1976-01-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43 to seek leave to propose a motion arising out of remarks attributed to the Prime Minister in Cuba yesterday which are in many ways reminiscent of the 1967 incident involving President de Gaulle's "Vive Quebec Libre". I would move, seconded by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley:
With reference to yesterday's declarations and outbursts of "Viva" by the Prime Minister in Cuba, the House considers these, especially at a time when Cuba is heavily involved militarily in the Angolan civil war, a deplorable, degrading and disgusting incident which will undoubtedly and unfortunately be construed by world opinion as indicating Canada's support for dictatorial socialism, and, finally, the House dissociates itself from all recent utterances of the Prime Minister indicating disapproval of the free enterprise system.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put in the absence of unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. It is prompted by today's report that the Olympic Games stadium will not provide for flush toilets for some 70,000 spectators or proper changing facilities for some 10,000 athletes. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That the Minister of the Environment be requested to impose standards under the Clean Air Act and the new Environmental Contaminants Act which forbids, in section 2, "spilling, leaking, spraying, pouring, emitting, emptying, throwing or dumping of dangerous substances into the environment" and that the Minister of National Health and Welfare be requested to provide curtains for those athletes changing in their cars so that proper standards of modesty can be maintained and, third, that in view of past disappointments and future uncertainties in the construction of the Olympic site the Minister of Public Works obtain assurances for the House that the Games Committee will provide 70,000 one-holers rather than one 70,000-holer.


SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF DANGER OF MERCURY POISONING IN NORTHWEST QUEBEC-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that a report from Environment Canada has clearly shown that an industry in the Matagami and Lebel-sur-Quevillon area is a major source of mercury pollution and considering that such a source is liable to cause serious diseases among all individuals contaminated by mercury, I move, seconded by the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs investigate the dangers of mercury poisoning on the spot in Northwestern Quebec and report to this House on the means to be taken to protect the people of Northwestern Quebec from the serious danger of mercury poisoning.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD   SUGGESTED EARLY IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCEDURE FOR APPEALS FROM BOARD DECISIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity with regard to which I request prompt action on the part of the House. Recognizing the fact that the government's delay in instituting the Anti-Inflation Board appeals procedure has prolonged the strike in the Canadian paper industry, particularly by surrounding the critical Irving decision with an atmosphere of uncertainty and an aura of injustice, and noting the statement made by the Minister of Finance, as reported in the press, that the

January 29, 1976
House of Commons
anti-inflation legislation may have to be amended to permit direct appeals from decisions of the Board, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond:
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to introduce immediately amendments to the anti-inflation legislation guaranteeing the prompt establishment of a just, non-arbitrary and equitable appeals procedure from Anti-Inflation Board decisions.


Mr. Speaker:: According to the terms of Standing Order 43 such a motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House; I am sure that no hon. member can disagree with such a motion.
Considering that almost half of the colour TV sets sold in Canada, that is 46 per cent, are manufactured outside Canada, mostly in Japan and in the United States, and that the importation of such colour TV sets is detrimental to Canada and Quebec manufacturers and workers; and considering also that the Fleetwood company, the only colour TV manufacturer in Quebec, just said that it has to dismiss 150 employees, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House immediately take the required steps to exercise stricter control over U.S. and Asian importations in order to give greater protection to Canada and, particularly Quebec workers, where the unemployment rate is rising alarmingly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF NOVA SCOTIA LEGISLATURE, HONOURABLE VINCENT MacLEAN


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with the oral question period I know hon. members would want to join with me

in welcoming a very distinguished visitor to our galleries, the Speaker of the Nova Scotia legislature, the Hon. Vincent MacLean.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising out of the very recent statement made by the chairman of the Economic Council. I quote him as follows: Because of the relatively low level of business investment in recent years, however, our industrial capacity is insufficient to meet increased demand without aggravating inflationary pressures.
I should like to ask the minister whether he would indicate, in very brief and general terms, what steps he proposes to take to stimulate investment in industrial plant, in view of those comments and particularly in view of the unsettlement created by the Prime Minister's comments on the new society, or does he intend to leave this whole subject to the Minister of National Defence?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this question is obviously of such broad purport and requires such an extensive reply that it seems to me hardly one that can be effectively dealt with during the question period.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There might be some question whether the minister could effectively deal with it at any time. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he believes that the current level of the Canadian dollar, with its disturbing effects on Canadian exports, will encourage investment in industrial plant in Canada.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I did respond to the hon. member for Dauphin on this question two days ago. The current level of the Canadian dollar I do not think in itself will have a deterrent effect. We will, of course, have to monitor very closely movements of the Canadian dollar. If the current confidence of foreign investors in Canada continues, there will, of course, be upward pressure on the dollar and at that time we will have to consider what policy to adopt.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to stop fooling around. Does the hon. gentleman accept that investment in industrial plant in Canada in recent years has been inadequate, as indicated by the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, and if so, why does he not do something about it? What possible excuse can he have for waiting for spring, as he has indicated, for a budget?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should recognize, after his experience in the House,
January 29, 1976

that it makes far more sense to deal with questions of this kind, particularly involving fiscal changes, within the context of a budget. I am sorry that the reasons I have given for postponing a budget right at this moment do not appeal to the hon. gentleman, but I think they are sensible.


POSSIBILITY OF MEASURES TO CURB CONSUMER SPENDING-PROPOSAL OF ECONOMIC COUNCIL TO STIMULATE CONSUMER SPENDING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of recent statements by the Minister of Public Works concerning excessive consumer spending, does the minister propose to take steps to curb consumer spending in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is a question, of course, Mr. Speaker, along with others that would have to be considered in the framework of a general budgetary statement.


James Balfour: Mr. Speaker, in view of the recommendations of the chairman of the Economic Council that personal income taxes be reduced to stimulate consumer spending in order to reduce unemployment, is the minister prepared to indicate which view he shares, that of the Minister of Public Works or that of the Economic Council?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should remind the hon. gentleman that the long standing practice in the parliamentary system has been to deal with fiscal statements and changes in fiscal policy within the context of the budget, and I would propose to adhere to that practice.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I received a letter yesterday in reply to questions I put to the Minister of the Environment concerning environmental controls in respect of the Syncrude project, in which the minister stated at one point that his department intends to use the "best practicable technology". Since the minister's own departmental study in 1974 on the Syncrude project indicated that it was possible to reduce the level of emission of sulphur dioxide to 40 long tons per day, why has this department permitted the project to proceed with levels of emission which will reach up to 287 long tons a day?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the first responsibility in that field lies, of course, with the government of Alberta. We have made some studies and my department believes it is possible to reduce the amount of sulphur dioxide emission from 287 long tons a day to 40 long tons a day. That being possible, the government is pressing the companies to use this new technology in order to obtain this reduction.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: In the minister's letter to me he has indicated that the government has entered into an agreement with the government of Alberta that will permit "levels of emission up to the level of 287 long tons". What the minister is now saying, if I understand him well, is that this might not be the case, and that it is possible to get a level of control which is more rigorous than this, a level this government wants. What I want to do is get this minister, who is responsible for the environment in Canada, to make a commitment that it is the objective of this government, which holds an equity in the Syncrude project and is on the management committee, to insist on this standard as a condition to further federal participation.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that I will insist on having this present emission reduced. While it is true that we hold equity in the Syncrude project it is a small percentage, I think about 15 per cent, but even without a majority of the shares we intend to exercise pressure on these companies to do this.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to be as precise as possible on this matter. I would ask the minister whether the government is going to insist that the project comply with these possibilities indicated in the department's own study of 1974? Is the government going to insist that these practicable levels, a phrase which the minister used in his letter to me, are to be complied with in Syncrude as a condition to continued future federal government participation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are going to advise the department of energy, as we have already done, in respect of this matter, as Syncrude does not come under my jurisdiction. I think what the hon. member suggests is something the department of energy is ready to do. I am sure the minister can answer for that department. As far as I am concerned, I am going to continue to advise, as in the past, that the Syncrude project should comply with these new standards.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice.
Considering that Quebec's commission against organized crime is, in the eyes of the people, a dismal farce whose only contribution has been to release the names of members of the underworld and murderers, can the minister tell us whether or not federal justice will step in, as some of those known criminals are let loose in the city of Montreal and no one seems to do anything about it while decent citizens are left at their mercy? Will federal authorities eventually intervene in the commission's activities?

January 29, 1976
Oral Questions


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the inquiry that has been held in Quebec has exposed a number of people, some of whom have been charged under federal or provincial statutes. I think the commission has been getting results. If there is evidence in the hands of the crown attorneys of the province of Quebec, I am confident that that evidence would be used to bring charges against persons in respect of whom they have evidence.


QUEBEC CRIME PROBE-GOVERNMENT ACTION IF COMMISSION DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question: Since the Supreme Court is expected to rule within two days on the validity or that invalidity of the commission against organized crime, is the minister still prepared to put forward a bill to the House, should the Supreme Court of Canada declare the commission against organized crime invalid? Has the minister drafted legislation to face this eventuality?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have for some time indicated that should the intervention of the Supreme Court of Canada indicate that the Quebec crime inquiry is not constitutional I would be prepared to introduce legislation to clothe such provincial inquiries with constitutionality.


DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION CONCERNING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my question is exactly supplementary but in any event I think it is complementary. It is directed to the Minister of Justice who has given a new vision to his department since taking over.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the uncertainty in all parts of our country concerning the lack of enforcement of capital punishment, which under the law is still in partial effect, I should like to ask the minister whether at the earliest possible date and certainly within the next two or three weeks he will see that a measure is brought before the House to determine once and for all the question of the imposition of capital punishment.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General and I, on behalf of the government, indicated we would be bringing in a number of measures including the one referred to by the right hon. gentleman and we hope to do that as soon as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. These package pieces of legislation of course will

not cover the situation. I am asking for assurance that the question of capital punishment will not be included in a mass of other amendments, but will be placed before the House by itself so that the House can determine this question with certainty and clarity.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated we would be introducing a measure to deal with the question of capital punishment. Until the actual legislation is introduced I do not think I could go any further than I have today.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Labour. I wonder whether the minister would indicate to the House if the government has changed its policy in the area of industrial disputes in favour of free collective bargaining as opposed to a policy of limitation of right to strike in so-called essential services or with respect to trade unions that possibly are so strong they can make unfair demands on employers. Has that policy been changed or is it the same policy as indicated by the Prime Minister prior to Christmas?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that I fully understand the question put by the hon. member, but at any rate let me say that our policy with respect to free collective bargaining is the same as it has always been. What we are endeavouring to do, however, is to arrive at better techniques through consultation with management and labour on an active basis through the mechanism of the tripartite council, the Canada Labour Relations Council.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I wonder if I may ask the Minister of Labour if this policy has not been changed whether the Minister of Transport was expressing government policy when he indicated that he supported the elimination 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, or is the government reviewing the whole question of the right to strike and, if so, can we expect legislation in this area in the near future?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the government, through its participation on the tripartite council is reviewing the whole area of the free collective bargaining process to try to eliminate the more adversarial elements as a means of arriving at industrial peace and this certainly includes trying to find a better technique to resolve labour stoppages in the public sector.
January 29, 1976


PROPOSED INFORMATION PROGRAM TO MAINTAIN MARKETS IN UNITED STATES
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has he been made aware and has he studied the recently issued report of our Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs which states the following:
Canada must set up an improved information program in the United States, or risk jeopardizing its trade with the United States market.
Has the minister examined that report and, if so, does he or his department intend to take steps to overcome this serious deficiency in promoting trade with our most important customer?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the report in full but I have been briefed by the chairman and the senators concerned. I am inclined to agree very much that we must step up our efforts to make the Canadian position, and Canada, generally better known in the United States. I think the hon. member will agree that I could not act more rapidly. The new minister of commerce will be sworn in on Monday. My request to him to see me will be filled as soon as he is sworn in. The new United States ambassador to Canada is being received, I believe, on the 17th of next month and I have an appointment with him on the 18th. These are the two immediate steps I will be taking in that connection and there will be many more.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question relating to the livestock disease known as blue tongue and I wish to address it to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the very irresponsible lead editorial in the January issue of American Hereford Journal concerning Canada's new health of animals requirement for double testing for the blue tongue disease in imported cattle, and notwithstanding the need and validity of this new Canadian regulation for the protection of Canada's global trade relations in cattle, beef and sheep, would the minister consider making a formal statement giving the essential facts and reasons for Canada's revised policy regarding blue tongue?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it should be said here that Canada is free of this disease, both in the cattle population and the sheep population, and it is most important that we keep that record. I understand today that the U.S. secretary of state for agriculture has informed cattlemen in his country that he would do the same thing to protect his cattle industry if it was in the position in which the Canadian cattle industry finds itself.
Oral Questions


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: In view of the likelihood of imminent public reaction in the United States demanding retaliatory action calling for similar testing procedures on Canadian cattle and possibly other border state actions, would the minister not feel it would be appropriate to further discuss this matter with U.S. Secretary Butz in view of the very real possibility that U.S. action could very well damage and impair the recent return to normal cattle trading practice between our two countries following the abolition of the quotas?


Eugene Whelan: We are very concerned about any action which may be taken by the United States, but we have had discussions with U.S. department of agriculture officials. They are fully informed about our concern with respect to our livestock being free from this disease, and we will be discussing it further with them to make sure people in their country who are concerned about this disease are fully informed and understand our position. When I was in the United States we did discuss blue tongue. The largest cattle population is in the state of Texas, and they are having difficulty in the state of Texas trying to control this disease. The only way to control it is to eradicate it. We have had to eradicate several herds imported from the United States in recent months because of blue tongue disease.


FISHERIES
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fisheries), his parliamentary secretary or the acting minister.


George Harris Hees: Just anybody who will answer.


Hugh Alan Anderson: This House recognizes the success of the minister in cutting down the catch by foreign long distance fishing fleets on the east coast of Canada. My question is, have there been any recent discussions or negotiations, or will any take place, regarding a limitation of catches on the west coast of Canada? This is of particular importance at this time due to the presence of East German trawlers off the west coast during the current herring season, and many people on the west coast fear that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hugh Alan Anderson: May I just finish, Mr. Speaker?


George Harris Hees: Give us the third paragraph and the finale.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, it would be a very long answer if I were to describe all the negotiations which have taken place. However, certainly our negotiations with the Japanese and the Americans on the protection of halibut were successful. The East German fleet which was off the west coast has moved out. We made strong representations, and they moved away from the Canadian area. In addition, we now

January 29, 1976
Oral Questions
have on an ad referendum basis an agreement which has been negotiated with Poland, the details of which will be released in the weeks to come. This agreement will indicate that the situation with the Polish fishery on the west coast will come under a joint agreement, and Canada will protect its fisheries.


MANPOWER
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that, as I informed him, some 25 per cent to 28 per cent of the labour force of 44,000 now in industrial Cape Breton is currently unemployed, and that the premier of Nova Scotia called a special meeting on January 19 to be followed by another meeting on February 9, at which the minister had a representative present, I should like to ask the minister if he would inform the House what projects or financial involvement may be forthcoming from the federal government to help alleviate this crisis situation in the short term and medium term development for the Cape Breton area.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the distressingly high unemployment rate in Cape Breton, and I am also aware that it may increase for a number of reasons. The programs of the department can help and are helping to alleviate this. We are going to bring to bear the whole range of manpower programs. Additional job creation, funding and training has already been discussed. As the hon. member pointed out, there was a meeting at which federal, provincial and other people attended, and there will be further meetings. I think in the longer term the answer must be more in the line of industrial development, which is outside the direct scope of my department, and meetings are taking place in Ottawa with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and my officials particularly to develop plans and to discuss further with the provincial authorities on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: One supplementary, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, if I only have one supplementary question, I will turn to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, because I want to follow up that vague reference. A representative of DREE attended the January 19 meeting and will attend the February 9 meeting. Is he going to announce what the department will consider doing, not for the long-term problem in connection with the steel industry, but for the short and medium term emergency infrastructure expenditures which will put people to work? There is $1 million in unemployment insurance going into that area every month. They are not getting jobs there, and they are not getting the active manpower policies which are needed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, I know that the minister and department officials are working with the province of Nova Scotia to re-examine some of the ongoing agreements there to try to alleviate the problems raised by the hon. member, so I presume that by that time they will have some concrete suggestions to put forward.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, of which I gave him notice. In view of the critical situation in New Brunswick forests because of infestation of spruce budworm, will Canada share with New Brunswick and private industry in funding a spray control program for 1976? Will the minister agree to continue research into a control program which does not involve the spray control program?
So that I will not have a supplementary question, has the minister seen a telegram from the premier of New Brunswick indicating that it is urgent that the decision Canada makes be made very rapidly so that lead time can be put in place?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, first I will answer the last part of the question. I have not seen the telegram. I do not think it was addressed to me. With regard to the spruce budworm, if the question is limited to the research we should do, we are ready to do that, and we have been doing it for quite a length of time.
As far as money is concerned, I have no money in my budget, and I am told by Mr. Hanusiak or Mr. Boudreau, who is the minister of natural resources, that it would cost about $7.5 million more than New Brunswick can afford. I am trying to reach an agreement with DREE in order to redirect some resources in the present agreement or in the forestry sub-agreement with New Brunswick in order to take care of at least part of what is required. However, I cannot promise we can reach this $7 million. This would be quite difficult.


MANPOWER
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, to whom I gave advance notice of my question.
Since the Local Initiatives Program will be terminated in June 1976 and since a large proportion of the people of the constituency of Hochelaga is unemployed, can the
January 29, 1976

minister tell the House whether he intends to change that decision of the federal government in order to meet the essential needs of constituencies like Hochelaga, knowing that the suppression of such projects will further disadvantage a constituency like the one I represent?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the President of the Treasury Board in December, there is a reduction in the allocation for local initiatives for the fiscal year 197677, although there is a remaining commitment for $100 million for a program of a very similar nature in job creation. While we have not worked out the details, it will be our intention to direct even more stringently that fund and those fundings to areas of high unemployment. This will probably result in a reduction of allocations to other constituencies where that is not so serious a problem. I think Hochelaga will probably fall within the range of those constituencies which will receive attention.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture, and it relates to the existing surpluses of industrial milk. In light of the fact that a significant portion of this surplus could be used in the Canadian cheese processing industry, if that industry were operating in a satisfactory economic climate, I ask the minister if it is still government policy to permit imports of foreign cheese to at least double over the next few years.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member, there are many cheese factories, and one not too far from his constituency, which increased production by 22 per cent this year for the fiscal dairy year, and this is on the increase. Many other cheese factories are doing that. We have said we are reconsidering the amount of cheese that will be allowed to be brought into Canada by permit. A decision has not been made on that problem at this time.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, may I hope the increase is 44 per cent next year. As a final supplementary may I ask the minister, to at least ease the short term problem of the industrial milk crisis, if he can assure the House now that imports of foreign cheese for this year will not be allowed to increase over the levels that existed for foreign cheese imports last year?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the level of imported foreign cheese to Canada last year was 50 million pounds and that was agreed to by the Canadian dairy producers and the Canadian dairy processors. I can say that the surplus of milk production in Canada today exceeds that amount by about 5 per cent which, is 26 per cent above what it was last year at this time.
Oral Questions


William Herbert Jarvis: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could guarantee to us now that imports this year will not exceed the 50 million pounds figure? I quite agree with his answer as far as it went but now could he answer my question about this year?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member had more optimism. I said I was going to try to lower that figure and we are still working on it.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary one to the Minister of the Environment who suggested when he answered the hon. member for Fundy-Royal that he was going to ask for a reallocation of DREE funds. Did he mean that funds already allocated to New Brunswick under agreement would have to be redirected to fill the needs of the bud-worm spraying operation?


Jean Marchand: That is what I meant, Mr. Speaker.


Fred Alward McCain: A supplementary question. In view of the vast economic importance of the lumber industry to eastern Canada, does it not seem only proper that the Minister of the Environment and the government of Canada should share this cost not only with New Brunswick but with other provinces as well which are just coming into the critical period of budworm infestation?


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Jean Marchand: Yes, right on, sure! This is a problem which definitely falls under provincial jurisdiction. We are ready to help but we are not ready to assume responsibility for the spruce budworms. Budworms belong to provincial jurisdiction. I think the hon. member is right. If we do something we will need to have a national policy on this and that means we have to pay. Most of the forests are affected and Quebec has more forests than New Brunswick affected by the-


Mr. Nielsen:: There are more worms in Quebec.


Jean Marchand: We will have to pay all
provinces which are afflicted by this insect infestation.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Public Works.

January 29, 1976
Oral Questions
Contrary to the allegations made by the Quebec Minister of Cultural Affairs, as reported by the Canadian press on Wednesday, January 28, 1976, that the federal government has traditionally refused to surrender the land it owns in Quebec, could the Minister of Public Works confirm that around mid-January 1976, the federal government surrendered to Quebec, without financial compensation and on a voluntary basis, the site known in Quebec City as Bois de Coulonges, where previously stood the residence of the lieutenant-governor of the province which burnt in 1964? Can he also tell the House whether conditions regarding the occupation of the site were included in the transfer act?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the transfer of the land was made in mid-January as described. I shall also say that there was no transfer condition regarding the residence of the lieutenant-governor at Bois de Coulonges.



PROPOSED SITE FOR ELDORADO NUCLEAR PLANT-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPALITY TO CONDUCT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY

Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It has come to my attention that Burwash, a community in the riding of Nickel Belt, is being considered as one of four possible locations for an Eldorado nuclear chemical plant of twice the capacity of Port Hope. In view of recent events in Port Hope which have raised the question of the impact nuclear plants on residents in the area, can the minister assure the House that funds will be provided to area municipalities where the plant will be located so that independent environmental studies can be undertaken and that all studies done will be made public? Secondly, can the minister assure the House that adequate public hearings will be held in the area to allow local citizens an input into the final decision?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give a complete answer to the hon. member. I know there has been a task force formed and something like a dozen different sites have been looked at throughout Ontario and other parts of Canada. Many municipalities have requested that the new refining facility be put in their municipality. Environmental testing and economic factors are also under consideration. I will certainly make these representations to Eldorado and make sure that the community to which the hon. member refers is consulted in respect of the site selection.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.

Is he in a position to tell this House whether the Quebec government or the city of Montreal have requested from the federal government the Canadian Armed Forces services for the duration of the Olympic Games in Montreal? If so, how many troops would be affected?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be directed to the Minister of National Defence.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: In this case, Mr. Speaker, I shall put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. I hope you will allow me to repeat my question.
I would like the minister to tell this House whether the municipal government of Montreal or the Quebec government have filed a request to the Department of National Defence to obtain the Armed Forces services during the Olympic Games that will take place in Montreal in 1976? If so, how many men will be dispatched for this purpose?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, extensive discussions have taken place. As I announced before, there will be approximately 10,500 members of the Canadian armed forces assisting at the Olympic games next summer. About 5,000 or 5,500 of those will be directly involved in security. About 2,500 will be working with COJO and another 2,500 will be providing support to the other members of the inside group.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister replied in the affirmative, could he tell the House whether it will be a federal contribution or whether the Quebec government will have to take charge of the expenditure?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the regular salary or pay and allowances will be paid by the federal government but the out of pocket costs or additional costs may be paid for by others. I do not think there has been complete negotiation on the out of pocket costs. It appears to us now that National Defence will have a cost of approximately $24 million above the regular pay and allowances.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. As
January 29, 1976

federally paid teachers are paid much less than provincially paid teachers could the minister tell the House at what stage negotiations are now and whether there is any chance of a catch-up?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that negotiations have resumed on the matter and I hope we will reach an agreement very soon.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that hundreds of thousands of service station operators in Canada are collecting taxes for the federal government through the 10 per cent tax, and in view of the fact that the press at least indicates that the cost is going to go to a dollar a gallon or more, is the federal government or the ministry prepared to assist these service station operators to replace their gas pumps which only read 99.9 cents at the moment and will have to be geared to read a dollar or a dollar plus.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would doubt it, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. There is to be a meeting of the chamber of commerce in Glenwood tonight to discuss methods that might be taken to restore grain transportation. Will the minister assure the House that he will contact the Chamber of Commerce in Glenwood before their meeting tonight with a statement of his intentions?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to let the Chamber of Commerce know of our intentions. The intention to use trucks to relieve the congestion of elevators isolated by the bridge being out developed additional congestion in some of the neighbouring elevators. Accordingly, we have again viewed the condition of the bridge in question. I have now written to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company asking them to repair the bridge. I hope they can take further action in this regard.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE



POSSIBILITY OF MOVING ADDITIONAL TROOPS TO GERMANY FOR MANOEUVRES

Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. Several weeks ago the Chief of Defence Staff stated that he planned to deploy for exercises the 1,100 troops that our mechanized brigade group in Germany needs to bring it up to fighting strength. Has the minister approved or has he any knowledge of any projected exercise to determine if we can find and move 1,100 troops to Germany as part of such an exercise?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, since returning to Ottawa, I have not had discussions with the Chief of Staff on that subject.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Can the minister assure us that he has sufficient troops earmarked for this role to ensure that the exercise, or the operation, could be carried out during the time of the Olympic Games, for example?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that if the Chief of Staff planned that troop movement, he clearly has sufficient troops. He is very familiar with the requirement for the Olympic Games.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the difficulty of various cabinet ministers to explain away other recent statements of the Prime Minister, can the Acting Prime Minister explain the reasons for the statement or outburst of the Prime Minister, namely "viva Cuba, viva Castro", alleged to have been made by the Prime Minister in Cuba yesterday?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best answer I can give is that of one of the more astute observers here, Mr. Geoffrey Stevens who said in his column yesterday "these words are apt to cause Mr. Trudeau some concern". However, he went on "but that would be unfortunate because the words were both expected and innocent".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT INTENTION WITH REGARD TO AID FOR AMATEUR HOCKEY

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact the minister is well known for his intervention in professional sport in this

January 29, 1976
Oral Questions
country, can he advise this House whether he is prepared to share his concern with the financially ailing junior hockey teams in particular and amateur hockey in general as they tend to be far more Canadian and have a much stronger impact on our youth than the CFL, for example.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I often meet with representatives of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association and Hockey Canada. Meetings are held regularly and very frequently and I must say relations are excellent. In fact, there is no serious problem in abeyance between the department and the CAHA at the present time. We are working amicably and towards common objectives.
*	* At



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs whom I would like to welcome back from a very hazardous journey.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I congratulate him for overnight giving foreign policy a completely new image-option number four I guess. Will the minister indicate when he will be making a statement in the House on the subject of the agreement with South Korea relating to safeguards of CANDU because, in his absence, it was indicated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that he would be doing this as well as tabling the agreement. Will the minister advise when we may expect this so that those of us who are interested will be sure to be here to not miss anything.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his welcome which I appreciate very much. I am more confortably seated here than I was on the occasion to which my hon. friend referred. I intend to table tomorrow the agreement on nuclear co-operation between Canada and the Republic of Korea which was signed in Seoul on Monday of this week and possibly make a short statement so that members may ask questions if they wish.



FOOD PRICES


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is with respect to the report of the Food Prices Review Board on northern food prices which was tabled just before the Christmas recess. Have any of the recommendations of the report been adopted, in particular that which had to do with further investigation into the reason for the high cost of foods in Canada's north?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had notes on the subject but, unfortunately, I have just sent them back to my office. I thought I would not be asked any questions before the end of the question period. I shall answer the hon. member tomorrow.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Before putting my question, may I join in welcoming the minister back to the House. While having his camel ride and meditating, did he give consideration to reporting to the House on the continuing Conference on International Economic Co-operation, of which he is co-chairman, and specifically will he indicate what policies will be presented by the Canadian officials on the two commissions, energy and development, to which Canada has been named?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will consider reporting to the House on developments to date on the Conference on International Economic Co-operation which was held in Paris just before Christmas and the meeting of the co-chairman of the conference and co-chairmen of the commissions which was held in Paris on Monday and Tuesday of this week, if that would be useful. I will attempt to make a brief report to the House, possibly one day next week, and give hon. members an opportunity, if they wish, to ask some questions. It would be difficult at this stage to project in full the policies that the government will put forward at the two commissions mentioned, but these are under consideration and preparation.



POSSIBILITY OF DEBATE ON SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of his statement a few moments ago that he intends to table tomorrow the agreement with South Korea for the sale of a nuclear reactor to that country, because of the far-reaching implications of such an agreement, particularly in the present world situation, is he prepared to introduce at the same time or within the next few days a motion before the House in order that this matter may be discussed and debated and so that the members of this House may have an opportunity of expressing their views with regard to this transaction?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the government House leader the intentions of the government with regard to the business for the balance of this week and next week.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to continue the debate which is now taking place on Bill C-68, the amendments to the Medical Care Act. If we can make enough progress on Bill C-68 within the next day or so, this will be followed by Bill C-72, on human rights.
As I indicated earlier in the week, it would be our intention to call next week, subject to any last minute developments, Bill C-58 and Bill C-81. Those were the items we had in contemplation. I should add that I hope there will be an opportunity, also, of disposing of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill S-10. I do not suppose that will take very long.


Walter David Baker: Perhaps I might ask the hon. gentleman another question. I note there is nothing on the order paper with respect to statements made by the Prime Minister dealing with a new concept of labour relations, and I wonder whether it is the intention of the government to bring forward this session a bill with respect to those plans which the Prime Minister indicated in a speech are in existence at this time. If it is not the minister's intention to do so in the course of the present session, may I ask whether the government has determined irrevocably that there will not be an end to this session, a Speech from the Throne and a new session of parliament within, perhaps, a month or so, when one might consider this legislation?


Mitchell William Sharp: When I was discussing this matter with the House leaders last week, I indicated the bills we had in mind bringing forward if this session were to continue, say, until June 30. The particular legislation to which the hon. member referred was not on that list. If, however, a decision were made-I do not think this is likely-to begin a new session with a Speech from the Throne in the near future, we would then, of course, be looking at a much more comprehensive program and one which might conceivably include that kind of legislation.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader whether the cabinet, at its meeting today, approved a bill to implement the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs having to do with pensions for Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war, and is he in a position to tell us now when such a bill will be introduced?


Mitchell William Sharp: That item was not on the agenda today, but I listened to what my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said, that he thought he would have something to say about the matter within a couple of weeks.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The next item under routine proceedings would be statements by ministers. It has been made clear that a statement of some importance is to be made today by the Minister of Transport, and since this would be followed by questions I wonder whether hon. members would not agree that we ought to conclude routine proceedings before reverting to statements by ministers in order to accomplish this?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,070, 3,582, 3,612, 3,616, 3,692, 3,698, 3,730, 3,732, 3,737, 3,756, 3,779, 3,800, 3,810, 3,816 and 3,878 (corrected).


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,305 on the subject of the Prime Minister's residence which stated in part that "many important items of Canadiana are situated in various parts of 24 Sussex Drive'' (a) what is the complete list of all Canadiana items acquired since April 20, 1968 (b) on what dates were they acquired (c) what was the cost in each case?
2.	What is the total cost of (a) all Canadiana items purchased (b) all antique items originating in foreign countries that were purchased since April 20, 1968?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The
information requested in 1 (a), (b) and (c) and 2 (a) and (b) is not known.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the RCMP examine or investigate any aspects of the presence in Florida of a Canadian Senator and, if so (a) what is the Senator's name (b) on what date (c) did this include specifically the Senator's presence and others in the Senator's company at (i) the Indian Creek County Club in the area of North Miami (ii) the Bonaventure Country Club in Fort Lauderdale?
2.	Has such investigation been concluded and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, is it still in progress?
3.	What were the reasons leading to the investigation and will the government make them public?
4.	Did any RCMP personnel visit Florida on this matter and, if so, on what dates?
5.	What are the names of all persons appearing in any RCMP reports as a result of such investigations?
6.	Was the assistance of any United States authorities sought at any time and, if so, what are the details in this regard?

January 29, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: The fact an investigation is being carried out is public knowledge; however, as it is still in progress, it is not in the public interest to divulge particulars at this time.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Is Mr. Roger Desmarais, an employee of the Department of Public Works, assigned to the Department's operations at Mirabel Airport and, if so, what is (a) his present classification (b) the job description of his position?
2.	How did Mr. Desmarais obtain his present position?
3.	Did Mr. Desmarais ever work for the Department of Transport and, if so (a) on what dates and for what period of time (b) in what capacity (c) how did he obtain his positions?
4.	On what date and in what capacity was Mr. Desmarais first appointed to the Public Service?
5.	Is Mr. Desmarais related to a present member of the Cabinet and, if so (a) to whom (b) what is the relationship?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	Yes. (a) PM 5 (Term); (b) The MOT staff at Mirabel were all in term positions when transferred to DPW. The organization structure is in the process of review to fit DPW requirements and positions are being described in terms of the new organization. Mr. Desmarais' position is now in the process of evaluation.
2.	Mr. Desmarais was appointed to his present position while with MOT and was then transferred to DPW as part of a group when certain functions were transferred from MOT to DPW April 1, 1975.
3.	Yes. (a) From September 4, 1973 to April 1, 1975. (b) PM 5 (Term) Property Manager, Field Office, (c) Mr. Desmarais transferred from Indian Affairs & Northern Development to MOT as a PM 5 (Term). Details of competition would have to be obtained from MOT. (Competition 73-MOT-MPP-OP-39 No. 1)
4.	Mr. Roger Desmarais was appointed as a Land Acquisition Officer (AS 3) National Parks and Historic Sites Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, on August 1, 1972.
5.	See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171 (dd).


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


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the estimated cost of the new federal penitentiary in Mission, British Columbia?
2.	When is the estimated opening day?
3.	(a) What type of penitentiary is it (b) how many prisoners will it hold?
4.	Who is the general contractor?
5.	(a) Which cement company or companies supplies the cement (b) was the cement put out to tender and, if so, to whom?
6.	Has carpet been purchased for the Mission Penitentiary and, if so (a) how much (b) what is the cost?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Approximately $8,250,000.
2.	April 1, 1976.
3.	(a) medium security; (b) 180.
4.	Bird Construction, Vancouver, B.C.
5.	(a) Cement supply source has not been established as this material comes as a component of concrete for foundations and structural work being carried out by the subtrade contractor, Cabott Limited, Vancouver, B.C. (b) The concrete work, with excavation and foundations, was put out to public tender and the work was awarded at $1,110,155 to the general contractor, Bird Construction.
6.	Yes. The general contract awarded for the construction of the Mission, B.C. institution resulted in the purchase of 6,300 yards of carpeting valued at $67,325. As a result of a re-examination of the contract which provided for carpeting of most of the floor space, the Canadian Penitentiary Service ordered carpeting to be limited to offices, hospital and some assembly rooms to reduce noise. Some 2,600 yards of carpeting valued at $37,235 were installed and the remaining portion of the original purchase was placed in storage for future installation in the institution under construction at Kamloops, B.C. and other similar facilities planned for construction.


Mr. Fairweather: What are the guidelines for defence research with respect to chemical and biological warfare?


James Armstrong Richardson: The guidelines for defence research with respect to chemical and biological warfare were last published as Appendix F to issue No. 18 of the Minutes of the Standing Committee of External Affairs and National Defence, dated March 17, 1970 and have remained unchanged since then.


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 Canadian Radio-Television Commission during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?
January 29, 1976


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: In
so far as the Canadian Radio-Television Commission is concerned: Nil.


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 National Defence during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.



RETENTION OF LAWYERS BY DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL


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 National Health and Welfare during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Nil (Names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms hired as legal agents by the Department of Justice to do work for the Department of National Health and Welfare will be supplied by the Department of Justice.)
2.	Not applicable.



DND AIRCRAFT-LORAN NAVIGATION SYSTEMS

Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How many Loran navigation systems on DND aircraft have been replaced between January 1, 1975 and December 1, 1975?
2.	How much did the replacement cost?
Hon.	James	Richardson	(Minister	of	National
Defence): 1. One.
2.	$4,200.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-CANCELLATION OF UNDERWATER SENSOR TRIAL INSTALLATION

Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence recently cancel an underwater sensor trial installation in Canada's Arctic waters and, if so (a) for what reason (b) how much money was saved (c) is the cancellation of a temporary nature not likely to affect the ultimate use of such devices?
Hon.	James	Richardson	(Minister	of	National
Defence): No. (a), (b) and (c). Not applicable.
Order Paper Questions LOANS INCURRED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Question No. 3,800-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
1.	During the 1974-75 fiscal year, has the government incurred any loans and, if so (a) in what amount (b) were such loans (i) short (ii) long term?
2.	In the case of short term loans, what are (a) the amounts (b) the names of the lenders (c) the interest rates (d) the reimbursement terms?
3.	In the case of long term loans, what are (a) the amounts (b) the names of the lenders (c) the interest rates (d) the purpose (e) the duration (f) the reimbursement terms (g) are payments made on (i) a monthly (ii) an annual basis?
4.	What total amount in interest will the government have to pay for such loans?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1.
(a) Gross borrowing totalled $25,374,907,000; (b) Both.
2.	Marketable Bonds (a), (c) and (d) Amount, $225 Million, Coupon, 6l/2 per cent, Maturity, April 1, 1977. Amount, $150 Million, Coupon, 914 per cent, Maturity, February 1, 1976. Amount, $600 Million, Coupon, 914 per cent, Maturity, February 1, 1977*. Amount, $325 Million, Coupon, 914 per cent, Maturity, April 1, 1978**.
*Exchangeable at the option of the holder on or before November 1, 1976, into an equal par value of 9!4 per cent non-callable bonds due February 1, 1982.
**Exchangeable at the option of the holder on or before January 1, 1978, into an equal par value of 914 per cent non-callable bonds due April 1, 1984. These issues are all non-callable before maturity. Treasury Bills: $12,970,000,000 in 91 day treasury bills; $3,315,000,000 in 182 day treasury bills; $625,000,000 364 day treasury bills. The average cost of these bills is: 91 day bills, 7.88 per cent; 182 day bills, 7.87 per cent; 364 day bills, 7.64 per cent. Canada Savings Bonds: $6,157,000,000 9% per cent annual coupon with maturity on November 1, 1983, or on demand prior to that date with accrued interest, (b) Not available.
3.	(a), (c), (e) and (f) Amount, $325 Million, Coupon, 734 per cent, Maturity date, April, 1979. Extendible at the option of the holder in the 6 month period between April 1978, and September 30, 1978, into an equal par value of 8 per cent bonds dated April 1, 1979 and due April 1, 1984. $150, 9'/2 per cent, June 15, 1994*. $525, 7'/2 per cent, July 1, 1978. Plus $7,907,000 bonds issued to the Canada Pension Plan. These bonds have coupons ranging from 7.30 per cent to 7.65 per cent. They have a 20 year maturity.
*The Government of Canada undertakes to use its best efforts to purchase during each quarter of each calendar year to maturity, commencing July 1st, 1974, when available in the open market at prices not exceeding 100 per cent, plus accrued interest, at least three-quarters of one per cent of the principal amount of his issue, except that the Government of Canada may in any quarter of any year apply to this undertaking the purchase of those bonds made during the immediately preceding twelve, months and not previously credited, (b) Not available, (d) To redeem maturing bonds and for general purposes of the Government of Canada, (g) Semi annually.
4.	Not known.

January 29, 1976
Order Paper Questions OCEAN DUMPING CONTROL ACT


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Which nations have applied for permits under the Ocean Dumping Control Act for (a) general dumping (b) dredging (c) incineration at sea (d) disposal of vessels (e) disposal on ice and, in each case, what are the details of such applications?
2.	In what manner does Canada control and prevent the dumping of wastes?
3.	Have logistic reports been prepared and, if so, what are the details of such reports?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: 1. To
date, there have been no applications for permits under the Ocean Dumping Control Act which originated outside Canada.
2.	The requirement to possess a permit, prior to dumping substances at sea, is the primary control mechanism under the Ocean Dumping Control Act. The statute specifies that a comprehensive list of factors be taken into account before such permits are granted. Enforcement is carried out by inspectors who have been appointed under the act.
3.	The Ocean Dumping Control Act and Regulations came into force on December 13, 1975, and thus far, there has been insufficient activity to warrant preparation of any logistic reports.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-MANPOWER STRENGTHS CLASSIFICATION BY MOTHER TONGUE

Mr. Howie: How many (a) commissioned officers (b) non-commissioned officers (c) enlisted men are on permanent strength in the Canadian Armed Forces and, in each case, how many are classed as Canadians whose mother tongue is (i) English (ii) French?


James Armstrong Richardson: As of December 23, 1975 the data was as follows:
(a)	Officers
(b)	Non Commissioned Officers (Chief Warrant Officer to Master Corporal)
(c)	Men (Corporals and Privates)
Mother Tongue		
English	French	Total12,098	2,721	14,81922,230	4,926	27,15625,829	10,140	35,96960,157	17,787	77,944



TOLLS-TRENT-SEVERN AND RIDEAU CANAL SYSTEMS

Mr. Gillies: 1.	In 1975 did the government begin to charge tolls to the users of the Trent-Severn and Rideau Canal systems and, if so (a) what was the capital cost of (i) new buildings (ii) new offices (iii) safes in the various lockmaster's offices (iv) cars for those collecting money at the locks (v) other capital outlay necessitated by the commencement of this practice (b) how many additional persons were employed after the introduction of tolls on the canal systems?
2.	Are those employed (a) students (b) part-time help who would not be working during the closed season?
3.	How many permits were issued in 1975 and what was the gross revenue from these permits?
4.	How many boats locked through the Canals during each year 1974 and 1975?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes.
	Rideau Canal	Trent Canal
(a) Capital Cost of:		
(i) New Buildings	Nil	Nil(ii) New Offices	Nil	Nil(iii) Safes in Lockmaster's Offices	$9,867.00	$7,099.69(iv) Cars for collecting (rental)	$ 960.00	$4,469.00(v) Other capital outlay	Nil	Nil19 additional	27 additionalemployees recruit-	employeesAdditional persons employed after	ed for 4.50 man-	recruited for(b) introduction of tolls on Canals	years	3.61 man-years2. Additional persons employed were:	(a) Students	15	21(b) Part-Time	4	63.	Permits	RevenueTrent-Severn Waterway	17,804	$129,019Rideau Canal	6,380	$ 44,0504.	Vessel	VesselMovements	Movements1974	1975Trent-Severn Waterway	216,484	167,881Rideau Canal	72,556	62,984



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN

Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 3,141 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



PARRTOWN CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Landers: 1.	How many inmates have been incarcerated in the Parrtown Correctional Centre located in the YMCA in Saint John, New Brunswick, since its opening?
2.	(a) Of what crime or crimes were they convicted (b) what length of sentence was imposed in each case?
3.	How many were not convicted in Saint John, New Brunswick and, of these, how many were paroled in the Saint John area?
4.	Of the total number incarcerated, how many (a) had previous convictions (b) had previously been sentenced to penitentiary terms?
5.	How many have been convicted of offences (criminal or drug related) (a) while incarcerated (b) subsequent to their release from this minimum security penitentiary?
6.	(a) How many have been unlawfully at large from this institution (b) how many were reported to the police (c) how many were charged in court with being unlawfully at large?
7.	Of the inmates who were unlawfully at large pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada but not charged, how many were sent back to Dorchester Penitentiary or to the medium security institution at Springhill and under what provisions of what legislation?
8.	Of the inmates incarcerated, what percentage of each of their total sentences had each served prior to being transferred to the Parrtown Correctional Centre?
9.	Have any of the (a) inmates (b) staff of this institution been treated medically for cuts and/or bruises?
Return tabled.
January 29, 1976


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question 3,141 be made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw attention once again to question 69 which was placed on the order paper nearly three calendar years ago, namely, on September 30, 1974. It is a simple question asking for straightforward facts, namely, how many trips the Prime Minister has taken at public expense since October 30, 1972, and, of that total, how many have been trips to political gatherings or for the purposes of private pleasure.
No matter how many times this question is raised, there is never any response from the government or any indication of what has been holding up an answer for almost three years. Every day in the gallery there is a horde of people from the Prime Minister's office who have time to sit up there. I suggest, therefore, that they should have time to go back to their offices and complete the answers to questions asked by members of the House of Commons, so that the people of Canada might have some idea of the facts in relation to matters about which members of the opposition ask.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: May I conclude by saying this: now, perhaps more than ever, it is important we know something about the Prime Minister's trips as he has obviously become a fellow traveller whom we should be questioning.



TRANSPORTATION


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, transportation for people is vitally important in Canada and we believe that Canadians themselves ought to be able to choose the method of travel which suits their own needs from among safe, sound systems. Since transportation is so important a matter for Canadians, we cannot waste our resources on unused, inefficient or duplicated systems.
We have operated extensive rail passenger services in Canada. However, they have been allowed to deteriorate so that Canadians no longer have a fair incentive to use them. This was in no way due to any fault on the part of those who operate the trains, but to a combination of management and government policies which could only produce losses and worsening service. It is my intention today to change that policy as far as the government is concerned and to outline an approach which will provide better service but in a narrower range of areas.
We are very conscious of the impact of these changes, both positive and negative, upon communities and upon the men and women who run our passenger trains. I have
Transportation
begun a process of consultation with their leaders. I plan to continue, and I hope, with the assistance of members of parliament, to consult with the workers and people to be directly affected, to ensure that we understand their views. Where adjustments are necessary, we plan to ensure that they are made with as much sense and sensitivity as possible. I expect, in particular, to develop plans to avoid hardship to workers affected by changes in service.
When the major elements of our transportation policy were announced in June of last year, we stated that Canadians must have an efficient transportation system providing a high degree of accessibility and equity of treatment for all users. Transportation must also support national and regional, social and economic objectives. The new transportation policy recognizes that areas exist where services are well developed and utilized. These services should be operated on a commercially viable basis and fares should be set through the efficient forces of competition and the marketplace. In other areas where services are required for social or developmental purposes but cannot achieve commercial viability, the government is prepared to provide leadership and assistance to develop the best possible level of efficiency.
We also emphasize throughout the new transportation policy that Canadians require the use of highway, rail, marine and air services to provide the best level of services at the lowest total cost, and that these modes of transportation must work together in the roles for which they are best suited. This policy has resulted from extensive consultations with the provinces, industry and labour. It recognizes regional differences and provides a framework in which positive action can be developed to move the commerce of the nation and provide for business and leisure travel.
As our research has progressed over the past year and we have considered the needs and costs of transportation, it has become clear that we cannot afford unnecessary duplication of facilities. This is particularly true at this time of financial restraint. We have also found that bus, air and rail, while they do compete, have distinct markets in which they have special advantages. It is our intention, as we further develop passenger policies, that each mode of transport be given the opportunity to develop these markets. This will provide Canadians with access to acceptable levels of service at the least total cost. Where a subsidy is required in support of regional and national goals, the most economically efficient mode will be used, and the impact of that subsidy on other modes of transport will be considered.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not pleased with the railway passenger system as it currently exists. Losses amounted to $167 million in 1974 and they are increasing: they may amount to $400 million by 1980 if changes are not made. We are not alone in the world in this respect. Governments in almost every industrialized nation are wrestling with similar problems of mounting losses. Canada now has more miles of rail passenger services per capita than any other major nation. Many of our services meet high international standards in terms of amenities, speeds and fares. Revenues cover about one-third of the total costs of providing the services. Subsidies provided by the Canadian public

January 29, 1976
Transportation
are proportionately higher for passenger trains than they are for other forms of transportation.
The primary reason for this situation is that other forms of transportation, primarily the automobile, have proven more attractive to the public. The impression grew that passenger trains were obsolete and this in turn affected growth and the evolution and development of new equipment and techniques. We are left with a system designed for an earlier Canada.
Consider these examples, Mr. Speaker. About 20 per cent of the services operated carry 10 passengers or less on the average, 55 per cent less 47, or a bus load, and only 35 per cent more than 100. Over the year, only one-third of the seats offered are sold. At daily peak periods, about one-third of the fleet is actually in operation. There are over 2,000 miles of routes where CN and CP duplicate services, and duplicate terminals in many major cities. On transcontinental routes, more subsidy is currently being paid for fist-class services than for basic coach transportation.
One course of action recommended by some is the total elimination of rail passenger services and therefore the losses currently incurred. We believe, however, that rail service can fill a real need at a reasonable cost and that only if the service is desirable and efficient will we be able to test the real and future place for it among Canadians. We believe we can develop a better rail system, thereby avoiding some demands for highways and airports and the use of transportation systems that are less efficient in their use of energy and land.
We believe, Mr. Speaker, that there are potentially three major roles for passenger trains, roles that can be filled at reasonable subsidy levels, provided services are improved and operated efficiently and economically. First are short to medium-distance services between major cities where rail offers the potential of trip times somewhere between those of automobiles, buses and aircraft; second are commuting trips in and about major cities for the movement of large numbers of people; and third are long distance trips across the breadth of the country where trains might provide a higher level of basic service than buses. Rail services should also be continued in those remote areas of our country where no reasonable transportation alternatives exist. These roles recognize the ability of trains to carry large numbers of people, to require minimum amounts of new land and, if well patronized and efficiently operated, to make good use of energy. Procedures are being established to determine the public's interest in improving these services.
However, Mr. Speaker, on some routes in Canada passenger trains do not serve the public well. In our view, bus and air transportation can often provide the public with better quality and more frequent services at lower cost. It is the government's intention to encourage the development of these services to replace passenger trains on routes where trains are poorly suited to the market or poorly patronized.
It is our intention to work toward an economically and socially justified national network of rail services. We propose that a basic network of intercity, transcontinental and commuter services, co-ordinated with air and bus
(Mr. Lang.]
service where possible, be implemented. This will provide Canadians with an opportunity to respond to improved services and for us to understand the nature and degree of this response.
Our work is also progressing on the project to upgrade service in the Windsor-Quebec corridor. This comparatively high volume market appears to have the potential for supporting a better service. Our understanding of the costs and markets has been significantly improved since the announcement of this project, and we have begun discussions with the provinces and the carriers on the potential improvements and the phasing of changes so that safety, speed, comfort, service and costs can all be developed to meet demand. We plan, if possible, to begin upgrading the service in the near future and, depending on negotiations, to announce shortly full details of a plan that will see new equipment operating at higher standards by 1979.
The rail passenger program we are proposing is an open consultative process which my statement today formally launches. We propose active consultations with the provincial governments in the planning of regionally-based passenger services, with labour representatives to ensure the best use of the valuable human resources involved, with industry, with the railroads, with other carriers and with the public at large. The government is asking the Canadian Transport Commission to hold hearings within the framework established by these policies and guidelines to determine public interests and concerns. To implement this phase of the program, Mr. Speaker, I will be tabling directives for the guidance of the Canadian Transport Commission. In parallel, Transport Canada will itself consult with carriers, labour, provinces and others concerning their areas of interest and concern. This work will form the basis for plans for the introduction of an improved basic network of rail services in Canada. As service improvements are implemented and subsidy per passenger decreased, the government is prepared to increase its subsidy from 80 per cent of losses to 100 per cent of losses provided that efficiency in management and operations can be demonstrated.
The purpose of this program, Mr. Speaker, is to create a transport system that supports economic and social goals on both national and regional levels. We will now expect Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and others to make management decisions to improve services. We also see these carriers making joint use of terminals and reservation systems, making schedules more sensitive to the regional markets, developing systems to change holiday and weekend demand so that most of the carriers' equipment is used on a continuing basis rather than on the few peak days per year, co-ordinating schedules between air, bus and rail to remove long stopovers, developing the demonstration project to evaluate advanced rail technology, furthering research in necessary roadbed improvements, and embarking on innovative passenger service marketing.
Through this approach we are giving the railways an opportunity to develop rail passenger services to serve markets willing to use and pay for the services. They will be asked to develop a system, with our assistance, that will better serve people who wish to use rail, and remove services that are unnecessary. Their challenge is to
January 29, 1976

improve service and operations by joint action where necessary, but under normal rail management. If the attractiveness and efficiency of service is not improved rapidly, we will have to consider another organization to provide rail passenger service in Canada.
In outlining this program, Mr. Speaker, we have presented a part of our passenger program. We announced last year that, starting in 1977, $100 million will be spent over five years in the purchase of rail commuter equipment. These two programs are integral parts of a series of initiatives that are being developed to assure that a total passenger policy meets our national and regional goals.
It is our intention to pursue improvements in the attractiveness, efficiency and economy of passenger trains in roles for which they are well suited and can be well patronized. In roles where passenger trains are poorly suited to the market or poorly patronized, our intention is to encourage other modes to replace them. In this manner we plan to improve transportation for Canadians and to control the deficits that are growing beyond acceptable levels. I emphasize that in doing this we seek the advice and the cooperation of the public, carriers, labour and the provinces.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to table the following: a directive for the guidance of the Canadian Transport Commission on rail passenger services; a report on "Canadian Passenger Rail Services"; a report on "Technology and Productivity in Passenger Transportation"; and a paper on "A Canadian Rail Passenger Program".


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as the minsiter was, but the whole question of rail passenger transportation can take up a good deal of time in the House of Commons. Before I start, may I commend the minister-perhaps this is the only time I will commend him this afternoon-for giving us adequate notice of his statement; I think all opposition parties appreciate that.
In alluding to the statement made by the minister and the build-up that has taken place in the press over the past few weeks about a major statement on rail line policy, I think we can say, firstly, that the statement just read by the minister is a flop. In my opinion, the government certainly has attempted to gloss over, in this statement, its real aims and objectives. I think this statement is significant for what it does not say, rather than for what it does say.
The government apparently has accepted the status quo as the basis for its rationale behind the whole program. I think that is unacceptable and wrong at the present time. Obviously, the government does not intend to improve train service generally in Canada, according to the statement. There is nothing specific about buying equipment other than the $100 million promised last year which is to be spread over a five-year period, and there is nothing specific in the minister's statement about investment on capital. That is also significant.
Perhaps we can draw some parallel with the airlines. I do not think many people in this country want to fly on 25-year-old aircraft which do not have proper scheduling. The parallel could be drawn in respect of passenger rail
Transportation
service, and the minister has not addressed himself to this specific question. His statement in general will only heighten fears in respect of the intended demise of rail passenger services in this country.
I should like to back up my statement, and statements by many people in the country, as far as fears are concerned by reading briefly from a copy of a cabinet document that was issued in Ottawa. This is a confidential document that went to cabinet. I think it reveals more clearly the minister's thinking than does the minister's statement. Quite a bit of what the minister said in his statement is in this document, but he left out some rather important specifics. I would challenge the minister by suggesting that some of these specifics indicate what the CTC, in effect, is going to do.
This document says, in respect of the rationalization concept, that the government intends to propose a concept of three main elements, one being a western network of through services comprising a single main route between Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, with connecting services as necessary; an improved central network between Quebec and Windsor, including connecting services; and an Atlantic network of through services comprising a single main route east from Montreal, with connecting services as necessary. The document goes on to state:
It is proposed to work toward this revitalized basic network over a period of approximately three years which would allow for a series of public hearings before the CTC and provide time for implementation of the basic network and connecting services following hearing conclusions.
This certainly shows that at least the cabinet, if not the government, has made up its mind as to what it intends to do as far as rail passengers are concerned. This so-called revitalization, in the opinion of a lot of people, should be called destruction. The minister did not mention two of the things that people will be very concerned about. I read again from the policy document, which states:
-given the potential of the Quebec-Windsor corridor and decisions to improve rail passenger services there, the western and maritime regions may express concern that central Canada is to be benefited preferentially-
I think that may be an understatement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: The other point that I think bears mentioning is the following statement in this document:
-there are 96,000 railway union members with 12,000-15,000 man-years in passenger rail services. Although a carefully staged and implemented plan of revitalization can be devised which would affect a relatively small number of jobs-possibly under 1,000-employees will be concerned about the revitalized network and the effect on their positions.
That is also an understatement. In speaking with people in the railway business, I find them talking in terms of many thousands of people who will be either directly, or certainly indirectly, affected. The statement continues:
The most likely result of following this guideline will be the selection of the present CNR lines between Montreal-Toronto and Sudbury and of the CPR line from Sudbury to Vancouver.
The statement goes on to say, as the minister has mentioned, that the Quebec-Windsor corridor will come up for analysis and that city pairs may be considered such as Toronto-Windsor, Quebec-Montreal and Ottawa-Toronto.
21 130-39

January 29, 1976
Transportation
In recommendations in this statement we find the following:
-the replacement of present CNR and CPR transcontinental and maritime services by single route services-
The minister never mentioned that. If he does not intend such a move in that direction, I wish he would say so. The statement continues:
These services to involve the reduction or elimination of sleeper cars unless at full cost recovery rates and/or the use of railway hotels to the extent feasible to minimize the sleeper car problem-
This is ridiculous, and the minister and MOT officials should know it.


Mr. Fairweather:: Are they going to put wheels under the hotels?


Jack Burnett Murta: What is indicated is that ultimately, if we are going to travel on the railways, we will certainly be staying at railway hotels. Running through the document is a direct indication that the government has made up its mind to downgrade rail passenger services, and that downgrading appears to be a psychological expression of the kind of thinking at the present time in the Ministry of Transport.
As I said before, the minister's statement is significant in what it did not say, rather than what it said. I am not going to deal with all the election promises made, but the minister in charge of the Wheat Board probably campaigned with some of these same election promises. On June 18, 1974, in Cornwall, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced that the Liberal government, if re-elected, would take over all national passenger services operated by Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway. The Prime Minister talked about forming a corporation and a piggyback service on our transcontinental line. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government had no intention whatsoever of implementing these kinds of proposals. These were strictly political window-dressing to seduce voters at the time of the last election.
I know my time is limited, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to mention the kind of thinking that takes place in the Ministry of Transport. We in this country are apparently to have airports coming out of our ears. We spent $1.45 billion on the airport at Mirabel. Although the Pickering airport was scrapped, or has been postponed, it was going to cost us another $400 million. The Malton terminal 2 building cost us $42 million in 1973 and a parking extension cost us $125 million. We have all this, yet the department is not putting any money into existing facilities in order to fix up rail passenger services in this country.
STOL is a perfect example of the kind of blind-headed philosophy the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the government have at the present time. It is running at a deficit, and would have been running at a much larger deficit were it not for the fact that civil servants have been instructed to use this facility between Ottawa and Montreal.
The minister mentioned the user pay concept this afternoon, and I suggest we will hear a lot more about this concept in the future. The minister, his deputies and officials in MOT should know that there is no form of transportation, no matter what it is, that operates on a strictly

user pay concept, and to single out railways and railway passenger service is a red herring. To do that in this case is totally unrealistic and I do not believe the Canadian public will swallow it.
It is interesting to note, when we talk about psychology, that maybe one of the reasons behind this rather blind-sided policy is the fact that in the past two or three years there have been over 40 studies carried out on all aspects of rail passenger service. In 1970 there was a CTC study of intercity passenger transportation which concluded that it was possible to upgrade the Montreal-Toronto rail route so as to provide a good, three-hour rail service between the two cities. In 1972 an MOT and railways study recommended the nationalization of all maritime rail passenger services. The study supposedly forecast annual savings of up to $8 million. In 1973 there was a study which indicated that through the use of LRC-type trains it would be possible to provide a one hour and fifteen minute service between Montreal and Ottawa, and that the service could possibly make a profit.
The studies continued until the last one, in October, 1975. At that time three new studies were started by MOT. One heading is, "What is equity service for bus, rail and air?" That study was by the MOT task force. Another study was headed, "Passenger transportation work program". That was conducted by MOT's passenger core group. Another was, "Possible improvements to rail passenger services in the corridor". That, too, was carried out by MOT's policy, planning and major projects group with the participation of CNR and CPR. The list goes on and on. The government continually has put its rail passenger transportation policies in some desk or on some shelf in the minister's office, in the deputy minister's office or somewhere in the Ministry of Transport.
In conclusion, I should like to say that in my opinion the government will regret the day it made this kind of a decision, for two reasons. First, there is the energy aspect and, second, there is the pollution aspect. Neither the minister nor anyone else can deny that the most efficient use of energy is for a reasonable, efficient and comfortable train system in this country. As we move into the latter part of the 1970s and the early 1980s, pollution will become more of a problem. I predict that within ten years we will come to the House of Commons and ask for a revitalized railway program something similar to the program which the Americans have at the present time. At that time, such a program will cost us hundreds of millions of dollars and we will have wasted much time, talent and energy.
I would hope the Canadian people would react somewhat violently to the proposals of the minister. In my opinion, the government has made the decision to cut down rail passenger service and will ask the CTC to ratify that decision through some kind of democratic process such as the minister described. This certainly will not be acceptable to this party.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, after many statements and announcements made over many months by this minister, his predecessor and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in and out of and during election campaigns, and since there has been a build-up of
January 29, 1976

expectation in the minds of the Canadian people that today we would hear an announcement of specific and solid policy whether we like it or not, that we would hear a decision had been made and specific action would be taken, we have today's statement. Instead of an announcement of specific and solid policy, we received from the same people who brought us the anti-inflation program- after they had given themselves a salary increase of $4,000 or $6,000-a transportation statement that does not meet the expectations I have mentioned. It repeats what we have heard dozens of times before. It is based on assumptions and conclusions that are false or, at best, misleading.
The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) mentioned- and I repeat it-that on June 7, 1974, the Prime Minister said that wage and price controls were too simplistic, too disastrous, in economic and social terms, to consider. On June 18, the Liberal party promised a revitalized intercity passenger rail service for Canada. They promised measures to encourage and facilitate Canadian design and production of quality intercity passenger service vehicles, systems, equipment and machinery. They promised a Canadian passenger transport corporation whose first priority would be to work on the introduction of high-speed passenger rail service in Canada. They even promised excursion trains across the country.
However, today the minister announces, in effect, the curtailment of rail passenger service. In spite of all the platitudes and phrases in that statement, in effect that is what he is announcing. What is at question no longer is the integrity of the minister, the Prime Minister or the government but, rather, their fitness to govern and their ability to cope with a modern economy with a modern transportation system.
The former minister described transportation in this country as a mess. He said that competition does not work. We are still in the same mess, and the same competition does not work. Today I am reminded of the stories-and they are accurate-that are told about old Bob Edwards when he ran the Calgary Eye-Opener. When Bob Edwards ran that newspaper he carried on a running battle with the CPR. Every time there was a CPR wreck, he put a photograph of the wreck on the front page of the paper.
When R. B. Bennett, who was legal counsel for the Canadian Pacific Railway, became leader of the Conservative party, Bob Edwards published a front page picture of R. B. Bennett in the Calgary Eye-Opener with the caption underneath "Another CPR wreck". Now, I would suggest to the media, they should publish a photograph of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on the front page of the newspapers across this country and call it "Another CPR wreck".
The minister, on the first page of his statement, made a major concession about what members of this House and members of the public have been saying for years: he said that the railways have been allowed to deteriorate so that Canadians no longer have a fair incentive to use them. That is true. Then he said:
This was in no way due to any default on the part of those who actually operate the trains but to a combination of management and government policies which could only produce losses and worsening service.
Transportation
Nowhere in this statement does the minister propose to correct those services. In no way does he propose to change the policies which he admits produced losses and worsening of service. Now that we have the confession on page one, the Minister of Transport goes on to say:
These services should be operated on a commercially viable basis, and fares should be set through the efficient forces of competition and the marketplace.
Mr. Speaker, that is what got us into this mess in the first place. One has only to look at a newpaper article in the Financial Post of January 17, where the minister is reported as saying: "That the user should pay is the key". If that is true, we not only kiss the railways goodbye but I ask the minister whether he is now saying that the users of Air Canada, CPR and the other airlines in this country will pick up the $600 million deficit, which will be the case for
1974-75, for the provision of air transportation services by the Government of Canada.
Is he also saying that the users of buses, which the government and the experts in the minister's department claim are paying their own way, will now be required to pay their own way? For example, there was a deficit last year of $1.2 billion, in terms of the revenue received and cost paid for the highway system in this country. So if the users are to pay, the minister has more bad news for many people.
Is the minister saying that the St. Lawrence Seaway deficit will be picked up by the users only? Is he saying that the tens of million of dollars in deficits in the operation of our harbours and ports will now be picked up entirely by the users? Mr. Speaker, if you think there was a mess before under the former minister of transport, can you visualize what is coming?
The minister's statement perpetuates the old problems. Successive governments, in preparing our transportation policy, have refused to take into account Canada's geography, its climate and the location of its people. This government continues to refuse to recognize these factors in transportation, which is an essential public service which everyone has to use. This service can no longer be operated under nineteenth century concepts of profitability, commercial viability and competition. That has gone out of style and out of existence; it is irrelevant and obsolete. Talk to the people of countries in Europe, talk to the Japanese, the Australians, and now even the Americans with their beginnings of a new railway transportation system: the are now admitting what European countries admitted 30 years ago, namely, that competition and profitability in the provision of an essential public service have no place in a decent society which needs transportation services to meet the needs of the population.
If what the minister says about competition, commercial viability and that only the user shall pay, is logical, then it would be equally logical to have two competing sewer systems and two competing water lines running under our streets; it would be logical to have two competing telephone systems and power lines. The principles of competition and commercial viability were thrown out of the window 100 years ago, but this economic transportation dinosaur still clutches onto this nineteenth century con-
21 130-39%

January 29, 1976
Transportation
cept. While he was riding around in his executive jet at the taxpayers' expense between here and Saskatoon, while Joe Citizen pays $250 to fly between Regina, Saskatoon and Ottawa, he and his experts dreamed up today's announcement.
As I mentioned, the minister complained about the subsidy of $167 million for railroads which could amount to $400 million by 1980. There was no mention of an elitist attitude and the cause of it, on the part of the government, with regard to the $600 million we will have to fork over to keep our airlines flying. No mention was made by the minister of the nonsense, the inefficiencies and the economic system of flying DC-8s and DC-9s between Calgary and Edmonton, Montreal and Ottawa, and Montreal and Toronto. It is stupid and wasteful, and in the long run it is not time saving. From downtown Ottawa to downtown Montreal, I submit, it is as fast, if not faster, to travel by rail than to fly, and the ratio of energy consumption should be sufficient to convince even the minister and the government that rail transportation must receive priority and transportation by bus and airlines should be integrated into a central transportation service. Surely the minister should decide on such a system, in the name of energy savings, pollution protection, convenience and safety.
If you consider the energy use ratio in trips from one to 500 miles, with 1 as the ratio for trains, it is 2.2 for the Dash 7, which can only carry 10 or 11 deputy ministers, and 5 for a DC-9. That should be sufficient ground in itself for the government to give priority to rail transportation and to integrate bus services, city transit services and airline services into the central part of our transportation system, namely, the railroads.
The minister says that the subsidies provided by Canadian are proportionately higher for passenger trains than for other forms of transportation. That is a lie.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: It's a shame you should use that term.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The minister recognizes the ability of trains to carry greater numbers of people, requiring minimum amounts of land. I should like to remind the House of the 93,000 acres of land taken over by the government for Mirabel. People in the Toronto area are away ahead of the minister. They said "No" to the 17,000 or 18,000 acres of land for Pickering, and they made it very plain.
While the minister admits that from the point of view of the use of land, the rail system is best, he continues to advocate policies requiring the curtailment of rail services, and in fact considers that "little dumps" like Edmonton and Saskatoon should not have a transcontinental rail service. "Who do the people of Saskatoon think they are, that they should have a transcontinental rail service?"- that is what the minister and his experts think.
The minister's announcement means nothing more than the perpetuation of what we have had for decades. It means policies which will continue to discriminate against Canadians because of where they happen to live. I want to conclude by saying that since transportation is a public service and a public utility which everyone has to use, it should be-as is the case in dozens of countries of all political stripes-publicly owned, controlled and operated.

That service, under public control and ownership, should integrate all modes of transportation; but we submit that it must have as its first priority the provision of service, and it should provide maximum access to people all over the country as a matter of right, and not a privilege.
We consider that all other modes of transportation must be integrated with, and ancillary to, the essential ingredient in our transportation system, namely, the railways. Unless and until this or any other government of Canada does that, we will continue to have an inefficient transportation system. The announcement made by the minister today has provided no assurance that anything will be changed. To the contrary, it will increase the amount of terror in the minds and hearts of the people of Canada in terms of what is in store for them regarding the provision of transportation and what it will cost them.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the statement of the minister, but still with very much scepticism because if everything that has been said in the speeches made here these last ten years on the question of improving our transportation had materialized, Canada would have the best transport system in the world. I have a very good memory of the famous statements of the former Minister of Transport, who wanted to renovate everything and who in fact has not renovated anything at all. The best evidence is that he is now in charge of another department, namely environment. I hope that in his new department he would have people clean all the stations which have been boarded up as a result of mismanagement and which are falling apart while people talk about renovation.
Today the minister tells us: We are going to have regional studies. But who will be in charge? The minister says nothing about that. Will he still send groups of technocrats from big cities to study, for instance, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region so that they can impose their conditions? Mr. Speaker, if such are the wishes of the minister, he should forget about these studies. If he really wishes to be serious, he should come and talk to the people of the area, and organize meetings and discussions on the best way to renovate our transport systems. The approach then would be realistic as it would mean talking with local people, residents and railway employees. I submit that this would be the first step in dealing with the service the minister recommends. But if on the other hand he still relies on a kind of ever burgeoning bureaucracy while maintenance staff decreases proportionally, then the minister is once more going to miss the boat-


An hon. Member:: The train!


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: -and there will not be any
serious change. Like all his other predecessors, he wants to suppress some lines of passenger trains. Passengers are always victimized, as if they were not part of the railway service, so entitled to get services as taxpayers. We have nothing against freight service. Freight is a very profitable activity in our area. But for 15 years now we have been told that our passenger service was going to end and our people are very upset by this eventuality.


It is my opinion that with serious surveys, it is possible to prove that a passenger service, not the one that we have now, which is completely obsolete, but a really efficient one will attract a great deal of customers, because I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that I have been travelling by train for these last 15 years.
We hear people who after their second or third trip by train say on their arrival: "They had me once, but never ever again." Well, this means that service or safety is deficient. We noted again this winter a lack of safety and I will return to the matter later. The minister has stated once more that he will close some lines. Perhaps some of them ought to be cancelled. However, in areas where it is the only reliable means of transport available, closing those lines should be out of question. The withdrawal of sleeping cars has also been mentioned. The minister is trying to justify himself because for years now I found that the railway company was merely interested in its hotel system. It would then be easier to fill those hotels set up throughout Canada and worth umpteen million dollars. It is likely that they were beginning to empty, so trains would stop there and passengers would have to stay overnight in hotels and be fed. He may be right on this account if he wants to save these hotels.
Now, we are wondering about offices. I live in the Sague-nay-Lac-Saint-Jean area. A few years ago, you may recall that the servocentre campaign was launched. One was created in Jonquiere and another in Saint-Felicien. Now, they want to close the latter and maintain the former, which was built, it has to be said, at the cost of millions of dollars, while I always stressed that Jonquiere was not the proper site for a servocentre. The central junction should have been Chibougamau, the Dolbeau junction. The Jonquiere junction was at Chambord. But the officials in Montreal have never been able to understand that. Never. Today, they realize, after spending a great deal of money that the Saint-Felicien servocentre is not longer any good. After three, four or five years, it is no longer any good. They are looking towards Jonquiere to build some extensions. After having bought warehouses which are no longer used, they have to rent them to the City of Jonquiere to get rid of them, and it is impossible to come back to the central point. I call the minister's attention to this problem so that when he will commission studies in our area his research workers will geographically locate the central point of the area. They will find that will reduce expenses first of all and then improve the services. The railway will then be able to tell the population that they provide good services, and not services like the ones we have had those last few years and again this winter.
This winter, Mr. Speaker, passengers from Chambord have travelled aboard a non heated train at temperatures of 40 below zero. The train had to go to Montreal without any heat because there is no more service in Chambord. Previously there was some storage, repairs could be done, there was a garage, but there is nothing of that today. They have to go to Montreal to have a pump repaired. So all passengers had to wrap themselves up in blankets on their way to Montreal. That happened three or four times, that I know of. It happens again and again, and nobody wants to correct it. Engines stay outdoors during winter because
Transportation
there is no garage. There are garages, yes, three beautiful garages, but they are closed. They are not heated. Engines are covered with ice. Then they start for Montreal. They use hammers to break the ice. They they start for Montreal. One engineer told me recently: To go up to Chibougamau, we use five engines, and we come back with one or two, because the others are all broken. There are no maintenance men left. The service no longer works. These things must be known, but nobody talks about them. How can you expect improvements?
Moreover, those who might speak up cannot do so because they stand to lose their jobs; and so it goes. Does anyone believe the people who took the train this winter will do so again next winter? Never, no, never! Yet, that run could so easily be improved. Unfortunately, it takes 12, 18 and even 20 hours to get to Montreal when, with a normal train, it could easily be done in six. I would even say, very easily; every engineer says so.
So, what is the problem? At every turn, you see a little inspector of 24 or 25, fresh out of school, coming to impose new rules upon old employees who know ten times as much as he does. To my mind, someone will have to start using his brains and put an end to the game of the small bureaucrat. The government will have to come out of its lethargy, quit putting its trust in those people and try to appoint people who are serious enough to be capable of giving the services needed by the people.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, because I would not like to be too long, all we want is good service. One would believe that government officials, especially those of the railway company, have forgotten above all that the railroad is paid by taxpayers and that in return they have to provide the necessary services to the population. This is all forgotten. In my opinion, the word "service" has been forgotten. It is far away from their minds.
When you think of services, you have to think of prices. To rent a regular small bed, it now costs $17. I cannot see a journeyman going to Montreal who can afford the luxury of a bed which costs $34 return, apart from his ticket. Prices must therefore be in line with services. Finally, safety must be provided. The passenger must feel safe. There should not be any events, like those we experienced last winter. However, I talked about it before the House, but nothin was changed. We have the oldest cars of the area, and they blame people for not taking the train.
But I can very well understand why a person who has taken the train once won't do it again.
Therefore I ask the minister to have his officials examine this matter, in order to provide people with modern travelling carriages and later to appoint responsible people, local people, to advise him. Local officials will be able to help him if he wishes to do a good job. On the other hand if he only wishes to follow the path of the former ministers who have preceded him, we must expect the same disappointments we are experiencing now.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for having the courage to ouline his policy for us and we are awaiting the results.

January 29, 1976
Transportation


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a very frank question to the Minister of Transport. What has happened to the very fine proposals made by the Prime Minister and members of the government during the election campaign with regard to railway transportation services? May I very pointedly ask the minister whether the position he outlined in very general terms this afternoon is worthy of any more credence and can be relied upon any more than the apparently ill-considered proposals made by his leader during the election campaign?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate in the course of the statement this afternoon that it was part of many aspects of transportation announcements including, for instance, one on the demonstration project which will be forthcoming later, and the one with regard to commuters which was made earlier. I regret that hon. members opposite have been misled by the comments of their colleagues, and missed the point of this announcement to revitalize rail passenger service in Canada in a very fundamental way which changes the downgraded approach which the 80 per cent subsidy led to in the railway system. Going toward a system where we are prepared to pay the full costs of an operating system will tend to assure those innovations and investment of capital which are necessary if railway systems in Canada are to survive with passengers.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the minister's statement was as free of specifics in transportation as was the statement of the Minister of the Environment earlier today free of specifics in environmental matters, with reference to the point the minister just made I would ask if the government is saying it will pay up to 100 per cent subsidy for passenger travel, as opposed to 80 per cent. If he is talking about a lot of passenger service, that would mean a lot, but as I am sure the minister would agree that if he was talking about the railway service from Oshawa to Toronto and abandoning everything else, it would mean absolutely nothing. That is where the House seems to rest today. Could the minister indicate precisely what the government has in mind? Does it intend to apply the principle, which sounds good, to all passenger service across Canada, to passenger service between major centres or intra-urban passenger transportation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have wanted, of course, to allow for the kinds of examination and consultation which can go on through CTC procedures. Hon. members opposite would certainly have criticized if we had today laid before the House a blueprint of exactly which lines were to stay and which ones were to go, without that process of consultation. Given that limitation, the statement has indicated quite clearly our view that there is a place for a transcontinental service which is a very important, basic network part of the system.


John Edward Broadbent: With 100 per cent subsidy?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, with 100 per cent subsidy. There should be tributaries to it and many of those may well be rail, although in some cases it will be found Letter to have bus links rather than rail links from certain parts of the coun-

try leading into that system. It indicates that we believe in intercity rail transportation between major pairs of cities, in addition, that is, to the transcontinental service, and that we also believe that in regard to remote areas there are places where these services have to be maintained. That is the broad picture. Short of actually drawing a map of our own view of how that will look, that is as precise as we can be.
In each of those cases, what we are talking about is a revitalized rail system, marketed well, properly capitalized, running efficiently and well, which will attract back those passengers who, when they are there, provide the only way the rail system can be really economic in terms of energy. Not empty trains, but full trains, are economic in terms of energy.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a comment and ask a question of the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we have had excessive comment. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would just ask his question.


Jack Burnett Murta: Very well, Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from comment. Whether the subsidy is 80 per cent or 100 per cent, does the minister not agree that there will not be any benefit unless there is a guarantee or incentive for the railways to modernize their equipment? The present 80 per cent subsidy has not worked, and I suggest the 100 per cent subsidy will not work either. That is the first question. If I may ask a second question, then I will sit down and that will be my limited contribution.
It takes between three and five years lead time, with regard to rolling stock for railways, from when it is ordered until it is received. If we are to have modernization of the rail passenger service in Canada before the end of the seventies, the equipment must be ordered now. May I ask the minister why there was no mention in his statement of the modernization of existing equipment for the existing system?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there was the indication that we will expect the railways, with the 100 per cent subsidy, to go in for the proper kind of equipment. We will expect those orders to be placed progressively now. There is already a broad outline of the kind of basic system it will be, without the final detail in regard to all the miles involved. I believe that we can devise a system, and the statement indicates our view that the 100 per cent subsidy will be connected to an incentive to management and an assurance of proper management techniques.
I would draw to the attention of the hon. member the very important distinction between a basic 100 per cent subsidy which is properly paid and the situation where the railways do not lose some additional money of their own, as it were, on every bit of loss-which is the current system-which leads them to want to minimize losses but very often this is done by minimizing services. That is what we want to remove in the new, revitalized system.


Mr. Beatty:: May I ask the minister the implications of today's statement with regard to the possible reinstatement of railway passenger service on the six lines of
January 29, 1976

railway in southwestern Ontario on which passenger service was discontinued some five years ago by the CTC?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very pertinent aspect of our new view of rail passenger travel that we see that the proven use of those services between city pairs, when those services are properly organized and properly put in place, may well lead to the reintroduction of services between city pairs where that service does not now exist.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of the fact that there is a large Canadian National terminal in my riding which employs 600 or 700 people. There is considerable concern about the possible negative effect on employment at that terminal. Could I have an assurance from the minister that the ramifications of the program he has announced will not result in a loss of jobs? My second question arises from the statement of the hon. member for Lisgar, that the possibility of discontinuance of the transcontinental service by the CNR is a real possibility. Will that service continue? Can the minister make that comment as well, for the sake of those employed by the railroad in my constituency?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give precise indications of what the results of the deliberations of the Canadian Transport Commission will be with regard to which particular services will best provide passenger travel across this nation from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast. What I can say, however, is that this is in no way to be thought of as a point of time in which railway service in total in Canada will diminish. On the contrary, in western Canada in particular there is a vast increase in freight projected to move across our railways. Therefore, there is a corresponding need for people to fill jobs in the railway service.
Of course, a change in passenger service to freight service does have implications for jobs and adjustment, and has some real difficulties. I indicated in my statement a real concern about that matter. In my meeting with union leaders yesterday, I indicated I will want to be following that up, with the particular question of who might be affected, well in advance of the actual decisions, so we can attempt to make sure the adjustment is as easy as possible.


Mr. Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister whether there have been full discussions with the railways about this statement, and whether they are in general agreement with the policy outlined today.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we had a discussion with the railway presidents yesterday just after my meeting with the union leaders. I leave it to them to indicate their reaction to it.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister whether he is aware of the hatchet job he is doing on the city of Edmonton by removing transcontinental passenger service from the fifth largest city in Canada, without any consultation with the city administration in order to learn of the crippling effect this policy will have on a community
Transportation
built up on rail service for decades. Second, there is the chaotic effect on Jasper which last year was visited by
27,000	tourists who got there by rail.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I really wish the hon. member would not give credence to that kind of possibility at this stage, in view of the fact that the very process we have started is consultation, particularly through the CTC hearings, and the consideration that will then be given by the CTC to this whole question of what is the real requirement for passenger service and what alternatives there are to best provide service to the various parts of this country.


Douglas Roche: Is the minister saying that in this process of consultation he is opening up, through the CTC, the question that if the protest from Edmonton and Western Canada is strong enough against cancellation of passenger service, the policy he announced today will be rescinded or cut back?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, what should be observed is that we will surely want a reasoned analysis of the genuine needs of people for services and the way those needs can be served with no undue waste of money, which, after all, is very important since we can use it so effectively in other ways for Canadians, rather than waste it. We may yet see a spine of service, with tributaries to it, as being far more effective and giving the service to people that is required without having a complete duplication of service in all regions of the country. This is exactly what is proposed to be studied.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transport arises out of the fact there are now three main lines going into Atlantic Canada. Does the government directive to the Canadian Transport Commission mean that one or more of these three lines will, in effect, be lost?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is likely that one, with tributary services, will be the end result of this process.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, even as we are here today in the House of Commons the CNR is taking steps to cause hardships with regard to its passenger service on the Supercontinental. For example, the dining car between Capreol and Winnipeg has been removed; sleeping cars have been removed; the price of a sandwich has been raised to 90 cents. Can the minister assure us that he will forthwith inform the CNR that they are not to embark upon any of these inconveniences to passengers which discourage them from using that service?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is not ordinarily my practice or intention to interfere with the day to day management and operation of that Crown corporation or, indeed, any others under my responsibility. Hon. members should appreciate the very high cost of some of these services which are being provided. Just as with first-class, higher income air travellers, so, too, with the higher income first-class rail travel there is a real question. I ask it: Why should the people of Canada generally pay such significant amounts for the travel amenities of these people when others travelling coach-class, and certainly by bus, pay their own way?

January 29, 1976
Transportation


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to limit the questioning unduly. I have been attempting to see every member who wants to ask a question and restricting him to one question unless a supplementary seems necessary. It seems that all parties would be adequately represented and most desires met if we were to conclude the questioning by recognizing the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, the hon. member for Kootenay West, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of a condition that has existed for many years in rail passenger service between the capital city of Ottawa and Toronto. I have raised this question in the House twice in the past three years. The CNR has been running their train from Toronto to Brockville and renting trackage from the CPR from Brockville to Ottawa, although the shortest distance between the capital and Toronto is by way of the Smiths Falls subdivision to Napanee and west on the main line. Will the minister look into the great waste of money and inefficiency that is occasioned thereby, so that under his new policy the publicly-owned line will be used between here and Toronto by way of Smiths Falls and Napanee? That would preclude having to rent trackage from CPR.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to request an explanation about that on behalf of the hon. member.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the fact that the Minister of Transport may indeed have some difficulty keeping in his mind the various tracks and services throughout Canada. Bearing that in mind, I draw to the attention of the minister his statement that he would like to maintain service to remote areas. Is the minister prepared to provide service to remote areas where it is no longer being maintained and where there has been an erosion of service, such as the Kettle Valley line which in 1950 had passenger service, regular dining car service, sleeping service, then went to Budd car service and, finally, to cattle car service?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is consistent with this policy to examine remote areas which are not now served, as well as those where service exists and where, in line with the policy, it should be retained or when no other adequate alternative is available.


Mr. Speaker:: Before concluding the questioning, I overlooked the fact that two government members had been standing. There is certainly no intention to preclude government members from questioning in these kinds of periods. I was looking to my right and perhaps was not aware that the hon. member for St. Boniface and the hon. member for Laprairie were attempting to ask questions. It is only fair that they be included in the questioning before it concludes.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, as you are probably aware, the reason I am concerned and would like to ask a question is that there are many railroad employees in my constituency, in the CN shop, the Symington yard and elsewhere. I should like to ask the minister whether he can assure us that the number of railroad employees will not diminish while the studies are taking place; in other words,

that no action will be taken until the study has been completed?


Otto Emil Lang: I cannot say there might not be any changes on a day to day, operational basis, but certainly the intention behind the policy statement is that the actual services now being provided should be continued until the studies are completed and a decision taken by the CTC. I might say, also, that I was very conscious of the interest of the hon. member for St. Boniface and also of the hon. member for London East-members who are I know are in close contact with those who work on the railroad-when I indicated in my statement that I hoped to have the assistance of members of parliament in seeing that the needs of employees of the railroads are considered.


Mr. Watson:: Mr. Speaker, the minister referred in his statement to further discussions with the provinces. I would draw his attention to the fact that around Montreal we have an entire network of rail facilities which are conceivably available for urban rapid transit purposes. As the minister is aware, the province has been waiting for an announcement, some sort of federal direction, before acting itself and making a move toward the utilization of these facilities.
Can the minister tell the House whether he anticipates in the immediate future entering into discussions with the Province of Quebec with a view to making arrangements for their utilization of these existing facilities so as to provide the transit facilities which are desperately needed by large numbers of people living off the island of Montreal who are affected each morning by having to wait as long as three or four hours because of congestion on a vehicular bridge? Can the minister tell us today whether he and the province of Quebec will soon be discussing this matter?


Otto Emil Lang: In general terms we have of course, been taking the position that initiative and interest in commuter services around major cities is a matter for basic leadership from the municipalities and provinces involved. However, as the hon. member has indicated, because of the possible use of particular rail lines which are under national jurisdiction, we would always be glad to have discussions of the kind he has suggested.
I would, in fact, have taken part in a discussion with the Quebec minister of transport in which the topics would have included the Montreal transportation question. That was scheduled for the 27th of this month but weather conditions prevented us getting together. That meeting will be rescheduled and we shall certainly be looking at questions of that kind.


Mr. Wenman:: Will the mode of consultation include public hearings and reference to legislation or motions to the House of Commons and its committees? What did the minister mean when he described passenger service as a system designed for an earlier time? Since British Columbia entered confederation on the basis of a national dream, does the minister consider confederation a system designed for an earlier time?


Otto Emil Lang: I have said that I expect passenger service to continue to the Pacific coast from the rest of Canada. Also, in answer to an early question I indicated there would be a vast increase in freight traffic to the coast from the western region of the country. So the continuation of the national dream is assured. What I had in mind was that the nature and use of our rail system really reflected a previous period and had not gone through the necessary updating so as to offer the kind of service which might make it a useful one throughout Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the reference the minister made in his statement to his willingness to consult with the representatives of labour, and in view of the fact that changes are almost bound to result in relocation, lay-offs, early retirement, and so on, will the minister include in his studies a personal concern with the pension plans of the railways? In particular, will he study, as soon as the government gets it, the report which will be coming from Dr. Noel Hall concerning all aspects of the pension plans of all the railroads in Canada?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I would be glad to look at the pension plans so far as they relate to the changes which are involved in this particular policy. I do not think I should attempt to overtake the other ways in which examination is being made in a general sense, just because they are indirectly involved here. I should add, partly in answer to the preceding question, that consultation and hearings will take place in the process of examining this question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Roche: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in questioning the Minister of Transport on this policy, I asked him, as reported on page 10376 of Hansard, whether he had consulted the city administration of Edmonton with regard to the serious adverse effect the policy would have on that city. In part of his response, the hon. gentleman said:
We have had extensive consultations throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, ten minutes ago I spoke to the officials of the city administration of Edmonton concerned with intergovernmental affairs, and they advise me there have been no consultations with Edmonton concerning this policy. I wish to protest the misleading answer given me yesterday by the Minister of Transport. Knowing the minister, I am sure it was not his intention to mislead, but I raise the question on a point of order now because that incident calls into question the sincerity of the government when it states again that there will be consultation and that implementation of the policy may eventually be influenced by the response from the public as well as by the city of Edmonton, labour, management and the CNR-everybody involved in Edmonton. I want it to be clear that if I, as a member of parliament, encourage a considered response to be given to the government through the consultative process, the government will accept this in a serious and responsible manner.


Otto Emil Lang: It is obvious even from the words read by the hon. member that his rather petty point has no basis. His
Medical Care
question yesterday contained many different elements and I was not responding directly to the part about the city of Edmonton. I know that the former mayor of that city was not contacted by the hon. member. The consultations were held very widely over a broad range of time with many people in many different areas.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, January 28, 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. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, just before the House adjourned yesterday I had remarked that, should the government's clairvoyance regarding Bill C-68 fail to justify itself, Canadians would be faced with one of two alternatives-reduced health care services or increased taxes. In other words, if medical costs increase at a higher rate than that contemplated by the 1975-76 budgetary ceilings, the provinces will be forced to seek the very solutions which the federal government deemed undesirable in 1969.
There is no question that the unilateral action of the federal government has outraged the provinces. Their immediate reaction was to care for a cessation of consultation in connection with all cost-sharing programs of the federal government. If the government's ploy in introducing this legislation was to bring the provinces back to the bargaining table, as has been suggested, it is now clear that this ploy was completely misdirected.
Accompanying the unilateral approach to decision-making is the entire issue of arbitrariness. If Bill C-68 is passed, the ceilings established in the bill will become statutory. While one of the primary principles of responsible government is that parliament cannot bind its successor, political realists realize that reversal of decisions previously made is usually a long and difficult task. What will happen if the ceilings on spending are too low? What if the desired standards for health care simply cannot be maintained, given the bill's restrictions? It appears the figures have been pulled out of a hat; no explanation or investigation accompanied these figures. In short, the ceilings can be criticized because there is no indication that the percentage delimiters are appropriate and also because there is no room for flexibility. The government has made open-ended provision for ceilings and, should they be incorrect, there is little room for compensation.
Last year, national medical care expenditures ran at $1.37 billion. Expenditures for this year cannot yet be
10448

January 29, 1976
Medical Care
realized, but obviously three possibilities exist: outlay could increase marginally, or as projected, or quite markedly. Since what happens financially in this year will dictate federal contributions for the years to come, one again can only speculate what could happen even if the provinces' budgetary outlay stayed inside the guidelines.
The government has made the argument that the imposition of ceilings on the federal contribution to medicare will not cause undue strain on provincial coffers, will not result in reduced health care services, and that the guidelines could encourage provincial restraint and provide a positive input into planned budgetary forecasting. This could only occur if the price of physicians' services likewise did not rise above the budgetary ceilings. In turn, if physicians' services do not rise above the ceilings, then the government has, in fact, imposed an effective wage control on a single, identifiable professional group. It is not difficult to see the blatant, discriminatory nature of such a move.
Another point which can be raised deals with doctors' salaries and taxes. The government has decried the increased costs of health care. We have seen that in the medical care field this documentation is basically without foundation. However, even if one was to concede that medical expenses should be curbed, it must be remembered that the federal government receives a substantial return on its capital outlay for medicare in the form of physicians' taxes.
In 1972, the average taxable income of physicians in Canada was $41,105. By inflating this figure by the increase in medical expenses we could speculate that doctors are earning approximately $50,000 per annum. From the last figures available in 1973, there were 36,095 physicians in Canada. National gross physicians' incomes can therefore be estimated at roughly $1.17 billion. Given the present tax structure, each doctor in Canada would pay approximately $9,600 in federal taxes, equalling $346.5 million in total tax payment to the federal treasury, or 51 per cent of the total federal payments to the provinces for medical care in 1974. In this light, the government's complaint of budgetary strain due to costs of medicare becomes increasingly hollow.
There is no question that the reasons for imposing ceilings on medical costs are fairly flimsy. It is not possible to forecast accurately what is going to happen to medical care in Canada in view of the changes suggested in Bill C-68. This point has been mentioned before and should be emphasized again. Since the long-term condition of health services in Canada is dependent on so many countervailing variables and non-quantifiable exigencies, it is increasingly difficult to predict the future of this field without blind confidence. However, this is exactly what the government has done in introducing Bill C-68.
In conclusion, the government has given itself a narrow and restrictive course to follow in the years ahead. It certainly cannot claim to be prophetic, yet the minister and his colleagues have committed themselves to an empirical approach to health care financing, thereby severely limiting their ability to deal with problems in the unforeseen or unforeseeable future.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join this debate today on the medicare budget,

Bill C-68, not only as a physician and pharmacist but also as a fellow citizen concerned with the effectiveness and efficiencies of national spending. I think it is important to start by looking at our medical care system. First, the previous system. Until recent years Canada shared with the world a traditional system of health care even then one of the best. People lived a simpler life and only when definitely ill and unable to carry on went for help to a health professional, usually a physician or medical doctor. Hospital remained a last resort.
As with any system, there were advantages and disadvantages. They paid the doctor directly on a professional fee for service basis, similarly the hospital. There developed a proud system of responsibility and mutual respect. Eventually private insurance schemes became available but the same basic sense of values continued. Administration was still simple and privately financed. Undoubtedly, some inequities did exist, inequities between rich and poor, between those with serious illness and those fortunate enough to remain healthy. Some people probably hesitated to seek care when they needed it.
However, in my own experience, people were looked after as well as possible, within the limitations of the time, the state of the art and science. Generally, no one in need was turned away and unpaid debts were absorbed by doctors and hospitals. The so-called Robin Hood system was accepted-take more from the rich to cover the poor. Medicine was not only a respected profession but "the noble profession". Ironically, medicine in the old days seemed to enjoy more respect while having less capability to help the ill. However, with changing social values in recent years, even with increasing general affluence and more ability to pay, such a traditional system came under increasing criticism and increasing public aversion to anything resembling charity.
Next, the present system. The concept of comprehensive prepaid plans grew stronger, beyond the limits of private plans, and public pressure led to more and more government involvement. In spite of concerns in both the public and private sector, we seemed to become more and more involved in open-ended plans as well. Undoubtedly these were politically popular during the existing affluent times when they started. As well, they probably represented an easier type of plan to administer.
Deterrent fees have been considered and even tried. I personally find many people, including doctors, feel they are still worth a try. However, many others feel that not only do they not work but they are unjust, with the wrong people deterred from seeking help-the needy, the old, the poor, the submissive. Our open-ended plan was founded on the honour system, on values presumed to exist, unlikely to lead to overuse or misuse. Now, with mounting costs, we wonder if our trust was misplaced.
People have not been trained to restrain their use of the system. In fact, they have been encouraged in recent years to increase their use of it in the name of good, modern, scientific medicine, especially preventive aspects such as regular physical examinations and cancer tests. We probably have been sensitive to mutual criticism at the thought of suggesting less use of health services, including both sides in the doctor-patient relationship. In an expanding
January 29, 1976

economy, an affluent society with constantly rising expectations is not likely to accept limits on services gladly.
However, times have changed, the economy has slowed and pressure has developed against government size and spending. In June, 1975, the Minister of Finance introduced certain major spending restraints, the first seen in many years and the first of many to come, probably. In the medical field it involved two areas: hospital care, including diagnostic services, and medicare, which includes mainly doctors' services in both the office and on house calls, plus administrative expenses for both.
Over the next three years increases in the federal contribution to medicare were to be scaled down annually to 14 per cent, 12.5 per cent and 10 per cent calculated to cover a decreasing inflation rate and a 1.5 per cent rate of population increase. It was not stated how this would affect doctors' fees and total incomes, a matter of subsequent concern to doctors and, surprisingly, also to provincial governments which had also been expressing alarm over growing health and welfare budgets.
Until the anti-inflation program came along doctors were also concerned that they would be the only Canadians under income restraints and therefore the victims of discrimination. Now they are concerned, like everyone else, about income guidelines, but also whether the discrimination will remain after the anti-inflation program ceases.
Still, how would a medicare bill like C-68 relate to a general restraint bill like C-73 in the meantime? The medical profession also points out that theirs is one of the few professions with a publicly-standardized fee schedule more readily subject to controls. Ontario doctors, for example, have been held and have agreed to an average 5 per cent increase in their fees over the last five years, including increased costs of practice, while inflation has been increasing at 10 per cent. An annual 10 per cent increase in fees over the next three years over and above the percentage increase in costs of medical practice according to the guidelines might then be seen as acceptable as long as this limit were applied consistently to other Canadians, and as long as increased costs were exempted as is to be the case for other businesses.
However, doctors incomes also depend on how many patients they see in a year, as well as their level of individual fees. Should a limit be put on their total income and, either way, how does one distinguish between true productivity, which is to be encouraged, as against unnecessary, expensive overservicing, which is to be discouraged? Personally, I believe only the profession itself is capable of making the distinction, and even then only with great difficulty.
Many factors can legitimately and sometimes temporarily increase the annual volume of a doctor's practice beyond his control: the natural growth of his practice, especially for a doctor just getting established, or one changing location, loss of a partner, or an increase of illness in the community-and he should not be penalized for this. If he is, his patients and the community can also suffer. Fair treatment is also more conducive to a valuable profession such as a doctor managing an expensive social system well.
Medical Care
A surtax on total income might cut costs and might even discourage misuse of the health system, but is the price worth it in terms of lost productivity and a demoralized profession? By the way, it is also important that income equitability exist with the medical profession, that is, between geographical areas like provinces and between specialists and GPs.
Let me say a word about health care spending. The fast-growing Canadian health and welfare bill is now taking about one-third of all government spending. The federal budget for this department will be around $10 billion, and the Ontario budget around $3 billion for 1976, in proportion to population. At present, the federal government is committed to pay half the cost of whatever hospital and medical expenses the provinces incur.
At three federal-provincial conferences between 1971 and 1973, Ottawa offered the provinces a formula under which they would receive a per capita lump sum every year tied to increases in the gross national product rather than to increases in health costs, but the provinces rejected it each time, convinced that they would lose if they accepted it.
The federal Minister of National Health and Welfare Minister (Mr. Lalonde) has announced, in principle, extending federal support to some lower cost health services beyond those covered at present, but which ones have not yet been announced. The changes are expected to slow the rate of increase in health costs. These other services, presumably less expensive, are to conform to existing legislation,-the Medical Care Act, and the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. Alternatives to acute hospital care, such as nursing homes, home care and ambulatory services will be considered, but provinces will first be expected to give a firm commitment on their plans in the hospital and medical fields over the next few years.
Support for dental and drug care programs is not considered possible at this time, and because of the magnitude of any such programs they would have to be considered separately as the economy improves. Such an agreement should meet the demands of most provincial governments which have been complaining about the present health plan as too rigid financially, which prevents funds from being used efficiently. In addition, cost-saving efforts must go beyond medical bills and place more emphasis on prevention, on environment and behavioural risks such as automobile accidents, physical neglect and occupational risks as outlined in the ministry's "New Perspectives on Health for Canadians".
However, on the professional scene, hospital costs are increasing faster than medical costs, that is, those in the doctor's office or on house calls. Ontario health minister Frank Miller complains that hundreds of hospital beds are now empty, but hospital boards and doctors are not keen to use them for older chronic patients, perhaps due to longstanding patterns of practice. Average hospital budgets in Ontario were up 15 per cent for 1975, nearly twice the rate allowed under provincial ceilings. In return, Mr. Miller is threatening to close some hospitals and decrease the power of hospital boards. An average hospital bed costs up to $20,000 per year to operate but, ironically, closing a ward saves only $8,500 per bed per year.
2 1 1 30-40'/2

January 29, 1976
Medical Care
The original 1974 Ontario hospital budget was $1.1 billion but reached $1.4 billion, while compulsory 2 per cent cuts saved only $21 million. Total Ontario hospital spending was predicted to reach $1.6 billion in 1975, even without additional staff and services. The total Ontario health bill will increase from $2.5 billion in 1974-75 to $3 billion in
1975-76. Mr. Miller warned that if it continued to rise at current rates, the province would be bankrupt in ten years.
On the other hand, the Canadian Medical Association claimed that doctors needed a 14 per cent increase to boost their salaries by 10 per cent in 1975. Dr. Bette Stephenson, former president of the Canadian Medical Association and now an Ontario politician, said that this would still only give doctors two-thirds of the predicted income increase for the average Canadian. Under OHIP, Ontario doctors were granted only a 7.75 per cent increase in 1974 and a 4 per cent increase in 1975. She said that although government figures show Canada's doctors are the highest paid profession, at $68,000 in annual payments, costs of practice ranging from 40 per cent to 75 per cent, and income tax near 50 per cent, reduce that amount to a disposable income of $26,000. Costs of practice, as well as nursing and hospital staff salaries, have increased sharply in the meantime.
Regardless of these figures, the profession of medicine- in spite of reports emerging from Ontario-seems willing to conform with the anti-inflation program as long as other Canadians do also. They have difficulty understanding the new medicare bill on budget restraints, partly because they are not clear how it affects doctors' incomes and other items of expenditure, and partly because they are not clear how it is affected by the anti-inflation guidelines for doctors' incomes.
Canadian Medical Association officials seem most reasonable in their negotiations and admit to a satisfactory working relationship with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. They acquitted themselves well in recent parliamentary committee meetings. Co-operation and optimism are certainly the order of the day in this relationship. The Toronto Globe and Mail, in its lead editorial on January 16, 1975, made the following comments under the title "Philosophies of Health":
Costs and political philosophies. These are the basis of the conflicts which divide provinces and provinces, as well as provinces and the federal government, on matters concerning health services for Canadians.
Medicare as it was established by Ottawa has proved enormously costly, without being flexible enough to provide some services that are needed or to put the accent on prevention rather than care.
Mr. Lalonde has agreed in principle to extend federal support to some other services, and a committee will work on the problem in the next several months.
It will be an advance if more health can be preserved or recovered at less cost. The cost of medical and hospital care, under the present formula, is increasing so rapidly that it is jeopardizing provincial budgets.
At no time, but particularly in a time of inflation, should Canada be advancing upon costly, universal, open-ended plans. What public money there is should be devoted to meeting the needs of those who cannot provide for themselves.
The other difficulty with universal plans for a country as disparate as Canada is that they are too inflexible to meet regional ones.

The editorial also points out differences of opinions between the provinces. Wealthy ones like Ontario and Quebec want only a larger share of personal income tax revenues. In contrast, the maritimes, Saskatchewan and British Columbia want more universal, shared-cost programs, for example, prescription drugs and dental care. Shared plans are seen adversely by some as interfering with the local setting of priorities; by others, beneficially as providing badly needed funds. In other words, some can afford to be independent and some cannot. Each approaches the same problem from his own vested interests. Fair enough, but it does not square exactly with national unity. Furthermore, it says a province like Alberta, currently flush with money, may not mind expensive programs like modern hospitals thrust on them by Ottawa while, ironically, the formerly reigning province of Ontario is now feeling the pinch and might prefer the cheaper chronic beds or home care programs. In light of these complexities, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare have apparently promised not to impose any more universal programs on the provinces; hopefully, not even on the country.
The government has already run into trouble by suggesting what it believes is a generally reasonable, over-all limit on the rate of increase of medicare and has served statutory notice of a desire to renegotiate the hospital plan. The Globe and Mail editorial, even with the wisdom of hindsight, raises more questions than answers. In its retrograde, conservative way it suggests the return of a different plan for every province, a welfare-type plan for the needy, which is usually regarded these days as cold charity, and the accompanying expensive and fragmented system of private plans for all others. As Eliza Doolittle would say: "Not bloody likely".
Now I should like to say a word on the immigration of foreign doctors. Another aspect raised has been restrictions on the immigration of doctors to Canada, but not only for reasons of saving money; there are other concerns. One reason is to try to supply doctors to rural and remote areas of the country where they are in short supply. Another pressure is to permit more places in the medical schools for the children of existing Canadians. The immigration aspects are federal, the others provincial, but apparently the move has the support of all federal and provincial ministers involved.
The Ontario health minister proposed the action based on a full brief which he presented at the January, 1975, federal-provincial health ministers' conference in Ottawa. In 1973, 1,170 doctors immigrated to Canada, almost as many as the 1,326 who graduated from Canadian medical schools, while many well qualified Canadian students were turned away. Most foreign doctors, like immigrants in general, come to Ontario; but Ontario, at a ratio of one doctor per 585 people, is already well staffed compared to the World Health Organization recommendation of one per 650. The recent increase in doctors in Canada seems to be related to the introduction of medicare.
It is proposed that foreign doctors be treated like other immigrants, that they be barred unless they have a job waiting for them here or unless they commit themselves to part of the country where they are needed. Mr. Miller proposed that the flow to Ontario needs to be stemmed.
January 29, 1976

Each province should be able to declare whether it needs certain types of doctors, or any doctors at all, with federal immigration officials acting accordingly. Only Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories have recently been below recommended levels of doctors. A profession like medicine is otherwise self-regulating. Regulations have recently been tightened so that other immigrants would be needed regardless of educational qualifications. Only doctors and university teachers were exempted. No new legislation will be required for further tightening.
Now may I say a word about the doctor's actual situation. Canadian doctors claim that increases in medical fee schedules in recent years have not kept up to other factors such as the rate of inflation, other peoples' salary increases and the costs of new, expensive medical procedures. They also feel that official statistics and press reports have overstated their true average take-home pay by eliminating incomes under $30,000 per year, whereas many fulltime, regular practitioners actually do make less than $30,000. The proportion of Canada's GNP spent on medical services in Canada has apparently declined from 1.3 per cent in 1971-72 to 1.1 per cent in the 1975-76 forecasts. However, the hospital insurance contribution has increased at an annual rate of 18 per cent during the comparable four-year period, partly due to higher wage awards for hospital staff.
Health care costs have also been increased by increased utilization or patient demand for services, some of which may well be unnecessary and represent a potential area for cost reductions. Canada, after all, is one of the healthiest countries in the world. Doctors are busy enough, without doing unnecessary work. When they receive adequate fees they can take better care of both their patients and themselves. The health care system then works better and neither the doctors nor health budgets become exhausted.
I have some more figures on the situation of doctors, but in view of the time I shall leave it at this for the present. The government has proposed a number of amendments. The first is that the exact ceilings are to be set for two years only. Second, there will be provision for increases for new, important classes of services. Third, there will be a three-year exemption from the ceiling for new insured services. I think these are all very worth-while amendments which deserve the support of all of us.
It being six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude my remarks at this point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


Frank A. Philbrook: I am sorry; five o'clock.
Adjournment Motion



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan)- Energy-Possible measures to prevent increase in cost of oil used by Atlantic provinces to generate electricity; the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)-Air Transport- Possibility of restrictions on unilingual pilots-Government position; the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek)-Sports-Government intentions with regard to aid for amateur hockey.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.

Notice of motion for papers, No. 34, appearing in the name of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


Mr. McKinley:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next one is motion No. 37, appearing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think we all have the same idea, so I defer to my hon. friend across the way.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I believe there would be agreement to proceeding with Bill C-265, in the name of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is it agreed that all notices of motions for papers as well as all public bills appearing on the order paper be stood, and that the House proceed with Bill C-265 in the name of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

January 29, 1976
Canada Pension Plan



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North) moved: that Bill C-265, to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is quite a while since I first introduced this bill in the House. At the time I introduced it, I introduced a companion bill relating to the right of participants who had applied for disability pensions under the Canada Pension Plan to secure assistance of a legal nature in presenting their case, in view of the fact that the government was appearing before the commissions that were set up, represented by legal officers from the federal government. The minister agreed to the concept contained in the bill relating to legal assistance for applicants, and I was therefore able to withdraw that bill which was incorporated in government legislation.
This particular bill relates to the fact that the minister has available to him certain powers to appeal decisions that have been handed down by boards established under the legislation, and it was then my opinion, and it continues to be so, that the minister should not have this right, in view of the fact that the legislation calls for the establishment of certain committees under government legislation and that their decisions should be firm and final when they find in favour of an applicant.
Section 85(1) of the Canada Pension Plan provides:
An applicant or beneficiary or the minister, if dissatisfied by a decision of a review committee under section 84, may with the leave of the chairman of the Pension Appeals Board, appeal from the decision of a review committee to the Pension Appeals Board within 90 days from the day the decision is communicated to him or within such longer period as the Pension Appeals Board upon application made to it within those 90 days may allow.
The objective of this bill is to eliminate that portion of the section which reads "or the minister". In other words, the minister from this moment on, if the bill is adopted by the House, would no longer have the right to appeal. I think it would be appropriate to explain to the House the basis on which I initiated this bill, because it is very significant so far as I am concerned; it is as significant today as it was at the time I first introduced the bill.
Short of war, there is nothing more dehumanizing than big government in action. It is everywhere. It reveals itself in many forms. Businessmen call it red tape. Statistics Canada has been its chief instrument in the production of red tape. So long as it sticks to forms and statistics and commits the nation to computers, it is hard to fight, for all these acts are in the name of efficiency. Efficiency is constantly stressed in government circles but, unfortunately, is never produced. The system has become very sophisticated with its gadgetry, but is as inefficient today as it was in the horse and buggy days, and one only needs to refer to the new, computerized unemployment insurance scheme to know what I mean.

But what outrages me and many others in this nation is that when an ordinary citizen becomes a victim of big government, that citizen and the members of his family are deprived of those things they have a right to receive. It becomes even more disgusting when it is discovered that big government has used a member of parliament, who happens to also be a minister of the Crown, as the instrument to achieve its objective.
Deverne MacDonald is a young man, 37 years of age, married, with three children. He resides in the small community of Westchester, Cumberland county, Nova Scotia. He was an employee of the CNR as a sectionman until uncontrollable diabetes forced him out of the labour force. The days ahead are bound to be very difficult for Deverne MacDonald and his family. Our social justice system is still not geared for such situations. The best evidence of this fact is that Mr. MacDonald and his family are trying to survive on $200 per month. That breaks down to $40 per month per individual.
Mr. MacDonald, when informed of the extent of his disability, applied for a Canada Pension Plan disability pension. His application was rejected. That fact does not surprise me. In order to qualify for this particular pension you must have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. Mr. MacDonald applied for this pension in January, 1971, and was informed of the rejection of his application in December, 1971. Mr. MacDonald appealed that decision. It was heard by what is known as the review committee. In May, 1972, this committee found in Mr. MacDonald's favour. After 18 months it appeared that he would secure some additional assistance. But that was not to be his fate. No less a personage than the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), then minister of national health and welfare, appealed the decision of the review committee to another body, the Pension Appeals Board.
The review committee is composed of three persons, one appointed by the minister, the second by the applicant-in this case, Mr. MacDonald-and the third by the two appointed members. The third person acts as chairman. But their decision did not satisfy the minister. He may say he took this action on behalf of his department. But the minister, not his department, took the action, and if he had so deemed it, the action would not have been taken.
On investigation I learned that the favourable decision of May, 1972, would either be confirmed or rejected in either April or June, 1973. That means 2Vi years after the man who was disabled first made application for a disability pension. It will probably be years from the time Mr. MacDonald made application for a disability pension, because he needed it then, to the date when a decision will be rendered on the minister's appeal. Who will render the decision? The Pension Appeals Board is composed of four judges who render a service through this board when they are not involved in their own court responsibilities. The judges are located in different parts of the country: one is from British Columbia, the second from the prairies, and two are from the province of Quebec. The board requires the attendance of three of the four judges. The board also has a registrar. The judges and the registrar will probably hold the hearing in Truro, Nova Scotia.

Along with the board will come a battery of lawyers and doctors, probably from Ottawa. Just imagine the expense involved in making a determination, initiated by the minister, as to whether an individual who is disabled as far as his doctors are concerned is disabled in the minds of a group of bureaucrats and judges pulled across Canada into Nova Scotia to make a decision whether to allow this particular individual to have a pension or not to have a pension. Mr. MacDonald, a man who has tried to live and to maintain his family on $200 per month has to leave Westchester, go to Truro, walk into a courtroom and face this battery of lawyers, doctors and judges because a minister in this House determined that he should not have something which an appointee on a board, whom the minister appointed, said he should. That is the situation.
What happened? The objective of the minister was to take away the right of this particular individual to have a pension to which the review committee said he was entitled. That is a pretty sad situation, and it is happening over and over again. I remember at the time this case came up, Donald Maclnnis, who at that time was a member of parliament, informed me that there were two similar situations in his constituency. During the 1972 election campaign he had to take time out to go before that hearing because the two individuals in his constituency could not afford lawyers and had to go there by themselves to be cross-examined by federal government-paid lawyers and before the group of judges who had been paid to go there. No doubt they were getting a mighty good fee on top of that for sitting. What happened in both those cases? One of them was a man who had three heart attacks, and his appeal was thrown out. In other words, he was disqualified from receiving the pension which an earlier committee had determined he should receive.
The fate of Mr. MacDonald was not any better than the fate of the individual in Mr. Maclnnis's constituency, because in the case of Mr. MacDonald it was said that even if he did have uncontrollable diabetes, according to their decision he could not qualify for a pension under the disability section of the Canada Pension Plan. It is difficult enough for an individual in this country to maintain himself and keep himself employed when he is healthy, but when he is faced with a situation where he has a disability which is so severe that he cannot work, and a minister of the Crown overrules a board which the minister himself set up, which said he should have a pension, it is a pretty sad commentary on life in this nation today, and certainly on the government. That is why I call it big government, government which does not think, worry or care about the people in this nation.
I think it is in the best interests of this parliament and in the best interests of the minister to eliminate his right to appeal a decision of the review committee in those cases where a favourable decision is rendered by the review committee.
As a matter of fact, it is my belief that the bureaucrats in the department are using the minister's name in order to try to do something which the minister, if he knew the full facts of the matter, would not do in the first place. We would be doing the minister, and certainly every individual who contributes to the Canada Pension Plan, a favour if
Canada Pension Plan
we eliminated this very iniquitous section of the act. Therefore, I hope hon. members will assist me in having this bill referred to committee, so that all members of parliament can examine it and determine if it is in the best interests of Canadians, generally speaking, to eliminate the minister's right in this particular way.
Big government is something we like to ignore. Sometimes we can. Deverne MacDonald and his family could not, and should not have had to face the fact of life they faced then and face today, unfortunately, because of a decision of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very technical point which is being proposed in Bill C-265 put forward by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), and just before getting into the details I should like to make one observation. In his comments about big government, I think the hon. member was indicating some of the derogatory points about big government, and I am sure we can all agree that, like anything which gets rather big, there are disadvantages built into the system. However, I think one of the advantages, or one of the interesting things to see, is that an item like this can come before the nation, and can be brought in great detail, about the individual circumstances of one particular person, Mr. Deverne MacDonald. I think it is a strong point for our system that Mr. MacDonald's problems can come before the parliament of this nation in this way. Although we have big government, there are still, hopefully, opportunities for matters of this kind to be discussed in this forum.
Bill C-265 proposes the deletion of the minister's prerogative to appeal a decision or a recommendation made by a tribunal. This is a fairly serious thing, and we must consider it very carefully because it is important that decisions on matters of this kind, made by tribunals of this sort which are only set up for the particular circumstances involved, do not create precedents which could have implications and serious consequences to many more people across the country. As the hon. member mentioned, the amendment is identical to that contained in an earlier bill sponsored by him and put before this House in 1973.
To put the implications in perspective, I think we must recall the origins and the historical development of the Canada Pension Plan, another creature of big government but, I think, a creature we are all rather happy to have. This is important in order for us to appreciate the complexities of the program itself. The Canada Pension Plan came into being in 1965. The enactment of the program was the culmination of a long series of legislation aimed at providing alternative forms of income security for old people in Canada. In fact, the subject of income assistance for the elderly had been a topic of parliamentary debate since the early days of this century, and silent witness to those debates can be found in the statutes.
It was recognized that in our complex society many aspects of everyday life can place an individual and his or her family in financial difficulties: for example, imperfect knowledge of labour markets, lack of education and adequate training, poor judgment, poor health, extraordinary

January 29, 1976
Canada Pension Plan
events, and one could go on and on. In consequence, it was found that despite the enactment of the rather innovative old age security pension plan, a large proportion of Canada's old people were still having to rely on public assistance. As a result, a three-pronged approach to income security for the elderly was put into place. These included an enrichment of the universal old age security pension and a gradual lowering of the eligibility age for this particular pension to 65.
There was also the introduction of the comprehensive social insurance plan for retirement, disability and survivors, called the Canada Pension Plan, and the enactment of the guaranteed income supplement for the aged to provide minimum income support for those unable to participate in the plan and those retiring before benefits available under the Canada Pension Plan matured. In some provinces, including my own, there has been an additional supplement. In Ontario this is referred to as "the Gains" plan, which adds to those benefits provided federally so that there is a minimum income assured to all residents of the province when they reach the age of retirement.
An examination of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, 1964-65, and the white paper on the Canada Pension Plan, 1964, reveals the following information about the intended general trusts of the plan: to provide a contributory pension program for Canadian workers with as comprehensive coverage as practicable; to provide basic pensions that would still leave room for private pensions and for personal initiative; to provide reasonable minimum levels of income to retired persons at normal retirement ages, to persons who become disabled and to the survivors of people who die; to provide earnings-related benefits; to provide flat rate benefits in addition to earnings-related benefits to the disabled and to the survivors of contributors for whom flat rate old age security benefits were not available, so as to assist the lower income groups, and to ensure provision of pensions that are related to general earnings levels at the time of retirement and to the levels of prices during retirement.
Thus, the Canada Pension Plan was expected to provide a central means by which contributions would be collected from employers, employees and the self-employed so that the working population could insure themselves and their families against three of the most common contingencies resulting in long-term financial hardships, namely, death, disability and retirement. The foregoing clearly demonstrates the breadth and complexity of this legislation and one can speculate upon the administrative difficulties experienced in applying this ambitious program.
To ensure fair and equitable treatment for all applicants and beneficiaries alike within the complex legislative framework, the Canada Pension Plan provides for a three-level appeal system. This was referred to in part by the honourable member. I should just like to enunciate it again. First, an applicant or beneficiary who is dissatisfied with the initial decision as to entitlement or the amount of that entitlement may appeal to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) for reconsideration of that decision. That is the first level of appeal.

Second, should the minister decide to maintain the original decision, then the applicant or beneficiary may appeal the ministerial decision to a review committee. A review committee is a locally constituted body of three people, one chosen by the appellant, one by the minister, and the third, the chairman, selected by the other two members.
Third, if either party to a review committee appeal, that is to say, the minister or the applicant or beneficiary, is dissatisfied with a committee decision, then either may, with leave, appeal that decision to the Pension Appeals Board. I think this is the point in question, whether the employee should still have that privilege or not. The Pension Appeals Board is the final stage of the appeal process.
It is clear that there must be a level of appeal for the minister beyond the review committee stage, since that person is charged with the responsibility of applying the terms of the Canada Pension Plan in a fair and consistent manner to the more than seven million contributors subject to the plan. I think we must bear in mind at all times the figure of seven million people involved. This is because the implementation of a review committee decision- which committee is most often a group of lay people and has no judicial authority beyond that stated in the Canada Pension Plan-in a particular case could mean, in effect, that the law would be applied to an individual in a way different from the application of that law in all other similar circumstances.
That is the point I was referring to at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, the importance of ensuring that a decision is not made by the appeal group that would then act as a precedent which would affect many other cases across the country. In these instances, a decision must then be taken whether the application is to be as the review committee believes it to be, or as the minister has been advised. Accordingly, the act provides for the Pension Appeals Board to act as a forum for the reaching of such a decision. At that level they can look at the situation and consider it in terms of its national implications.
Because of this function and because of the binding nature of its decisions, the Pension Appeals Board is made up of a chairman and vice-chairman who are judges of either the Federal Court of Canada or the superior court of a province, and members who are all judges of the Federal Court or of a superior district or county court of a province. For the convenience of applicants or beneficiaries who appeal at this level, the board is empowered to sit and hear appeals at any place or places in Canada. Further, although in many cases the evidence can well be submitted via a written brief or presentation, where the chairman feels the applicant should appear before the board for one reason or another, provision is made for payment of travelling and living expenses, including any loss of compensation, while attending.
Bill C-22, which received royal assent on November 27, 1974, and which came into force on January 1, 1975, contains a number of amendments to make the appeal system as flexible and accessible as possible. Those changes affecting the Pension Appeals Board include the following: payment of the legal expenses incurred by an applicant or beneficiary when the appeal against a review committee is launched by the minister; provision for a vice-chairman who, if the chairman is absent or incapacitated, has all the
January 29, 1976

powers and duties of the chairman; an increase in the size of the board from a maximum of six to a maximum of ten, to permit regional panels; the authority for someone to appeal on behalf of an incapacitated person, and more flexibility in the time for, and the granting of, leave to appeal. I should note that, while most of these changes were before the House at the time the hon. member tabled his bill, they were not proclaimed in force until January 1, 1975.
In this context, I should like to note that the Canada Pension Plan administration receives between 140,000 and
160,000	applications for benefits a year. In September, 1975, some 687,000 Canada Pension Plan benefits were paid. Of those benefits, more than 400,000 were retirement benefits about 46,000 were disability pensions and nearly 109,000 were widows' or widowers' pensions. In spite of this volume of cases handled by the Canada Pension Plan administration, of the 11,000 denials for benefits in the fiscal year 1974-75 only 1,800 requests for reconsideration were brought to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the vast majority of these cases new information was brought forward. Consequently, in two-thirds, or 1,200, of these requests for review the minister decided in favour of the applicant or beneficiary.
Further, less than half of the remaining 600 appellants whose requests for reconsideration had been denied chose to pursue their case to the review committee stage. I am sure that all hon. members realize that this represents a very small proportion of the total volume of cases handled by the Canada Pension Plan administration on a yearly basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the very plausible case that the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) has made against Bill C-265, I still think that this House should lean over backwards, if it has to do that, and send this bill to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs so that it can be studied.
I was involved in the discussions and all the rest of the activity relating to the introduction of the Canada Pension Plan. I can confirm what the hon. member for Scarborough West has said about it. In fact, I welcome this opportunity to say again what a good plan it is. I shall have more to say about that in a moment. But surely even those of us who are friends and supporters of the Canada Pension Plan have the right to point out weaknesses if we feel there are any in it.
I need not review the whole course that the previous speaker outlined. May I emphasize the fact that the only way in which an applicant's case gets before a review committee is if that applicant feels he has been wronged. In no case does the minister or the department refer a case to a review committee. That happens only when an applicant for the pension feels that the bureaucracy has unfairly turned him down. It is something like going before an ombudsman. An applicant has the right, as we all know, to have a review committee established, and in certain cases the review committee does find in favour of the applicant.
Canada Pension Plan
Even after one has made the argument that the last speaker made about the need to have consistency of rulings because of the large numbers of cases involved, it makes a mockery of the right to go before a review committee if the minister then has the right to appeal the favourable decision of that committee and get the case thrown out.
If we need to have some concern about consistency of decisions, surely there can be some way to establish case law, or some way by regulation, to set limits surrounding these review committees. To repeat the words I have already used, it seems to make a mockery of the review committee structure if an applicant who gets a favourable decision is then turned down on the initiative of the minister. As I already said, it is like a person going before an ombudsman, asserting that the bureaucracy has done him wrong, getting the ombudsman to say that he is right, and then finding that Big Brother in the office of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has the right to take the matter one step further.
I realize that the applicant who has been turned down by the review committee has the same right, namely, to go to the Pension Appeals Board. However, what we are dealing with here is the case of the individual who feels that under the law he has the right to a pension for which he has paid. For him to feel that the cards are stacked against him in this way does lead to a feeling of grievance.
I am freely admitting a point made by the hon. member for Scarborough West, namely, that if you have a few hundred review committees coming up with different decisions there is going to be confusion as to what is right and what is wrong. However, that can surely be handled in some other way than this present arrangement which is built into the act and gives the Minister of National Health and Welfare the power to offset the favourable finding of a review committee.
I, too, welcome the fact that earlier in this session we passed an appropriate amendment to the Canada Pension Plan so that in this circumstance the applicant has his expenses paid. All told, however, I think the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), who brought in this bill, raises an important issue, one that concerns individuals, be they few in number. Because the case on its merit looks like one that is a real grievance, I hope the House will be willing to send this bill, or at least its subject matter, to the appropriate committee.
While I am on my feet there are a couple of other things I would like to say. I hope some day we can get behind this review committee procedure to the substance of the case to which the hon. member referred, namely, the restricted definition that applies to disability. The hon. member said that you need to have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel in order to qualify. I suggest it is just about that severe.
I suppose that most of us in our dealings with persons involved with Canada Pension Plan applications have many cases where individuals feel they are disabled. In fact we get individuals who are ruled as disabled so they cannot work by some other department of government, and then denied a pension under the Canada Pension Plan because under its definition they are not really disabled. There are people treated in that way.

January 29, 1976
Canada Pension Plan
I am sure the hon. member who is nodding his head agrees with me that that matter is also one that ought to be examined. That is one of the reasons why I should like to see the bill or its subject matter go to committee where we can discuss this aspect.
As I want to see this bill get to committee, I must not contribute to talking it out. I will just take another minute at most to say that with all the faults we may find with the Canada Pension Plan, as one who was involved in its original passing, I still think it is one of the best pension plans-apart from that for members of parliament, of course-available to the people of this country.
In these days when there are questions being asked about the security of many private pension plans and so on, it is good to know that for all Canadians there is old age security and for most Canadians there is the Canada Pension Plan. It should be still further enlarged. Some of the problems we have discussed should be resolved. Arrangements should soon be made for private plans that want to get incorporated into the Canada Pension Plan to have that right and privilege. The future old age security of our people generally will be much better if this plan, along with old age security, is still further enlarged.
I hope that if this bill goes to committee we can have some discussions along that line. As I say, I am prepared to admit the plausibility of the argument that has come from across the way, but I do not think that my hon. friend has set aside the case for this bill being referred to the standing committee. I hope that will be done before this hour ends.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-265 which is before us this afternoon proposes to deny the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) the ability to appeal to the Pension Appeals Board a decision of a review committee under the Canada Pension Plan.
Any applicant for benefits or a beneficiary under the Canada Pension Plan who is dissatisfied with a decision regarding the level of or eligibility for CPP benefits may appeal the decision through three separate appeal stages.
At the first level, those who wish to do so may make a request to the minister for reconsideration of a decision taken by the CPP administration. In the last fiscal year some 1,800 such requests were made and of these 1,200, or two thirds, were decided in favour of the appellants. Some 97 per cent of these requests involved the determination of disability. In such cases additional evidence or altered circumstances may be brought forward, and, consequently, influence the application of the legislation.
In the same period 274 persons availed themselves of the opportunity to pursue their appeal to the second level of appeal, that is, the review committee. This represents fewer than half of the 600 ministerial reconsiderations which had been denied.
I should like to mention here that each review committee consists of three members, all of whom are Canadian residents. One of these members is to be appointed by the applicant or beneficiary and one is to be appointed on
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]
behalf of the minister. These two members then jointly appoint a third board member to act as chairman. If the two members cannot agree on the choice of a chairman, the appointment of the chairman may be made by a judge of a superior, district or county court in the applicant or beneficiary's province of residence or, in the case of a non-resident, in the province in which the applicant or beneficiary's review committee member resides. The review committee hearing takes place in a location in Canada determined by the chairman with regard to the convenience of the applicant or beneficiary and the minister.
At the inception of the Canada Pension Plan the availability of this second level of appeal to a review committee was provided to avoid putting applicants and beneficiaries to the expense of a formal application to a court at the first stage of appealing the decision of the minister. Instead the appeal can be made to these locally constituted bodies. The accessibility of the appeal process was further broadened in the recent amendments made to the plan which came into effect on January 1, 1975. These provisions allow a third person to appeal a decision on behalf of an incapacitated applicant.
A decision of a review committee may be appealed to the Pension Appeals Board by the appellant or, again as recently amended, by someone acting on his or her behalf in certain circumstances. The opportunity to appeal a review committee decision to the Pension Appeals Board is also available to the minister. I should emphasize that an appeal by the minister is not necessarily presented in order to deny a benefit to a potential recipient. As an illustration, let us consider the case of two claimants-a legal and a common-law spouse-for survivors' benefits in respect of one contributor. Where a review committee decision awards the benefit to one survivor this effectively excludes the second surviving spouse both from the benefit and, more important, from an appeal of the decision itself. In this and similar circumstances the ministerial appeal to the Pension Appeals Board represents the interests of third parties affected by review committee rulings.
Beyond the implications of review committee decisions for parties affected by the specific case, the broader picture of equity and uniformity of legislative application between applicants and beneficiaries in similar circumstances is crucial.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), when he was speaking a few minutes ago, suggested that this consistency or uniformity of rulings could perhaps be achieved in some other way. I would point out that the members of the review committee are not judges, they are not-


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are human beings.


Maurice Brydon Foster: They are not people trained to handle judicial decisions of that type, so the first time a matter really comes before judges is when it goes to the Pension Appeals Board; that is the first time you have a body which is studying cases right across the country, so this is the advantage, at this level, of getting uniform decisions and a consistency in the rulings made.
January 29, 1976

The Canada Pension Plan is a complex piece of legislation, since it provides such a broad range of intended benefits. The program covers virtually the entire Canadian labour force outside of Quebec, and provides income security for contributors and their families. Obviously every possible individual circumstance cannot be anticipated and covered in the legislation, or its regulations, nor for the sake of flexibility should this be attempted. However, in providing for the discretionary application of legislative provisions, and appeals thereto, the possibility is ever present that a given interpretation of the legislation, which had been applied acceptably and uniformly, may be altered, reversed, or even completely disregarded in an isolated case of appeal to a review committee. In the interests of so many past, present, and future applicants or beneficiaries in similar circumstances, it is essential that such conflicting interpretations of the legislation be referred to a higher judicial body capable of rendering an informed and authoritative decision. The Pension Appeals Board, made up as it is of judges, provides such a forum.
It cannot be expected that an individual appellant will take upon him or herself the onus of establishing criteria by which to ensure the fair disposition of Canada Pension Plan benefit cases in general. This responsibility falls to the minister. If we conclude, and I believe we must, that such a judicial forum is essential to the proper administration of the Act, then by denying the minister access to the Pension Appeals Board I can only conclude that the hon. member is suggesting that such applications for judicial rulings must be made by the minister directly to a federal court.
In all of this the House can be assured that the position of the individual in such appeals is given much consideration and every effort is made to ensure that the applicant or beneficiary is not placed at a disadvantage. To this end a series of legislative amendments was implemented effective January 1, 1975, to improve the plan's appeal system. The first, to which I referred earlier, extends full rights of appeal to representatives of applicants or beneficiaries who are unable to act on their own behalf. A second amendment provides that in cases of ministerial appeal to the Pension Appeals Board, the affected applicant or beneficiary, or his representative, may be paid their legal expenses, thus ensuring their ability to be represented by counsel at such an appeal. Also, provision was made for the membership of the Pension Appeals Board to be expanded in order that cases might be heard more expeditiously and the position of the affected individuals not be prejudiced by lengthy delays.
With these amendments, difficulties to clients arising our of ministerial appeals have been ameliorated. In conclusion, it is important to retain the authorization in the legislation for ministerial appeals in order to ensure the continued effective administration of the Canada Pension Plan legislation.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, we only have a few minutes left and I do not wish to take up much time because I had hoped we would be able to vote on this measure and have it sent to committee. However, I hope in vain; it appears to be the intention of government members to talk it out.
Canada Pension Plan
I commend the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) on the fight he has been waging in this regard for a period of years. I also listened intently to the Liberal member who spoke prior to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); I am sorry but I do not have his constituency.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Scarborough
West.


Robert Muir: It would appear he was well briefed by the department to present a very good defence because he smothered us with statistics, as did the most recent speaker on the other side, my good friend, the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). However, they did not deal with the human aspect, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said.
The last member who spoke cast a reflection on the review board when he said it was only made up of individuals, not judges. What makes a judge know more than an individual who sits on a board and who has a medical report in front of him? In fact I have a decision of a review board in front of me here in which they say it is apparent from the medical evidence submitted by the family doctor, supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs medical board as well as a consultant specialist of the Department of National Health and Welfare, Canada Pension Plan, that the appellant had a physical disability which was most severe, prolonged, and so on and so forth. Despite that, the decision was appealed by the minister to the Pension Appeals Board and the appellant was out in the cold.
The time element is important in these cases, as the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North mentioned. I know another man who made his original application on August 25, 1971, and by gosh, on June 4, 1972, they were able to come back and tell him that his application could not be approved. In the meantime he was sick in bed, could not work, and his family was suffering. He was told he could appeal under section 83, so in July, shortly after his first rejection, he appealed to have the matter reconsidered. All of the evidence submitted with the application was carefully reviewed, but in September, 1972, he was advised that he was unsuccessful.
This man then appealed to the review committee and it was not until June 26, 1973, that that appeal was heard. The committee decided that the man was disabled, having in their possession all of the medical reports it was possible to obtain. However, that decision was appealed by the minister.
As the hon. member who originated the bill has said, why is it that we get high priced help, ship all these judges across from British Columbia to Nova Scotia, pay them big salaries and so on, and bring the full power and force of the federal government to bear in crushing the application of some coal miner or steelworker? I refer to these two categories of workers, in particular because I would like to refer hon. members to the case of one gentleman, now deceased, who made an application and sent in all his medical reports, including reports from the Victoria General Hospital, reports of specialists and so on. His applica-

January 29, 1976
Canada Pension Plan
tion was rejected. He then appealed and was sent to a heart specialist nominated by the government, as well as another specialist. He was rejected there. Then the review committee approved his appeal, the government appealed, and he was turned down. Three weeks after the decision was brought down this man was in his grave following a heart attack. This is the sort of thing that is happening, Mr. Speaker.
A few years ago some questions were asked by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North about the number of decisions of the Pension Appeals Board which were favourable to appellants to that date. The total was 47. There were 24 in Canada and 23 in Quebec. I did wonder why the question was answered in that form; I thought Quebec was part of Canada and I hope it will remain so. There were 136 unfavourable decisions; 37 in Canada and 99 in Quebec.
I appeal to hon. members of the Liberal party on this matter. They must hear of a lot of cases of the sort I have described, or if not a lot certainly a number, and they must be faced with the same problem in their constituencies. If they will not agree to vote on this matter today may I suggest they bring it up in caucus, talk to the minister about it, and try to get this right of appeal by the minister eliminated altogether. I think it is really tantamount to turning down an applicant for unemployment insurance. If an applicant goes to the board of referees which approves the application, then if the minister of manpower followed the same procedure as here he would have the right to appeal the decision and cut off the applicant from unemployment insurance payments.
It is hard to understand why someone has to be dragged before all this procedure. There is the original application by the appellant, the appeal itself, then the review committee proceeding and so on. Not everyone is as gregarious as hon. members opposite, and a quiet man or woman who is a little nervous at seeing all these judges backed up by lawyers is put at a great disadvantage.
I have another case here which I regret I do not have time to refer to, but in its decision a board said the man was absolutely disabled as a result of all the medical evidence they had at hand. However, with this great power the minister appealed the decision against one lonely little Canadian.
The hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) made much ado about isn't it wonderful that we can bring up individual cases in the House of Commons. What the hell is so wonderful about that, Mr. Speaker? That is what the House of Commons is for. We do not have enough time for that sort of thing. The House of Commons is for the commoner and there is no big deal about being able to raise the question of a person being persecuted by big government.
In conclusion let me say to hon. members-I must not say ladies and gentlemen because that is not permissible- that if they are unlucky enough to get carcinoma they will have no problem, so let them think about that.


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to talk this bill out but because I think there are some facts that should be drawn to the attention of hon. members on

the other side. The average time taken by the appeal procedure for a decision in disability cases is 55 days. I should also like to draw to the attention of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), whom I congratualte on his initiative in introducing a number of bills that will fine tune and refine the appeal procedure under the Canada Pension Plan, that what we are dealing with here is a quasi-judicial body. He mentioned the problem of the board's travelling all across Canada to hear an appeal. By its very nature it is a tribunal that goes to the place where the applicant lives for the hearing-in the case of the hon. member, Nova Scotia- instead of having an applicant go before the Federal Court and have him travel all the way to Ottawa at great expense. That is one of the features of a quasi-judicial body.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Muir: You did a great job of talking it out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for private members' business has now expired, and I leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, 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. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, allow me to say that I am quite pleased to take part in this debate. I know that the legislation now under consideration is quite important, as indicated in the preface of a report entitled "A New Perspective" and signed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) who states the following:
Good health is the bedrock on which social progress is built. A nation of healthy people can do those things that make life worthwhile, and as the level of health increases, so does the potential for happiness.
Since we are considering a bill amending the Medical Care Act, I have taken the liberty of quoting this paragraph clearly showing the importance of this legislation.
Like many other members, I have a lot of material on this matter. I do not intend to quote it word by word in this House, because, on the one hand, I have already read

the minister's speech relating a long history of this legislation dealing with medical care and shared costs between the federal government and the provinces. He referred also to the efforts made by the government for several years. I also checked the fine speech delivered by my colleague from Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), the opposition critic, who has tried in a fine manner to make the government aware of the weaknesses of the measure. Since other members have made speeches in this House, I retain a series of figures, analysis, all explaining the situation as it is. That is why I shall abstain from quoting all these statistics, although they are very serious and worthwhile, since they have already been recorded in this House.
As far as I am concerned, Madam Speaker, this legislation poses a substantial problem, in the sense that it affects in a very direct, very particular and very precise way, negotiations that must take place between the provinces and the federal government.
Last June, the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) announced that the government intended to reduce its participation in the cost of medical services. In this way, the federal government, in our opinion-and I think that Canadians agree-realized that the government, after forcing the provinces to participate in the medicare program a few years ago had decided by a legislation that the provinces which would not participate would lose millions. So, these provinces were naturally forced to "embark" on a program for which some of them were not ready yet. I must therefore say that there was a lack of consultation. Last June, the Minister of Finance, on behalf of his government, reversed his policy and announced that the government would eventually retire from that program, in view of the increases. We certainly are in an inflationary context, but we do not accept forcing those people to pay for medical care. They have all sorts of handicaps, and they absolutely need our protection.
The government has gone ahead without any preliminary consultations with the provinces, and this bears repeating since after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) had made his statement and taken his decision, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) felt obliged to tour Canada to meet the provincial ministers. Of course, the minister says he has met with the provincial ministers and discussed it with them. We are not denying that, but we know perfectly well that this has not been done prior to the decision being taken by the government, and each time we wonder why.
It is not the first time the provinces are not consulted appropriately. That is why I feel this is a basic problem. I would like to have a federalism of participation. We have a federalism where some provinces are complaining about this lack of consultations. Of course, some hon. members will say I am exaggerating. Yesterday my colleague from Athabasca quoted some statements by provincial ministers; that is the undeniable proof that several provinces are not satisfied and claiming better consultations.
For instance, I must say the situation was the same when there was talk of anti-inflationary measures, and again when the matter of taxing our natural resources was discussed, and more recently, when there was talk of setting up a federal park in the province of Quebec. It seems that consultations were sadly lacking. I have a feeling, Madam
Medical Care Act
Speaker, that you will bring me back to the subject at hand, but those are as many examples I want to mention to stress the fact that the lack of consultation is not something new; the time has come to remind the government of the importance of those consultations and the participation of the provinces. That is why I gave examples which, once again, taking into account the declarations of provincial ministers, prove that there is not enough consultation. And then people wonder why the provinces are disatisfied, why the government is becoming less popular, why it is losing some of its credibility at the present time.
And so, we, on this side of the House, believe that it is important that we should protect the quality of our health services; we also believe thoses services are necessary for those who need them; I wonder to what extent the government takes that into consideration when it speaks of dollars? The paragraph I read at the beginning is marvellous. It was signed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare; if that wonderful thought serves as a source of inspiration, one dares hope that the government will spare no effort to ensure essential cares to the Canadians who need them. We are told that there will be cuts especially in expected increases. Even a government member this afternoon was giving us the evidence that there would be increases. We do know that there will be some more, and it is sure that if the government lowers its contribution the poorest levels of the society, the poorest provinces will suffer more than the richest provinces. So, by foreseeing this unacceptable injustice to these Canadians, we are naturally and necessarily justified to oppose the passing of a piece of legislation which does not meet the needs of that just society promised in 1968.
In view of this dissatisfaction, of this refusal by the provinces of a possible agreement, the minister concluded that something had to be done, because the negotiations did not end the way he wished. Is it possible to talk about a viable federalism as long as the provinces will not be able to find a certain security? I do not think so. So, we believe in these negotiations. We favour a federalism of participation as well as a certain de-centralization. And we believe that Canadians are ever more inclined to reject that centralizing federalism.
I know that those words may seem harsh to some hon. members in this House but it is important that the public know that the government is asking us to pass a law which is not acceptable to the provinces and therefore to Canadians in all parts of the country. We believe it is our job and our responsibility to tell the government that we refuse to play the role they expect us to play and that we would rather assume our responsibilities which demand that we respect the provinces. Now this bill shows in practically every clause a disregard for provincial wishes; it does not square with the objective which a minister of health should set for himself or the government fulfill for all Canadians.
Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to quote statistics again. They have been mentioned. I simply wish to talk about this aspect of funding which is as always the battlefield, and about the lack of meaningful negotiation between the provinces and the federal government. It is not the first time, as I have said before. It is unfortunate and

January 29, 1976
Medical Care Act
alarming, and the government can wonder why there are so many objections and why it is now impossible to maintain a certain credibility; it is because they are far from meeting the solutions and recommendations put forward by the provinces. And we believe that the provinces have something to say in this particular field, because they always had important decisions to make as regards health care.
Nevertheless, it is the federal government which, some years ago, felt most generous when it agreed to pay 50 per cent without restrictions. But today, these medical costs are always increasing for all sorts of reasons, but not necessarily because of the provinces, and the same thing happens in every field, Madam Speaker. The federal government makes a decision-without negotiating, I repeat- and informs the provinces in advance. Once the decision is made, the provinces are consulted and put before the fait accompli. The government is in the habit of putting the provinces in a strait-jacket. After, they negotiate. In my opinion, this is fair.
That attitude on the part of the government vis-a-vis the provinces is sheer confrontation. It can only bring major problems. So, Madam Speaker, I think that the role of the opposition which sees in this legislation a lack of respect toward the provinces as well as an impossibility to achieve the objective that the minister set for himself in a particular brochure, necessarily forces him not only to inform the members of this House that this bill is unacceptable but that Canadians must know that we are trying today on their behalf to ask the government not to pass this bill until the ten provinces find valid reasons to accept it.
I think it would be indecent for a government to pass this bill without having the assurance of provincial participation. Madam Speaker, those are the few remarks I wanted to make in asking the members of this House to grasp the importance of respecting the provinces, to understand their arguments and allow them with the federal government to prepare a legislation that will offer possibilities of meeting objectives. It is important that this government supplement the efforts the provinces are making and become a coordinator of those efforts, taking into account the objectives of the provinces, instead of centralizing. That is the problem as it stands now. As often as legislation such as this is presented to us without the assurance of consultation and respect for the provinces, I think we have that role to play, that responsibility to ask the government to change its attitude, and I say to this government that the time has come for it to change its attitude and be mcuh more open to those negotiations.
Having said that, we would gladly support bills that are in accordance with the objectives the minister speaks about on paper but which cannot be met because of the approach he displays before this House.
Madam Speaker, I hope amendments will be brought in at the committee stage, that negotiations with the provinces will be respected and that this legislation will not be pushed further in this House until the ten provincial ministers of health agree with the minister sponsoring this legislation that is unacceptable to us at this point.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, in introducing this bill the minister in fact, although he may seem to make some small concessions, proposes in a very fundamental way to implement changes in the method by which medical insurance costs have been paid for many years. The minister proposes that the cost of the programs, which substantially has been shared 50-50 by the federal and provincial governments, will now be handled in such a way that the percentage paid by the federal government in the coming years will be less, and probably substantially less than the 50 per cent which has been paid up until now.
In beginning his speech the minister had some very complimentary things to say about our system of health care and the way in which it is paid for. I think he has every right to be complimentary, particularly when we compare our system of paying for medical services and hospital services with the way in which such services are paid for in the United States.
Recently during the Christmas season a senior public servant, in the employment of the federal government, with his family visited a large city in the United States. One of his children became sick and had to be admitted to hospital. The family was told that the child would not be ' admitted to the hospital until they had first deposited a cheque in the amount of $1,500 with the hospital in order to take care of possible and probable hospital costs. It is a long time since any Canadian citizen had to face that kind of situation in this country, and we can thank the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who instituted the hospital insurance plan in Saskatchewan when he was premier, and the federal Conservative government which extended that plan to all the provinces in Canada, and also the federal Liberal government which, taking the example of the province of Saskatchewan, began a medical insurance plan paid for by the federal and provincial governments.
What the minister is proposing is what he first proposed in 1973, that is, that 50 per cent of the cost of medical insurance paid for by the federal government would no longer be paid but rather that on a declining scale the amount paid by the federal government would be capped, that a limit would be put on the increase paid by the federal government of 14 per cent in 1976-1977, of 10 per cent 1977-1978, and of a smaller amount, to be negotiated with the provinces, for future years.
No only do I disagree with the limit which the minister has put on for the next two years, I have a great deal of skepticism about the supposed negotiations and discussions which the government and the minister will have with the provinces. My skepticism is based not on supposition but on experience.
From the day on which the minister announced the limits on the amounts the federal government would pay every provincial government, all ten provincial governments, whether they be Liberal, Conservative or NDP- and I am certain the present Social Credit government of British Columbia will join the other nine provincial governments-objected, first of all to the federal government
January 29, 1976

refusing to pay 50 per cent of the cost as it has until now and, secondly, to the federal government deciding unilaterally that it would reduce the percentage which it paid.
Let us remember that many of the provinces ,did not want to become involved in a universal government sponsored, government operated medical insurance plan. If my memory serves me correctly, the province of Ontario with its Conservative government was the last province to join the medical insurance plan. They did not want to join that plan because they believed that the former voluntary plan was adequate and that all that a government should do is to pay the premiums for those people who cannot afford to be covered under the voluntary plans. So they did not join the medical insurance plan until the opposition parties started to point out to the electors of Ontario that they were losing hundreds of millions of dollars by not joining the plan. As a result, Ontario under a Conservative government was brought kicking and screaming into the national medical insurance plan organized and operated by the government.
The Government of Canada having persuaded, enticed, and browbeaten the provincial governments to come into the medical insurance plan, is now telling them that it is no longer prepared to pay for 50 per cent of the cost, that there is a limit on what it will pay next year, and that the ceiling will be lowered further in the years after that. That is a strange way for the federal government to act.
For almost 18 months the provincial governments have been trying to persuade the federal government and the minister to sit down with them and discuss what is wrong with the present plan and what could be done to limit the increases which are taking place. One would think, to listen to the minister and the government, that it is only the federal government that is concerned about the increase in the costs of medical insurance, and the next bill we will be discussing, I suppose, will be increasing the costs of hospital insurance. The provinces are just as concerned as is the federal government. Indeed I think it would be fair to say that the provinces are more concerned than the federal government because they do not have the ability which Ottawa has to raise money through taxes. What will happen?


Mr. Abbott:: They should cut some costs.


David Orlikow: They sure cannot learn how to cut costs by looking at the federal government. There is no provincial government in Canada which has had any increase in the number of civil servants and in the number of programs that the federal government has-not Liberal, not Conservative, not NDP. I am prepared to debate that and to prove that to the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) any time he wants.
The provinces have been trying to discuss this question with the federal government for almost 18 months. There have been innumerable meetings of provincial health ministers and senior officials of health departments with officials of the federal Department of National Health and Welfare. On a number of occasions the minister promised to meet with the provincial health ministers before he proceeded with this bill. But there has not been a meeting between the minister and the provincial health ministers since last January. Why was the minister afraid to meet
Medical Care Act
provincial health ministers collectively? Why did he go on a junket across this country to meet the provincial health ministers individually? Did he think that he could do better with them separately than he could meeting them all together? That must be the reason, because he has not met them once collectively in the last 12 months.
Why is the minister bringing this bill forward now? Only a few months ago the minister was saying to certain provincial health ministers that he did not think he could go ahead with this legislation. Indeed I am told that to one health minister he said that if that health minister would support seat belt legislation he would drop this whole bill. Why is he going ahead, and particularly why is he going ahead now when we have the anti-inflation program? After all, we are in a period of restraint, so says the minister. The hon. member for Mississauga also indicated this.
Certainly the provinces are all on a crash course of restraint. They have put the freeze on increases in the field of education, in the field of welfare, and in the field of health costs. We know that they are closing up hospitals, as was stated by a Liberal member earlier this afternoon. The province of Ontario is closing up hospitals, so hospital costs are not going to go up. Hospital workers-I am talking about ward aides, attendants, and practical nurses, have had their wages frozen. So far as I know, all the provinces have indicated that they will join in the antiinflation program. Therefore wages can only go up by 10 per cent and the other costs will also be pretty sharply restricted.
Why does the minister say that he needs legislation which will freeze the increase in the cost the federal government will pay in 1976-77 to 14 per cent, and in the year after to something less than that? There is only one place where the cost can go up so markedly that the minister would have to freeze the increase to be paid by the federal government. The only place where the increase can be so sharp that the federal government has to place a limit is in medical fees. If hon. members consider what is happening to medical fees they will see why the minister has to invoke this 14 per cent limit.
In my province of Manitoba, which has an NDP government and a premier who believes in an incomes policy, who has accepted the guidelines and the 10 per cent limit on wage increases, and who is getting a great deal of-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: Just listen. If the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) will just keep his mouth shut for a couple of minutes, he will get the point I am trying to make, and I hope he will agree with the premier of Manitoba.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I do.


David Orlikow: All right, wait a minute or two. The premier of Manitoba takes the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) seriously. The premier of Manitoba and the provincial minister of health, who represents the same area as the

January 29, 1976
Medical Care Act
hon. member for St. Boniface take the Government of Canada seriously.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Speaker, on a point of order I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) the fact that the provincial minister of health in the province of Manitoba only represents one sixth of my constituency.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: This is not a point of order but a matter for debate.


David Orlikow: The premier of Manitoba and the minister of health in Manitoba have taken the Government of Canada seriously. They believe in an incomes policy. They believe in a limit on the increase in income which any person should be able to receive. They believe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) meant business when he said that people at the bottom of the income ladder should not receive an increase in wages of more than $750, and that people at the top of the income bracket should not receive an increase in income of more than $2,400. So in negotiating the new fee schedule with the Manitoba Medical Association they are insisting that no doctor be permitted to receive an increase of more than $2,400 in the coming year.
What has happened? Lo and behold, that great Canadian, the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, was in Winnipeg last weekend, and he did the premier of Manitoba a great favour. He really helped him in his desire to follow the spirit and the intent of the legislation brought in by the federal government. The chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board gave an interview in Winnipeg in which he said that the guidelines did not mean that no doctor could receive more than $2,400 individually. They only meant that all the doctors in Manitoba, including the interns and people on staff, could have an average increase of not more than $2,400. That means that some surgeon may receive an increase of $7,000 or $10,000. But that suits the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), and I am sure that suits the hon. member for St. Boniface.
The precise point of this legislation is to guarantee that, while doctors may receive as much as they can earn with no restrictions, the federal government will not have to pay, and that the provincial governments will have to pay the full shot, which they can ill afford, or else the provincial governments will have to cut the standard of service which has been provided up until now.
I do not blame doctors. They are human like anyone else, and they tend to think of their own interest just as any other group thinks of its interests. However, let us keep in mind that there is no group in Canadian society earning more than doctors earn.
I do not question the fact that doctors work hard. I do not say they are earning too much, but we have to keep relative values in mind. Let me put on the record the comparison between what doctors earn and the average income in this country. These are figures which we obtained from the taxation statistics of Revenue Canada, and I will give figures for the last four years for which there are statistics. That is the period from 1970 to 1973.
In 1970 the average gross income of doctors-and I know doctors have expenses, but we can still make a rough judgment of how doctors are doing from these figures-

was $34,700. In that year income of all categories was $6,400.
In 1971 the average income of doctors was $39,500. The average income for all categories in that year was $7,200.
In 1972 the average income of doctors was $41,100, and for all people, $7,700.
In 1973 the average income of doctors was $42,700, and for all categories $8,600.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: The backbenchers on the Liberal side of the House are interjecting as usual, and I do not mind that. I invite them to get up and express their own views, but they will not do that. We know from experience that they just yelp like coyotes or-


An hon. Member:: Wolves.


David Orlikow: No, they are not like wolves; they are not even in the wolf class. This bill has two purposes. One is to let the doctors continue to earn as much as they can, and the other is to get Ottawa off the hook.
The minister says we have one of the best systems of health care in the world. That may be true, but the fact is that Ottawa now pays only 50 per cent of the programs which it has unilaterally approved. The federal government does not pay for mental health care, public health programs, capital cost in the building of hospitals, and a host of other items.
Most of the provinces have inaugurated or plan to begin programs which are different from those which are now offered. They are programs which, if we can go on the experience of other countries, will probably be cheaper than the kinds of programs which Ottawa now funds such as expensive intensive care hospitals. Some of the provinces have gone into home care, or they are thinking of going into home care. Some have gone into dental care, optometric services, physiotherapy, and pharmacare. All these programs they have begun or are planning to begin, and they have to assume on the basis of what the federal government has said that they will have to fund them themselves.
By recognizing only approved costs for medical and hospital programs for cost sharing, Ottawa has encouraged the utilization of high cost services. I could go into detail with examples which I have personally come across where Ottawa funds very expensive services at the rate of 50 per cent and will not pay for cheaper, alternate costs which have not been approved in advance. Any province which has gone into alternative programs, or wants to go into such programs, will have to find all the money itself. In doing that it would probably lose federal financial contributions which it is now getting, even if the alternative programs were to reduce the costs of hospital and medical expenses.
The provinces have proposed alternatives to the present 50 per cent cost-sharing. They proposed that the federal government agree to cost-share on the 50-50 basis the total cost of provincial health expenses on a capital basis, or

continue the present arrangements but expand them to include payment by the federal government of 50 per cent of the cost of mental and tuberculosis hospitals.
In 1974 the provinces agreed to accept the federal government's financing proposals and to undertake a joint analysis to try to define more precisely those concerns which they had voiced in previous discussions with the minister and with the government. Their study showed that most provinces would experience a very serious shortfall in revenues under the GNP escalator plan compared to the present arrangement, even with the so-called risk sharing modifications which the minister suggested when he first brought forward these proposals.
Their study also showed that the "thrust funds" proposed by the minister would be barely adequate to cover the shortfall in some provinces, and far from sufficient to offset losses experienced in other provinces. The study provided for the first time a reasonably accurate summation of the probable future cost of existing provincial programs and of committed new programs which are cost sharable at the present time.
Most provinces in recent years have committed themselves to improve services and to bring about greater efficiencies through the introduction of new programs-despite the fact that these efforts were not supported by any cost-sharing assistance from the federal government. Now they realize they cannot afford to consider let alone accept a new financing formula which would give them even less assistance than they are receiving at present.
According to the joint provincial study the ten provinces are now spending a total of over $1.2 billion a year in respect of health programs for which there is no federal cost-sharing at the present time. They claim that by 197879 these expenditures will increase to almost $2 billion annually. In addition commitments have been made to spend over $800 million on new non-sharable programs between now and 1978-79.
Many provinces have come to the point where their options are becoming more and more limited. Already many are finding it necessary to impose stringent budgetary restraint to the detriment of existing operations in order to free funds for essential new programs so as to reduce costs in the long run. They will not be able to maintain this situation if their health needs are to continue to be well served.
They feel, and I believe that the federal government has a clear responsibility to see to it, that all Canadians are guaranteed continuing high health standards regardless of the region in which they live. They have argued that this responsibility requires that the Government of Canada make certain that its financial support for health programming takes into account the varying fiscal capacities of the provincial governments which must provide this health care.
It is precisely those provinces in the have-not areas which will be hit the hardest by the minister's proposal for reduction in the contribution made by the federal government.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.
Medical Care Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising to ask a question, or on a point of order?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I should like to ask a question, if the hon. member will permit.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) permit a question?


David Orlikow: Yes.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Madam Speaker, the hon. member suggests that the government has an obligation to provide the highest possible standard of medical care. Would he say that such medical care should be provided with its rapidly escalating cost even if it should bankrupt the provinces and the nation, or does he draw any line whatever in his extravagant suggestion?


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, obviously the hon. member was not listening to what I said. I suggest he read Hansard tomorrow. That is precisely what I was saying when he interrupted to ask his question. The provinces, particularly the have-not provinces, are finding it increasingly difficult to meet the cost of health insurance and hospital insurance. They have now a greater stake in trying to limit the increasing costs than has the federal government. They are less able to meet their expenses than the federal government. They are the deliverers of health services, not the federal government.
Each province has its own plan; it deals with the medical profession, with individual doctors and it deals with the hospitals. The provinces know best in what ways increasing costs can be limited. What they are complaining about is that the federal government, without discussion, without a meeting between the health ministers of the provinces and the federal minister since January of 1975, decided the amount of the increase. The federal government is saying to the provinces, "You can do one of two things. We are not going to permit an increase of more than 14 per cent and if your costs go up more than that you have two choices-cut the standard of service, or increase your own contribution."
I say that the provinces do not need a lecture from the hon. member for Mississauga. They do not need a lecture from the federal minister. They know all that better than we do, and they are just as interested or more interested in doing something about the increasing costs. They are trying. What they are saying to the federal government and the minister is, "Let's sit down together and work out how we can reduce the cost."


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Is Ontario cutting costs?


David Orlikow: I suggest that if the hon. Liberal member for Mississauga thinks the Conservative government of Ontario is not doing a good job that he stand up here, or somewhere else, and make a speech in his own time about what it should do.


Walter David Baker: Otherwise go back to sleep.

January 29, 1976
Medical Care Act


David Orlikow: The ten ministers of health, including Conservatives and the NDP, met in Ottawa on January 14 and 15, 1975, in connection with this particular proposal. They came to the following conclusions, which I should like to put on the record:
First, that each province should receive no less federal financial support than it would have received for the funding of health insurance programs under current arrangements;
Second, that new financing arrangements must allow the provinces flexibility to pursue programs in accordance with their own particular priorities;
Third, that new arrangements must allow for equitable cost-sharing of both the "start-up" and continuing operating costs of new programs, as well as changes within existing programs, and
Fourth, that new arrangements should relate to health goals and objectives and should provide encouragement to new provincial programs which offer alternatives to high cost services. Examples of such alternatives include home care, geriatric services, community, health services and ambulatory care.
They added:
-the provincial governments do not believe that current problems can be dealt with through arrangements which would impose an arbitrary and unrealistic limit on the federal government's future financial involvement in major national health programs. Proposals for that kind of financing system, with a number of minor variations, have been discussed for over four years, and they have been formally and finally rejected by the provinces.
Provincial administrations do not need an arithmetic ceiling on federal payments to guarantee that they will be responsible in program operations. The simple fact of federal-provincial fiscal imbalance ensures that it is more difficult for provinces to raise their share of any program costs than it is for the federal government to raise its share.
In any case, the federal government has a clear responsibility to share equitably in the costs of providing health care to all Canadians. This is the basic principle underlying the hospital insurance and medicare financing arrangements and it is a principle which must be maintained if high national service standards are to be preserved.
This principle, which was first enunciated by a Liberal federal government, is now being violated.
The province of Manitoba co-operated with the other provinces in the analysis of the problems of financing health care, and tried to define more precisely what many people have voiced in previous discussions with the federal government about the future of health care financing. Their studies showed that most provinces would experience a serious shortfall in revenues under the GNP escalator, which I already talked about and which they calculated. I have not seen any studies by the federal government to dispute the estimates. The $1,200 million which they will be spending next year on health care is not cost-shared by the federal government.
The provinces thought they were making some progress until the June, 1975, budget was introduced by the former minister of finance. A primary element of that budget was restraint. It was achieved to a large extent by the imposition of arbitrary, arithmetic limits on federal contributions toward medical care insurance starting in the 1976-77 year. The province of Manitoba called on the federal government to change this policy.
The Manitoba minister of health sent a telex message to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in which he said, and I quote:

These announcements came as a major surprise to me, and I assume that most other provincial health ministers experienced the same reaction. Only a few months ago, at a federal-provincial conference of health ministers in Ottawa, you indicated:
(1)	That your government recognized provincial concerns about the inflexibility of existing health financing-arrangements;
(2)	That you had agreed to abandon an equally rigid plan for imposing arbitrary federal expenditure limits, and
(3)	That you were willing to explore with the provinces various alternatives for improving the cost effectiveness of our health programs within the context of a more flexible interpretation of existing federal legislation ...
Your government's decision to proceed with major financing changes on a unilateral basis is a serious disappointment to our province and, I assume, to most others-all of whom, in good faith, have been devoting a great deal of staff, time and effort to the joint study of cost saving alternatives. Not only does the decision represent an apparent breach of our earlier understanding but also, and more importantly, it suggests that your government has every intention of implementing legislative changes which will cause the primary financial responsibility for the future reform of health care and for the maintenance of existing service standards to be borne by the provincial governments and their taxpayers. Given the recognized limits of provincial budgetary capacities, it is obvious that such a decision would represent a significant threat to our national health standards-standards based on a system which the federal government itself initiated.
That was sent on June 25, 1975. The federal minister replied on July 11. He said in part, and I quote:
When the deputy ministers report to us in the fall, as requested at the January meeting of health ministers, it would be my intention to propose that we move on to another stage in our negotiations in terms of considering what should replace the existing legislation.
Despite the minister's promise implicit in that telegram that there would be further meetings with the provincial ministers, there have been no such meetings until this time. I ask the minister why is this? Why did he chicken-out of a meeting with the provincial ministers?
When the provincial health ministers met in Victoria in August, 1975, the Manitoba minister of health and social development prepared a number of questions which he felt would have to be discussed before the provinces could agree to the proposal of the federal government. I am not going to put all of them on the record. Some, however, are very important, and not just to the government but to the people of the provinces. They will have to meet the shortfall which will be created by this unilateral decision of the federal government to put a ceiling on the increase which it will pay. Let me put on record-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt, but the hon. member's time has expired. He can continue only with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There not being unanimous consent, the hon. member cannot continue.


Mr. Fernand Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I wish to use all the time allotted me to discuss a very important bill now before us. It must however be realized that this bill is closely related to the overall government program to curb
January 29, 1976

inflation. I believe this should be stressed in this debate. Certainly there is no question of downgrading medical care, as has been suggested by opposition members. This is absolutely without foundation.
We must review the health program and find out how we can now reduce certain expenditures that are now becoming astronomical in the area of medical care and hospital care in Canada.
Opposition members do not seem to make serious efforts to closely scrutinize the need to reduce expenditures. We are now in an inflationary period and for the sake of this country's survival, strong measures must be taken to solve our main problem, inflation. It seems opposition members do not agree, they even urge us, as they have been doing every day and even today during the question period, they have been urging Treasury Board to increase expenditures, although we are now striving to reduce them. The bill now before us is aimed at reducing expenditures without however reducing the quality of medical care.
I wish to commend the minister for the discussions he has been conducting with the provinces for a number of years, and since he assumed responsibility for the portfolio of national health and welfare.
After a number of discussions, several in-depth studies have been made in various provinces and in the province of Quebec by the Nepveu-Castonguay commission. The conclusion is that our present system must be rationalized and made more efficient. We should put less emphasis on the more expensive services and concentrate on finding cheaper alternatives such as long term care clinics as well as ambulance services and look for a more integrated system in which all the components could ensure the level of required services at a reasonable price. This is exactly what the federal government is now trying to do.
It is looking for better efficiency in the provision of medical care services which Canadians need. It is also trying to set up standards in relation to some medical care services. Participaction represents a very important step in this field and applies to all Canadians. I think that the more we will be able to provide programs such as Participaction, the fewer medical care services will be needed in this country.
During the past five years and when the first agreement was reached with the provinces, it was agreed that the federal government would reserve the right to review some of the programs during a five year period. That is exactly what is happening today. We are now reviewing different programs and this did not come as a surprise to provincial governments since, on many occasions, the federal minister communicated with them. He also held many meetings and informed them that at the present time, expenditures seemed to become huge and it was therefore necessary to review this very important program which has nevertheless become very costly, not because one area or another faces excessive costs, but because, I think, even in this field, we are trying to live beyond our means.
What is important is to try and live within one's means. I hope that opposition members will allow the bill to get speedy passage so that in future we may apply more efficient and less costly formulas in this field, while we still enjoy the same quality in medical care services. It
Medical Care Act
seems that in Canada the quality of medical care is much higher than that provided in other countries.
Therefore, in no way are we going to deprive Canadians of medical services, but we are trying to review a program as we do with many other programs in relation to cuts in expenditures that must take place within the federal government. Some alternatives are being sought to make medical services more radically available while reducing their cost and improving their efficiency.
In this regard, it is important to mention that according to the present forecast the cost reduction programs should allow us to save about $1 billion in a five year period. Now, I feel that we should have the unanimous approval of this House if we can assure the same quality of care and at the same time, in a five year period, save $1 billion. And I do not see why the members of the opposition talk so much about it and take the federal government to task for the agreements that it has already made with the provincial governments.
Up to a point, the provincial governments have been spoiled by the federal government, and they should now act on their own and take their own responsibilities in all areas, and not only as concerns health. Of course, the federal government has a very important responsibility, that of redistributing wealth throughout the country, and this bill aims at redistributing wealth to the most needy provinces.
As we know, the action announced by the federal government is now causing many misconceptions. The population should know that there is no question of depriving them of medical services and that the government only wants to increase the effectiveness of medical services and to take the necessary action to improve these services so that the population of Quebec and of the whole country can make fuller use of these services, but at a price somewhat more reasonable than at the present time since, if prices continue to escalate at the present rate, all the provinces and Quebec in particular will probably have to raise their taxes to compensate higher medical costs.
We can no longer hope for economic growth to go on at the spectacular rate that we have witnessed since the Second World War. We must therefore now find a better way to use our resources and reduce wasteful spending. In the field of hospital and medical services, there now is wasteful spending as costs have increased astronomically since the implementation of what we call medicare. We should take the necessary action for the provinces to realize that the federal big brother cannot always cover their deficits and provide them with financial means to allow them to say afterwards to the population that everything is the fault of the government.
Everyone should assume his own responsibilities and the provincial governments have very important responsibilities in this area. This is why the minister has tried during the years that he has been responsible for this department, to negotiate agreements which could likely slow down these overly steep price climbs. Unfortunately no agreement could be reached in some areas. This is why the federal government must show some leadership and institute legislation which, on certain points, willl make the provinces more aware of the fact that they are also responsible for the health of their citizens. They must contribute

January 29, 1976
Medical Care Act
to their health as much as the federal government. At the federal-provincial health ministers conference last January a new method was proposed calling for stricter controls over the costliest services in exchange for federal involvement in other fields. The method proposed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) required from the federal more money than what the provinces are entitled to according to the existing agreements and would have given the provinces an additional subsidy to implement alternative care formulas at a lower cost.
These alternatives might have facilitated access to medical care and improved its efficiency. I shall take up any more of the time of this House but I think important for the opposition to study the problem not in a political way as they do now but in a rational way so that we can proceed as soon as possible with the passage of this bill for the welfare of the people of Canada.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I must say I was intrigued by the partisan remarks of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc). Before I proceed with what I have to say this evening on Bill C-68, let me assure the hon. member for Laurier that this party is trying to take a rational view of this bill, though little contained in the thrust of the bill is rational. The hon. member speaks about federal taxes that would have to be increased. I ask the hon. member, what can the provinces do but increase their taxes when the bill becomes law? They will have no other option.
I would also ask the hon. member to explain what he means when he says the provinces are being spoilt. Does not the hon. member know precisely what happened in 1965 when Mr. Pearson, the then prime minister, thrust this whole program upon the provinces? It was not until 1970 and 1971 that all of the provinces of Canada were finally brought under the cover of the federal medicare scheme. The hon. member says the provinces were spoilt but he should know better. I suggest that he examine the history of the federal medicare program and the manner in which the provinces were sucked into it.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, may I now address myself specifically to Bill C-68. We must first realize that once again we see a confrontation between the federal government and the provinces. It is the same kind of confrontation that we saw when we dealt with the mining legislation and mining taxation. It is the same kind of confrontation that we see going on with Bill C-58 which will inevitably mean a confrontation with the United States. It is the same kind of confrontation that has documented historically the actions of this particular government: there is no dialogue with the provinces and there is no consultation. The word is "negotiation", and brother, what experts they are.
Let us look at the increasing costs of medical care. I suggest the costs of medical care have not increased; it is the costs of institutional care and institutional structures that have increased. What could have been done about these costs, Mr. Speaker? Let us take a look at inflation, which has contributed to costs generally. Inflation has not

contributed to the increased costs of medical care when one remembers the increase received by Ontario physicians last year. Is a 4 per cent increase inflationary?
What about the additional cost of building new hospitals, or extensions to existing facilities? There is a 12 per cent building materials tax which the government put into effect. This could have been removed, at least for the construction of hospitals and nursing homes, indeed for every kind of health care facility. But it was not. Then look at other costs, such as labour. Finally-I know this is a provincial responsibility-but what about the length of time it takes a province to decide whether or not to expand a facility or to build a hospital? At the present rate of inflation, if plans are laid before a government today, a year and a half later they get the O.K. and the cost has increased by perhaps $2 million. These costs are all reflected in provincial coffers. These are the kinds of costs we are talking about today, not the sort of costs referred to in the bill. This bill is incorrect in its basic assumption that the cost of medicare is the question we should address ourselves to; rather it is the cost of institutional care with which we should be concerned.
The government could have done something for the provinces through CMHC and preferential interest rates. That in itself might have been a plus and could have been of assistance to the provinces. In the field of medicine the minister has cut, or at least frozen-which means the same thing with today's rate of inflation-funds spent on medical research. The government has been spending large sums in other areas. It spent $500 million on one program and $200 million on another. Why, Mr. Speaker, $500 million is one third of the total federal medicare budget. The money could just as easily have been directed into this particular area instead of introducing this bill.
Why should the minister of health introduce Bill C-68? Why should he take the action he is taking with reference to medical research in Canada? Surely he and other people recognize that our researchers, when they get involved in a program, begin research work that may take three to five years, but when they are half way through the program, perhaps on the verge of an exciting development or discovery which will be to the benefit of mankind, and certainly to the benefit of Canadians, along comes the minister and chops them off at the bootstraps. Where do these people go? They go right across the line to the United States where they know they can get a dollar's pay for a dollar's work and where their services, their intelligence, and their skills will be recognized and appreciated. This is the brain drain all over again. We had it before, and it is starting again.
When I came into this House in 1974 I can recall very well the appeal to the minister from members on this side for two lousy million dollars for research. The minister kept the research community of Canada waiting at his door for month after month after month. The question was asked time after time where was this $2 million. Finally out of the goodness of his heart the minister found that $2 million. The way the government was spending money then I am sure it had $2 million in its hip pocket all along.
January 29, 1976

Let me refer again to the limitations of this bill. The provinces' view of this bill is already a matter of record. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) laid out precisely how the provinces feel about this bill. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) also told us what the provinces think. Are these members wrong, and are all the provinces wrong?
I think I should quote from the minister's publication "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians". At page 5 we find this stated by the minister:
Good health is the bedrock on which social progress is built. A nation of healthy people can do those things that make life worthwhile, and as the level of health increases so does the potential for happiness.
That is simply a beautiful statement. Let us look at another statement by the then minister of national health and welfare made in this House in July, 1966, and perhaps the minister will remember his own words. He said:
Health is not a privilege tied to the state of one's bank account.
I should like to add that health is not a privilege that should be tied to the bank account of the state. We should remember how cutbacks can eventually lead to problems as they exist at present in the United States. Not too long ago I was talking to a friend of mine whose husband fell ill while in Hawaii. He was an American citizen, a retired postmaster. He subsequently died while in hospital in Hawaii, and the hospital bill amounted to some $60,000. Thank heavens that this man was not a Canadian. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) touched briefly on this situation.
As the federal government changes the rules of the ball game and increases the cost load of the provinces we will see, insidiously creeping into the whole structure, the need and demand for private health care schemes, and we all know what follows this sort of thing. We can call it Blue Cross or whatever you will, but it results in fat premiums, escalating costs of medical care, and extremely escalating costs of institutional care.
Surely there is some sensible balance that can be struck. A good balance already exists, namely, the one that the federal government is inflicting upon the provinces. The minister refers to this balance in respect of the costs as a 50-50 split between the federal government and the provinces. Let me point out that it is not 50-50 at all.
The federal government is not paying the administration cost of provincial medicare schemes. The federal government is not paying a percentage of the para-medical care such as osteopathy in the province of British Columbia, physiotherapy in the province of Alberta, pharmacare in other provinces, and chiropractic care in Quebec. The federal government is not paying a share of any of those costs, yet the minister likes to tell the people that there is in existence a 50-50 proposition. I know better, and the minister knows better, and it is time that the people knew better. We all know that this is not a one-way street for the provinces.
Let me speak about the concerns expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North regarding accelerating costs of medical care. That hon. member has quoted fancy figures covering high earnings and high salaries of members of the medical profession. The information is not secret. In the province of British Columbia you can obtain a copy of
Medical Care Act
the blue book which lays out very clearly the incomes of professionals.
Let me point out that when you think about the high income of physicians and the earning capacity of those men, let us say $300,000, you must remember that this is probably a group of five doctors in a clinic. That is likely the total earnings of that clinic, but it does not say anything about the cost of the blood laboratory, the x-ray laboratory, and the host of other services provided by that clinic. There is no mention of the high cost of these things when that hon. member talks about the high medical fees and the high earnings of medical doctors.
The hon. member has not referred to the overhead the physician has in his own office. The hon. member must think that nurses work for free, that drugs are free, that x-ray films are free, and that all the lab work done is done for nothing. Fortunately the public knows better than this. The hon. member is grossly unfair to the medical profession when he distorts the facts in that fashion. I hope the poor man never needs a doctor. I am almost a doctor and that is why I am qualified to speak on this bill.
I might refer to a couple of massive volumes called the Faulkes Report. There are some sound suggestions in that report which nearly gave members of the medical profession in British Columbia a minor hemorrhage. One message from that report came through loud and clear, and I am sure it is a message that was accepted by the medical profession of British Columbia and by members of other medical professions in other provinces who have taken the trouble to read it. That message related to the need for a broader scope and broader interpretation in respect of health care.
A committee of this House has spent some time considering the so-called battered child syndrome. Does this situation involve a provincial responsibility without any federal share in the cost of operating a central registry so that we know who these child abusers are and where these abuses are taking place? Is the federal government not responsible in some respects?
If the federal government is prepared to have its members of the standing committee listen to all this evidence with reference to the battered child syndrome, then it is or should be obvious that the federal government is about to work up the machinery and accept some responsibility, or at least take a federal posture with reference to this problem. It is a health cost. How will that be funded? Will some little bill be slipped into this House on a 50-50 basis to deal with the provinces, and then later on will the ball game be changed to the satisfaction of the federal government? Most likely.
The increased cost of medical care in remote areas is another matter which should be of concern. The provinces would like to address themselves to this problem. They would like to provide the services and some incentive to doctors to move into the remote areas, certainly into my riding and into the ridings of many other members. How will they do this when along comes the Minister of National Health and Welfare who changes the ball game, who changes the sharing agreements, loads the provinces with extra costs, increases the costs of the premium and the cost

January 29, 1976
Medical Care Act
to the taxpayer while decreasing the quality of medical care, and decreasing the spending the provincial governments will have at their disposal for the development of new health care delivery systems?
Those are the problems that will be created by this bill. It will have a direct effect on the provinces. That direct effect will be felt by the taxpayer. The hon. member for Laurier expressed some concern for the taxpayer in federal terms but completely forgot about the provincial terms. I ask what this bill will do for the morale of the professionals?
There will very likely be an increase in the cost of the plan. There will very likely be a deterrent fee. This may represent an increase in the taxation. Certainly given the rate of inflation introduced and promoted so effectively by the government, the provinces will be forced into that situation. What will happen when the provinces become involved in that bind and sit down with the doctors to talk about the 4 per cent increase, or the 8 per cent increase, or the catch-up?
Many of the provinces this year are faced with doctors who need to catch up, who have had no increase for some considerable time. I can tell you now that the provincial purse strings will have to be tightened considerably, and that this will lead to acrimony and bitterness in the exchanges at the bargaining table between the health representatives and the provincial authorities. I know whereof I speak. I went through that route in 1968. I know all about it. Do not kid me that it will not happen.
Now, let us go back to the Munro task force report of 1969. In commenting on the rapidly increasing cost of health care the minister at that time said:
The standards of health care now available can now be reduced ...
That surely must be one of the most astounding statements I have heard in a long time. Environmental concerns are only now opening up new areas of health concern. The minister in 1969 said we were reducing our standards because everybody is healthy. Now all of a sudden we are in a new ball game of environmental diseases. We have to determine how to treat mercury poisoning. We do not have any experts in that field in Canada. All of a sudden we are in the ball game of the Port Hope radiation syndrome. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) does not know anything about that, or what he does know he is not telling. What about the cost of that particular fiasco; who will pay the shot? Is that part of the new formula under Bill C-68?
We might look at the study in Trail, my home town. This is a study on blood and hair taken from children and the smelter workers, and indeed from men and women in all walks of life. There have been 1,800 blood samples taken. This is a three-year study. It will be two years down the line before we can finish this study to determine the content in the blood and hair of heavy metals such as lead, zinc, copper, bismuth, and antimony. It will be two years before this can be finished but suddenly we discovered that some genius in the Department of National Health and Welfare had cancelled the program.
I must congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare-I hope he is listening to me-for responding in a very sensitive way and correcting that blunder so that that

study can in fact be completed. I should like to thank him on behalf of the constituents of my riding, more particularly those who have given their blood, hair, sweat, and tears in the past two years.
These are new concerns, new diseases, and disorders which have been presented to us all of a sudden. We have these environmental disorders, diseases, and industrial problems. Can we agree with the minister when he says that health care services can now be reduced because we have reached the zenith? He also said in his second statement that taxes, premiums or deterrent fees can be raised even higher. That will now be inevitable.
I must say that in British Columbia, if not in any other province, the Social Credit government was adamant about not applying a deterrent fee. It felt it was inequitable, wrong and inappropriate. The New Democratic government, I am told, when asked about a deterrent fee responded in like terms. Neither party will accept the application of a deterrent fee.
How can the minister give people something, and then suddenly take it away? That will really be the net effect of this bill. It will not take medical care away from the people but it will either increase their tax contribution or they will have to pay a deterrent fee to their physician.
Who will it hit first? It will hit the sick people. Who are the sick people? They are the people in two classes, the pensioners and the poor, the very ones who can least afford a deterrent fee or increases in taxes. That is another reason why this bill is iniquitous. Surely again we can agree at least in part with the statement of the then minister in 1969 when he said:
Ways must be found to restrain the growth of cost increases through better operation of the health service structure now in existence.
How true. So why did the minister not do it? There was task force after task force. There were seven which made 377 specific recommendations on how to improve the health care delivery system in Canada. What did the government do? The government did not look at one of them. It introduced a whole new formula, sucked in the provinces and chopped them off at the pass.
It bears repeating that the cost of health care facilities has experienced a dramatic rise. This is due to inflation. The cost to cover the expense of medicare has decreased, not the cost of hospitals but the cost of medical care. This cost has decreased in proprotion to the GNP over the last few fiscal years. Bearing that fact in mind, how does the minister rationalize his decision to introduce Bill C-68? It is what we call inductive reasoning.
I would suggest, finally, that if costs rise above the proposed cost sharing limits which the minister has introduced, there are three situations which could and probably will arise. One of them is the draining of provincial reserves and resources or provincial revenues, or conversely, as I have said, increased provincial taxes in order to meet the daily demands of health, not to mention the abandonment of new, innovative health schemes.
Another option, increased premiums, as I have said, increases costs for pensioners and those who can least afford it. Who is in a position to afford it? What will
January 29, 1976

happen when we get into deterrent fees and increased premiums in the provinces? Labour will say to management that that is part of its bargaining. Labour will say it cannot afford to pay increased costs for medical care, and it will expect to add them to its extra benefits. Labour will bargain for that. That is more fuel with which to stoke the fires of inflation and to put down the poor and the pensioners.
This is a simple bill. It contains only three or four pages. It is relatively insignificant in size. All it does is say that the government will make some changes in percentages, but no one on the other side of the House has really bothered to give serious consideration to the net result in province after province. It will not be too bad for us in British Columbia, but what will it be like for those in the Mari times?


Andrew Hogan: Right on.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Once again we see the erosion of co-operative federalism. Brother, I do not think hon. members opposite know what those words mean. The government's five year notice for its withdrawal from the present hospital insurance plan threatens both these principles and practices. In the last ten years, as I said before, there have been seven task forces with 377 separate recommendations, and all of them have struck out. I wonder how much it cost for those seven task force reports.
I wonder what the cost was to the taxpayer, and I wonder where those task force reports are now. Who ordered them? Hon. members opposite ordered them. Where are they, and can they be produced? They are down in the archives confined to that limbo of dust, never to appear again. Why bother referring to a task force report? Why bother referring to 377 specific recommendations which could do something to cut the cost of health care and provide an efficient system, when all the government has to do is introduce a simple four page bill? It takes a hell of a lot less work, and the ball game is changed for the provinces. That is a pretty sweet deal.
By putting ceilings on these statutes which are on the books the government is ensuring that an inflation it helped generate will continue to escalate, medical costs will increase, and taxpayers will suffer. The desired standards for health care simply cannot be maintained because of the inherent restrictions within this bill. The government is making a guarantee that if inflation escalates, medical care will escalate, taxation will escalate, and the standard of medical care will diminish.
Finally, what will the provinces do this year? They will make darn sure they plump up to the best of their ability the medicare cheque because they know that the formula for the next five years is based on this year, and it is in their best interests to make this year look really good. That sure as hell does not do anything about inflation or for the cost of medical care.
Contrary to the idea of the hon. member for Laurier, this bill is not going to have an easy passage through the House or through the committee. All hon. members of the opposition will do their utmost to oblige the government to amend this bill and to come up with something which makes a darn sight more sense, costs the taxpayer less, and is more favourable to the provinces, and to see that there is
Medical Care Act
no more confrontation on this bill, but some consultation and negotiation something which has been long overdue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, coming on at this stage of the debate on Bill C-68 one is likely to be considerably repetitious in terms of what has been said already. Nonetheless there are a few points which I think should be made, and they may be somewhat different from what we have already heard.
I should like initially to commend the critic on the opposition side, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yew-chuk), for the very fine and extensive summary he gave to the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bruce Halliday: The only problem with his presentation was that it was so comprehensive and so intensive that it makes it difficult for the rest of us to follow.


An hon. Member:: The government would not be able to follow it anyway.


Bruce Halliday: I should refer briefly to the presentation of the minister when he led off this debate on second reading. He was indeed leading off the debate on Bill C-68, as was intended, but as I listened to his presentation I got the impression he was talking about something other than medical care services. I will admit that there was a certain element in his presentation which dealt with medical services, but by and large his whole emphasis was on the excessive cost of health care.
He really did not take the trouble to explain to the House and to the people of Canada that in actual fact there has been a reduction in the rate of increase of medical care but a real escalation in the cost of health care. Perhaps not intentionally, but I think the minister is misleading people to think that there has been a real escalation in the cost of medical care, which is not true.
Be that as it may, the minister and the government are attempting to suggest that the need for this bill rests on the marked increase in the cost of health care. Because this is the allegation, and because other speakers who followed the minister chose to use the same sort of reasoning, I too-and I apologize-will branch off on this tangent of talking about health care as well as medical care.
When considering this problem one has to go back in history a little, because one cannot understand what is happening here if one does not consider what happened in the past. I should probably start off back in the days of Mackenzie King. I think we have to give him credit, or otherwise, for having initiated the approach to social services which we now have. One has to admit there are many good points about the social services we have, but there are problems. In retrospect one can say that probably one of the biggest problems we have is that Mr. King in his wisdom or otherwise decided, unfortunately, that he would bite off a segment of service rather than a segment of people. That is to say, he chose to lay the emphasis on one particular service people in Canada needed and to provide that on a universal basis, rather than establish which people in society needed that particular service.

January 29, 1976
Medical Care Act
I was glad to read the other day in Hansard that the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) saw fit to criticize our government a little bit, and to suggest that probably the time had come for us to consider whether the universality concept is valid in this day and age, or whether we should be more dynamic and try to make changes more appropriate to the times. In this case we have to live with this because Mackenzie King started it for us a good many years ago.
Next I should like to note that when we talk in terms of health care we are dealing with two different bills. We have the bill amending the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and we find that about 60 per cent to 70 per cent of all health care expenditures come under that act. It is unfortunate that so much stress in this debate is laid on expenditures which amount to only about 20 per cent of the health care dollar, namely, expenses under the Medical Care Act.
I think we should take a look at the fact that the government has served notice now that it will back off on both hospital insurance and diagnostic services over the next five years, and of course it will do something more immediate by way of Bill C-68 to cut back in the immediate future, beginning this year on payments under the Medical Care Act. One has to chastize the government considerably, not a little bit, for this sort of action, because if one looks back over the history one is impressed with the fact that back in 1967 and 1968 the government was warned that it would have difficulty in the future if it insisted on going along the path it was following.
I should like to read an excerpt from the record of the debates in the Ontario legislature on February 1, 1967, when the premier of Ontario at that time, Mr. Robarts, said the following:
Medicare is a perfect example of the federal government introducing unilaterally a program which imposes heavy financial responsibilities on the provinces. It is a further example that these things must be done together and must be done jointly if the decision-making process is to have any meaning. Mr. Speaker, unilateral decision without consultation is no substitute for good federalism.
There is no doubt in my mind that what Mr. Robarts was saying about nine years ago is still true today, that we have the very same government adopting the same policy of ignoring federalism and going on its merry path in a unilateral direction with complete disregard for the rest of the country. One has to be impressed with this unilateral and arbitrary action on the part of the federal government at that time, and again now.
Since the minister announced the introduction of Bill C-68 we find the unique situation of ten provinces and ten medical associations in complete agreement with each other and in disagreement with the federal government. It strikes one as being a rather odd situation that the minister is unable to introduce a bill which would be satisfactory to at least some of the provinces and some of the medical associations.
One could go on to look at the historic past in order to set the stage for the present time. There is a rather interesting article which appeared as an editorial in the Toronto Telegram issue of November 18, 1967, relating to the Medical

Care Act which was proposed at that time. The editorial referred to the comments of Mr. Macnaughton, the then treasurer for Ontario. I quote from the editorial as follows:
Already about 95 per cent of Ontario people have some form of medical insurance coverage.
As Mr. Macnaughton has pointed out, Ontario has other priorities. Under the proposed federal medicare program, however, the province will be taxed for this plan, whether it joins or not. The funds thus collected would be applied to medicare in the other provinces.
This is regrettable. It means, simply, that if Ontario doesn't toe the line, it will be deprived of its share of the medicare costs.
By pursuing medicare, Ottawa is forcing some provinces-including Ontario-to spend hundreds of millions on a program that is not wanted, not needed or required. At the same time, however, Ottawa will not permit the province to use this money for other essential programs such as housing, education and welfare.
This kind of approach to a hard fiscal problem is difficult to understand, especially when its known that the federal Cabinet is divided on this issue. Mr. Sharp's appeal for belt-tightening and spending cutbacks is put into a difficult context by this attitude.
How can there be confidence in the government, and in its ability to make important decisions affecting the nation, when the Cabinet is of two minds on medicare?
The editorial concludes:
The faith of Canadians in the Government's capacity to govern has been shaken by its handling of medicare. If it cannot assume responsibility in fiscal matters, how can it in such vital fields as foreign affairs, defence, justice and trade?
We could read the same words now and agree that they apply equally well to this day and age in Ottawa. The same holds true that we still have a government which was so irresponsible as to introduce a plan against the wishes of the people of Canada back in 1967 and 1968, having forced the provinces to join. It is difficult to believe. One can cite other examples.
I should like to quote from an editorial in the Telegram issue of December 5, 1967, in which Mr. Macnaughton is quoted as saying the following:
"The budget statement suggests a determination to pursue this costly measure of social security in the face of a recognized need for a cutback in government spending".
He said this determination is "totally inconsistent with the federal government's concern for the inflationary pressures, which have been caused, in no small degree, by the growth in government expenditures."
"I find it difficult to see how the federal government will be able to make an effective appeal for restraints on prices and costs by the private sector of the economy if it insists upon increasing the pressures from the public area", Mr. Macnaughton said.
Once again the same problem which existed eight years ago is with us today. Yet we wonder why we are having difficulty with the government and with this kind of legislation.
There is a very well publicised medical journal in Canada called Medical Post. I know the minister is familiar with it because not too long ago he wrote a letter to it. However, may I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and continue my comments tomorrow if this meets with your approval?
January 29, 1976



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, the facts of life so far as power production from Nova Scotia is concerned are that we have an oil based electrical system. In fact about 70 per cent of our thermal plants are fueled by oil, and the rest by coal. Many people ask why we do not use our coal for 70 per cent and oil for 30 per cent, but it is not that easy although it might appear so on the surface.
This week we were gladdened by the announcement that a new coal fired generating plant initially producing 150,000 kilowatts would be built in Cape Breton and brought into production by 1979. That is good news, even though it does not mean that the announcement of a new mine will be needed now to produce this power, but hopefully it will lead to the establishment of a new mine for the Nova Scotia thermal market by the early 1980's. Further we have reason to hope that an additional mine opening may be announced in early 1977-after the results of a new coal preparation and desulphurization plant are known.
Coal offers some short term relief for the province of Nova Scotia, but as the president of that province's power commission noted at the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council seminar on January 21 there is no certainty at the moment that more than 1,500,000 tons per year of new coal can be provided. Therefore it is unlikely, based on present available information, that Nova Scotia coal can take us beyond 1983 to 1984.
There is no time, Mr. Speaker, to go into the complex details of why we cannot project more coal for thermal power purposes in Nova Scotia other than the above figures because it relates to the price and availability of coal as against competitive fuel. The availability of Cape Breton coal is tied not only to the financing of future openings but also to the necessity of guaranteeing future coking coal requirements for a proposed new steel mill in Cape Breton.
What I am trying to say is that even with the interim help given to the province by using Cape Breton coal, and thus reducing to some extent our present dependency on foreign oil, for the next eight to ten years we will be still heavily dependent on oil.
In the rest of the country, with the exception of Alberta and possibly Saskatchewan, oil price increases have a very serious effect. They usually mean higher gasoline prices, additional home heating costs and, in the final analysis, higher prices for many of our manufactured goods and some of our service industries. But in the maritimes, and especially for Nova Scotia, they mean higher electricity
Adjournment Debate
prices. Nova Scotia is always harder hit because of its industrial capacity. Regions of it, like my own constituency with a large number of pensioners on relatively fixed incomes, are particularly burdened with home heating and power costs.
Last June the $1.50 per barrel increase for crude oil was a hard blow for us. If we are to be hit with another increase of $2 at the end of June it will be a catastrophe.
In answering the question of my concern regarding power costs in Nova Scotia and the Atlantic region that they could possibly be doubled from about 18 mills per kilowatt hour to 37 mills by 1980, and this was based on a conservative projected oil cost of $12.19 per barrel, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) replied by alluding to the help already given to the Atlantic region's power requirements by past subsidies and a repayable loan to the nuclear power station being built at Point Lepreau in New Brunswick. We are grateful for this help and for the recent indication of federal support for the development of the eastern Canadian power grid to improve the limited existing ties. The federal government has offered to pay 50 per cent of inter-regional transmission line construction costs. This is helpful, but it is insufficient given the size of the problem that we are going to face by 1980 as described by the speakers at the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council conference to which I have referred.
I suggested in the House on Monday that a rethinking of the subsidy arrangements had to be done immediately, and I am awaiting to hear from the minister's parliamentary secretary that this department and the federal cabinet are truly aware of the potential crisis facing us in a few short years. The minister and the cabinet have to realize that only four years ago the electrical power rates in Nova Scotia were about on a par with Ontario's; today they are double the national average, and could triple or quadruple that average by 1978 unless the federal government takes decisive action this year.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) on his concern regarding the oil price in the maritimes and the fact that a great deal of the power, especially in Nova Scotia, is generated from imported crude oil.
The government does not underestimate the effect of oil price levels on the price of electricity in the eastern provinces. This is why oil price cushioning was introduced to allow a period of transition and adjustment toward the world price of oil.
The hon. member's arithmetic on the effect of oil prices on electrical energy generation requires some clarification. The present cushioning on heavy fuel oil is slightly over $3 per a barrel. If this amount were eliminated immediately the resulting increase in oil fired generation costs would be about five mills per kilowatt hour. Estimation of price levels in 1980 involves many other factors which go well beyond the oil import subsidy and include considerations of rising capital costs and other operating costs, and of course the possible changes in the world price of oil.
211 30-41

January 29, 1976
Adjournment Debate
As my minister has pointed out, the government has encouraged the development of nuclear generation at Point Lepreau and has offered to support regional electrical interconnections to give greater flexibility and lower real cost in the provision of future supplies of electricity. I might point out that this offer of half of the cost of the nuclear generating station and interprovincial interconnections has been available to the province for quite some time. The cable inter-connection between New Brunswick and P.E.I. is a current example of the application of this policy with the aid of federal grants and loans.
In the longer term, a key factor is a close degree of co-operation between electric utility and government organizations in the Atlantic region, and I am somewhat encouraged by the studies presently being undertaken jointly by Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.


SPORTS-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO AID FOR AMATEUR HOCKEY
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon during question period I attempted to find out from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) whether or not he shares his concern for amateur sport in this country as he did so effectively with his intervention in professional football in Canada, namely, the CFL. In my question I specifically referred to major junior hockey in particular and amateur hockey in general.
I had hoped that the minister would refer to the difficulties being encountered by many junior teams in different communities across this country, difficulties that they are encountering as a result of the delay and in some cases non-payment of development fees by the professional hockey leagues, specifically the World Hockey Association. I should not have been surprised when his answer was vague and uninformative.
I tried to be recognized to ask a more specific supplementary question of the minister, but for some reason Mr. Speaker saw fit not to allow me this common practice. Perhaps Mr. Speaker shares the same view as the minister in that professional teams rate more concern than our youth. That is certainly not the view that I take.
Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that amateur sport falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Health and Welfare and, therefore, it would be only natural to assume that the minister in question would be interested in the well-being of the thousands of young hockey players in the junior leagues across the country.
In any case, what I wanted to find out this afternoon was whether the minister was aware that there exists a very strong possibility of some major junior hockey teams being in financial jeopardy primarily as a result of non-payment of development fees by the professional leagues.
The reason I raise this is because the federal government intervened in professional football. Under the circumstances I feel that it is time it should interfere in the case of these youngsters across this nation.
Allow me to remind the minister that in 1974 there in fact existed a contract between the CAHA and the NHL regarding development fees which amounted to nearly $2
[Mr. Foster.)
million in that year alone. Such a contract has not been renewed; subsequently most payments have ceased and junior hockey is finding itself in serious financial trouble. There are 34 teams, for example, in the major Junior A league and one can check with most of them, whether it be Sault Ste. Marie, Peterborough, Flin-Flon or others, and one will see this problem. Let us remember, the participants are all Canadians, not like the CFL teams where most of the coaches, management, and players are Americans.
One would think that, if the minister is interested in physical fitness and sports at all, his interests would be geared to the thousands and thousands of youngsters across this country rather than a few hardened professionals. However, the more one looks at the minister's record in this regard the more one sees that the minister's concern is indeed very minimal if not non-existent.
You need only to look at the tragedy in Montreal as it relates to amateur athletes, not only from our own country but from around the world. What a disgrace and embarrassment for this nation to have a $1 billion Olympic Games and not be in a position to provide adequate facilities to the youngsters from around the world. One billion, yet there are no flush toilets, showers, or other adequate facilities! Yet the minister, as head of the Quebec Liberal caucus and as the one responsible for amateur athletics, sits here and not only does he allow the situation to develop but he is one of the main backers of the team of mismanagers in COJO in Montreal which has brought embarrassment and shame not only to the minister's own province but to the rest of Canada as well.
It seems to me that either the minister does not care enough about our youth who forfeit a great part of their teen-age years for the sake of physical excellence or, if I may borrow a term from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), he doesn't know his razzmatazz from a hole in the ground when it comes to physical fitness and sports in this country. This was evident from the fact that when he was pushing his football legislation before the House he had to hire special speech writers for thousands of dollars because he obviously had no knowledge of the subject matter himself.
In any case, the question is simply this: based on the fact that the minister saw fit to intervene in professional football, is he prepared to intervene today on behalf of tens of thousands of youngsters in amateur athletics?
I believe the time has come for the minister to show his concern, whether it be to ensure that development fee payments are made by professional teams and leagues or to ensure, in his capacity as Minister of Health, that proper and adequate sanitary facilities are provided at the Olympic Games in Montreal or, in general, to ensure that in any sport where professional and business oriented corporations draw on the talents of our youth-talents which were partially developed as a result of federal financing-the development payments will be funnelled back to the grass roots of the various physical fitness institutions and programs. I am not only referring now, in this last respect, to the NHL and the WHA having to make payments to draft juniors, but to other sports such as figure skating, for
January 29, 1976

example. I am making this suggestion to the minister. We as taxpayers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars assisting in the development of these young athletes-


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


Otto John Jelinek: Perhaps I can ask for one or two seconds longer-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Your time has expired. You've had your seven minutes and now you want eight minutes.


Otto John Jelinek: Could I ask for unanimous consent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: No. I
am sorry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the rules!


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) described his question as a simple one. Indeed it is a simple one and I am glad to have an opportunity to clear the air. Let me say at the outset that all the allegations he has made against the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and against the government of lack of concern are based on a misunderstanding of the situation.
I shall not attempt to defend Mr. Speaker against the allegations the hon. member made against him at the beginning of his remarks. I am sure the Speaker is well able to defend himself in the proper way. But I reject the statement he has made about the government.
First of all, we certainly favour financial support for amateur hockey by professional hockey. In fact we have intervened several times in the past, and if the hon. member knows anything about amateur sport, as he certainly should, he would be well aware of this. We are prepared to intervene, and we have intervened. We have proven our interest in the past.
Adjournment Debate
Moreover, we are watching the situation very closely and we are well aware of what is going on. We are aware of the non-payments. We are aware of the allegations of delayed payments. We are acquainted with the status of those payments. The Canadian Amateur Hockey Association is very well aware of our interest and our support. They know perfectly well that they can come to us and ask the minister to intervene. But here are the facts: we understand from all the parties that the climate of negotiation and the relationship between the amateur organizations and the professional organizations are improving. They are approaching a resolution of their difficulties on their own and therefore we do not intend to take any action at this time.
As far as we know, it is the view of all the parties, professional and amateur, that we ought not to intervene at this time. For the hon. member to say there is a serious problem-which we concede there is-but that we ought to intervene to solve it, is just grandstanding. We are ready to intervene if any one of the parties asks us to do so, and we would be prepared to do so as we have in the past. So much for allegations of lack of interest.
The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley made a very interesting suggestion and I also want to react to it on behalf of the government. He pointed out there are amateur and professional associations in other sports-he referred to figure skating-that have a relationship whereby the professional sport benefits from the training and practice provided by the amateur sports. He is right, professional sports do benefit from the amateur sports. If any of them on either side are prepared to take the kind of initiatives that have been taken in the field of hockey, we would certainly be prepared to support them. But we are not going to jump in on top. We are watching and are prepared to be supportive, and we have proved our interest and preparedness to be supportive. But we have no intention of jumping in on top of the amateur associations without invitation or an expression of interest on their part.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.18 p.m.
21130-41%

Friday, January 30, 1976