inventory of the existing world foodstuffs and resources essential for sustenance; each nation shall be required to report annually (with quarterly amendments) on the state of its own self-sufficiency and on its ability to transfer key foodstuffs and resources to more needy nations; the commission shall have the authority to transfer designated food and resources from member nations equal in amount to their expenditures on defence.
Crawford Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on the motion. Most certainly it is a timely motion that the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) has put forward, but I think we must take a close look at it in order to ascertain exactly what is being asked, what is the cost of duplication of committees and services, and so on. The motion states that the government should take the lead in establishing a world commission on food and resources, under the auspices of the United Nations, to compile a comprehensive and regular inventory of the existing world foodstuffs and resources essential for sustenance.
What is being done in this regard at the present time? The world's shortage of food has attracted, over past months and years, the attention of many people. Many efforts have been made by other countries as well as Canada to try to solve the problem. In November, 1974, a world conference was held, with 1,000 representatives from 130 countries, determined at that time to find solutions to food shortages and the relatively slow pace of agricultural development to feed the four billion people who now exist in this world.
The courses of action proposed at that time to help increase food production include some of the following. First of all, it was proposed to make available large quanti-

March 15, 1976
Food and Resources
ties of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, water resources, high-quality seeds and improved management, all of which are essential to upgrading food production not only in Canada but everywhere throughout the world, more specifically in the underdeveloped countries. Also put forward was the idea of an expansion of research resources so as to evolve an appropriate technology in given conditions.
We must realize that those conditions vary greatly throughout the world. In Canada food production is limited to a very narrow belt across the country owing to extreme weather conditions in the north. On the other hand, the United States is a large country, able to produce vast quantities of foodstuffs primarily because of the favourable climatic conditions which they experience. The same is true of many other countries throughout the world.
The Soviet Union is faced with much the same problem as we in Canada. Their climate restricts the production of food to a very narrow growing belt across that large country. Food production is also limited in the underdeveloped countries in Africa, Asia and South America. There are so many conditions that must be taken into consideration in putting forth a program that will allow peoples of the world down through the years properly to feed themselves. Suggested, also, was a comprehensive rural development program that involves the people, particularly the small farmer and landless worker, as well as a major increase in the small amount of funds available for investment in agricultural development. This was urged at the conference for all countries of the world, not just Canada and the United States.
It will be noted that all the proposals dealt with increasing food production in developing countries as a means of solving the world food shortage. This, of course, is one of the features I would be glad to see put into the motion. The underdeveloped countries must be encouraged and given practical assistance and every other kind of assistance that we and other developed nations can give them so as to increase the ability of the developing nations and the underdeveloped nations to produce food.
In his November 11 speech to the eighteenth session of the FAO conference in November, 1975, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) had this to say:
Over the next five years, the need for substantive increased food production in the developed countries will be of much greater importance for world food supplies than was thought at the beginning of the 1970s.
This was true then and it is true now. We refer these days to the oil powers of the world. In 1980 the power that will be of utmost importance to world development will not be oil power but agrapower. We have discussed in the House from time to time the importance of petropower and where petrodollars are spent, but we must also give clear and concise consideration to the agricultural producing nations of the world and the power they will have in their hands by 1980.
To solve the food problem, developing countries and the FAO must give high priority to agricultural and fisheries development and adopt policies which give adequate incentive to agricultural producers if real progress is to be made. We must also assure the agricultural producers not only of Canada but the United States, Russia and wherever

they may be, adequate returns for the work they do in producing the world's food that will be required and which indeed is required at the present time. Today there are admitted problems with the production of powdered milk, and in the matter of food storage of items like powdered milk, butter and agricultural and dairy products we must remember it is the farmer who pays the shot. The farmer has to pay for storage so that this food is available in times of crisis and need.
A top priority in the interests of all countries is to ensure the vigour of the world's economy. This requires from our standpoint an efficient agriculture which produces enough food for all. This cannot be done without providing a reasonable livelihood to the farmers of the world who over the next 15 to 20 years will be performing a task of the utmost importance to the whole world. We know that without farmers, without the tools of production and necessary incentives, food production will fall short of our growing needs.
Canada maintains that it is unwise to form another committee or commission on a worldwide basis-I think this is a correct decision-for the purpose of compiling more information on the inventory of world food stocks. A number of commissions are already in existence to do that. Their purpose was underscored by events at the World Food Conference.
First, experience has shown that some countries cannot, or perhaps will not, make reports about food stocks. While there is a reporting system, unless there is one which all countries follow and use, and unless there is a complete reporting on the food stocks, that reporting system will not function properly. I am glad to note that Canada has always co-operated in making known our position in respect of food stocks and our ability to meet food aid targets. However, this is not the case in respect of some other countries.
Second, the government opposes the creation of new institutions, especially when there are institutions already in existence that seem able to do the work requested. In this connection, I would point out that four new committees or councils have recently been established. They are designed to work on specific problem areas yet interact with one another toward a common objective.
One committee I might mention is the World Food Council which has governmental representation at the ministerial level. This council is designed to deal with the political aspects of the food problem. It will receive regular reports on the world trade situation and on progress of food exports to developing countries. Another new committee is one that will be reporting to the World Food Council. I refer to the Committee on World Food Security. This committee will submit periodic and special reports on such things as current and prospective supply and stock positions of basic foodstuffs, the adequacy of stock levels and the evaluation of governmental actions to implement proposals on world food stock security.
Another committee, restructured from the World Food Program Intergovernmental Committee, is the Committee on Food Aid Policies and Programs. In our view, this will serve as a forum to improve co-ordination between bilater-

al and multilateral food aid programs. It will periodically review general trends in food aid requirements and food aid availability and will make recommendations to the various governments on food aid policies and operations.
While this is a very worth-while motion, it is simply an attempt to set up another committee to be stacked on top of other already existing committees which can provide the information that is being requested by the hon: member for Egmont in his motion. Also established is the consultative group on food production and investment. This group reports on activities to increase, co-ordinate and improve efficiency of financial and technical assistance to agricultural production in developing countries. This is of great importance in respect of the stocks of food in the world and the stocks that will be in the world.
Information in respect of technological advances in the developing countries is important because it may well be we would say to the people in China, Asia or India that they should eat more wheat but they still must be able to grow this wheat. It would also mean a switch in their basic diet, which now is mainly rice. If we ask such a person to change his eating habits and consume larger quantities of wheat, whether in the form of flour or other finished products, I think we would be taking a lot for granted. We cannot expect this to be done overnight.
When one considers the work being carried out by the Food and Agricultural Organization, plus the work that these new groups will be engaging in, I am sure all hon. members of this House will readily see there is substantial activity already under way to cover the very areas mentioned in the motion. It would be a needless duplication of effort to formulate another worldwide commission to deal with the very aspects now under study by these capable commissions of FAO.
I would also like to point out that the FAO has an international undertaking on world food security that deals in large measure with the very points covered by this motion. I should like to review the common purposes and responsibilities of this undertaking. The undertaking states that to assure a minimum level of world food security, member governments of FAO must take measures to ensure an adequate level of cereal supplies in the world so as to avoid acute food shortages in the event of widespread crop failures or natural disasters. To meet this objective, the members pledge to follow stock policies which in total will maintain at least a minimum safe level of basic food stocks in the world.
Member governments will also review or establish national stock targets or objectives with the aim of keeping sufficient levels to cover domestic and export requirements, including a security margin in case of disaster in a given country such as Canada. I am sure many members will remember the dust-bowl days on the prairies with very few fond memories. That was agreed to by Canada. It has also been agreed that the stocks will be maintained at such a level as will provide for emergency situations in all parts of the world where people may be less fortunate in recovering from a disaster. The member governments have also pledged to take measures to make sure stocks are replenished whenever they have been drawn below minimum levels.
Food and Resources
It is of the utmost importance, if emergency assistance is to be provided with any hope of help, that we have information on stockpiling so that the supply will not go below a certain level. Member nations agree to furnish, on a regular basis, information on national stock levels, government stock holding programs and policies, current and prospective export availability and import requirements for cereals and relevant aspects of the supply and demand situation. Such a situation arose just last year in the Soviet Union. A much larger wheat crop had been expected, as well as an increase in livestock production. Now, however, that country has found itself in a position where it must bring in new orders of Canadian and American stocks in order to cover the inadequacy it experienced during the past year.
To meet these requirements for timely and adequate information, a global information and early warning system on food and agriculture has been established under FAO supervision and operation. The main aims of the system are, first, to monitor continuously the world food supply and demand conditions, including fertilizers and key inputs, so as to assist governments in taking timely and appropriate measures in the light of quickly changing conditions. It is interesting, when I look at our friends in the opposition, to see that almost none of our socialist friends in the NDP have considered the problem of world food stocks to be of sufficient importance to be here and take part in the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Crawford Douglas: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has just arrived, I see.


Jean-Jacques Blais: You're a fixture, Stanley; you don't count.


Crawford Douglas: Yes, possibly. I am so used to seeing the hon. member in his seat that even when he leaves it, goes behind the curtains and walks around from time to time, his presence is hardly missed because one sees a small image of what is usually there all the time. What I say is not meant to be one bit against the hon. member, and I am glad that he, of all people in his party, has condescended to come and perhaps join in the debate later this afternoon to let the people of Canada know that the NDP's interest in the food stocks of this nation is at least signified by his presence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Crawford Douglas: Another aim of the system is to indentify countries or regions where serious food shortages and other nutritional conditions are imminent, to assess the possible emergency food requirements of those nations and therefore take action to bring in to being a program that would fulfil those requirements. To date, 68 countries including Canada-I might say that Canada took a very strong stand on this-have joined that very worthwhile global system, a system of reporting, of stock-taking and generally of keeping tabs on the food situation in the world so that emergency conditions, disaster conditions and famine conditions can properly be met when they exist.

March 15, 1976
Food and Resources
It is clearly evident that Canada is following the spirit of this international undertaking. We believe that sufficient supplies of grains should, and must, be made available to cover any disasters, although the Minister of Agriculture has often stated that the burden of carrying these stocks should not-I would go further and say they must not- rest entirely on the shoulders of the producers. We must not allow our farmers to bear all the costs and all the responsibilities for keeping these most important stocks in place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He can continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe).


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) is still of current interest, even though the World Food Conference which was held in November 1974 did provide a specific solution to that problem by laying the foundations for joint action in trying to solve the problem of world hunger. In addition, apart from that World Food Conference, the 7th special session of the United Nations General Assembly which met in New York last fall, reiterated its full endorsement of the resolutions adopted at the World Food Conference. The twofold objective of these resolutions was to cope adequately and immediately with the crises that regularly develop in the world and, in the long run, to increase the food production of the developing nations.
In order to achieve this twofold objective, the Conference has asked the developing countries to supply food assistance totalling 10 million tons of cereals each year for the next three years. In order to build up this world food bank, the Conference has recommended the setting up of a variety of agencies such as the World Food Council, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the Advisory Group on Food Production and Financing and the addition of a Committee on Food Assistance Policies and Programs within the World Food Program. Under the same program, the Special Assembly of the United Nations also suggested setting up an assessment committee of world food resources which would see to the creation of world stocks of cereals and would compile statistics on both needs and food production to avert emergency situations like those we have witnessed in the last few years.
In addition, one should mention the international agricultural research advisory group which also studied very specifically the best means of avoiding recurrent crisis situations. The committees I have just mentioned generally come under the FAO and should all contribute toward increasing food production in developing countries.
I shall not insist further, Mr. Speaker, on the various mechanisms that exist throughout the world and which were set up as a result of the World Food Conference. I believe they will meet the aspirations of the hon. member for Egmont who advocated an international organization to meet the food needs of the world community.
I should like to elaborate on this and direct mainly my

remarks to the Canadian reactions to the various resolutions passed by the Rome Conference, and the conferences held in Rome and in New York last fall. First, allow me to mention that Canada played a prominent role at the food conference and that since then its representatives have been working closely at the establishment of authorities and various committees recommended by the conference and that Canadian government officials still take an active part in setting up all those committees. To illustrate this Canadian participation, I wish to point out that Canada is one of the founding members of the World Food Council.
Moreover, Canada, through the Canadian International Development Agency, has geared its aid program to meet the urgent or long term requests in the agricultural field. Then, Canada's short term action as regards world food problems is more or less as follows: At the conference itself, Canada pledged 1 million tons of grain per year for the years 1975. 1976, and 1977, out of the 10 million tons requested by the Conference yearly. It is fair to say that this commitment has been a decisive factor in urging other donors to make firm commitments.
Canada, which has already endorsed the concept of a world food reserve, is now working within various international organizations to define the modus operandi of this reserve. And later in my speech, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the interesting suggestion we find in the motion introduced by the hon. member for Egmont, namely that food assistance could be in some way related to the budget of national defence of the donor countries,
Canada has also undertaken to provide food assistance this year for up to $45 million, excluding grains but including fertilizers. Our food assistance program is increasingly being implemented through multilateral organizations such as the World Food Program and UNICEF in an effort to reach the most needy people in the developing countries. These organizations have shown their ability in the past to stimulate the authorities of these countries into accelerating their own agricultural development. Even if we are increasingly relying on multilateral organizations to convey our food assistance, the greatest part of it, namely 60 percent in 1975-76, is still being provided under bilateral agreements. To stress the importance of food assistance in the Canadian Co-operation Assistance Program, I would say that 30 percent of the budget, namely $255 million in 1975-76, were allocated in that area.
In the long run, the Canadian government's action in terms of food assistance could be summed up as follows: food assistance is only a short-term paliative, and according to the Canadian government and to experts development of the Canadian agency, only increased agricultural production in developing countries could resolve in the long run the world food shortage.
So, the new Canadian "Strategy for International Development Cooperation", for the period 1975-80 will stress better living conditions for peasants by promoting the extension of rural development programs, especially in agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
This trend will encourage not only the programs of agricultural production and infrastructure, but also those in research. By agricultural infrastructure, we mean upgraded rural electrical power grids, for instance, access
March 15, 1976

roads, land irrigation projects, programs for setting-up agricultural credit, a forest inventory and retimbering programs.
Canada has always considered agricultural research as one of the principal means to deal on a long term basis with the chronic food shortages of the most deprived countries. This research represents for those populations the determining factor of improved living conditions because it makes it possible to find permanent solutions to their problems and is likely to yield such economic benefits that those countries may hope to become self-sufficient some day.
Canada continues to support the research bodies of the third world, of which I shall list a few: For example, Canada provides funds for the International Development Research Centre in Ottawa, as well as for the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture in Nigeria. There are also funds made available by the Canadian government to the International Research Institute on Agriculture in semi-arid tropical areas in India. And we are also involved in the International Centre for the study of the potato in Peru. Moreover, we have made a financial contribution to the International Research Laboratory on animal diseases, an international government agency in Kenya. In addition, we participate in the West Africa Association for the development of rice production. And I could also mention, Mr. Speaker, organizations like the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture in Colombia, the International Centre for the Improvement of Corn and Wheat in Mexico, and the International Research Institute on Rice in the Philippines.
I therefore believe, Mr. Speaker, that international authorities have created adequate structures to try and solve the problem of feeding the hungry, and that we should be proud of the leadership given by Canada under these circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, I now return more specifically to the motion of the member for Egmont who suggests in the latter part of his motion the establishment of a commission which shall have the authority to transfer designated food and resources from member nations equal in amount to their expenditures on defence. So, if I understand, this part of the motion of the member for Egmont means that the countries which would be on that international commission and could create a food bank would be urged to provide food assistance in a proportion equal to their expenses for defence. This idea seems very interesting to me even though it might be difficult to implement, because if we ponder for a moment over the amount of money spent for military hardware across the world, we find that unfortunately these expenses result in an enormous wasting.
In 1974, for instance, the trade of conventional weapons exceeded $20 billion across the world. The industrial nations have earmarked an average of 8 per cent of their national budget but the average is rather low in Canada, when it is noted that some industrialized countries have allotted 18 to 20 per cent of their budgets. Now an average of 8 per cent of the gross national product is set aside for armament, while not a single one of those industrialized countries or only a few seem to have set 1980 as the year to reach 0.7 per cent of assistance which is the objective of the United Nations.
Food and Resources
Total world expenditures for armament, Mr. Speaker, are 30 times higher than development aid. The armament budget represents a percentage so high in comparison with our limited resources that it prevents us from coping with urgent economic and social problems in our industrial communities as well as in underdeveloped countries.
I think, as the member for Egmont seems to suggest in his motion, that it is essential that we take efficient steps for disarmament. In my opinion, we must extend the motion of the hon. member for Egmont which deals more especially with food assistance and cover the entire issue of the arms race throughout the world and we, parliamentarians, must try to drum up support among our colleagues and our electors for the importance of disarmament throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, I believe that even if this might seem utopian, the emphasis should be shifted from weapon sales to development assistance and that this is an ideal that we should try to reach. This is why I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Egmont for having proposed this motion relating development assistance to the defence budget.
However, there are very serious obstacles to disarme-ment if we think of all our military agreements, that is NATO on the western side, and the Warsaw Pact on the eastern side. It is unthinkable that those two military pact will have disappeared in five or even ten years. However, especially now when we are discussing a new world economic order, I believe that we should all stop and think how we could best achieve a shift from our present armament efforts to development assistance. I am convinced that with the good will of all the affluent people, and I am talking especially about parliamentarians, of all the people who have any influence on the international scene, if all parliamentarians make an effort in this direction, we shall be able to find solutions to the difficulties that we will meet when we try to put a stop to the armament race.
I therefore believe that it is our duty to galvanize, and I quote, Mr. Speaker:
To galvanize the world community towards more direct and more efficient action to stop the armaments race and change its orientation.
Former United Nations Secretary General U Thant said these words in 1966,1 think.
Therefore, in my opinion, in view of the moral implications and the possibility that we could meet such an objective in the long term, we must start the fight for disarmament as soon as possible. We must also impress the importance of food assistance on industrialized countries, as well as developing countries, which very often, urged by industrialized countries, unfortunately enter the armament race with great enthusiasm.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Egmont succeeds one day in dividing or extending his motion so as to relate general assistance problems to world disarmament problems, I would be happy to support such a motion if he should propose it.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, ever since I have been a member of this House I was always surprised when we had to consider a motion similar to the one that is now before the House that there was not unanimity and

March 15, 1976
Food and Resources
the House did not simply adopt, it. That was always a surprise, as I say, since reading the motion is of course admitting it, just thinking about what it implies is admitting it even altogether.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take only a few minutes to submit brief arguments on the necessity of accepting such a thing. A list was just given of a whole series of things involving Canadian participation. In fact, it was nearly said that it is now being done, that there are world agreements sponsored by the United Nations or international organizations, so that what is called for in this motion is currently being done.
Mr. Speaker, one must be realistic and see things as they are. What do we see now when a country like ours is faced with a food surplus problem and cannot find any solution? That is the situation at present in the field of agriculture. While a general trend of the agricultural policy for industrial milk producers is being justified, a trend that goes against the interests of those Canadian producers is being justified by saying: Unfortunately, we cannot get rid of those products in Canada, and we cannot either get rid of them abroad. Mr. Speaker, I said on many occasions-and I take this opportunity to repeat it-it is a sacrilege, a scandal to talk about food surpluses when we know that one third of the world is literally starving to death.
The motion is presented at a time when we could help those who in the world are having difficulty living because they cannot find all the food they would need. There should be one organization in charge of this inventory, in order to record what we have and and what could be exchanged between countries, and of course this should not be only a simple wish but something which should have been already realized.
Mr. Speaker, it is rather odd to speak about world food needs while declaring that we cannot find an outlet for our surplus of food supplies. As recently as last week, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was saying in answer to a question that our producers were badly organized, produced too much and were too efficient.
Mr. Speaker, I read just recently that here in Canada the consumption of essential goods was insufficient to ensure a healthy balance. At the moment, in our country for example, the consumption of dairy products is not sufficient.
Consumption should be increased in that area. I do not say that only to solve the industrial milk producers' problem but also our underconsumption problems since here in Canada we are faced with poverty. Mr. Speaker, we must not make a secret of it, but face the situation.
We should proceed to a very concrete, very real inventory of our possibilities in order, first, to help Canada, then our own consumers and also all countries of the world which need it. It is not merely a wish, it should be all hon. members' avowed intention.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on the motion before the House. It seems to me, on reading the motion proposed by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), that it closely resembles another motion the House debated on an allotted day. I think the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) raised the matter. Many of the

arguments advanced that day in support of that motion are relevant in the present debate. I appreciate this opportunity to raise a couple of matters.
The previous speaker mentioned several things which, in my view, illustrate difficulties we might encounter if we accept this motion. If time permits I shall return to that topic later. The difficulties we could encounter are serious. They merit long and careful consideration. We should not lightly adopt the motion proposed by the hon. member.
The historic conference in Rome on world food supplies was convened about one year ago. Fortunately in the past year there has been an improvement in world food stocks. Conditions are somewhat better in areas formerly stricken with famine. At the same time there is little over-all improvement in the world crop and there has been little opportunity for rebuilding the world's depleted food reserves. Food shortages were the gravest concern facing the world's developing countries last year. We were all worried about the small reserves of world food. There was only enough food to feed the world for a few days. If there had been any disaster, or more drought, the consequences would have been serious indeed. That is not to say that the world food shortage is not still critical and that we should not do everything possible to improve world food stocks.
Before disagreeing with the hon. member for Egmont may I congratulate him for putting forward this motion? He has moved similar motions in the House on a number of occasions. I know he speaks on the subject with conviction. I congratulate him on it. I take issue with some of the points he raised today. I took issue with similar points which were raised on an allotted day. In short, I take issue with the means by which he seeks to achieve his aims.
The hon. member proposes that this House should urge the government to press for the establishment of a world commission on food and resources under the auspices of the United Nations. He further proposes that this commission should undertake broad responsibility for maintaining an inventory of world food supplies, for maintaining a reporting system on world food needs and availabilities, and for arranging an annual transfer of food resources from have to have-not countries. The value of the food transfer, he suggests, should equal what the have nations spend annually on defence.
The implication of this proposal which I find hardest to accept is that it involves the establishment of a new, major international body which would be of large proportions and whose functions would duplicate those of other large bureaucracies. Its functions would duplicate activity already being undertaken by other institutions both within and outside the United Nations, as one hon. member said.
Before agreeing to adopt the motion we should reflect carefully on whether we need another large bureaucracy to do something already being done. Do we need another large, powerful organization like that? I say this, because the motion reads in part:
... the commission shall have the authority to transfer designated food and resources from member nations ...
What does that operation involve? It seems easy to do it, but is it that simple? Really, transferring food from one country to another is just about the most complicated thing you can do. Consider the past history of such opera

tions. They involve shipping, storage, and payment of storage costs. They involve the payment of compensation to producers. I am most concerned about compensation to producers. If you analyse the motion, it suggests that we should ask farmers to produce food and then donate it to the world's needy. I would not want to see the farm community shoulder this kind of responsibility on behalf of all Canadians.
Other problems I foresee involve policies and programs of national governments, and the overlapping jurisdictions of international bodies. In relation to the latter point, liaison between these bodies would require a larger establishment just to negotiate the politics that would be involved. If actual operations-procurement, transport, distribution-also fell under the commission's jurisdiction, the staff and facilities required would be enormous, and so would its budget. I have not even come to the question of compensation yet.
I know the forces that play on a situation like this. In my constituency, a year ago last crop year, we had an early frost. Thousands of acres of potatoes were slightly frozen. There was a good deal of urgency with respect to what could be done about the situation. The growers approached the government to see if there was some program under which they could qualify. They made the point that many countries around the world would have a need for powdered or flaked potatoes, or potatoes in some other form like that. They were amazed to find it would cost more to prepare the potatoes in that form to be used by people who have the need than what the potatoes were worth, or that they could procure that protein food value a good deal closer to where the need was at a considerable smaller cost.
The previous speaker mentioned the situation in the dairy industry today. Admittedly there is a very large surplus, not only in this country but in the United States and most of the European Economic Community countries. He stated we should have a very high social conscience and distribute dried milk powder in great quantity to many of these countries. That is an over-simplification of the argument. In many countries that have a need, this is not a type of food that they use. In fact it might do damage to the health standards of people there.
This was established in the Guatemala situation. Canada distinguished herself by the amount of aid that was sent there; some $3 million worth of material for the construction of temporary shelters for about 40,000 people, some 125 tons of food, and another three quarters of a million dollars for emergency aid. The point there was the kind of aid that could have been given by sending more dry skim milk powder. That would have been easy for us to do. It would have decreased inventories and assisted our dairy industry. However, it would have been counterproductive to the people there. They are not used to that form of food in their diet. If it were all of a sudden to become a part of their diet, many problems could arise. In fact we might even contribute to the problem rather than help it.
I just wanted to make that point because I think the previous speaker over-simplified how easy it is to take any surplus commodity in our agricultural community and give it to the world food aid program. I am sorry he is leaving
Food and Resources
the Chamber. I wanted to ask him who he intended would pay for that, and whether in fact he thought that was an assistance to the program rather than working to the detriment of the people.
Having some background in the agricultural industry I feel somewhat strongly about it. If you have a situation that we often argue in this country where we have a surplus of food, and the producers say to the government it should buy it and give it to countries which need it, while that may have some short-term benefit, in the long run it might well harm the basic agricultural industry in the country we are trying to assist.
I ask hon. members to contemplate the effect in this country if we were trying to establish an agricultural industry in a particular sector and if another country with a surplus moved a lot of its food into this country. It might be good in the short period for consumer prices and even the nutrition of people. However, it would set back our own industry to the point where it might not even develop and in fact might be destroyed. As a result we would be further away from being self-sufficient in food rather than being closer to it. This is particularly important in the developing nations.
I had the opportunity to discuss this point of view at some length with some of my classmates who, in the last few years since our graduation, have spent a good deal of time in the developing countries. They are supplying technical assistance and knowledge to the government of those countries to see if they can help them become more self sufficient. Most of them have come back from their tour of duty from the underdeveloped countries unanimous in their point of view that perhaps the worst thing we can do as a country in assisting others is to send in large amounts of food. That would work to the detriment of those countries developing their own agricultural industry and achieving their goal of becoming self-sufficient.
I realize that in the motion, if I read it correctly, the hon. member is not suggesting that we override the attempts of underdeveloped countries to establish their own agricultural industry. He is really making the point that we move in areas of real need. We all have a great deal of sympathy with that. Whenever a crisis or a real need arises, one of the biggest problems is the time lag between the need arising and the time people can respond.
The hon. member's point in terms of having some type of data bank to indicate where certain food is available in surplus situation and can be moved very quickly, is probably the strength of the motion. I always worry when there is a great need, even in the Guatemala situation, about the length of response time.
Experience shows that it takes a long time to research within a country as to what it can best do. I suggest the hon. member has a good point and that maybe the reverse side is just as important. It is just as important for countries that are not strong agriculturally to have an inventory of the types of food they can most readily use. I would argue that this might be even more important.
I return to the argument of the previous speaker. It is automatically assumed that, because we have a large surplus of dairy products in this country, Guatemala can use all of it if we ship it there. Perhaps having countries

March 15, 1976
Medical Care Act
around the world that have a history of drought or overpopulation-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, when my speech was interrupted at five o'clock by the private members' hour I was in the process of explaining to the House that Bill C-68 applies to expenditure capping by the federal government under the medical care program and that it had nothing to do with the hospital insurance program in which the federal government participates on a 50 per cent basis.
I indicated also that the 13 per cent capping did not apply to any particular province but that it applied to the federal share of the program. It could happen, therefore, that if some provinces controlled their costs effectively they would receive more than 13 per cent. Provinces with lesser revenues could receive a way more than 50 per cent, and they could receive more than 13 per cent if they are effective in controlling their costs.
I should like to deal briefly with the arguments put forward by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). I regret to say I see few members of his party in the House this evening. He made a plea that the government should increase its expenditures to cover alternatives which would be of long term benefit. In other words, they would constitute a social investment. Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what the government is attempting to do. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has made a commitment to the provinces, restated by the former minister of finance last year, that the federal government is prepared to extend cost-sharing in alternative areas provided the federal government can obtain a firm commitment from the provinces to restrain the rate of escalation of costs in the hospital-medical field.
Over the past year we have held discussions with the provinces on many of the lower cost options mentioned by

the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, for example, increased use of paramedical care and institutional care at lower cost. The hon. member made a great deal about the need for community clinics. I would mention to him, though he be in absentia, that nothing in the Medical Care Act prevents such a development. What we have to get at is the hospital insurance program and provide for those kinds of institutions toward whose cost the federal government can participate. It should follow that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby supports the Minister of National Health and Welfare in giving formal notice to the provinces that five years from June 23 last we will review that particular program with the provinces so that we can do the sort of thing the hon. member has in mind.
In addition, the new amendments provide an exemption from the ceiling for the first three years of any new extension of benefits under the act. They provide further that any ceilings which may be imposed after the third year can be varied according to the nature of the service provided. Thus the federal contribution in respect of each class of new insured service will be appropriate to the cost of that program and not simply averaged in with all other services covered by the act.
In conclusion may I say that in my view the government is not one which wants to restrict social expenditures.


An hon. Member:: Is that so?


Herb Breau: They do not. I explained very clearly this afternoon that we are not in favour of such a position. But at a time when parliamentarians on both sides of the House are vitally concerned about the galloping increase in the cost of shared-cost programs it is surely not unreasonable for the federal government to say in a period of restraint, "Let us try, at least, in the case of doctors' fees to, restrain our share to 13 per cent, with a provision for increases in population." That is all the bill is doing.


Walter David Baker: Nonsense!


Herb Breau: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) shouts "Nonsense". Has he read the bill? I challenge him. Let him show me where, in the bill, we do anything else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: Now that he has become a House leader the hon. member should be responsible and be more careful before he makes that kind of gratuitous remark. This bill does not deal with hospital costs or hospital care. It deals with medicare, and the medicare legislation deals with payment for services by doctors. We are saying that our share will be capped at 13 per cent, with provision for increases in population.
I regret it has taken 13 days or so for the opposition to understand this. I hope they have understood by now, and I hope we can get this two and a half page bill into committee without further delay. If hon. members opposite cannot understand it in committee I will be happy to go there myself and read it for them, line by line.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the hon. member for Gloucester
March 15, 1976

(Mr. Breau) to go away from this debate believing that all the people on this side of the House are completely without intelligence. When he says this bill deals only with medicare and not with hospitalization I would point out that the biggest cost in medicare is, as he said, payments to medical doctors. But without these medical doctors filling up our hospitals with patients we would not be in the mess we are in presently. Therefore there is a very tight connection between medicare and hospitalization.
The main point I want to make is that here we are engaged in a debate under an allocation of time order and, whether we call it this, or that, or the other thing, it is still part of a closure operation. What the opposition has been doing is attempting to convince the government that we in opposition are trying to help it make the medicare system work. I do not think there is any quarrel whatsoever with the statement I am about to make: every party in this House for many years has accepted the need for medicare for our people on a universal basis. If all parties accept this principle then surely the government should pay us the compliment of listening to our attempts to try to help it get at these escalating costs which are rising so fast that they are endangering the social welfare schemes.
In view of the accumulated experience in this type of legislation having to do with delivery of health services of many members on this side of the House, surely the government has a duty to listen to some of their proposals in this debate. If I may go back to February 17 when I spoke on the original motion to send this bill to committee, I would like to remind hon. members that the question of universal health services is not new in North America. I happen to have been one of the two who in 1936, 40 years ago, moved a motion calling for prepaid medical and hospital services in Saskatchewan. Eventually Saskatchewan got them; in 1946 it got hospitalization and in 1960 prepaid medical care. So I have some experience in this matter.
I sat in a cabinet that saw the mistakes that had been made in the United Kingdom when they brought in their hospital and medical care schemes, and which saw the mistakes made by a very sincere government in Saskatchewan when it brought in its hospital care scheme. So we set up a royal commission, with the other man who was with me in 1936 in moving that the Conservative party of Saskatchewan support pre-paid medical and hospitalization services, Mr. Hall, as commissioner, to propose a series of steps that would move forward more rapidly the concept of a universal medical care scheme in Canada in addition to hospitalization, a move designed to avoid the mistakes of uncontrolled costs both of hospitalization and medicare.
I do not quarrel with the sincerity of the Liberal government when it says it believes in medicare. I accept that. But what I do question is its sincerity in not listening to those of us who have fought the battle much longer than they for these universal schemes and who are now trying to save these schemes. We must listen to arguments from
Medical Care Act
the financial side that if costs continue to rise these schemes will be destroyed.
Having made that opening point, namely, that we are not here to scuttle the medicare scheme but that we of the opposition are trying to help the government save it, let me go back to the games the hon. member from New Brunswick referred to which politicians play. In spite of the fact that the Liberal party, in opposition from 1957 to 1963, fought like tigers ad infinitum-because there was no closure in those days-against all forms of co-operative enterprise between the federal government and the provinces, when finally they were elected as a minority government in 1963, and again in 1965, they encouraged the provinces to opt out of joint enterprises that the federal government had embarked on with the provinces during the years 1957-1963. They were the great supporters of allowing the provinces to opt out of co-operative schemes.
Then in the election of 1968 we suddenly found the Liberal party advocating cooperation of government and the provinces on medicare, with the federal government providing 50 per cent of the cost. In effect, the pressure of offering 50 per cent of the cost to the provinces forced the provinces to come into the scheme, but long before they had built up the infrastructure required to keep the cost of such a universal scheme down. Everyone remembers the protests of the province of Ontario, and today the province of Ontario is paying a heavy price for having been forced into this scheme. Now eight years later the very party that forms the Government of Canada, which was once against co-operative enterprises but which turned around in 1968 and literally forced, by economic pressure, the provinces to come into its scheme, with no financial control mechanism provided for, is deliberately opting out of its own scheme into which it forced the provinces to enter.


Mr. Railton:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman is quite wrong about Ontario being forced to go into a medical scheme. It was the Hon. Leslie Frost, a former premier of Ontario, who led the request for federal sharing with the provinces in the cost of hospital insurance. My authority is a letter of October 10, 1975, from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I think that should go on the record, because we have had an incorrect statement from across the aisle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that that is not a point of order but a point for debate.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I thank Your Honour for pointing out the preposterous point brought up by the hon. member. He mentioned hospitalization. There is no question that the federal government, under the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), took the lead in asking all provinces to join together in a hospitalization plan on a co-operative basis, and that is what the hon. member referred to in his quotation.
Let me repeat what I said. With the pressure of the federal government's offering a 50 per cent contribution to medicare, any province literally had to join with the scheme for political reasons. But they joined the scheme

March 15, 1976
Medical Care Act
without proper preparation of the infrastructure to keep costs under some form of control.
It is on the question of control that I want once again, as we move into the final hours of this closure debate, to plead with the government when the bill gets to committee to consider the proposals I am making as positive proposals that would get it out of its problems. All parties-I should speak only for the official opposition-want to do what we can to stop this ever-rising expenditure by governments which is breaking the country. This bill is legislating that the increase this year will not be stopped but will only be allowed to rise by 13 per cent. That amount of increase is being legislated.
We are not proposing that the increase be cut to zero. What we are asking is that the government get at the basic causes of rising costs. The fact is that these schemes are universal, but insufficient care is taken to see that the schemes are not abused. Many people ask me whether I have any positive evidence, if incentive is provided not to abuse universal programs, that the people will respond. I do have examples, Mr. Speaker, and I will quote just one in the city of Saskatoon.
In Saskatoon there is a labour union, small in number, comprising about 200 members. Following completion of negotiations on wages and working conditions one of the union members in the negotiating team proposed that they discuss, without controversy being raised, the idea that the sick leave that the city granted these workers amounting to 18 days a year be banked, to the benefit of the city. If there were 20 sick leave days a year in a union contract, over a 40-45 year life of a contract an individual would have a right to 800 or 900 days of sick leave. Human nature being what it is, if the sick leave were 18 or 20 days a year many workers would take the full amount. This particular union had a record of about 14 or 15 days of sick leave per person per year, which meant that the city had to pay the full wages of the replacement for that person who was sick according to the contract.
When this particular union's negotiator took this into the discussion without prejudicing the previous agreement, management immediately responded and said that if they would work and set up a bank of days the city would be prepared to give a full year of days in that bank that would be paid to the person in cash, either the year before the person quit or on the day the person quit. This meant that the average 14 or 15 days sick leave per man per year dropped to about half a day per man per year. This now meant that when a man went out on Saturday night and still had a headache on Monday morning he would go to work because he knew that by staying away the amount in the sick-day bank would be reduced quite rapidly for him on retirement. Obviously the city was a big gainer in that situation. The city gained some 14 or 15 days per person of free labour because of the many advantages in the proposal. I will give another example of a similar nature.
I know there are sick leave arrangements in the civil service here in Ottawa. I am simply pointing out the principle that there is a place in these universal schemes for the individual, for his own benefit and that of his family, not to abuse the schemes any more than he or she

must. This meets the problem in respect of the doctors and others, with those who take the attitude that the services are free and they should be used whether or not they are needed.
In my remarks on February 17 I said that if the government is really serious about meeting social services fixed costs now, which make up 80 per cent of the total amount of money this parliament spends each year, and if it wanted seriously to do something about combining hospitalization, medical care, old age pensions, and some day, I hope, accident insurance also, into one package, it could do so. Each individual would pay at the actuarial rates established by the experts who prepare these things.
Out of this amount approximately one third would be paid in for those who are chronically ill, for those who are chronically unemployed and those who are unable to help themselves. This is a social responsibility of all of us. The balance would go into an individual account, which is electronically possible now although it was not possible 20 years ago. Every time an individual went to hospital he or she would know that their costs would be paid. If they went to the doctor they would know that their costs would be paid. Every time an individual was unemployed he would know that his costs would be paid. He would know that every time he had an accident he would be looked after.
The scheme would be on a universal basis. The individual would know that if he drew it all out and went beyond a certain amount he would receive only the minimum amount as his old age pension. He would know that if he used the plan just the average amount, if he visited a doctor just the average amount, or was unemployed the average amount, and had an average number of accidents, the amount that would accumulate at the present interest rates and the present contribution rates would represent an additional $400 or $500 in his pension at age 65.
In such a case I think the situation would be similar to that in respect of the union I mentioned in Saskatoon. A person would be willing as an individual to protect himself and his family, and he would make it very difficult for any doctor to get him into hospital for a cut finger or any other similar ailment. All of a sudden there would be a great pressure for the doctors to restore home visits and be paid for them, which is not always the case now. All the devices would be used in an effort to keep down the costs. That individual would be careful about every expenditure. It has been estimated that about 50 per cent or 60 per cent of these total costs would disappear if individuals enforced their own use of the plan. So instead of talking about spending $100 million or $300 million more a year, which worries the finance minister now, let us look at a positive approach by which we could save billions of dollars a year through the use of a package approach.
I put forward this proposal not because it is new but because it has been around and never tried. It has been checked actuarially in the Clark Report of 1959-62.1 simply say that politicians have some responsibility to their electors and that they should look at information that is already available. With the higher rates of contribution to the plans, the higher use of these plans and the higher the cost of all these services, we should look for an idea of how we could reduce these items and provide an increased old
March 15, 1976

age pension by the introduction of this sort of a package deal. Once again, as I say, I do not have the machinery to do the calculation myself. The calculation could be made in a few months with the machinery the government has at its disposal.
These universal schemes would be combined and the people would pay a fee, a portion of which would go for the social needs of all of us and the balance would be placed in an individual account. I know this is done in respect of the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. The sales of each individual farmer can be accounted for there. If his account number is punched the computer can tell the number of bushels of wheat, the number of bushels of barley, and the number of bushels of oats, of every grade, and the price in respect of every Canadian Wheat Board transaction made by the farmer.
This is done in respect of social security in the United States. It is done in many cases. I think that if a man were told he could use the excess in his account to increase his old age pension there would be a tremendous individual incentive to use these schemes only as a person's health demanded.
Having said all that, I know there will be thousands of cases where through no fault of the individual all the benefits will be used and therefore there will not be any increased amount in the old age pension under this proposal. I also know there will be a certain number of people, no matter what inducement is placed before them, who will abuse every plan that is put before them because this is their nature. But I would think between 60 per cent and 80 per cent of the people in a community of 22 million or 23 million people like Canada would respond to an individual incentive.
This is very different from the type of situation we have now with a negative deterrent. I spoke rather sternly a month ago on the evils of a single individual negative deterrent. I pointed out that when you put on a deterrent fee for hospital or medical use you punish the sick, the person who is the last one who should be punished.
I pointed out that where the individual deterrent had been tried on an individual basis the political party that tried it ended up by being defeated. I warned the politicians on the government side that by the universal deterrent they are putting in here, without making any effort to get at the basic causes of the rising inflationary cost push, which will simply put up the ceiling which might rise to 13 per cent, and the effect of putting a brake on these things that have gone out of control, will result in the punishment of only one person, the sick person, and there will be widespread revulsion against this.
Also you have the pressure to face that the country simply cannot stand paying $16 billion, $18 billion or $20 billion a year in these open-ended accounts. We know it is a major cause of the inflation we are suffering today, and we know it is destroying people who are trying to earn enough and save enough to have old age security of their own. We know we have to stop this inflation. I am simply pointing out in a positive and constructive sort of way that there is an alternative.
Medical Care Act
I for one do not mind voting for the motion of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) in which he suggests that we give this bill a six months hoist and let the government have time to think about this idea.
I am sure that among the elected representatives on the opposite side there must be some who are willing to challenge the control that senior members of the civil service have over them. The civil service mandarins have consistently tried for over 30 years to build up a system of controls and regulations in Canada. They think that as long as they hand over the patronage to the politicians they should have the right to run this country on a controlled system. Here they have a chance now in the Liberal party, even if only a few of them stand up in caucus, to say they should take a look at this proposal and not just turn it down and accuse the opposition of obstructionism because they have talked on a matter as important as this for 13 days. The opposition would stop here as of now.
I am not entirely in agreement with those on my left. I have read their speeches and I have a feeling they want all the money we need to handle all these social services, including medicare. I read one statement to the effect that Ontario is trying to save $50 million by closing down some hospitals. That is all part of the program that will be spread across the country soon. There will have to be restrictions. The inference in that statement is: "What is $50 million? Canada is a rich country." I am simply saying that that attitude must also be controlled. But I do not see members of the NDP opposing my proposal. God knows, I have never questioned their sincerity on the need for medicare; let them not question ours when we talk about practical ways to provide positive individual incentives and not to abuse these schemes.
I have hammered in this point as hard as I can, not only to save billions of dollars for the people who go into these schemes but to save the schemes themselves. I know from the experience in Great Britain and some of the countries in Europe, and now in North America, that even though we have been rich countries we are coming to the state where people are getting fed up to the teeth with this ever climbing tax load and the knowledge that all their savings are being wiped out by inflation. One of the causes is this ever increasing cost of government, the interest rates, and so on.
I would hate to see the antagonism of the people rise to the point where they would support policies by any government to slash these schemes and throw them aside. But I do believe that personal incentive, if accepted by the provinces and the federal government with their joint program, has great leverage and that we should save these schemes and reduce the expenses eventually and then have an automatic control mechanism which would not allow them to get out of hand in the future.
I want to conclude by a simple plea to the government members. This is not a political game to some of us. It is something that is a lifelong objective of trying to provide certain minimum fundamental means to the people that the country can afford, such as food, shelter, and medicare, which I think rank as the first three. People in all parties have fought in their legislature and in their parliament for these objectives. I and all those who are listening to me certainly do not want to see antagonism rising against

March 15, 1976
Medical Care Act
these heavy expenditures resulting in reactionary and negative policies of putting on a ceiling or brake, because I know from bitter experience that when you put on these deterrents it is always the sick person who suffers. The smart guys always know how to get around it.
Therefore I am pleading for all I am worth-I do not have much weight, I know-for somebody in the Liberal party to stand up in their caucus, and hopefully in their cabinet, and say, "Let us take a look at it. We are tired of being run by a group of civil servants who have been consistently wrong for 30 years on the monetary policy, the fiscal policy, and the trade policy, and about this business of putting on services on a universal basis without having a built in individual incentive to make them work."
I would like to see the red blood corpuscles of people who sit on the government benches rise up and make them speak out, because it has happened in other parties and it has had effect on the cabinet. They have been trying to prove in the uproar of the last two weeks that they can stand firm against the claim of the opposition that something improper is going on, but they will stand firm only so long as the caucus stands firm behind them.
The appalling thing we are witnessing here, not only in the episode of the judges, but in the Hamilton harbour case, the question of the SIU, the Austin case and all the rest of them, is that many people on the government benches do not ever think they are doing wrong. Here I am giving them a chance on something that has nothing to do with the patronage system which they seem to worship so much; here is a chance in the field of social welfare to help save it by getting at the basic costs and letting the individual provide the discipline. If you put your faith in the great majority of people, I do not think the individual Canadian will let us down. I hope the government will give this consideration instead of looking at it as a game, applying closure and shutting off the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, speeches in this place are often commenced with the suggestion that the hon. member did not intend to speak. I want to make it clear that right from the start it was my intention to speak at least twice, once on the main motion and once on the amendment. I have been frustrated in that intention by a Liberal virus that has been around the place. Some of us have had to cope with it for the last few weeks. However, I am happy to have the chance to speak at least once in the debate. I can see the application of the closure rule will prevent my speaking when we get back to the main motion, but at least in the few minutes I should like to take now I hope I can make it clear that I think the six months hoist amendment should be supported by the House.
Sir, I have in my hand a book which I wish I could persuade modern-day Liberals to read. Its title on the outside is "National Liberal Convention, Ottawa, 1919". The title on the inside cover page reads as if it were the only convention there ever was. The title is "The Story of the Convention and the Report of its Proceedings"; on the opposite page is a photograph of a very young man identified as W. L. Mackenzie King.


An hon. Member:: You were eight years old-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is wrong, again; I was eleven. In 1919 we did not have a national party.


An hon. Member:: You still don't!


Stanley Howard Knowles: There were some labour and farmer and socialist groups in various parts of the country which were the forerunners of our movement, but I think that any objective student of history, including any of us, would have to agree that the progressive element in Canadian politics was represented by what the Liberal convention fought and stood for in 1919.
In particular I should like modern-day Liberals-the few older ones who are around may have seen this book before but I suspect some of the younger ones did not know of its existence-to read Mr. Mackenzie King's speech in introducing the labour and social policy resolution that was passed at that convention. Some of the things that are in it we surely should have had a long time before that. Some of the things in it were already common practice in democratic countries of western Europe and some other parts of the world, but they were not yet here in Canada so the Liberal party took its stand for a whole host of progressive measures in the social and labour fields.
It is true that if you read through this document you will find a lot of hoopla in it, though not quite as lively as the hoopla of modern conventions. You will find a lot of condemning of the government in power, and a lot of passing the buck and all of that. But I say quite categorically, Mr. Speaker, that the commitment the Liberals made in 1919 to try to move this country forward was quite noteworthy.
Included in the list of things that the Liberal party committed itself to in 1919, as set out in the resolution moved by Mackenzie King, was a commitment to old age pensions, unemployment insurance, and health insurance. One might have hoped, of course, that since that party got into power a couple of years later it would not have taken long until those objectives were realized. But even the progressive Liberals of the 1920's were pretty slow moving. It actually took more than 40 years to get the Liberals to come through with all the things they had promised in that great convention of 1919.
During those 40 years or more there had to be an awful lot of prodding from this side of the House. Our forerunners in the persons of Mr. Woodsworth, Miss Agnes Mac-Phail and Mr. Heaps had to get here. The C.C.F. had to come along, and then the NDP, to prod all these things. I think it is fair to suggest that over those 40 or 50 years the Liberal party did move in the direction of social legislation for the good of Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They crept.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was 1926 before the first of the commitments was brought into effect, namely, old age pensions, and the history of that is pretty well known. It was a minority parliament in which there had been no mention in the throne speech that there would be old age pensions when Mr. Woodsworth and his friends wrote letters to all the parties and called for their
March 15, 1976

stand on that issue. They got from Mr. King a promise that old age pensions would be introduced in that parliament. Mr. King had to be pressed considerably even after that, but the bill was introduced in that short minority parliament. Although the bill got passed by this House it was defeated in the other place.
There followed an election, and after that election Mr. King brought the bill back again so that by the end of 1926 or the beginning of 1927 we did have a start on an old age pension system. Old age pensions are not the subject tonight so I shall not take time to describe what that pension was like and the long battle to get it improved. The point is that it took from 1919 to 1926 or 1927 to get the first of these items implemented.
The second item was unemployment insurance. Again we had a promise, a commitment of the great Liberal Party of Canada in its great convention of 1919. So what year was unemployment insurance passed? In 1940, 21 years later, coming into effect in 1941.
For health insurance the struggle was long and almost endless. I remember about 1947 or 1948 when there were rumours around that Mr. King, who was getting near the end of his time as prime minister-was getting near the end of his time in fact-had decided that before he finished he wanted to put health insurance on the statute books. I remember the excitement here one day when word got around that Mr. King would make a statement on motions in the House that afternoon and it would concern health. Some of us were naive enough to think that at long last, in 1948, we were going to get the health insurance that had been promised in 1919. That is not what we got, Mr. Speaker. We got instead the announcement of the hospital grants that the federal government was prepared to make to the provinces. There was no provision in this at all for medical care, but there was the beginning of money to assist the provinces in the building of hospitals.
I remember very well hearing Mr. King say in 1948, all those years after 1919, that we could not do these things overnight, that there was no point in talking about hospital insurance or medical care insurance until the infrastructure-I do not think he used that word because we did not use it in 1948-until all the equipment and buildings were ready and enough doctors had been trained. So in 1948 the notion that we were going to get health insurance proved to be false. It was actually 1957 before the Liberals finally brought in the first act having to do with hospitalization.
Even that act had in it a provision that required a majority of the provinces to come in before it would be effective. It was left to the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) to modify that act when his party came into power so that the provinces could come into the hospitalization legislation one by one.
We had to go all the way to the middle 1960's, to the years when Lester Pearson was prime minister, before the Medical Care Act was finally passed. We waited a long time, from the initial Liberal promise of 1919 until the middle 1960's, to get the Liberal party to implement the glowing promises it had made to Canada. We waited some 45 or 46 years. At least they were moving-
Medical Care Act


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Creeping.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend says they were creeping. At least they were creeping in the right direction.
In all these discussions about pensions, unemployment insurance, and later about hospitalization and medical care it was established that if the programs were to be of value to the people of Canada they had to be equally available across the country. The idea of co-operation with the provinces is spelled out in the resolution passed by the national Liberal convention of 1919. The Liberals of that day accepted the need for co-operation between Ottawa and the provinces and that schemes had to be introduced which would make social services like pensions, unemployment insurance, hospitalization, and medical care equally available to all right across the country.
Having been present in the House during the last six years of the prime ministership of Mackenzie King and having been a member during the prime ministerships of Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Pearson, I felt that there was a certain tendency on the part of the Liberal party, especially on Mr. Pearson's part, to implement the social commitment which had been made in 1919. As a result we saw improvements in old age pensions; the government introduced the Canada Pension Plan, and we saw improved unemployment insurance. We were given a type of improved hospitalization program, and then we saw the provision for medical care.
My complaint, which I have made previously and which I repeat this evening, is that the modern-day Liberal party under the leadership of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is reversing that long Liberal trend.


An hon. Member:: That's the Trudeau party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend calls it the Trudeau party. Although I know one is not supposed to use that person's name in the House I think that description of the party is better than "Liberal party."


Jean-Jacques Blais: Come off it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Kaplan), the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), and others are able to do a pretty good job with figures. They try to show that in terms of numbers of dollars which will be paid to the provinces under the Medical Care Act in the next two or three years, the money flowing from the federal treasury to the provincial treasuries, will increase. They stand up and say, "What are you shouting about?" They ask, why are we complaining about the government's opting out, when it will actually pay a few more dollars?
The point is that the formula in this bill which provides for a limited increase in the next couple of years and then for limits to be fixed after that, by order in council, will mean that reduced amounts will be paid to the provinces. The upshot, even when you consider the amendments which disregard certain things and to which the hon. member for Gloucester referred this afternoon, is this: a few years down the road Ottawa will pay less than 50 per

Medical Care Act
cent of what it costs the provinces to maintain medical care.


Samuel Victor Railton: What years?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that the 50 per cent formula is not for a straight 50 per cent and I know that I should not oversimplify it. The present proposition calls for the government to pay 25 per cent of the national average and 25 per cent of the provincial average. The result, in terms of dollars to be spent, is that wealthy provinces get less than 50 per cent, and poorer provinces more than 50 per cent.


Samuel Victor Railton: The wealthy provinces get more than 50 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend opposite is good at making mistakes.


Samuel Victor Railton: Not at all. I have the figures before me.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, but they are Liberal figures.


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will be glad to correct the hon. member. The hon. member on the other side made an incorrect statement. The federal government pays 54 per cent to the wealthy provinces and 75 per cent to the have-not provinces for medicare.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, that is not a point of order. Hon. members are entitled to make corrections with respect to misinterpretations of their own speeches, but I do not think they can interrupt other hon. members to correct them. The hon. member is the next Liberal speaker on my list. He can make any corrections he wishes when he speaks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Speaker who was in the chair before Your Honour came in tonight had to rule similarly on a point of order raised by the same hon. member. I say, especially to those opposite, that the result of this legislation will be this: down the road, the percentage which the federal government will pay of total medical costs will be reduced.


Jean-Jacques Blais: That is not so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend opposite can say that is not so, but I suggest that that, precisely, will be the effect of the legislation. In addition the government has given notice that at the end of five years it will renegotiate the hospital agreements. That simply means, that the federal government, which participates with the provinces in providing hospitalization and medical care, will shift more of the burden to the provinces.


Samuel Victor Railton: How sensible is that remark.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I regret that the Liberals have turned away from 50 years of progressive social legislation, which they said should be implemented universely, nation-wide. Now they want to put more of the burden on the provinces.

I do not predict that the day will come when hospitalization and medical care will no longer be free, or that Canadians will have to pays hospital bills or doctors' fees, as used to be the case; but I do predict that, under this regressive aberration, a few years down the road the poorer provinces will not be able to provide the level of medical and hospital services available in the wealthier provinces.


Samuel Victor Railton: And how many years are you going to give us?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I had my way
I would not give you any more years.


Samuel Victor Railton: That's what I thought.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I had my
way, you would be out tonight.


Samuel Victor Railton: I know, I know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, pardon me for having directed my answer across the way. I was not saying that to Your Honour.


An hon. Member:: N'yah, n'yah, n'yah, n'yah!


Stanley Howard Knowles: What an interruption! It shows that the members on the Liberal side do not know what they are doing. The advantage of our present hospital and medical care scheme is that the service is more or less the same in all parts of Canada. If the federal government's share of what provinces must pay to provide medical care and hospitalization goes down, the provinces will have either to cut back services, impose deterrent fees or introduce special charges. When that day comes you will see better service at less cost, in some provinces, and poorer service at a higher cost in others.
The great party across the way talks of national unity. Well, it is destroying national unity where it hurts. When you talk of national unity you do not talk just about language. National unity also counts in terms of health and in terms of the pocket book. As I say, what bothers me is that for 40 years the Liberals seemed to be moving in the right direction. But these characters on the other side who now call themselves Liberals are prepared to send it all down the drain. All the arguments they have been trying to give us in the last few days, and again tonight, about there being more dollars in the next few years do not get away from the fact that they are trying to provide for a lesser share to be paid by the federal government.
There are other schemes coming along like a guaranteed annual income or a new social security system, again on a shared basis. I cannot blame the provinces for being very suspicious about these new shared programs. In the first place, they are put to them in a way that attracts them. It invites the provinces to come in. When they have the experience that down the line somewhere the federal share is reduced, it can only make the provinces leery.
There are some programs such as the old age security that so far we have been able to maintain at the same level right across Canada. The guaranteed income supplement is

also at the same level right across Canada. However, already, because the federal government has not raised old age security to the amount it ought to be raised and because it has let down the old age pensioners, governments like those in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and some others have had to come in with special supplements. These supplements vary from province to province. Therefore right today an amount that a pensioner is able to get if he has nothing else varies considerably from province to province. In my book that is not national unity.
These characters across the way, these hon. members who comprise the governing party, are destroying the very basis of national unity. They are selling out the very thing for which their party stood and worked for so many years, even if it took a lot of prodding to get them to do it.


An hon. Member:: What is the NDP doing for them?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I get enough jibes around here, such as having come with the building and so on, that I should be careful with what is in my mind at the moment. However, it is really hard to take when new members come to this House and ask what the NDP or the CCF has done in these areas. It is a fact of history that it has been our prodding from the days of Mr. Woodsworth, through the days of the CCF, through the days of the NDP, that has prodded the Liberals to do the things that are worth while in the social field. If my hon. friend does not know that, he should go back to school and read Canadian history. There is no question that the Liberals in power put these pieces of legislation on the books, but not one was put there voluntarily. Everyone had to be pulled out of them by a determined opposition.
For an obvious reason, Mr. Speaker, I should not try to keep going the full 40 minutes. I say that because as I have mentioned there is a Liberal virus around this place that some of us on this side of the House seemed to have picked up. That "Liberal" by the way, is spelled with a capital "L".
There is one comment I want to make to the hon. member for Gloucester. He seemed to take a great deal of pleasure in trying to say to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that all he was doing was defending higher salaries for doctors. The hon. member for Gloucester said the Medical Care Act only provides payment to the doctors and, unless we are prepared to put these clamps on, we are in effect voting for higher salaries for doctors.
Has the hon. member for Gloucester heard about the Anti-Inflation Act? Has he heard about the Anti-Inflation Board, or is he admitting that in terms of limiting or controlling doctors' salaries, the way the Anti-Inflation Board controls wages, that whole policy is a failure? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the whole argument the hon. member for Gloucester used at that point is an admission that the Anti-Inflation Board policy is not succeeding, and that it is stupid on his part to argue that we need this bill for that purpose.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member be kind enough to accept a question?
Medical Care Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Herb Breau: Recognizing that the hon. member might not have supported the anti-inflation program, and that is beside the point, does he agree that because of that program being in effect, this program would have very little effect on the provinces?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that question implies that the anti-inflation policy has limited the salaries of doctors. If that is the case, in terms of the argument the hon. member was making this afternoon, this bill then is not necessary at all, and it is far better that we should give it the six months hoist.
The other point I want to make before resuming my seat is that it is my strong belief that it is still true that in a country like Canada, with a federal setup, we get along better by co-operation than confrontation. For the federal government, instead of meeting with the provinces to discuss ways and means of holding down medical costs and arriving at some arrangement for that, to try to get this bill through so that it can present the health ministers of the provinces with a fait accompli is the wrong way to go about it. That is another attack on the national unity of this country.
Bill C-68 is wrong on all counts. I hope that when the vote comes at the end of this closure period the House will vote to give this bill a six months hoist.


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow the very eminent member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who had so much misinformation for this House, particularly from the standpoint of doctors, with respect to Bill C-73 and Bill C-68 which he did not seem able to separate.
Over this past week end I have been reading the speeches of different members. I have also read the remarks made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I tried to get the ideas being presented here about health care and Bill C-68 into my head. I have gone over a lot of speeches. The minister has been making statements which are very consistent and easy to understand. He has emphasized several things.
First, medicare and hospital care costs, exclusive of extra benefits which some provinces have initiated, have risen by 22.5 per cent last year, will rise 20 per cent this year, and will again rise 18 per cent next year. I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is listening.
Second, for several years negotiations with the provinces about modifications of our cost-sharing arrangements have been unsuccessful in spite of valiant efforts of the Liberal-federal government-I was going to say Liberal government, it is liberal-and constant demonstration of fair treatment both to have and have-not provinces. That is a new phrase, have and have-not. Just like the countries of the world, the provinces are listed much the same. The federal government pays the biggest share in all of these schemes and the amount varies from 54 per cent to 74 per cent, never in any case below 50 per cent.

March 15, 1976
Medical Care Act
Third, starting with the budget of June, 1975, and culminating in Bill C-68, the government has proposed to put ceilings on the increase of annual contributions from Ottawa to the provinces. All it is doing is putting ceilings on the contributions. It is not decreasing them. These increases are 13 per cent, 10 per cent, and possibly 8 per cent in the third year but I think the minister has relented and made the last figure 10 per cent and it is likely to continue to be 10 per cent for a year or two thereafter- there is a likelihood that this will continue for five years.
There is one more point. The federal government, as required by law, is serving notice on the provinces that it will terminate and replace existing agreements under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. This allows five years for new agreements to be drawn up, plenty of time in which to review not only cost-sharing but the whole question of possible changes in the health care delivery system.
Looking over the speeches made in the House it is almost incredible how plain statements, so logically presented, were so generally misunderstood or, should I say, so universally misrepresented by all members speaking from the opposition side.
This bill has consumed a vast number of hours during the present session. Too much time has been spent already on this one piece of legislation. I heartily congratulate the government House leader for putting forward the motion which sets limits on further debate. He could not pursue any other course without being unmindful of the government's duty to the people.
It is well known that there is an adequate number of general hospital beds in Canada per capita. In fact we have more beds per capita than they have in the United States or in the United Kingdom. Our greatest need in the matter of beds is for long-stay patients who may be convalescing from acute conditions or for chronically ill patients requiring continuing or permanent hospital care. The federal government for some years has been exploring with the provinces the possible extension of hospital insurance programs to include lower levels of institutional care. This would require the provinces shifting some of the emphasis from expensive acute services to less costly but equally acceptable alternatives. All this could be tidied up before the end of the next five years.
Most members who spoke for the NDP charged that the federal government was reducing its contribution. This is contrary to the facts. There will not be a reduction of services or any need for provinces to increase taxation above levels previously envisaged. Every province could still enjoy the present level of good medical care. Nowhere will there be any reduction in medical research because the rate of escalated contributions would always be held above the inflationary index.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can you keep a straight face and say that?


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, those pious, rather hypocritical expressions of melancholy and cries that the provinces were being abandoned are completely unfounded. Most of those speakers-and I am referring now to members of the

New Democratic Party-felt there was no need to economise or cut frills. Some advocated complete disregard for spiralling costs. In fact they counselled us to leave things exactly as they are, no matter what the cost. How impractical can you be?
The Progressive Conservatives, on the other hand-and there were plenty of good speeches made over there-said the government had acted unilaterally without giving warning to the provinces. The minister has shown how false this accusation really is. He was, as usual, called arrogant-a favourite opposition description of any courageous move on the part of the government.
Conservative spokesmen also asked, "Why bring in Bill C-68; surely the anti-inflation controls under C-73 will be enough to look after increasing costs?" The crux of the matter is that negotiations must be completed in the next five years and agreement achieved. Given any kind of co-operation, this question should have been settled already.
Our worthy opponents opposite even blame the federal government for the inept "bull-in-the-china-shop" type of hospital closures recently seen in Ontario. If this happened to be the object of Frank Miller's or Bill Davis' ploy, it certainly backfired. These inept confrontations between the Ontario department of health and the unfortunate hospitals which have been closed down only increased the difficulties of Ontario's hospitalization program.
It is very hard to see how the complete closure of hospitals such as the Doctors' Hospital, the Clinton Hospital, and the Paris Hospital can save money for anybody. First, the hospital staff becomes unemployed. Next, the hospital buildings must be maintained even if they are not used. Third, the patients must be moved to other hospitals where they will be cared for at greater expense. In my opinion it would have been much better had there been some reduction in the over-all bed establishment at all Ontario hospitals. At the same time the number of beds reserved for patients suffering from acute conditions could have been reduced and other wards could have been set aside and used by convalescent patients. As I mentioned before, these "lower level" beds could still serve the community well, though in some cases the status, medically, of the community hospital of necessity would have to be lowered.
We have been criticized incorrectly because of this interpretation. It has been said that the federal government has instituted cuts whose effects would be to reduce health care services. In fact, as explained earlier, the government has simply put ceilings on annual increases in its contributions. These are still well above the inflationary rate. The whole subject has received a great deal of study and it is well known that these ceilings will not jeopardize the present program. Nevertheless it is imperative that both sides reach an agreement.
Our mortality rate, our medicare and hospitalization systems, have been compared to those of foreign countries. We realize that a health delivery system enjoys continuance of the status quo, but it is not sacrosanct. People in Canada rather like our present system which allows doctors to carry on private practices. There is no doubt that the level of medical care in Canada in doctors' offices is much superior to that in the United Kingdom. It is the
March 15, 1976

hospitals, though, which are at the centre of our medical care system.
Victims of drug overdoses, drunks, psychologically upset families, and people hurt in car accidents crowd into our hospital emergency wards at night and especially on week ends. The hospital has become over-used. This is due partly to pressure from people frequenting the emergency facilities and sometimes to over-servicing by thoughtless doctors. Only in hospitals can major operations be performed.
It has become clear that doctors cannot do house calls and still see all the people who crowd into their offices or even into outpatient departments. Even though there is one doctor for every 900 people in Canada some people feel there is an under-supply of medical care. It is quite possible that the present dilemma can only be solved by using a new approach to health care delivery systems.
When one considers that many day-to-day patient complaints are minor, it would seem that a highly educated professional man is not required to use his knowledge and skill very often. It has been contended that many patients coming into outpatient departments or even into doctors' offices could be seen primarily by a paramedical assistant in the OPD or in the home. Following that, only a small percentage would need to see a doctor. However, if this plan were to be adopted the excellence of treatment would inevitably deteriorate. The experienced, well trained physician can quickly tell how serious a case is, whereas a paramedic might understandably misjudge the situation.
In spite of this, if we are to give universally free care to all, we may be forced to reorganize our system and still wisely make use of our medical brains. With a different type of organization we could certainly make use of nurse practitioners, medics, supertrained orderlies and operating room assistants. The whole system would have to be overhauled and organized for efficiency and reduced expense. However, the rising salaries of other levels of medical care personnel make one wonder whether this would really lead to a reduction in costs.
At the present time there have been great changes in hospital administration. About 25 years ago most hospital funds were concentrated on providing care and treatment to the patient. Now, because of our accreditation program, mention of which was made earlier in the debate, and because of the need for uniformity of high level treatment, efficiency experts have become hospital administrators and a great deal of money has had to be spent on documentation. This is always the trouble in trying to devise efficient systems-sometimes the patient suffers, though the statistics look good.
There is no doubt that central district hospitals looking after a large number of specialties are the most efficient way to care for the sick. Satellite hospitals could be built or continue to be used in the surrounding areas. Their work of necessity would be at a lower level. Where a hospital has been built and possesses enough land some of these convalescent, chronic and extended care buildings could very advantageously be built very close to the original acute hospital. There is what we are trying to do in my own constituency of Welland where the board was farsighted enough to build the hospital on between 15 and 20
Medical Care Act
acres of land. In these district hospitals a very well-endowed intensive care unit is a necessity and all the diagnostic tools must be available.
I feel sometimes that the promotion of private laboratories was a mistake. There has recently been a great deal of suspicion about the financial probity of some of these private laboratories. Ideally, all x-ray examinations and laboratory examinations would be done in the hospital or under hospital supervision, and where this does not take place private institutions have sometimes lent themselves to unscrupulous ordering of total body x-rays and total laboratory examinations which are not required. This increases the private institution's income, and for this reason alone hospital supervision should be mandatory.
In my speech, except perhaps for the last few remarks, I have tried to stay fairly close to Bill C-68, which I hope will pass quickly. I think it has been misunderstood and I am sure it has been wilfully misinterpreted. However, I think that not only must we examine suggestions for improved financing but we must allow for change in our medical care and hospital care systems. This evolution has to proceed constantly as we learn new methods.
On February 11 last the Minister of National Health and Welfare wrote a letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail in Toronto and very explicitly drew his attention to disparaging references about the national medical care program made in his paper. The minister said that from the editorial it would seem that experience of medicare has been so severe that the federal government is "trying to dump it totally on the provinces". The minister continued:
I find this somewhat ironical since I have just written a letter to the Editor of the Ottawa Journal who ... had accused me of totally backing down to the provinces and abandoning our efforts to restrain the rate of cost increase. Both points of view are, of course, totally erroneous.
That is the point I have been trying to make in my speech. The minister went on to say that he felt that the editorial writer had presented his data in a most misleading fashion. Further on the minister went on to say this: What your editorial writer does not point out is that in 1967-68 the health-related expenditures, which in 1975-76 amounted to approximately 30 per cent of the provincial budget, took up 31 per cent of the provincial budget. He perhaps overlooked the fact that the Ontario Hospital Services Commission had its own budget, separate from the Ministry of Health, in those days. To the $359 million shown in the Ministry's 1967-68 budget one has to add $412 million from the OHSC budget to compare with 1975-76. Also, before medicare a number of provincial departments had medical expenditures which, following medicare, were put into one pot and shown subsequently in the health department's budget. In any event the budget of the Ministry of Health today does not appear to take up any larger proportion of the current provincial budget that the health-related expenditures took up during the several pre-medicare years.
I do not intend to read the whole letter, Mr. Speaker, but I think it would be of advantage to members of the House to read it. For some reason I feel there has been a very stubborn and obtuse attempt on the part of all opposition parties in the House to misrepresent the government's policy on health care, and I deplore this. I do not see, and have never seen, why anyone in politics would misrepresent a case just for their own political gain.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deaj of interest to the speeches of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), the hon. member
11814

March 15, 1976
Medical Care Act
for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has a tremendous amount of experience in the House, and of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton). Others who have contributed to the debate have shown there are still things to be said.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Chretien) has just entered the Chamber. I remember in 1967 or 1968 he said we do not have enough money to institute the medical care act. It was postponed for a whole year. The present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), who was then the Minister of National Health and Welfare, brought in this act shortly after. It was discussed at some length in this House.
In respect of the compromises concerning the situation we are in, together with the galloping expenses of health care and so on, it is interesting to note that a system was already in operation in the province of Ontario under the premier of that day, Mr. Robarts. It is interesting to note that 80 per cent of the people of the province of Ontario were covered through one insurance scheme or another. Prior to that the plan was run by the Ontario Physicians Services. The administration costs, if I remember correctly, were around 2 per cent. A fine new building was built, and at the time it was closed there was a reserve fund.
Today, out of the $7 fee a physician receives for his service, the government takes 10 per cent. No one really knows what are the administrative costs. One thing we do know is that every doctor is humbugged by papers and papers and by bureaucracy and bureaucracy, until a third of his time is spent filling out papers when he should be devoting that time to his patients. This is bureaucracy.
When Mr. Robarts introduced a health care bill in the province of Ontario to cover the 25 per cent of the population in that province who had some problems in meeting their medical bills he introduced a sliding scale by which those who had a certain income would make no payments, those in another income scale would make a payment of a certain percentage, and those in another income scale would have to pay the whole premium. This was all underwritten by the insurance companies. This plan was carried much more cheaply than the national scheme is carried today.
When the federal government introduced the national medical care bill it still taxed the people of the province of Ontario. That province was forced into the medical care plan, after the federal government had received some $125 million from the province of Ontario which was paid into the national medical care plan.
There is no way the federal government can escape the responsibility for the national medical care bill. The federal government forced this on the provinces whether or not they liked it, because the provinces were taxed for it in any event.
I was interested in the speech made by my young friend from Gloucester when he spoke about the doctors so kindly. Let me tell him from my lengthy experience that there is no way the doctors can be separated from the hospital or health care scheme. They work together. The hon. member made a very good speech, but he was completely wrong when he said we could separate the fields. I

should like to tell the hon. member that young doctors, after they have been working for three or four years, expect a raise. At that time they usually can expect to have more patients and therefore have a higher income, but under the anti-inflation bill they are limited to an increase of $2,400. There is no way the hon. member can equate that with an increase of 13 per cent.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Certainly.


Herb Breau: I cannot disagree with the hon. member that the two obviously are closely related, but will he agree with me that regardless of what close relationship there may be they are administered at the federal and provincial level by two separate statutes? My point was that this particular statute we are amending does not have a direct effect on the other hospital insurance program.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I just want to tell my young friend there is no way these doctors can get more than $2,400 under the new regulations. The young person who is trying to build up a practice will be hurt. I want to be very clear on this point. I ran a clinic. We brought in young men. We trained them. As their ability increased they attracted more patients. I hope there will always be an incentive for them to learn, to do better work all the time and attract more patients.
In 1969 it was pointed out in this House by the then minister of national health and welfare that the rising costs were becoming a considerable factor. He pointed this out dramatically. Although he mentioned that it may be difficult to carry out the plan he said there were three ways in which it could be done. He mentioned a deterrent fee. Let me say to everybody in this House that if there was any reason for bringing in a national medical care bill it was so that the poor could obtain the necessary care. A deterrent fee works directly against that purpose.
We heard in 1969 that we would be in trouble. The various ministers of national health and welfare in this House and the ministers of health for the provinces have had seven years in which to find ways and means to face the problem of the rising costs. I want to ask what they have done. They have had closed meetings and other meetings. What have we heard? If one looks at Hansard one can see the replies to the questions that have been asked. We are told that the ministers are getting together and that the problem would be dealt with, but that has gone on for the last six years. Where do we stand today? What is the situation in respect of these problems?
We are facing a situation of deteriorating health care in a country that was known world-wide for its health care plan. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all the members in this House that I, as one of the older physicians, regret this very much. In certain areas they are taking measures today which result in the reduction of the incentive to work which we used to have under the old scheme. The good relationship between the patient and the doctor is pretty well gone nowadays.
March 15, 1976

I want to ask the minister why some means and ways have not been found whereby people could be treated more cheaply. In the last seven years they have had the opportunity to work out schemes to provide by alternative methods the high cost care which now is cut off. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it does not seem fair or right that we should pay the money we are paying to have the administration, not only at the provincial level but at the federal level, cut down on services. It is not right that some system has not been worked out so that expensive health care which they are talking about now could be provided by cheaper means and the closing of hospitals would not be necessary. What we see now shows a completely immature knowledge in a field that they are not expert enough to handle.
I watch this, Mr. Speaker, and I look at my own province, the province in which this House of Commons is located. What about the house calls that the physician used to make? He used to go out into the country to visit his patients. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that now there is nothing with which to pay for his mileage? He has to run his own car at his own expense and he is paid exactly the same as if he were making a call at the hospital. Which would you do, Mr. Speaker? The government had the opportunity-


An hon. Member:: Why don't you ask Bill Davis about that?


Philip Bernard Rynard: We are not talking about Bill Davis; we are talking about the national medicare bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, if they want a broadcast on this I will go across Canada and speak on this issue, even if they want to talk about Quebec, Nova Scotia or Manitoba. I will talk about these provinces because I happen to know what is going on there also. So if they want to broaden the field and speak about provinces other than the province of Ontario, I will tell them about the other provinces as well as about the province in which this House of Commons is located, a province which pays 38 per cent of all the taxes in Canada. I will tell them about that province having to cut down its health schemes, having to close its hospitals. I say that when that happens there is something radically wrong with this scheme which was brought in here in 1968. That is the point I am making.
I want to say that I have some records which indicate that people can be treated more cheaply in their own homes. I refer to one specific case of two people over 90 years of age who would have been placed in treatment homes but for the fact that a doctor interested in their case said, "We will treat these people at home, if possible." He went out a distance of ten miles to make his calls and he arranged for a lady to go to the house to look after these two patients in their own home at $100 a week. Do you know what it would have cost on an average in any hospital in Ontario? It would have cost around $100 a day. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what it would have cost to have those patients in one of the treatment homes of which they
Medical Care Act
have many in Ontario which provide extended care? It would have cost $20 a day.
The government assured people they would get health care, and the minister said that there would be no lack of health care across Canada. I would like to take them to hospitals where patients are not getting good health care. I was in an institution the other day and the bells started ringing, the buzzers from patients' rooms. I asked what the heck had gone wrong because you could hardly hear yourself. I was told that four of the people on the nursing staff had been dismissed to save money. Who is suffering? It is the patient. Who is overworked? It is the nurse and the nurse's assistant. That is the type of health care people are getting.
I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the health ministers across this country, what in the name of heavens is wrong that they cannot jointly work out a system to provide less expensive health care which would allow people to be treated in homes where they could get home care? Surely they have a home care program starting and federal moneys are paid into this program, but what type of home care is it? Under certain conditions it is very good if there is someone else in the home apart from the patient. Under that program they will send a person to the home for eight hours, which is a help, but what if that patient is alone? Why can they not provide a 24 hour service? Would it not be cheaper to provide a 24 hour service than to pay $100 a day for an active treatment bed, as well as emergency expenses, because a patient has to go through the emergency ward to get to the active treatment bed?
They are closing down hospitals, cutting down services, and at the same time patients have to be moved from the hospitals that are being closed. Ambulances have to go out farther, yet they are cutting ambulance budgets. You know what happens when that budget is cut. Someone might lose his life because instead of the ambulance reaching him in half an hour he may have to wait two hours as a result of the call system which exists across Ontario.
Here is the situation in which we find ourselves. We have a deteriorating health care scheme, which is a problem of not only this parliament but a problem which this legislation imposes through an act of this parliament on all provinces across Canada, some of which had a better scheme.
I want to say this very definitely to my friend, the hon. member for Gloucester, that the provinces which will be hurt first of all are the poor provinces such as the Atlantic provinces. He knows it, and there is no way around it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes, they will be hurt because the poor always get hurt. If you have lived long enough, you have seen that. I have lived long enough to know that and to understand that it is always the poor who get hurt, not the rich who have the ways and means to get out of it. It is the poor provinces that find themselves in that position. So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I hope this bill will be given the six months hoist which it deserves. Let us do a little common sense thinking about it and let the minister meet
21419 - 5514

March 15, 1976
Medical Care Act
provincial health ministers across Canada, talk to them, and jointly come up with ways and means which would not destroy one of the finest health schemes there is in the world.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thought this afternoon that hon. members across the floor had lost their tongues completely. I was therefore very pleased to see that tonight we are back in a debating position and have heard some very good speeches. I certainly must commend the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard); it is good to hear someone speak on a subject he knows something about and on which he can give some information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edmund McRae: I am concerned about some of the points he mentioned, particularly the doctors' problems with house calls and that kind of thing, and the lack of incentive. There is no doubt that there are areas of great concern and we should be doing more about them. Certainly if the $7 fee is still in effect that is considerably less than the fee of almost anyone else who comes to make a home service call. That is a very serious problem.
I should also like to mention the speech of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton). He too reached into his experience in this area. A little later I shall come to the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I speak as one who is a consumer of medical care and one who is concerned about the problems the government faces in meeting the high cost and the huge sums of money that are dispensed for health care. I think it is important after
12	days of debate on this issue that we go over again what the bill is supposed to do. There seems to be a great deal of confusion, some I am sure deliberate and perhaps some innocent, about the effect of the bill.
First of all I think it should be fully understood that this is a medical care bill only; it deals with doctors' fees and medicare, but does not deal with hospitalization. I think it is important that this be made clear. The bill says that in the year beginning April 1, 1976, the increase over the previous year will be limited to 13 per cent, for the subsequent year 11 per cent, and the third year to be negotiated, but will probably be 10 per cent. These figures are the increases in the cost of medical care that will be allowed by the federal government which pays, depending on the affluence of the province, roughly 50 per cent of the total cost. I think it would be a very cruel act to bring this particular bill in to limit these costs if we were not at the same time bringing in an anti-inflation program.
The anti-inflation program, with the setting up of the board and the control on wages, and the attempt to control prices, will work, and I think it is important. Putting this
13	per cent up against what we hope will be only 8 'A per cent inflation in the first year that is covered, April 1, 1976 to April 1, 1977, and to say after that we would hope this would be down to 6 per cent or 7 per cent-say 13 per cent versus 8'A per cent or 8 per cent, or 11 per cent versus probably 6 per cent and 7 per cent and so on-I think this is an important aspect of the bill. It is being debated after

we brought in the anti-inflation program, and I think that makes the bill a much more feasible proposition. I think we have to realize that the bill also allows for special considerations where there are significant population increases.
I should like to deal with this whole subject in terms of the two opposition parties. I should like to deal first with the New Democratic Party's position, which is the same as the Conservative party's position, but obviously for different reasons. I have a very warm feeling about the NDP, and before it the CCF, and their long term approach to the need for medical care and hospital care. I feel that the period between 1919-20 when these things were first mentioned and 1966 might have been reduced considerably had there not been a third party in this country, but rather had the progressive elements in that third party been a part of the Liberal party, the party mainly in power. The time element might very well have been shortened. That does not in any way detract from their efforts made over the years to bring about this result. There has been a genuine concern by the NDP for better health care, and I think it has been justified.
This government brought in the medicare program and has made great improvements in medical care. We have allowed the cost to rise in ratio well above the combination of the gross national product and the inflation rate over the years. This has been a good thing because it was necessary to improve medical services, and an over-run of this kind was absolutely necessary.
One of the consistent themes that the NDP has used in this House on many, many issues is its constant concern about the high level of health care, social care and so on, which inevitably means increased cost. I think the big difference between that party and our party in this respect is not in our concern but rather in the fact that we are in power. We form the government and we have to be responsible; we have to impose the limit on how much can be spent.
In terms of cost sharing arrangements with the provinces there are some very serious problems. One problem is that if we offer to pay 50 per cent, and the provinces do the spending, we do not have much control over what they spend. If they spend $100 million we will have to put up 50 per cent, and if they spend $200 million we will still have to put up 50 per cent. While it was necessary to set up these cost-sharing schemes, the plan is creating some great overrun for the federal government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to deal with the business of the House. The last time I was asked about this I said that following the conclusion of debate on Bill C-68 we would probably revert to discussion on second reading of Bill C-83, but I entered a qualification that it might be desirable instead to take under consideration on Bill C-89. I want to announce that, after disposing of Bill C-68, we will take up Bill C-89 which relates particularly to the appeal procedures in the Anti-Inflation Act.
March 15, 1976



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, in a release concerning bilingual air traffic services dated February 25, 1976, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) used the first page to state, in capital letters and underlined, that there has not been one validated incident of a near miss which could be attributed to the use of a second language. I contend that the minister and the government are playing with the lives of pilots and air passengers when they put the demands of Francophone air traffic controllers and pilots before safety. As a matter of fact I have reason to believe that even the minister's release is a concerted attempt to mislead the public and placate the vocal federal Quebec Liberal members.
I have been in consultation with the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association. They inform me that in the past 15 months they have reported 20 incidents of close calls in the air in Quebec. To Mr. W. M. McLeish, director general of civil aeronautics, these close calls involved confusion in language, and personality conflicts between French and English, yet not one of these reports has been acknowledged by either Mr. McLeish or the department. I should like to challenge the minister on his statement that not one incident has been validated; because if that is the case one wonders why the reports were not acknowledged. Furthermore, if investigations did take place, I ask the minister to make them public.
The government claims that those who object to bilingual air traffic services are too emotional. If being concerned about the safety of people is being too emotional, I plead guilty. Safety has been cast aside for political expediency. In the few short moments I have to speak I wish to touch upon the weaknesses in the government's arguments.
Though the official language of the air has been English, the government has bowed to political pressure and carried its bilingualism program into the air. This is a safety hazard unacceptable to the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association. If these two major organizations are opposed, why has the government persisted in carrying out bilingual air traffic services? It has chosen to ignore both traffic controllers and pilots in favour of vocal minority.
The minister leans heavily on the argument that certain European countries use two languages in air traffic control but ignores the fact that English is used as the international air language. He fails to explain why a second language is needed in Canada. Until a few short months ago we operated in the international language. Furthermore, the minister avoids altogether the fact that air traffic in Europe is not nearly as great as in Canada. The minister is being irresponsible in refusing to listen to reason.
Adjournment Debate
As a concerned party I have been in consultation with pilots and their association and they have expressed serious reservations about the government's seeming lack of concern about safety. Pilots operating in a busy airspace such as the Montreal vicinity cannot afford language confusion which would create dangerous gaps and uncertainties. In such a case the lives of people would be in danger, and I really wonder what the government's excuse is going to be in the event of such a terrible tragedy as an air crash.
For the record I should like to point out some of the dangers involved in the introduction of a second language into aviation, as detailed by professionals. They include, first, the elimination of some safety redundancy built into the existing system; second, added complexity and increased workload for controllers; third, additional communications on already overloaded radio frequencies; and, fourth, unilingual Francophone pilots operating in English only controlled air space. In light of these and other dangers it has now become clear that the demands of Francophone pilots have taken priority over safety. Even the Bilcom task force, which found that an overwhelming majority of the aviation community saw no need for bilingual communications, has gone unheeded.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that all the reports and documents in the world are not going to sway the government's efforts to win political support at any cost, including safety. It is a sad day when one has to run the risk of being branded as a bigot to ensure that common sense and safety prevail.
In closing, I was informed just today that Air Canada crew members, such as stewardesses, are refusing to bid for trips into Montreal because of the dangerous bilingual traffic control situation. Also, as I pointed out two weeks ago, notices had been posted at Canadian airports by the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association warning pilots to exercise extreme caution when flying into Quebec. All in all, Mr. Speaker, it is a very sad state of affairs for Canadian air travellers and crews.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the statement in the hon. member's question of March 5 appears to be an extract from a news report of a situation which occurred in the Montreal area control centre in December, 1975. It is to be remembered that at that time two air traffic controllers had been suspended for the improper use of ground to ground communication procedures. Consequently the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) decided that the pecuniary penalty attached to these suspensions should be reduced with the view that this would improve the situation relative to a dispute between certain controllers in the Montreal area control centre.
Apparently the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, for their own reasons, decided that there was a situation existing at that time in the Montreal area control centre which prompted them to issue a notice directing their members to exercise extreme caution when flying into and within the province of Quebec. There is no evidence of which I am aware that in the interest of safety it was necessary for the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association to take such action.
May I simply conclude, Mr. Speaker, by repeating the essential concern of the Ministry of Transport with the

March 15, 1976
Adjournment Debate
matter of air safety. It is not the thrust of any policy of the Government of Canada to cause a deterioration in Canada's enviable record of performance for safety in the air.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY OF INCLUDING OIL PRICES WITHIN GUIDELINES
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I was not surprised in answer to my question of March 9 on whether Canadian crude oil prices would come under the Anti-Inflation Board that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) gave a firm no, even though the Liberal premier of Nova Scotia had recently said that it was only political expediency that kept the federal government from doing so.
In answering the second part of my question as to whether substantial increases in equalization grants to the province of Nova Scotia, as well as maintenance of the present level of oil subsidies, would continue, the minister interpreted the question to imply that I was looking for a special Nova Scotia oil price as opposed to that payable by the rest of Canadians.
We are, of course, well aware that the federal government is already equalizing oil prices across the country at lower than the world price. The minister, however, should be aware that despite this there has been a 50 per cent rise in the cost of electricity in the province of Nova Scotia in 1975. If the federal government allows a further increase of, let us say, $2 for Canadian crude oil at the wellhead after July, which would make it about $10 a barrel, then we in Nova Scotia could well see another 50 per cent increase in the cost of electricity in the province of Nova Scotia by 1977-especially when that province's long-term and exceptionally favourable contract with Imperial Oil runs out at the end of this year. That company provides 30 per cent of all the oil used in Nova Scotia.
We know that the federal government desires to push up considerably the price of Canadian crude by July in order to fulfil its policy of allowing the price of Canadian crude to tend gradually to equal the world price. This price, of course, is not a market price but is a monopoly price. Because it is a monopoly price it should not, in my opinion, be used as a criterion for the allocation of our petroleum fuel resources. Amongst other things, it sets a dangerous policy precedent.
The Canadian cabinet as well as the American government in this connection should give the plan of Professor Morris A. Adelman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology serious consideration. He has long been an advocate of a government oil buying program, and has proposed a government purchasing agency which would control all oil imports. I recently forwarded to the finance minister an article by Professor Adelman in which he is advocating a system of sealed bids by individual oil producing countries, which would not in itself destroy the OPEC monopoly but could be a quick and effective means of bringing international oil prices down.
I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the premier of Nova Scotia, have brought it to the attention of the government that in every

part of the province of Nova Scotia there are increasing signs of citizen anger in the form of protest meetings and more permanent protest organizations. I honestly fear that some of this pent up anger can lead to very ugly recriminations.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs at a recent provincial Liberal gathering held in Halifax was quoted as asking the provincial government officials to avoid "trying to foment anger toward Ottawa". But what can one do when people using electrical heating, pushed at them only four or five years ago as the cleanest and cheapest way to heat a home, are reported as receiving bills for two months as high as $350?
In my constituency I have widows and pensioners on low and relatively fixed incomes coming in to see me about their electrical power bills with despair on their faces, and sometimes with tears in their eyes.
We know that the per capita income figure for Nova Scotia is often quoted as 75 to 78 per cent of the Canadian average, and that is the best of any province in the Atlantic region. The latest official figures though for Glace Bay, the largest town in my constituency, reveal that it is only 54 per cent of the Canadian average. New Waterford, the next largest town, is only 48 per cent of that average, and Cape Breton County 55 per cent.
The minister is probably aware that about 55 per cent of Nova Scotia power is generated from oil, with another 30 per cent generated by coal the price of which, through Devco, is contractually tied to the present subsidized price of oil. Thus, during last year, for example, Devco's coal division showed a deficit larger by $10 to $15 million because of this arrangement. In view of this situation, and because of the heavy unemployment in Cape Breton, the Cape Breton Development Corporation should be given the money to start two new coal mines in the area, one at Lingan in the New Waterford district and the other at Donkin in the Glace Bay region, for the generation of power. One could be immediately started in 1977 and the other, with some extra effort, by 1978. We should be taking advantage of the fact that Cape Breton coal is now not only competitive with oil for thermal power production in Nova Scotia but has the added advantage of an assured supply in case of another oil embargo.
The federal government should as well, especially in the case of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, maintain in the interim a decent level of subsidies against imported oil and make additional funds available for Nova Scotia by way of equalization payments that could be earmarked for reducing the power bills of low income home owners and those special type of businesses whose power costs are a substantial part of their total costs. The provincial government on its part as a minimum concession should forgo building expensive sport complexes, and any other needless amenities in the Halifax-Dartmouth area so as to keep down electrical costs throughout the province.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, I have been unable to find any reference in the Globe and Mail as was mentioned by the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) in his question. However, I do understand that Premier G. A. Regan, when speaking in support of the
March 15, 1976

government's anti-inflation program during debate in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly in Halifax, did make reference to the fact that crude oil prices are outside the ambit of the Anti-Inflation Act. This is true, Mr. Speaker, simply because petroleum prices were already subject to control under the Petroleum Administration Act when the antiinflation program was introduced.
The appropriate level of petroleum prices has been the subject of much debate in this House, at federal-provincial conferences, and by most Canadians over the past several years. They have been and continue to be subject to control under the Petroleum Administration Act. The desire for low prices must be balanced against the need to ensure adequate supplies. The provisions for oil compensation payments, which in the coming fiscal year (1976-77) are estimated to be $1.41 billion, are a unique effort to provide that balance. These controls are consistent with the antiinflation program, and it appears inappropriate to subject petroleum to two controls where one is sufficient.
I might add that among the intended changes in the anti-inflation guidelines announced one week ago, the relationship between the guidelines and the Petroleum Administration Act is being tightened to ensure that prices for petroleum products will clearly be subject to one or the other act. Crude oil prices are already subject to control under the Petroleum Administration Act, and there is neither the need nor intention to bring them specifically under the anti-inflation guidelines.


FINANCE-EFFECT OF RAISING BANK INTEREST RATE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question was raised on March 8 when I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) about the recently announced increase in the bank rate. I also asked him whether he would indicate what impact he felt this increase would have on mortgage interest rates in Canada and the cost of borrowing for the average Canadian, and whether he would indicate what was the purpose of the increase in the bank rate.
In general the minister gave a most unsatisfactory answer, and I believe there is no alternative but to face the fact that we are heading for a credit crunch in this country. I believe it is necessary for the minister to bring in a new budget now, not in May. I notice that in commenting in committee, to the press, and also in the House, he has got into the habit of saying he cannot make any observation concerning various economic matters as it is a budgetary point and he feels the answer should be delayed until the budget. That is just a stall. The nation deserves answers to some of the critical questions now before us.
I refer to questions such as why should we be literally in first place among the western industrialized nations so far as our bank rate is concerned? In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is no other country in the world at the present time with a higher rate than our present bank rate, with the exception of Brazil. I point out that in Britain, which most people think is in serious shape, its bank rate has not risen above 9 per cent, where it is at the present time. Italy, whose central bank is generally regarded to be one of the weakest of the industrialized nations-in fact that nation was close
Adjournment Debate
to bankruptcy last year-got through its dilemma without raising its bank rate beyond 8 per cent.
In short, Canadians deserve some answers from the minister. For example, why should we have a Canadian prime rate of 1014 per cent at the present time, when the American prime rate is 6 3A per cent? On December 31 the prime rate in the United States was 714 per cent but it has gone down at least half a point since the end of the year. The Canadian prime rate at that time was 9 3A per cent but has gone up half a point since then.
I could cite various examples of U.S. bond rates, treasury bills, and various other debt obligations carrying interest coupons at the present time of 3 per cent, even 4 per cent, lower than those in Canada. One of the contributing factors to high interest rates in Canada is the high rate of government spending. I believe that when the government talks of restraint it is simply misleading the Canadian public. There has been no restraint evidenced by the government to date. In fact, appearing before the finance, trade and economic affairs committee last Tuesday, the Minister of Finance finally broke down and admitted that the cash drain or deficit in Canada, so far as the federal government is concerned, will be $5.5 to $6 billion in the current year. I asked him what he anticipated to be the drain in the coming fiscal year, 1977, and he startled me, frankly, by saying it would be something like that, though it was a budgetary matter and he would not be specific. In short, Mr. Speaker, in two years we will have a drain in this nation of between $11 billion and $12 billion, and this is one of the factors causing the increase in our bank rate.
Second, I would point out the impact of the increase. How many people realize, for example, that in the fiscal year 1970 the total interest in annual amortization cost to the federal government of our national debt was $1.7 billion? In the estimates now before us for 1977 the cost has gone up to 4,641,000,000. That is an increase of 271 per cent in a period of seven years. This is the interest load the government is inflicting upon the Canadian people either through the higher rate structure or increase of debt.
Again this impact is felt by the average home owner in this country. I pointed out that in the United States the rate is about three percentage points below ours. People there are able to write off their interest on mortgages and chattels against their income before they calculate income tax. Here we do not have that privilege. The net result is that in the United States a person can now have a $40,000 mortgage with a 25-year amortization period with monthly payments of $331 per month, whereas in Canada the monthly payment is almost $100 higher, $412 a month for the same size mortgage on the same amortization over a 25-year period. An average Canadian must now pay $123,000 to clear off a $40,000 mortgage, whereas the average American with a $40,000 mortgage would pay $99,000.
I think the government should become a little more honest with the Canadian public concerning the dilemma it is in. By increasing the debt charges in this nation by a half point recently the government has increased the overall cost to Canadians in respect of borrowing money by $350 million approximately. I calculate that figure simply based on the $70 million outstanding debt insofar as our

March 15, 1976
Adjournment Debate
Canadian banks are concerned at the present time. Such an increase in interest rates is inflationary, not deflationary.
The Minister of Finance's contention that he is effectively restraining the growth of our money system by the increase in the interest rate is absolute nonsense. Sure; that perhaps has an indirect slowing down on the demand for money but it does not have the effect of increasing the reserves that are required by the chartered banks with regard to their loan activity. That is the effective way to bring monetary expansion in line.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, following the
announcement of the increase in the bank rate from 9 to 91/2 per cent, made on March 5 by the Bank of Canada, chartered banks announced similar increases in their prime rate which is now established at 1014 per cent. At the same time, banks increased their rates on savings accounts by at least V4 or 1 per cent. It is still too early to know the full impact of this increase on other interest rates, particularly on mortgages and personal loans.
As far as the personal loans rate is concerned, I would like to underline that this rate does not necessarily always vary according to the same pattern as the banks' prime rate. So when we consider the movement of interest rates from early 1973 to the end of 1974, we see that the consumer loans rate increased by only 1 to IV2 per cent, while during the same period the prime rate went up 514 per cent. There may be several reasons for the difference between these two markets, including-not least- administrative matters concerning banks.
It is enough, within the ambit of this discussion, to recall that the personal loan market may not be affected by rising prime rates in the same way as business loans are.
The rate for consumer loans now authorized by the banks stands around 13 lA per cent.
Mortgage rates, on the other hand, respond more readily to the variations of the basic bank rate and we can expect some increase in this field. This is because mortgage rates are generally determined by the rates which lenders must pay on term deposits which are their main source of funding. Now banks have not yet announced changes in the interest rates on term deposits. On the other hand, a few trust companies have already announced rate increases in their guaranteed investment certificates. Those increases vary from 14 of 1 per cent to % of 1 per cent. Those companies have raised their mortgage rates by 14 of one per cent, which means they now reach the 12 per cent ceiling they had reached recently. Therefore it is too early to predict at what exact level those mortgage rates will level off.
I would like to point out two interesting facts concerning this recent increase in the bank interest rates. First, we must rejoice at the fact that some banks have reestablished a special rate for small concerns. This lower prime rate for small concerns allows them to better face the effects of higher interest rates. It is to be hoped that all the banks will reestablish this special rate.
Second, I would like to draw the attention of the House on the fact that some banks have already announced increases in interest rates paid on savings which exceed the increases in interest rates charged on loans, thus reducing profit margins. I hope that the anti-inflation program of the government has contributed to this reduction of bank profits to the benefit of those who make savings.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, although we may have to wait a little longer before we have a true and complete picture of the repercussions of the recent increase in interest rates, we can already notice some encouraging signs concerning the reestablishment of a special treatment for small concerns and a decrease in bank profits.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:29 p.m.

Tuesday, March 16, 1976