1976-06-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday the following telegram captioned "Urgent" was sent to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro):
In the matter of the dispute between Air Canada and Canadian Airline Employees' Association. CALEA recognizes Air Canada's legal rights under the Canada Labour Code. Nonetheless, CALEA finds Air Canada's action of June 16, 1976, inexcusable in light of the discrepancies of what the public is told and what the employees have been told. I hereby urge you to instigate an inquiry into the current dispute and also into Air Canada's labour relations policies and attitudes. We would be pleased to meet with you at your earliest convenience regarding this matter.
It is signed, J. T. Saunders, President, Canadian Airlines Employees' Association. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the Minister of Labour, in view of the long-standing nature of the dispute and the unprecedented action of our national air carrier in locking out its employees, follow the very reasonable request by J. T. Saunders, President of the Canadian Airlines Employees' Association for an inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House before presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION OF SOVIET VETERANS COMMITTEE
Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to recognize the presence in our gallery of a very noble group from Russia, the delegation of the Soviet Veterans Committee. It was my privilege to meet with them in Winnipeg on a return visit with the Royal Canadian Legion this week. I was also privileged to meet with them
last night, and with your permission I should like to recognize the presence of Admiral Zakharov and Major-General Golyakov.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Elmer M, MacKay (Central Nova): Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Finance is temporarily absent so I will ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to provide the House with some information as to the role of the Chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, and whether his activities in various business enterprises may have placed him in conflict with the provisions of Section 21, subsection (7) of the Anti-Dumping Act which, prima facie seems to be the case?
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. I did have conversation with the Minister of Finance before he left for a meeting with the Investment Dealers' Association. He had not finished the inquiry he was personally conducting, of which he talked yesterday in the House.


POSSIBILITY OF PREVIOUS INQUIRY INTO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OF CHAIRMAN OF ANTI-DUMPING TRIBUNAL
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister for his answer. If I may I should like to direct a question about the same matter to the Solicitor General. Could that hon. gentleman inform the House whether previous or former activities of the Chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal in seeking investments for his own benefits or the benefits of others caused an investigation into his activities sometime ago in this respect, and whether the RCMP or military intelligence ever informed any of the Solicitor General's colleagues about this? If so, when was this done?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have never been advised that there was such an investigation.

June 18, 1976
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE AGREEMENT TO PERMIT CHAIRMAN OF ANTI-DUMPING TRIBUNAL CONTINUE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will he indicate, if he can recall, whether during negotiations with Mr. Gauthier, at which time it was agreed he would carry on as Chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal for an additional six months, that Mr. Gauthier's private business activities were discussed and, as Mr. Gauthier has said, that an agreed condition of his continuation as Chairman was the understanding that he would be permitted to carry on these private activities? In any event, could we have the contract referred to by the Minister of Finance last Tuesday in respect of Mr. Gauthier's current employment tabled in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be gald to convey to the Minister of Finance the suggestions of the hon. member. I would just remind him that Mr. Gauthier was staying on at our request. He had for sometime wanted to resign at the end of December, and it was to accommodate the government and to help us in this transitional period for six months that he agreed to stay on. What exactly transpired of a contractual form or in conversation between Mr. Gauthier and the minister, I think would be wise for me to let the minister answer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Gauthier's tenure of office as Chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal was mainly under Mr. Turner as Minister of Finance, will the Prime Minister indicate if at any time Mr. Turner indicated that Mr. Gauthier was carrying on private business activities at the same time as being Chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal and, if so, what was the rationale for permitting Mr. Gauthier to carry on with these activities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making an assumption of which personally I have no knowledge; that is, that he is carrying on these activities. On this side, we find it wiser to find out the facts before making allegations. I have nothing further to add as to the period under Mr. Turner when Mr. Gauthier was brought in there except a recollection of not knowing Mr. Gauthier personally. I inquired about him and found out that he was a very valuable civil servant and that it would be a very good appointment if we made it. It was as a result of this that we proceeded to make the appointment.


FEDERAL PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the cost-sharing proposals which the right hon. gentleman placed before the first ministers' conference. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government has done a costing analysis of the proposals giving the estimates of the financial impact on each of the prov-

inces and more particularly, as to whether or not the government has made any estimate as to what financial returns this would have given the provinces over the past years had these proposals been in effect and a projection as to what tax returns and revenues this would give the provinces over the next five years should these proposals go into effect.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I answered the other day I cannot give these estimates in detail. Perhaps some figures do exist in the Department of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and that of the Secretary of State, but as I emphasized to the House, and I think the premiers understand this well, the projection through the past of course would not be a fair indication of what we are doing. In the past we knew that these programs escalated at a very fast rate, something I believe in the area of 15 per cent or 17 per cent escalation per annum. We did not want this to continue and that is why we have resorted to capping some of these programs. But in the plan for the future we sought agreement from the House, the country and the provinces to limit the rate of escalation and instead of doing this through capping-


An hon. Member:: Capping?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, through capping, a difficult term to understand. I am sure the hon. member will be able to ask a supplementary. It would be a good day for him to do so. What we are proposing instead is a plan which would be composed of cash grants. These would be escalated more or less at the rate of growth of the national product. They would grow as the country grew. This is not possible to calculate in detail but every one would be able to plan on that basis. We know more or less the rate at which we hope to grow.
The other part would be in the form of tax points which we said would grow at least as fast or faster than the GNP. This is the problem with the fiscal dividend which would accrue from the fact that some of these tax points tend to grow faster than the rate of growth of the economy. So, it was a clear indication to the provinces of the principles on which this would be based which would permit them to make the calculations. I repeat that we may have made some estimates in departments but they are always conjectural. It depends upon the rate of growth of the economy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me to be very difficult for this House or the premiers of the provinces to make any decision in respect of these problems unless they get the kind of information I am asking for, and particularly some idea of what the base year would be in each case and that so far has not been divulged. In view of the Prime Minister's answer to my question to the effect that the grants for health services and post-secondary education are now to be brought into line with the rate of economic growth, I want to ask the Prime Minister what possible relationship there is between the incidence of illness and the gross national product, in view of the fact that last year the cost of providing health services went up by 15 per cent at the same time that the gross national product was virtually at a standstill.
June 18, 1976


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is obviously no absolutely direct correlation of which I know between the incidence of illness and the growth of the economy, but I take it the hon. member must recognize that the amount of money we can spend for health and education is not unlimited and that it is useful, if governments are to search out priorities and spend the public moneys in ways which meet those priorities, that they be able to do some planning. They cannot just say that they might have an epidemic next year and therefore they will have to let the growth escalate at an epidemic rate for the next ten years. There are obviously contingencies for which one has to plan. But the hon. member has been leader of a government which I think was notoriously successful in the management of its economic affairs, which never came near bankruptcy, so he must have been able to plan ahead what he would spend in various sectors of the economy including health, and I am sure he would understand this.


BASIS ON WHICH COST-SHARING FOR HEALTH AND EDUCATION WILL BE TERMINATED
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that last year in the budget the former minister of finance announced that he was giving notice to the provinces of the termination of the five year agreement covering hospital insurance and diagnostic services, since this agreement still has four years to run, are we to understand that all the cost sharing proposals with respect to health services and post-secondary education are entirely contingent on the provinces accepting the immediate termination of the hospital insurance and diagnostic services, or is it intended that they will carry on for the four years which remain on the 50-50 basis and some other arrangement will be made about the other health insurance programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the case of the post-secondary education the expiry date is April of next year, if my memory is correct. We talked about three areas at this conference. In the area of medicare, of course, the system of federal grants is already well established. The only case I think to which the hon. member's question refers would be hospital grants and we indicated that we were not going to accelerate the termination date of 1980. We were putting in place a program which hopefully would be able to bridge over the difference. If we can institute the program earlier, as indeed some provincial premiers suggested, we are prepared to do it sooner, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that in his statement to the conference. But it is not our desire to foreshorten this date if the provinces do not want to do so and we did not urge for it in any sense; we were merely responding to a suggestion by one of the premiers.


REACTION OF PROVINCES TO FINANCING PROPOSALS FOR MEDICARE AND HOSPITAL INSURANCE-PROVISION FOR REVIEW OF PROGRAMS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I asked this supplementary question of the Acting Prime Minister two days
ago and he said he would bring it to the attention of the
Oral Questions
Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Prime Minister now whether he could indicate to the House what the reaction of the premiers was to his established program financing proposal insofar as it relates to medicare and hospital insurance. Could the Prime Minister also explain the circumstances of the review which he has been proposing between himself and the premiers in so far as hospital insurance and diagnostic services are concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that in my perception of it a great majority of the provinces favoured this scheme because it responded to a request the provinces have been making for a long time that there be a transfer of tax room and greater flexibility for the provinces in applying or in spending the money they receive from the federal government. To my recollection, only one or two provinces, or perhaps three, indicated that they were not sure, and that perhaps they would rather continue receiving it all in the form of cash rather than some of it in the form of tax room, but the general response to the scheme, as I perceived it, in principle, was favourable.
Of course, the calculations of rate of growth and the base year, to which the hon. member from the New Democratic Party referred, are important in the calculations, and we indicated that at the meeting of ministers of finance in July these would be the areas which would be discussed in greater detail. However, in so far as the principle of getting more tax room from the federal government is concerned, hon. members opposite will remember that this has been a constant request of the provinces, and this is designed to meet that, at least in part.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED REVIEW OF HEALTH PROGRAMS
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has referred repeatedly to the federal-provincial review of health legislation and programs, and I wanted the Prime Minister to tell us how such a review would be carried out and what the circumstances of this federal-provincial review, to which he has been referring, would be.
Perhaps I will repeat the question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister explain the circumstances of the federal-provincial review in so far as health legislation and programs are concerned? There had been mention made in his established program about the financing proposal of the joint federal-provincial review of the health programs. I wonder if the minister could clarify the circumstances of that review.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there has been an agreement in principle with the provinces to consider the possibility of extended cost sharing under the existing legislation, but in addition, there was general agreement in principle with the provinces, when the ministers of health met last time, that it would be appropriate to have a more global review which would consider all aspects of health in this country, not only the provision of the services which we are cost sharing now or those we could cost share under the existing legislation, but the whole area of prevention, for instance, and the whole area of the provision of health

June 18, 1976
Oral Questions
services both by the federal and provincial governments. The suggestion was made and agreed to in principle that we should take time, before agreeing on a wholly new financing formula, to look at the whole health field along the lines of the New Perspective on the Health of Canadians, which was published by the government three years ago.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister with respect to the anticipated strike by CATCA which, as a result of the statement yesterday, is now nearly upon us. Yesterday in the House the President of the Treasury Board in answer to a question by the hon. member for Vegreville said, with respect to the replacement of an appointee, that he did not believe it is possible to appoint a replacement for Mr. Keenan before the return of the Minister of Transport, who is now travelling abroad. Does the Prime Minister accept the proposition that the government is paralysed with respect to this matter until the return of the Minister of Transport? In addition, I wonder if the Prime Minister could inform the House what other action the government is taking or is contemplating with respect to this important matter.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if I could respond to that question, the government is by no means paralysed in the way the hon. member has described. The search for a replacement for Mr. Keenan, as I indicated earlier this week in the House, is going forward. The minister certainly directed his attention to this before he left and his officials are pursuing it very vigorously in his absence. He is in regular and frequent contact with his officials and certainly the House and the hon. gentleman can be assured that we are proceeding with all possible speed to find an appropriate person to replace Mr. Keenan as the commissioner.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we can say at least that it is most unfortunate that the minister chose this time to be away. This leads to the second question to the Prime Minister. When is the Minister of Transport planning to return and are there any plans afoot for the government to make application to the courts with respect to this matter having regard to the announcement made yesterday by the air traffic controllers? What are the plans of the government in respect of the matter and are any sessions being conducted between the government or representatives of the government, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, with the officials of CATCA to find a suitable replacement for Mr. John Keenan? This seems to be the central issue in this whole matter and I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us what is happening?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is a series of questions there. In answer to the first one, the Minister of Transport was planning to return by the regular DND flight schedule for Monday. It is possible that he will return earlier depending on several contingencies, one of them being that the government is asking for an injunction which I believe will be heard at four o'clock this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the meantime, to repeat what the parliamentary secretary just indicated to the House, we are very concerned indeed with finding a commissioner or commissioners to replace Mr. Keenan and, as he indicated, we hope that will be done as soon as possible.


POSSIBILITY OF CONSULTATIONS WITH AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS TO AVERT STRIKE-CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSIONER SUGGESTED BY CONTROLLERS
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. Since the application to the courts that he refers to, which I presume is to the federal court of Canada, is likely to be an ex parte injunction and in effect would only postpone this strike for eight or ten days if it were successful, would the Prime Minister answer another part of the question I put to him? Does the government intend to have consultations with the officers of CATCA during that period if the injunction is successful or in the alternative, are those consultations going on now, bearing in mind that what they are talking about is perhaps the curtailment to the Canadian public of an essential service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, in so far as talking to CATCA is concerned, this is necessary and has been done to the extent that we are trying to look for a commissioner who would be acceptable to both sides, the public and CATCA itself. I do not say that at some point if we cannot reach agreement we will not have to proceed on our own. Of course, we would like, as we did with Mr. Keenan, to find someone who is broadly acceptable to CATCA and hopefully to the other interests involved.
Apart from not wanting to speculate on the results of a legal proceeding, an injunction, which I indicated we are going to proceed with this afternoon, I must remind the House that the government's position is that this strike is an illegal strike, that it is not part of the collective agreement. We are quite disturbed that any group or union in Canada would want to strike against the principle of bilingualism. This in our mind is what is now happening. It is conceivable how a strike can solve, some times, economic issues or issues of a contractual nature, but it is inconceivable to me how this strike can solve safety in the air. This certainly cannot be done by strike action.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, by way of preamble I want to make it quite clear to the Prime Minister that I think all parties in this House of Commons, and indeed the country, regard the matter of air safety as the important aspect-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 18, 1976


An hon. Member:: Why not bilingualism?


Walter David Baker: Can the Prime Minister confirm whether a suggestion was made by CATCA as to an acceptable commissioner and whether the government considered that? Did they in fact reject that suggestion? I understand one was made or is that a point that is still pending with respect to that particular matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, concerning the hon. member's preamble, I am glad to hear the statement that the opposition is concerned for public safety. I hope they would share the government's view that the question of bilingualism, the use of bilingualism and its relation to safety cannot be settled by a strike and they join us in denouncing this strike as ill-timed and-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You, as a government, are not taking it seriously.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see the hon. member shaking his head in assent. I hope that can be interpreted as a statement of the Tory party to all those-with of course the exception of the hon. member for Edmonton-


Mr. Paproski:: Centre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Edmonton Centre who seems to disagree with his seatmate.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What equivocation.


Walter David Baker: You should not inflame a bad situation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why do you not make a clear statement?


Walter David Baker: I just did; you make an answer.


John Allen Fraser: You are not helping, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I should like to know how the hon. opposition is helping. They do not seem to be very helpful in this matter.


REASON MINISTER OUT OF COUNTRY IN VIEW OF THREATENED STRIKE OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the right hon. Prime Minister. I should like to make it quite clear that the primacy of safety is in the mind of everyone around here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, with the resignation of Mr. Keenan as the commissioner and with the uneasiness amongst air traffic controllers at the collapse of the commission which was evident a week or so ago, can the Prime Minister explain why the Minister of Transport should have decided at this moment and in these circumstances to leave the country?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the sequence of events is not as the hon. member seems to suggest. The Minister of Transport indicated to me several months ago his desire to be in Europe at this time in order precisely to look into the kind of issue, amongst others, which is of concern to this country-safety in the air. There are improvements that can be brought to air transport and so on. So he did not decide at this time to go, he had decided long ago to go to Europe. When he left, the issue of the commissioner and had been settled and unsettled in the way the House knows and, as the parliamentary secretary indicated, the search was on for a replacement for Mr. Keenan and it was, beyond the first attempts that had been made, difficult to find people who would be agreeable to both CATCA and les gens de l'air. It obviously was a matter which would take some time and some cooling off, which is what has been taking place, and the uncertainty is going on. We have not yet found someone who would be reasonably acceptable to all concerned in this and the search is proceeding.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has confirmed the reports that the minister has gone to Europe to inquire into this problem of the use of languages and its effect on safety. I wonder what construction one is to put on this particular visit, particularly in the light of its having been decided several months ago. Is one to conclude that the minister has some doubts as to the reliability of the facts set out in the Bilcom report and has had to go there to check matters out for himself?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Scarborough. Order, please. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


MINISTER'S VIEW OF CRITICS OF NUCLEAR POLICY-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is based on the Statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that:
. .. public reaction to the nuclear issue is based on some highly inflammatory and misleading information.
Given that officials of the Atomic Energy Control Board, the president of Petro-Canada and a number of leading Canadians have warned about the dangers inherent in radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants, does the Prime Minister share the minister's cavalier assumption that any criticism, even that of such informed and responsible sources as I have mentioned, falls into the "highly inflammatory and misleading" category?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is totally and completely incorrect in saying that that is the minister's assumption. Therefore, I do not share it.

June 18, 1976
Oral Questions


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister undertake to look into the statement made by the minister to the Canadian Nuclear Association, with a view to having him clarify it or, at least, retract his broad-brush approach to criticism of nuclear power, in the interests of open and informed debate on this vital issue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister has participated repeatedly in open and informed debate, and I think the hon. member herself in aware of the existence of broadbrush statements; that, I think, was her expression. Politicians are sometimes inclined to use them. It is important to look at them in good faith, and to see the context in which the minister takes action and is pursuing this debate.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister? In view of the immediate prospect of the air traffic controllers strike and the unfortunate absence of the Minister of Transport, may I ask if officials of the Department of Transport are meeting with representatives of CATCA, the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association, and setting forth proposals to avert the possibility of the strike?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we have decided to take court action, but if Mr. Livingston wants to meet us, we are ready to see him at any time. I must say that Mr. Livingston has made a number of statements up to now, but he did not attempt to approach me or any of my officials. The government's view is very clear: it is an illegal strike and we shall take the necessary steps to avoid it.


ALLEGATION RADAR AND LANDING EQUIPMENT OBSOLETE-GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? Since it is necessary to harmonize safety with bilingual air traffic control across the country, since there are serious difficulties with regard to the use of outdated radar and landing equipment at airports across Canada, and since the issue of bilingual air traffic control may exacerbate the issue of safety and safe procedures followed by air traffic controllers across Canada, may I ask if the government has taken steps to replace obsolete radar and landing equipment, so that we may at all times be assured of the safety factor?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, Canada has an enviable record in air safety. It is second to none.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, we are determined to maintain that standard. If the hon. gentleman is aware of some particular difficulties concerning our navigational aids, I wish he would draw them to the attention of the ministry so that we can examine them one by one.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On July 18, 1973, on the subject of conflict of interest legislation, the Prime Minister was reminded by the then leader of the opposition that "there is also nothing in the guidelines announced today respecting ministers' senior staff people". Has the Prime Minister been addressing himself to this continuing problem? If so, what does he intend to do about it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this matter was settled several months ago-I am not sure of the exact date. My recollection of that question is none too precise. However, when I announced the guidelines I indicated that they would, indeed, cover everyone in the position to exercise influence on the government and who might be in a conflict of interest situation. Ministers, in so far as their exempt staff is concerned, have assured compliance with the guidelines on the part of such staff. Of course, the departmental people have been informed, and they have conformed to the guidelines. This is also true of the Crown corporations. As far as we know, every sector of the Canadian public service and ministerial service , has been covered by these guidelines.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the minister in the position to report briefly on the progress, if any, being made with regard to the proposed steel complex for Cape Breton? I ask this, Mr. Speaker, because of the urgency of the matter, namely, the apparent cancellation of new developments at the existing steel mill at Sydney, a mill which is the backbone of the economy of Cape Breton Island where the work force has been drastically reduced, as the minister knows. What message of encouragement does the hon. gentleman have today for the people of Cape Breton Island?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member, with regard to the last part of his question concerning SYSCO, that today's newspapers are announcing the last investments, to which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion contributed; they will give results in
June 18, 1976

the near future. They will increase by a considerable amount the plant's capacity to produce rails and will thus make SYSCO's operations more profitable. Unfortunately they will not solve all the problems of the company.
In answer to the first part of his question, I must say that it is true that a few weeks ago the premier of Nova Scotia was in Europe and that the president of DEVCO, Mr. Kent, accompanied him. On that occasion they met several industrialists, heads of steel industries in particular, who are interested in the development of a primary steel industry in Canada. I have had a few brief reports on the result of that meeting. I have been told that the meeting was very interesting and very positive and that one could hope that more progress would be achieved at any moment with regard to that project.
With regard to the project for the development of a steel industry in Canada, and in eastern Canada in particular, as the hon. member knows the department continued its analyses as a result of the tabling of the CANSTEL project report. I can assure the hon. member that the department has now completed those analyses, and that we will therefore be in a position to discuss and contribute efficiently, in terms of technical information, to any proposal we may be submitted in the course of the coming months.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister inform the House if he knew that the commitment by Lockheed to provide interim financing for the LRPA project was purely verbal, if he first knew it about mid-November and if he was ever given occasion to think otherwise?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that in mid-November. I said earlier to the House that I first learned that Lockheed could not perform what they said they could do when I returned from Brussels. That was about the middle of December. That was also the first time I learned there was only a verbal arrangement. In fact, I may not even have known of the verbal arrangement until later in December. I knew on my return from Brussels that they could not carry out their part of the financing.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I could produce half a dozen references to indicate that the minister did know, but will limit myself to one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister account for his answer of June 2, as reported on page 14077 of Hansard? When asked whether he had asked Lockheed for any written commitment that they would supply the interim financing he replied, no.
Oral Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: I would have to look at the record to see what was being referred to at that time. None of our officials, it is very clear, asked either Boeing or Lockheed, at that stage, for written confirmation. They asked for assurances that the financing could be arranged. This has been stated so many times that I do not know why we have to keep on repeating it.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or his parliamentary secretary or, in their absence, the acting minister in charge of that department. It arises from written complaints I have received from the small claims court in Napanee regarding the new "instant bankruptcy" procedures followed by the department or by employees and officials of the department in connection with cases of bankruptcy. Individuals who apply to this department and commence bankruptcy proceedings are being instructed to ignore all court summonses or writs from county and small claims courts, not to accept them and to avoid service. This is contrary to the law. No one can lawfully ignore a writ or a summons from a court. Why does the minister or his department authorize such illegal acts? Will he investigate the situation and stop this illegal procedure?


Marc Lalonde: Obviously, I shall take note of the hon. member's question and draw it to the attention of the minister concerned. I am not aware of the circumstances surrounding the hon. member's representation but the situation will be examined and I hope to have an answer for him soon.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the fact that next week, in Ontario at least, will be senior citizens' week and that the Ottawa Senior Citizens Council is represented in your gallery today by Mr. Walter Turnbull, who is a former deputy minister and a very prominent former public servant as well as secretary to Prime Minister King, who is present to emphasize this important event. I am sure all members will wish the senior citizens well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
14658

June 18, 1976
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO MEDIATE DISPUTE BETWEEN AIR CANADA AND FINANCE BRANCH EMPLOYEES
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour arising from my proposed motion earlier today under Standing Order 43. The minister now has a copy. Can the hon. gentleman report to the House whether his officials have been able, over the last few months, to find any way of breaking the longstanding impasse in relations between Air Canada and its employees in Winnipeg? Having heard both sides of the story, I can assure the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that there is the greatest need for somebody to mediate between the parties in connection with this matter.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I agree with the hon. member that there is a need to resolve this situation; it goes very deep in terms of emotional considerations. I was informed a short while ago that the union has gone to the courts to contest the legality of the company's lock-out. In the meantime, they have sent me a telegram suggesting that a commissioner be appointed and we are giving active consideration to the appointment of a commissioner to look into one particular area which I consider to be the root cause of the dispute. I hope to be able to tell the hon. member at the beginning of next week what action is to be taken.


NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister? I had intended to direct this question to the minister for Indian affairs yesterday but he was not in the House. Today, he was here for a while, but he is not here now and I note that his parliamentary secretary is not here either. The question concerns the rate increases proposed by the Northern Canada Power Commission. For the past several weeks, people in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon have been expecting the minister's reply to reports on the NCPC by the public utilities boards and by citizens groups in the two territories. Is the minister concerned now prepared to make public the action he is prepared to take to protect northern consumers from the drastic increases in the cost of electricity which are contemplated? In particular, would he change the rate of interest on the loans to the Power Commission to help bring about a favourable result?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice that he will put these questions and make these representations to the minister on Monday. I will ensure that he is prepared to answer.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister comply with my request to allow the Canadian Airborne Regiment to remain in Edmonton?


James Armstrong Richardson: The Airborne Regiment is being considered, as are all units, in the course of the infrastructure study. I cannot make a commitment about any individual unit.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday, as well as a week or so ago, the hon. gentleman denied any knowledge of fraudulent improprieties within the Olympic lottery program, as well as any RCMP activities in this regard, other than in the Province of Ontario. Upon further investigation I have reason to believe that these fraudulent practices are, indeed, taking place in Quebec and elsewhere and that an on-going investigation is being carried out into this matter in Quebec by the RCMP fraud squad based in Toronto and under the supervision of Inspector Rodney T. Stemler. I would therefore like to ask the Solicitor General who, I say, with respect, does not know a great deal about what is going on in his department-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Otto John Jelinek: Well, he does not know whether the RCMP are investigating this matter in Quebec. I would ask him to look into this question again and perhaps report to the House before it rises for the summer break.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I put that question directly to the senior officers of the RCMP a few days ago and they gave me the answer I gave to the House. I have to rely on information given to me; I do not deal with the inspector referred to by the hon. member, I deal with the senior officers here in Ottawa. I told the hon. member yesterday that I will check again. I will do so and if there is any further information, I will give it to the House.


LOTO-CANADA   SUGGESTED DELAY OF PROGRAM PENDING CLARIFICATION OF ALLEGED FRAUD IN DISTRIBUTION OF OLYMPIC LOTTERY TICKETS
Otto John Jelinek: The
minister is obviously not getting the proper information
June 18, 1976

from the top. However, my supplementary question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the many uncertainties and, surely, fraudulent irregularities within the existing lottery program, much of which, as the hon. gentleman knows, will be passed on to Loto-Canada, would the minister consider postponing the inception of Loto-Canada until all questionable aspects of the sale and distribution program have been cleared up in order to avoid the continuation, perhaps unintentionally, of fraudulent practices within the new program?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to appear three days before the committee. I answered all questions. The hon. member did not ask me any question on the distribution of the tickets, even if he had the opportunity to do so for many hours. I answered other questions on this subject. I said we wanted to have strict control over this, to be sure that there is no abuse and that we wanted to have a distribution system controlled by Loto Canada rather than by intermediaries appointed by the provincial government as is the case for Wintario. We intend to appear before the committees of the House each year to answer questions. The chairman of Loto Canada had long sessions with me at the committee, and we tried to give every possible answer to hon. members. We told them that if they had concrete suggestions, they should put them directly to Mr. Cousi-neau who would be prepared to examine and use them.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the question period the Prime Minister invited me to pose a question to him and, being one of those who can resist anything but temptation, I should like to do that right now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Mr. O'Sullivan:: As the rather extensive and expensive renovations come to an end on the Justice building next to the Confederation building on Wellington Street, I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would give consideration to the suggestion that that building be named after a man who served with distinction as Minister of Justice, who went on to become Prime Minister of Canada and served in that office with distinction. We will not hold it against him that he was a member of the Liberal party. I am referring, of course, to the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for this very generous and worth-while suggestion. It is not the first time that he has referred in gallant terms to a former Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Report of Committees


Steve Eugene Paproski: You may have another, too, shortly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre says there may be another chance a few years down the road.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Right after 1978.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure that if that happens the hon. member for Edmonton Centre and I will retire together. The question is indeed worthy of consideration. I have already had discussions with the Secretary of State and the cabinet on suitable ways of honouring the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. We have decided on one course but this may be one that we would want to consider before making a final decision.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF OFFICIALS FROM GOVERNMENT OF GHANA
Ralph Goodale: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know all members of the House would want to join with me in welcoming to your gallery today a number of trade officials representing the government of Ghana and certain private business concerns in Ghana who are in Canada for discussions with government officials and representatives of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have to stand on a point of order for purposes of clarification of the answer given me by the President of the Treasury Board. It is true that during the committee stage the situation of Loto-Canada was before the committee, but I did not ask the President of the Treasury Board about the distribution of lottery tickets. However, I asked the president of Loto-Canada about this and he had no idea what the distribution of tickets was going to be. Therefore, my point of order is this: in response to my question, the minister was referring to the committee stage, not to my question at all. I wonder whether the minister would answer and tell me whether he would reconsider postponing the initiation of Loto-Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventeenth Report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey).
95570-27)4
[Stage Direction]
June 18, 1976
Order Paper Questions

[Stage Direction]
Sixth Report of Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, in both official languages.-Mr. Guilbault.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are marked by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,773, 5,171, 5,237, 5,402, 5,523, 5,550 and 5,650.
Department	Amount Paid to Students
Manpower and Immigration	$35,475,000
National Film Board	80,000
Health and Welfare	1,009,000
National Defence	6,363,000
Consumer and Corporate Affairs	31,000
Secretary of State	6,307,000
Indian Affairs	1,036,000
Solicitor General	37,000
Agriculture	99,000
National Revenue	18,000
Transport	73,000
Energy, Mines and Resources	58,000
Total	$50,586,000


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1970 to date, have any departments or government bodies negotiated contracts with Paquette Hudson Associates for the teaching of a second language to public servants and, if so, in each case (a) what was the contract (b) how many (c) for what amount?
2.	For each year, what percentage of the money granted to the school was directed to salaries of (a) teachers (b) administrators?
3.	Are the requirements for (a) formation (b) experience of the teachers only under the school and, if not, is there a link between such requirements and those that prevail when hiring teachers of a second language for the Public Service?
4.	For each year, how many (a) French speaking (b) English speaking public servants have followed courses offered by the school?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by all departments and agencies as follows: none.


Mr. Herbert: Of the total amount of $60,886,000 appearing in the 1975-76 estimates for student summer employment, how much has been (a) paid to students (b) paid as salaries to public servants (c) spent otherwise?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: During the Summer of 1975, some 12 federal departments operated programmes under the Student Summer Employment and Activities Programme. Attached is a departmental breakdown of expenditures of the 197576 proportion of funds allocated. The difference of $6,000 between the noted amount of $60,886,000 and the amounts shown on the attached table is due to a rounding off of these figures.
Paid Salaries to Public	Spent	
Servants	Otherwise	TOTAL$2,293,000	$3,618,000	$41,386,00039,000	21,000	80,000 1,069,00011,000	1,391,000	7,765,00029,000	60,000340,000	2,389,000	9,036,000158,000	8,000	1,202,0003,000	6,000	37,000 108,000$2,844,000	$7,462,000	18,000 73.000 58.000 $60,892,000


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Did CNR increase its container rail rate to the Port of Halifax-Dartmouth to and from Montreal and/or Toronto by 10 percent on January 1, 1976 and, if so, what is the government's position on the request for a further 5 percent in June 1976?
2.	What is the government's best estimate of the total rail rate increase since 1969, in percentage terms, should the 1976 increase be approved?


Ralph Goodale: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Export/Import container rail rates applicable between Halifax and Montreal and/or Toronto were increased by 10 per cent on January 1, 1976. Carriers have advised the shipping public that a further adjustment will take place no later than July 1, 1976, amounting to an additional increase of no less than 5 per cent. Under the statutes, railway companies are not required to request permission for increases in freight

June 18, 1976

rates and may initiate such increases by filing tariff amendments with the Canadian Transport Commission on 30 days notice. Such increases do not in the normal course require approval of the Commission or the government. However, the Canadian Transport Commission is monitoring the recent increase in container rail rates in the performance of its new duties under the Anti-Inflation legislation, and has called upon the railways to furnish it with all the information it requires in this regard. Any
Order Paper Questions
finding under the Anti-Inflation legislation will be communicated in due course.
2.	An estimate of absolute total container rail rate increases since 1969, in percentage terms, cannot be readily ascertained as terms and conditions relating to specific movements have been broadened considerably since that time. The following statement contains a complete breakdown of charges applicable on container movements between points under review for the period in question.
Containers Export and Import-Loaded-Freight all Kinds or Empty via Rail
Effective Date	Between Montreal, Quebec and Halifax, Nova Scotia Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5	Between Toronto, Ontario and Halifax, Nova Scotia Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5	(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)August 26, 1969	75	October 1, 1970	81	162	117	234	October 1, 1971	-	-	87	174	93	186	99	198	-	-	-	124	248	131	262	138	276	April 1, 1973	-	-	94	188	100	200	106	212	140	280	-	-	132	264	139	278	146	292	207	414May 1, 1974	-	-	103	206	109	218	115	230	154	308	-	-	142	284	149	298	156	312	228	456April 1, 1975	-	-	118	236	125	250	132	264	177	354	-	-	163	326	171	342	179	358	262	524January 1, 1976	-	-	130	260	138	276	145	290	195	390	-	-	179	358	188	376	197	394	288	576(a)	Charge in dollars per 20 ft. container.(b)	Charge in dollars per 40 ft. container.
Explanations of columns:
Column 1: Applicable on a minimum of 200 containers per calendar week when the carrier receives a minimum of 40 trips per year in each direction.
Column 2: Applicable only on a minimum of 18,000 20-foot containers (or equivalent) per calendar year, loaded or empty, between Halifax, Nova Scotia Montreal, Province of Quebec, Saint John, New Brunswick and Toronto, Ontario. Containers moving on behalf of the same shipper between Halifax, Nova Scotia, Saint John, New Brunswick and Hamilton, Ontario may be added to the volume between Halifax, Nova Scotia, Saint John, New Brunswick, Montreal, Province of Quebec and Toronto, Ontario. A calendar year begins October 1 of each year and terminates September 30 of the following year.
Column 3: Applicable only on a minimum of 15,000 20-foot containers (or equivalent) per calendar year, loaded or empty, between Halifax, Nova Scotia, Saint John, New Brunswick, Montreal, Province of Quebec and Toronto, Ontario. Containers moving on behalf of the same shipper between Halifax, Nova Scotia, Saint John, New Brunswick and Hamilton, Ontario may be added to the volume between Halifax, Nova Scotia, Saint John, New Brunswick, Montreal, Province of Quebec and Toronto, Ontario. A calendar year begins October 1 of each year and terminates September 30 of the following year.
Column 4: Applicable only on a minimum of 12,000 20-foot containers (or equivalent) per calendar year, loaded or empty, between Halifax, Nova Scotia, Saint John, New Brunswick, Montreal, Province of Quebec and Toronto, Ontario. Containers moving on behalf of the same shipper between Halifax, Nova Scotia, Saint John, New Brunswick and Hamilton, Ontario may be added to the volume between Halifax, Nova Scotia, Saint John, New Brunswick, Montreal, Province of Quebec and Toronto, Ontario. A calendar year begins October 1 of each year and terminates September 30 of the following year.
Column 5: Applicable only on a minimum of 20 twenty foot containers (or equivalent) in any one calendar week, loaded in any one direction.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is the design cost for the CN's new "Via CN" logo?
2.	What is the projected total cost of conversion to the new logo?
3.	What is the projected total cost of the advertising campaign promoting this new logo?


Ralph Goodale: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. $7,000.
2. Adoption of the VIA logo and colours does not add the CN's costs. Equipment is painted as required and the VIA logo will be applied when passenger rolling stock and locomotives come up for painting in the normal cycle. The first unit to be painted, the Turbo trainset, was in the process of overhaul and required repainting. The VIA logo and colours are used in various graphic applications such as timetables, ticket envelopes, menus, etc., as material is restocked.
3.	The objective of the current advertising campaign is to promote business and improved passenger services. The use of the VIA logo does not add to the cost of the campaign. Although the logo will be used in future CN passenger service advertising no funds are allocated to promote the logo itself.


Mr. Horner: 1.	Were tenders placed for the printing of the book the government is having printed to commemorate the United States Bicentennial Celebrations and which is called Between Friends?
2.	Were tenders placed for the design of the book and, if so, how many were received?
3.	Was the lowest tender or the best design accepted and, if it was the latter, under what criteria was the design chosen or if the former, what price range did the tenderers have to work or file between?
4.	Who was finally accepted on the tender in the (a) designing (b) printing?

June 18, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	No. The design was carried out under the supervision of the Executive Producers of the National Film Board's Still Photo Division.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	(a) Not applicable; (b) Ashton Potter Ltd, Toronto, was the lowest tenderer.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 5,164 which stated in part that a meeting would be held between representatives of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and representatives of the Department of Public Works in regard to the charges made by PSAC President C.A. Edwards in a letter dated January 19, 1976, has the meeting taken place and, if so (a) on what date and where (b) what are the names of all those who were present?
2.	Did the PSAC set a date of October 30, 1976 for remedying various insufficient fire protection situations in government buildings and, if not (a) what exact date was set (b) what is the government doing about the situation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
(a)	The meeting took place on April 29, 1976, in the office of the Assistant Dominion Fire Commissionner, Ottawa;
(b)	E.S. Hornby, Assistant Dominion Fire Commissioner, J. Wyllie and A. Woods of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and V.M. Clarkson and L.C. Roy of the Treasury Board Secretariat.
2. (a) Fire protection in Federal Government Buildings is a matter of continuing concern and attention, and ther-fore no specific date was set or discussed in this regard; (b) Arrangements were agreed upon at the meeting whereby the Public Service Alliance's field representatives will be able to bring any suspected fire protection deficiencies to the attention of the Dominion Fire Commissioner's Regional Offices. There was also agreement to hold a follow-up meeting in Ottawa in October, 1976, of representatives of the three aforementioned organizations to review progress, and particularly the operation of this new field liaison arrangement.


Mr. Neil: 1.	For each year 1970 to 1975 inclusive, what has been the resources revenue from the Yukon Territory?
2.	For the same years, what portion of the revenue has been returned to the Yukon Territory?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Resources Revenue-Yukon Territory ($Millions) 197071, 1,112; 1971-72, 928; 1972-73, 1,300; 1973-74, 1,770; 1974-75, 4,960; 1975-76, 4,530.
2. Nil. There is no revenue sharing agreement with the Yukon Territory.
[Mr. Horner.)


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 5,408 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	How many Manpower and Immigration Centres are there in Canada and where is each located?
2.	How many Manpower officers are assigned to each centre?
3.	From 1970 to 1975, what has been the yearly cost of officer training in each centre?
4.	What is the size of the labour force served by each centre?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hort. Members: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-32, to implement conventions for the avoidance of double-taxation with respect to income tax between Canada and France, Canada and Belgium and Canada and Israel, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mitchell William Sharp: That Bill S-32, an act to implement conventions for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax between Canada and France, Canada and Belgium and Canada and Israel, be amended in clause 11 by striking out line 24 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"(8) Where a motion taken up and considered in accordance with this section is not adopted by the House in which it was introduced or is adopted, with or without amendments, by that House but is not concurred in by the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates comes into force immediately upon the failure to adopt the motion or concur therein, as the case may be.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (2), a day"-


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
June 18, 1976


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, is the minister who moved this report stage amendment not going to explain what it means?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must thank hon. members who worked on the finance, trade and economic affairs committee and were able to agree on an amendment formula, at least to protect the interest of both Houses. I think the idea was to have a neutral resolution, and we did not find any formula at the time. Among all the orders and bills which had been examined, no formula was found acceptable. The committee, with the unanimous consent of all its members, drafted the text included in the present bill. It seems to meet the requirements of this House and the other place, and it gives all members a means to agree and to ask that in the next few years what has to be reviewed be so reviewed, with the three countries mentioned in the motion-France, Belgium and Israel- and that the changes likely to occur between the signatures of the various orders be accepted. That is what is included in the formula, in the amendment to clause 11, which was thoroughly examined by all members of the committee, as I said earlier. I have the impression that this formula will be used in the future in several bills, because so far we did not find any final formula meeting those requirements. That is why we decided to find one and include it in the legislation, as it is here.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to endorse what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Trudel) has said. I am pleased that we were able to arrive at a suitable amendment to clause 11 of this bill. As the House will recall, we raised this point extensively at second reading stage, pointing out that we felt the wording was most unfortunate and would, in effect, really have no practical application had it been left as then proposed. We pointed out that, while this is a relatively bulky act, it was an act that deserved the attention of hon. members since we were dealing with a very important aspect of our taxation system. So I am pleased that the amendment now before the House has been agreed upon.
There are two additional comments that I should like to make at this stage. First of all, I think it is most unfortunate that the government has represented to certain members in the private business community that the opposition has delayed passage of this bill. In no way have we delayed its passage. The history of it is that it was first debated in the House at second reading on April 2. It was reported out of committee, and I think both sides are in agreement that the changes made in committee are quite desirable. It was reported to the House on May 11. It has sat on the order paper, as far as this House is concerned, since May 11.
I would suggest we have debated a lot of things in this House without considering this bill, many of which could have been held in abeyance, giving higher priority to this measure. Certainly, we have indicated at all times that we did not intend to delay its passage if it were brought back for consideration. I am pleased that has been done today.
Income Tax
The third thing I would mention is the hope that before we complete third reading, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) will comment on the many points raised at second reading concerning the possibility of tax avoidance, or even fraud taking place to the extent of $1.6 billion involving Canadian companies. I am referring, of course, to the Globe and Mail report which was referred to at the second reading stage in April. At that time, the Minister of National Revenue said the figure was too high and made some rather casual comments.
It is important that before finally passing this bill, the Minister of National Revenue gives an explanation of what is being done in order to ensure that there is no tax avoidance or fraud taking place involving Canadian companies. Perhaps he could also indicate to what extent he thinks a problem now exists. I hope that in the time remaining someone will indicate, for hon. members present, the current position in respect of tax avoidance and fraud. If the Minister of National Revenue cannot do that, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance could make some comment.


Mr. Trudel:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) raised-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. We must have unanimous consent for the parliamentary secretary to speak again, since he has already spoken. Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques L. Trudel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak again. As he mentioned himself, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) raised a point during debate on second reading. He was extremely concerned to realize that some people could escape taxation. I think that during the debate on third reading, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) could certainly address himself to that question.
Still, I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the point being raised by the hon. member is not covered by Bill S-32 which is now before us. The purpose of this bill is to avoid double taxation of monies already taxed either in Canada or in the countries I have mentioned. As I said earlier, I do believe the Minister of National Revenue will be happy to take part in the debate on third reading. But I repeat that the aspect that causes him much concern and that concerns us too on this side of the House, has been very well put and must strictly apply in another bill or an act different from the one we are now discussing.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words about the bill before us. It should not pass in the kind of quiet oblivion which seems to have descended on the debate. While we are in favour of international agreements, generally speaking, the special position of Canada means that international agreements almost inevitably work to our disadvantage, especially in respect of taxation agreements. I say that in

June 18, 1976
Income Tax
this sense: most countries have a mutual interest in things, in the sense that there is a quid pro quo. However, given the higher level of foreign ownership in Canada, what happens is that almost invariably our treasury suffers from these agreements.
I know we take pride in being a good international citizen. I certainly take a personal pride in that, as I am sure do other hon. members of the House, and perhaps all Canadians. But increasingly I think that the kind of international agreement we are talking about should be given much more consideration than has been given in the past. We must temper our desire to be a good international citizen with concern about our national self-interest because of the high degree of foreign ownership and penetration into Canada by large, multinational corporations. This is not a national country in that sense, but a country which is more prone to paying more, because of this penetration, than any other. This applies not only to the matter of taxation and the repatriation of dividends, at whichever end they are taken, but it also applies to things like copyright and trade name laws.
Let us consider the situation in respect of patents, for instance. An international agreement in respect of patents is virtually worthless because we do not have, to any great extent, foreign patents. Relatively few patents are taken out in Canada, because if the multinational corporations who operate here make a discovery, they patent it in some other country. The same thing applies to trade or brand names. Brand names originate in other countries and, through our branch plant economy, these foreign names are used in Canada. This creates all kinds of problems when it comes to Canadianizing an industry, or the amalgamation by a Canadian company in order to take over and repatriate an industry to this country.
I do not think this bill should pass without this kind of danger signal being raised. It seems to me that in our great desire to go along with the rest of the world, we are creating these problems for ourselves. What I am really doing is kind of serving notice that from here on these international agreements, particularly when they concern ownership rights, repatriation of dividends and the kind of tax rates that can be levied, should receive much greater consideration then they have in the past. On many occasions in the past we have had to let things go because of lack of information. Let me point out one occasion on which I was very critical of the governor of the Bank of Canada who, at a time when Canada desperately needed to go on a floating exchange rate, because he wanted to maintain his friendship with other bankers around the world opted for a fixed exchange rate.
The point I made at that time, as others did, was that it is fine to be loved by all bankers around the world, and it is fine for everybody to pat you on the head when you meet with the bankers who say that little Canada, or big Canada, is a fine international citizen. But we are cutting our own throats. Many of these international agreements fall into that category.
I pose this dilemma, Mr. Speaker, but, quite frankly, I do not know how you reconcile the great feeling we have in this country, of being co-operative with the rest of the world and not being out of step, with what is going on in the world and is evidently working to our disadvantage

because of these international agreements. I think this is one of the great problems with which parliament will have to grapple.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I was not particularly moved to make a speech on such a complicated and technical subject as international taxation, but after listening to some of the remarks of the parliamentary secretary, and having read some of the things he said about S-32 when it was before this House for second reading, a few ideas came to mind which are of interest. It may be that as the afternoon goes forward, the parliamentary secretary or someone on the government side who may be knowledgeable in this field will enlighten myself and others in the House, particularly about my concern as to how the double-taxation system works.
Let us take, for example, the taxation system between Canada and South Africa. First of all, is there a doubletaxation system in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is irrelevant to this bill.


John R. Rodriguez: I am interested in the whole question of double-taxation as it affects third world countries.


Mitchell William Sharp: What is the connection with this bill?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader suggests this is irrelevant to the question before us. There were a lot of things said by the parliamentary secretary that were irrelevant to Bill S-32. He talked about teachers in the future being excluded from this double-taxation agreement. He talked a great deal about that, and about third world taxation.


Mitchell William Sharp: This has nothing to do with South Africa. It is Israel we are talking about.


John R. Rodriguez: I raise this question because it is very relevant to the operations of Falconbridge in Namibia. I would like to know, if this kind of double-taxation agreement between Canada and Belgium follows this pattern, whether, in effect, this would be an improvement of any kind in respect of double-taxation with the third world countries where Canadian multinational corporations are exploiting their resources.
I hope the parliamentary secretary, or someone on the government side, will enlighten the House on this question, because if it means what we are doing is coming up with a nice dandy arrangement with the industrialized countries, I want to know how it might be improved to work for the benefit of the developing countries. I suppose it is very nice to have a double-taxation agreement which prevents individuals or companies from being taxed doubly in the home country as well as in the host country, but I wonder when the government will move on a policy to provide that Canadians are not double-taxed. That is an important question.
Canadians living in Canada are double-taxed. For example, in the lumber industry, if a person purchases lumber and the price of a sheet of oak veneer is $25, that price includes the federal sales tax and, on top of that, the 7 per cent provincial sales tax. There are other instances where
June 18, 1976

Canadians are double-taxed. I would be interested in seeing the government come up with a bill that would provide that Canadians not be doubled-taxed.
I am very happy to see that in this agreement taxpayers, at least, will not enjoy the tax haven which results from coming into Canada and teaching for two years without paying a penny of tax either in Canada or the country of origin. I am glad to see that this is not to be permitted. However, I wish some effort were made to review these conventions with other countries from which teachers come to this country and do not pay a penny of taxes for a year on the wages they receive in Canada. Those would be my concerns in respect of this bill. I trust that the parliamentary secretary or someone on that side will elucidate some of these points, because they are very important to me.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) should be congratulated for his attempt in this House to have a careful examination of this rather complicated piece of tax legislation. I wish to say a few words about some of the good things in the bill. I will deal first with the question of teachers.
For a long time we have had a convention with the United States under which teachers coming to Canada-I hope the parliamentary secretary will correct me if I am wrong-are given a tax exemption for two years. That is not a reciprocal tax convention; in other words, they do not have to pay the tax either in Canada or in the United States for a period of two years. I am not against international agreements with other countries, but it seems that we are being very generous with the teachers from foreign countries when we compare the treatment accorded our own teachers.
A great many of my constituents who work very hard in the lumber industry do not receive any exemption. They do not have access to the variety of deductions people have on the business side. I am pleased to see that in respect of France, Belgium and Israel we have ended this kind of situation. However, I would ask the parliamentary secretary-perhaps he has some information from which he can enlighten the House on this subject-to direct his attention to our situation in respect of other tax conventions, particularly with the United States, since many teachers come to Canada from that country, and with other countries in respect of which these tax conventions and tax concessions to teachers apparently still prevail. It is useful, of course, for someone wishing to settle in Canada to have a tax advantage, but it seems to me we are being far too generous with regard to the tax advantage given people from other countries. I am pleased to see that in these three cases we have started to move away from that particular concession.
I think the hon. member for York-Simcoe and the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) are to be congratulated for taking the stand that we should not pass these rather complicated bills without examination. Like the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge, I do not argue that we should not enter into international conventions, but we have a very special problem in Canada because of the degree of foreign ownership and domination in this country by multinational, foreign corporations.
Income Tax
We know that Canada's multinational corporations, such as Falconbridge, operate on a world scale and perhaps avoid their fair share in contributing to the Canadian economy and the Canadian tax purse because of the lack of conventions or agreements with third world countries. It seems to me that in respect of a company like Falconbridge which goes into Namibia and employs workers there at a rate of something like 90 cents an hour, there should be a convention with that country to rationalize the tax position of Falconbridge. It seems to me we are in the position, surely, of having a moral duty to do all we can to prevent Canadian multinational companies from exploiting workers in the rest of the world.
One way in which we may be able to put pressure on the multinational companies to act in a decent and civilized way would be through tax conventions or agreements with third world countries. It seems to me that in respect of some of our tax convention legislation there is a wide area with which the government has not dealt, an area in which the churches of Canada are giving leadership. For instance, the United Church has taken an active role in respect of companies such as Falconbridge, in which it holds shares, in seeing that the international policy of such companies is consistent with Canadian standards in respect of their operations in the third world countries.
I welcome the legislation. We find it to be good. I do not have any heavy criticism of this bill. It seems to me it is a useful step to move, now, into further conventions with countries around the world so that we can put some pressure on our own multinational corporate citizens who should be acting in a more repsonsible way in respect of the countries of the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Due to the fact that the parliamentary secretary has already spoken twice, he would require unanimous consent to answer the questions put forward. Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques L. Trudel: First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the reason for this bill, particularly in respect of the three countries in question, is that we are now changing these treaties according to the international code. The draft that was made at OECD has been incorporated in the treaties with the three countries.
Several concerns were expressed. I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to make a few comments on this subject. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) addressed himself to the subject of patent research in this country. I would like to inform him that, although I share his concern, this bill does not deal with that matter. The hon. member also spoke about multinationals, as did the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). I think there is a convention in existence regarding multinational corporations, requiring them to be good corporate citizens, paying the appropriate taxes.
This bill does not address itself to that issue. It does not assess the rates that would be charged against these multinationals. I am concerned that they pay their proper share
14666

June 18, 1976
Income Tax
and that they be good corporate citizens, whether in this country or in other countries. This subject has been discussed with various finance ministers, and I am sure it will be continued to be discussed for some years because the proper load of taxes to be carried by these various corporations should be the genuine proportion of taxation either on the international scene or in the country in which the company is operating. If these multinationals are evading taxes, then I think members of the House should be concerned about it, whether it is done by multinationals of Canadian origin or of foreign origin. None of us would like to see that.
Some concern was expressed, regarding taxation under the treaties, by the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). This bill does prevent people from taking advantage of the two-year tax-free ride that they have been having with those three countries. It is our intention to ensure that all the treaties that will be negotiated-and there are many of them- correspond with what has been decided under the present treaties, and that they be based on the same philosophy. We have 16 treaties at present, and we will have two more. At present, a treaty with France is being negotiated, but we anticipate treaties with at least 40 different countries, some of them industrialized countries and others not as highly industrialized and part of the third world.
I think I understand the interest of the hon. member for Nickel Belt. I was the one who answered the question which he posed in the House some time ago when he mentioned Namibia which is not covered under treaty although South Africa is covered at present. We have had no discussions regarding their inclusion under the treaties with which we are dealing. This is not to say that they should not be included, but there have been no such discussions.


John R. Rodriguez: Why do you not initiate some?


Jacques L. Trudel: If I may answer that point, I think it takes two people to initiate negotiations. At present we have treaties some of which we are renegotiating, and six more will be coming before the House. We would like to see far more than that.
Another point made was on the issue of double-taxation in Canada. I have to agree that sometimes the same taxpayer is taxed twice or three times, but this matter is not dealt with in the bill, although it is of great concern to many Canadians that in some cases we are being taxed unfairly and at a very high rate. I am sure that this matter is being considered, and I will convey this concern to officials of the department. But it can only be rectified by another piece of legislation or by bringing in changes to other acts.
Reference was made to unfair wages paid to workers outside Canada. If all workers received the same treatment that is being accorded workers in Canada, some of the problems that were mentioned would not occur. This is of concern to the government. There is always room for improvement, but I am sure the standards we have set in Canada can be considered and applied in other countries. At the most recent international conferences some improvements in that area were made, particularly in respect of the third world, by multinational corporations 
regarding wages and conditions that are imposed on workers, here, again, the Department of External Affairs has been very much involved in these international discussions.
I think I have covered all the issues that were raised, Mr. Speaker. I hope hon. members will give speedy passage to this bill. I am sure that over the years other improvements will be proposed and discussed. But with the amendment which has been included in the bill, all hon. members will be able to consider the changes that will be made to the act over the years. I hope that in the few months before us other amendments and other tax treaties will be included so that we can achieve the fairness which we are seeking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill S-32, to implement conventions for the avoidance of double-taxation with respect to income tax between Canada and France, Canada and Belgium, and Canada and Israel, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, there is somewhat greater latitude at this time to say a few things than there was on second reading. I want to make a general statement about the intent and purpose of the bill. I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's intervention and his reminder to the House that we are not talking about trade marks under this bill. I want to point out the essential difficulty with some of these international agreements, because if you wanted to find a subtitle for this bill it could be "How to make the world safe for multinational Corporations." I say that because the bill is not so much occupied with getting a fair share of the taxes from multinational corporations as with ensuring that they are not taxed in two places at the same time.
I appreciate that there is some element of fairness involved in this concept and we have to adhere to that element of fairness; but the consequence of a bill of this kind is really that multinational corporations can operate easily anywhere in the world. A bill of this kind facilitates the spread and the growth of multinational corporations around the world because, in effect, it provides international protection for them so they can move from one country to another and know what the ground rules are.
I am not going to diminish the importance of multinationals or anything else having a set of ground rules. I
June 18, 1976

think people should have ground rules; they should know where they stand if they are being asked to invest or if they are invited into a country in order to invest. However, what strikes me as being of far greater importance today than the signing of these kinds of agreements is that the world desperately needs an international convention regarding the behaviour of multinational corporations.
In a very lucid way, my colleague the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) pointed out the kinds of problems which are associated with the expansion of multinational corporations. Recently, at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in New Delhi, this was one of the central questions raised by all the Commonwealth members, because what is becoming quite obvious is that while many of the third world countries resent and find the yoke of the multinationals somewhat difficult, they are so desperate for development that they are willing to have development at almost any cost and under almost any conditions. Given the desperate straits of these countries and their needs, it is very easy for the transnational corporations-if we prefer to call them that, rather than multinational corporations-to strike outrageous bargains with one country, to its disadvantage in terms of taxation and its long-run benefits, as against another.
There are very few hon. members of this House who at one time or another have not been approached by people in large corporations-perhaps not directly, but in the course of conversation, debate, or on other matters-and told that, for instance, Ireland is giving the mining industry a 20-year tax holiday, or that some country in Africa is allowing 30 years without taxation, and that if Canada does not give the corporations that kind of deal they will not operate in Canada but will go elsewhere. I usually tell them to go elsewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: I do not lack confidence in this country to the extent that without the multinational corporations I think we are going to have to be crawling on our hands and knees, only to be told that we are going to go digging something out of the ground. I think we are quite capable of doing our own development, and we would have been much further ahead had we made that kind of decision. But the far greater problem with regard to multinationals is that there is a need to have some kind of international agreement which would prevent their playing one country off against another.
I realize that that kind of agreement cannot be too rigid, because some countries badly need investment and may have to pay a higher price and forgo revenue in order to get investment. That should be the free choice of those countries. But very often it is not a free choice, but a condition which is imposed because there is no UN, international body or international agreement which would limit the kind of arm-twisting tactics which are employed by the transnational corporations against countries which are really not strong enough to stand up for themselves. For that matter, a country like Canada, theoretically, should be strong enough to stand up for itself, yet somehow or other it gets its arm twisted pretty effectively.
That, to me, is the central problem. It is for that reason that, while in principle very few of us can be opposed to
Income Tax
international agreements, it strikes me as a bad set of priorities for us to rush into international agreements which are designed almost entirely to facilitate the work of transnational corporations and to make the world safe for them and their revenue, rather than-which in my view is a more important and urgent question-working out with other countries agreements for monitoring and for at least helping each other in terms of the kind of arm-twisting, and sometimes blackmail, which multinational corporations are able to inflict upon nations.
Therefore, as I said earlier, I do not see these agreements being of any great advantage to the average person in Canada. There might be a few pensioners who would benefit from this on a personal basis by not being subject to double-taxation in certain countries, but essentially it is not designed for that purpose. Whenever governments try to do something for large corporations, they always find a few widows, orphans and pensioners and throw them into the pot to show how even-handed they are and how the little man always benefits. But the point is that the problem of double-taxation in most cases does not affect those people. They do not make enough money in most cases to pay single-taxation, let alone double-taxation.
The problem is essentially that large and profitable corporations want to scoot around the world but do not want to get involved in the uncertainties of dealing with one country's tax legislation as opposed to that of another. If a corporation is a domiciled corporation in the sense that it has a physical presence in a country, it has to pay taxes on the same basis as any other corporation. But then all kinds of problems arise-and we know these problems arise- because profits are taxed. But how do we know what the profits are? The government, and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen), admitted that there are difficulties. The AIB, when we questioned it on how it was going to monitor profits, admitted that there are difficulties.
There is the transfer of royalties, which is a deduction against profits, and there is the payment of engineering fees, service fees and all kinds of other costs. In this bill, I see that those things have, at the most, a 15 per cent withholding tax on them and, at least, a 10 per cent withholding tax. That is a far greater problem, because trying to figure out what profit a transnational corporation is making in this country has been admitted by the Department of National Revenue itself to be impossible. For years the department has been trying-although I do not know how hard it has been trying-to monitor these things, but if pressed, and if it is in a particularly honest and frank frame of mind when it is pressed, it will admit that it does not have any control over these particular costs. Saying that the department is taxing the profits of multinational corporations the same as it is taxing any other company's profits is very misleading, because in very many cases the profits of multinational corporations are designed to be what they are prepared to demonstrate them as being to the Canadian government.
We see now that there is a tremendous outflow-probably a deficit of some $2 billion per year-of interest and dividend payments on foreign ownership in Canada, and we are now starting to see the bad effects. I think many of us have seen them for a long time, but more people are starting to see that the investment they made in Canada 10
95570-28)4

June 18, 1976
Income Tax
or 15 years ago, which looked as if it was coming in and was going to do something about creating new jobs and doing all kinds of wonderful things, is no longer doing those things. Instead, there are these tremendous payments outside the country to pay for the investments which came in initially, and we are now on a downward slide with regard to that issue.
I would like to say something more about teachers. I do not know how we ever became involved in agreeing to two-year tax holidays for teachers.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That's how we got Rodriguez.


Max Saltsman: That is how we got the hon. member for Nickel Belt. I think we brought him in under that agreement. I am sure that had the government known the consequences of that agreement, they might have rejected it on the day it was acclaimed.


John R. Rodriguez: Can this legislation be made retroactive?


Max Saltsman: The only thing that can be said about the agreement is that as a consequence of it we got the hon. member for Nickel Belt. There is always something good about legislation, whatever its defects.
I do not know how we ever got involved in this kind of agreement, and I do not know the thinking that went into it. It was typical of the era where some groups of people were picked out to be given favourable tax treatment and nobody seemed to think very badly of it. The argument was that if we did not give special tax treatment to offshore teachers coming to Canada, then our teachers would not get special tax treatment in the countries they go to. What is wrong with that? If Canadians go to another country, surely we expect them to contribute to the taxation of that country, whether they are there as guests or are working. We expect them to abide by the laws of the country and to be as good inhabitants as the permanent residents or citizens. I see no reason why Canadians should be given favourable treatment in other countries, or why people coming to this country should receive tax benefits.
Over the years I have received a great deal of correspondence from people working in our schools who complain bitterly about the tax load they carry in comparison to some of the people who came to Canada and who are virtually laughing at them. I guess it has been caused by the colonial mentality of some of the past governments of this country. I presume they were trying to entice people to Canada, as though we did not have enough teachers or university professors already.
If Canadians are going to countries that really are not in a position to provide their own teachers, I could understand if special financial arrangements have to be made in order to accomplish the national objectives of those countries. But why do it through the tax system? This is perhaps some of the justification for the teacher exemption in the third world countries; but most of the people who go there are not looking for special benefits, but go through a genuine desire to help. If they are to be compensated, it should be done in an above-board manner, either in the form of salary or a grant from one of the agencies involved in this country. The last thing we should do is alter the tax

system to handle a few specific problems. In that way the whole system gets fouled up and creates resentment amongst all kinds of people.
The government has acknowledged that the two-year period was not a good thing, and in the new agreements it is signing it is making sure that this benefit is not perpetuated. Most of us are trying to figure out how we got into this mess in the first place. Why did the government ever agree to this kind of measure? I certainly cannot recall the rationale for this move.
Mr. Speaker, while I welcome any move in the direction of international co-operation, and I think in many ways the new agreements we are signing are somewhat better than those we signed in the past, I want to record my concern about the ease with which we take these international agreements at face value. We have done little to explore them for the long run consequences to this country. In the case of the teachers, we probably thought it was a good idea at the time, but we have all lived to regret it.
While I am going to support this legislation because it has a number of good things in it, and my colleagues have indicated they intend to support it, I think there are many things in the bill we are passing today that we shall regret in the future. I think our optimism about international co-operation will be somewhat tinged with regret at making life too easy for the multinational corporations around the world under the umbrella of easy taxation.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) has pointed out very clearly the manner in which agreements such as these tax conventions ease the world for multinational corporations. When we deal with conventions such as this, I cannot help but think of answers given in this House, and statements made in this House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). When the question of the sale of CANDU reactors to South Korea and Argentina came up, the Prime Minister put a very rhetorical question to members. He asked, "Do we not have a moral responsibility to share our technology with developing countries?" That seemed to be a fair question to put to the House and to the country. I find it a rather interesting question. At the Habitat conference recently, the Prime Minister stated that what the world needs now is love, and what we need is a conspiracy of love.
Since my election to this House I have been raising the question of Falconbridge and its operations in Namibia. I have been calling on the government to ensure that Falconbridge does not enjoy any tax benefits from the exploitation of the resources of Namibia. This country and the United Nations many times have favoured a motion to tell South Africa to get out of Namibia.
I see it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. May I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do not leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
June 18, 1976



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned for lunch I had made a few comments about Bill S-32.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is irrelevant.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader suggests that is irrelevant. We shall try to show that the government moves with great speed to set up international conventions for the avoidance of double-taxation. If the government could move at the same speed in other areas, namely, those involving tax avoidance on the part of multinational corporations, we would pat it on the back. I wish the government moved half as fast with respect to multinational corporations which escape paying their fair share of taxes in this country.
Before lunch I was referring to some comments the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made about sharing our nuclear technology, and about our moral responsibility for sharing nuclear technology with developing countries. In his great speech in Vancouver he said that the world needs love; we need a conspiracy of love and love will conquer all. Those were fine words. Mother Teresa answered the Prime Minister well at Habitat when she said he should put his money where his mouth is. The same can be said with respect to this bill. When one considers what the bill is designed to do, and the financial arrangement it encompasses, one must agree that all this has been well arranged.
Ever since being first elected in 1972, I have asked the government to act on certain aspects of international taxation, but I hear only fancy responses like, "We will look into it", "We are studying the matter", and so on. One glaring example of exploitation of a developing country is to be found in Namibia, in southwest Africa. We talk about moral responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, in that regard I wish the Prime Minister and the government would put up or shut up. I wish the government were as decisive in that field as it is in the field under discussion, and would initiate, in that field, the sort of action which has resulted in Bill S-32.
I would be interested if they would take some decisive action to initiate the kind of action which has resulted in this Bill S-32. Namibia has been exploited by South Africa. South Africa has illegally occupied Namibia, in southwest Africa. The United Nations and this country participated in a vote informing South Africa that it ought to get out of Namibia.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What about the Cuban troops in Angola?


John R. Rodriguez: What about the American troops in Viet Nam? Let us not get into that; I shall not be diverted by the interjection of the hon. member for York-Simcoe. I return to the subject of Namibia. This country took a position. We said this country must be turned over to the Namibians; only Namibians could enter into long-term agreements with multinational companies to exploit those resources. What do we find? We find that the United Nations appointed an administrator, Mr. Sean McBride-
Income Tax


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I suggest the hon. member should get back to the terms of Bill S-32.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a measure to regulate international taxation. Other members will get their turn to speak. We need an international convention which would prevent multinational corporations avoiding their proper taxation and exploiting countries in which they are operating. Earlier this morning the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge pointed out that we can come up with agreements such as Bill S-32 which very nicely regulates the flow of income and the development of multinationals and allows them to grow. But nothing in Bill S-32 speaks about the behaviour of multinational corporations and their acceptable behaviour in third world countries.
It is within this context of international taxation that we have in Namibia the Falconbridge Nickel Corporation, which is a multinational organization. While the government has a double-taxation agreement with South Africa, it has no such agreement with respect to Namibia. I have called on the government to act with some speed in this area, to make sure that Falconbridge does not write off any of the cost of its operations in Namibia. I have asked it to take this action in order to live up to the moral responsibility which the Prime Minister has talked about and which we hold up in the world because we say we have a moral responsibility toward the developing countries. This is very important. The whole question of tax avoidance is very important. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge, speaking in the House in the same vein on February 27, 1976, as recorded at page 11321 of Hansard asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) the following question:
On June 12, 1973, the minister's predecessor announced in a speech to the Inter-American Centre of Tax Administrators that the government was launching a campaign to crack down on multinationals evading taxes. On November 19, 1975, the current minister announced the formation of a joint U.S.-Canada committee to study the same question. On February 23, 1976, the minister's department announced that because of spending restraints, all such plans had been shelved. While a penny saved may be a penny earned, in this case, does the minister feel that the savings in wages and salaries outweigh the loss of forgone corporate taxes?
In reply, the Minister of National Revenue stated:
Mr. Speaker, within a month after my appointment to this portfolio, I met with Don Alexander, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service in the United States. We set up a committee to look into how we might act under the Canada-United States tax treaty to get at multinationals and transnationals which are using the tax haven to avoid taxes. Mr. Alexander will be back here following the report of that committee. We will be meeting again. I, like every other minister, would like to have all the resources necessary. Personally, I do not think it is a waste of money. I think it is an investment to get back the hundreds of millions of dollars. To me, a tax haven is anathema. Within the scope that we have, both the resources, financial and man-years, we will do our best to plus these particular abuses.
Mr. Speaker, it is fairly obvious that many millions of dollars, over a billion dollars in taxes which the minister has estimated as being due from the corporations, are lost to this country. If we had a billion dollars more in taxes which we could collect, we would not have to cut back medicare and we would not have to introduce cutbacks in the social welfare field. But lo and behold, that has all gone

June 18, 1976
Income Tax
out of the window. The whole effort of trying to plug the loopholes which multinationals can use to get out of paying their fair share of taxes goes out the winddow.
This agreement with the three countries, set out in Bill S-32, is all very fine. But when we come to the crux of the problem, the tough measures which must be taken, those things seem to go by the wayside and, lo and behold, the old anti-inflation program which is used to avoid setting up the necessary machinery so that we can get these multinationals to pay their fair share of taxes.
We are not calling attention to something that is not happening. We are not talking about something that isn't so. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has said there are about 20 cases presently under investigation or before the courts, and they are there because of attempts to avoid paying taxes in Canada. The whole question of whether these corporations operate for the benefit of Canada or for the benefit of their own narrow interests is fairly obvious in these cases. As a matter of fact, Dominion Bridge, a very large multinational company, was found guilty of avoiding taxation-and it seems this is only one small example; there are many other companies which involve themselves in that sort of thing.
In the same way as it developed Bill S-32, we would have hoped the government might have acted with speed and rapidity in doing something about the Namibian situation. Why do we always have to be on the wrong side of this question? Why are we always seen as propping up the large, multinational corporations which are only interested in exploiting the black people of South Africa? It seems to me we have to stand up and say, "No more will you operate as you have been doing."
In my area, Falconbridge laid off 600 workers last fall. They get all sorts of tax breaks from both the provincial and the federal governments. By the international body we shall be seen as supporting this kind of tax rip-off, this kind of tax avoidance by Canadian multinational corporations in much the same way as our neighbour to the south, unfortunately, is viewed by the developing countries of the world. It is interesting to look at the governments in the third world with which we reach agreement: it is always with a junta or some kind of autocratic rule, and therefore the benefits of any taxation measure never flow to the people in that country.
We will probably end up supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker, but we do want to take the opportunity to point out some of the concerns this party has about international taxation and the sort of moves we think the government should be making in this area. We hope that the government will act with all the expedition they can summon, given their moral responsibility which they have often touted here and abroad, and this great wellspring of love that the Prime Minister seems to have discovered at the Habitat conference. I am hopeful but, knowing the Liberals, my hope may be misplaced. Hon. members opposite can hide all they want behind the anti-inflation program, but the fact remains that if the government can put the bite on collecting over $1 billion of tax lost to Canada, we can do many things with that money that we keep putting off.

It is too bad the minister is not here, but I see his parliamentary secretary is present. I have listened to his answers in the past about the Namibian question, and I should like to reiterate that the situation in South Africa is deteriorating rapidly, with 50 more people killed today. If the government does not take quick action we will forever seem to be among the exploiters of the third world.
I want to bring home to the parliamentary secretary the point that no one but the government can move against Falconbridge in the area of taxation and prevent their writing off their Namibian operation against their Canadian operation. The government can do this through the federal Income Tax Act, and they should do it. I call upon the parliamentary secretary to convey that message to his minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Steve Eugene Paproski: Filibuster.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who said something about a filibuster is obviously not interested in what is being said here today. The remarks of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) were entirely related to this bill. He was not attempting to move into areas that were not directly related to the legislation before the House, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to do exactly what he did.


Mitchell William Sharp: We all know that you are filibustering Bill C-68 as well.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am not going to stand in this House and allow this kind of legislation to pass without proper examination. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), to his credit, made some major contributions to this debate and his remarks were directly related to the bill and the questions it raises, as I hope mine will be.
Just before the dinner hour we were dealing with the problem raised by the parliamentary secretary which has been partially solved, namely, the question of the two-year tax exemption for teachers. What I want to know-I hope the parliamentary secretary will be given the opportunity to respond this afternoon-is whether the tax convention with the United States is still operative. I have not been able to get an answer to that question, but it seems to me that it is most important since so many U.S. teachers are coming to this country and are being given this tax advantage.
Another provision which is common to most other conventions, and from which the three countries mentioned in this bill are being exempted, is this: a teacher from a third world country who comes to Canada is provided with a two-year tax exemption. He has received his training in his country of origin in the third world. We are employing someone of great talent and skill who was trained to make a contribution in his own country. I am not against bringing such people to Canada, but I am against providing this kind of major tax concession.
I hope the parliamentary secretary can tell me what is the position vis-a-vis the United States. My understanding-I will be happy to be corrected if I am wrong-is that at the present time the United States is one of the coun-
June 18, 1976

tries with whom we do not have a tax convention. Surely, if ever there was a country with whom we do need a tax convention, it is the United States. I see the parliamentary secretary is shaking his head and I will not proceed if I am wrong, but my understanding is that a conscious decision was taken to allow the last convention to lapse, partly because of the introduction of the anti-inflation program of the government. If the parliamentary secretary is better informed than I am, I should be happy to hear what he has to say.
Another problem with international tax conventions continues to be the difficulty nations have in getting a fair share of tax revenue from multinational corporations. We face the same sort of problem in Canada in attempting to impose proper guidelines on multinational corporations. We do not have control of their internal bookkeeping, with the result that by overcharging for some services, and undercharging for others, they are able to escape tax. When a product is exchanged between a parent company and its subsidiary, there is no law that says it has to be exchanged at fair market value; therefore, revenue can be attracted by the company that will pay least tax.
There is, of course, a tremendous amount of manipulation going on in the world today on the part of multinationals in order to maximize their profits and deprive countries all over the world not merely Canada, of their fair share of tax revenue to which their citizens are entitled. I could give numerous examples of this sort of thing. The situation is similar to one of our boards that tries to regulate, for example, the investments of a telephone company. They may be allowed 6 per cent or 10 per cent on their investment, but what they are doing, in fact, is getting their own subsidiaries to sell them services well above market value, thereby siphoning off the profits into that subsidiary.
Take the case of a U.S. multinational corporation that has a Canadian subsidiary. The U.S. corporation can set rental rates for, for example, computer services. They can set the charges for a variety of other services rendered to the subsidiary, and as a result the profits of the Canadian subsidiary are reduced and thus fall within the AIB guidelines. This means that they can legally avoid the tax consequence. Then the parent company, whose head office may be in Bermuda or some tax haven like the Bahamas, gets all this money tax free.
Not only the Canadian public but people all over the world are getting a little tired of multinationals ripping people off. What we need desperately, and what I hope Canada will be party, to, is not merely bilateral tax conventions but an international tax convention that is administered by an international body like the United Nations, so that finally we can have equity and justice so far as the operations of these multinational corporations are concerned. At the moment they are operating well above the law and no nation has yet been successful in controlling the sort of manipulations that have taken place for such a long time.
The question of double taxation is interesting but quite often, instead of avoiding double taxation, as a result of the convention there is no taxation at all. Let me give the House an example of this. A British citizen who resides in Britain but whose revenues are obtained from Canada does
Income Tax
not have to pay Canadian tax on his Canadian income. He has to pay tax on his British income, but because he is a British resident his Canadian income is tax free according to the convention. This tax free money remains such, and Canada continues to lose this tax revenue. The British resident is able to obtain this tax free money because of an anomaly in the tax convention. That is not double taxation; that is no taxation at all.
There are many examples in this country where a loophole opens up as a direct result of that tax convention. When one looks at how aggressively this government has proceeded in terms of closing these tax loopholes, which admittedly it is attempting to do in the bill before us, it is interesting to go back through some of the clippings and attitudes of some of the ministers. For example, on June 13, 1975, in the Ottawa Citizen it was stated that the then consumer and corporate affairs minister, Mr. Basford, had pointed out that the government was about to strike out at those multinational loopholes. The article stated:
Revenue minister Ron Basford plans to spend more of the government's money in order to boost its revenues by eliminating tax loopholes.
The article then stated Mr. Basford said:
As society becomes more complex, as taxpayers become even more sophisticated, governments must invest more money in their tax systems to close the tax gap-
I have not seen any evidence in this House of that, but that was away back in June, 1975. There has been ample opportunity for moves in terms of the literally millions of dollars that Canada is losing. Let me give another example. I will quote from the February 24, 1976, edition of the Ottawa Citizen. The article is by Peter Cook and stated in part:
The federal government has shelved plans to close a tax loophole that costs the country "hundreds of millions of dollars" because the government cannot afford the expert investigators needed.
The loophole involves multinational firms that set up foreign subsidiaries and then divert income out of Canada to lessen tax liability.
Last June, Ron Basford, then revenue minister, said the practice was costing hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. He promised a series of proposals to "significantly strengthen Canada's compliance effort."
The measures meant hiring experts to evaluate the cost of goods and materials being shipped in and out, and to set fair market values for tax assessment.
Revenue department spokesmen say government austerity measures have given the project low priority.
Surely we are being penny wise and pound foolish in this House when we start to cut things like expenditures on social services, yet we at the same time cut things in areas where we could increase tax revenues, such as the hiring of tax investigators and other people who could get out and try to stop the flow of legitimate tax funds from government coffers. We should be moving in these areas particularly in regard to the multinationals, so that they do not continue to milk the Canadian public as they have been doing for some time. The article continues:
The usual way of lessening tax payments is to underprice exports or overprice imports from a subsidiary located in a tax haven, or to charge artificially high expenses against the subsidiary.
To spot this, tax investigators must have thorough knowledge of the cost of materials and true market value.

June 18, 1976
Income Tax
Sometimes detection is impossible if a firm is shipping a new product, or if a product has a number of components. As an example, when oil is shipped to Canada from Venezuela via a tax haven, investigators may find themselves arguing over pricing of particular grades and chemical formulas.
Oil and chemical industries can best take advantage of this method of lessening tax. Very often, extra charges are laid against transportation.
The devices are there and they are being used, and it is costing Canadian taxpayers millions and millions of dollars every year. The poor fellow who works for wages in this country, who gets no deduction for anything appreciable at all and who sees the taxes taken off his cheque every month in advance, is getting a little tired of pious statements from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about closing tax loopholes, while at the same time hearing statements that we cannot afford to hire extra investigators. I say this is something the government should be thoroughly ashamed of. It should be thoroughly ashamed of allowing the multinational corporations to siphon Canadian tax dollars without doing anything about it, without making the kind of investigation in depth, and without hiring the small research staff needed in terms of investigation so we can begin to attack the problem.
The bill before us does not attack the problem. It does not do anything at all about the problem. What we have done in this party is sort of give this a back-of-the-hand support. We should like to have seen some meaningful legislation which dealt with these tax and revenue transfers between the multinationals of one country and Canadian subsidiaries.
Another indication of the cost of this negligence can be found in this article by Mr. Jonathan Manthorpe in the Globe and Mail of October 31, 1975. This is what is said here:
Canada is losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year to people and companies that avoid taxes, and a lot of it is being lost to multinational corporations using their international status to shuffle their profits out of the taxman's reach.
James Gouriey, director-general of audit for Revenue Canada, says some of the multinationals use their intricate corporate structures to minimize the taxes they pay.
He said that at present there is not the staff, expertise or co-operation necessary among countries to stop them.
Mr. Gouriey said that for governments, "it's a very expensive type of tax collecting. Unfortunately we are up against the best tax brains in the world. These companies don't move today unless they know all the tax laws and then they just run around them all."
We need a combination of two things. We need to move toward international conventions in terms of the role of the multinational corporation in the world. But there is a lot we can do in Canada just in terms of turning our attention to the problem, such as hiring investigators and getting legal people to research and examine our own tax laws, at the same time looking at multinational corporations and the service charges between foreign companies and their subsidiaries. Surely we can move in this area to some extent, and then in the long range move to the international situation with world conventions in respect of this particular subject.
It is interesting to note that the government is able now to produce an international agreement between three countries and Canada which goes some distance toward rationalizing tax problems. However, our record in international agreements in another field, which involves the nuclear CANDU reactor, is a sorry one indeed in terms of

providing security to Canadians. We may be very much more secure in respect of companies and taxes as a result of this particular agreement, but we are doing nothing for Canadians in the field of providing international safey as we flog CANDU reactors like vacuum cleaners around the world.


John R. Rodriguez: Loss-leadering them.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We are loss-leadering them. We should be prosecuted under our own consumer protection laws for what we are doing with the CANDU reactor. That is an example of how not to go about entering international treaties. By moving very quickly in flogging this reactor we are doing a great deal to create the hazard of proliferation, for which this country may be ashamed in the future.
We will support the legislation. We understand the feelings of those countries that are interested, undoubtedly, in having the legislation passed. It is not our purpose to see this legislation unnecessarily delayed, but I must say that I resent any comment in this House that there is some kind of filibuster going on in respect of this bill. We are asking for the performance of a duty that every member of parliament should have, which calls for a careful examination of legislation that comes before them. That is what we are attempting to do in this party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



MEDICAL CARE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, be read the third time and do pass.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has the floor.


An hon. Member:: No filibuster.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: No; this is just good sense. Mr. Speaker, I indicated in my remarks last night that someone had handed me a blank page and that I would try to carry on from there. I now have notes and I hope to be able to be a little more to the point this afternoon.
As we know by now, this legislation provides for capping federal contributions to medicare. The provision, of course, was for a 50-50 sharing formula. The legislation now provides that for the year 1976-77 there will be a cap of 13 per
June 18, 1976

cent, that in 1977-78 there will be a cap of 10.5 per cent, in 1978-79 there will be a cap of 8.5 per cent, and that thereafter there will be authority to set ceilings. That sounds innocuous enough, but really it amounts to the beginning of a complete change of philosophy and direction by the government.
I do not think the Canadian public is fully aware of the philosophic direction in which the government is moving. I am sure the government thinks it is moving in the direction the public desires in terms of social services. I think that at the next election members of the government will be very disappointed. The fact is that the country still needs a great deal in the area of health services. We have taken much for granted since medicare came in. Admittedly, this was a significant step forward, for which by the way full credit should be given to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), who I believe should go down in history as the person who brought a decent, humane and proper approach to the provision of medical care. I hope history will give him the recognition he so richly deserves in respect of the policy for which he had fought over many years.
There are many areas into which we must move. One is the area of environmental health. An increasing number of people in this country are victims of cancer because of the way in which we treat the environment. When the federal government abandons its leadership role, and when it says, "We will leave it up to you fellows. We will give you some tax points, or you must use your own money", what it is doing is abandoning its role in providing quality medical care for Canadians.
There must be inducements for the provinces to move into new areas. By the abandonment of leadership in this field, at the federal level, we will be committing a great number of Canadians to ill health and even to death as a result of the failure to move in the field of research, the environment and preventive health care. We have completed the first phase of medicare in Canada. We have removed the financial burden which meant that a father sometimes would not send his children to a doctor because he did not have the money to pay the doctor. Much pride goes with poverty. There are examples, in the years before we had a medical care scheme, of people who literally were crippled as a result of the refusal of the family to seek charity, or simply because of their shame at not having sufficient funds.
Now, to the credit of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, and to the credit of people who came after him, such as Lester B. Pearson, that particular burden has to a large extent been lifted. However, we have not gone into the second phase, which must be a change in the delivery system relating to health care in Canada. That does not mean that we will eliminate private medicine, but we must have a two-stream medical system. In fact, we can provide a public health and public medical system and stream it alongside the private system. The two systems can be rationalized one with the other. In this way we can have public health services and public health doctors for treatment in those areas where we have difficulty establishing private medical clinics.
All through the north and in areas of my province there is need for a two-stream medical service delivery system. I
Medical Care Act
do not have anything against private medicine in particular; I think our doctors do a good job in Canada. However, there are many other areas of health where treatment is needed. There must be an expansion of medical services into the public area so that we can get to the real problem of health in respect of Canadians. I refer not merely to the treatment of sick people but to the question of keeping people well.
This lends itself more to the public health sector than to the private sector. There is an element of inefficiency in the private sector. Too often, if we go to a private clinic we see a large X-ray machine and other equipment and then see that equipment duplicated in the hospital down the street. It seems to me that the medical profession in the private sector could do a great deal to release some of the great amount of funds available to it.
One thing medicare has done is make sure that the doctors are reasonably well paid for their services. In the days before medicare, when some of us were young lawyers, a good percentage of the medical bills were never collected. Some doctors sent them to a collection agency, while others did not. A large percentage of the charges were not paid. That situation has been cured under the medical care scheme, and so it should be. The fact is the profession has been treated rather well by the medical care scheme.
I am pleased to note that the medical profession does not have a closed mind in respect of alternative methods of delivery. A great many of my friends in the profession talk about a two-stream system whereby we might place reasonable emphasis on the preventive area.
In respect of our medicare system, I believe we have a program which is superior to that in the United States. I do not say it is superior to that of countries in western Europe, because I think many countries are ahead of us. If we examine the percentage of the gross national product used for the provision of medical care in the United States, we find that it is 8 per cent. In Canada, even though we hear complaints about people going to doctors when it is not necessary, which I do not believe really is the case in many instances, the percentage of the gross national product is only 6 per cent for medical care. That is an indication that medicare is efficient.
The decision of the government to abandon medicare, in the sense of capping it, really flies in the face of the example which medical care schemes have provided. Canada's medical care scheme may be very closely copied in the next United States election as a platform for the Democratic party. We should be proud of what we have accomplished, although there is much more to be done. The government does not seem to be giving the Canadian people the leadership they want. The people do not want a fractionalization of the scheme. They do not want different standards for Prince Edward Island and Ontario. They want a national standard. They want to move into the area of prevention as a main lifestyle. Prevention means taking another look at the advertising of tobacco and alcohol.


An hon. Member:: Better tell that to Stanley.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is one of the best examples of a man in good health clothed in an ambiguous body.

June 18, 1976
Medical Care Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: When we look at prevention we must consider smoking, alcohol, and the provision of drugs, both medical and non-medical, which in my view are abused to a great extent. We must look to the government for leadership in lifestyle modification, changes in habits in terms of advertising and of trying to change public habits and attitudes in those areas which are so thoroughly unhealthy.
The next matter we should consider is nutrition. A dramatic example is the one of the farmers on Parliament Hill, which should make us realize that in a country which overproduces milk to the extent we do now, and where Coca-Cola is sold at approximately the same price, there is something wrong. We can make national provision of milk for school lunches right across the country without any trouble and at minimum cost. In the long run this will lower our medical costs because of the nutritional value of that product, which we should be pushing in our schools rather than pop and other junk foods.
We should encourage all Canadians to continue to have routine medical examinations. The result of this legislation will be the beginning of deterrent fees, a clear backward step from what we have become accustomed to. When we get back to the reasons for the bill, the argument is that costs are rising so fast and are so out of line that we have no choice but to cap them at this end. When you examine the figures, you find that sort of argument questionable indeed. The figures for the increase in medical care costs, the increase in the federal contribution, are quite interesting. When you break them down on a national basis, you find that in 1972-1973 the increase was 7.6 per cent; in 1973-1974 it was 8.8 per cent; and in 1974-1975 it was 6.6 per cent. Each year the increase was well below inflation in Canada, yet here we have a government which does not even want to keep its increasing contribution in step with the rate of inflation. Even that is too much. This is a niggardly, Scrooge approach to the question of the provision of medical care.
It is interesting that in my own province of British Columbia the federal contribution was 13.9 per cent in 1970-1971. It was reduced all the way down to 5.9 per cent in 1974-1975, and 1974-1975 was the year of the NDP government in that province which allegedly was squandering money; at least this was the theory abroad. It is certainly not indicated in the provision of medical care in that province or the reduction of the federal government's contribution to those medical services. As I say, the capping is unnecessary. The costs are not increasing at a rate which is inordinate or unreasonable, and by limiting the increase we are taking away the provincial inducement to move into new areas.
One area with which I want to deal now and which I think is most important is environmental health. More and more in this country we find that as we alter the natural state of the environment, as we provide new chemicals and new pesticides, and as we provide insulating materials such as asbestos and new plastics, new forms of cancer emerge. We cannot let that happen to the Canadian people. But by abandoning the federal contribution in medicare

that is exactly what we are doing. The standard of living that we have in this country in the south is now becoming dependent upon the poisoning of Indians in the north.
It is to our shame that we see at English river, in northwestern Quebec, in Mistassini and other places, our native people suffering from Minamatas disease. The reason they have been suffering from Minamata disease is that the standard of life in the south is higher. We have industrialized areas in the north and we have taken risks with the future of the Indians. What are we repaying them with? The most we are doing at English River is to tell them not to eat the fish.
It is time we did something in terms of full compensation for native people but, most important, it is time we learned a lesson from Minamata disease in this country, that you do not move into an area in a rush for spoils, profit and money in the process of which you destroy the environment and kill the native people. That has been the tradition in this country. Let us make no mistake about it. We have nothing to be proud of in the way we settled Canada, in terms of our native population. That is what we are still doing when we consider the mercury poisoning that is now taking place in these areas of Canada.
We have a real problem with vinyl chlorides in the provision of plastics. Liver cancers are developing at an alarming rate. The interesting thing about preventing cancer is that it takes 20 years for lung cancer to develop in asbestos workers. The workers themselves do not feel the immediate risk, although they are running a high risk daily. They need the money, they have to continue to work. We cannot sit idly by as parliamentarians, nor can this government sit idly by and let this continue. We still do not have mandatory regulations regarding the use of masks in asbestos mines. Admittedly, we brought in some ambient air standards.
We still have not done anything with regard to tailings or with regard to drill standards. The wind can blow tailings all over the place. Only a minor amount of asbestos causes cancer. Are we to abandon the fight against cancer because of this government's niggardly approach to medical care and its tragic departure from principles in which they once believed? There is no question that what we are seeing in Bill C-68 is the end of the purported just society and the end of those great promises of 1968. It is all over now.


John R. Rodriguez: The society of love.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The flower children are gone. They are now working in the asbestos mines.


Walter David Baker: And eating contaminated fish.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We are now living in a so-called society of love.
I feel very strongly that we should try to do what we can to prevent the government from moving in such a disastrous direction and that we should not deal with this bill at this time. I am convinced that this is a very inappropriate time to do so. Indians are in need of help, and medical services still need to be provided. I believe it is now time to
June 18, 1976

hoist this bill and give the government a chance to have another look at what it is doing to a program in which all Canadians have taken pride for so long.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That Bill C-68 be not now read the third time, but that it be read the third time this day six months hence.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment put forward by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) is a very wise one indeed. What we see happening with respect to the acUons of the government with regard to medicare reminds me of the definitions of a Tory and a Liberal. A Conservative is one who stands at the seashore, sees someone drowning 20 yards offshore, throws out a rope which is 15 yards long, and expects the drowning person to show initiative and swim the other five yards to catch the rope. A Liberal is one who stands at the seashore, sees someone drowning 20 yards offshore, throws out a 20 yard rope, and when the drowning person grabs the rope and starts pulling, the Liberal drops it. That is the kind of thing we see in Bill C-68. The government is trying to beat a hasty retreat from a program which has proved to be what the government expected it to be.


Mr. Fairweather:: All you do is throw out the Regina Manifesto.


John R. Rodriguez: I do not know. There are some Tories who would do other things with the rope.
The medicare program in Canada has been held up by the government as an exemplary program. The United States sent representatives from its Senate, led by Senator Ted Kennedy, to come here and study our medicare program, the universality of our program, and the way the program is operated, because the Americans do not have a similar program. This government was very proud to run around beating its breast and holding up its program as being exemplary.
However, what do we find the government attempting to do in Bill C-68? The government has proposed a withdrawal from an area which is vital to the national health and security of this nation. Indeed it is rather interesting to note the unilateral action which is being proposed by the government. Here we have a government which has talked about co-operative federalism and said that the decisions in Canada are made through discussions between the federal government and the provincial governments, and that they try to work out co-operatively decisions which are acceptable to all sides. Bill C-68 jettisons that whole concept of co-operative federalism, and the government is taking a unilateral position with respect to medicare.
When we entered into medicare, it should be noted that it was the socialists of Canada who pushed and pushed for a minimum level of medicare and of health services in this country and finally obtained it. After having been promised it since 1919, we finally ended up with a medicare program.
The present program was held out by the federal government, and the federal government encouraged the provinces to join and participate in providing medical care coverage. It might not affect wealthy provinces so much
Medical Care Act
when the federal government withdraws from some of the areas of medicare coverage, but it seems to me that the poorer provinces in Canada will have a very difficult time reaching even that minimum level of medicare and health services to which their citizens have become accustomed. It seems to me that it is only right that the whole question should be reviewed after six months, instead of moving with such undue haste into this area. This is what we are saying in the amendment of the hon. member for New Westminster.
This motion would give the government the opportunity to go back and sit down with the provincial ministers of health to try to work out an agreement which would ensure that the medicare services of this country are maintained. Indeed, they should not only be kept at their present level but should be expanded to cover many of the other areas which the hon. member for New Westminster pointed out in his excellent presentation this afternoon.
We on this side of the House have said time and time again that any tampering with the present medicare act will result in a loss of services to parts of the country which cannot afford to pick up the cost of carrying the program. There can be no doubt that this bill may damage forever both the quality of health care in Canada and the quality of our health insurance program.
Canada's health system has served the people of this country very well, and it is only right that at this point in time this party should vehemently protest any changes which will cause a reduction in the delivery of health care services across the country. When our party first introduced this idea in Saskatchewan, it fought the vested interests. There is no question that there were some who were opposed to medicare. This party fought for the right of every man, woman, and child in that province and in the country to have the benefits of decent health care. This party fought for an idea which would guarantee access to the needs of life, and it also fought so that we would not have to depend on wealth alone to provide what is essential and what is a right of Canadians.
Where were the Liberals and Tories at that time? We knew where they were. They opposed that idea. They used all kinds of excuses. They called it socialism and interfering in the lives of the Canadian people. Then they used the old bogeyman of cost and said that we could not afford a universal medicare program. We have experienced that kind of opposition over the years, and that is why we are so leery about Bill C-68. We see it as the thin end of the wedge to revert back to the situation where only those who have wealth will be able to enjoy health care. That is what we are leery about, and that is why we take such a firm stand in opposing any changes of this kind in a unilateral way.
We know that the Liberals in Saskatchewan fought medicare tooth and nail. It was only because of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and his colleagues that the Liberals of Saskatchewan were dragged kicking and screaming into the twentieth century. Looking back at the scene in Canada, that seems to have happened federally as well. The federal government did not like medicare but gradually we forced them to accept it

June 18, 1976
Medical Care Act
because it worked so well elsewhere. They are all running around now boasting what a fine medicare program we have, yet they are ready to use the scalpel on it. The Liberals had never liked the program. I would be the last member in this House to accuse them of being politically motivated, but they finally picked up the idea and saw it had some relevance and acceptance in the country.
Were the Tories any different, Mr. Speaker? Look at them in Ontario today. Frank Miller runs around the province like some avenger, just turning up at a hospital and telling the administrative staff that it is being closed down. We saw that with Doctors' Hospital in Toronto, but the staff there won a stay of closure in the courts. Now the Ontario government has appealed that. The Doctors' Hospital was serving the ethnic people in one area, and indeed some of the staff speak many languages. This is the kind of action which can only discriminate against newcomers to this country who might not be familiar with our ways. The Tory government in Ontario talks about restraint, but not about restraining itself. Why does it not start restraining its own expenditures instead of hacking away at essential services?
The federal Tories are not any different. The Canadian Medical Association tells us of the need for psychiatric care, but here in the Ottawa area they are cutting down on psychiatric beds, and this after we have been told they are one of the biggest needs in society today.
The Tories and Liberals have never supported programs like medicare but have always opposed them. It was only because of the vision of people like the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and members of his party and of the CCF who fought for and achieved their goals that we have this program today. Now the government wants to hack away at it, but we are not going to stand here and let it take it apart piece by piece in this phony fight against inflation. It is all right to fight inflation, Mr. Speaker, but the government blew $16 million bucks and we have not got even one plane for it. Members of the government should be ashamed of themselves. They go out and elect one guy who has an ego as big as the Olympic project, and build the Olympic project for $1.5 billion without batting an eyelash.
Today we talked about the multinational corporations getting away without paying over $1 billion that is due in taxes. The government talks about fighting inflation but what kind of fighters are its members? It has often been referred to as "the law of the sea" kind of thing-it is women, old folks, and the unemployed first, but the corporate citizen sits back at the Rideau Club with his Liberal and Tory friends and gets the benefits of the fight against inflation. That is shameful. Then they have the gall to say they are interested in people.
The government says we are spending too much on medicare and on the health of the nation, but as has been pointed out previously the percentage of our Gross National Product spent on health care has been dropping, not increasing. One thing we cannot afford in this country is to have people debilitated by lack of proper medical care. We hear a lot about the man days lost through strikes and lockouts. The Tories are famous for asking questions in the House about this, but do we hear about the number of man days lost due to sickness? The number is triple that of the

time loss due to labour problems, and it is growing. Why do we not tackle that type of problem?
We know something about industrial diseases in my area. Surely the government could do something through Atomic Energy of Canada or the commissions and acts that exist. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that people working in the uranium mines are not exposed to undue danger. Would it not be cheaper to prevent a person contracting silicosis that to treat him afterwards? This government and the Ontario government have reneged on their responsibility to see that safety levels are enforced. We read of the asbestos workers at Kananaskis walking around with asbestos fibres in their feet and breathing the fibres that float around the atmosphere. We have to ask what price we are going to have to pay 25 years from now perhaps to support their widows and orphaned children. We are now faced with the cost of the carelessness of those people who had responsibility for enforcing health standards at the INCO and Syncrude plants.
The cost of preventive medicine and delivery of services to those parts of the country that do not have them surely cannot be considered in the same light as the health of the people. Surely there is no comparison, Mr. Speaker. There are certain things that Canadians have a right to such as decent housing at reasonable cost, and education for the people as far as their abilities will take them. And we have said, although this government has never accepted it, that every Canadian has the right to a job. There ought to be a policy of full employment. Surely the other right that Canadians have is the right to adequate health care whether they live in the outposts of Newfoundland, in Vancouver, Toronto or Nickel Belt. Surely Canadians who live in the slow growth areas of Canada have as much right to the best medical services available as Canadians living in downtown Toronto who may earn $40,000 per year.
Surely all of our people have a right to decent medical care. My party believes that the government, by introducing Bill C-68, has retreated from that concept. For that it should hang its head in shame. Its action is despicable. It is limiting the rights of the people of this country to proper health care.
Those are not the only rights the governments has eroded. The right to free collective bargaining, for which many people were jailed, for which others were knocked on the head, and even died, went through the window when the government introduced the anti-inflation program. At present the right of our people to decent health care and medicare is being attacked and eroded by the government. We shall oppose that process of erosion as far as we can. We have proposed an amendment which we hope is accepted.
The government ought to consider again, with the provincial ministers of health, the status of the present program. That, it seems to me, is only fair. We should not cut back with regard to medicare. Instead, we should consider expanding the program. When the government talks about saving money by cutting back on health care, it does not take into account what these cutbacks will cost the people. Those costs one cannot calculate.
June 18, 1976

We ought to be concerned about the nutrition of our children. Having taught for 16 years in the province of Ontario I am aware of what some children eat and know how well nourished or otherwise some of our school children are.


An hon. Member:: So you are responsible for the mess.


John R. Rodriguez: No, the provincial Tory government is responsible for the mess in the Ontario educational system. They loused it up. They centralized the Ontario educational system; yet we hear the Tories talking about decentralizing government services. I have never heard such phony nonsense spoken in all my life. That party is sucking and blowing at the same time.


An hon. Member:: So are you.


John R. Rodriguez: The whole gang of them are doing it. You will see when we become the government in Ontario what we shall do to this province's educational system. It will be the envy of the world. I ask, how much money do we waste in our schools trying to teach children who cannot learn because they have not been fed enough of the right foods. Half the time, instead of teaching these kids, we tranquilize them. I have seen this time and again. Our dairy farmers are prepared to dump milk. I suggest that we could clear up the milk surplus at once by giving each of our school children a quart of milk a day.


An hon. Member:: Dump a quart a day down each school child's throat.


John R. Rodriguez: That is an excellent suggestion. That way we could clear up the surplus in no time at all. Such nutritional help could be of great advantage to children and does not come under medical care.
I have seen the results of the Nutrition Canada survey commissioned by the government. I do not think government members read reports which the government itself has commissioned. We spend taxpayers' dollars on these reports. The survey clearly shows that eating the wrong foods leads to tooth decay, obesity, and ill health.


An hon. Member:: Just look across the way for some examples.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, looking at the Liberals I can say that I have never seen a sleeker looking lot of people anywhere, except in the ranks of the Tories. I have never seen a sleeker looking bunch of fat cats than when I have been in the Ontario legislature looking down at Bill Davis and his cats.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The hon. member looks pretty sleek.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member is purring. Government members should be encouraged to read government commission reports. If they did, perhaps they might be more inclined to spend money where it ought to be spent, instead of cutting back on essential services.
Government members ought to be encouraged to read the Treasury Board's report about injuries in the Public Service of Canada in 1974-75. According to that report, in the year 1974-75 there were 22,218 accidents in the public
Medical Care Act
service which cost us, directly, over $7 million. Over 10,000 of these injuries took place in that department which considers itself the friend of the working class, the Post Office. Almost 7,000 of those injuries were disabling. As I said, the total cost of public service injuries was over $7 million. That cost does not include the cost of medicare given to the people involved. I suggest that the true cost of the injuries would be much higher if one included the cost of medical care.
In Ottawa, I discovered that the majority of lung-related diseases are caused by smoking. In the riding of Nickel Belt, lung-related diseases, in the main, are to be found among people who live too close to the smoke stacks of Inco and Falconbridge. Whenever it seems that corporate profits may dip, the first item of equipment to be sacrificed is anti-pollution equipment-thanks in large part to the attitude of federal and provincial departments concerned with the environment.
I have spoken of ways to improve the quality of life with preventive medicine. We are lagging in that field. It seems to me that preventive medicine can lead to cuts in medicare cost. We should be thinking in terms of such cost cuts, instead of in terms of such arbitrary cost cutbacks as the federal government is now proposing, cost cutbacks which will lead to a lowering of the already minimal level of the country's health and medical care services.


An hon. Member:: What about home care nursing?


John R. Rodriguez: I agree with the hon. member. At present we have chronic care patients occupying active care beds which cost us at least $100 per day.


Mr. Benjamin:: That's an example of government waste.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. We need more efficiency in the field.
In Ontario, because of the Tory government's approach to hospital costs, many nurses will be out of work. I understand that some 3,000 nurses have already been laid off in Ontario. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) blames the nursing schools and universities for not projecting properly the job market. But how could the universities know that the federal government was to cut back its participation in medicare?
The minister has blamed the universities, whereas the fault lies with the government which created the difficulty in the first place. It is like blaming the rape victim for her own predicament. That is despicable. Why did the minister not tell the universities beforehand that the government intended to cut back with regard to medicare? Why did not the Tory government in Ontario take the universities and post-secondary institutions into its confidence and tell them what it wanted to do? The nurses are available. Surely we need not keep chronic care patients in active care beds at over $100 per day.
We have heard little about rehabilitative programs. Surely it would cost less per diem to apply rehabilitative measures than to keep certain chronic care people in active care beds, at great cost.
The government has not even considered the paramedical field. Many people in remote parts of ridings must
travel over 100 miles in order to get emergency attention.

June 18, 1976
Medical Care Act
Surely such attention could be provided by paramedical workers. Little has been done in this regard.
The government can do all sorts of fine sounding things. It can bounce a signal off a satelite to provide television and communication coverage for corporations and frontier regions.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You can't bounce a signal off a Liberal's head.


John R. Rodriguez: It would reverberate round the
Chamber.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It would be like bouncing a signal off cement.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. We can build all sorts of fancy buildings. For the last four months an outhouse has been under construction on Parliament Hill. That looks like a make-work project, and it seems to me that these things all cost money. Some of these projects cost a heck of a lot of money. But we are not afraid to do this.
The Bank of Canada is erecting a building across the road made of glass. When it was started it was to cost a modest $30 million. The figure has now jumped to $75 million. They have some exotic plants in there now, the like of which I have not seen since I left Latin America. I go over there, Mr. Speaker, when I want to feel at home. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it will cost $75 million, and they don't bat an eyelash.


Max Saltsman: They have been building like that since the Spanish conquistadores.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for Waterloo-Cam-bridge is right. Ever since the conquistadores came to this country.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) got up in this House and said we are to have a national lottery to raise money until 1989 and then we shall be able to pay off the Olympic debt-if it costs every widow the last ten dollars she ever had. We are prepared to go to those lengths for the kind of monuments Shelley referred to, the kinds of monuments that will stand in the desert and just crumble apart in the sands of time.
When it comes to those services which affect the quality of life for people, surely the government has to say: those things we will not touch-there are certain agreements we will not back away from. On the contrary, we should be expanding those particular kinds of agreement in the areas we have mentioned before.
I remember the time when I taught in the schools. We had no money to pay for speech therapists. Children with speech disabilities received no special attention: their problems were ignored in the hope they would go away. School boards and taxpayers could not afford to support speech therapists in the school system. The same was true of children who were hard of hearing. We were not prepared to let a private member's bill go through this House-the Tories were dragging their feet on it, I know- which would set the upper limits of noise levels in any one place to 85 decibels. They were not prepared to let that

through. I thought it seemed to me to be a very fine bill, one which we could do with in the work places in the Sudbury area; the vast majority of those who work for the mining companies are suffering from some kind of hearing disability.
There is something which will always be held against the government sitting over there. It is the fact that it was not prepared to move in an aggressive way in the area of preventive medicine. Surely, we on this side of the House ought not to be the ones to stand up and press the government to retreat from its position-a position which we consider to be a totally backward step with respect to the provision of medical services.
I have talked about some of the documents which were commissioned by the government. I want to read from the Ontario Economic Council report a rather interesting section on health issues and alternatives, published in 1976. This is what is contained in this particular document:
The situation with respect to industrial health and safety may be worse than it seems because many industrial health problems remain undetected or unreported and in the Council's view we lack professionals specializing in industrial medicine. We have too few investigators and inspectors. There are several thousand toxic chemicals used in industrial processes but standards have been set for only a few hundred.
If the government wants to spend money, if it wants to avoid wasting medicare support, the best way to save is to spend money in these particular areas of industrial health safety and preventive kinds of health problems that are presently put upon society. If, beyond that, the government wants to save money, it can do it.
One of the comments made by the hon. member for New Westminster was that we should start taking a look at home care so that we can assure that active care beds in hospitals are occupied by active care patients. It seems to me this step would be a good one for patients, not only because they could be taken care of in their home environment enjoying the love and comfort of their family, but also because it would mean saving money for the taxpayers of Canada.
As I mentioned before, there are many parts of my own riding where we have to depend on emergency services which may be a hundred miles away. The people who live and work in those areas do not get a cut on their OHIP premium-they just pay the same OHIP premiums as I pay, living in a town where medical services are close and readily available. The effect of this bill will be to create even more difficulty for these people.
We talk about dental problems. The government has no dentacare program at all. It has been left completely up to the private sector; it has been left to workers in a particular situation getting into a collective agreement. But the minute they get a dentacare program established, what happens? The dentists put their fees up overnight to grab the highest possible charge they can. The government has reneged in this matter. It is fairly obvious that those who are in an organized shop can get the benefit of a dentacare program. But, once again, those workers who are not organized, usually lower-aid workers who do not have the strength of collective agreements, are left without the benefit of a dentacare program for themselves and their families. The government has not moved in the area of expanding medical services to include a dentacare program
June 18, 1976

which would be of preventative benefit. Instead, it is quite prepared to sit back and cut away existing programs.
I have said that the Liberal government which sits over there is not unlike the Tories-we have seen an example in Ontario. One of the costs which drove up medicare in Ontario was the rip-off which took place by the private labs. There we saw the doctors and the private labs working hand in glove and ripping off the taxpayers.


An hon. Member:: All of them?


John R. Rodriguez: No, not all of them, but certainly more than 2 per cent of them. I am glad the hon. member has raised the question because I stand around in this House and hear of all these people who rip off the unemployment insurance fund, who rip off the welfare system. Studies in Ontario and elsewhere in this country have shown that approximately 2 per cent rip off any social welfare program. Interestingly enough, in Ontario the rip off of the OHIP program among doctors was 10 per cent-five times as great, Mr. Speaker. So when the hon. member on the government side of the House talks about percentages he should keep things in proper perspective. We have seen this kind of rip off by the private labs in Ontario, and it has added to the cost of medicare. Some hon. members give the impression that only the working class and people on welfare rip off the system. Rip-offs are not confined to poor people, the rich people rip off the system more so.


John Douglas Reynolds: What about the NDP ripping off British Columbia?


John R. Rodriguez: When the story is told we will find out who ripped off British Columbia. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) will find out that in the long run the people of British Columbia benefited. Dave Barrett certainly did not put the money in his pocket.
I think I have given some very good reasons why this bill should be put off. The motion moved by the hon. member for New Westminster is a very reasonable one. If we put this bill off for six months it will give the government a chance to recover-


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: -its sanity.


John R. Rodriguez: The government never had any sanity. Let them grab this rope and we will pull them to the shore safely.


Walter (Wally) Firth: My hon. friend is too much of a humanitarian.


John R. Rodriguez: That is in the nature of a New Democrat. The New Democrat throws out the 20 yard rope to the drowning man to grab, and will pull him safely to the shore. We are giving the government the opportunity to hoist this bill for six months, and it should grab it.
It is rather interesting to see the condition of federal-provincial relationships. I can see why the government might not want to take this opportunity since the provincial premiers left in a huff. I can understand them not wanting to go back. In view of what they are proposing in
Medical Care Act
regard to federal-provincial shared programs they will be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.
In conclusion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I hear the Tories applauding.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has now expired. If he wants to continue he will have to have unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to prolong this debate; I just want to make a couple of points. The New Democratic Party in particular has tried to portray this bill as being a cutback in expenditures on hospitalization and medicare. In fact it is no such thing. It simply sets out the growth rate at which the federal government will continue to participate in the medicare scheme. The NDP persist in talking about cutbacks in hospitalization. This bill has nothing whatsoever to do with hospitalization.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) made a few valid points and it is too bad he wrapped them up in so much red rhetoric. I can understand why it is he would want to increase expenditures on medicine; it is because he is suffering from a bad case of verbal diarrhea this afternoon. The fact that must be on the record is that this bill has nothing to do with hospitalization. It deals only with the limit to which the federal government will go in increasing expenditures on medicare.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to speak at all on this bill, but after the nonsense I have heard from the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) I feel I must say a few words. If my party ever had any intention of helping the NDP, it certainly has not after the speech of the hon. member for Nickel Belt. My party has been against this action by the government because it felt it was unilateral. The idea behind the bill is a good one; it is an attempt to control expenditures. However, we do not think the government should do this unilaterally without first negotiating with the provinces.
The NDP are in a great position to tell us what they would do. If anyone recalls what they did to the province of British Columbia within the short space of three years, they drove the province into half a billion dollars worth of debt.


John R. Rodriguez: All right, let us have an election there now.


John Douglas Reynolds: If we had an election in British Columbia right now you could be sure that the NDP would not be returned to power. It will be 20 or 30 years, if ever, before the NDP form another government in British Columbia. The people of Canada had a better idea of what the federal NDP was all about than did the people of B.C., as we can all see from the small number of that party left in this House after the last election. I think that after the next federal election they will have even fewer members.

June 18, 1976
Medical Care Act
The party that did win the last election in British Columbia is basically a Conservative party anyway, and it got rid of a party that was bankrupting the province. I think in the long term the Conservative party has a much better future ahead of it in British Columbia than the NDP ever did. I see the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) is in the House. Had he sought the leadership of that party, perhaps it would be in better shape than it is right now.
I say these things to the hon. member for Nickel Belt because I think it is wrong to hoist this bill for six months. We did not suggest that the capital punishment bill should be delayed; we wanted to put it to the vote and get it passed by the House. I do not know why the NDP is making this move now unless it is to delay the business of this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it has been agreed among the House leaders that a vote on this motion
should be delayed until a time fixed by agreement among the House leaders.


Walter David Baker: That is so, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I agree. I would even delay it for six months.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion that has been made. Is it agreed that by unanimous consent a recorded division be deferred, pursuant to this special order, to a date to be decided among the House leaders?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so there is no misunderstanding-decided after consultation among the House leaders. I am sure no one wants to have a veto on the time of the vote, so that it can be put off indefinitely. My suggestion is that it be decided by the House leaders after consultation among them. It would not give any House leader a veto.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hope the suggestion is clear to everyone, that the vote will come before we recess anyway. It is so ordered.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Five o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There seems to be a suggestion that we call it five o'clock. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Menday at two o'clock p.m.
At 3.51 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 21, 1976