1976-02-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the commitment by the former minister of transport to allow the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications the full opportunity of examining transportation policy in Canada as a total concept, and in view of the statement by the present minister of his intention to continue this full investigation, and in view of the desirability of attaining a reasonable and co-ordinated transportation policy to extricate the country from the present mess, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to withhold implementation of rail passenger policy until the government announces a full and co-ordinate policy for transportation rather than piecemeal announcements respecting individual modes of transportation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House before the motion can be put. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to introduce a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of a January 27 announcement by a Liberal party spokesman that the Minister of Agriculture will officially open the Alberta Liberal Party's annual convention in Red Deer on February 13, and that the minister might attend the farmers' bonspiel in Red Deer just prior to opening the convention, and in view of the fact that the farmers' bonspiel takes place this week and the convention not until next week, proving once more that the Liberals are not only off the rail but out of date, I
move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That this House advise the Minister of Agriculture to attend the bonspiel, a more important gathering, where he would be exposed to a higher degree of intelligence and, hopefully, enlightenment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
[Stage Direction]

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion arising from information disclosed several days ago in answer to my order paper question numbered 3,610 which provides a further illustration of the government not practising the restraint it preaches to the Canadian people. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt):
In view of the recent disclosure that the Prime Minister spent $10,185 of public funds to transport himself, two members of his own family and his sister and two members of her family to the Grey Cup game, the House deplores the continued misuse of government aircraft by the Prime Minister for pleasure or political transportation for himself, his friends and his relatives and demands, in keeping with the Prime Minister's request to the Canadian people to exercise restraint and cut expenditures, that this sponging rip-off practice cease forthwith.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Central Nova.


FISHERIES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, involving the con-

Oral Questions
tinuing unrest and dissatisfaction by the fishermen of Nova Scotia with the methods used in implementing restrictions on lobster fishing. I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That the Minister of State (Fisheries) adopt a course of action urged by many knowledgeable people in the industry in Nova Scotia, and suggested as well by the Nova Scotia Minister of Fisheries, and delay or defer any restrictions on lobster fishing until more input is received from the fishermen themselves, monies are made available for legal counsel for those in the industry who feel wrongly classified as parttime fishermen and thirdly, the bureaucrats who conceived this program are made to realize it is not a problem involving lobsters but an industry involving people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the matter cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM SASKATCHEWAN LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with the oral question period I know hon. members would want to join with me in welcoming a delegation from the Saskatchewan Parliament headed by their very distinguished speaker, the Hon. John Brockelbank.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before I put my question may I express the hope that while the Prime Minister might think out loud I hope the government whip does not start thinking out loud.
My question is for the Minister of Labour and is in connection with the expected breakdown of negotiations for a new collective agreement between the railways and significant railway unions. Can the Minister of Labour indicate to the House whether he proposes to take any measure to head off a possible railway strike?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition will be aware that under the Act I am required within 15 days of receiving notice of a breakdown from the union, which I officially received last Thursday, to appoint a commissioner to inject himself in an endeavour to mediate a settlement. I am considering that course of action today, tomorrow and the next few days.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, what would be the parameters within which such a mediator would work with regard to the increase in wages. Have the parameters been determined by the Anti-Inflation Board or will such a commissioner work in the dark as to what would be acceptable to the Anti-Inflation Board?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should make it quite clear that I am talking here about a single man commissioner as opposed to another possibility that of the appointment of a board of conciliation. But generally speaking, I would suppose that if any mediator were successful in bringing the parties together and in arriving at a collective agreement, which I would hope be the case here, that collective agreement might be subject to interpretation by the Anti-Inflation Board just like all other collective agreements which fall under the policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, does it seem sensible to the minister that he would ask for the commissioner or mediator to take on a task without precise terms of reference, without the mediator knowing what the terms of reference really are and possibly bringing the parties together on a basis that is quite unacceptable to the Anti-Inflation Board? Would it not seem to the minister to make far more sense to get the Anti-Inflation Board to lay down the parameters in advance rather than take the company through a fruitless and possibly quite disastrous exercise?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear that the proper procedure under the legislation and the regulations backing up that legislation is that either one of the parties or both parties can approach, if they wish, the Anti-Inflation Board for advice on a proposed or mutual agreement, and it is possible that one of the parties might do that following which they would arrive at some type of agreement.


POSSIBLE STRIKE OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES-SUGGESTION MINISTER ASCERTAIN WAGE INCREASE PERMITTED BY ANTI-INFLATION BOARD
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Since the minister has the responsibility of trying to head off any breakdown in rail services in the country, and since the present negotiations are now very substantially circumscribed by the guidelines under which we have to function in this country, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether, in the interest of trying to prevent a breakdown in the rail service in this country, it would not be in the public interest for the minister to meet with the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board prior to the appointment of a commissioner to find out just exactly what maximum settlement would be permitted under the present guidelines since the current offer of 9.2 per cent, which is within the guidelines, is not acceptable to the unions?


John Carr Munro: I think the hon. member might agree that there are different ways for a government or a minister to express themselves in a dispute in terms of what procedure to follow. I do not think that at this stage it would be the appropriate thing to do.
February 2, 1976


REQUEST FOR LIST OF SITES IN WHICH NUCLEAR WASTE DEPOSITED
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last week I asked the Minister of the Environment if he would provide the House with a list of sites, other than Port Hope, where nuclear waste is deposited and also if his department had undertaken investigations of the problems that might have occurred there following what has transpired in Port Hope. The minister, in a letter written to me in reply, said that his department had not done that but that the "lead responsibility" belonged to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. So I should like to ask that minister now if his department has investigated the other sites where there are such waste deposits and if he is prepared to table in the House a list of such sites.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the precise wording of the question. Of course, the Atomic Energy Control Board is very active in the whole area of monitoring nuclear waste, including the mining processes which start the cycle in Elliot Lake. They have been working very closely with the Ontario ministry of health. I will be pleased to answer any particular questions on that subject if the hon. member has any.


John Edward Broadbent: The specific question I am putting to the minister is whether he would provide the House with a list of the sites where deposits, such as those in Port Hope, exist and, secondly, could he tell us whether, following what has transpired at Port Hope, these other sites have been investigated? To add a specific question I should like to ask the minister if the situation at Port Granby has been investigated recently following the incidents some months ago of several cows having died as a result of coming in contact with a pond in the area that is alleged to have been contaminated by nuclear waste.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I understand the precise question. I will be very pleased to provide a list of the sites under investigation or under surveillance by the Atomic Energy Control Board.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION OF HOMES IN PORT HOPE
[Stage Direction]

John Edward Broadbent: Since it is reported that somewhere between 15 and 70 homes have been affected by radioactive contamination in the Port Hope area, does the federal government or its Crown agency, in this case Eldorado Nuclear, intend to assume financial responsibility for this damage to these homes, and if so, to what extent?


Alastair William Gillespie: I refer back to my last answer. If the hon. member understood that to mean that I would give him a precise list of all the homes so affected, I want to clarify that. I understood his question to mean various areas of the province or of Canada, and in that case I will do that.
Oral Questions
As to the question of who will assume the financial responsibility for the clean up, this is not clear at the present moment. However, I have made it very clear that Eldorado Nuclear has been given the green light to proceed with the clean up. The most important thing from my point of view is to accelerate the investigation and to accelerate clean up where there is any radioactivity in Port Hope. We will argue about whose responsibility it is at a later date.


TRANSPORT
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Last week, in his statement dealing with the reform of transports, the minister said to the House that the inquiries would be held in all areas concerned. Can he tell us whether those inquiries will be conducted under the aegis of his department, which is answerable to Parliament, or by the Canadian Transport Commission only?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the intention is that the Canadian Transport Commission would hold hearings throughout the country.


ALLEGATION TRANSCANADA PIPELINE UNSAFE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of allegations that portions of the TransCanada pipeline are unsafe, is the minister in a position to reassure the Canadian public with respect to the safety of the line?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with the
National Energy Board. The Board tells me that it has investigated all the evidence which has been placed before it. Mr. Arnesen, who made some allegations I believe last night, has been repeatedly requested to submit any evidence he has to show that the welds are not safe. So far as the National Energy Board knows, it has not received that radiographic evidence.


James Balfour: Is the minister therefore prepared to give a reassurance through this House of Commons to the public of Canada that the line is in fact safe?
Second, is the minister prepared to order a formal inquiry by the National Energy Board into the allegations of unsafe wells in order that this reassurance may become meaningful?


Alastair William Gillespie: The board has every reason to believe that the line is safe. Therefore it sees no reason for a public inquiry at this time.
Oral Questions TRADE

February 2, 1976


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON MEASURES TO OVERCOME TRADE DEFICIT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the minister knows very well, Statistics Canada reported on Friday that this country suffered a merchandise trade deficit of nearly $800 million during last year, the first such trade deficit in the past 15 years. Would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what basic plans he has for overcoming this very serious situation, and will he bear in mind that the solution requires a far more basic plan than simply leading a trade delegation to a group of exotic countries, which is the only plan his predecessor ever offered, and which simply did not pay off?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do that, either on motions or in some other appropriate form. The hon. member neglected to say that the forecast for this year is that that figure will rise and will be at least modestly above the line in terms of a surplus. However, certainly I will be glad to discuss with the hon. member, and all others who are interested, what our strategies are, and I think they will be impressed.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the forthcoming trials between the German Leopard II tanks and the American XM-1, the outcome of which could determine the standard main battle tank for NATO for the next 20 years, will the minister and the government now consider the opposition suggestion that Canada consider leasing Leopard I's until the winner of the U.S.-German competition is determined?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the alternatives that we have considered, but we are at this time considering the two main options which are to refit the Centurians or to purchase the Leopard I.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the minister, the deputy minister and the chief of the defence staff have priced the Leopard I at anywhere between $1.4 million and $1.8 million. The Economist says the competition winner will be in the "just over $500,000" class. Does the minister think it wise to have these senior officials wandering about the international arms market with their pockets stuffed with Canadian dollars looking for tanks and apparently ready to pay up to 200 per cent over the going price?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think we will negotiate the price, as I indicated, between the two options-the cost of refit compared to the cost of purchase. That is partly

why we are taking that position, so that we will get the best possible buy.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Can he assure the House that the Cuban aircraft which stopped over at Gander for refuelling recently were not en route to eastern Europe to collect arms and munitions for delivery to Cuban troops now taking part in the fighting in Angola?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have no evidence to suggest that they were en route to eastern Europe.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question. Is the minister saying that he is not interested in the reasons for or concern about the unusual stopovers by Cuban aircraft at Gander?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. The question is not supported by the facts.


Donald W. Munro: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the role that Cuba admits playing in Angola, I wonder if the minister could assure us that Canada has taken steps to refuse further refuelling stops for Cuban aircraft at Gander at least until Cuba repatriates its troops from Angola? After all, Guyana and Barbados refused permission for stops; why not Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that there were two unscheduled flights at Gander.


Donald W. Munro: They must have been heavy.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have no evidence as to the contents of those civilian aircraft but upon hearing about these occurrences, especially, as in one case the destination was Guinea Bissau and in the other case the designated point was Brazzaville-


Donald W. Munro: The long way round.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -we advised the Cubans we expected them to observe the requirements under international civil regulations. I am satisfied that these will be observed.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RESULTS OF SUPPLIERS' CONFERENCE ON NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning nuclear inspection safeguards. In view of the statement made in West Germany at the weekend that there was an exchange of notes between Canada, the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan, Great Britain, France and West Germany on the suppliers' con-
February 2, 1976

ference held recently in London, England, I wonder if the minister would undertake to make a statement at the earliest opportunity and make an opportunity for discussion in this House respecting the safeguards and the new inspection protocol and methods?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the press report, too. It is true that the suppliers have been meeting in an effort to upgrade the nuclear safeguards-in other words to remove the safeguards as an element of competition in this field. At the present time there is no agreement among the suppliers about revealing publicly the progress that has been made at the meeting. Just as soon as that obstacle has been cleared, and if it is, I shall be glad to report to the House on what has transpired.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, surely that would not prevent the minister indicating that there was an exchange of notes and what was contained in them.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I put my supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence? Last week the minister undertook to release certain information respecting radiation levels in the Port Hope area. To date, I have not received anything from him and I have not seen anything made public. Why do we have to bring it up in the House again?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have an unclassified report about the surveys undertaken by the armed forces back in 1951 and 1953 at Port Hope and would be glad to table that report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the right hon. member for Prince Albert asked me a question concerning a letter sent by the Clerk of the Privy Council to the deputy minister of justice with regard to the seat of government. I have now had an opportunity to look into this matter and wish to inform the House that the Clerk of the Privy Council did indeed write to the deputy minister of justice in the course of preparations for the reference to a joint parliamentary committee of matters relating to the national capital. The
Oral Questions
purpose of this letter was to determine the full implications of a recommendation made to the government by Mr. Douglas Fullerton in his report on a special study on the national capital.
Hon. members will recall that the first recommendation contained in this report, which was made public on November 1, 1974, was that the federal government-and I quote:
Accept the National Capital Region as its 'seat of government' and as its capital.
The government had not decided at that time, did not decide later and has not decided now to accept this recommendation. It awaits the report of the joint parliamentary committee to which this House and the Senate referred the Fullerton report.
In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, you will understand that it is difficult to believe that we had any hidden design to circumvent parliament or, indeed, the Canadian public. Parliament is being consulted and will continue to be consulted. May I just-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Let him answer the question.


George Harris Hees: You should do it on motions, Mitch.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are facing, in this exercise, the balance of the difficulty referred to many times by members of the House concerning a minister who has given an undertaking. The Chair has reacted by refusing supplementaries with respect to undertakings given by ministers who said they would investigate matters and come back with an answer at a later date. The complaint has often been that the minister has not come back at a later date. Frankly, we faced this difficulty originally when we did not introduce into the new process procedures to that effect. This is taking place now. Desirable though that may be, there are two shortcomings in this process.
First, I would not want the minister to be given the privilege of going on too long. Second, of course, someone ought to be permitted to ask supplementary questions on the matter; indeed, the original questioner is not now present in the House. I do not know whether someone would want to take on that responsibility for him, or whether the information ought simply to be on record, awaiting the presence in the House of the right hon. gentleman who put the question originally, with the understanding that there would be supplementaries at that time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not object to the minister giving a succinct response, but he has gone away beyond that. I rise again, not to suggest how Mr. Speaker should conduct the House, but to say that I hope this procedure will not constitute a precedent and that anybody who does this in future will be succinct, factual and not spend a long time answering.

February 2, 1976
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST FOR OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS TO ADMINISTRATOR BEFORE DECISION ON IRVING PAPER CASE
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister? As representatives of the Administrator under the Anti-Inflation Act will be visiting Irving Pulp and Paper Ltd. in Saint John to obtain evidence on which the administrator shall arbitrarily hand down a decision on the Irving settlement with the Canadian Paperworkers Union, and as the conduct of this inquiry shall set a precedent for future appeals, what assurance can the minister give this House that both the union and the company will be given the opportunity to present submissions to the administrator or to his representatives before a final decision in taken?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I can say by way of assurance other than that the administrator must, I would think, examine all the evidence and he would be only too anxious to get the facts before making a decision.


Reginald Cyril Symes: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the administrator is to act in a quasi judicial way, I would think the government would set out precise guidelines. Will the minister further assure the House that the evidence gathered by the administrator or his representatives during the conduct of an appeal will be made available to all involved parties and to the public, to ensure that the administrator's decision is the product of a fair and complete judicial appeals procedure?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have heard the suggestions of the hon. member. I am sure they will be looked at carefully by the administrator, who will be anxious, in discharging his duties, to discharge them in such a way as to retain full public confidence.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In his temporary absence may I direct it to the Acting Prime Minister? It is in regard to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce report on government spending and inflation, of January 19, 1976. Can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House if the government is planning to take specific action on any proposals mentioned in the chamber's brief?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, obviously we study all suggestions very seriously. Still, some of those contained in that brief were, to my mind, very odd; even the Chamber of Commerce did not want to recognize them as its own policy. I trust that, in the future, when it makes suggestions, it will assume full responsibility for them.


BILINGUALISM
Peter Elzinga: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister give the House figures on how many man-hours per year are lost in the federal civil service for second language training?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, very little.


AGRICULTURE
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. When the minister is in Red Deer for one week and determining to which group of people he will speak, will he make any major announcements, especially one concerning the beef stabilization program?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to be patient and wait and see.


INCOME TAX
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a brief question to the Minister of National Revenue? Some time ago I asked the minister whether his staff or other investigative personnel were checking on possible pre-tax money being used for political fund raising. I understood from the minister at that time that he would check and let the House know. Has he any information on whether such practices exist and, if they do, their nature and extent?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, an investigation was undertaken. We found no misuse of funds involving pre-tax moneys such as the hon. member indicated.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the Cubans landed two unscheduled flights in Canada, where they were refuelled, while en route with Cuban

February 2, 1976

troops for the fighting in Angola, will the minister inform the House what steps he has taken to inform Premier Castro of Canadian displeasure over this action and whether any steps have been taken to prevent the recurrence of this procedure, in order to prevent Canada from being directly embroiled in this conflict?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have made it plain to the Cuban authorities that we would reserve the right to inspect in future such unscheduled flights. We have also made it clear that we would not tolerate any such use of Canadian facilities for military purposes if, indeed, that was the case. At present, as I said, I have no evidence either to deny or confirm an allegation along those lines.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD ALLEGATION CHAIRMAN TRAVELLED FIRST CLASS ON FLIGHT TO TORONTO
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the minister's statement on December 18 that first class travel for government officials will be eliminated, would the minister inquire about Air Canada's flight 351, from Ottawa to Toronto, of Thursday, January 23, a flight with sufficient room to enable stand-by passengers to be taken on in economy. Would the minister confirm that in first class, splendid isolation the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Review Board sat, with a couple of assistants?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of making an inquiry into all Air Canada flights. Instructions were given and I trust civil servants will follow them.
As for the preliminary question on the hours lost by those who are studying French, I doubt that anyone wastes time learning or studying French. The hon. leader of the opposition spent many hours studying French, which to my mind is all to his credit and also furthers the cause of Canadian unity.


A. Daniel McKenzie: After he has confirmed that information, will the President of the Treasury Board draw the chairman's attention to the speech he made in the House and suggest to the Chairman that Canadians find it difficult to co-operate with the chairman's call for restraint as he wings his way around Canada dropping leaflets, looking at the masses from a first-class window?
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


POSSIBLE CLOSING OF CFS BEAUSEJOUR-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. Even though my question is specific, I believe the minister can answer because it relates to a base in our province. In view of the apprehension currently being voiced by both military and civilian personnel at CFS Beausejour and the detrimental effect the closing of CFS Beausejour will have on the local area, will the minister indicate whether a decision on the future of that base has been made and what it is? If not, will the minister be making a statement in the House in the very near future with regard to the future of CFS Beausejour?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision concerning the radar station at Beausejour. I do not expect to be making a statement about bases specifically within the next few weeks. However, we will be talking further about the rationalization of our infrastructure. Beausejour, though, will not be involved at that time.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment whom I would first like to congratulate on his recent appointment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mike Landers: Is the minister prepared to undertake to sit down with his provincial counterparts in the province of New Brunswick and work out a solution to the perennial flooding problems in the Glen Falls area of Saint John, New Brunswick?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I know that meetings are now going on between officials in my department and officials of the government of New Brunswick. As soon as these meetings have been completed and I have a report, I will determine whether it is necessary to intervene personally with the responsible minister in New Brunswick.


FISHERIES
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of State (Fisheries) or his parliamentary secretary. Will the minister consider convening a special meeting of all Atlantic MP's who are affected by the changes in the lobster fishing

February 2, 1976
Oral Questions
licence policy in order to give us a fuller explanation and answer in detail some of our questions and objections?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Fisheries) is not in the House today. I will take the question as notice and pass it on to him.


FEED GRAIN ASSISTANCE-POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN POLICY
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Does the minister intend to announce shortly in the House that there will be changes in the feed grain assistance plan? If so, what areas will be affected? What areas will lose the plan? Will the amount of assistance to be reduced be significant?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken about an announcement. Therefore, I do not have anything further to add to the indications given when the feed grain policy was first announced.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Mr. J. Robert Howie (Yorh-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In his absence, I will direct this to the Acting Prime Minister or perhaps the Minister of the Environment who is familiar with the problem. When will the government make a decision on DREE assistance for the New Brunswick's government program of control of the budworm infested forests of New Brunswick? I ask this question because of the long lead time required for such a program and the urgency of the situation.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: In response to the hon. member, the minister has recently met with officials of the New Brunswick government, including the premier. With regard to the particular question, it will be necessary for the minister to reply later as to the details of this forest industry program.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In view of reported statements of the minister that he supports elimi-

nation of the strike weapon in cases where unions are able to make excessive wage demands on employers and that such measures should not only apply to so-called essential services, will the minister advise whether he was stating government policy in this regard or was he involved in puisne ministerial philosophic musing?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not very accurately stated my views on the subject which are ones that I have held as a general principle for a long time. For a full version, I would refer him to an article in the 1967 publication of the University of Toronto Press.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister give details to the House of the reported invasion of the Canadian Embassy in Havana by some 30 or more Cuban security police and the reported manhandling of certain Canadian personnel, including Mr. Ivan Head, when the Prime Minister and Mr. Castro were conferring therein?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I have no information on that. I will check and let the hon. member know.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: If the minister looks into this matter and finds it is a fact, will the government be prepared to object or have the appropriate officials already considered objecting to this obvious breach of Canadian diplomatic rights, even though it has been reported that while it was going on, the Prime Minister was inside the music room cuddling up to Castro?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


RATE OF INTEREST ON LOAN TO SOUTH KOREA TO FINANCE PURCHASE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises out of the inability of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to tell the House on Friday the rate of interest the Republic of Korea will pay on the $300 million that the government of Canada is advancing by way of a loan to finance the nuclear power reactor.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual question to put to me. I am not the minister responsible for the Export Development Corporation. However, I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition is aware that the Export Develop-
February 2, 1976

ment Corporation does not make it a practice to make public its interest rates.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of what the officials of the Export Development Corporation may think. I ask the minister or Acting Prime Minister whether the government is refusing to give this House, and through this House the people of Canada, the rate of interest being charged on this $300 million so that the people of Canada can at least form some estimate about the extent to which this sale is being subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman understands that the Export Development Corporation is trying to assist Canadian businessmen in getting business. His seatmate one removed, who was in this business at one time-when he was the minister, will know that to give this kind of information is to place at a disadvantage certain sections of the Canadian business community. I hope the Leader of the Opposition is not suggesting we should breach that principle.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the spokesman for the government about a transaction between the government of Canada and a Crown corporation on one hand and another country on the other. I find it difficult to believe that the government of Canada will withhold this information. Is the Acting Prime Minister prepared to tell the Canadian people the terms upon which this sale was completed and the terms under which the people of Canada are advancing $300 million to sell a nuclear reactor?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would quite want to give a flat refusal.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope not.


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope my hon. friend will understand the implications of the question he is asking. I would point out that the Export Development Corporation has not lost any money. Therefore, it is not subsidizing Canadian business as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is not Canadian business, it is the government.


ARRANGEMENTS FOR DELIVERY OF WHEAT IN VIEW OF CERTAIN ELEVATORS BEING FILLED
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the minister in charge of the wheat board. In light of the fact that elevators in Cardston, Brocket and Fort Macleod are filled to capacity with no relief in sight for farmers waiting to deliver winter wheat, will the minister assure the House that we will have this grain delivered to the inland terminal at Lethbridge?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the announcement made by an official of the department some time ago that there would be a certification program for industries and for farmers who could purchase 2,000 gallons of gas once every month, I am wondering why provision was not made for the purchases to be in 500 gallon lots rather than 2,000 gallons since it is almost an impossibility for any agricultural producer to buy that much at one time?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, so far as quantum is concerned I suspect it was a judgment decision regarding the number of staff who would be made available. Also, we have to be a little careful here since we are moving into provincial jurisdiction in regard to coloured gasoline and the dyes used. So there were problems all round. We are trying to reach a compromise in order to be as helpful as we can and also to cut down as much as we can on red tape.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I should like to ask the minister about the extensive survey that was conducted over the past two years to relocate the settlement of Norway House. This has been a very secretive operation. Can the minister advise why the settlement of Norway House, which consists of 3,000 people, treaty Indians and non-treaty, has to be moved?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is a secret but I am not in a position to answer today. If the hon. member would wait until tomorrow I will give him an answer then.



SYNCRUDE PROJECT-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON SIGNING AGREEMENT UNTIL ATLANTIC RICHFIELD SURRENDERS LEASES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with regard to the final signing of an agreement respecting Syncrude, which I understand has been delayed because of the dif-

February 2, 1976
Oral Questions
ficulty in getting Atlantic Richfield to surrender certain leases which it holds. Have those difficulties been resolved and, if so, how; and will an agreement be signed in the near future?


Alastair William Gillespie: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, those difficulties with respect to the leases have not yet been resolved but I am hopeful that they may be resolved this week. Meetings are taking place this week in Calgary. But that is not the only difficulty; there are also some difficulties with respect to the rates of return charged by the public utilities and the pipeline. I hope that they can be sorted out within the spirit of the original salvage operation of approximately one year ago today.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Atlantic Richfield withdrew from the consortium, then these leases ought to belong to the consortium. I should like to ask the minister for an assurance that, unless the Alberta government acts to recover those leases and make them available to the new consortium, the minister will not sign the Syncrude lease.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the settlement of those leases is absolutely fundamental and crucial to any signing by the government.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. It is now seven months since the amendments to the Judges Act were passed setting up an appeal court for the province of Newfoundland. That appeal court still only has two judges, thereby holding up the whole judicial appeal procedure. There are a number of very important cases outstanding awaiting the appointment of the third appeal judge by the minister. May I ask the minister whether he can give me some indication when he will be making this appointment? I hope he will not tell us "soon".


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I do have to tell the hon. member "soon". I am in consultation, in accordance with the procedure that has been established, with the Canadian Bar Association in order that we can make an appointment that is in line with previous appointments, namely peop'e of outstanding merit at the bar. I hope that that process will be completed very soon.



POSSIBILITY OF STUDIES OF ALTERNATIVES-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will address my question either to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the minister in charge of science and technology. My question relates to the energy reserves that Canada has in sight. I wonder whether the minister is preparing to give the House a statement on the research and development being carried out regarding various alternative fields of energy such as coal, tidal power, solar and wind?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be making in the near future a statement with respect to a number of the elements of an energy strategy for Canada. One of those important elements will be research and development with respect to energy conservation, existing and conventional forms, and, of course, the non-renewable fuel kinds referred to by the hon. member.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister specifically say whether there has been any real research conducted into the utilization of coal for conversion into liquid petroleum?


Alastair William Gillespie: Research is being undertaken at the present time on projects of this kind. I suppose from my point of view we could be spending a great deal more money than we are. I think we have to recognize though that there are only limited resources available to pursue a number of very important projects all at the same time.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. In December the minister promised me that he would give me a copy of the contract when signed with Lockheed for the close to $1 billion worth of LRPA's. I have not yet received a copy of the contract or heard whether it has been signed. Can the minister inform the House whether or not the contract has been signed and, if so, when I can expect to receive a copy?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: The contract has not been signed, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Could the minister inform the House when he expects to sign the contract?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: There are some technical problems that we have to settle, Mr. Speaker.
February 2, 1976



AGRICULTURE


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. It stems from a question asked on Friday by the hon. member for Medicine Hat regarding the livestock disease of blue tongue. The Minister of Agriculture assured the House that blue tongue was non-existent in Canada. How can the minister assure the House that we are free of blue tongue when we have been shipping cattle back and forth over the border for the last 100 years?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have been making checks of herds and we are continually making checks of herds. The only herds that we found any blue tongue in was some recent cattle imported from the United States and those herds have been destroyed, as the hon. member knows.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The only over-all tests that we have had in Canada were for tuberculosis and brucellosis and the only checks that have been made have been on a few shipments from the United States. Again I ask the minister how he can assure the House that we are free of blue tongue in Canada when we shipped cattle across the border 100 years ago and have been doing so ever since?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, all that the hon. member has to do is to examine some of the checks we have done in the Department of Agriculture under the director of the health of animals branch, which will show that we have proved to other nations that we are free of this disease. We are exporting semen, and the hon. member's province probably has the most concentrated form of checks in all of Canada blue tongue.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order respecting the business of the House for this week. Last Thursday, the government House leader said that this week we would be dealing with Bill C-58 and Bill C-81. On Friday, his parliamentary secretary said that today we would be dealing with Bill C-68. I presume the latter still holds, but in view of the indication that other bills would be taken this week, can the government House leader tell us what the order will be? While he is answering that question, would he also indicate to the House whether there will be a statement to the House tomorrow by the Prime Minister concerning his visits to Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the second of those two questions, I hope to be able to see the Prime Minister shortly after his return and I will ask him whether it is his
Business of the House
intention to make a statement on his very successful trip through Latin-America. As to the first question, it is the government's intention to call those bills this week, but not today. Even if we do get second reading of Bill C-68 we will not call either C-58 or C-81 today, but it is our intention to call them later. It may be, however, that when we do call these bills one of them will take the remainder of this week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is hypothetical, but it is the only way to get the matter cleared. On the assumption that Bill C-68 is not concluded today, what will we be dealing with tomorrow?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have an opportunity of talking to the Prime Minister about this, since he will be at home tonight. Tentatively, I had intended to call Bill C-58 tomorrow. It would not be our intention to go on with Bill C-68 tomorrow in any event. However, we would call either Bill C-58 or Bill C-81, but I should like to talk to the Prime Minister before finally making that decision.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, as I understood the government House leader, he indicated that if we finish Bill C-68 tonight we would not start with Bill C-58 or Bill C-81. Does this mean that we are going to get another night off?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I indicated earlier that if we got through Bill C-68 in the next few days, we would call Bill C-72. That would be my intention tonight if we conclude Bill C-68. I hope we can proceed expeditiously with all this important legislation. Therefore, I would ask the House to co-operate with the House leaders and with all other members in proceeding with the balance of the legislation of the present session.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding a statement made earlier by the President of the Treasury Board. It seems strange to me that when members legitimately inquire into government spending, members opposite become very touchy. Let me point out that I did not refer to either the French or the English language training programs. My inquiry was in respect of the cost incurred by the taxpayer for language training in the federal civil service because of man-hours lost.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and I do so reluctantly as, if my memory serves me correctly, it is the first time I have done so in respect of any matter relating to the question period. My point arises from the observation of the Leader of the Opposition regarding the Acting Prime Minister's undertaking to answer the question of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. The Leader of the Opposition noted that answers should be succinct and factual. I suggest the answer was just as succinct and as factual as the question, and it was far shorter. My point of order is this: is there one set of rules for the right hon. member for Prince Albert and another set of rules particularly for ministers of the Crown?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!

February 2, 1976
Business of the House


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member might take that question up with the right hon. member for Prince Albert. If he has some further inquiry-


An hon. Member:: He is afraid.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I take it there is no need for me to go further into this matter in spite of its being raised again. I take it as being accepted by the Chair that such interventions as the one made by the government House leader today should be far shorter in future than the one he made today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thought I had given a rather general indication to that effect when I intervened. On the other hand, it is a very interesting subject for discussion raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. I certainly would not want to deprive the House of the opportunity of discussing this matter more fully during the presence of the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning an answer given by the Minister of National Defence to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham in which the minister agreed to provide some information to be tabled in the House. I should like to ask whether there is unanimous agreement at this point to having that information made an appendix to today's Hansard, as there are a great many members of the House interested in the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: It has already been agreed that the Minister of National Defence should be allowed to table the document to which he referred in his answer. However, the matter of having it included in Hansard was not taken up. Is it now the wish of the House that this be done?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That it be printed as an appendix.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that it be made an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For above mentioned document, see Appendix "A"]


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the business of the House today, with particular reference to the procedure of taking questions as notice which has become more prevalent in the last few weeks. Our question period was never designed to handle replies to questions asked on another day. I would ask Your Honour to give consideration to referring this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization so that consideration could be given to having these answers presented during a later question period with or without the right of further limited questioning on the answer. Some consideration could be given to having such answers provided at another time slot during the question period, perhaps immediately following it.

If questions are to be taken as notice, with replies provided at a later time, this will create a continuing problem during our question periods. I would, therefore, ask Your Honour to give some consideration to the referral of this matter to the appropriate committee so that almost immediate consideration can be given in order to eliminate the difficulty which is obviously going to become a continuous one.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. In the matter raised by the hon. member who just spoke there is a question worthy of consideration by the committee. There is another problem which arises during the question period. Many ministers quite honestly say in answer to questions that they do not have the specific information but will inform the hon. member. This reply usually takes the form of a letter from the minister's office to the hon. member. The questions are asked as public matters on the floor of the House and then become private matters between the ministry and the hon. member, with little opportunity for the answer to become public. I would think that in addition to the matter raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming this question might also be referred to the committee.
If some way were found of making these answers public, I think this would make the question period much more meaningful and, though I hesitate to say it, it might be a way of perhaps having ministers a little better informed in terms of answering questions which are asked about urgent public matters.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I can understand the concern of the Leader of the Opposition today when he suggests I should give the information I had promised in reply to a question by the right hon. member for Prince Albert when that hon. member is present. I might add another element of the problem which faces us for Your Honour's consideration. I was urged by the media to appear on all sorts of programs to give the reply I had promised the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I resisted that temptation because I thought it was only appropriate that I should give the answer here in the House of Commons. When I tried to give the answer there was objection because the right hon. member for Prince Albert was not present. So there is a real problem. I hope it is one to which we can address our minds.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The President of the Privy Council has made a most reasonable contribution in respect of any intervention by the Chair, because I really do not think it is for the Chair to refer proposals of a specific nature to the committee but it is, rather, for the House to do so. I know the committee is sitting actively and has undertaken to examine a number of procedures and in fact has had procedures under discussion by way of subcommittees. Certainly, this question about the problem of ministers who for one reason or another, in most cases- as was pointed out by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton-with all proper motivation have indicated that it is necessary to bring in information at a later date, has raised a number of problems, not the least of which was the one raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The
February 2, 1976

Sydneys on Friday last relating to the Chair's attitude toward supplementaries when that kind of answer is given.
It has always been the practice of the Chair to defer supplementaries until in fact the minister does come into the House. However, today's example showed us that we are really ill-equipped to receive such subsequent provision of information by the minister, and it would certainly be hoped that the procedure committee could examine at an early date whether there is an acceptable method for accommodating that kind of process which is certainly in the interest of exchange of information in the House.


THOUSAND ISLANDS BRIDGE VESTING ACT
Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-82, respecting the Thousand Islands Bridge.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[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: 3,675 (supplementary), 3,696, 3,743, 3,754, 3,822, 3,870, 3,884, 3,885, 3,886 and 3,887.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 3,675-Mr. Cossitt: (Supplementary)
1. (a) How many copies of a form entitled: "Canadian Olympic Coins-Payroll Deduction" along with a six page message signed by the President of the Treasury Board were distributed to government employees or any persons connected with the government (b) what was the exact cost of distributing all such forms?
2. Were the forms distributed to all members of the Canadian Forces and, if so, what was the total number and cost involved?
Lawyers and Law Firms	Departments
Gilchrist, R.W.	M&I
Penticton, B.C.	RC-T
	MOT
Lander & Finklestein	M&I
Kelowna, B.C.	NH&W
	RC-T
Larson, C. H.	NH&W
Kelowna, B.C.	
Salloum, L. T.	UIC
Kelowna, B.C.	RC-T
	NH&W
Smith, M. F.	NH&W
Kelowna, B.C.	
* Work was assigned during the period	in question but
accounts have not yet been submitted.	
Order Paper Questions
3.	Of all those receiving such an offer, what is the total number of those who elected to purchase the coins by payroll deduction?
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. (a) 410,000 forms distributed, (b) $25,000.
2.	Yes, 10,000 forms. Cost is included in the $25,000.
3.	As of December 9 an estimate of 4,000 forms had been received to purchase coins.
Note: There was no cost to the government for the brochure in question. The cost incurred was a normal marketing expense recovered before a determination of gross contribution of the Program of CO JO.


Mr. Howie: From January 1, 1974 to December 1, 1975, what contracts were entered into with Goldfarb Consultants Limited by (a) the Department of Transport (b) the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (c) the Department of National Defence (d) the Department of Public Works (e) the Department of Supply and Services (f) the Department of Manpower and Immigration (g) Air Canada and, in each case, what was (i) the purpose of the contract (ii) the amount of the contract?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) None, (b) (i) (a) To undertake a survey of awareness and attitudes towards the activities in the Atlantic Provinces of the federal government, and particularly the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, (b) To conduct a cross-Canada survey, by region of awareness and attitudes towards the federal government and, in particular, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, (iii) (a) $22,000; (b) $24,000. (c) None, (d) None, (e) None, (f) (i) To provide data for a study of Canadian attitudes towards work, (ii) $74,500.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Justice during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: 1 and 2.
1973	Departments	1974400.57	M&I	224.40
36.00
*
148.46		
2,995.04	NHW	1,708.371,087.45	RC-T	295.00291.00	NHW	6,285.60295.00	UIC	397.503,406.94	RC-T	1,711.001,682.70	25,194.12	NH&W	25,397.22EC	170.00RC-T	356.00RC-CE	260.00MOT	*
February 2, 1976
Order Paper Questions
* Work was assigned during the period in question but accounts have not yet been submitted.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: 1 and 2. The following lawyers were retained in 1973 and 1974, to process mortgage documentation for loans approved in the south central portion of British Columbia. 1973: L. T. Finkelstein, Kelowna; F. A. Lloyd, Penticton; Moran, D'Andrea and Geronazzo, Grand Forks; L. T. Salloum, Kelowna. 1974: L. T. Finkelstein, Kelowna; F. A. Lloyd, Penticton; L. T. Salloum, Kelowna. Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrower, and CMHC therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers. The following lawyers were retained in 1973 and 1974 to handle legal actions arising from defaults by the borrower on loans approved in the south central portion of British Columbia:
Costs and Fees

Dahlstrom and Co.	Trail	2248.00Fillmore and Co.	Kelowna	979.05Finkelstein and Co.	Kelowna	367.07F.A. Lloyd	Penticton	Salloum, Doak and Co.	Kelowna	D.T. Wetmore and Co.	Trail	1974	F.A. Lloyd Guild, Yule, Schmitt,	Penticton	Lane and Murray	Vancouver	858.80Salloum, Doak and Co.	Kelowna	D.T. Wetmore and Co.	Trail	
Where actions are settled prior to trail, the costs are paid by the borrower, and are therefore, not known to CMHC. Where actions proceed to trial the fees for legal work paid by CMHC are shown above.
Note: Statistics on activities under the National Housing Act, compiled by CMHC, are not based on Federal electoral constituencies, but on municipalities and Census Divisions in Western Canada. The area covered by this question is composed of Census Divisions 7 and 22, and Census SubDivision 17B.


Mr. Cossitt: Are steps being taken to bring about and maintain fair and balanced coverage of political news by CBC in the interest of fairness to all democratic political parties in the country and (a) if so, what are such steps (b) if not, for what reason?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: Working within established corporation policies and guidelines, CBC staff make every effort to ensure fair and balanced coverage of political news in all CBC information programs.


Mr. Symes: 1.	What is the total amount paid out by the government to Telesat Canada?
2.	What amount of money has the government received from Telesat Canada including loan repayment, equity shares, etc.?
3.	What is the total number of channels existing in the Telesat satellites?
4.	What are the names of the corporations using Anik Satellites and how many channels does each company lease?
5.	What is the lease length for corporations and what is the going rate per channel?
6.	What is the total amount of money spent by the CBC on the use of Telesat facilities?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Department of Cummunications and the Secretary of State as follows: 1. As at December 31, 1975, $65,350,000. This amount is made up of $35,350,000 in loans, and $30,000,000 in payment for common shares in the company purchased by the Federal Government.
2.	As at December 31, 1975, $23,150,000. This amount is made up of $22,850,000 in repayment of loans and $300,000 in dividends on Telesat common shares owned by the Federal Government.
3.	There are a total of 36 RF channels available in the three satellites Telesat Canada currently has in orbit. Of these, 30 are available for commercial lease and six are reserved as back-up replacements in the event of commercial channel failure.
4.	The organizations currently leasing Telesat facilities are as follows: (a) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, three full-time channels and one occasional-use channel, (b) Bell Canada, two full-time channels, (c) Trans-Canada Telephone system and CNCP Telecommunications, two full-time channels, (d) Teleglobe Canada, one full-time channel, (e) RCA Global Communications, one full-time channel. On a retainer basis, Telesat Canada also provides a number of back-up protection channels for RCA Global Communications' US domestic satellite communications system.
5.	The terms of Telesat's service agreements with its customers vary. The Service Agreements between Telesat and each of its customers are on file with the Canadian Transport Commission.
6.	The total amount spent by the CBC for all Telesat services to December 31, 1975 is approximately $28,500,000.
February 2, 1976


[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Howie: 1.	Since August 1, 1975, how many job openings were reported in the Atlantic Region to the local Manpower Centre by (a) Les Connolly Trailers, Truro, Nova Scotia (b) Tobique Enterprises, Andover, New Brunswick (c) Ahlstrom Canada Limited, Moncton, New Brunswick (d) La Cooperative de Baie-Ste-Anne Limitee, Escuminac, Baie-Ste-Anne, New Brunswick (e) Labrador Iron Works Limited, Stephenville, Newfoundland (f) Targetair Limited, Moncton, New Brunswick (g) Avalon Pre Cast Concrete Limited, Carbonear, Newfoundland (h) Canadian and European Pastry, Halifax, Nova Scotia (i) Notre Dame Bay Fisheries Limited, Comfort Cove, (j) Douglas R. Guy Limited, Hampshire, Prince Edward Island (k) Northeast Pine Products Limited, Campbellton, New Brunswick (1) Ralston Purina of Canada Limited, Truro, Nova Scotia (m) Design Products Limited, Halifax, Nova Scotia (n) Surrette Battery Company Limited, Springhill, Nova Scotia (o) Dundee Cement Products Limited, Dundee, Restigouche, New Brunswick (p) Cyclomet, a division of Coulter Manufacturing, Moncton, New Brunswick (q) Hall and Stavert Limited, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island (r) Mr. Milton Lewis, Perth-Andover, New Brunswick (company to be incorporated) (s) Poirier Woodworking Limited, Newcastle, New Brunswick (t) N.A. Pottier Building Supplies Limited, Tusket, Nova Scotia (u) Diagnostic Chemicals Limited, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island (v) Acadian Printing, Amherst, Nova Scotia?
2.	In each case, how many of the positions reported were actually filled by persons referred to the firm by the local Manpower Centre?

Question No. 3,885-Mr. Howie:
1. Since August 1, 1975, how many job openings were reported in the Quebec Region to the local Manpower Centre by (a) Uniformes Chantal Inc., Beauceville, Beauce, Quebec (b) Construction Gosobec Inc., Riviere-du-Loup, Quebec (c) Charpentes Dosquet Inc., Dosquet, Lot-biniere, Quebec (d) Conduits Condel Ltee, Bromont, Quebec (e) Duchesne & Fils Ltee, Yamachiche, St. Maurice, Quebec (f) Les Industries Alarie de Malartic Ltee, Malartic, Quebec (g) Bes-Tar Ltee, Lac Megantic, Quebec (h) Lamtech Inc., St-Hyacinthe, Quebec (i) Labbe & Fils Inc., St-Georges Ouest, Beauce, Quebec (j) fibeniste d'Avant-Garde St-Romuald Ltee, St-Romuald, Quebec (k) Huppe & Freres Ltee, Vic-toriaville, Quebec (1) Jean Dancause (cooperative to be incorporated), Ile-aux-Gruex, Quebec (m) Les Industries Decorbec Ltee, St-Hyacin-the, Quebec (n) Les Equipements Laport Inc., Granby, Quebec (o) Modern Plastic Company Limited, St. Hyacinthe, Quebec (p) Vic Store Fixtures Inc., Victoriaville, Quebec (q) La Parmenthiere de Warwick Inc., Warwick, Arthabaska, Quebec (r) Carbonneau & Turgeon Inc., St-Romauld, Quebec (s) Volcano Ltee, St-Hyacinthe, Quebec (t) La Scierie Taschereau Inc., Taschereau, Quebec (u) Societe Parmarco Inc., Granby, Quebec (v) Les Structures Alco Ltee et Beton Precon^u Ltee, Alma, Quebec (w) Produits Vicarthe Inc., Arthabaska, Quebec (x) Cooperative Agricule du bas Saint-Laurent, Riviere-Trois-Pistoles, Quebec (y) The Dominion Comb and Novelty Company, Warwick, Quebec (z) Imprimerie Canada Inc., Sillery, Quebec (aa) Les Ateliers Bisaillon Inc., Omerville, Quebec (bb) Bois de sciage Henri Genereux Ltee, Laverlochere, Quebec (cc) F.P.F. (Canada) Ltd., Trois Rivieres, Quebec (dd) L.H. Plante and Fils Inc., St. Ignace de Loyola, Quebec


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1 and 2.
Company Name	Reported Job	CMC Place-(a)	Les Connolly Trailers, Truro, N.S.	Openings 2	ments 2(b)	Tobique Enterprises, Andover, N.B.	0	0(c)	Ahlstrom Canada Limited, Moncton, N.B.	95	89(d)	La Cooperative de Baie-Ste-Anne Limitee, Escuminac, Baie-Ste-Anne, N.B.	1	1(e)	Labrador Iron Works Limited, Stephenville, Nfld.	2	2(f)	Targetair Limited, Moncton, N.B.	0	0(g)	Avalon Pre Cast Concrete Limited, Carbonear, Nfld.	0	0(h)	Canadian and European Pastry, Halifax, N.S.	0	0(i)	Notre Dame Bay Fisheries Limited, Comfort Cove, Notre Dame Bay, Nfld.	0	0(j)	Douglas R. Guy Limited, Hampshire, P.E.I.	2	0(k)	Northeast Pine Products Limited, Campbellton, N.B.	8	0(1)	Ralston Purina of Canada Limited, Truro, N.S.	2	1(m)	Design Products Limited, Halifax, N.S.	0	0(n)	Surrette Battery Company Limited, Springhill, N.S.	22	22(o)	Dundee Cement Products Limited, Dundee, Restigouche, N.B.	0	0(P)	Cyclomet, a division of Coulter Manufacturing, Moncton, N.B.	0	0(q)	Hall and Stavert Limited, Charlottetown, P.E.I.	0	0(r)	Mr. Milton Lewis, Perth-Andover, N.B. (company to be incorporated)	0	0(s)	Poirier Woodworking Limited, Newcastle, N.B.	0	0(t)	N.A. Pottier Building Supplies Limited, Tusket, N.S.	3	3(u)	Diagnostic Chemicals Limited, Charlottetown, P.E.I.	0	0(v)	Acadian Printing, Amherst, N.S.	1	0
(ee) Imprimerie Dominion Printing Inc., St-Hyacinthe, Quebec (ff) Giles Gagnon (new printing facility), Waterloo, Quebec (gg) Societe Kent Inc., Quebec City, Quebec (hh) Destel Inc., Grantham-Ouest, Drummondville, Quebec (ii) Meunerie Labonte Ltee, St. Bonaventure, Yamaska, Quebec (jj) Jos. Gringas & Fils (1974) Ltee, St. Damase, St-Hyacinthe, Quebec (kk) Les Entreprises B.C.G.L. Inc., St. Alfred, Beauce, Quebec (11) Dent Lumber Ltd., Grand Remous, Gatineau, Quebec (mm) M. Gilles Cote (company to be incorporated), St. Bruno, Lac-Saint-Jean, Quebec (nn) Dubeau & Lapointe Limitee, Drummondville, Quebec (oo) St. Lawrence Plywood Boxes (1974) Ltd., St. Louis de France, Champlain, Quebec (pp) Distribution Italie Inc., Matane, Quebec (qq) Salaison Rock Forest Inc., Rock Forest, Quebec (rr) Industries Espadon Inc., Princeville, Quebec (ss) Abattoir Archille Trahan Inc., Yamachiche, Quebec (tt) Didier Refractories Corporation, Becan-cour, Quebec?
2. In each case, how many of the positions reported were actually filled by persons referred to the firm by the local Manpower Centre?


Robert Knight Andras: 1 and 2.
Company Name	Reported Job	CMC Place-(a)	Uniformes Chantal Inc., Beauceville, Beauce, P.Q.	Openings 0	ments 0(b)	Construction Gosobec Inc., Riviere-du-Loup, P.Q.	1	1(c)	Charpentes Dosquet Inc., Dosquet, Lot-biniere, P.Q.	0	0(d)	Conduits Condel Ltee., Bromont, P.Q.	2	0(e)	Duchesne & Fils Ltee., Yamachiche, Saint-Maurice, P.Q.	0	0(0	Les Industries Alarie de Malartic Ltee., Malartic, P.Q.	50	9(g)	Bes-Tar Ltee., Lac Megantic, P.Q.	0	0(h)	Lamtech Inc., Saint-Hyacinthe, P.Q.	10	10(i)	Labbe & Fils Inc., St-Georges Ouest, Beauce, P.Q.	1	1(j)	Ebeniste d'Avant-Garde St-Romuald Ltee., St-Romuald, P.Q.	14	12(k)	Huppe & Freres Ltee., Victoriaville, P.Q.	9	90)	Jean Dancause (cooperative to be incorporated), Ile-aux-Grues, P.Q.	0	0(m)	Les Industries Decorbec Ltee., Saint-Hyacinthe, P.Q.	0	0
February 2, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Company Name	Reported Job	CMC Place-(n)	Les Equipements Laport Inc., Granby, P.Q	Openings 0	ments 0(o)	Modern Plastic Company Limited, Saint-Hyacinthe, P.Q.	7	7(P)	Vic Store Fixtures Inc., Victoriaville, P.Q.	12	7(q)	La Parmenthiere de Warwick Inc., Warwick, Arthabaska City, P.Q.	5	3(r)	Carbonneau & Turgeon Inc., Saint-Romuald, P.Q.	0	0(s)	Volcano Ltee de Saint-Hyacinthe, P.Q.	8	1(t)	La Scierie Taschereau Inc., Taschereau, P.Q.	9	3(u)	Societe Parmarco Inc., Granby, P.Q.	1	0(v)	Les Structures Alco Ltee., Beton Precon-<;ue Ltee., Alma, P.Q.	5	5(w)	Produits Vicarthe Inc., Arthabaska, P.Q.	9	6<x)	Cooperative Agricole du Bas Saint-Laurent, Riviere-Trois-Pistoles, P.Q.	0	0(y)	The Dominion Comb and Novelty Company, Warwick, P.Q.	2	2(z)	Imprimerie Canada Inc., Sillery, P.Q	1	0(aa)	Les Ateliers Bisaillon Inc., Omerville, P.Q.	0	0(bb)	Bois de sciage Henri Genereux Ltee., Laverlochere, P.Q.	4	0(cc)	F.P.F. (Canada) Ltd., Trois-Rivieres, P.Q.	1	0(dd)	L. H. Plante and Fils Inc., St. Ignace de Loyola, P.Q.	0	0(ee)	Imprimerie Dominion Printing Inc., Saint-Hyacinthe, P.Q.	1	0(ff)	Giles Gagnon (new printing facility at Waterloo) P.Q.	2	1(gg)	Societe Kent Inc., Quebec, P.Q.	2	2(hh)	Destel Inc., Grantham-Ouest, Drummond City, P.Q.	12	10(ii)	Meunerie Labonte Ltee, Saint-Bonaven-ture, Yamaska, P.Q.	0	0(Jj)	Jos. Gingras & Fils (1974) Ltee, Saint-Damase, Saint-Hyacinthe, P.Q.	6	0(kk)	Les Entreprises B.C.G.L. Inc., Saint-Alfred, Beauce, P.Q.	0	0(11)	Dent Lumber Ltd., Grand Remous, Gatineau, P.Q.	12	1(mm)	M. Gilles Cote (Co. to be incorporated) Saint-Bruno, Lac Saint-Jean, P.Q.	0	0(nn)	Dubeau & Lapointe Limitee, Drummond-ville, P.Q.	2	1(oo)	St. Lawrence Plywood Boxes (1974) Ltd., Saint-Louis de France, Champlain, P.Q.	11	10(PP)	Distribution Italie Inc., Matane, P.Q.	1	1(qq)	Salaison Rock Forest Inc., Rock Forest, P.Q.	0	0<rr)	Industries Espadon Inc., Princeville, P.Q.	12	4(ss)	Abattoir Archille Trahan Inc., Yama-chiche, P.Q.	6	3(tt)	Didier Refractories Corporation, Becan-cour, P.Q.	0	0


Mr. Howie: 1.	Since August 1, 1975, how many job openings were reported in the Ontario Region to the local Manpower Centre by (a) Tackle Construction Limited, Sudbury, Ontario (b) The Mikron Group Electronics Limited, Burlington, Ontario (c) Mr. Mario Clara (company to be incorporated), Thunder Bay, Ontario
2.	In each case, how many of the positions reported were actually filled by persons referred to the firm by the local Manpower Centre?

Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and
Immigration): 1 and 2.			
Company Name	Reported Job	CMC Place-(a)	Tackle Construction Ltd., Sudbury, Ont.	Openings 1	ments 1(b)	The Mikron Group Electronics Ltd., Burlington, Ont.	0	0(c)	Mr. Mario Clara (Clara Metals), Thunder Bay, Ont.	2	2


Mr. Howie: 1.	Since August 1, 1975, how many job openings were reported in the Western Region to the local Manpower Centre by (a) The George D. Simpson Manufacturing Co. (1965) Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (b) Fair-ford Industries Ltd., Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan (c) MacDon Industries Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (d) Bulman Group Ltd. and Bulman Bros. (1968) Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (e) International Laboratories (1972) Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (f) W.K. Printers Aid Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (g) Metro Pallet Enterprises Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (h) Mid C-.nada Tackle Mfg., Winnipeg, Manitoba (i) North American Lumber Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (for a facility), Weyburn, Saskatchewan (j) Centennial Steel Products Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (k) F.P. Bourgault Industries Ltd., St. Brieux, Saskatchewan (1) Mel-Cam Industries Ltd., Imperial, Saskatchewan (m) Hillcrest Farms Ltd., Bruno, Saskatchewan (n) Brewster Sales and Services Ltd., Lumsden, Saskatchewan (o) Mercury Printers Ltd., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (p) Manitoba Sausage Mfg. Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (q) Maverick Industries Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (r) Friggstad Manufacturing Ltd., Frontier, Saskatchewan (s) Murray P. Lund, Winnipeg, Manitoba, (t) Carte Electronics Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (u) City Bread Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (v) Designex Buildings Ltd., North Battleford, Saskatchewan (w) Empire Printers Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba (x) Cooper Furniture Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba?
2.	In each case, how many of the positions reported were actually filled by persons referred to the firm by the local Manpower Centre?


Robert Knight Andras: 1 and 2.
Company Name	Reported Job	CMC Place-(a)	The George D. Simpson Manufacturing Co. (1965) Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.	Openings 24	ments 19(b)	Fairford Industries Ltd., Moose Jaw, Sask.	2	2(c)	MacDon Industries Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.	47	38(d)	Bulman Group Ltd. and Bulman Bros. (1968) Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.	4	3(e)	International Laboratories (1972) Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.	5	2(0	W.K. Printers Aid Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.	0	0(g)	Metro Pallet Enterprises Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.	0	0(h)	Mid Canada Tackle Mfg., Winnipeg, Man.	0	0U)	North American Lumber Ltd., Winnipeg, Man. (for a facility at Weyburn, Saskatchewan)	0	0U)	Centennial Steel Products Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.	1	0(k)	F.P. Bourgault Industries Ltd., St. Brieux, Sask.	15	150)	Mel-Cam Industries Ltd., Imperial, Sask.	0	0(m)	Hillcrest Farms Ltd., Bruno, Sask.	0	0(n)	Brewster Sales and Services Ltd., Lumsden, Sask.	0	0(o)	Mercury Printers Ltd., Saskatoon, Sask.	0	0
February 2, 1976

		Reported	CMC
	Company Name	Job	Place-
		Openings	ments
(p)	Manitoba Sausage Mfg. Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.	1	0(q)	Maverick Industries Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.	0	0(r)	Friggstad Manufacturing Ltd., Frontier, Sask.	27	23(s)	Murray P. Lund, Winnipeg, Man.	4	4(t)	Carter Electronics Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.	13	13(u)	City Bread Co., Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.	0	0(v)	Designex Buildings Ltd., North Battleford, Sask.	4	3(w)	Empire Printers Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.	2	0


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 2,391 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Epp: 1.	How many immigrants were landed by Order in Council (Ministerial permit) in each of the past ten years?
2.	What were the characteristics of the immigrants in each year in terms of (a) country of last permanent residence (b) occupation (c) sex (d) age (i) under 19 years (ii) 20 to 29 years (iii) 30 to 39 years (iv) 40 to 64 years (v) 65 and over?
3.	What were the reasons, in a broad sense, for the admission of the immigrants by this special procedure in each year?
4.	Is it the policy of the Department of Manpower and Immigration to reveal to the public the identity of those who initiate this special procedure on behalf of the applicants, be they attorneys or other consultants working for a fee or private persons acting for other than pecuniary reasons and, if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, January 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, an act to amend the Medical Care Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68 seeks to amend the Medical Care Act so as to limit the federal government's contribution to any increase in the cost of medicare above specified limits. When taken in conjunction with the notices given the
Medical Care
provinces last June announcing the federal government's intention to terminate the present five-year agreement with regard to hospital insurance, this legislation represents the beginning of the federal government's opting out of the solemn undertakings given the provinces when the hospital insurance and medicare program was introduced. The provincial governments were induced to participate in these worth-while programs on the assurance that Ottawa would pay approximately 50 per cent of the cost.
We are now witnessing a betrayal of these commitments and a determination to shift the burden to the provinces, with what I predict will be disastrous results. This is legislation which ought to be resisted by every member who wants to protect our present health care programs and who wants to promote better relations between the federal government and the provincial governments of this country.
Last Wednesday, the minister opened his statement with the declaration that "Canadians enjoy one of the best health systems in the world." It is true that we have made commendable progress in this field in the last 20 years, but >ve should not delude ourselves that our system is the best in the world. Many countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, the United Kingdom, Holland, New Zealand, West Germany and Israel have had comprehensive health insurance programs for a much longer period and which cover a much wider range of health services than we have. So far, our health programs have covered only hospital and medical services insofar as federal financing is concerned. Such additional services as home nursing, denticare, prosthetic appliances and pharmacare have been financed entirely by some of the provinces at a cost for all the provinces of $1.5 billion this fiscal year and an estimated cost of $1.9 billion in the coming fiscal year, plus a supplemental payment of another $800 million annually until 1980.
Those provinces which cannot afford these additional services have had to deny these benefits to their people because Ottawa has failed to expand the medical care program beyond the services provided for in 1968. Now the federal government wants to limit its financial contribution even in respect of the present limited programs. The fact is, of course, that the Liberal party always has been a reluctant proponent of comprehensive health insurance. Let me review briefly the history of health insurance in this country and the part the Liberal party has played in that program. In 1919 the Liberal convention held in Ottawa pledged itself to institute a comprehensive health insurance program. If my recollection is correct, I believe the resolution was moved by the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. No action was ever taken by successive Liberal governments to implement that commitment in the 36 years between 1921 and 1957. Liberal governments were in office for 31 of those 36 years, and they left office in 1957 without having implemented one iota of a comprehensive health insurance program.
At the end of the war in 1945 they brought down the excellent green book proposals which contained many fine proposals, among which was comprehensive health insurance. No action was taken. On January 1, 1947, the provincial government of Saskatchewan launched the first comprehensive hospital insurance program not only in Canada

February 2, 1976
Medical Care
but in North America. But where was the Liberal government in Ottawa? It never contributed a dime to that hospital insurance program. As a matter of fact, the Liberal party in the province of Saskatchewan opposed the hospital insurance plan with all the power at its command. On July 1, 1948, the province of British Columbia also introduced hospital insurance and it, too, was left to carry on without any federal participation.
It is true that in 1956 the hon. Paul Martin, who was minister of health in the St. Laurent government, introduced a bill for hospital insurance, but it had a glaring loophole in it. That legislation said that the act would not come into effect unless a majority of the provinces in Canada, representing a majority of the population of Canada, consented. Of course, at that time it was perfectly apparent that both Ontario and Quebec had indicated their opposition to hospital insurance, and in consequence the Liberals left office in 1957 without having contributed in any way to hospital insurance in Saskatchewan or British Columbia and had made no move to assist any other province which might have wanted to set up a hospital insurance program.
The government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in 1958 removed the loophole which had been placed there by the St. Laurent administration, with the result that Saskatchewan, after financing a program alone for IIV2 years, and British Columbia after financing their program alone for 10 years, were eligible for financial assistance from the federal government, and other provinces subsequently joined in carrying out the hospital insurance plan. On July 1, 1962, the government of Saskatchewan introduced the first comprehensive medicare program, and again that program was financed entirely out of provincial revenue. The government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert made no financial contribution, but I give him full credit for setting up the royal commission headed by Mr. Justice Emmet Hall who brought down a report in 1964 which, in my opinion, is probably the finest report on comprehensive health insurance that has been written in the English language.
From 1965 to 1968 we had in this country a minority government, and it is noteworthy that the Liberal party is always much more sensitive to public opinion when they are a minority government than when they have a huge majority. In 1968-and I give them full credit for it-the Pearson government brought in a comprehensive medicare program. The man who piloted that legislation through the House as minister of health was the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). I am sure he must be very proud of what he did. I would certainly like to hear him take part in this debate and tell us what he thinks about the way in which that plan is now being eroded.
When the federal government brought in medicare and participated in the sharing of costs, of course the province of Saskatchewan became eligible for financial assistance after having financed medicare entirely out of provincial revenue for six years. Of course, other provinces then began to join the plan until eventually all the provinces were covered. But those provinces joined the medicare plan reluctantly, not because they were unwilling to pro-

vide their people with medical services but because they knew, as anyone who had studied the problem knew, that the cost would escalate. There had been a great backlog of people who needed medicare and who required surgical care; consequently, the provinces knew that the costs would rise. But they were induced to enter this expensive new program on the solemn undertaking that the federal government would meet approximately 50 per cent of the total cost. They never dreamed that the day would come, as it has now, when the federal government would pull the rug from under their feet.
For a number of years now, the Liberal government has been seeking to reduce its responsibilities with respect to medicare. For instance, it is noteworthy that since 1968 they have not added one health service to that medicare program, although there is provision in the act for the government, by order in council, to include additional services and enter into agreements with the provinces for that purpose.
It is no secret that members of the cabinet were not enthusiastic at the time about the medicare program, and that ever since they have been seeking ways and means of transferring some of the burden to the provincial governments. For instance, at the federal-provincial health ministers conference in May, 1973, a new formula was suggested which would have limited federal contributions to the increase in the gross national product. Can you imagine anything more ridiculous than tying the federal government's contributions to a health program to the GNP? There is no possible relationship. Had that formula been accepted by the provincial governments, it would have meant that on the basis of 1975, when there was virtually no increase whatsoever in the GNP, the provincial governments would have received no increase in the federal government's contribution despite the fact that the costs in 1975 went up by 16 per cent.
I do not need to tell the House that in September of 1974 the provinces rejected this formula and stressed the need for alternative and lower cost programs which would reduce expenditures for higher-cost programs. At the federal-provincial health ministers conference held in January of 1975, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) promised more money for the provinces and agreed to arrange meetings to explore the possibly of reconciling the different points of view between the federal government and the provincial governments. That commitment to arrange discussions was sabotaged by the former minister of finance when he announced his budget last June, and it is very significant that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has consistently refused to convene another federal-provincial conference of health ministers. There was going to be one in the fall, then it was put off until December, then it was put off until January or February. January is gone, and I do not know whether or not it will be held in February.
It is quite apparent the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not want to meet the provinces because the budget of June 23 last was one in which the former minister of finance, unilaterally and arrogantly, made two decisions without any consultation whatsoever with the provincial governments. The first decision was that the federal government gave notice of the termination of the
February 2, 1976

hospital insurance agreement. Last Wednesday, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that this termination notice was for the purpose of replacing the present agreement with another agreement. That statement will fool nobody. If the present 50 per cent sharing agreement is satisfactory, there is no need to replace it. The real purpose of giving notice of the termination of the hospital insurance agreement is so that the federal government can force the provinces to accept limits upon the financial contributions of the federal government. This is a form of blackmail which will do nothing more nor less than injure future federal-provincial co-operation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
second decision which was made and announced through the budget of last June was that the federal government was going to limit its contribution to any increase in costs of medicare to 13 per cent in the fiscal year 1976-77, to 10.5 per cent in the year 1977-78, and to 8.5 per cent in the fiscal years which follow. That is what the bill we are debating prescribes. The other day the minister said that it could go up to 14.5 per cent in 1976-77, to 12 per cent in 1977-78, and to 10 per cent thereafter, but that is assuming a population increase of 1.5 per cent. In view of the fact that part of the formula is based on per capita per province, of course those figures represent a maximum possibility and not a guarantee to the provinces. It is far more likely that the provinces will be held down to the 13 per cent, 10.5 per cent and 8.5 per cent, with some slight adjustments.
In opening the debate on this bill, the minister said that when the bill goes to the committee of the House he intends to introduce three amendments. The first amendment he will introduce will be to remove the arbitrary ceiling for the years after 1977-78. The press and media reports have mistaken the effect of this proposed amendment. The amendment does not mean there will be no ceilings after those two years. It means that the legislation will give the federal government, and I quote the minister's words-
-authority to set ceilings for subsequent years, in accordance with an appropriate formula to be developed in the meantime, after consulting with the provincial governments.
In other words, after 1977-78 it could be less than 8.5 per cent. It could be anything the federal government chooses to set by order in council. When the minister says "after consultation with the provinces", that is a joke. This is consultation with a club, because the minister and the federal government have the power to set whatever limit they want on their participation and the provinces will have no option but to make petitions and to utter pleas. But the federal government will make the final decision. In other words, what the minister is asking is that this parliament give the federal government the authority to impose any formula it chooses. The government is asking for a blank cheque to reduce its financial commitments, irrespective of the adverse effects on the provincial governments and the sick, and irrespective of the escalating costs of health services at that particular time.
In my opinion, the second amendment proposed by the minister makes good sense. It suggests that where new
Medical Care
services are introduced under medicare, the federal government's share, on a national per capita basis, should be dealt with separately and not lumped with the per cepita cost figures of all medical services. That still does not mean that the federal government will add any new services to the present program. As a matter of fact, it has not added any in the last seven years, and now that it is on this austerity kick based on fighting inflation I think it is fairly safe to assume that this government is not going to add any new health services to the present medicare program.
The third amendment which the minister says he intends to move merely seeks to extend from one year to three years the period during which the federal government will pay 50 per cent of the cost of a newly-insured program. In other words, the government intends to do, with respect to new health services, what it is already trying to accomplish with respect to present health services, namely, to get the provinces into a program on a 50-50 basis and then impose limits on the contributions of the federal government when costs are most likely to rise.
I ask, would any hon. members of this House, if they were provincial premiers, be prepared to launch denticare, pharmacare or home nursing programs, knowing that after three years the contribution from Ottawa would depend on the whim of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the whim of the Minister of Finance. When one looks at their record, it is predictable that most of the provinces will be inclined to take the position of "once bitten, twice shy."
What reasons has the minister given for introducing this legislation imposing limits on any increase in the contribution of the federal government? The minister admits that although costs have risen for health services, as has the cost of everything else that we buy; nevertheless, our total health expenditures, as a percentage of our gross national product, have actually declined. The only reason given for this legislation was given by the minister as reported at page 1408 of Hansard. He said:
The ceilings will provide an incentive to exercise appropriate cost control over medicare costs, for example, by encouraging prudent use by both providers and recipients of services, and by introducing lower cost alternatives to high cost services, wherever feasible.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is no guarantee the federal government will share in the cost of any lower-cost services in order to reduce the cost of higher-cost services. It always seems strange to me that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) have never understood that the provinces are more anxious to keep down the cost of hospital insurance and medical care than the federal government is, because the provincial governments have to be more anxious to keep down costs than the federal government does. Every provincial government has had to wrestle with the problem of rising health costs ever since this program was implemented, because for them the cost of health services, in the main, represents a larger percentage of their budget than it does of the budget of the federal government.
The real reason for the escalating costs of health care is not that the provinces have been imprudent and wasteful. The real reason for the escalating cost of health care is the

February 2, 1976
Medical Care
failure to recognize that removing the financial burden from the patient was only the first phase in implementing a medicare program.
Those of us who had anything to do with introducing medicare always told the public and those who supplied the health services that phase II must inevitably follow phase I if we were going to control health care costs. This second phase of a properly constituted health insurance program is to alter the delivery system. The federal government has done absolutely nothing about this. Hospital costs could be reduced by assisting the provinces to institute extended care units for the chronically ill who are occupying too large a percentage of beds in acute care and active treatment hospitals. Home nursing programs would enable many patients to be cared for at home. Rehabilitation centres would provide physiotherapy and psychotherapy for many people on an out-patient basis if properly organized.
In the same way, medical costs could be reduced if financial inducements were available for the establishment of community health clinics which place the emphasis on preventive medicine. Denticare programs, particularly for children, would pay dividends in the years ahead. Pharmacare would help reduce the cost of drugs and enable many people to cope with minor ailments which, if neglected, could result in heavy medical expenditures.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare and his department have never effectively faced up to providing lower cost alternatives or encouraging the practice of preventive medicine as insured services under the medicare program. Some provinces have tackled these problems but have received no federal assistance. The result is that provincial governments in total, as I said previously, are spending in this fiscal year $1.5 billion. For the next fiscal year the estimate is $1.9 billion, plus $800 million additional per year up to 1980. That is a tremendous burden for provincial governments to carry. After more than four years in his present office, this minister has been derelict in his duty and now wants to blame the provinces for his negligence.
Of course we want to control expenditures. Of course we cannot allow health care costs to run away, as they can easily, but I suggest the minister is starting at the wrong end of the spectrum. If the minister wants to curtail costs, he should work with the provinces in providing lower-cost service to replace the high-cost services which are resulting in these escalating costs all across Canada. Mr. Speaker, I think we have to ask ourselves one very serious question. If this legislation becomes law-and I hope it will not-and if it saves the federal government some money because it reduces the contribution the federal government will make to medicare, who is going to pay the costs of this iniquitous piece of legislation?
If, in the next few years, the cost of providing medical services in this country rises more rapidly than the limits contained in the bill now before us, the provinces will have very serious budgetary problems. They will find that instead of getting 50 per cent of their costs from the federal government, they may be paying a larger share than the 50 per cent they have been paying up until now.

What options will be open to the provincial governments in that situation? They have several options. The first is that they can raise provincial taxes to make up for the loss of any revenue from the federal government. Their tax field has limits, however. They can raise the sales tax, for instance, but in many provinces the sales tax is now so high that any increase would be counterproductive. They could put a tax on land, but if they did that they would be interfering with almost the only source of revenue that the municipalities have. They could impose a per capita medicare tax and levy upon every family a certain amount of money in order to provide health services for members of the family. Surely that is a regressive tax. It has no relation whatsoever to ability to pay. We do not want to go back to a per capita tax in this country.
What other options do the provincial governments have? As has been suggested in some quarters, they could impose a deterrent fee; they could require that every person going to see the doctor would pay $5, and $10 in the case of a house call. They could provide that those who must undergo surgery pay the first $50 or $100. They could require each person to pay a certain amount for X-rays and laboratory tests. It is true that for those on middle and upper incomes this might not be a great burden, but for those on lower incomes and on fixed incomes, those with prolonged or protracted illnesses, it could be a disaster. Do we want to help the federal government save money by instituting what virtually will be a tax on the sick? Are the people who are to bear the burden of the federal government's austerity program to be those who are lying flat of their backs through illness or going into surgery?
What other alternatives do the provincial governments have? It should also be remembered that for the less affluent provinces there may be no alternative but to reduce the fees paid to medical practitioners. That could result in a migration of health personnel from the less affluent provinces to the more affluent provinces, with the result that those in the poorer provinces of Canada would have substandard medical care.
When I look back over the years to the Rowell-Sirois report-of which I think all Canadians were very proud; it was a watershed of federal-provincial relations in this country-the report said we must set as our first goal the day when every Canadian, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, no matter where they lived, no matter what their income, no matter what their situation, would be entitled to the same standard of health, education and social security as any other Canadian. That goal will not be reached if this legislation is passed, Mr. Speaker; on the contrary, we are taking a backward step. It may mean that some of the provinces, of necessity, will have to accept lower standards of medicare because of the legislation now before us.
This government is on an austerity kick; it is deciding to cut down on its expenditures, and with some of those reductions I have no quarrel. They decided to discontinue Information Canada; they are going to put a sign in the window, "Open by mistake". I have no quarrel with that, but what are the things they are cutting? They propose to eliminate some of the community programs carried on by the CYC. They have decided not to continue with the indexing of family allowances, and now they are to limit their contributions to medical care. This government seems
February 2, 1976

to have adopted the well known law of the sea-women and children first.
I say, in conclusion, that this legislation ought to be defeated. Some of us will do all we can to defeat it, but we cannot defeat it by ourselves. I appeal to members on the government side of the House to oppose this legislation. If they cannot summon the courage to defeat it, they can at least ask for the legislation to be deferred.


Mr. Benjamin:: Forever!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It
should be deferred until the federal and provincial ministers of health meet to see if this problem can jointly be worked out. Possibly there is a compromise under which it can be worked out. I think the provinces might accept some limitation if the federal government were to say, "We are prepared to share with you the cost of all programs which provincial governments have financed entirely on their own," and if the federal government were prepared to guarantee the provinces that in the case of lower-cost programs which are introduced to help reduce higher-cost programs, the federal government was prepared to pay at the beginning of the fiscal year up to 50 per cent of the cost.
If the federal government is not prepared to do that, then I say this legislation ought to be resisted. Those of us who hold strong beliefs on this subject will do everything we can to delay it at least until the people of Canada become aware that the health program of this country is being sabotaged. I think that when the Canadian people become aware, there will be such an outcry that this heartless, iniquitous legislation will never be passed.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Medical Care Act, I begin by restating a truth which this act recognizes but which has for long been dismissed by politicians and proponents of government health care. This truism was stated succinctly by Mr. Enoch Powell when he was minister of health in the Conservative government in England in the 1950s. He said that health care must always be rationed; if it is not rationed by the patient's pocket-book, it has to be rationed by the entrance into the health care system, namely, at the doctor's office or at the hospital door. In effect, this bill represents the first, timid beginnings of our recognition that the economy will not support unlimited health care programs.
Politicians often thought that the advent of federal-provincial programs for hospital and medical care suddenly extended the life expectancy of Canadians, or suddenly improved the health of Canadians and relieved overnight their terrible suffering from disease. This, I submit, is doubtful. The proponents of medical care felt that it would improve health so much that illness would vanish. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. The British felt that their health care system would improve health in this way. Some British health researchers thought that health care would so improve health that many hospitals would not need to be opened. Of course, if you improve a person's health in his younger years, he will live longer. Nevertheless, eventually, in the latter part of his life, he or she will
Medical Care
suffer from some chronic illness and take up space in hospital or occupy a nursing care bed.
Prior to the introduction of the federal-provincial medical care system between 75 per cent and 80 per cent of our people were covered by private health care plans. Many of these plans were so good that when medicare came in some people opted to remain out, for their own personal benefit. Thus, there existed health plans for individuals under which they could obtain medical care. At present, much of our medical care is of lower quality than was available in pre-plan days. Hospital beds are not readily available now, whereas previously they always were available, even if one had to be admitted as a charity patient. But now there are long lists of patients waiting for admission. Often, by the time patients are admitted the need for admission has gone or the value of admission has declined. Indeed, the pressure to keep patients in hospitals, a pressure exerted on individual physicians, is so great that often, even though a physician would like to admit a patient who exhibits slight symptoms but is suspected of suffering from a serious illness, the physician does not do it because he is afraid the hospital will impose disciplinary action and reduce his hospital privileges.
Of course, one must always choose and judge: do you admit an elderly person, severely ill and in a terminal state, or do you fill the bed with a young person who needs an operation or whose illness might not be life-taking but for whom hospital treatment immediately will result in improved health in the years ahead? These facets of medical care and hospital function have never been properly assessed by politicians when setting up health care programs.
Perhaps it is difficult for one to criticize and be objective about "motherhood" issues such as taking care of the ill, and the health of the population. I say this because the study of health cannot be strictly defined. From the day we are born, until the day we die, we are never completely healthy nor completely ill. Always, in some measure, we are in some in between state. Governments and ministers of health like to reel off statistics dear to the hearts of bureaucrats. The minister did this in his speech which opened the debate on this bill. He suggested, for instance, that there is no upper limit to the insured services which people may receive. I suggest that is not correct. I mentioned a few limits just now. Also, hospital lists are so long that for practical purposes admission cannot be gained for the condition concerned. Sometimes payments for procedures are so low that some physicians may curtail certain procedures or lessen the amount to be done.
Hospital and medical care programs have been instrumental in introducing some interesting developments. For example, the control of medical care has been taken away from professionals and given to the new super group, hospital administrators and lay people involved in administering the act. Perhaps this is necessary, because someone must spend the money which governments allocate. But the result has been a curious change in general medical care, particularly within hospitals. Before the government passed the hospital program, most people working in a hospital were directly involved with the medical care of patients. After the hospital program was adopted, the number of people caring directly for patients did not
21 130-45

February 2, 1976
Medical Care
increase greatly; on the other hand, hospitals are now alive with the many people codifying, supervising and cataloguing the daily work of the hospital. The reason, partly, is the attempt of Canadian hospitals to reach accreditation standard.
Hospital boards and administrators tend to downgrade the care of patients and to concentrate on the documentation necessary to have the hospital accredited. No criticism will be made of a hospital if patients expire on its doorstep, but the hospital could be severely reprimanded for not having its documentation up to standard. Perhaps hospital accreditation in Canada improved health care a little and documentation a lot, but it increased enormously the cost, and most of that cost went into non-patient services. It has been said that the programs are completely portable. Certainly, as far as physicians are concerned it is always difficult to get paid from the plans of provinces other than the one in which they are practising.
The minister has suggested that a measure of what has been achieved by these health programs is indicated by the maternal mortality and infant mortality rate. I would suggest that the programs have had very little effect on these indices. The drop in the birth rate, whereby a mother is having only two or three children, is the reason that statistics will always be better. Furthermore, transportation has played a considerable part in allowing individuals to seek better medical care. One of the interesting developments of present hospital and medical care plans is exclusion from the decision-making process of the bureaucratic system of hospital and medical administration. In the province of Manitoba, for instance, the minister of health has indicated that he alone will decide what an individual physician is worth, and he alone will decide the value of new procedures and changes that might occur from time to time in the fees schedule. At the hospital level it is difficult to have new drugs introduced or to have new instruments purchased. Preoccupied, as they are, with the day to day running of hospitals, it is understandable that administrators do not want to introduce new drugs, new techniques, and so on, some of which may not be very useful.
A few years ago a drug act was introduced. It was to reduce the cost of drugs. The cost has been reduced to some extent. What is notable is that newer drugs coming on the market in the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe are not being distributed in Canada. The drug act discourages the marketing of new drugs that would be useful in this country. Most drugs are formulated and researched abroad.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great tragedy that when the medical and hospital care programs were introduced, the form they assumed was cost-sharing. The federal government seemed reluctant to trust the provincial governments to bring forward a scheme to upgrade the many programs that were already in effect. This seemed to be in the mistaken belief that many provincial governments would not have spent the money wisely and would have used it on other ventures. The 50-50 cost-sharing proposal has meant the establishment of the most expensive form of medical care. A province that tried to be careful was penalized, and the citizens deprived, because the program was geared to the

most expensive provincial medical plan. For example, the hospital that introduced a $1 or $2 deterrent fee, as many did, found that when working out the formula, because of the $2 the patient had paid, the federal government paid $1 less.
From the beginning these should not have been cost-shared programs; they should have been transfer payments, without strings, so that the provinces could have instituted and brought forward their own plans. There is nothing sacred about having a uniform plan across this country. Indeed, with our regionalism we obviously cannot have the same level of care in any two provinces. This new act by the government is obviously an attempt to return fiscal responsibility to the provincial governments. This, I think, is a good idea if satisfactory cost-sharing arrangements are worked out with each province. My opinion has been that the proposals given to the provinces were generally highly unacceptable and that until further encouragement is given to the provinces in the way of proposals, difficulties will remain.
The minister spoke of the number of physicians in Canada. I agree with him to a considerable extent that the number of physicians is adequate and in some cases more than adequate. Under the fee-for-service basis of practice where the medical plan pays, there is a tendency to manufacture patients. Studies carried out by the medical care groups seem to indicate that there are enough physicians, although there is widespread suggestion that they are poorly distributed. The distribution is perhaps not as bad as has been suggested. For instance, a neurosurgeon may need 200,000 people to provide him with enough patients to exercise his skill. Therefore, it would be hardly practical for him to set up in northern Manitoba or in northern Ontario. Transportation has made people able to take advantage of medical skills available far removed from their home. Indeed, if people are really ill or feel that they could have a serious problem, they often make a trip to a large centre where there are numbers of specialists available for their immediate problem. This is, on the whole, quite a good thing.
Canada has been accused of importing many thousands of trained personnel, especially medical, from the developing countries. Many of these come through the United Kingdom which, in order to fill up with cheap doctors the lower echelons of the hospital services in that country, admitted thousands of third world doctors. Many of the displaced United Kingdom doctors immigrated to Canada and, of course, to other parts of the world. More doctors stayed in Canada because remuneration increased due to our affluent society and the discouragement of the immigration of physicians to the United States because of the Viet Nam war.
My understanding is that opportunities and conditions in the United States are once again increasing. Nevertheless, with a population growth decelerating there would seem to be adequate numbers of physicians being trained in Canada for our needs. Medical colleges are full, and they will likely remain so until the university population drops to coincide with the birth rate. For medical colleges, this could well come in 1984, because by 1964 the number of births had dropped drastically. It is interesting to compare this with the fact that in 1956 the medical colleges in
February 2, 1976

Canada were hardly half full because there were so few applicants. This coincides with the 1936 birth rate, the lowest of the depression.
Governments should study carefully the effect of immigration of physicians on the total health care program. There is little point in having immigrated physicians to excess. There is little to be gained by overservicing, but I admit it is very difficult to determine when there is adequate health care. It is difficult to foresee what would be totally best for health care. I believe that the one group on which forward progress in health care largely depends has been shunted aside to some extent and left out of the decision-making process-and that is the physicians. After all, the physician has had, and will probably continue to have, an important place in the health care delivery system. On his opinions rest, and will probably continue to rest, the over-all responsibility for much medical and hospital care. He usually initiates the patient into the system by examining him, prescribing drugs and admitting him to hospital. In this role, the present medical care system has probably not materially changed.
It is significant that the cost of physicians' services has not escalated as rapidly as in other parts of the health service. In fact, most increases have come about, so far as medical care is concerned, because of the relative increase in the numbers of physicians as compared to the general population. With medical care in place for the past seven years, some fees are now getting out of line and physicians at times are arranging their practices to seek the fee schedule that will best serve their needs. There is a tendency to reduce the number of procedurfes carried out and to increase the number of consultations. It is time physicians recognized that the medical care system is becoming rigid, detrimental to good medical care and, hence, to patients.
One suggestion I would like to make in this regard is that to a certain extent physicians should opt out of the medical care plan. This would increase the flexibility of the medical care plan and would chart new courses in health care. In my own province of Manitoba, the doctors who are members of the Manitoba Medical Association are in dispute with the government over the fee increase to which they should be entitled. Under the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines the minister of health says the increase should be no greater than $2,400, whereas the physicians are arguing that the average should be no more than $2,400.
I agree with what the minister of health in the province of Manitoba, Mr. Desjardins, has said, namely, that physicians should opt out of the medical care plan. Their patients would pay through the paying agencies the same rate of fees that the physicians had under the plan. In my opinion, this is one of the better ways of controlling fees and it also acts as a safety valve on the care of patients. In my opinion, approximately 25 per cent of the physicians should be outside the plan. If being outside the plan increases physicians' collection costs, then they will have to work for less, or charge more. If he can still keep his office filled and his income still reaches the desired level, it means there is a need for further physicians in the area and that people are willing to pay extra for extra service.
Medical Care
In addition, the physician is able to practise a much better brand of medicine. However, if too many physicians are outside the plan, in effect this means that the payments are too low. It is always easy, under a medical care plan, to keep patients coming into the office. At the moment I think one of the best ways to get an over-all reading of how good a medical care plan is for the population is to ascertain how many physicians are in fact practising outside the plan.
With regard to hospitals, I think the outlook for increasing and improving the standard of hospital care is somewhat bleak. I suggest there will be a steady reduction in the quality of care that is given in hospitals. More and more hospitals will become institutions for those who work in them, with patient care designed for and correlated to the needs of the hospital. Hospitals, by and large, are filled with large numbers of relatively low-paid people. It will be extremely difficult to apply rigid cost rationalization, both for political and practical reasons.
I should like to point out that in the province of Manitoba this year the cost of hospital care is to rise by something like 30 per cent. This is a significant increase and I think is an indication that we are dealing with relatively low wage groups that must receive an increase. It is too bad, as suggested by the previous speaker, that the government has not seen fit to have further consultations with the provinces on this problem.
I sympathize with the aim of the government; I think medical and hospital care must be returned to the provinces. They alone must be responsible for the programs and they must decide how much they have to spend. Obviously, health care must be rationed in some manner since there is not enough money to go around. After all, there can be no end to the good things one can do by way of hospital and medical care. The government's way of going about this has not been a useful exercise. I hope that the minister and the government will reconsider their position before they proceed with this action, in order to see whether something further can be worked out with their counterparts in provincial cabinets.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I am following one of my own colleagues. Surely some member on the government benches would want to defend this bill. Sadly, the bill is the result of a treasury decision, obviously not a decision of the government's health department. As my hon. friend, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), said, the provinces are not all the same. This is what members of parliament must keep repeating and repeating to the government benches. My own province of New Brunswick is only now, I regret to say, in the stage of making large capital expenditures on hospital facilities. We in New Brunswick have lagged well behind other provinces which now have enough hospital beds. We are now making large capital expenditures for extensive facilities which are supported by some community facilities.
Another point I want to make is that the suggestion of the minister that he will move an amendment so that after 1978 we swing free, so to speak, is really a preposterous suggestion, one that gives us no confidence at all. As my own leader said, much as we dislike the formula, we did have something to look at. Under the minister's proposal
21 1 30-4514

February 2, 1976
Medical Care
we will have nothing to look at except the record of this government, and I must say that does not fill us with very much confidence.
We are really fighting a lost battle today when it comes to a properly funded health service for this country. The minister-who has had, both in the ministry and in senior positions in the public service, a great deal or responsibility in the last few years-would be filled with alarm, I would think, presiding over the winding down of an essential element of the Pearson government's program. Those of us who have been here long enough heard the trumpets blow and witnessed the program start up. We stood to attention, and bulletins were issued. Then a little while later the trumpets are muted, the program is being wound down, and co-operative federalism comes to a jarring halt. I, for one, regret this.
I am opposed to the bill. The bill revokes, unilaterally, co-operative federalism. It buries the concept of sharing and it inters the high hopes of the Pearson years. As a matter of fact, I had to sort of scrape away some of the cobwebs to recall that high-sounding phrase "co-operative federalism". Jets were flying from here to Quebec City and back again, with seatbelts fastened, as well they might have been in view of the doubt that the government of the day could survive. It survived because it pulled out a good slogan and, to the government's credit, a major part of that concept was the Medical Care. The government of that day is entitled to some credit for that; I do not dispute that fact.
I do get alarmed about slogans, that were once so much a part of the government's boast, when they are suddenly put away again because they do not fulfil the present concept of need. It is obviously a treasury need and not a health need, and I regret this. I have said this before; I have never understood why words or concepts like "federalism" need any adjective like "co-operative". After all, federalism is a co-operative concept. However, there are people in the language game who like to add things. We have had an addition to the word "democracy" that intrigues me. We were to have a participatory democracy; although that, too, is being retired. Participatory democracy is now a couple of years old. We find that the word is not a bad one and does not need embellishment. When we embellish words like "federalism" with unnecessary baggage, the words themselves cannot keep up with the concepts that government writers or publicity men usually try to give them. Federalism, after all, is shared power and shared responsibility, and the bill itself is a denigration of the concept of sharing.
Obviously the medicare plan should be rethought in light of today's conditions. This does not mean Canada can walk away from medicare or that Canada can freeze itself into a fixed position unilaterally. It grieves me to see a government which touts itself as being one of co-operation and one of justice withdrawing from this plan in the way it is doing. Obviously, too, individual Canadians have an obligation-many speakers have made this point-in the way we fasten our seatbelts. May I say, parenthetically, that I regret the fact that in this very building, at this moment, people are being asked to sign a petition against the wearing of seatbelts in this province. I think this is not in the best tradition of co-operation. The government of this

province, for good or ill, has a good deal of courage in this issue and I regret that these halls are being used to prepare petitions among the employees of this place against the wearing of seatbelts.
When I was approached, I said I thought it was wrong. I said I had a very personal experience in my own family which demonstrated to me the efficacy of seatbelts. I hope that inquiries can be undertaken and that this petition can be stopped. I am a believer in freedom, but the way to protest the seatbelt legislation is not by scurrying up and down the halls of this building. The wearing of seatbelts is only part of the whole subject. We have a great deal of evidence about the dangers of smoking. I am an offender, being one of the most notorious cadgers of cigarettes since the former leader of the NDP retired. He and I had a contest to see who could cadge the greater number of cigarettes, but I think the Secretary of State comes in a good second in this regard. In any event, we know that smoking is injurious and adds to the costs that are troubling governments both provincial and federal.


An hon. Member:: If you don't want to do it, quit.


Miss Begin:: We don't want to lose you; we want to keep you.


Mr. Fairweather:: Thank you very much. I am touched; I am overwhelmed. I should like to touch for a moment or two on a couple of aspects of the program. First of all, the reaction by the provinces is more than understandable. The provinces were looking for a trumpet from on high, and I suppose trumpets from this government are usually unilateral. The provinces reacted exactly as we would have expected, in a federal system, to any decision which was taken unilaterally. From an over-all perspective, I would like to suggest it is time for federal government initiative in health costs reforms. No responsible member of parliament could ever allow free-wheeling, and any one of us who has a slight knowledge of the provinces' efforts to control health costs know that they are serious in undertaking them. It is not the same thing to have a bill which makes a unilateral decision, dumping the problem onto provinces without offering any compensation or national leadership and direction. Really, what the federal government is doing is walking away from the problem. Furthermore, Bill C-68 deals solely with medical services, an area which has not demonstrated unwieldy cost escalation.
Let me make some suggestions in respect of the official opposition. First, a method of avoiding the arbitrary and rigid nature of the ceilings would be to remove the percentage delimiters from the statutes and implant them, instead, in regulations. We have the statutory instruments committee which could decide whether the regulations were fair, just, and so on. This approach would allow a year-by-year examination and review of the guidelines as set down in the regulations, thereby guaranteeing close federal government monitoring and at the same time meeting conditions necessary to ensure desirable levels of health standards. Second, we should establish a tripartite committee to investigate the fiscal aspects of medical financing. Such a committee could consist of provincial representatives, members of the medical profession and federal officials, and could play an integral role in establishing the very guidelines about which I have spoken.
February 2, 1976

In the area of general health care and hospital care, the federal government should suggest specific proposals to the provinces in order to make the system more cost-effective. Considering that the provinces have a built-in incentive in achieving this end-after all, they are responsible for 50 per cent of the costs-they would undoubtedly be receptive to such an overture. Such an approach could consider the standards of hospital admission, the length of bed occupancy in hospitals, the use of X-ray and laboratory equipment in local clinics and hospitals, and a review of the comprehensive nature of medical and hospital care.
Next, taking the typology provided in "A New Perspective", we should escalate a government program designed to improve lifestyle. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), on New Year's Eve spoke about a new economic order and said that we must change our habits. He, himself, in the area of personal care, has been a leader. We must escalate a government program designed to improve lifestyle, environment and human biology, as well as some of the points I made earlier about our way of living which might in themselves result in a decline in medical costs. The document to which I referred, "A New Perspective", suggests that over 60 per cent of all accidents and deaths, for example, in respect of persons between the age of 17 and 35 are related to the automobile.
I should like to make the following suggestions: First, recognizing the importance of financial control of the delivery of health services, I propose a new financial partnership relationship with the provinces in which the responsibility to manage and effectively control these costs would be turned over to the provinces, where it belongs. These costs were alluded to by the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, chaired by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) and Senator Mogat which, incidentally, had some suggestions to make about the national capital commission which seem to have been overlooked by the gallery and other people who think the end of western civilization is about to occur.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have just fastened my seatbelt. At the same time, the provinces should be asked to allow constructive co-ordinated entry by the Government of Canada into areas of major concern on national health problems. It is really not too much to ask that social aspects of our federalism be very much in the provincial field. I have an idea this really is what Quebec has hoped for and what many other provinces have wanted. One's perception in respect of national goals really, in a curious way, depends on whether one is in or out of office. I notice that in the United States the Democrats are now decentralizers and are busy saying that most things are done better by the states. I wonder what Franklin Delano Roosevelt would think of the new Democratic philosophy. I am sorry about this cynicism, but I ask: are we in, or out?
Second, for the serious Canadian health problems of mental health, drug and alcohol abuse, there should be a working partnership with the provinces and professional agencies. Third, with provincial acceptance and support, the Government of Canada should launch a new, all-
Medical Care
encompassing research program under which biological or medical research, particularly in the areas of cancer and heart disease, will be intensified. May I say I am deeply troubled by the fact that the treasury of this government has really, in effect, frozen-which means diminished-the amount of money spent today for medical research in Canada.
I do not think it is responsible to take a couple of areas in health and spend massive amounts of money there. I think there should be a very large amount of money spent on the whole spectrum of health care. I, for one, believe it is false economy on the part of the government to diminish the amount of money spent on medical care. Fourth, much research must be undertaken in the neglected areas of lifestyle and environmental health which contribute substantially to unacceptable disease levels. I really think governments of Canada, be they provincial or federal, must come to grips with such matters as asbestos poisoning and mercury poisoning.
I think ex post facto solutions on the part of the legislatures really are quite irresponsible. We are waiting-and I am being all-inclusive here-as we did in the 1930s in respect of silicosis in the coal mines. At that time governments waited until circumstances were so horrible that they were forced to act. In respect of mercury poisoning and asbestos fibres, I think the workman and his family are entitled to protection-not some day down the road, but now. I think it is a tragedy so little is being done in this area.
Next, the federal government should develop programs of prevention or education to alter the poor Canadian lifestyle habits which contribute to the evolution of tragic and often fatal disease processes. In some cases, legislative intervention and action are requested and demanded to enhance lifestyle habits: it probably would be well for the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and a couple of other members who might benefit from such institutionalized activity. Sixth, governmental responsibility is supreme in the field of environmental factors affecting health. In any debate on environmental health, specific courses of action have been recommended. A moment ago I alluded to mercury and asbestos. Of course there are other situations which have occurred to us.
Seventh, there should be more participation by Canadian citizens in the future evolution of health policy by making public representation mandatory in the proposed national institutes for mental health, alcohol and drug abuse. Last, I think the whole problem of the way our country responds to aging people borders on scandalous. It is not a very popular topic. Geriatrics, of course, is substantially down the list of priorities. Governments go for more glamorous subjects like cancer and heart disease. I, myself, have been guilty of that in this speech. The fact is there are a good number of unlicensed premises. In an all-encompassing health care plan we must have some responsibility here. I hope this aspect of sensitivity, compassion and fairness to older people will be recognized soon by the levels of government responsible.
I very much regret Bill C-68. I regret the winding down of co-operative federalism. I regret the fact that the Government of Canada is putting aside the high hopes of the

February 2, 1976
Medical Care
then minister, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen).


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston). The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yew-chuk), on a point of order.


Mr. Yewchuk:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say I am somewhat disappointed by the lack of interest the other side seems to be showing in this debate. It seems to me that debates should be based on the adversary system, and so far we have not had very many adversaries. The minister is not here to defend his bill and nobody else seems to be interested in defending it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think, in fairness, I should point out for the record that the parliamentary secretary to the minister indicated his willingness to intervene in the debate but has only stepped aside on examining the list in order to allow the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) to speak next. I think the parliamentary secretary would either speak now or following that hon. member. Order, please. The hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, since I am intervening in the debate this afternoon, I feel that I myself have now become a health problem. One is very conscious of the aging process, especially when I realize that I was one of the people who voted against the original bill presented some ten years ago by a government which was making all things new, bright and shiny. The hon. member for Fundy Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) referred to those heady days when a whole variety of measures were taken, measures that are now being rethought. At the time, I suppose I thought I would be at least 80 years old, if not 90, before the wheel came full circle and I would find that the descendant of that government and of the same party had abandoned what had been assumed so lightly and taken on so enthusiastically at that time.
I voted against the original medicare bill, not because I was opposed to the principle, the idea of the bill to even out for the poor and the rich the cost of health service in a civilized country. I also know how utterly damaging to the fortunes, not only of individuals but of entire families, a serious medical operation could be in the 1930s or 1940s, and how lives and planned careers would change because the money with which to pay medical bills had to be found somewhere from private sources. I can say that in the knowledge that the good doctor who attended our family at that time was the kind of general practitioner who was beloved and revered because of his devotion to his small community, because of his sympathy for his patients in the areas that he served, and his reluctance to charge anything corresponding to a high fee. But even the minimal fees that he charged could be at that time a fearfully debilitating blow to a family whose income was very low.
I am sure that many people in the communities around Armstrong will join me in paying tribute to doctor Roy Haugen, a small town physician whose story, I am sure, will be told one of these days, and yet the only publication which would carry it at present is Reader's Digest which, if

the government has its way, might well cease to be a publication where Canadians could read the somewhat simple annals of those who have devoted themselves to the selfless service of their fellow men.
I recall very clearly the final, fatal morning when the then minister of national health and welfare, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), rushed into the House to make his ultimate statement, rejecting all the protests and representations that were being made by the provinces which, I think, could see a little further into the future than the minister did. He parted the curtains and sailed into the House that morning with all of the hauteur, intelligence and stubborness of a ship of the desert. He launched into a speech in which he rejected any scheme that did not fulfil the four principles of comprehensiveness, universality, administration and portability. Of course, there was a fifth principle in the background that should have been stated at that time, that is, the open-ended nature of the cost which the provinces could see. The federal participation was a promise which, one gathered, would go on and on for ever. We should have been warned at the time, because the government at that time was involved in a very small thing, perhaps, in the ending of perpetual leases that had been undertaken many years before, so we should have realized that their concept of perpetuity amounted to about ten years in time and the 'time of reneging was coming sooner than anyone might have thought.
I am sure we will not have an intervention in this debate-various remarks have been made about members on the other side not intervening-from the Secretary of State for External Affairs; yet I would like to hear him because it would make an interesting coda to the debate that has gone on these last few days. Just a simple expression of regret perhaps would be adequate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It would be difficult to swallow, and he might gag.


Howard Earl Johnston: It calls for something. It struck me, as I listened to the present minister as he spoke at the opening of this debate, that his speech did not make the bill any easier to accept. I almost thought, as I listened to him, that he was about to retract completely and renege on the bill when he spoke about accomplishments in health care. He said:
There have been some dramatic improvements in certain indicators. Our maternal mortality rate dropped from 27 per 100,000 live births in 1968 to 11 in 1973, which is now one of the very lowest in the world. During the same period, our infant mortality rate dropped from 20.8 per 1,000 live births to 15.5, by-passing the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and France in ranking.
One could make the suggestion that he might have included the abortion rate while he was laying down that statistic, because if you read the glowing statistic that he has given us, you find that this nation sounds as if it were a nation which truly cared about births and infants, and about dropping of the mortality rate. What a strange, ironic contradiction that as that statistic is being given we note that in the background there lurks another dark statistic which has some connection with the process of birth, life and death. Of course, the minister referred to the various things that so many Canadians who can recall the 1930s and 1940s know, the terrible problems that were
February 2, 1976

visited on families when a medical bill could ruin the fortunes of a family. All of these things are simple indicators of how terribly difficult it is to go back on a piece of legislation such as medicare.
The reason I voted against it was simply that it failed to consider representations which had been made by the provinces. Failure to consult is here again, and it is as necessary now as it was then. Hindsight is always valuable, but as we look back there is the feeling that if the program had been phased in much more carefully and slowly, it would not have been necessary to retreat from it so rapidly.
I hope some of the things being said in this debate will have some effect on the nation. Others have spoken about the role an individual can play in the whole health process. The self-induced disease is the scandal of our time. Some diseases which arise out of the use of tobacco are emphysema, hardened arteries and heart attacks. All these are terribly costly and debilitating diseases. Medical problems which arise from the use of alcohol are of two kinds. One is the physical kind, cirrhosis of the liver, and other changes in the physical structure of the body. Beyond that there is the terrible toll of road accidents which are directly related to the abuse of alcohol in our society. The casualties and deaths are terrible, but there is a far more awesome statistic which tells of terrible injuries requiring the total resources of medical teams and the best hospitals to rebuild and restructure the results of those accidents.
Besides tobacco and alcohol there is the question of drug abuse. Far be it from me to suggest that just because alcohol is so bad we should then feel free to legalize and endorse a whole new set of health dangers. There is a strange logic which is used very frequently these days by those who argue that alcohol is terrible and we should be much easier on some other things which are around. I cannot quite accept that argument. As a schoolteacher, I watched too many students at an early age virtually disintegrate in the prime of life because they had gone into this business of experimenting with all kinds of chemicals and exotic materials. I knew that many of them would spend the rest of their lives in mental institutions, charges against the health system of this country. Even something as simple as being overweight is a problem individuals can tackle.
It seems to me that one of the greatest failures resulting from the approach to medicare used by the government in introducing it was the failure to see the significance of the federal role in medical research. For years, hon. members have been receiving an annual complaint from the medical people of this country that there is not enough money for research facilities, and it seems to me that it never has been more important to direct money and resources into that field than it is at the present time.
As I read articles about some of the things which might be altered if we knew more about them, some ideas occur to me. We hear a great deal these days about proposals for less traumatic birth and for a changed system of birth which would make birth for the infant a far happier and comforting event than it is at the present time. I think there are grounds there for some very careful consider-
Medical Care
ation. If the government was seriously looking to reap large rewards in terms of mental and physical health, that is one matter which could be very closely studied and reported on. There is a tremendous incidence of mental disorder today, and if the fact that birth as it occurs in most Canadian hospitals is a traumatic experience, that the impact could be softened and from that softening there would be a better chance of a happier and healthier child, this should be looked into very carefully.
Another matter which is terribly important is the question of what happens to the child of a mother who smokes heavily, or at all, during the course of pregnancy. It seems that the effects are various. At least one researcher has suggested that the offspring of mothers who smoke during pregnancy will have significantly greater difficulty learning to read and, in a sense, lower intelligence than if the mother had not smoked. If ever there was a matter on which we should zero in, this is it. The expenditure is not entirely medical; it is spread throughout the school system.
A word has come into our language in the past ten years describing a child with reading difficulties, which cannot be understood because the parents are intelligent; there are books in the home and the mother and father read to him: yet the child cannot read. So we have the word dyslexia, which simply means the child cannot read or has trouble reading. It sounds terribly medical and the educational faculty learned long ago to borrow medical or pseudomedical terms to mystify the public about what was really under discussion. Yet there is a tremendous load of expense in the educational institutions of this land, as well as in medical institutions, as a result. The demand now for reading specialists, remedial courses and for other help, is greater than it ever has been. In the 1950s and 1960s, particularly in the field of education, enormous strides were made in the teaching of reading. The texts and the methodology were improved, but that has not paid off, and we wonder why. The suggestion resulting from the research of that one medical man should be considered very carefully, quickly and seriously.
When I started this speech I had words of praise for the medical practitioner. However, I am concerned about one aspect of the medical field and that is the question of the automatic operation. When medicare was being introduced, it was suggested that doctors would leave the country. After medicare came into operation, one thing which occurred to doctors was that the centralized medicare system was a far better bill collector than the private physician had ever been. I know that the good doctor I spoke about earlier would be a far wealthier man now had he been as efficient at collecting as medicare has been. Under medicare, the doctor is always paid, or almost always, for his efforts. From that and a variety of other things has come the automatic operation. The tonsillectomy is perhaps the prime offender, and the hysterectomy comes close to it. Again I will trespass on ground which I expect will be the subject of a later debate, and refer to abortion on demand. That would open an entirely new dimension in the field of the automatic operation.
I would have thought that one of the criteria to distinguish between the physician and the quack was that the former had the professional sense to say no to a patient.

February 2, 1976
Medical Care
That aspect of medicine would be breached in a strange way if the appeal for abortion on demand were granted by this or any other parliament. Perhaps the medical people themselves need to consider very seriously the question of the operation that is so taken for granted that almost anyone who shows up receives it.
Finally, I should like to mention the other serious and disturbing question, that of the artificial prolongation of life itself. This is very important to provinces that obtain a continual inflow of retirees from other parts of the country. It is an important matter in British Columbia. One must be very careful in talking about it because life is sweet still-in spite of the rule of the Liberal government opposite. There is a tendency to cling to life and to hope for a long, happy and useful life.
I am disturbed when I see some of the things that are possible now with modern medical techniques. I know that massive surgery is being and can be carried out on people when the possibility of their living even a year or a year and a half longer is very slender indeed. But the technique is there, the physician is there, the facilities are there, medicare will take care of it, and so the surgery is done. In some cases it seems to me, from my layman's point of view, that the added brief months of life are months of pain and misery and the death that was inevitable is simply slightly postponed. There is no return to a useful, happy or productive life at all. I do not know just how this can or should be approached.
I am afraid nobody believes in an after life any more, least of all some of the churches and some of the preachers. The great Paul Robeson, who died recently, in a song that many people associated with him, "Old Man River," sang the line "We're tired o' living but feared o' dying". I think this describes a large portion of our population at the present time.
In the field of medical research and in an area where institutions can complement each other, I should like to refer to the studies of Dr. Kubler-Ross on death and dying. I know that several churches, the United Church particularly, have held seminars, discussions and classes for ministers so that they could listen to Dr. Kubler-Ross and read her books. I suspect sometimes that her latest writings must be an embarrassment to some of the clergy, because the more she studies the problems of death and dying, the more she has become convinced, not just that there is a hope of an after life but a very good possibility of it. We can take heart to find that concept returning to the churches even by a roundabout route.


An hon. Member:: I always thought it was the Senate.


Howard Earl Johnston: There was a poet who said, "Go not gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light." One sees that Dr. Kubler-Ross knows that there is a time when rage, rage against dying is part of the process. One would hope that somehow a certain dignity could be restored to death and that it might be more acceptable than it has been for a very long time in our society. It should not be a grim topic, because the gift of life implies also the gift of death, and were we as a people able to face death then we would have less of a problem with medicare and our governments, federal and provincial, would have less of a problem.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the government pay more attention to the provinces this time around than the previous time around. I would plead, again, that the federal government regard funding of medical research in this country as one of the most important and, ultimately, one of the least inflationary places in which they can put their money.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: It is
my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Royal Canada Mounted Police- Status of Mitchell Bronfman-Possibility wrong information sent to United States officers concerning Mr. Bronfman; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan)-Manpower-Measures to alleviate unemployment in Cape Breton; the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave)-Agriculture-Beef-Suggested restriction of foreign imports and renegotiation of United States quotas.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, an act to amend the Medical Care Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to apologize to the House and to members of the opposition who have pointed to my absence from the House this afternoon. I have been in and out, doing some telephoning in connection with the event that is keeping the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) from the House, that is, the federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers which begins tonight. I regret, and the minister very much regrets, that he cannot be here, but I can assure all hon. members that we look forward to this bill proceeding to committee, at which time all the points raised and the suggestions of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) can be gone into.
My observation is that there are so many accusations being made that it is hard to know where to begin. It has
February 2, 1976

always been that way with medicare. It has provoked a lot of charges and criticisms which later turn out to be false. I should like to look at a couple of accusations associated with the history of medicare and show how wrong the opposition has been and how wrong the criticisms of the program have been. It was widely predicted, for example, that Canada would cease to be an attractive country for doctors to practice in once medicare was adopted, that the immigration of doctors from abroad would dry up. It was felt that our doctors would emigrate to other countries in droves, and that medical students would be less interested in going to medical school because the practice of medicine would be so unattractive. This was heard from critics all over the place when medicare was introduced.
What are the facts? The immigration of doctors from abroad has more than doubled. It increased from an average of 600 per year to about 1,400 per year several years after passage of the act. The emigration, or movement of Canadian doctors to other countries, particularly to the United States, has gone away down from previous levels. For the first time ever, the universities of Canada cannot accommodate all of the absolutely first-class students who wished to enroll in medical school. How wrong can critics be?
Another common prediction was that without patient financial participation at the time of or in direct relation to the medical service, doctors would simply be swamped, the public would go wild and the quality of medical care decrease. What happened? When medicare first came in there was some increase in demand for service in most parts of the country, largely because previously uninsured people and those who had inadequate insurance now had the same financial access to health care as the more affluent.
It is impossible to measure the extent to which this took place, because no comparable data exist for the premedicare period. There is no doubt that the magnitude and duration of this increased demand varied inversely with the level of meaningful, pre-existing insurance coverage and also with the previous availability of doctors, as might be expected. The people who needed medical attention began to use the system once we had it. More recent data indicates that utilization rates are levelling off and, in fact, in most provinces the increase in the doctor supply has occurred more rapidly than the increase in the demand of the public for their services. The result is that in many provinces the number of services being rendered per doctor, on average, is going down, not going up. Furthermore, the rate of increase in medical costs since medicare has been rather less than it was for physicians' services prior to medicare. On an annual per capita basis, the rate of increase has been running, on average, almost one-third less than it was in the several years leading up to medicare.
A few weeks ago we were pleased and honoured to have Senator Edward Kennedy visit Canada for a look at this country's medicare system. At every meeting he drew to the attention of the American people, through Canadian journalists, what our system had achieved; the right for all Canadians to have good health care. He pointed out something that amazed Canadians wherever he went; that the
Medical Care
cost of medical health service in the United States, although it is provided by the private sector, whereas ours is provided by the public sector, is greater as a percentage of gross national product than ours. The cost in the United States, as a proportion of gross national product is higher, at 8.3 per cent, whereas in our own country our medical care service accounts for less than 7.5 per cent of gross national product. So, the allegation that making the program available without charge to people would push up demand and push up costs beyond all reason was wrong. That is another example of how wrong critics of a program can be.
Throughout the world there is a tendency for utilization to increase at a modest rate from year to year because of technology, population shifts from rural to urban regions, and so on. We are experiencing that phenomenon in Canada, too; we see, after the first year or two in each province for which we have data to date that the initial spurt, as the poor are brought into the system, definitely levels off and utilization comes down to a relatively predictable rate of increase.
Medical spokesmen had predicted that the financial involvement of the patient at the time of service must be a feature of the program to protect the doctor and the public purse. What happened? Only one provincial medical care insurance plan tried this, Saskatchewan, which imposed a utilization fee on visits to the physician's office from 1968 to 1971. Prior to 1968, Saskatchewan had the lowest rate of cost increase and utilization increase in Canada. After they brought in the utilization fee, they had a drop in utilization the first year, following which utilization began to increase again but at a higher rate than ever before. In other words, there was a rebound phenomenon and for several years they had one of the highest rates of increase in the country.
The medical care program began nearly seven years ago; complete figures are available for the first six of those years. In five of those six years, costs turned out to be lower than estimated, as did the total for the six years.


An hon. Member:: You are not defending this bill, Bob.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This experience should dispel the nonsense about the impossibility of escalating costs of a universal public program. Finally, it was commonly predicted in certain quarters that government-sponsored medical care insurance would be much more expensive than if health insurance were left to the commercial carriers. Nothing could be further from the truth. In 1972, the private insurance companies in the United States collected $25.7 billion in premiums and paid out only $21 billion of this. In other words, the consumer paid more than 20 per cent above the amount required for benefit payments. On the other hand, in Canada, in 1973, 97.7 cents of every dollar appropriated to medical and hospital care was paid out in benefits. Our state-operated system has been an efficient system.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), when criticizing medicare in Canada, stated that the federal government had imposed universal health insurance on the provinces against their will. He admitted that he was not premier of Nova Scotia when hospital insurance came in; possibly that is why he failed to recall that hospital insurance was implemented in Canada under the leadership of
10544

February 2, 1976
Medical Care
the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker). Also, that is probably why he did not recall that the former premier of Ontario, the Hon. Leslie Frost, for one, insisted in 1955 that the subject of health insurance should be considered at the 1955 federal-provincial conference of first ministers. May I quote Mr. Frost's own words, spoken at a preliminary meeting when the agenda was being settled:
It is generally recognized that any health insurance plan of a broad nature should have both federal and provincial participation.
I also remind the Leader of the Opposition that the Medical Care Act was based on the recommendations of the royal commission on health services, the Hall Commission, which also had been established by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. This commission undertook the most detailed analysis ever undertaken of health services in Canada. When the Medical Care Act received third reading, only two members of parliament voted against the legislation. Both were defeated in the next election.
The hon. member stated that when he was provincial premier one of his concerns was that the federal government would pull out after the program had become established. I think that is a most remarkable interpretation of what the government is doing. How can one call this bill a pulling-out by the federal government from medicare? The federal government expects next year to contribute $124 million more toward the cost of provincial medical care plans than it will contribute this year. That represents a big increase in the size of this enormous program. In addition, we expect to be paying an additional $340 million or so toward the cost of provincial hospital plans which, incidentally, include the services of most of the radiologists and pathologists in this country. I cannot understand how members opposite can refer to such a tremendously increased contribution as being a cutback in any way, shape or form. I will come back to that in a moment.
We are accused of not having negotiated with provincial governments. In fact, negotiations regarding the revision of health insurance legislation and cost-sharing have been going on with the provinces more or less continuously since 1970. The provinces have long been aware that the federal government felt it was necessary to put some sort of cap on the open-endedness of our health programs. They were also aware before the 1975 budget that a commitment on their part to restrict higher cost services would be a condition of the federal government's sharing in any additional areas. These negotiations have not produced universal agreement on the continued increase in the medicare program, that is true; however, we must remember that it is very difficult to expect 11 governments to agree as to the specifics of any kind of program of restraint. To claim that we have not had any honest, open negotiation with the provinces is totally unfair.
I mentioned that controlling measures are needed, and controlling measures are being introduced. However, those tremendous increases that I referred to indicate that the proposed ceilings are not out of line with actual experience in recent years. Nor should there be any unfavourable effect on the quality of care provided or the level of coverage enjoyed by the people of Canada.

Some fears have been expressed that the capping of federal contributions will have a relatively greater adverse effect on some 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 among 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 rate of federal share in provincial medical care costs will also remain.
Allow me to illustrate. This fiscal year, the national average per capita cost of medical care will be about $74, ranging from a low of about $50 in Newfoundland to a high of $84 in British Columbia. Of this, the federal government pays $37, or half of the national per capita cost. This means that Newfoundland recovers about 74 per cent of its costs from the federal contributions, while British Columbia recovers about 45 per cent of its cost. As a matter of interest, Nova Scotia currently gets about 45 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 contributions by 13 per cent, from $37.50 to over $42. 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 about 44 per cent in the highest-cost province. Without ceilings, the cost-recovery range would be about 1 per cent higher on both ends.
Let me say again, the provinces that keep their costs below the national average, which includes the less affluent provinces, will continue to receive a larger proportional share of their costs than the provinces that are less careful about their costs. True, it all comes from the taxpayer, but the federal share comes from the whole country while the provincial share has to be raised locally.
One of the peculiar features of this debate has been the fact that opposition spokesmen have quoted many arguments which contradict each other. For example, while the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and a number of other spokesmen for his party have pointed out that the costs of the medical care program have not been excessive, and indeed have declined in relation to gross national product, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) claims that the difficulties that led the government to introduce Bill C-68 were predicted by the medical profession and other opponents of the program some ten years ago.
I would challenge the hon. member for Oxford to show evidence that the opponents of universal medicare ever predicted that the costs of the program would be very much in line with estimates, that the doctor supply would increase at almost four times the rate of population growth following the introduction of medicare, or that there would be a need to restrict immigration of physicians from abroad in order to avoid an absolute oversupply despite a very marked expansion in the capacity of our own medical schools.
I must make it quite clear that the need for introducing Bill C-68 was not related to the cost experience of medicare in Canada since its introduction in 1968. Nowhere did the
February 2, 1976

opponents of universal medicare predict the situation of stagflation which exists throughout the world today, even in countries which have not introduced universal health insurance programs. Bill C-68 was only one of a number of very tough federal measures taken in the June, 1975, budget in an effort to deal with a very dangerous economic situation which was by no means limited to the health field alone.
While the provincial governments generally reacted negatively, and some very strongly, to the news of the original Bill C-68, one province in particular seemed to be particularly dismayed. This was Ontario which claimed that it would lose some $200 million in federal sharing over the next few years because of the original Bill C-68. In the Ontario budget which was announced before the antiinflation program, it was estimated that medicare costs would rise in the three fiscal years 1976-77 to 1978-79 by 22.6 per cent, 20.7 per cent and 18.6 per cent respectively. The same province, it must be recalled, had during 1974-75 granted a 50 per cent increase in hospital nurses' salaries and another substantial increase was due to come in 1976.
The Leader of the Opposition and many of his supporters have emphasized his view that the federal action as represented in Bill C-68 was arbitrary and unilateral as well as without justification. Perhaps he is unaware that the minister of health of the province of which he was formally premier has repeatedly indicated at federal-provincial meetings and in discussions with the minister that one of the greatest problems that Nova Scotia has in the health field is caused by the wage, salary and fee settlements arrived at in the province of Ontario which lead to demands by the health workers in Nova Scotia for comparable treatment.
I must point out to the hon. gentleman that the wage and salary settlements in Ontario were taken without consultation either with the so-called federal partner or with other provinces. They were taken without any regard as to the effect that these settlements would have upon the costs of other provinces and the difficulties which those other provinces might experience in matching them. I feel confident that if the hon. gentleman were still premier of the province of Nova Scotia, he would feel very grateful for any measure taken by the federal government which might give pause to provinces such as Ontario before they rushed into fee, salary and wage increases which would increase the pressure on other provincial governments to match.
I might say that I understand that the combination of Bill C-68 and the anti-inflation program has lowered sub-tantially the expectations of the Ontario Medical Association in respect of a fee increase this year and should have some effect upon wage and salary increases in the hospital field in Ontario as well. The hon. member claims that the provinces do not heed any additional incentive to save costs, but I think he would probably agree that some provinces have more incentive to save costs than others, and can find themselves considerably embarrassed by the actions of their fellow provinces.
I want to pause at this time, having replied to the more substantial points raised in criticism of the bill, and I look forward to the bill proceeding from here, perhaps today or
Medical Care
hopefully tomorrow, into committee for consideration in detail.


Howard Earl Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) would not wish to have his not particularly tidy speech clouded by so gross an error as to suggest that the two members who voted against the original medicare bill had been defeated. The former member for Red Deer, Robert Thompson, was re-elected subsequent to that vote and served four more years in this House, not being defeated until 1972 when he contested the riding of Surrey-White Rock, where the work he did in that campaign contributed substantially to the election of the present hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen). I myself am here, rather living proof that the other member who voted against it has also subsequently been re-elected to this chamber. If that Statement was supposed to be any justification for the bill that is before us at the present time, I think it fails rather sadly.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to acknowledge that the hon. member is here and living among us, but the point I wanted to make was that the party suffered that adopted opposition to medicare as their political philosophy.


Paul Yewchuk: We are not debating medicare in this bill.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat something I said in my remarks on the budget speech in the debate on July 2, 1975, because I think it is relevant to our thoughts on this bill so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned. It is also relevant not only to the bill but in the context of the policies already enunciated by the government in other bills that affect the Atlantic region, as well as policies proposed for the future. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Kaplan) tried to show how favourable this bill might be to the Atlantic region, but I want to put it in the total context of the government's policies as they affect the Atlantic region.
On that occasion of July 2, 1975, I mentioned that what I called, perhaps in too hyperbolic language, the other "economic crime" against the Atlantic region-though I still think there is some justification for such strong language-besides the relatively high increase in unemployment that the Atlantic provinces will get as a result of that budget planning for more national unemployment to fight the cost of living, there is farther down the road-I went on to say, as reported at page 7191 of Hansard for July 2, 1975:
I refer, of course, to the proposed amendments to the Medical Care Act which came into force on July 1, 1968. We know that since then Ottawa has contributed half the national cost of medicare. It now intends to put a sliding ceiling on its contribution by limiting the federal increase, calculated on a per person basis, to 13 per cent next year, 10.5 per cent the following year, and 8.5 per cent in all subsequent years.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has now pulled in the reins a little bit so far as the figure of 8.5 per cent for all subsequent years is concerned, and has stopped at the ceiling of 13 per cent for this year and 10.5 per cent for 1977-78,
During the budget speech I also said that we were concerned about what the government intends to do with our national hospital care plan. I said:
2 11 30-46)4

February 2, 1976
Medical Care
Under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act of 1957, the government has also paid half the national cost of hospital care. The act requires that the federal government give five years' notice before renegotiating its agreements with the provinces. This government gave that notice during budget week. Why? Because it wants to do the same thing as with the Medical Care Act-place a ceiling on its commitment. As well, it announced it will reduce by 35 per cent its payments to the health resource fund.
The parliamentary leader of our party, in the debate on June 25, asked why these measures were being imposed upon the provinces unilaterally. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare tried today to imply they were not imposed unilaterally because there have been discussions about them with the provinces over the last few years. Although we realize this, and also realize that in a federal state it is very difficult to get a consensus on many policies, the fact is that a substantial number of provincial ministers stated publicly, not privately, that they were imposed by the government unilaterally upon the provinces. I think only one province dissented from that view, or not so much dissented as kept silent, and we can suspect that this was for political reasons.
As our leader pointed out at that time, it will be very difficult for the poorer provinces to cope, even though the parliamentary secretary pointed out today that some of the , measures may not appear to be so bad for the Atlantic region. I remind him-and I underline this-that put in the context of other policies already enacted by the government, as well as proposed policies that affect the Atlantic region, as a total package it will have very severe ramifications for the Atlantic region. I will try to show that, despite what he said, there will be a substantial probability that either the quality of medical care in the Atlantic region is going to be cut or the level of services will have to be cut down.
Alternatively, if we try to meet the increased costs, other necessary services for the people of these provinces will be severely affected, at a time when we are subject to an anti-inflation program which, whether designed to do so or not, will have a severe impact on employment in the Atlantic region. Indeed, the statistics are already coming in. If the parliamentary secretary would care to look at them he will discover that already the anti-inflation policy of the government is doing what we predicted it would in light of historical experience, namely, falling more heavily upon the people of the Atlantic region.
The other day the Newfoundland Premier, I would not want to say caused a near riot because that would be going too far, had to withdraw proposed increases in the cost of electricity in the province because the people of that area were so up in arms about them. Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick announced certain cutbacks on television the other night. The finance minister for Nova Scotia, Mr. Nicholson, also announced cutbacks which, coupled with the government's anti-inflation program, will bring about a 2 to 3 per cent increase in the rate of unemployment in the Atlantic region, in my opinion, over the next two years. Again, we are the ones who are going to feel the brunt of these policies most severely. Regardless of what is said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare about negotiations, these unilateral decisions are becoming a detriment within a federal state.

Among the things I am concerned about within the context of total policy, not only this policy which I will return to later, is the question of how this relates to the Atlantic region. I refer again to the anti-inflation policy. Time alone will show, and as mentioned it has begun to show already, not only that the anti-inflation policy will increase unemployment but will increase it most severely in the Atlantic region, and amongst all low income groups across the country. There is no possible way that these low income groups can even come close to anywhere near the minimum allowed under the anti-inflation bill. In regions like the Atlantic provinces they have no marketing power because they are, for the most part, unorganized. Only a small percentage of the Atlantic region as compared to the national average is organized. They have no marketing power when they live in a society which suffers from great unemployment.
The low income groups in unorganized areas must accept what the employers offer. For this reason they are going to fall far behind. For these reasons the people in the Atlantic region and in other low income areas of the country will suffer proportionately more from this anti-inflation policy, and there is no way out for them.
I criticized the last minister of finance and I criticize this minister and the government for emulating United States policy too closely and not looking closely enough at the economic policies of other western world countries such as West Germany, Austria, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Admittedly most western economies are in trouble, but the economies of those countries have kept far ahead of ours in the last five years, particularly with respect to their balance between the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation. This government and the last minister of finance slavishly followed the dictates of the United States. We have not reached the unemployment rate which exists in the U.S. at the present time, but I predict that as a result of our present policies we will ensure a catching-up to theirs or close to it, this winter.
In addition to the anti-inflation program and the way it falls so much harder on the low-income groups, such as in the Atlantic region, I am concerned also about the effect of the present bill on the same low income group in the Atlantic region, with particular reference to the level of services and the quality of health care our governments will be in a position to offer.
I am also concerned about the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act and the regressive nature of the premium tax. It will also have an adverse effect on low income regions such as ours. We know that regressive taxes hit the lower income groups proportionately harder than they hit other groups. Again I appeal to some of the more progressive thinkers on the other side. There are not many in the cabinet. There may be a few but they keep themselves well hidden. I have said three or four times in the House of Commons and elsewhere that, if we are going to make this structural change, we must change the regressive tax structure of our country which hurts the working poor and low income groups so severely.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare is meeting today with provincial welfare ministers to see how they can rationalize the welfare system of the country in order
February 2, 1976

to provide a decent guaranteed annual income to the low income and poverty levels in our economy. Here again, I repeat that if we are to effect a reasonable distribution of the wealth we must change our tax structure. While it is important to have a guaranteed annual income, unless we remove regressive taxes from our tax system we will never accomplish that fact of suitable redistribution. Those of you who will be here ten years from now will be facing the same difficulties we now face with respect to the lower income groups unless fundamental changes are made in our tax structure.
Some 20 per cent of the population is receiving about 4 per cent of the gross national product pie. This is the same bad situation that existed back in 1951, when that 20 per cent was receiving 4.4 per cent. I am sure there are people who are getting tired of hearing me and other members in this party repeat the same things over and over again. Those people suggest that we have forgotten about the changes which have been made in favour of the middle income groups. We have not forgotten those things, but we are concerned more about the low income groups.
Although I have little respect for the other place, I have a great deal of respect for some of the individuals who sit there. One of the more eminent ones, among a half a dozen or more, is Senator David Croll. He was appointed by one of the leaders of the party which sits opposite. He was head of the committee which studied poverty in Canada in 1971. Senator Croll said that unless we count down on regressive taxes such as property taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, and other such taxes, these people will not change their relative position in our economy. He said this will be the case because our progressive income tax system has too many loopholes at the top and does not offset the regressivity of sales taxes and other forms of indirect taxes which fall so heavily on the poor.
Let me also refer to the proposed reduction in oil import subsidies, particularly as such a reduction would affect the Atlantic region. Someone will suggest I am jumping the gun because these reductions have not yet been announced. I have been told by people in Nova Scotia associated with the Liberal government, in relatively important positions, that they are running up against a stone wall in their opposition to this proposed reduction.
We are grateful for the import subsidies we have received along with all those east of the Ottawa Valley line. These import subsidies were designed to make up the difference between the cost of Canadian oil and the cost of imported oil on which we are so dependent. We are now told that by 1980 we will be faced with a fourfold increase in the cost of energy in the Atlantic region, because of the increase in the cost of foreign oil and the reduction in the subsidy. A province like Nova Scotia will be terribly crippled by such an increase unless something is done very quickly. Our industrial capacity in Nova Scotia in relation to that of other provinces in the Atlantic region is more substantial and such an increase in oil cost will have a relatively higher impact.
At the present time our area is faced with extremely high costs of electrical energy, and if the price of power oil is even to double in the next four years we will be in real trouble but the experts at a recent Atlantic Provinces
Medical Care
Economic Council seminar projected a quadrupling of costs. This government can stop that.
Then again we have the reduction in the transportation subsidies that were imposed before Christmas. This will not help the Atlantic region in respect of markets in Central Canada at a time when we have high unemployment because of other government policies. This in fact will increase unemployment.
Finally, I wish to refer to the policy implicit in this legislation before us today. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Railton) in this debate on Friday said that in Canada our main unserviced areas so far as medicare is concerned are on the frontiers. On this matter of medicare-and I could include hospital care but I shall not-may I say I come from a frontier area of Canada. In the industrial area of Cape Breton where we find 19 per cent or 20 per cent of the people of Nova Scotia there are not sufficient specialists. In spite of what the parliamentary secretary has said, if our people are to obtain expert treatment they must be placed on a plane in Sydney and flown to Halifax because there are no facilities in our area.
The federal government has not gotten together with the provinces in order to help such areas where there is slow growth, much chronic unemployment, and substantial density of population. It is no good to ask why the people do not leave the area, and sometimes we hear they have done this for years and years. They have gone to Toronto, and before central Canada was developed they went to Boston. They leave every year. However, they cannot all leave. Something must be done not only in the way of providing jobs as I shall be arguing again tonight during the adjournment debate, but also in terms of these services they are not receiving. Therefore I want to remind hon. members that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs talks about frontiers, there are frontiers other than those about which he speaks that are unservices so far as medical services are concerned.
If we talked about dental care I would point out that school nurses in my area tell me that the teeth of many of the children are almost as bad today as they were during the depression. I can tell you, having lived there during the depression, that many of us lost our second teeth between the ages of 12 and 13. That type of thing is occurring there because of the lack of facilities and dentists.
It was interesting to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare talk about how the percentage of medicare costs in Canada was 7.5 per cent of the gross national product.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Less than 7 per cent.


Andrew Hogan: Yes. In fact it is 6.9 per cent and was 7.2 per cent the year before. One of the interesting things is to see how this member's remarks compare with the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs who, on Friday, said that it is quite irresponsible to let total medical care costs absorb more than 6 per cent or 7 per cent of the gross national product which they now absorb. Who gives him the right to say that? If the funds are being spent efficiently and is providing effective

February 2, 1976
Medical Care
health care to the country, it may be the best expenditure of all; it may be far better than having increased spending for defence and some of the other nonsensical things such as consultants' fees and feasability studies in respect of Mirabel airport the costs of which are shocking to anyone who comes from the Atlantic region where people have to scrape and beg to obtain a few million dollars in order to keep certain programs going.
The parliamentary assistant to the minister of health spoke of the percentage of the gross national product spent in this way being 8.2 per cent in the United States. As I listened to him I said to myself that the hon. member was arguing against his own bill. I asked myself if it is the case that the Americans are spending 8.2 per cent, and Senator Kennedy comes up here to see how well we are doing when we have it down from 7.2 per cent to 6.9 per cent, why is there a necessity for introducing the ceiling?
Again I should like to refer to something the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs had to say. He said in this respect that one thing which worries doctors in Canada is the role of government in medicine. He went on to say:
Our government has a tendency to point to the improving infant mortality and longevity tables as if it were due to medicare. However, these same improvements are present in the United States, where there is no universal medicare.
He does not agree with the assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that things are done more efficiently through the public sector with regard to medicare. There is a series of articles now running in the New York Times from which he could learn if he read them.
I believe the United States ranks tenth or thirteenth in the world so far as infant mortality is concerned. Despite the well trained doctors and so on, they have a very inefficient way of delivering medical services. Relative to that point, of course, is the whole matter of the role of government today.
We know people are concerned about cutting down government expenditures today. It is the vogue now on the other side of the House. There is much scampering around to do this, because in respect of government expenditures they believe they must show themselves to be very responsible people. We have heard this again and again in the House, and we have read it in the newspapers. No one can argue against the control of government expenditures. But the main thing is not the level of government expenditures. Perhaps in the short run the rate of government expenditures has been a little too high, but the actual problem is in respect of the efficiency of government expenditures and whether there are built-in controls in order to protect the public purse.
One would think that by now the government which has been in power so long, especially in the post-war period, instead of waiting for the Auditor General in 1976 to come along and suggest types of controls to make expenditures more efficient and better suited to the needs of the Canadian people, would have done something about this. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: It
being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, before the supper adjournment I summarized the ways in which the legislation before us this evening goes back to the June budget, and I described it as seen through the eyes of a member of parliament from the Atlantic provinces. I suggested that although the provinces had been consulted, the ultimate decision was a unilateral one by the federal government. I tried to put this in the context not only of the bill before us but of the policies that have been enunciated by the government.
I suggested that this policy is detrimental to the development of the Atlantic region, and that it is not in the general interest of that area. This policy should be viewed not as a separate policy but in the context of other government policies and in combination with them.
I said that I think I will be proven correct when I say that the anti-inflation proposals of the government are affecting most the lower income groups, and since we in the Atlantic provinces have relatively more people on low incomes, the anti-inflation legislation will result in more unemployment and, what is just as bad, underemployment, which is never shown in official statistics. I went on to refer to the fact that if you take away the cost of living adjustment from the family allowance, as was done by the government before Christmas to meet some of the criticisms that were made regarding overspending in other fields, then it is the people in low income groups who will be hurt relatively more than people with high incomes. The same applies to unemployment insurance. I spoke about the legislation before us today in the context of the other policies I have mentioned, which are regressive and which hurt lower income groups proportionately more.
Everyone knows that if you are making $17,000 per year or $6,000, and if you are paying unemployment insurance premiums, you pay the same amount, and likewise with respect to the proposed reduction of oil import subsidies. The Atlantic region, especially Nova Scotia, is more vulnerable than any other province to the importation of oil, and the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council had a seminar recently in which it was projected that in just four years there will be a quadrupling of prices. I am told by prominent Liberals in Nova Scotia that the federal government is not going to increase the subsidy or hold it at the same level. Again proportionately, we in the Atlantic region will pay a higher cost, a higher penalty, for this national policy. We are used to doing this through tariff policies in the past, which excluded us from the potential Central Canadian market, prevented us from building a manufacturing base in our region, and made us more dependent on transfer payments, unemployment insurance, and all the other things than the rest of Canada.
I said that the reduction of transportation subsidies announced by the government before Christmas was another left hook, as it were, to the ribs or to the underbelly of the Atlantic region. I said that if all this were put into the context of the policy we have before us enunciated in this legislation today, all of these combined with this legislation, which was undertaken unilaterally, that means
February 2, 1976

that the Atlantic provinces will be hurt even more. Despite what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare said, the quality and level of medical care in the Atlantic region will go down unless there is a change, and we cannot hope for one in this legislation.
I also tried to bring out the contrast between what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs said on Friday and what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare said about this legislation. One was saying that we have a relatively low infant mortality rate, but he said that the same thing is happening in the United States without universal medical care, and that therefore the system under private enterprise in the United States is just as efficient as ours. As hon. members know, 8.3 per cent of the GNP in the United States goes to medical care, while here, as the parliamentary secretary admitted, the figure is only 6.9 per cent. That is a reduction from last year of 7.2 per cent. Before the recess I was asking why it is necessary to impose a ceiling in light of these facts. Talking about this comparison, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs said that the private system of the United States as against the public system in Canada, which was inaugurated by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) when he was head of the government in Saskatchewan-and we are glad to see that the federal government picked it up-is more efficient, or just as efficient as our Publicly controlled system.
I wish to make some comments about government expenditures generally, about the efficiency of the public sector as opposed to the private sector, and then to relate it to some of the shortcomings of medical health care in Canada and why I think the government is now anxious to put a ceiling on it. This is very topical, and there is much being written about and discussed with regard to the pros and cons of government expenditures, the level of government expenditures, and the rate of government expenditures. When I have been in the House hon. members opposite have never adequately defended their own federal government's expenditures in the light of the increase in provincial and municipal government expenditures in the 1970's. They have allowed themselves to be clobbered over certain things that were probably outstanding, some of which I mentioned myself. By and large they have never made an adequate defence of the government expenditures which have done so much good in the public sector and have done so much to improve the economy over the last 20 or 25 years.
With regard to medicare I should like to refer to a statement made recently comparing the public sector with the private sector. The statement was made by Professor Jack Weldon of McGill University, a very well respected economist in Canada. I apologize that I cannot put a date on the article, but I read it in the Toronto Star and shoved it into my pocket. Fortunately today I came across it, and it reads as follows:
The government is providing public goods which, if they passed through the market place, would be badly provided.
If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had read this article before he gave his speech before the Canadian Club he would have been much more sophisticated in his approach.
Medical Care
There is a whole range of pretensions in our style of living which is going to ensure the growth of government, quite apart from ideology.
Professor Weldon also said:
You can't run a police force through the market system efficiently, or an art gallery; and the roads can't all have tailgates.
The government does things best where one person's actions affect another man. The market is best in many things where it affects you but not the rest of society.
Some of the right wingers in the Tory Party running for leadership should be here to listen to some of this. Professor Weldon talks of education, and he should know because he is involved with education, just as I have been; tye all know it is one of the most subsidized industries in Canada, but that's a healthy thing. Professor Weldon said:
Take education. In an educated society, the education of the individual confers benefits on the whole of society. That is why traditionally one of the first things a developing society does is to provide free education.
Take the field of health. It would be absurd to let the market look after vaccination. The rich people couldn't ensure their health just by having medical services for themselves, because the diseases of the poor wouldn't spare those with money. They have to get rid of the rats and fleas of the poor to spare themselves from bubonic plague.
The real problem isn't so much that government grows: on the contrary that is inevitable, and it's silly to call it bad. The real problem is that the apparatus for controlling the efficiency of government and its ability to make decisions is terribly lacking.
That is the point I was making just before the dinner
recess.
We have a 1900-style government running a 1975-style public sector.
We are probably wasting 30 to 40 per cent of our medical resources because they didn't change the structure of the industry when they introduced medicare.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote Geoffrey Stevens of the Globe and Mail and to remind hon. members opposite of the following:
Yes, medical and hospital insurance are expensive. Yes, there are people who abuse unemployment insurance and health insurance. Yes, it is important to control costs as tightly as possible.
But is the government really controlling costs? Or is it merely shifting the burden-in the case of unemployment insurance, directly to premium-paying workers and their employers; in the case of health insurance, to the provinces. The provinces will do what they can to economize, but in the end they will have to pass the burden on to the public-in the form of inferior health care, higher premiums or deterrent fees.
That is going to happen in the Atlantic region under this legislation.
Liberal governments have given Canada a social welfare system to be proud of.
We on this side and our predecessors were the originators of that, and we are glad Liberal governments copied it. Now the government wants to stop it.
It's been money well spent (says Stevens). Now a Liberal government is trying to limit its liability. It's immoral.
To which I say, appropriately, Amen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill and it has become quite a controversial one as well because we are into the fourth day of debate. When I first read the bill I thought it

February 2, 1976
Medical Care
showed a very peculiar priority to cut down on grants for medical care. I meet with many doctors and people from medical faculties and listen to their problems. It seems that the Liberal government is leading us into an era of cutbacks on medicare.
This afternoon the parliamentary secretary said there have been many accusations levelled against the bill but, Mr. Speaker, when it was first announced in the budget of June, 1975, that was done without any consultation with the provinces. Normally a bill of this type would only have two or three people speaking on it, but this bill obviously has aroused very great concern. I should like to suggest that it be withdrawn until there has been further consultation with the provinces.
The parliamentary secretary challenged the remarks of some hon. members who have already spoken, and offered us statistics. But at times he was really not on track, and subsequent speakers have corrected his statements. He suggested that in the past members had been defeated because they voted against the original act. I know that the hon. parliamentary secretary was once defeated, so I wonder which bill he voted against.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You will never know; he is not going to tell you.


A. Daniel McKenzie: We will find out. It is not very often that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) becomes involved in this type of debate, so when he does it is with good reason, and I shall cover that in a moment.
Another former provincial premier, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), also spoke against the bill, so I think more thought has been given to the subject by this side of the House than by hon. members opposite.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You cannot see very far, that is why.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I can see. I only need glasses to read with. I can see through you.
I think it is fair to say that most members of this House agree the government should take action to keep health care costs down to a satisfactory level. When the federal government is dealing with the provinces and discussing legal and binding federal-provincial agreements it should remember that changes in this agreement should be made through a process of negotiation with the provinces. Instead we have had what amounts to a unilateral and arbitrary withdrawal from the commitment made to the provinces-which was against the will of the provinces in the first place.
This was stated very well by the Leader of the Official Opposition in his speech to the House last Friday. He pointed out that the federal government was unilaterally and arbitrarily trying to alter the 50-50 cost-sharing formula set out in the present legislation. He made his point in strong language, and when the Leader of the Official Opposition uses that kind of language I suggest hon. members opposite had better sit up and listen. He is an honest man and does not make such statements without justification. He said that this conduct is shabby and treacherous,

and that the rules of parliament really prevented him from saying what he thought of the minister and his colleagues.
He pointed out that when he was premier of Nova Scotia he was concerned that the federal government would get the program under way, ministers would go around the country pounding their chests, and then later pull out of the program. I have heard this sort of complaint in other provinces at the municipal level. It is one of the specialties of the Liberals to get municipalities and provinces into these programs and then withdraw. As the Leader of the Opposition said, that is precisely what happened.
When the federal government was negotiating health care with the provinces it insisted upon the 50-50 formula if it was going to participate. As the Leader of the opposition said, the federal government imposed this plan on the provinces. He stated that while he was not involved in the negotiation of the plan he knew it was dictated by the government of the day. He said, "Surely treachery is not too strong a word to use", adding that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) had not justified the federal spending limits and they were not related in any way to inflation costs and spending increases.
This ties in with the concern of universities and faculties of medicine involved in research. We are now receiving mail from them, so it looks as if medical research is not a priority of the government. We cannot ignore the letters and statements received from these professional people. I do not think they exaggerate, but state their case very well.
Because the budget of the Medical Research Council is already so small, because it has not kept pace with inflation in the cost of research for some years, and because it supports a very high percentage of all medical research in Canada, the budget freeze will cause inordinate damage to Canadian medicine. Medical research is a prerequisite to good medical teaching and is basic to medical practice and the delivery of health care. The development of young teacher-scientists and of clinicians with skill in investigative medicine must remain a high priority for a government interested in the future welfare of the Canadian people.
Here we have the provinces, doctors, and the faculties of medicine in different universities all in a quandry in regard to cutting off grants to research and different medical plans across the country. Canadian researchers are in general agreement that government spending must be controlled. They do not ask for special treatment, but only that the guidelines of limited increases be applied to extramural research as they are to all government efforts.
The Official Opposition has pointed to a number of areas where excessive government spending can be cut. There was an excellent article in the Financial Post two or three weeks ago which named a dozen government corporations that could be phased out. Another example is Information Canada. It took about four years for the government to waken up and realize that Information Canada was not a priority. Dropping it means a saving of $6 million which is just a drop in the bucket, but when it started out we said that expenditure was unnecessary.
I should like to emphasize the disastrous effects of the freeze in medical research funding. While I fully recognize
February 2, 1976

the need for an aggressive and equitable federal policy of wage and price controls to combat inflation through economic restraints to be borne by all Canadians, I genuinely believe that the recent decision of the federal government to freeze the funding of medical research at the 1975-76 level would result in grave and lasting damage to the research establishments in our medical schools and hospitals. The main source of funding for health research in Canada, which is essential for the welfare of the nation, is the federal government through the Medical Research Council. This funding has amounted to less than $50 million for 1975-76.
In recent years the progressive slowdown in funding, well below the increasing cost of living index, has had a gradual eroding effect on medical research activities, resulting in the phasing out of some programs with a concomitant decrease in the number of clinical research trainees and of employment opportunities for highly qualified research technicians. The recent decision to freeze research budgets for 1976-77, that is, not to provide even a 10 per cent increase which is permissible within the antiinflation guidelines, will result in further elimination of some programs which are vital to the maintenance of our health care standards, in mass lay-offs of specialized technicians who have been trained at great cost to the Canadian taxpayer, and in the migration of some of our best clinical investigators, particularly among the young ones, to the United States.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned the great influx of doctors to Canada; but, as the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) said, in certain areas of Nova Scotia people cannot get a doctor. We face the same situation in Manitoba. I hear all the time of people being flown into Winnipeg from the north, because there are no doctors up north. I heard this was also the situation in Saskatchewan. There might be an influx of doctors to this country, but in some areas there are no doctors. Although the parliamentary secretary might be correct in saying that there has been an influx of doctors into this country, his statement covers only part of the picture and does not deal with the medical care problems encountered by many Canadians.
It must be emphasized that about 66 per cent of the budget allocated for medical research is used to generate technical jobs and to provide salaries to graduate students and post doctoral trainees. Without a continuous presence of these people there can be no research program. The research capability of a country in any given area of science-like that of any other human activity, including sports and the arts, necessitating the continuous nurturing of certain talents-is not developed overnight. It takes from 12 to 15 years to build up cadres of competent scientists and this can be achieved only in an appropriately developed milieu. By contrast, it takes very little to destroy productive groups of competent research workers and to dismantle the training centres for our future generations of scientists.
I have talked to research people who are very concerned. They train young people, begin a program, and then find that funds are cut off. Some of them are involved with intricate medical research, to do with the liver, heart, and
Medical Care
other organs. They find the cutbacks most distressing as, in most cases, they are making progress. I have spoken to some of them. I say, "Are you watching your budget, and the expenditures of your program in general?" Many tell me that they do not need fancy buildings most governments, including provincial governments, are erecting; they could make do with temporary buildings and do not need the marble Taj Mahals governments like to build. The parliamentary secretary could bring their thinking to the attention of the minister.
The maintenance of our health care industry, which is based on a highly sophisticated technology and comprises all the medical and hospital services, amounts to $2,628 billion for 1975-76. In line with accepted practice for any other efficient industry based on continuous innovation, at least 5 per cent of this amount, $131 million, ought to be provided for research in the health care industry.
While we do not advocate the increase of the research budget from $50 million to this level under today's economic circumstances, we believe that sound business judgment requires that the federal government reconsider its decision to cut back its support of medical research. The infusion of an additional sum of the order of between $5 million and $10 million at this critical time is most essential to prevent some of the research programs from grinding virtually to a standstill in the coming years. I am sure that we could find between $5 million and $10 million in the Department of Public Works. It would mean one less skyscraper going up to house another government department.
I think medical research should be given a far higher priority than some of the programs undertaken by the federal Department of Public Works. An example which comes readily to mind is the Bank of Canada building not far from the House of Commons. The government erected just about the most expensive type of building it was possible to put up. It will cost a fortune to heat and a fortune to cool and, as far as I am concerned, represents a waste of money.
Both parliament and the Canadian public must continue to encourage the efforts of the dedicated and idealistic biomedical scientists and technicians in their attempts to unravel the intricate mechanisms responsible for some of the crippling diseases. Without this knowledge, there is no chance for developing better and more economical treatment. In biomedical research one is confronted with some of the most complex mysteries of nature, and no government committee can provide any lead to follow, much less the answers. For work of this nature we are totally dependent on the insight and imagination of our research workers and young trainees.
I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that we need to do much research in connection with certain operations. For example, it is possible to perform an operation with regard to lung cancer. The operation may be a great success but the patient dies of infection or pneumonia. In Winnipeg a limited amount of research has been done into this problem. Our research people are concerned about such problems. The operations involved are expensive. It takes a tremendous staff to care for an individual who has undergone lung surgery, but patients die of pneumonia or

February 2, 1976
Medical Care
infection. Research in this type of field is of top priority, so far as I am concerned.
It is absolutely essential to the success of our biomedical research that we provide for our brightest young people the appropriate milieu to develop their talents; these are among the best dollars we can spend in terms of the value received. Clearly no investment in research can be expected to yield its full harvest by an on again and off again policy. This sort of policy worries medical people. They begin a program, secure staff, and then discover that funds are to be cut back or cut off. I cannot think of anything more frustrating to those involved in research. Such a policy puts the whole research establishment in a state of chaos and does not allow for long-term planning.
Neither parliament nor the Canadian public can expect to reap the promising harvest of medical research by discouraging potential research workers from entering a research career, when the continuance of research activities by existing medical scientists is being threatened.
Thus there is an urgent need to increase the funding of medical research in order to salvage some of the valuable and essential ongoing research activities. Without these additional funds, projects which are considered worth while by the expert consultants of the Medical Research Council will be terminated before their completion, and many research laboratories will close down entirely.
For the past several years biomedical research in Canada has been operating in an environment of continuous crisis. The crisis results from a level of financial support inadequate to meet rising costs and from the failure of government to realize that research units can remain productive only when investigators are assured of some degree of stable, continuous funding. How can the parliamentary secretary say anything to the contrary? I should like to hear some explanation from him if he thinks he can counter that statement.
The result of inadequate funding on research in Canada have been disastrous: a large percentage of researchers are without funds; most laboratories have been forced to reduce personnel and activity drastically; morale among investigators is being continuously depressed; few young people are choosing research as a career. Efficient research cannot be performed when the availability of an investigator's tools and assistants is being constantly reduced. Indeed most researchers are beginning to wonder whether or not they will have the resources, from one year to the next, to continue in the work for which they have been trained and to which they have dedicated their careers.
Most biomedical research in Canada is supported by the federal government. The current annual budget of the Medical Research Council is less than $50 million, approximately equivalent to the operating budgets of two large metropolitan hospitals. Annual support over the past several years has failed to keep pace with inflation. The result has been a progressive decline in the number of laboratories engaged in research and in the level of research activity by investigators who do have support. And yet the budget for the next fiscal year will be frozen at last year's level, thereby not even approaching the inflationary guidelines recently established by the government.

From a purely practical aspect it should be pointed out that most of these grant funds are used to employ people; individuals who gain skills and competence at a high level. Adequate funding of research could, if nothing else, provide stable, long-term, and more rationally directed employment than do the greater resources available, for example, from certain federal make-work programs.
Medical research should be regarded in the same light as other highly creative fields essential to establishing national identity and fulfillment. Equally important is the fact that the calibre of biomedical research activity inevitably determines the quality of health care. Biomedical research has already contributed much to the betterment of society. From a practical cost-benefit analysis alone, biomedical research is a good investment. In addition to the alleviation of human misery, billions of dollars have been saved over the years in medical services and in earning power of afflicted individuals. Consider only a few of the past accomplishment in areas such as poliomyelitis, tuberculosis, measles and other childhood diseases, Rh disease, viral hepatitis, kidney transplantation, hemophilia, retrolental fibroplasia blindness, Parkinson's disease, the Pap smear, and the identification of many genetic defects.
Our present society has an obligation to provide continuity in the search for knowledge and the fight against disease, because future generations will inherit our failures as well as our achievements.
As I said earlier, I have met with these medical people. I am not just going to take a blanket statement from them that they are spending all their dollars wisely. I put this to them on a number of occasions. They assured me that they are watching their budget and spending their dollars wisely. 1 do not know if the parliamentary secretary has met with any of these little groups in the area of Toronto he represents. If not, I suggest that he meet with some of them, question them, and look at their facilities.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That has nothing to do with this bill.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Medical research is a concern all across this country. We are receiving letters of complaint from the provinces and the universities. This is a package deal. We want to know where the priorities are. That is why I raise this tonight. It cannot be sloughed off because it is part of the bill.
I do not know whether the parliamentary secretary has had any of this type of illness in his family. I have. It is the sort of thing that alerts you. Possibly his family has been most fortunate. Maybe he has not been to hospitals and has not met with these people who are doing research. It does not sound like it.
When I first started, I did not want just to run here asking for more grants. I asked to meet with these people and to see their facilities. I questioned them in detail. I have been back a number of times. They presented a very good case to me. Apparently the parliamentary secretary has not spent any time with them. If so, I would like to hear what he thinks about the case they presented.
I have met with some representatives of the provinces and two former premiers of provinces who are speaking out against this bill. They are not doing that because they have nothing better to do. This is why I suggest that the
February 2, 1976

bill be withdrawn and that the government take another look at it. We have some serious problems. I am getting a little wound up, Mr. Speaker, so I will conclude.
The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) has a very important hospital in his constituency, St. Boniface Hospital. It has been there for over 100 years. I am sure they will be very disappointed to learn that he will be voting against increased grants and this sort of thing. I get letters from St. Boniface Hospital too.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) is, as usual, making broad statements that he cannot substantiate. He has not done what we asked him to do with regard to transport. Neither will he do so for the St. Boniface Hospital.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The hon. member's answer clarifies that point of order. It is a point of nothing.
The infusion of an additional sum of the order of $5 million to $10 million at this critical time is most essential to prevent some of the research programs of entire groups from grinding to a standstill.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will take note of my remarks this evening, give serious consideration to withdrawing this bill, and enter into further discussion with the provinces and universities. He has made a note of it.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, many members have already spoken. I certainly do not wish to be redundant and cover this bill several times. Most of us agree that through our two major national health schemes we experience comprehensive coverage which is available to everyone in Canada. I do not believe the coverage is an issue, but the cost certainly is.
Hospital costs accelerated 25 per cent in the last fiscal year, and according to estimates will accelerate another 20 per cent during the current fiscal year. I ask the House to consider 45 per cent in two years. In my opinion that is a very large increase, one that we cannot expect to have year by year and keep our budget in reasonable form.
You do not have to be a mathematical genius to comprehend that changes are required to keep these costs from swallowing up our entire federal budget. We must also consider our partners in the provincial form of government because they too cannot afford these accelerating costs.
The question is not whether a change is required, but what form that change will be. The government has proposed ceilings on the rate of growth of the federal per capita medicare contributions over the next few years. The minister has said he will make accommodations over the next two years. The increase for 1976-77 will be 13.5 per cent and, in 1977-78, 10.5 per cent. That will give a breathing period to come to some sort of agreement with the provinces in order that we can have a rational system.
I do not wish to belabour the arguments for or against the proposal of the minister; what I should like to contribute to the debate, if possible, are some positive recommendations, not on how to share health costs with the provinces but on how we may cut down cost not only for the
Medical Care
federal government but for the provinces as well. I think we should zero in on preventive, new methods for getting Canadians to be health conscious at an early age.
I think it is a fair statement that more adult Canadians spend more time on their cars than on their health. I believe that the educational job we are doing in our society on the subject of health and its problems can only be described as second rate. I refer to teaching people about things like drugs, alcoholism, smoking, and the improper use of foods which we know are detrimental to our health.
Let me give the House an example. We all realize that grain is a very nutritious part of our diet. But what do we do with it, Mr. Speaker? We coat it with sugar, advertise it like mad, and end up with a product that is actually detrimental to the health mainly of our children.
The hon. member from Winnipeg who spoke just prior to me talked about scientific research and the need for more money for such research. May I suggest to the House that we have done the scientific research. We know, for example, that sugar in its refined form is detrimental to our health. We do not require any more research on that subject. What we need is to follow up the research we have already done. If we were to do so, I am sure the health of this nation would improve to a very considerable extent.
The key to any new approach to good health in Canada is education, and that education starts, of course, with our children. We have one of the most sophisticated communication networks in the world. Besides television, films, and graphics we have the means to implement a health conscious approach not only in our children but in the whole spectrum of Canadian society.
Yet what are we members of parliament doing in this regard? In this debate we are arguing about how we are going to share health costs. That is the same sort of argument that we had during the inflation debate. When we brought in the anti-inflation board legislation we realized it was not the cure-all but a stop-gap. As with the antiinflation board and the guidelines, what we have to do during the next two or three years is to find some permanent solutions.
I do not feel that we have addressed the problem we are facing in Canada of mounting health costs. It is not a question of how these costs are to be distributed or whether we can carry on for the next 20 or 30 years with escalating costs; it is a question of what we are going to do as Canadians about the various food substances, for example, that contribute to bad health. We know that honey is a much better substitute for sugar. The trouble is, we do absolutely nothing with this information. I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has a very important job to do in making sure that this information is brought to light in its most cogent form. In the same way the provincial governments and, if I may say so, the medical profession and the teachers also have an important role to play.
Being from the province of British Columbia I should now like to touch on a subject very dear to my heart, namely, damage done to our health by drugs such as heroin. We know that heroin is a very dangerous drug, yet all we hear are pious sermons about why we should not take such a drug, about its evils and ravages. What we

February 2, 1976
Medical Care
should do is to get down to the nub of the matter and take people to see drug addicts in hospitals. Are children in their most formative years, children in junior high school or in high school when impressions that are made last a long time, taken to alcoholic or cancer wards to see the ravages of alcohol or smoking? I think that is not the case. Is this too sensitive a subject for these children? Must they only be shown film slides illustrating that drugs, smoking, and so on are bad for health, or should we not be actually bringing them into contact with those people who suffer from the ravages of smoking? I am sure this would be a much more intelligent way of addressing ourselves to the problem.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the solution to the problem is education, not only of our younger people, which is where basically we must put our emphasis, but of all segments of our society. I do not think members of parliament are keenly aware of the benefits of exercise and of what lack of exercise does to one's heart. Perhaps I can have the finger pointed at me because this is not one of my strong points. But my point is that we are deviating from the true course by not using the information that we have already obtained. I think it is fruitless to continue more and more scientific research; we must start to apply some of the things we have already learned. Until somebody shows me that we are ready to use the knowledge we already have, I despair at pouring more and more millions of dollars into research.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Hogwash.


Hugh Alan Anderson: This seems to me to be pouring money down the drain with no return. The hon. member opposite says that is hogwash. I defy him to give an example of where we have used the information we already have in regard to some of the more important aspects of health that give us cause to despair in society. I do not think we are using one-tenth of that knowledge, and I defy the hon. member to contradict me.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We don't have the money for it, that is why.


Hugh Alan Anderson: The hon. member says we do not have the money for it. I do not think we need any more money to tell us that we need a substitute for refined sugar. Obviously the hon. member is either not thinking, or perhaps being facetious and suggesting the government should spend more money.
The point I want to get across in this debate is that we should put the emphasis where the emphasis should be, not on squabbling between political parties as to where the money should be spent and how it should be shared, each year looking for more and more money to take out of taxpayers' pockets. What we should do to create a better, healthy climate for Canadians is to start educating our children, and work our way through society.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) a few moments ago called this debate squabbling between political parties.


Reginald Cyril Symes: How would he know?


Walter David Baker: I don't know how he would know, but let me say to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, through you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a greater issue at stake than mere squabbling. In this bill we are debating a fundamental reversal of a policy that was implemented with hope over a number of years by a government headed by a former prime minister, now dead, on the basis that there would be equal supply of medical care to the people of this country, regardless of what area of the country in which they lived.


Mr. Blais:: How has that changed?


Walter David Baker: If the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) will stay quiet for a minute, or go back to sleep, I will wake him up when I come to that point in my speech. That was a principle of the late Lester B. Pearson, that there would be some measure of equality of medical care across this country.
What we have now in this bill is an arbitrary, unilateral approach to health care in Canada. This is much more than just merely a change of burden in the cost-sharing of medical care across this country, although that is a part of it. What is happening as a result of this bill is a fundamental change in direction. What is happening is that the government unilaterally, without consultation, has decided to make a change in a program which in the first place was urged, cajoled, pushed, and kicked on to the provinces. The provinces, having accepted the program based hopefully on some principle of equity, are now faced with this government pulling the rug from under them and the provincial taxpayers. The government is shifting the burden to those provinces and off its own back, all in the name of restraint.
I begin to wonder sometimes where in the name of restraint the criteria are to be found. What rationale is behind this red-pencilling of projects? This is a very serious thing when it deals with established services of government and what, in the present philosophy of our times, was meant to protect people against those accidents of life over which they have no control. That is the essence of medical care.
Certainly, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni says, there ought to be some emphasis on preventive measures and there ought to be emphasis on scientific research, but how can the people of this country, and how can the provincial governments, believe the hon. member for Comox-Alberni when he stands behind and supports a Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who has acted in a way described by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) as treacherous as far as the provinces are concerned?
The key is, of course, education in the long run, but we are not talking about just the long run. We are talking about provinces that have built their medical delivery systems on the basis of a program which was urged upon them by the federal government.
The minister says this bill is designed to give some incentive to the lowering of medical care costs. With all respect to the minister, that is pure sophistry. The provinces are striving in any event without this program to lower medical costs. If you go across this country from
February 2, 1976

province to province, what will you see? You will see that the public is in an uproar because governments have decided to close hospitals. You will see the public in an uproar because governments have decided to limit what they have been led to accept in terms of over-all care.
Some provinces are considering pharmacare and have been discussing it, and some provinces are considering dental care and are considering that. They now say no because of the difficulties they face in financing these programs. They cannot go ahead with these things. Even existing facilities and services are being cut.
The provinces need no incentive to restrain costs. That is exactly what they have been doing. What happens as a result of this bill is pure and simply the placing of a ceiling on the federal government's contribution. This is not a ceiling on the cost of delivering medical care to Canadians, it is merely placing a ceiling on the federal government's contribution to it. That is the treachery the Leader of the Opposition spoke about last week.
What the government is doing is placing the great burden of cost on the backs of the sick, who are not voluntarily sick. The government is placing the burden on those people who are least able to afford it. What the government is doing by this unilateral change is placing a heavier and heavier burden on the provinces which are least able to maintain a standard of medical care without a generous federal contribution. Hon. members over there can shake their heads, but that is what the government is doing. I think it is the duty of members in this House, not just those on this side but on the other side as well, not merely to arise and shalom toward the Minister of National Health, but to think about this from the point of view of the costs which the government is shifting to the shoulders of the constituents they represent.
Hon. members opposite have the right to speak in this House, and the right to speak freely, and I hope they will enter this debate in that vein as it continues. I hope they will, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggests, ask the minister to reconsider the position he has taken in this bill, a position which has been universally condemned by every provincial minister of health in this country except one.
What is the alternative to this situation? There is only so much retrenchment that can occur from the point of view of the delivery of medical services. There is only so much that can be done in terms of cost saving. There can certainly be a lessening of the increase in fees and in the increase in salaries and wages. There are only so many hospitals, clinics, and other facilities which can be closed. There are only so many urgent problems which can be overlooked. Somewhere along the way something has to give.
An hon. member who spoke earlier asked some important questions. He asked what the provinces are supposed to do. Are they supposed to raise sales taxes, or are they supposed to increase land taxes? Is there to be a fee attached for services under this program? Is there to be a return to the iniquitous per capita tax?
In some way or another services in respect of medical care must be provided, at least to a certain level. In some way we have to continue research programs which have been started with so much hope and which will have so
Medical Care
many benefits in the short and in the long run. Certainly the only alternative then to the provinces and, therefore, to the people of the country, is a cutback on medical services, a cutback in the provision of such services, a shifting of some very important plans in terms of improved medical services. What is going to be the result of this?
During the dinner recess I read the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Kaplan). He mentioned certain myths that he and everyone thought would occur but which had not occurred, including a drying up of the source of doctors. These things did not occur as a result of the implementation of this plan, of that government of Lester B. Pearson. Of course these things did not occur. But they are not in issue. What is in issue is what will be the result of this bill in respect of medical care in Canada.
In his speech the parliamentary secretary spoke in glowing terms of the visit to Canada of that great humanitarian, Senator Edward Kennedy. The Senator said when he was here that we had one of the greatest health delivery systems in the world. He was right, and we did. It is a health care delivery system which has generally been accepted by Canadians as such, and accepted throughout the world as an example, but I wager with the parliamentary secretary that the government House leader and the Minister of National Health and Welfare did not disclose to Senator Edward Kennedy the existence of Bill C-68 on the order paper of the House of Commons. I would wager that, if they had, that great humanitarian would think much differently about the federal government's program which he extolled in such complimentary terms when he was here.
The fact of the matter is that the essence of the delivery system will be fundamentally affected by this bill. How can it be otherwise; how can the government say to the people of Canada and to the provinces of Canada-and particularly the provinces which are doing their best to cut back-that notwithstanding inflation which we cannot control, and notwithstanding the fact that it is realized that in certain areas the government is prepared to compensate for inflation, or is prepared in settlements one way or another to compensate the working people for inflation-how can it in the same breath and perhaps from the other side of its mouth say it is prepared to cut back on medical expenses? That is the inequity in this bill, plus the fact that the rug is pulled out from under the people of Canada.
That is the reason why we in the opposition must use the only weapon we have in this House, which is to expose the government again and again and again for what is is in terms of this kind of program, a government devoted to turning around and cutting down its whole thrust, a government which fails to consult at all and which goes in the face of its co-partners, namely, the provinces, in respect of their wishes, as has been set forth so ably by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and the Leader of the Opposition.
Treachery is a mild word for what this bill means. When the minister spoke in the debate he made a great play about his concessions. I would not trust the government, in

February 2, 1976
Medical Care
view of this legislation, with any concessions for any period of time. If there is any piece of legislation with which we have dealt in the first session of the Thirtieth Parliament which has indicated the insensitivity of the government better than has this Bill C-68, then I am not sure whether or not I could find it. This is evidence of its insensitivity to a very important government service, a service which at one time was completely paid for either by those who could pay, or by doctors or by other professional people who gave their service. This has been held by us all to be so important that there should be national standards set for it and that it should be paid for out of the national revenue. Now the government has decided to shift the burden.
An hon. member at the beginning of this debating period at eight o'clock said that the government had decided to shift the burden so that it will fall heaviest on those who can least afford it in terms of curtailed service, and to the provinces and parts of Canada which can least afford it in terms of the share of the national wealth of the country.
The matters leading up to this bill are important not only from the point of view of the delivery of service but also are important to the whole question of our confederation. This government has damaged Confederation before, and I suppose it is too much to expect that it will not damage it again.
What do the apologists for this program say? The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) on Friday afternoon made a speech in which, as recorded at page 10504 of Hansard for Friday, January 30, he had this to say:
Madam Speaker, when we are talking of consultation, we must not restrict the scope of this term, that is refer to consultation merely in terms of expenditures.
He went on to say:
In the context of the present legislation, the federal government is prepared to meet the costs without saying a word about how they are incurred. The provinces have full discretion to plan the extension of their services and the salary scales of health professionals
That is a cop-out. How can the provinces, in the face of inflation, possibly maintain that level of service heretofore enjoyed even by exercising their greatest power of restraint? The hon. member then said:
It is quite obvious, Madam Speaker, that if all provinces unilaterally establish a fee schedule and decide to plan hospital facilities and to improve medical care-those are objectives shared by each and every province.
Then he implied by that statement and the words that followed that these provinces would go on willy-nilly so long as the federal government was there aiding, adding to the cost of the delivery of service. The history of that is not so. The history of the times in which we live is not so. The provincial governments, to the extent they can, have done their best within the limit of their assets, having regard to the services they render, to cut down on those difficulties.
The third point of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont was this:
It is essential, Madam Speaker, that the provinces put their own planning in order, not to prevent them from improving the services they administer to the patients in their own area, but to ensure that the improvement of services will be the same throughout Canada.
That is patent nonsense. There is only one government with a universal influence in this country and that is the

federal government. When the federal government moves to an arbitrary ceiling, as it has in respect of this bill, then that arbitrary ceiling cuts more deeply in the have-not provinces and areas of Canada than in the have provinces and areas of Canada. That is a fact. Again, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont said:
Bill C-68 does not seek to prevent provinces from upgrading their services or moving within a planning scale,
Of course it does not seek to do that. I underline the word "seek". However, that is the effect of it nonetheless. This is giving only lip service to what might be considered merely an apology from an apologist for the government.
We have a tremendous challenge in Canada. One of the limitations or challenges in terms of our country insofar as providing services for the citizens is concerned is perhaps the shortsightedness of the government in terms of the way it has planned or prioritized our society. We are now perhaps paying just a little bit for this.
At Christmas and New Year's the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his famous epistles at the Chateau Laurier and on CTV in which he discussed this new society, ignoring the different problems of the whole society in which we live, cast the blame on the Canadian public, not thinking that perhaps there might be a modicum of blame to be cast upon his government and its predecessors in terms of the extravagant way in which they managed the affairs of this country. If we are at the point where it is legitimate for the government to renege on a solemn undertaking to the provincial governments with which it is in partnership in Confederation-and I do not believe that time has come at least in terms of medical care-then we have to take a good hard look at whether or not the government of the day is really fit to govern.
It is my respectful submission, Mr. Speaker, to you and members of this House on all sides, that in the area of general health care and hospital care the federal government should put forth specific proposals to the provinces in order to make the systems more cost effective. The provinces have a built-in incentive to achieve this. After all they are responsible for 50 per cent of the total cost of medical care and undoubtedly they would be receptive to such an overture. However, the government is prepared, to the extent of this bill and the ceiling imposed, to cut the provinces adrift rather than help provide a level of medical care.
If such an approach as I suggest were made by the government I think it should consider the standards of hospital admissions, the length of the bed occupancy in hospitals, the use of x-ray and laboratory equipment in clinics and hospitals, and should make an entire review of the comprehensiveness of medical and hospital care. For instance, should cosmetic surgery really be included under medical care?
There are a number of areas in which we might consider improving the delivery of health care service to Canadians. However, one of those is not what we see before us; one of those is not to breach the covenant of Confederation, because that in effect is what is happening with regard to this bill. I hope that those members on the government side who blindly support the government, which has acted in the treacherous way the Leader of the Opposition has
February 2, 1976

described, will give some consideration to the effect of this bill ultimately on health care services in Canada.
The delivery of health care services, the matter of preventive medicine and prevention about which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni spoke, and the other things about which he spoke in terms of achieving all the longterm results in respect of improvements and so on, are matters most subject to the kind of restraints we should deal with in considering, for instance, the erection of the glass structure of the Bank of Canada. It is not just the same as cutting off or extending the period of time in which we would develop Rideau Centre in Ottawa or a new bridge across the Ottawa River. The effects of a cut-back in this kind of a program have far-reaching results perhaps even beyond the measure of us who consider that they are rather profound.
The program initiated by Lester B. Pearson was one designed to give the people of Canada the best medical care delivery system in the world. This government is now tinkering with it after the provinces of Canada, with some reluctance, agreed to go along with it and built their medical care delivery systems on that basis. That is the fundamental effect that this legislation may have upon the people of Canada.
The last member of the New Democratic Party who spoke talked about a shifting of the burden. That is precisely what they are doing. I hope the people of Canada will realize the nature of the act which this parliament is being asked to help perpetrate. I hope the people of Canada will understand why the Official Opposition intends to debate this thing as long as they can. This is why we intend to debate this bill, so that they will understand there are some people in this parliament who do not like this backroom tinkering that is going on with respect to a number of programs, one being this very important program of health delivery.
There may be some members of this House who have forgotten that the medical care program of this country was born out of a desire of Canadian parliamentarians- Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic Party, Social Credit, and perhaps independent-to ensure to all Canadians to the extent possible that they would be guarded against the vicissitudes of life over which they had no control, namely, the breakdown of health, accident and otherwise.
The tinkering that is being done with Bill C-68 in the treacherous manner described by the Leader of the Opposition is not in keeping with the principles of those people who brought this bill into being in the first place. Let us not forget that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Kaplan) on a question of privilege.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke I did not defend the government's policy on medical research, and that is being misunderstood. Medical research has nothing to do with this bill. This is a health care bill, and medical research does not come under the total delivery program.
Medical Care
Wrong interpretations are being put on the fact that no one on this side has spoken on medical research, when in reality it is out of order to speak on medical research in this debate, I submit.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I am happy to relate not only medical research but a lot of other things to the delivery of health care to Canadians. How you can separate it from any other part of medical services is beyond me. I think it is perfectly legitimate to raise it in this debate, and I do not know why the parliamentary secretary is complaining when in fact one of his colleagues raised it in his speech.
The test of any society in the eyes of our contemporaries, and certainly in the eyes of our children and grandchildren, is how well it does in treating its old, its sick, and those who are afflicted in a variety of ways. Surely that is the same kind of reasonable test of how decent, how civilized, how human any given society is at any time in history. This kind of legislation degrades and neglects the kind of test that all of us want to pass in how we treat our sick, our old, our afflicted, and how we deal with one another.
There is nobody in this House, Mr. Speaker, who can carry water for the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) when it comes to the issues of medical care and the delivery of health services. He gave some of the history behind this issue. I welcome the conversion of some hon. members to my right in the Progressive Conservative Party. They have become very progressive on this issue in the last few years, although I cannot say the same for some of their predecessors and a few who are left in their present caucus who spoke up with the Liberals back in the 1950's and 1960's against provision of this socialist health insurance program.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) lend their support to the kind of arguments that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has been making since the middle of the 1930's. He pointed out that it was the Liberal Party who proposed a national health program in 1919. The Liberals talk a good fight, Mr. Speaker. They are great as followers, not leaders. But while they talk a good fight, on every single social advance and change for this country, they were the ones to oppose those advances, and to denigrate them.
I am going to give a little list, chapter and verse tonight, for the benefit of my hon. friends opposite. From 1919 on, on every single occasion who was it who opposed, denigrated, talked against, and did everything to undermine every significant social advance? Every time social advance has been made, in the front line of opposition were Liberals and other so-called free enterprisers including, I regret to say, a few from the Progressive Conservative Party in those years.


An hon. Member:: Not many.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The issue is how we are going to share this burden of the delivery of health care for ourselves and

February 2, 1976
Medical Care
our fellow citizens. With regard to hospitalization I can remember 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948, for four years running, Liberal after Liberal in the legislatures and in the Parliament of Canada, in the press and on public platforms saying that this was socialism, that it would ruin the poor hospital boards, and the doctors would leave.
The Liberals said it was a terrible thing and that we should only provide hospitalization for those on welfare and the poor. I remember my Dad driving a woman to hospital in 1937, and they would not admit her. It was a Liberal government and a Liberal hospital board. They would not admit her because her previous two babies had not been paid for. The Liberals said that people cannot be running in and taking hospitalization; that would destroy their incentive, and they fought hospitalization programs tooth and nail.
I will just discuss the list from the province of Saskatchewan for my hon. friends opposite. I wish the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), the hon. member for Bat-tleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) could be here because they could verify what I say. When the air ambulance program came in, who was it opposed it and said it would be too expensive, a burden on taxpayers and on the poor, private ambulance operator? Who was it opposed that from day one and right down the line? It was the Liberals every time.
Then those socialists in Saskatchewan decided there was something immoral-we have always felt that way-and there still is something immoral about somebody making a profit from the misfortunes of others. So we decided that somebody who was injured in an automobile accident, some innocent victim, should be covered under compulsory government insurance. Who opposed that from day one and right down the line? Liberals every time. They opposed the idea that there is something immoral about making a profit from the misfortunes of others and thought it moral to live like leeches off the backs of the sick, the injured, and the afflicted. They think there is something immoral about all of us paying together for this.
I remind all the Sunday Christians in this place that there is something in the book that they live by, something about the good Samaritan and about being our brother's keeper. That means we all pay, no matter what the price.


An hon. Member:: I'm glad you are an authority.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will tell the hon. gentleman that I do not pretend to be a Sunday religious type. I try to be a Christian-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member is off the track and that he get back on the rails.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate that the hon. member got me switched into the passing track, and I meant to stay on the main line.
When it comes to denticare or pharmacare, who opposes it all down the line? Who says it will be too costly and that

the poor taxpayer cannot afford it? Every time it is the Liberals.
When it came to medicare-and that was the classic one-every Liberal in Saskatchewan and every Liberal I knew across Canada-I listened to their speeches, I read Hansard and I heard them on the radio-fought medicare tooth and nail.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the eloquent hon. member a question. I wonder if he remembers the answers Tommy Douglas, the former premier of Saskatchewan, used to give for the reasons he did not introduce medicare from 1944, when he was first elected, until 1961?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nystrom:: No money.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my good friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) asked that question because he will need to rely on the history of Tommy Douglas and his fight with his own caucus and his own cabinet over not only medicare, but also capital punishment, and a few other items.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would be glad to tell the hon. member or to refresh his memory, because I know he knows that Saskatchewan was among the poorest of provinces in Canada. In those 17 years the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) was the premier of Saskatchewan, he brought in hospitalization, air ambulance, drug plans for the old and medicare. Every one of them was brought in as and when we could pay for them by ourselves, with no help whatsoever from the government in Ottawa.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Liberals again.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Every step of the way we were opposed by Liberals. Every step of the way the federal government refused to help.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Would the hon. member get back to the bill, Bill C-68.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This bill is nothing more than further proof of the Liberals coming out true to form. They are not worried about people and the delivery of health services; they are worried about bucks. Dollars always come first in their minds, ahead of people. Why is it that every single one of these social advances in the beginnings of their implementation was opposed by Liberals right down the line? This happened not only for Saskatchewan, but for province after province in Canada and in this Chamber year in and year out from 1919 on.
Why is it that every time this so-called free enterprise system or capitalist system gets into some trouble the first people they try to victimize in the course of getting out of that trouble-in an effort to save the system or to try to shore it up in order to help the rich, the powerful, and the
February 2, 1976

privileged-are the old, the poor, the unemployed, and the sick?
Going back through the political history of this country, invariably whenever a government of the Liberal stripe decided to fight inflation, the programs it attacked were the ones which did the most for and were most meaningful to ordinary people and the overwhelming majority of the population. We have had the attack on the unemployed through the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Now there is an attack on the delivery of health services, including medical research which is necessary in order to improve the health services you deliver. That is what the Liberals pick to attack.
This morning I was reading in what you can hardly call a left wing magazine, namely, Time magazine, on the plane coming in from Regina all about stumbling Gerald Ford whose new budget taxes people who are getting food stamps and people who are getting medicare. I arrived back in the House of Commons at three o'clock this afternoon to find the bumbling Liberals like stumbling Gerald Ford, attacking the sick and the afflicted. They put a price tag on health services. I believe, and the NDP believes, that good health and accessibility to good health services is a fundamental right, not a privilege.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Go ahead.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In criticizing the government for setting a ceiling which, he says, acts oppressively on the sick, is he aware that his own province of Saskatchewan has wisely set a ceiling on the increase of medicare for the coming year which is even lower than the ceiling permitted by the federal government?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Of course I am aware of that ceiling, but the hon. member might like to be reminded of the fact that the ceiling was applied to doctors, not patients. The hon. member should keep in mind also that that ceiling does not apply to health treatment under all programs in Saskatchewan.
Also may I remind him, the $95,000 member of parliament, that it is people of his ilk who decided to meddle with medical care in fighting inflation. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman where his priorities are, and where his party's priorities are. Why do they not place a higher priority on the well-being of Canadians in terms of their health or their employment? Why do they not place a greater priority on that than they do for the rich, the privileged and the powerful, those who can afford to pay a fair share of the cost of delivering health services or providing for the afflicted, the unemployed, and the sick?
It is nothing more than a last gasp attack by the Liberals. There is nothing new about it. It is an attack by the Liberals in trying to save their own necks, save their own misbegotten, outmoded system. This government is so concerned about inflation and about paying the bill for the delivery of health services to Canadians, no matter how or where they are, it wants to hold back and cut down on the sharing of the cost of helping one and another. It wants to
Medical Care
cut back and hold down on the whole principle of medicare and health services. That is where Liberals want to cut down, that is where they want to set ceilings. To me it is sinful and immoral. They have their priorities backward.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Sinners, repent.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Any government which in times of depression and inflation would pick such social programs as the delivery of health services to cut down must be immoral, and must have its priorities backward.
I bet that all members of the House in all parties would support an item of legislation to amend our tax laws so that we could make sure we not only pay the present costs of health care we have but so that the Government of Canada, representing all the people, could share with the provinces additional programs which they presently carry by themselves. I would be quite happy to vote in favour of a tax bill which would add $100, $200, or $300 more to my income tax to help pay for the cost of the present health services and to help pay for the additional services that should be delivered by a national government. That is what a government that is moral and concerned about its people and concerned about a decent and civilized society would do. It would do something about the tax laws.
Perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has not been getting support from the cabinet, the Treasury Board, and the Liberal caucus. Perhaps he has been told that he has to hold down the budget for health services. If that is the problem, may I suggest another way? I would be quite prepared to support a bill which taxes me some more, but let me offer the minister another small suggestion.
In today's terms 7 per cent is a more than reasonable, in fact a low rate of interest. If the minister needs, say, another $500 million for 1975-76 or 1976-77, how about charging a modest, low, 7 per cent interest rate on the $7 billion worth of deferred corporation taxes which appear in the books of the corporations and the books of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Cullen)? That could be done instead of allowing the corporations an interest free loan of $7 billion which will never be paid, and we all know it. We could charge them a 7 per cent, or a 7.5 per cent interest which would give the minister and the federal government another $500 million which the government could share with provinces such as Saskatchewan on programs that they are carrying themselves, programs such as phar-macare, hearing aids, eye glasses and drugs.


An hon. Member:: Why only Saskatchewan?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Other provinces are doing the same thing. Name me a Liberal government anywhere in Canada doing this. There are none.
If we did this, we would be advancing not retreating. Surely people's illnesses, people's afflictions, people's right to access to the largest amount of health services should not be cut back by the government in times of inflation and restraint. Surely even in times of inflation that is one area which we want to expand. That is a time when we should expand the delivery of health services to those who are least able to pay and, because of inflated dollars, are becoming less able to pay. A time of inflation is not the

February 2, 1976
Medical Care
time when the government should hold back or cut back; it is especially a time when health services should be provided for the unemployed, the sick, the lame, and the halt.


An hon. Member:: And the NDP.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: These are the people who are called upon to show restraint, take less, tighten their belts. The same government, in its worry about the spiralling costs of the health services, can say to the corporations they will get more write offs. In fact, in the second to the last budget another $500 million was allowed the corporations in depreciation and depletion allowances and tax write offs.
Where are the government's priorities? Right where they are where the Liberal priorities have been since 1919. They only talk in favour of these health plans. But now that many of them have been in effect for years, there is not a single Liberal who would dare try to do away with these programs. Of course they have tried to do all they can to undermine these programs, to shift the burden of the cost of illness from those who can afford to pay to those who are sick. Despite the terms of Confederation, the federal Liberal government has tried to do this without indulging in a sensible amount of consultation and negotiation with the provinces which have been leading the way.
The federal government is always lagging behind; it only comes in after one or more provinces have led the way and dragged a Liberal government screaming and kicking into the twentieth century. This bill is typical; it is the sort of bill introduced by Liberals who want to turn back every single social advance we have made since 1919. If hon. members opposite mean what they say they will at their caucus meeting on Wednesday morning in no uncertain terms tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare to withdraw this stupid bill. Let us assume for a moment that I am wrong and that Liberals are just as moral, or more so, as I am or anybody else in opposition.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Never.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If that is the case, they will arrange next Wednesday morning at the caucus meeting of the Liberal party for this bill never to be brought in again, either during the life of this parliament or any subsequent parliament.
In this area we should expand the operations of the Government of Canada, not respond to those thoroughly nineteenth century bogey men various government spokesmen have tried to create by referring to the spiralling costs of health services. If they are right, if health costs are spiralling, that is all the more reason to expand the participation of the federal government in our national health services. Need we remind ourselves that by implementing hospital care, medicare, pharma care or what have you, we are acting on principles of Christian morality and putting into every day practice what the man from Nazareth long ago told people to do? We are putting these precepts into practice in everyday life, through our government.
My colleague from Cape Breton Island spoke masterfully on the economics of this program and I have no hesitation in lending my support to what he said. The moral law, the

Christianity of medicare, if you like, says that health services should be available to all citizens of this country, no matter what their standing is in society. It is incredible that even a Liberal government would have the nerve to bring in this bill, considering all the years of struggle we underwent to obtain national health plans of various kinds. That shows how true is the saying that battles won do not necessarily stay won.
There are still many reactionary dinosaurs around who support various governments of free enterprise stripe. Every now and then they come out from under their rocks or hiding places and do their best to undermine or set back programs like hospitalization and medical care. They do this, not because people are getting health services and not because people are abusing the services. No. Even they do not have the nerve to make such accusations any more. They do it because they say the program is costing too many dollars. If that were true why would they want to shift that burden back to the provinces and, hence, to the people who are sick? Why would they want to do it? Why would they not want to increase the number of dollars which the Government of Canada contributes to health delivery services?
If they are correct, if the costs of delivering health services are spiralling upward, if there is any legitimacy to their arguments, it seems to me, in all logic, that they should say, "We will increase our contribution; we will share with the provinces on a 50-50 basis the cost of new programs they are carrying by themselves." I know that the Saskatchewan minister of health would welcome such a statement. He would welcome the federal government's sharing 50 per cent of the cost of the hearing aid program, the pharmacare program, and the dental care program for children. We are raising the age each year, but we are paying for it ourselves. If the federal government were to pay 50 per cent of our costs, we could embark on other programs; but there is no leadership from this government.
For instance, we want to embark on home care nursing in a massive way. We want to embark on preventive medicine programs for people of all ages. These programs would cover people from birth to death and would be massive. No one can deny that they will be costly; but it would be nice if, for a change, the national government showed some leadership and said, "We will share 50 per cent of the burden with you." It would be nice if it said that the people of Canada will bear the cost of those programs on the basis of ability to pay so that those who can afford to pay most will pay most.
It does not matter whether the government raises the money by way of income tax, corporate tax, sales tax or any other method. But to attempt to weasel out of a commitment, out of an agreement made with the provinces, is unforgivable. We are not going to stand for it; neither are the people of this country.
We will oppose this bill right down to the line. If hon. members are worried about their Easter recess or summer holidays, they are worried for a good reason. Keep worrying. This bill must be withdrawn. I appeal to the good sense, if any, on the government side, and to the morality, if any, of members on the government side. I ask them to stand on their hind legs, if not in this Chamber then in their caucus demand that this bill be withdrawn and not
February 2, 1976

proceeded with and demand that the government, which they support, bring in a program to expand the delivery of health services to citizens of this country in place of the bill which would contract such services. It is the least they can do. Do not fight inflation on the backs of the sick and the afflicted. If this legislation is one of the government's priorities, it is not going to succeed with it. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder, in light of the rapid progress being made with the bill being debated, whether someone on the government side can say what is to be the business tomorrow and if we are to continue debating this bill tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We were told otherwise.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, it is my information that, tomorrow, we are to continue with Bill C-68.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This afternoon at three o'clock the government House leader said definitely that we would not go on with Bill C-68 tomorrow but consider either Bill C-58 or Bill C-81, or he would see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, further to the point of order, my information is that we are to deal with Bill C-68 tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You can't trust those Liberals.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the status of Mitchell Bronfman has interested me for many months. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) knows that Mr. Bronfman has been the subject of more than casual concern to the RCMP. I am sure he knows, also, that Mr. Bronfman has been a witness in judicial proceedings involving the investigation of organized crime, and has been very co-operative.
Adjournment Debate
I was very interested to see the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) say unequivocally in this House on January 28, and I quote in part from his answer:
-to my knowledge Mr. Bronfman has done nothing illegal.
Now that we have established, apparently conclusively, that Mr. Bronfman has done nothing illegal, to the minister's knowledge, I think it must logically follow that any person or persons who have suffered adverse effects because of association or acquaintanceship with Mr. Bronfman must have done nothing wrong either by virtue of knowing him, having dealings with him, or any other of this type of association. This aspect of the Bronfman matter is one which demands more scrutiny.
In connection with Mr. Bronfman and the way that he was being investigated, I want to place on record another excerpt from the statement of Chief Superintendent J. P. Drapeau, officer in charge, criminal investigation branch, "C" Division, Montreal, a portion of which I have already given to the minister. The statement is in reference to the activities of certain members of the force in relation to Mr. Bronfman. Chief Superintendent Drapeau said in part:
At my meeting with Inspectors Belanger and Rodrigue, I reviewed the information on file regarding Bronfman and told Inspector Belanger there was not very much considering all the verbal information that had been passed on to me by either him or CILO-East and that we should get to work on this immediately with a view to documenting the information and to ensure we had factual information and not just rumours. I also instructed Inspector Belanger that we should make effort through our surveillance unit and our technical services section to develop information against Bronfman and possibly with regard to his alleged continuing association with S/Sgt. McCleery and Sgt. Brunet.
That is all of the statement I will put on the record at this time. What I want to know, and what I will continue to press the minister concerning is the basis on which certain RCMP investigated, and legal officers carried out their investigations, and how they developed information, the logic of their deductions and the inferences which they drew from events, events which in themselves might be interpreted different ways.
I am not an advocate for Mr. Bronfman, but I am very interested in the background and what has gone on. The RCMP is a great police force, but all of its members are not infallible. From time to time one hears of such cases as the Maclnnis matter, the Nova Scotia doctor who is becoming a bit of a cause celebre because of the enthusiasm which certain officers of the RCMP seem to have for this matter.
The Marin commission, a very worthwhile initiative by the minister, should soon be reporting. The reason I mention these two matters, Dr. Maclnnis and the Marin commission, is to illustrate that it is time that more effort was made to open certain investigative practices and internal procedures by the RCMP to the view of parliament and the public where the national interest will not be hurt, and at the same time to make an effort to ensure that members to this force are treated more fairly in so far as RCMP internal administration and discipline are concerned.
Arbitrary treatment by the force of its own members should not be tolerated. Discipline is one thing, but mindless and slavish adherence to dictatorial or coercive regulations, which may not be practical in this day and age, is not

February 2, 1976
Adjournment Debate
in keeping with present day conditions of police or public affairs.
I feel the Solicitor General is concerned about conditions in the force and that he wants to be fair to all concerned. Therefore I hope he will soon be bringing in changes to the RCMP Act and will be reporting to this House on the Marin commission, and will be prepared to answer fully questions I want to ask him about those members of the RCMP who have been associated with persons like Mr. Bronfman and, based on associations such as this, have had their careers affected when perhaps this should not have been done and was not justified. I do not know the full story at this time, but I want to learn more about some of the practices that presently go on in our national police force. I am sure that many members of this House, and the minister, do as well.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) has from time to time been described in this House as a most responsible member, yet at this time he is saying that he believes certain further things should be done with respect to what he alleges is a wrong regarding Mr. Mitchell Bronfman. At least, that is what he leaves by way of innuendo. He does not at any time say that Mr. Mitchell Bronfman has been accused of or is guilty of any offence, or indeed has suffered any harassment at the hands of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I note, however, that he does indicate that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police office is an honourable force, one that has been a credit to this country, as has every member in his individual capacity. I think that should be underlined, not the innuendo in the hon. member's other statements and remarks.
On January 28 the hon. member for Central Nova asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) if Mr. Mitchell Bronfman had violated any federal law, and whether the Solicitor General was acquainted with the alleged circumstances under which Mr. Bronfman was persuaded not to institute legal proceedings against certain RCMP personnel. That is the type of innuendo I refer to, Mr. Speaker. There is no indication whatsoever that Mr. Bronfman was ever persuaded not to institute legal proceedings, and if he had any cause of action, I presume he would have had the intelligence to do so.
The Solicitor General has been informed by the RCMP that Mr. Bronfman has, to the best of their knowledge, not committed any criminal act. However, it should be pointed out that this type of information is generally not disclosed in the House. This type of information is usually disclosed before the courts, where an individual is accused, charged, the evidence is adduced, and the accused given every opportunity for full answer and defence.
With respect to the earlier matter of whether Mr. Bronfman was persuaded to drop legal proceedings for defamation-that is, libel-against certain RCMP personnel, the Solicitor General has received no information on this. It might be added that the decision to proceed or not to proceed with an action for defamation or libel, a very serious civil matter, is a matter that would rest entirely with Mr. Bronfman and his counsel. I suggest that the hon. member is well aware of this, and it should not lie in his mouth to make such innuendoes with respect to the Solici-
[Mr. MacKay.1
tor General and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in this House unless he is prepared to sustain these kinds of innuendoes with facts, and to make the facts known to the House.


MANPOWER-MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE UNEMPLOYMENT IN CAPE BRETON
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear on Thursday last the minister of manpower inform the House, in answer to my question on what projects or financial involvement may be forthcoming from the federal government to help alleviate the serious unemployment crisis in the Cape Breton area, that he intended to bring to bear "the whole range of manpower programs". He said that "additional job creation, funding and training has already been discussed and that meetings were taking place in Ottawa with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and his officials to develop plans and to discuss further with the provincial authorities on this matter".
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mclsaac), in answering my supplementary, said that his minister and departmental officials are working with the province of Nova Scotia to fe-examine some of the ongoing agreements there to try to alleviate the problem. He suggested that by the time of the next meeting on February 9 they will have some concrete suggestions to put forward.
A brief profile of the problem is shown in the statistics. Out of a total labour force for industrial Cape Breton of 44,000, there were registered at the Canada Manpower offices at the end of December, 1975, 11,461 people, as compared to 9,810 in November, 1974. The unemployment insurance claimants increased from 8,000 in December of 1974 to 9,000 in December of 1975.
It was because of the large lay-off that was pending at the Nova Scotia government-owned Sydney Steel Corporation, with its attendant employment effects on the service sector of the economy, plus the fact that we were aware that most of the lay-offs in the Sydney steel plant were going to be of a long term nature rather than one of three or four months' duration, that we called for an emergency meeting. We had expected that the lay-offs at the Sydney plant would have been very serious, but we were surprised to find out that the total labour force there would be reduced to 2,882 by the end of February, and would likely go to 2,400 sometime following that. This is the lowest level of employment at that plant in my memory for the postwar period.
When you consider that the average number of employees working at the plant was 4,095 in 1974 and 3,623 in 1975 and again, to repeat, when you consider the employment multiplier effects of these job losses on the other sectors of a narrowly based area economy, then one can easily see that unless short and medium term jobs are put into the area by the government then the unemployment insurance claimants this winter and spring could be projected to be about 11,000.
February 2, 1976

Our hope for the long term is the opening of two coal mines with a coal fired generating plant that has been tentatively agreed upon by the Nova Scotia Power Corporation and the officials of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Crucial to the whole economy, and indeed to the coal sector, is the whole question of whether we are going to succed through a consortium of private corporations and government agencies in placing a new fully integrated steel mill in the area that would come on stream in the middle of the 1980's with a minimum production of 3 million tons of basic and semi-finished steel. Besides that we have the possibilities of some development arising out of attempts to develop some resource based industries.
The attempt in the past through federal and provincial incentives to attract private industries in that area, especially during the first four years of the existing Cape Breton Development Corporation, was a miserable failure. It is my own opinion that as long as we do not have a fully employed economy operating for at least five years nationally, there is little hope for attracting any private profit industry from outside the area. This, of course, would change if we had a stabilized coal industry and a competitive international steel plant.
One of the things that government has to do in the long run at the federal level is to change its policies of decentralizing government departments and "footloose" institutions of the public sector. In recent years there have been some attempts by the federal government to decentralize other than in the defence sector. I am referring especially to the decentralization of certain DREE activities and to the recent attempts of the Department of Revenue to decentralize data processing facilities in the different regions of Canada. I realize some of the difficulties that are involved. But surely if the attempt to close regional disparity gaps in employment and income is to be taken seriously then the time has come to stop decentralizing from Ottawa only into the metropolitan areas of the country.
Most of the high unemployment slow growth areas that have within their radius 100,000 or more people should receive as government policy first call on these types of jobs as they develop. My reasoning is that the slow growth areas economic base is usually one in which the labor force is engaged primarily in producing for internationally competitive markets, as well as often having a seasonally structured employment base. You will never truly, in my opinion, improve the position of these areas by giving a carrot to private entrepreneurs to go in there; past experience suggests that if you try this route it often leads not only to a misuse of public money but to the lowering or destruction of the morale of the people in these areas, whose hopes get built too high.
During his speech to the Canadian Club the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), after reiterating the obvious, had this to say:
"I would ask private industry whether it is prepared to act voluntarily to distribute economic opportunities more equitably across the nation, through decisions on plant locations"
I think this is kind of naivety on his part, but in any case I would think that it would be much more important to the slow growth and chronic unemployment areas such as I represent to have a policy of decentralizing non-competi-
Adjournment Debate
tive public industries into these areas. Other such areas would include the Gaspe, Northern New Brunswick, the West Coast of Newfoundland, and Northern Ontario.
The metropolitan areas, even in the Atlantic region, are traditionally in the 1970's full employment areas so it makes little sense to me to push them over full employment and let the other areas depend so heavily on unemployment insurance and other government transfer payments. Surely no one in this day and age would consider another alternative of moving large numbers of people out of their natural communities as a solution-in fact it would be a non-solution-to such problems. In the meantime we will be attending the meeting on February 9 hoping that both the provincial and federal governments will have something substantial in the way of projects to alleviate the present crisis. Tonight I am hoping to have some indication of the projects the Department of Manpower proposes for our hard hit area.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as the House was advised on January 29, I believe, the Department of Manpower and Immigration and myself are very much aware and very much concerned about the distressingly high rate of unemployment on Cape Breton Island, and we are aware that there are pockets on that island which seem to exceed the rate on the island itself. We are trying our best to help alleviate this situation with all applicable manpower programs and services, and we are allocating additional training funds for Cape Breton through the Nova Scotia Manpower Needs Committee. The Local Initiatives Program and the Local Employment Assistance Program have seen about 40 per cent or 50 per cent of their allocation go to Cape Breton.
The federal provincial manpower committee has of course discussed the problem, as the hon. member knows. I think the suggestions he has made in his very thoughtful and brief presentation tonight are very worth-while, and I intend to examine them with my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard), during our on-going meetings about this particular problem, to see what we can do. I really wish I had a magic wand with which to try to resolve this in the immediate future.
As the hon. member knows, there is a citizen's committee developed by my department. We are looking for the input of the local people. We are discussing the matter with DREE and will try to have a solution. If I had a magic wand, as I have said, I would wave it and have a solution for tomorrow. We will have to search for a solution and see what we can do about this situation.


AGRICULTURE-BEEF-SUGGESTED RESTRICTION OF FOREIGN IMPORTS AND RENEGOTIATION OF UNITED STATES QUOTAS
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, last December 18, just before the Christmas recess, I addressed a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) suggesting he might give consideration to supporting the Canadian cattlemen's view that unless some form of voluntary restraint against foreign imports is instituted, or a Canadian meat import law is enacted, we may not have

February 2, 1976
Adjournment Debate
access to the United States market for our Canadian beef and veal. This was suggested the day before the minister went to Washington to confer with U.S. secretary of agriculture, Mr. Butz, on the egg issue and beef and veal quotas.
My suggestion was both kindly and logical in view of the recent strained relationship between our two countries over the cattle and beef trade and quotas in the last year and a half.
I also suggested that if cattle and beef quotas were to be renegotiated, they should be at or near historical trade levels, similar to Canada's five year average pattern, instead of a 12 month August to August quota as used by the U.S.
The minister's response was a very cynical and sarcastic comment that he would do nothing to offend the CCA because they do not want government interference. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that good, sound, properly negotiated bilateral trade arrangements do not constitute government interference.
Just two days before my question the minister had invited the CCA executive to meet with him and his senior staff to discuss this matter, as well as the current stabilization issue. While I can commend the minister for this action in asking the CCA for comments and advice, I must report that due to the constraints resulting from the Agricultural Outlook Conference which took place at the same time, it was not a fruitful meeting. The minister just did not arrange sufficient time for this special meeting called at his request.
Nevertheless, it is rather interesting to note the developments of the minister's meeting with Mr. Butz as reported in the minister's press release dated December 31. The release announced the end of beef quotas on December 31 by both countries, and reminded us that live cattle quotas had been lifted last August. The statement went on to report:
"During our meeting, Mr. Butz pointed out that the U.S. have a meat import law in their statutes and they must operate under it" Mr. Whelan said.
"Taking that into account, I advised Mr. Butz that Canada would need to provide similar safeguards to protect against any unusual or excessive meat flow into this country.
"We have reached agreement in this context and are very satisfied with the arrangement".
Toward the end of the press release we find the following:
Mr. Whelan also noted the agreement opens the way for discussions with Australia and New Zealand.
"These two countries are significant exporters of beef to Canada. We have already advised both countries that we want to make similar arrangements with them to ensure orderly marketing", Mr. Whelan said.
While the minister did not use the term "Canadian meat import law" his phrase "similar safeguards" does indeed suggest that he was aware of the cattlemen's views, and CCA, I am sure, would like to see this suggestion further developed between Canada and the U.S.A., and between Canada and Australia and New Zealand. I am sure he would like to ensure that never again will we in Canada have to endure a flood of U.S. cattle which collapsed our

markets, such as in the summer of 1973 following the U.S. price control program.
In the cattle industry we in Canada share with the U.S. cattle producers the North American beef market together with Mexico, of course. These three countries are indeed partners in the North American beef economy, but we are not equal partners. With a ten to one ratio of both people and cattle populations as between USA and Canada it is obvious that the U.S. market dominates the north American cattle and beef market, and therefore has much greater capacity either to benefit or damage our Canadian market, and both of these situations have occurred. Let me make it abundantly clear at this point that I fully support the concept that our Canadian cattle industry should continue to be a vital part of the north American cattle market.
Since 1970 our trade balance in both cattle and beef with the USA has deteriorated badly. In dressed beef we slipped from a $39.7 million credit balance in 1970 to a $5.1 million credit balance in 1974. In live cattle we dropped from a credit balance of $58.3 million in 1965 to a deficit of $33.4 million in 1974. The 1975 picture is better with a favourable trade balance for both cattle and beef, thanks to the very heavy export of 100,000 cows to the USA in the last five months of 1975. While our nominal tariffs between our two countries of 1.5 cents a pound for live cattle and 3 cents a pound on beef are the same for both countries, it should be pointed out that when we export cut beef or block ready beef to the U.S. there is a ten per cent ad valorem U.S. duty.
Since the first of this year Canada has reverted to the status of quota free access for beef imports. We are probably the only country with a developed beef industry to offer this unlimited access. The U.S. has its meat import law that can be triggered immediately by presidential action, and while Canada has a very generous access to that market we can never inundate the U.S. market as can happen in the reverse, such as in 1973 in Canada.
I believe very sincerely that Canada needs a beef import law to be implemented only at times when imports greatly exceed the boundaries of normal trade relationships and, most particularly, when such imports are the result of arbitrary forces developing in the U.S. market. I also believe that Canadian beef producers recognize the importance and validity of the concept of a North American beef economy. Yet many of us seem to believe that we can have the best of two worlds, a domestically supported industry and access to the U.S. market. This simply cannot be. If we seek public support for our industry, we will have to employ restrictive import controls, and such controls will prompt retaliation in time.


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


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, since this matter was raised by the hon. member on December 18, 1975, the minister has had discussions with this counterpart, U.S. secretary of agriculture, Earl Butz. As a result of his trip to Washington on December 19, Canada and the U.S. agreed to remove the quotas on beef and veal effective December 31, 1975.
February 2, 1976

This agreement goes further than the hon. member suggested, in that it cleared the way for the restoration of normal two way trade in beef and veal. Hon. members will recall that normal trade in live animals was restored by agreement in August of 1975.
Discussions are being held on a continuing basis among officials from Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand in a concerted effort to establish meat import-export agreements which would be acceptable to all parties and which will ensure the orderly functioning of the international beef market. I must advise the hon. member, however, that because these discussions are still proceeding I cannot provide him with specific details, such as quantities involved, at this time.
Recently the hon. member has been raising the issue of Canadian imposition of blue tongue regulations. The minister has assured the House on several occasions, including earlier today, that this disease does not exist in Canada. Discoveries of this disease in recent years have been limited to cattle which were imported from the U.S. In all cases these animals were slaughtered, and all animals which had come into contact with them were texted for
Adjournment Debate
blue tongue. It is gratifying to note that such tests have consistently been negative. I must impress upon the house the importance of maintaining blue tongue free status among our cattle population so that Canada may continue to export cattle to more countries than any other nation in the world.
In his question of December 18 the hon. member raised the issue of egg trade between Canada and the U.S. As 1 am sure all hon. members are now aware, GATT has ruled that Canada has the right under GATT articles to limit egg imports. Nevertheless, Canadian officials are regularly meeting with their U.S. counterparts with the goal of arriving at an agreement which will satisfy both countries. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member opposite raised this question tonight, as it has given me the opportunity to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but the time allowed to him has expired.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.


UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM REPORT
[Stage Direction]
1.	Two small scale Radiation survey exercises were carried out by the Canadian Army in the Port Hope area in the early 1950s. They involved Number 1 Radiation Detection Unit, located at Kingston, Ont., and were nicknamed Exercise Hope I (19 to 21 November 1951) and Exercise Hope III (17 to 19 November 1953).
2.	Details of the objectives and scope are provided in Attachments 1 and 2 to this document. However in order to put these activities in correct perspective, some background information will be helpful.

[Stage Direction]
3.	In 1950, the Canadian Army was in the process of experimenting with the radiological survey and monitoring procedures which would be required in the event of an atomic war.
4.	The Korean war was in progress at the time, and it will be recalled that there was a school of thought which advocated the use of atomic weapons to bring about a speedy end to the United Nations police action. Thus, although Canada was technically at peace, a Canadian Army Brigade was fighting with the United Nations Forces in Korea, and the possibility of atomic weapons being employed in that conflict could not be ruled out entirely.
5.	Number 1 Radiation Detection Unit was formed in May 1950 to develop radiation survey and monitoring procedures as well as associated soil and water sampling techniques.
6.	To provide the unit with practical experience in the operation of radiation detection instruments in an actual radiation environment, arrangements were made through the National Research Council to utilize the facilities of Eldorado Mining and Refining (1944) Limited in Port Hope, Ont. (Footnote 1). These facilities included the company's refining plant on the waterfront in Port Hope, two of its residue disposal areas (the MONKEY MOUNTAIN Residue Area and the WELCOME Residue Area) and the PIDGEON Hill Storage Site.
Note: 1. This Crown Corporation is now known as Eldorado Nuclear Limited.

[Stage Direction]
7.	Each exercise achieved its desired purpose and provided valuable experience to the officers and men involved in the assessment of radiation hazards which would be encountered in a nuclear war. The techniques devised made a useful contribution to the subsequent development of Army doctrine for nuclear warfare operations and field radiation survey procedures.

[Stage Direction]
8.	A detailed report was furnished to Army Headquarters following each exercise, the content of which centered entirely around the procedures and techniques employed, plus a number of recommendations relating to means of
enhancing the Army's capabilities in radiation survey operations and associated functions.

[Stage Direction]
9.	An article was published in the November 1951 edition of the Canadian Army Journal entitled «Radiation Detection Unit*, which outlined the role and activities of the unit and included a brief description of Exercise HOPE I.

[Stage Direction]
10.	As expected, radioactivity levels encountered in the Eldorado Mining and Refining residue disposal areas were high enough to provide excellent training in the operation of the RDU's very sensitive radiation detection instruments. Some areas of the refining plant itself were also known beforehand to be mildly radioactive, and RDU personnel were invited to conduct a survey of the plant premises to gain additional experience in monitoring buildings and equipment.

[Stage Direction]
11.	Following questions raised in the House of Commons on 28 Jan. 76 concerning the precise nature and purpose of the 1951 and 1953 survey exercises, all relevant reports and documentation were made available for examination by an official of the Atomic Energy Control Board. The official expressed complete satisfaction that the exercises were arranged solely to train military personnel in the use of radiation detection equipment and to test procedures to be followed in the event of a nuclear war.
12.	Further, the examination confirmed that the information arising out of the two exercises did not in any way indicate that the operation by Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited of refinery residue disposal areas located within the town limits posed a hazard to the citizens of Port Hope. Nor did the surveys reveal any radioactively contaminated areas other than those directly involved in the Company's disposal operations.

[Stage Direction]
13.	Exercises HOPE I and HOPE III were conducted by the Canadian Army to provide realistic training for personnel in the operation of radiation detection instruments, in radiation survey procedures and other associated techniques required for military operations under conditions of nuclear war.
14.	The initiative in both instances came from the Canadian Army. The Radiation Detection Unit was not «cal-led-in* to assist in assessing potential radiation hazards to the population of the Town of Port Hope.
15.	As both exercises were very limited in scope and significance, the reports provided to Army Headquarters subsequently received very limited distribution, as they were considered to be of little interest to agencies other than the military staffs directly concerned with developing doctrine, procedures and special equipment requirements which would be necessary in nuclear war.
February 2, 1976
[Stage Direction]
16.	As expected, relatively high radiation levels were encountered in the residue disposal areas; however no other radioactively contaminated areas were identified other than those directly related to the disposal operations of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited.
30 January 1976
Attachments:
1	Exercise HOPE I-Synopsis
2	Exercise HOPE III-Synopsis.
Attachment 1

[Stage Direction]
1.	This exercise took place on 19, 20 and 21 November 1951. It was a very small scale operation involving only three officers and eight men.
2.	The exercise scenario depicted the type of situation which might exist in a Canadian seaport after a nuclear explosion in the harbour area. The Radiation Detection Unit was tasked to carry out a re-entry operation, plotting the radiation levels encountered as survey teams approached the waterfront area.
3.	For this purpose Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited made available a number of relatively harmless radioactive sources which were positioned at predetermined locations along the routes of the survey teams. The survey operations also included the Eldorado plant and premises, as well as the MONKEY MOUNTAIN Disposal Area and PIDGEON HILL Storage Site, where further instrument readings were obtained from the radioactivity present at those locations.
4.	By applying an arbitrary multiplication factor to the readings obtained from their sensitive detection instruments the survey teams were able to represent to some degree the very high radiation levels it was thought would be encountered in an actual wartime situation.
5.	The local populace was informed prior to the start of the exercise that radioactive sources would be positioned at various locations around the town, to avoid any unnecessary public concern.
6.	The exercise report pointed up the need to develop standard procedures for the conduct of radiation survey operations, and highlighted weaknesses in the areas of radio communications, lack of technical facilities to perform on the spot maintenance of radiation detection equipment, the need for suitable maps, and a requirement for specially equipped cross country vehicles to support this type of operation.
Attachment 2

[Stage Direction]
1.	Conducted on 17, 18 and 19 November 1953, Exercise HOPE III was a simple radiation survey exercise carried out entirely within the WELCOME Residue Area, some four miles North West of Port Hope.
2.	This facility offered an area of known radioactivity, and the objective of HOPE III was to refine ground radiation survey procedures, hazard estimation techniques and sample analysis.
3.	Four officers and fifteen men participated. A mobile field laboratory was included to perform soil and water sampling.
4.	The exercise report revealed some deficiencies in equipment and detailed procedures, and recommended the provision of some additional items to improve laboratory analysis techniques, the provision of an air sampling capability, and a number of minor measures to enhance the effectiveness of the unit's operations.
10569
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 3, 1976