1976-06-15

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to conclude my remarks which I began last evening.
I had indicated that during the past number of years, approximately since 1962 which is about the time capital punishment was abolished in this country in fact if not in law, there has been an increase in the murder rate in Canada of some 150 per cent. I think those who argue that this is not significant do so on the basis that there has been an increase of a similar proportion in other violent crimes. It seems to me, however, that we have a situation in which the general application of law in this country has been of an excessively permissive nature. We have a peculiar situation where the federal government takes the position that it does not want to enforce its own laws.
When the present Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) piloted the last bill through this House some three years ago, he quite plainly indicated during that debate that he was retaining capital punishment for murderers of policemen and prison guards simply as a conciliatory move toward policemen and prison guards while indicating at the same time that he did not have the slightest intention of applying that law. I think the result of that kind of attitude on the part of a solicitor general is that it sets a bad example. It indicates that he does not have the desire or the backbone to apply the law as it stands, that he is chicken and, finally, I think the most drastic result is that it creates a situation in which there develops a disrespect for the law. People do not believe that the law will be applied and ask why they should pay attention to it, particularly when they consider the position taken by the Solicitor General.
Three or four years ago I had the interesting experience of visiting the Isle of Man and talking to the attorney general there. You may recall, sir, that the Isle of Man is one of the few places in the world that retains corporal punishment as well. Perhaps to come to grips with the
argument that even though the number of murders has increased the number of other violent crimes has increased as well, it might be useful to try to correlate that with the abolition of corporal punishment. In conversations, the attorney general of the Isle of Man suggested to me that because they still use corporal punishment for violent crimes such as assaults, rapes and things of that nature, the incidence of those kinds of crime is substantially less on that island than it is any place where corporal punishment was abandoned a long time ago. Perhaps there is reason to give consideration to the whole question or permissiveness and the reapplication of some of those former methods of dealing with various types of crime.
I think it has been shown during the course of this debate that statistics concerning whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not, are not very helpful. Those who speak in favour of abolition provide backup statistics showing that the murder rate in abolitionist countries is no higher and possibly even is less than that in countries where capital punishment is retained. Those who favour the retention of capital punishment have provided statistics showing that the murder rate is lower in countries where capital punishment is retained. The statistics therefore are not very helpful in that people select statistics which are useful to substantiate their position. Unfortunately, statistics for other countries do not apply to Canada. One cannot determine if capital punishment alone affects the murder rate in a country; one must consider a host of other cultural and economic factors as well. Perhaps we can draw important conclusions from an examination of statistics applying to other countries, but only an examination of relevant Canadian statistics will allow us to come to valid conclusions about conditions in Canada. As I said, the present murder rate is 2.4 per cent per 100,000 of population; before 1960 it was 1.2 per cent. One could argue that the partial abolition of the death sentence has brought about a 150 per cent increase in the murder rate.
[DOT] (mo)
To determine if capital punishment is a deterrent, I suggest we should reinstate capital punishment for a five-year period, with a view to studying if the murder rate comes down again. If such a study were carried out under scientific conditions in one country, it would, perhaps, give us the most accurate reading of the effects of capital punishment. I also wish to call attention to the cost of incarcerating a man. We are told that it costs about $18,000 per year to keep one person in prison; therefore, keeping someone in prison for 25 years would cost about $.5 million. The question is, should the taxpayer shoulder that kind of burden?
Another point to which I referred last evening has to do with the hanging of an innocent person. According to statistics I have seen, there has been only one such case in this country in recent memory; on the other hand, there

June 15, 1976
Capital Punishment
have been seven repeat murders, that is to say, murders committed by convicted murderers who have been released for some reason or who were out on parole. Therefore, the ratio of deaths inflicted on innocent people to deaths inflicted by repeat murderers is seven to one. From cold statistics it is clear that fewer innocent people will die if murderers are hanged that if they are not hanged.
I am about to make a suggestion which will make judges and juries shudder. The law requires juries to be certain beyond any reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused before convicting. I suggest that judges and juries should be given some added responsibility in cases where a mistake is made and an innocent person hangs. Perhaps we should devise methods for making judges and juries accountable for their decisions. Such provision, perhaps, would lessen further the possibility of innocent persons being hanged.
We must consider the question of the responsibility of members of parliament to their constituents. Without question, the primary responsibility of the member is to represent in this House those who elected him. The member of parliament is the spokesman for, perhaps, 100,000 constituents; he speaks on their behalf in this House. I do not wish to belittle those hon. members who say that they will vote on any issues in accordance with their consciences, but I say that while it is the member's responsibility to exercise his judgment, at the same time he must keep in mind the stated desires of his constituents if it is possible to determine those desires clearly. I suggest that with regard to the particular issue we are debating at present, the desires of constituents are clearly known.
As I said, I suggest that we should introduce again for a five-year trial period. Capital punishment for capital murder. Only that way can we determine accurately the effects of capital punishment and see whether, in the context of our social and economic conditions, it is a deterrent in Canada. We might consider allowing the prisoner to choose whether he will be in prison for 25 years or executed. Since we live in a democracy, we might consider such an idea. It might require amending the legislation, to give the prisoner that choice. I say this as many feel that a 25-year prison term is more cruel than capital punishment. I do not think anyone should make the decisions for another person. Only the convicted murderer should be allowed to make that choice. Such provision would require an amendment to the legislation now before the House.
We must also consider whether people feel the law provides enough protection. Some feel that if murderers were hanged for capital murder society would be more effectively protected. Surely, the imposition of capital punishment shows emphatically that society abhors murder. Capital punishment emphasizes society's total rejection, total abhorrence of the cold-blooded, calculated killing of another person, without just cause.
Finally, I conclude by suggesting that this debate, at best, will only provide an interim solution to the problem of how we are to treat murderers. In the final analysis we must consider ways of prevention. Neither imprisonment for 25 years nor hanging will stop murders being committed. We must dedicate ourselves to undertaking intensive research programs to determine why people commit murder. What factors shape personalities; what personality
[Mr. Yewchuk.l
traits lead to the commission of murder? Once we know why certain people tend to commit murder, we may be in a position to bring in ultimate solutions which will prevent the occurrence of murder. In the long run that must be the aim. In my view this bill, at best, will deal with the problem only in the short term.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, for those who believe that human life is a value in itself, that in the most literal sense it is a precondition for all other value systems, it must be obvious that the issue of capital punishment is, from a moral perspective, probably the most important issue on which a politician is asked to make a judgment.
By this I mean that before one can debate the morality of any social or political system, liberalism, socialism or conservatism, one must assume at the outset that all mankind has a preceding moral right to exist, that all men have an equal claim at the outset, once they are born, to continue to exist. It is for this reason that I believe most seriously that those who favour capital punishment have upon themselves the moral onus to prove that this form of killing by the state is justified. It may turn out that their case can be persuasive, but it cannot be denied that it is up to them to establish their case. That is the crucial moral consideration, because what is involved in the debate on capital punishment is the right of the state to kill. It has to be put as bluntly as that. Those who are arguing for capital punishment have to present to us a moral argument for the right to kill a human being.
I believe that based on this fundamental assumption, the deliberate taking of a human life is warranted in only two kinds of situations, both of which rest on a common assumption. The first is self defence by an individual. If a man, woman or child is attacked by another human being, in my view that person has the right, in order to protect his or her life, to kill, if necessary, the attacker. The second circumstance in which I believe it is morally appropriate for killing to take place is when one nation or state declares war or, even without declaration, invades another state with the purpose of imposing upon that second state their rule by force, violence and killing. Under those circumstances also I believe it is right and morally justified, horrible as it is, to kill. That is collectively those members of a state have the right to defend themselves against others.
The two points, as I say, really are identical in principle. One is the right of an individual to protect his or her life from a violent threat upon it. The other is the collective right of a state or collection of individuals to do the same.
I have not been persuaded that there is any other situation which justifies the killing of another human being. In short, I am not persuaded that capital punishment can be supported by reason or moral argument. I have not, of course, been here for the full debate that has taken place in this House, but I have consulted the arguments put forward by both sides of this issue by all members.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I am not questioning the integrity of those who have reached a decision that is different from my own. I am questioning
June 15, 1976

the reasoning, the moral reasoning in particular, which has led to the conclusion reached by those who favour capital punishment.
What are the arguments that have been put forward by the retentionists in favour of capital punishment? I repeat, morally it is up to the retentionists to prove their case for the right of the state to kill another human being. There are three arguments that have been presented and I would like to discuss them.
The first argument comes in two forms. It is that the majority of Canadians want capital punishment. Another variant of the same argument is "the majority of my constituents want capital punishment". Many members have argued that they have an obligation to vote for capital punishment because a Gallup poll survey of the nation indicates that most Canadians or most of their constituents favour capital punishment.
The acceptance of this argument largely depends, in fact entirely depends, on the acceptance of the view that democratic government rests simply on the notion of head counting. In my opinion, this view is erroneous both as a general theory of democracy and as one which holds in particular for representative democracy. The great democrats in the whole history of democratic government from Pericles in ancient Greece to John Stuart Mill, the great democrat of the nineteenth century, have always argued that discussion based on reason and evidence is an essential aspect of democratic decision making. When the community is small enough, it is possible for everyone who is affected by a law to actually make the law. That was possible in the model of the traditional Greek city state or in the early communities established in North America. In little villages, it was possible for all those affected by the laws of those communities to take part in open debate, to listen to the pros and cons, the evidence for or against a particular motion. They could be present for the debate. The argument makes sense in that context.
However, rational discussion in which all the citizens can hear the arguments and consider the evidence is impossible in a large democratic state like Canada. This is why in the last century representative democracy came into being for the first time. In this instance, the instance of representative democracy, it is those who are elected by the people who have the obligation to consider basic principles, listen to each other in debate and consult the evidence that is to be found both within their own country and abroad. Our constituents do not have the time to weigh the evidence and consider the arguments. They are preoccupied on a day-to-day basis with earning their livelihood. That is their serious, immediate and pressing concern. They do not have the opportunity that we in this chamber have to look at the evidence and listen to each other in order to formulate a final opinion. We, therefore, must make the decision. As elected members of parliament, we must take the consequences, not only on capital punishment, but on all other issues.
The point I am making does not merely hold for capital punishment. It holds for all law-making in a democratic society. This is so fundamental to the notion of representative democracy that, frankly, I have been somewhat amazed by a number of members of parliament arguing the contrary case, namely that you can simply go to your
Capital Punishment
constituency and count heads or get a public opinion poll survey from the country as a whole. In my view, the argument that a member of parliament must simply respond in a direct way in opinion surveys or head counts is not merely wrong; it is anti-democratic. It denies that other crucial element in democracy, namely that decisions are to be reached after reasonable discussion, hours of persuasion and the thorough consideration of evidence. All of these must have their day.


Paul Yewchuk: Do you not think the constituents have the ability to do that?


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member did not listen to my argument. I said that they do not have the time to consider the evidence and weigh all the factors which we have a prime obligation to do. Therefore I conclude that any member of parliament, whether he is for, or against capital punishment, has a crucial democratic responsibility to make the decision himself.
[DOT] (U30)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: If that is the case, I want to consider the two arguments which have been put forward to justify capital punishment and which could be used to influence members on either side who are prepared to exercise their responsibility to reach a decision. The first argument goes as follows: the punishment must fit the crime, and the supreme crime merits the supreme punishment. From the point of view of criminology I accept the principle involved-the more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment. I think that is proper. I think that is just. The idea embodied in this principle is to be found in the very bill we are considering: there is a distinction made between first degree and second degree murder; there is a distinction made in the length of sentence imposed; there is also a distinction between the severity of sentencing a man or a woman for murder and sentencing a person for a lesser crime. So I accept the principle that the punishment must correspond in some sense to the severity of the crime, and repeat that it is embodied in the bill which is before the House. That is not the issue, however.
The issue for those who argue in favour of capital punishment demands a positive answer to the following question: does murder by an individual require murder by the state? Is that the conclusion one must reach after accepting the general principle that punishment must correspond with the crime in degree of severity? I conclude that those who say that murder requires capital punishment as a form of justice are erroneous in their reasoning and I should like to make the case in the following way.
If a group of men or women are involved in a brawl and some of them are severely injured in that brawl, perhaps permanently maimed, we do not under our judicial system in the middle of the 20th Century say that the state must set about imposing a similar kind of physical violence on those who perpetrated the wrongdoing. If a man breaks another man's leg, deliberately and callously, the state does not say that the guilty person must be taken to jail and have his leg broken in a corresponding fashion. It is essential we recognize this to be the case. Those who are arguing in favour of capital punishment make the same
14498

June 15, 1976
Capital Punishment
kind of serious mistake in their moral reasoning when they conclude that a murder by an individual calls for a corresponding murder by the state. I am sure they would not argue that if a man breaks another man's leg the state has an obligation to break his leg. To my mind, the same idea is involved in the two instances. So, if it is acknowledged that severe punishment is required, this does not lead to the conclusion that a heinous murder must in justice require an equally violent death imposed by the state or the person who committed the first act.
Now, I turn to what is, at least for me, the only serious argument which could be advanced in favour of capital punishment if it were well-founded on evidence, that is, the argument that execution is a deterrent. If those who have argued for capital punishment could bring before the House, either in terms of the Canadian experience or the experience abroad, substantial evidence that capital punishment, horrible as it is to my mind, is a significant deterrent to murder I would be prepared to give the matter serious consideration.
But what is the evidence? I shall not trot out the statistics; they have already been presented by members of all parties and, in particular, by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). I want to pay tribute to the Solicitor General for the outstanding job he has done in presenting the moral issue. The Solicitor General and others have shown that the evidence-and I shall not put it stronger than this-is simply not persuasive. One can look at other countries-I am thinking particularly of the United States-and reach conflicting conclusions. Some of the evidence would lead to the conclusion that capital punishment is, indeed, effective as a deterrent. But this is only so long as one does not look at the position in a neighbouring state in the United States, for instance, or in a country in western Europe, at which point one finds that the removal of capital punishment has not led to more cases of capital crime. In my judgment, the evidence is, on balance, more strongly on the side that capital punishment is not a deterrent, though I am prepared to concede to those who argue in favour of capital punishment that it is not absolutely clear whether it is a deterrent or not.
Now I come back to my first comments. If it is not clear that it is a deterrent, and if we are by no means certain that the brutal killing of a human being can be justified on moral grounds, how else can we reasonably reach the conclusion that capital punishment is permissible? After all, capital punishment is undeniably brutal; we put a noose around a person's neck and let him drop, and hang, and die. The issue has to be seen as seriously and as intensely as that. If the evidence is not overwhelmingly persuasive that we are likely to head off murders, what moral justification do we have as human beings to kill another human being? I say we have no such justification and therefore I conclude that the deterrent argument, in the face of this moral reasoning, is not an acceptable one.
I draw a further conclusion, Mr. Speaker. If we do not accept capital punishment as a form of primitive justice, and if we do not accept it as a deterrent, then how can we accept it? To those who approve the reasoning on those two points and still insist on capital punishment I would say, as did the great French author and playwright, Albert Camus, that the only justification which is left, the only

psychological motive which is left, is the latent, emotional hangover of vengeance. We cannot base any law in Canada on the notion of vengeance.
[DOT] (U40)
This bill does recognize the seriousness of murder. Those of us who argue against capital punishment would also argue with the same degree of seriousness and concern against any act of murder. Sometimes those who take a contrary position suggest that those of us who are abolitionists are somehow soft on crime or indifferent to human cruelty. I think just the contrary is the case: those of us who are determined abolitionists I suggest are equally determined in our opposition to violence in society as a whole, quite apart from the issue of capital punishment. We have concern for the victims of crime, very much so. What we want is to change society as much as we possibly can to remove the causes of murder and other forms of violence. I for one do not claim to have all the answers to violent murder. But this is where the real effort must be made in the years ahead.
Recognizing the moral wrongness of murder, we support the view that there has to be severe punishment to make it clear that our society does not condone that kind of behaviour. I suggest that the distinction in this bill between first degree and second degree murder does precisely that. It makes a distinction between the motive for and cause of the different kinds of murder. In my view, the punishment imposed for either degree of murder is sufficient to deter anyone in the land from contemplating in a cold-blooded way an act of murder, if that person is the kind who will be deterred at all. We do not need capital punishment as a further deterrent.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of this House in particular to reject what I regard as the terribly irresponsible argument that in a democracy we are required simply to count heads, whether in the nation or in our constituencies. That surely cannot be justification for voting either for or against capital punishment. I ask all members to consider very carefully whether we want to have a system that perpetuates the doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and have the state indulge in cold-blooded violence as a reciprocal act against any man or woman who has murdered someone else in society-an argument that I reject.
Alternatively, Mr. Speaker, I ask them to consider dispassionately and with reason the evidence on the question of deterrence. I suggest to those members who are still wavering, particularly on the deterrence argument- because I think that is crucial-to consider this, that if the evidence at best is ambiguous, if at best it is not clear or totally persuasive, then they have a moral obligation in this debate to come down on the side of life, on the side of those who oppose capital punishment.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House it is my intention to take a few moments to express my point of view on this very important matter. I do so not with the expectation that anything I say will change one iota the view of any other member. The length of this debate alone has indicated the importance that members attach to it. After all, there is a very heavy responsibility on all of us to try to come up with
June 15, 1976

what is the most logical and sound decision on this legislation. I feel, too, that I have a responsibility to the people I represent; they should know not only how I vote on a matter such as this, but why I do so.
I say at once that the sincerity of no member can be questioned, regardless how he votes on this bill or what his views may be. This is a subject on which all members of the House have done a great deal of soul searching. We have, in a sense, held in the balance at the present time the lives of certain people, not only those on death row but those of our citizens who may commit murder in the future. As far as those on death row at the moment are concerned, I think there might be justification for making them exempt from the provisions of this bill. That fact might sway some members from voting as they otherwise might do.
I want to say at once, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to vote against this bill. We are, of course, concerned, regardless which side of the argument we are on, with the sanctity of human life. I think that our differences stem not from that but from the way we interpret it. The leader of the New Democratic Party who spoke a few moments ago I think debased the language by equating capital punishment with murder. I think that the two things are entirely different. The end result is the same in that a life is terminated, but under entirely different circumstances.
Murder results when someone, who may be the best citizen possible, who walks uprightly in the eyes of his fellow citizens and in the eyes of God, has his life taken away by another person under conditions over which he has no direct control. No person in this country need ever be hanged, regardless what the law provides; all he need do is not murder anybody. Our law takes every precaution to see that no one in this country is ever unjustly accused or convicted, but after the due process of law is carried out I find it difficult to understand why people cannot bring themselves to approve of capital punishment because they claim to have a reverence for life. Yet large numbers of those same people in many cases have approved abortion on demand. To me that is a much worse act on the part of society. In the one case you are taking the life of an individual who has had his chance and who could have lived his life in a way that society would approve rather than have to condemn. On the other hand, you are taking a life which has never had a chance, a life entirely before the individual. I find this a contradictory kind of thinking.
Much has been said as to whether capital punishment or the lack of it is a deterrent to crime. I think it is not an immediate deterrent either way. A potential murderer does not suddenly change his mind at that very instant and commit a murder. Therefore, even if we can devise a law that is a real deterrent it will have little or no deterrent effect on the hardened criminal or on the person who is so callous toward the right of other people to life that he does not hesitate to take someone's life if that is convenient. Any deterrent effect will not become evident for a generation at least, because the important point in life when our character's are formulated is when we are very young. I believe that as a twig is bent, so is the tree inclined. I get a little tired of people trying to reform hardened criminals. Once they have become hardened and have been through
Capital Punishment
the legal process and are in a penitentiary for years, in some cases, then in most cases it is already far too late.
What society has to do is impress on the people in the days of their youth and their childhood that there are certain things society will not allow and will not tolerate. It is our belief as civilized people that each one of us has the inalienable right to life, and if someone takes it upon himself to take away that right unjustly society will not accept that kind of behaviour. It is abhorrent to society. We must impress upon all our people that there are certain things which are just not tolerable by society, and one of them is cold-blooded, planned and deliberate murder. This is something society will not accept. Therefore, to make society's attitude with regard to that kind of behaviour abundantly clear society should in my judgment decide that anyone who plans in cold blood to take someone else's life should forfeit his own.
In addition there are other categories of behaviour which deserve and warrant capital punishment. Treason under certain circumstances is one. We should not eliminate the possibility of capital punishment for treason. Mass killing, such as putting bombs on aircraft in order to collect the insurance on someone, or for some other equally abhorrent reason, is such callous and outrageous behaviours that anyone who contemplates that kind of conduct should know in advance that if he carries it out he will pay the supreme penalty of capital punishment.
Those are some of the reasons I feel capital punishment should not be completely eliminated. I am not entirely satisfied with the interim law, the life of which is five years and which will not expire for another year and a half, but I think it is better law than the law represented in this bill. Therefore, I will vote against this bill.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that very few if any of us consciously contemplated, when we decided to run for public office, that we would find ourselves playing a decisive role in the resolution of a question as awesome as that of life or death. Yet, here we are, with all our individual limitations, required by the office we hold to make a decision on as profoundly an important issue as has ever divided responsible Canadians.
It is not open to anyone among us to take refuge in the comforting illusion that we are debating nothing more than an abstract theory of criminal justice, and that it will be the Cabinet's sole responsibility to decide the actual fate of individual murderers if this bill is defeated. I want to make it very clear that, if a majority of hon. members vote against abolition, some people are going to be hanged. Their death would be a direct consequence of the negative decision made by this House on this bill.

I say that, Mr. Speaker, not from any desire to be morbid or melodramatic, nor from any desire to try to absolve the cabinet, in advance, of its share of responsibility for the taking of human life in the future, if this bill is defeated. I say it in order to impress upon the House as strongly as I can that what we will actually be deciding, when we vote on this bill, is not merely how the law of the land will be written, but also whether some human beings will live or die.
95570 -17*/2

June 15, 1976
Capital Punishment
At this moment, eleven men are being held in Canadian prisons under sentence of death for the murder of policemen or prison officials. Some have exhausted their rights of appeal. Others have not. Therefore, while it is impossible to pre-judge how cabinet will treat any individual case when the time comes to decide whether to invoke the royal prerogative of mercy and commute a death sentence to life imprisonment, it is inevitable that the defeat of this bill would eventually place the hangman's noose around some person's neck. To make that quite clear: if this bill is defeated, some people will certainly hang. While members are free to vote as they wish, those who vote against the bill, for whatever reason, cannot escape their personal share of responsibility for the hangings which will take place if the bill is defeated.
It is in that context, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to place my remarks on the issue before us. Any discussion of capital punishment must begin with the identification of its intended purpose, which is clearly the security of society, the protection of innocent people against the ultimate criminal violence. It is not that goal which divides us. It is a goal we all share. What divides us is the question of the appropriateness of state execution of murderers as a means of achieving that goal.
It is clear that the protection of innocent people against assaults on their lives and liberty is one of the highest duties of the state. It is equally clear that this duty requires the aggressive and effective prevention, prosecution and punishment of criminal violence. It is essential that people have confidence in the law, essential that they have confidence in the ability of the legal process to protect them against the lawless. Reinforcing that vital sense of confidence and security is the primary aim of Bill C-83, the companion piece to the bill we are now debating.
Longer mandatory sentence and the tightening of parole regulations in relation to convicted murderers will give society the assurance it needs that those who have unlawfully taken the life of another will be removed from our midst for a very long time. Other provisions are designed to restrict the availability of guns, the most common murder weapons, and to strenghten the ability of our police forces to prevent and solve crimes.
There is every reason to believe that such measures will effectively inhibit criminal activity, whereas capital punishment offers no such assurance. That is why the time has come for Parliament to decide whether we should remove capital punishment from the Criminal Code. The crux of the question before us is whether execution is an effective and therefore justifiable weapon for the state to use in order to deter potential murderers.
There are those who sincerely believe that no man or group of men ever have the right to end a human life. They believe that life is a divine gift which only God has the right to take away. I am not one of those who share that belief. Our law, from its earliest beginnings, has always recognized the rights of an individual to kill another when there exist reasonable grounds for believing that killing an aggressor is necessary to the protection of one's own life or that of another. Moral philosophers and theologians have recognized for many centuries the right of a country to

defend itself in a just war, even when such defence involves the killing of enemies.

So the question before us is not whether execution by the state is justifiable per se, in itself. The question is whether state execution is an effective deterrent to murder, and therefore a justifiable act of collective self-defence.
The deterrent effect of capital punishment is at the very core of the issue, and since one's moral view of the justification of capital punishment is entirely determined by one's judgment of its deterrent effect, the proper focus of this debate is factual data and logical induction, not moral philosophy. In that sense, the issue before us must be resolved by a practical rather than a moral judgment.
I repeat my argumentation. Unless you are of a certain sect, or if you are a conscientious objector, in a moral sense the act of killing can be permissible in certain circumstances, like self-defence. Therefore, you have to make the practical judgment if, in a precise case, you are actually engaged in self-defence or vengeance. That, I think, is a practical judgment. Is it a good way for society to defend itself to hang people? I know there are those who say execution is justified because it prevents a murderer from ever again committing the same crime. It certainly does. If you hang a man, he will not go and shoot anyone else. But if you rely on that kind of reasoning, you are killing a man, not because his death may deter others from following in his footsteps but because of what he might possibly do at some future time. To justify such a preventive execution there would have to be some reasonable grounds for believing that a convicted murderer, if released into society- and, as we are seeking in Bill C-83, after a very long period of time-would murder again. In fact, the probability lies strongly in the other direction.
We know of only four people who have been found guilty of murder by a Canadian court, and convicted of murder a second time. In order to be absolutely sure that no murderer would murder again, we would have to take the lives of all persons convicted of either first or second degree murder, even though the probability is that an infinitesimal percentage of them would ever commit murder again if allowed to live. To me, that is an unacceptably high price to pay in human lives for a sense of security insignificantly greater than we have now. I might ask those who would execute a person to prevent a future murder how they could logically avoid advocating the execution of mentally-ill people who are found to have homicidal tendencies? You may say, "Let's execute the murderer for the crime he has committed. Let's take a life for a life. Let's remove a savage animal from the human race." I do not deny that society has the right to punish a criminal and the right to make the punishment fit the crime, but to kill a man for punishment alone is an act of revenge-nothing else. Some would prefer to call it retribution because that word has a nicer sound. But the meaning is the same.
Are we, as a society, so lacking in respect for ourselves, so lacking in hope for human betterment, so socially bankrupt that we are ready to accept state vengeance as our penal philosophy? Mr. Speaker, I think I have some understanding of the feelings here because I have received correspondence from relatives or friends of murdered people. I
June 15, 1976

understand individuals who fight back at the murderer of a loved one and kill him in a frenzy of passionate grief. I understand that they sometimes have been excused by the courts because they were thought to have temporarily lost control of their reason. I repeat that I have received letters and telegrams from relatives or friends of murdered people. I have been deeply moved by them and am deeply sympathetic to the suffering of those who endured such a tragedy and cruel loss of a loved one.
But the state cannot claim the excuse of blind grief or unreasoning passion. Long after the provocative act, long after calm and deliberate consideration, long after time for assessment and time to cool off and assemble its reason, the state cannot claim that justification when it kills a man. It should be understood that my primary concern here is not compassion for the murderer. My concern is for the society which adopts vengeance as an acceptable motive for its collective behaviour. If we make that choice, we will snuff out some of that boundless hope and confidence in ourselves and other people which has marked our maturing as a free people.
We will have chosen violence as a weapon against the violence we profess to abhor. Who is so confident that he knows for sure that such an official endorsement of violence will not harden the society we were elected to improve, will not pervade gradually many different relationships in our society? Who is so confident that he knows for sure that acceptance of state violence will not lead to the greater social acceptance of lesser forms of violence among our people? Vengeance and violence damage and destroy those who adopt them, and lessen respect for the dignity and rights of others among those who condone them.
There is only one other possible justification for capital punishment-the one we started with-the belief that execution of murderers will protect society by acting as a deterrent to the commission of murder by other people. There are some who adopt an experimental approach to the question of deterrence, like a scientist experimenting with different combinations of chemicals in the search for a new healing drug. "Let us try it," they say, "and see if it works. If it does, we will keep it. If it does not, we can always stop using it. Let us not slam the door, "they say," on a possibly effective weapon against murder," on some specious philosophical grounds." There are innocent lives at stake. If capital punishment prevents just one murder," they say, "it will be adequately justified."
That is compelling rhetoric, but it contains a fatal flaw, namely, that we would be experimenting with human lives. Respect for human life is absolutely vital to the rights and freedom we all enjoy. Even the life of the most hardened criminal must be accorded some degree of respect in a free society. If we take that life without proven purpose, without proven necessity, then we weaken dangerously one of the fundamental principles which allow us to live together in peace, harmony and mutual respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Capital Punishment


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is why free peoples have always insisted that the onus is on the person who would interfere with another's life or liberty to prove that such interference is necessary for the common good. Strictly speaking, therefore, it is not up to me, as an abolitionist, to prove that the execution of murderers will not prevent other murders. It is up to the advocates of capital punishment to prove that it will. If they cannot, their case must fail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Otherwise, this debate turns into a guessing game and the lives of human beings become so many chips on the poker table. That is not good enough. I do not want to hear your guesses about the deterrent value of capital punishment. I do not want to hear about gut feelings. I want proof. Not absolute proof. Not even proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance of evidence will do. A preponderance of available evidence showing that executions are likely to deter other murders would serve as an adequate justification for the act, an adequate guarantee that a human life was not being taken capriciously.
Show me the evidence that capital punishment anywhere, at any time, has deterred other people from committing murder. My own reading of the speeches made here on this issue since the first week of May, together with the Solicitor General's (Mr. Allmand) daily monitoring of the debate, have indicated that no such evidence has been placed before the House. The evidence does not exist, either in the Canadian experience or in the experience of any other jurisdiction. At best-and I realize that statistics have been put forward on both sides-the statistics are inconclusive. They prove nothing. They prove there is doubt. There is no evidence proving that the use or non-use of capital punishment has had any effect whatsoever on murder rates anywhere in the world.
I must confess I cannot understand why anyone would agree to kill a man without the least shred of assurance that his death would accomplish any worth-while social purpose. If penalties applied by the state against lawbreakers cannot be justified for their rehabilitative, punitive or deterrent value, they cannot be justified at all-not in a civilized society. Capital punishment fails on all three counts. To retain it in the Criminal Code of Canada would be to abandon reason in favour of vengeance; to abandon hope and confidence in favour of a despairing acceptance of our inability to cope with violent crime except with violence.
It is because I have an enduring confidence in mankind, and confidence in society's ability to protect itself without taking human life, that I am eager to support this bill and vote for the abolition of capital punishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few words in the debate on Bill C-84 to abolish capital punishment in Canada. There have been many speakers on both sides of this question. There have been speakers who have quoted the scriptures, logic, philosophers, learned judges, statistics, psychiatrists, historians and sociologists to support their particular point of view. I do not intend to use those disciplines in any depth
June 15, 1976

Capital Punishment
in the comments which I wish to make today. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his remarks made reference to letters which he had received from the families of victims who have been murdered. That is the particular point that I want to talk about today. He said he had a great deal of feeling, compassion and understanding for them. I suppose each of us who takes part in this debate is to some extent ruled and governed by, and our logic is oriented around, the experiences we have had in life. I want to speak from the point of view of the family and close friends of the victims of murder, for they are equally victims with the persons who lost their lives because of a crime of violence.
I know, personally, people who have lost a member of their family to a murderer. In the main, the family and the friends are lost to society, sometimes forever. There is no society, group, agency or government which really cares for those who have lost a member of their family to a murderer. Many of these people never make it back into the mainstream of society. They are lost, empty and sad. There is a sadness about them that many of us cannot comprehend. Some become bitter and withdraw from society because in their view there is no justice. The accused is tried, found guilty and sentenced to death, then has his sentence commuted to life, and in a few short years is back on the streets.
In my riding, like some other large urban ridings, there have been murders. I held in my arms a man who lost his wife and an 18-month old son to a murderer. Not only the family and friends of the murdered victim are lost, but many witnesses who gave testimony at the trial live in fear of their lives as well. They fear for their safety because they know that the accused will possibly be out on a weekend pass or on parole in a few years. The date of parole really becomes a focal point in their lives.
I have a neighbour who lives just around the corner from me who regularly writes to me, and I, in turn, write to the Solicitor General, about a murderer who took his daughter's life. This man also murdered three other women and received ten years imprisonment for each murder, the sentences to run concurrently. What can I answer to this constituent? He knows that the man who murdered the four women is going to be out-I believe 1978 is the last date I was told. How do you answer these people? How do you console them? How can they pick up their lives and start anew? What possible help can we give them? How can we allay their fears when they express their concern about a murderer who is about to be released on parole? "Has he fulfilled his debt to society," they ask? "How do you know he will not do it again?"
It has been suggested that some of the money used to keep prisoners in jail should be used to rehabilitate the family. I think this suggestion is worthy of consideration. Some who have spoken for the abolition of capital punishment have said that if you ever saw a man hang, you would not vote to retain capital punishment. To them I can only say, "If you ever saw a person murdered, you would never vote for abolition; or if you had ever looked into the hopeless faces and hopeless lives of the family of the victim, you would never vote for abolition."

I do not suppose that anything I am going to say here today is going to convince anyone one way or the other, but I should like to say a few words on terrorism. We used to think it could never happen here, that those terrible crimes happened elsewhere, that terrorism could not happen in this country. But in the last few years we have seen that terrorism knows no boundaries, respects no nationality or person. Terrorists kill indiscriminately for money or a cause they believe in. If some innocent victim happens to be passing by, this is his tough luck.
I do not know whether any member of this House has been involved in an incident of terrorism. A few years ago I was travelling on business from Madrid, Spain, to London, England. It was a regular British European Airways' flight. We boarded the plane, and it was held up for a few minutes. At the last moment, several high dignitaries from Spanish Morocco were ushered in and seated in the first-class section. The aircraft taxied out for take-off, and we stopped short of the main runway. Then we were herded off the aircraft and taken some distance away. After a wait of about an hour, the luggage was removed and we were required to look through a heavy steel plate to identify our luggage. There were three pieces of luggage unclaimed, which were removed.
Later, we learned that these three pieces of luggage contained explosives. Someone had called airport officials and warned them that there might possibly be a bomb attack. Along with 75 other innocent people, I might have been the victim of those bombs. Some political or religious group was out to murder the high officials from Spanish Morocco. It was an urgent business trip, and throwing caution to the wind I reboarded the plane and proceeded to London, England. Once we were in the air, those of us who went on wondered whether all the explosives had been removed from the aircraft. Fortunately, they were; but it really was a frightening experience.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill. I think I have read more on this subject than any other member since coming to parliament. My mail reflects the concern of the people in my riding. I do not want to deal with the statistics of murder. I agree with the Prime Minister that the statistics are generally inconclusive. I have a healthy suspicion of statistics most times, anyway; they can be twisted and turned to support whatever position you wish. But I think one point is missed by those who like to quote them, and that is that the definition of capital murder has been changed several times in the past few years. It differs from country to country and from state to state. The very basis for the statistics, I believe, is faulty to begin with. I am not convinced that a person who commits a premeditated murder can ever be rehabilitated. I am not convinced that he or she can ever become part of society again, as we know it.
As we know, surveys have been taken in the country, and I think that generally speaking they support the position that we should retain capital punishment in Canada. A referendum was taken in California about five years ago which was signed by seven million people; the outcome was a request to restore capital punishment. I believe most of the people in Canada are saying to us that we should retain capital punishment. In a package of documents that we received from the Solicitor General, which accom-
June 15, 1976

panied the bill, he stated in one place that capital punishment was not a deterrent. Yet, Mr. Speaker, when he was interviewed on CTV he stated that he did not feel capital punishment was any greater deterrent than a 25-year sentence. He confused the issue, as he has done so many times. I am not criticizing him for this, Mr. Speaker, but I think he is a bit mixed up. First, he says it is not a deterrent; then he says it is no greater deterrent than a 25-year sentence.
I think it is evident that most Canadians want capital punishment restored because they are recoiling from what they regard as the loose administration of justice which they have had from this government. They have had enough of kidnappers being released after a few years of confinement. They have had enough of police officers being shot down and their murderers escaping the penalty they deserve. They have had enough of giving priority to the criminal, and neglecting the victim. They have had enough of easy parole and leaves, when they find that many parolees become criminals again and leaves of absence become a door of escape. They have had enough of easy bail, when they find freedom given to thugs, hoodlums and addicts who use it to pillage, assault, molest, and murder. They have had enough of all this and are saying to parliament, "Change this and give us some protection under the laws, the kind of protection that Canadian citizens want and used to be confident of receiving."
No one who speaks for the retention of capital punishment has ever suggested that it will prevent all murders. Surely we would not expect that, any more than we would expect that not having capital punishment would prevent all murders. There has never yet been a penalty devised that would restrain everyone. To dismiss the death penalty because it does not eliminate murder should, logically, mean we should abolish prison sentences because they do not eliminate bank robberies. The point is that the threat of capital punishment does deter some people from murder, just as the threat of imprisonment deters some from robbery.
To say that when you have capital punishment you also have some murders is really offering no more evidence than to say that when you have long jail sentences you also have some robberies. We know that. Although the imposition of the prison sentence does not deter some from robbing, pillaging and assaulting, we have reason to believe that the imposition of the supreme sentence, the death penalty, deters some from the act of murder. That is partly why the average man supports the restoration of the death penalty. One can quote all manner of statistics and draw all sorts of graphs to back one's argument, but still find that the common sense, average Canadian thinks the death penalty deters. He knows it deters him and knows it deters others.
I know others want to participate in this debate and I shall not prolong my remarks. I have, as have all my colleagues, received a great deal of correspondence on this subject from constituents. I have heard from high school students, clergymen, learned judges, and lawyers. The correspondence runs 90 to 10 in favour of the retention of capital punishment. I was particularly touched when I received a series of essays on the subject of capital punish-
Capital Punishment
ment, written as an assignment by a group of students in Dundas, Ontario. I was amazed to see, after the positions pro and con had been plotted on a graph, that 86.3 per cent of those high school students between 15 and 18 years of age favoured the retention of capital punishment.
I have discussed this subject with my constituents at meetings in my office, in my constituency and in my home. Overwhelmingly, they urged me to support the retention of capital punishment. I made it known, since I was first elected, that I was in favour of retaining capital punishment. I have said I will keep an open mind, and if someone can convince me that I should take the contrary position, I will consider such arguments. Since the debate of 1973, the capital punishment file in my office has grown larger than all other files. I have read every bit of information I can lay my hands on dealing with both sides of the question. Having read this material, I am not convinced that we should abolish capital punishment. Therefore, when the vote is called I intend to vote against passage of this bill.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, capital punishment is a difficult subject with which members of parliament must deal because of the high emotions it generates and the wide and deep variations of opinions among constituents. All wisdom does not reside on one side or other of the question. Those in favour of abolition are sincere, honest and entitled to their opinions. Those who feel that the state should not surrender its right to impose the ultimate sanction in cases of capital murder are also honest and entitled to their opinions. Outside these groups there is an army of sociologists, penal and rehabilitation experts, prison guards, psychiatrists, police officers, all of whom have a right to be heard. There are those who have gone outside the law and who have opinions on this question. There are also the victims and their families and relatives: the still, quiet voices of the victimized, too often not heard in the land.
Those who are opposed to capital punishment may be divided into the following categories: those who oppose on religious or moral grounds, it is wrong to take a life; those who oppose largely on the pragmatic ground that capital punishment is not a deterrent-this includes some newspaper editors-and those who oppose on the ground of miscarriage of justice, which includes many criminal lawyers.
The proponents of capital punishment include, first, those who, on religious or moral grounds, believe in adequate retribution-an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. On that ground, no dentist would be safe. Second, those who believe capital punishment is a deterrent. Third, those who on economic grounds feel it is too expensive to build special prisons to constrain a growing army of killers. Fourth, those who feel that capital punishment remains society's ultimate line of defence against lawlessness, that it is a matter of protection of the individual and that it should not be surrendered. In this group are police officers and a growing number of citizens disturbed about increasing crimes of violence and murder.
Capital punishment is reserved for the capital crime of murder. In our society it has now become applicable only to those who kill police officers and prison guards and, in practical terms, not even to them. Quite a few police officers and guards have been killed and their killers have not been subjected to the ultimate sanction.

June 15, 1976
Capital Punishment
There are many kinds of murder, and perhaps it is useful to look at some of them. Murder, essentially, is the deliberate and cold-blooded taking of a human life. Some people believe that abortion comes within this definition. Curiously enough, some who shudder at taking the life of a person who has deliberately killed another are in favour of removing life from an urborn child. This indicates the contradictions inherent in questions of morality and ethics. The taking of life is not the issue here, because lives are taken every day in hospitals and rarely are there complaints. Doctors stick knives in people, remove their vital organs and place substitute parts in their bodies. This is accepted because the intent is to preserve life, although it is not always successful.
The intent of murder is to deprive a person of the right to live. A question arising out of this is whether one who deliberately takes the life of another person can continue to assert his own right to live. There has been a great deal of talk about crimes of passion, crimes committed in the heat of a moment's aberration, crimes committed to defend or to punish another person. These are regarded as one-shot crimes. The assumption is that a person who has once lost his or her head will not do so again. It is hard to see why this should be the case. The reverse would seem equally logical, and in fact is borne out too often by experience.
When one has gone through all the crimes of passion, crimes committed in the heat of the moment, crimes under emotional stress, and so on, there remains a solid body of criminal activity, including murder, undertaken coldly and deliberately for personal gain or personal advantage. There are people who murder for profit. An example was George Joseph Smith, in England, who drowned half a dozen women in the bath for their insurance. In this category are poisoners, of whom the records of criminality are eloquent. They are seldom caught with the first victim. Sometimes they are never caught.
There are many cases on record of people killing for mean or petty objectives, insurance benefits and similar questions of personal gain. This applies over the entire field of criminality, not merely murder. Arson, robbery, embezzlement, fraud and kidnapping are crimes in which the objective is the personal advantage of the criminal. Such criminals sometimes resort to violence, including murder. Many of those who claim that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder nevertheless would not want to do away with jail terms for breaking and entering, robbery with violence and similar crimes. They feel that while capital punishment is not a deterrent, a prison term is.
There is a new kind of crime. In recent years we have seen the emergence of a new type of crime-syndicated crime. This has led to a new type of capital crime, syndicated murder or, as it was once described, "murder incorporated." In this category murder is undertaken for a variety of reasons, largely mercenary, or to remove someone in the way of organized crime. Most people take a broad view of this kind of thing and believe that its proper place is on the TV screen or between book covers. Nevertheless, it happens.

With the spread of crime syndicate activities in the field of labour and industry, syndicated murder has made its appearance in those areas. We have also seen the emergence of a particularly evil type of crime once thought to belong to the dark ages, political assassination-not the kind with which we are familiar in this chamber, but with guns and bullets. One need only mention Martin Luther King, the Kennedys, to recall the vileness of this particular type of development. In Canada we had a case in October, 1970.
There has also been a resurgence of the crime of kidnapping, once punishable by death. Some kidnappings, like the Hearst kidnapping, are politically motivated, some motivated by gain, some both. Political motivation is also behind underground guerrilla activities and aircraft hijackings on an international scale. These activities have caused the loss of innocent lives. This kind of international guerrilla violence appears to be beyond control except through the administration of capital punishment. At least, the effect would be to discourage recruiting for movements of international violence.
Whether capital punishment or the threat of capital punishment is a deterrent, or not, I leave to others to resolve. In the context of protecting the rights of individual citizens, this becomes irrelevant. Nor do I intend to embark on statistics to show the rise in crimes of violence of a peculiarly sadistic character, including molestation of the young and helpless. All of these things may be symbols of a sickness in our society. Perhaps Judy LaMarsh can get to the bottom of that phenomenon. What I think can be taken for granted is that there has been, in the past decade, a notable increase in crimes of violence of the kind described above and this may account for the uneasiness of Canadians and their reluctance to surrender the ultimate protection which society affords.
There seems to be an idea abroad that our kind of society, a free society, has no right to defend itself. This is a fatal misapprehension. For many people, the issue is further complicated by a statement from Roman Catholic bishops urging that the state-that is, society-surrender its right to apply the ultimate penalty. The bishops, like others, are within their rights.
This is not, however, a question of faith or morals, and therefore others are equally within their right in disagreeing with the proposal. I know that in the constituency which I represent there is a great deal of uneasiness, in view of the rise in crimes of violence, about any proposal which appears to lessen society's ability to afford protection to its citizens. To many Canadians aware of the various facets of this proposal, the issue resolves itself into a few major considerations: first, the knowledge that there are in society certain classes of criminals who murder coldly and deliberately for personal gain or in line with the objectives of criminal groups or organizations.
In summary, then, many Canadians feel, and will continue to feel, regardless of what this House decides, that they have a right to resort to ultimate action to defend their lives, homes and families. The final consideration arises when an individual is found guilty, after due process of law, of having deliberately and wilfully taken the life of another person or persons. The state has a responsibility to see that society is protected from such a person. The
June 15, 1976

application of a fixed 25-year sentence does not provide the security that citizens feel they must have. Such a sentence will certainly be subjected to immense pressure toward a reduction, and governments which play politics with capital punishment cannot be relied upon not to bow to pressure to reduce the 25-year sentence. Can a 25-year sentence deter, if hanging does not?
The question of the moral responsibility of the state is one which concerns a number of people. There have been suggestions that the state has no right to take life. Let us look at self-defence. Any person has the right to defend his life. Individuals surrender this right to the state, as they surrender the right to make war and collect taxes for public purposes. This does not mean that an indivudal no longer has the right to defend himself. The individual in our society looks to the state to protect him in his daily activities to keep the streets, playgrounds and schoolyards safe. When the state is no longer able to guarantee protection of the individual and his rights, then the individual will resort to other methods.
Most people will feel that inability by the state to guarantee protection of property and person represents a betrayal of the fundamental rights of individuals in a free society. Such rights as protection of property and the person, and defence against aggression, are fundamental in any society, and the state which cannot fulfil these basic duties is inviting a collapse of public confidence.
The assertion of the state's right to exact the ultimate penalty necessary for the protection of the individual in society is not a question of hanging every person found guilty of murder; nor should the issue be placed on that basis. There is no question of that, nor has there been for at least a decade. Is the ultimate sanction necessary? The question is whether society, faced with an increase in crimes of violence and the emergence of new kinds of organized criminal activities, can preserve and guarantee the rights of its members without retaining the ultimate sanction. This does not involve, in any way, the automatic application of capital punishment in all cases. This determination should be taken out of the hands of cabinets and returned to juries, where it belongs.
The effect of placing the question of clemency in the hands of the government has made clemency a political issue of the most blatant kind. Clemency should not be a political football. Clemency should be a matter for juries to recommend on the basis of common sense and a knowledge of the facts. Faced with this issue, cabinets invariably take the road of least resistance, which in political terms means that the law is simply left in abeyance as it has been for several years. This has been a factor undermining the confidence of Canadians in the application of justice. The ultimate sanction should be applied only when there is no recommendation for clemency by a jury. On that basis, very few people in this country will face the penalty of hanging. Society should not be left without the protection which most Canadians feel they are entitled to as a way of safeguarding their lives and the lives of their families.
Finally, the artificial distinction between official protectors of the public peace and the general public should be discarded. A householder beaten to death in his own
Capital Punishment
home-and there have been many such cases-or patrons of a public place overtaken by a gang feud are as much entitled to the full protection of the law as are policemen and prison guards. Again, this is a matter which should revert to the collective wisdom of juries, and where there is no recommendation for clemency, the law should run its course. In this way, justice would be satisfied and at the same time the confidence of Canadians in their system of justice would be restored.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the matter would be discussed from the standpoint of the government's duty to protect society, rather than "hawkish" appeals to jailhouse sentimentality. There is very little emotionally appealing about someone who deliberately sets out to take away the life of an innocent person for reasons of personal gain, malice or self-aggrandisement. In summary, the question is this: Are we justified in depriving the citizen of his right to protection by the state?
There have been cases in recent months of persons committing murder while already having been convicted of a previous murder. We have granted bail to persons charged with murder. We have even released killers on weekend passes. The result is that citizens are uneasy and feel they are not being protected in the way in which they are entitled. Certainly, a bill which deprives the state of its power to act in protecting citizens from the ultimate crime of murder is not a good bill.
Most people will feel that the threat of 25 years imprisonment is not a good guarantee of protection in the case of a criminal who may already have killed once and may be fleeing from the scene of a crime while heavily armed and dangerous. If the threat of hanging is not a deterrent, why should the threat of 25 years in jail be a deterrent? If hanging is not a deterrent, nothing is. If hanging is not a deterrent, then it is silly to talk of putting criminals behind bars for armed robbery, rape and other crimes of violence. The ultimate conclusion is that nothing is a deterrent and you may as well let them all roam free, which is very nearly the situation at the present time.
A person who coldly and deliberately commits murder- and there are some in that category-forfeits his claim to life. A person found guilty of deliberate murder, under due process of law, certainly cannot claim the right to life, a right of which he has already deprived his victim and, in some cases, more than one victim. It is my contention that only a jury is in a position, having heard the evidence, to make a reasoned judgment on the question of capital punishment. Where a jury does not see fit to recommend mercy, then the government should not put itself in the position of going beyond the intentions of the jury. Under the circumstances, the law should be carried out.
Society must be protected against hijackers, urban guerrillas, professional killers and criminal syndicates part of whose stock-in-trade is murder. Recently, the editor of the Guiness Book of Records in Britain was callously, ruthlessly and deliberately executed for having dared to advocate capital punishment for terrorist killings. A society which cannot protect its own citizens against professional assassins is a society on the way out. It is issuing an invitation to anarchy. Far too many killers are murdering for a second or third time, encouraged by the loopholes and laxity of our laws and our system of criminal administra-
14506

June 15, 1976
Conflict of Interest
tion and bail requirements. Perhaps these are reasons surveys show that the majority of Canadians feel that for the sake of the protection they are entitled to have from society, the state should not give up the right to impose the ultimate sanction when it is necessary to do so.
That, Mr. Speaker, ends my contribution to this debate. I believe there are other members who would like to say a few more words.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East-Hants):: I could make my speech in about six minutes, Mr. Speaker, if members were willing to ignore the clock, but there may be one or two more who would wish to speak after me.
May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the Prime Minister's recently expressed concerns on the topic of conflict of interest, in view of the fact that the chairman of the anti-dumping tribunal has been actively promoting his private business interests in a large scale manner while holding a senior position in the employ of the government of Canada, and in view of the fact that these activities include lobbying of our military, including the chief of the defence staff, General J. Dextraze, and extolling the apparently dubious-according to our military tests-virtues of a Swedish rifle sight called "Aimpoint", for which he and his associates have been actively seeking exclusive marketing rights, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the activities of the chairman of the anti-dumping tribunal as they relate to his own private affairs, vis-a-vis his official duties, be investigated under the Inquiries Act, also that his activities with respect to contacting our chief of the defence staff, General J. Dextraze, as well as his relationship with financiers such as Mr. Jens Moe of Montreal, form part of the terms of reference for the inquiry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of conflicting reports in the Winnipeg Free Press of Saturday, June 12, concerning the financial problems of Air Canada in which an Air Canada public relations officer denied that problems existed because, according to him, Air Canada is subject to continuous external audit procedures, and since this is in direct conflict with the Estey report and known cases of financial mismanagement in the Air Canada finance branch, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That this House instruct representatives of the Ottawa firm of Cooper and Lybrand, chartered accountants for Air Canada, to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications along with the public relations officer for Air Canada to have them explain the financial fiasco in the Air Canada finance branch.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that in 1975 the outflow of funds from Canada in interest and dividend payments and service charges to foreign investors and companies reached a record $6 billion and is projected to be even higher this year, and that Canada's current account deficit will be at least $25 billion by the end of 1976, which illustrates that the Foreign Investment Review Act as it is now being administered is ineffective in controlling foreign investment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House instruct the government to administer the Act with a view to curtailing rather than facilitating foreign investment in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 which requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 15, 1976



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Given that the principle of the federal position on equalization had been presented to the provinces by the federal Minister of Finance in April, and that similar federal principles on cost sharing had been made available on June 8, will the Prime Minister explain why the federal government came to the June 14-15 conference unprepared to attach specific financial details in percentages, dollar terms, base years, possible options to their previous statements of principles?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. lady has been seriously misinformed. The proposal we made to the provinces yesterday was made for the first time to the provincial premiers. It is true that as a matter of courtesy to them, because it was a very complex and technical matter, we did brief their officials a week ago in order that the premiers would, indeed, understand what we were talking about. It was very complex.


An hon. Member:: I'm glad you made it easy for them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think we did make it easy for them, and they thanked us for having briefed them in advance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I told them we were always disposed to do that, but there was a difficulty because the opposition is very jealous of its position and it does not like us to do that before telling them. This is the kind of dilemma I found myself in on Friday when the hon. lady asked me to table certain documents and I said they had not been given to the premiers yet, so I would prefer to wait. The upshot is that we were making this proposal for the establishment of a program of financing for the first time yesterday.
Regardless of the figures, the premiers have not been able to say with any firmness yet whether they agree to one or other of the formulae that we proposed. We have indicated that if they would take some position in principle we would, indeed, be able to give their financial officers some figures at the July meeting of Ministers of Finance. That is the situation we are in, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fraser:: You just contradicted yourself.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is your problem, Mr. Fraser?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can now understand the dilemma of the provincial premiers in the last couple of days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Does the Prime Minister not consider that secrecy is being carried to the extreme when he convenes a closed session to discuss fiscal arrangements and then refuses to place the federal fiscal position on the table and, knowing that this was going to be his method of operation, why did the Prime Minister not inform the provinces that discussions would take place only on the level of general principles so they might have agreed to hold the conference in open session, thus providing the general public with an opportunity to witness this debate on principles to which the Prime Minister attaches so much importance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not that I attach importance to it, it is that we are talking about a co-operative system in respect of which we want to act with the understanding of the provinces. If, as the hon. lady suggests, we had brought in a statement of principles right away and said: Here are the amounts and this is what we are going to do whether you like it or not, I am sure the hon. lady would be full of indignation and ask why I did not ask them what they thought about the new scheme. I can understand why the hon. lady does not understand the scheme as she got the paper for the first time yesterday. The premiers have had this in their hands for a week. The lady should understand it is a basic departure from our previous practice. We are now giving the provinces what they have been asking for for years which is more fiscal room. I understand an hon. member opposite has a supplementary. Perhaps you would be good enough to recognize him, Mr. Speaker.


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS IN VIEW OF IMPORTANCE OF CONFERENCES
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could put forward a proposal which the Prime Minister might consider. Given that decisions involving the expenditure of billions of dollars affecting major policy areas in health, regional disparity, urban affairs and education are being made at federal-provincial conferences, the result of which has been to shift power from both federal and provincial parliaments to these conferences, thus altering significantly our federal system, would the Prime Minister-and I ask him this quite seriously-undertake to establish a special committee on federal-provincial relations so that parliamentarians would be more involved in this process and not restricted to mere ratification.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will undertake to do more than that, Mr. Speaker. I will undertake to put legislation before Parliament so that we can know what the opposition thinks about these things.


John Allen Fraser: Before or after you have made your deal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: One of the shared costs programs has to do with post-secondary education and the expiry date is next April. Another has been given a five-year notice which expires in 1980 I believe. There has been some discussion on an earlier expiry date if the provinces agree among themselves. So the House will have ample opportunity
95570 - 18)4

June 15, 1976
Oral Questions
right here in this chamber to say whether or not it agrees with the proposals. Surely, in respect of what is proposed in a scheme which involves the transfer of $5 billion in cash and in tax points to the provinces it is important that we inform the provinces that these present measures are coming to an end and that we have various options for renewal. We have made these options known to the provinces and the provinces at least have had the decency to give us some reaction to these proposals. I have not heard any from the hon. lady now.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You are hearing it now. Just listen.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE FUTURE EQUALIZATION FORMULA WILL PROVIDE FOR INEQUALITIES BETWEEN PROVINCES
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Before introducing legislation perhaps he might answer a couple more questions. The government has proposed two changes in health and education funding arrangements with the provinces; one, the per capita grants would seriously affect the poorer provinces which are less capable of providing matching funds. The additional tax room, of course, would be unequal in that it depends on the provincial tax base. Can the Prime Minister give assurance that any future equalization formula will recognize these inequalities and will in fact be sufficient for all provinces to maintain the standards of service provided in, say, the two or three wealthiest provinces.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the paper I presented to the provinces, and which was tabled in this House yesterday, answers some of the points raised by the hon. member. It indicates that our proposition would have the effect of helping in a general way the less fortunate provinces because they would not be shared-cost programs; they would not be tied to a 50 cent dollar offered to each province and therefore the poorer provinces would not be dependent on spending their 50 cents in order to get our 50 cents. What we have proposed at this time is an outright transfer either of tax points or cash or in fact a mixture of both. In this way the less fortunate provinces would receive the transfer without having to spend equivalent amounts themselves. This would be advantageous to them in the sense that in the past they have fallen behind in some of the expenditures because they could not afford to put the 50 cents into the program which drew the 50 cents from the federal government.
Now we are saying, you will have it regardless of what you spend, providing you spend our funds which we will offer you or our tax funds in the areas of health and post-secondary education. This seems an advantageous way of bringing more equity to the poor provinces and, more particularly, of not upsetting their priorities. We are not forcing them to enter into a certain field in order to qualify for federal help. They will get the help whether or not they do anything in the fields of health and education.

I think the hon. member would support this if he studied the theory.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is not theories we want, it is dollars.


POSSIBILITY OF WITHDRAWAL FROM EQUALIZATION SCHEMES
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is with respect only to the theories because the Prime Minister has not been willing yet to put dollar figures to any of these schemes. Could he indicate why at the same time as these two examples, the tax room and per capita grants were being established, which will undermine the poor provinces, a suggestion was also made that any adjustment or change in the equalization formula will in effect likely be a withdrawal rather than an increase in trying to establish some form of equitable service across the country. Perhaps he could explain it to the House because the provincial premiers have failed to understand it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must repeat my disagreement with the preamble of the question of the hon. member. Obviously he has not listened to my earlier answer. It is not meant to hurt, it is meant to help the less fortunate provinces. I can explain it again if the House wants me to repeat it. I see Mr. Speaker shaking his head.
With regard to the second part of the question, the hon. member is misinformed again. We are not proposing a withdrawal from the equalization schemes. We think that they are very important schemes for the equality of all regions in Canada. They were brought in years ago by a Liberal government, then they were modified by a Tory government and improved again by Liberal governments. We do not intend to withdraw them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What we have said to the provinces-there is no misunderstanding and I am convinced they did not say what the hon. member says they said-is that we were concerned with the rate of growth of the equalization payments in the past five and ten years. They have grown faster than the federal revenues out of which they have to be paid. We have told the provinces that as with our other programs we are trying to moderate the rate of growth of federal expenditure and that we are trying to do that also with these programs. I hope that when the opposition understand this, we will have their support.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I wonder if the Prime Minister can indicate-because he has referred directly to the growth of equalization payments over the last four or five years-whether he expressed the opinion to the premiers of the several provinces in receipt of equalization funds that they have spent too much on basic public services. In addition, why has the federal government taken such strong opposition to the possibility of different federal tax rates which might off-set some of the other proposals we discussed a moment or two ago?
June 15, 1976


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I fail to understand the suggestion on federal tax rates. If the hon. member wants to repeat it, I might be able to deal with it.


SUGGESTION GOVERNMENT ABANDONING CO-OPERATIVE FEDERALISM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the premiers who broke up and left the meeting at 11 o'clock this morning will, I am sure, see through the sophistry in which the Prime Minister has been indulging this afternoon. Would the Prime Minister agree that the new position taken by the federal government in the discussions that have just ended amounts to a complete abandonment of the approach taken by former Prime Minister Pearson on the question of co-operative federalism, and specifically does not the position taken now by the Prime Minister stop the federal government from showing leadership in a number of social areas of spending that his predecessor exercised and which were so instrumental as one means of establishing conditions of equality from coast to coast in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member suggests sophistry on my part but he gives no proof of that. I suggest that what he is saying is absolute rubbish and if he gives me time, I will prove it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECT ON PROVINCIAL REVENUES OF FEDERAL PROPOSALS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will have his chance to prove his case. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if his government has done an assessment on the effects on the revenues going to the provinces which would accrue to the provinces five years from now or would have accrued to the provinces five years past if the principle that his government has been putting forward on cost-sharing in the negotiations with the provinces in the last two days had been accepted in the past and would be accepted five years from now, specifically the proposal that the federal government offer a mixture of cash grants and increased tax revenues to the provinces? Have you got the figures and will you present them to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is confusing two questions, the established program item on the agenda and the equalization one. On the first part of his question, which I take it deals with equalization, the Minister of Finance gave some figures this morning which indicate quite clearly that equalization payments over the past five years have been growing at a rate of 20 per cent, whereas federal revenues have been growing at a rate of 16 per cent. We are not saying we are going to cut equalization back to zero. We are saying, and I hope we have the support of the House, that expenditures cannot continue growing faster than revenues without something happening to the economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are not proposing a withdrawal, I repeat, from these expenditures. The Minister of Finance indicated this morning that there were three approaches- a global approach, a representative tax approach and a mixture of both. We asked the provinces for their reactions to these various options and we got some reactions this morning. I expect we will get further reactions. We told them that when they knew which approach they prefer- and I know they will look at figures for themselves, since Quebec already had a presentation which indicated they had made some calculations as to what these approaches mean-we will discuss these various approaches with them. What we are saying is that we will continue to have equalization programs which are of utmost importance for our brand of federalism-which was also Mr. Pearson's brand of federalism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Who are you kidding?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They will not and should not, from the point of view of this side of the House, continue to grow at a rate which is faster than our revenues.


Steve Eugene Paproski: O'Hagan is doing a good job.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that was sophistry No. 2. As the Prime Minister knows, the minister of finance of Manitoba pointed out that his revenues have been going down simply because they cut taxes. If you want more revenue you raise your taxes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: My question to the Prime Minister, the one I asked him a minute ago, had nothing to do with equalization but had everything to do with cost sharing. I should like to repeat it. Does his government have estimates as to what the financial effects will be for the provinces five years from now in terms of their revenue position, in terms of payments from the federal government, if the federal government proposals are accepted? If he has those estimates would he provide them for members of the House because he did not provide them to the provincial premiers?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the provincial premiers can work on our proposals. We also indicated that we thought the cash portion of the federal grants should grow at a rate roughly proportionate to the rate of growth of the gross national product.


John Edward Broadbent: Why? What is the connection?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member asks why, what is the connection.


Mr. Hogan:: You are freezing social services.


John Edward Broadbent: What is the connection?

June 15, 1976
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will explain the connection for the hon. member, if he does not get too excited and is prepared to listen for a moment. These are long established programs; that is the nature of them. That is why we are prepared to give grants which are not tied grants, not conditional grants and not 50-50 grants. We are telling the provinces that, these programs having been established, we propose, for starters that they should grow at a rate roughly equal to the rate at which Canada is growing. If that is not an obvious connection-


An hon. Member:: It is not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We also indicated-


An hon. Member:: It is the status quo.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We also indicated to the provinces that if they have other views, they can tell us that, no, they think health expenditures should continue growing faster than the Canadian economy is growing.


John Allen Fraser: That is not the issue. What are the provinces going to get?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Maybe they should-


An hon. Member:: Another couple of steps and you'll reach the Mace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, maybe they should. We are now in this position: the two official opposition parties want expenditures for health, expenditures for hospitals, expenditures for medicare and, now, expenditures for equalization to grow faster than the country is growing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: That is not true.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is also the proposition before-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-Oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As the provinces have naturally said they are dissatisfied with the financial proposals and fiscal arrangements put forward during this conference, and as the Prime Minister and the government may also be tired of con-

stantly being asked to transfer to the provinces the fiscal fields that are rightly theirs, do the Prime Minister and government not consider it important to restore the financial situation in Canada by using the Bank of Canada and in so doing reducing federal expenditures? We are now spending almost $5 billion a year on debt servicing. That would enable the federal government to reduce its expenditures while giving the provinces a better tax base and financial system.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must say, first of all, that we have told the provinces that we are responding to the request they have been making for a long time, namely that their tax base be broadened by the transfer of tax points. That is what we are suggesting. So, it is not fair to say that the provinces did not react favourably to that suggestion. They are in the process of figuring out how much those points are worth in taxes, and so on and so forth. But as far as the principle goes, I am absolutely convinced that the province the hon. member has in mind certainly agrees with it.
As for the Bank of Canada and the suggestions of the hon. member, he may be right in making them. But I must say that no province made those suggestions, not even the Social Credit province of British Columbia.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. No doubt the Prime Minister is aware that such provinces as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia have made those requests a few years ago, and I think this government is perhaps slow to understand the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada. Is the Prime Minister, in 1976, in view of the financial dead end the provinces and the federal government are stuck in, not prepared to consider at least a little this way of holding the provinces without any prejudice to the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying the provinces are not considering it nor working towards it, I do not know. I am simply saying that the provinces did not make this proposal to us, not this morning nor yesterday. And I am saying that even the so-called Social Credit province of British Columbia did not make it. So perhaps the hon. member could talk with his colleagues from out there to make sure whether his ideas are good in their opinion.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister of which I believe the government House leader has given him some notice. Is it the position of the Prime Minister that the chairman of the anti-dumping tribunal, during his tenure of office, ought to devote his full time and attention to his official position and refrain from commercial activities of a private and personal nature either for his own benefit or the benefit of associates? I ask this question with particular
June 15, 1976

reference to Section 21, subsection 7 of the Anti-Dumping Act?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: If I may reply, Mr. Speaker. I received notice that the hon. member intended to ask the question. The chairman of the tribunal is absent from the city today. I was not able to reach him before the House met. I will take note of the Standing Order 43 and also this question. I hope to be able to report to the House further on this tomorrow.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Finance for his answer. I now ask him this: Is it the position of this government that activities of the chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal which seem to involve extensive and long-term efforts to secure marketing rights for various military and para-military products as well as other commodities, and his related activities in supplying information about bond market and interest rates in Canada for commercial ventures, and in lobbying such diverse organizations as the Canadian armed forces, and foreign military powers like Morocco, Egypt and Turkey, and reporting on tests by various armed forces for a rifle sight manufactured in Sweden for which the chairman of the anti-dumping tribunal sought and obtained exclusive marketing rights for North America, constitute acceptable behaviour?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making quite an attack on a public servant.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I can only say this. The hon. member has set out what amounts to a very detailed criticism of the activities of the chairman. This is all the more reason why I should have an opportunity of talking to the chairman in order to respond properly.


KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF FINANCE OF ALLEGED COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OF CHAIRMAN OF ANTI DUMPING TRIBUNAL
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance as the minister to whom Mr. Gauthier reports. Can the minister indicate if in the drawing up of the anti-dumping tribunal estimates or in any other conversations with Mr. Gauthier or others he was informed of the various dealings Mr. Gauthier has been having in countries around the world; not only Mr. Gauthier, but Mr. Bissonnette, another member of that tribunal?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have heard of these particular dealings. I should say that Mr. Gauthier retired as chairman of the anti-dumping tribunal in December last with the intention of taking on a new career. At the request of the government, he remained on contract on an acting basis to the end of this month. He did indicate to me that he would be undertaking another career which would not be in conflict with his present responsibilities, but that
Oral Questions
he would discharge his responsibilities as chairman of the anti-dumping tribunal until the end of this month.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Is the Minister of Finance willing to conduct an investigation forthwith to determine to what extent the lavish anti-dumping tribunal offices in Place Bell Canada have been used for private business purposes and to what extent foreign trips in the name of the tribunal, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, have in fact been made, at least in part, for private business reasons?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in my last answer I believe I referred to the anti-inflation tribunal rather than the anti-dumping tribunal. I wish to correct that. I undertook to make inquiries of the department on behalf of the hon. member for Central Nova. I will take into account the further allegations made by the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


AIR CANADA
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. For the first four months of this year, Air Canada shows a deficit of $14Vi million, $2 million more than the total deficit of $12'/2 million for last year. Financial analysis for Touche Ross and Company have stated that if Air Canada had realistic accounting applied to it, its loss last year would have been around $100 million. This is in addition to the charges of financial mismanagement laid by the Canadian Airline Employees Association. Will the Prime Minister now reconsider and direct the Auditor General to conduct an immediate audit into the Air Canada finance branch in Winnipeg?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made allegations before in this House. As has been indicated, the financial management of Air Canada was investigated not very long ago by a commission of inquiry. The report of that inquiry is before parliament. The minister has indicated on a number of occasions that in due course legislation will be coming forward in consequence of that. The minister also mentioned, and this has been the subject of discussion in the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, that Air Canada will in due course in the context of that legislation be called before the standing committee for its usual appearance. With those assurances, the hon. member will have adequate opportunity to put the questions which he has to the proper people, namely, the management of Air Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Will the parliamentary secretary give a firm date as to when the Air Canada officials will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications as charges are being laid daily by the news media and the national-


Some hon. Members:: Order.

June 15, 1976
Oral Questions


A. Daniel McKenzie: Can the parliamentary secretary give a firm commitment as to when the officials of Air Canada will be asked to appear before the committee?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, that is a subject to be determined in the proper course by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. In particular, it has already been the subject of discussion in the steering committee. I presume those discussions will go forward and an appropriate date will be arranged.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but in view of his absence, I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
Following the question I asked the minister last week concerning the Valdez family and the telephone call I received from his department, for which I want to thank the minister, and also the month of delay he gave that family, given the excellent reputation it enjoys and the fact that it could not be held responsible for the illegal entry of the husband in Canada, and in view of the humanitarian sentiments of the Valdez family, does the minister not think that time has come to interpret immigration regulations more humanely?


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately there is nothing I can add at this moment. The minister is aware of the question raised by the hon. member, and I think that within a few days he will be able to give him an answer.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SUGGESTION GOVERNMENT PUTTING CEILING ON SHARED-COST PROGRAMS
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It is in the same area as the question put by my leader about the substantial change.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You will have to do better.


Max Saltsman: I am sure that members opposite will be quite anxious to hear their Prime Minister respond to my question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: My question is with regard to the cost-shared programs and the departure of the government in terms of the open-endedness of those programs. The Prime

Minister insists this is not a departure from traditional policy. However, it seems to be a very important departure from traditional policy. The Prime Minister says the negotiations are open and that he has offered options to the provincial governments. It is the sort of option of whether they want to be shot, hanged or garroted. He said there is a ceiling or cap being put on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Max Saltsman: Will the Prime Minister level with the House of Commons and indicate whether this is a sharp departure from past government policy and if he intends to put a cap on expenditures of the provincial governments in these cost-shared programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is,
indeed, a sharp departure in one sense. It is acceding to what the provinces have been requesting for a long time, namely, that they should be allowed more flexibility in the spending of federal funds, that they would not be obliged to match dollar for dollar everything we spend in these areas of health and education. It is acceding to their request that they should have greater flexibility in the spending of these funds. Then again, the proposals would do away with the necessity for complicated accounting procedure to enable the federal government to see what the provinces are spending in their hospital insurance scheme, and so on. It is a concession to the provinces in another sense: they have been asking for more tax room and this proposal gives them more tax room.
What the hon. member is suggesting is that we are seeking not to make it open-ended. I must concede that he is right in his conception. We are saying we must be able to plan in the future, to know what our costs are likely to be; that they should not be automatically tied to any level of spending by provinces no matter how improvident or fanciful it might be; it has to be predictable so that we can budget properly. It is for this reason we are suggesting a rate of escalation roughly corresponding to the increase in the gross national product. I said to his leader that formula is debatable-we could hear representations with regard to that-but we are suggesting it should not be completely open-ended as was the case, perhaps, in the past.
We have brought before the House measures to cap some of these programs as the bill in the name of the Minister of Finance, presently before parliament, is doing. It is a question of whether we should set growth arbitrarily at a rate of 15 per cent, for instance, or whether we should say the growth ought to be held at a rate equivalent to the growth of the gross national product. A choice can be made. The hon. member who asked this question is a very responsible member and critic on financial matters and he will certainly understand that it is reasonable for the federal government and, indeed, for the provincial governments, to be able to plan future expenditures with some certainty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: I appreciate the right hon. gentleman's estimation of myself as reasonable and I will therefore ask him a reasonable question. I agree with him that governments have to be able to plan and that they should know
June 15, 1976

what their expenditures are likely to be. But that is not the point of the argument. What we are asking is this: why should something as important as health services or education be geared to the percentage growth of the gross national product any more than he would restrict, say, the growth of ESSO to the expansion in the GNP? I ask him whether he is prepared to find a formula which, while it might cap expenditures, would allow the growth of these important public services to be in excess of the increase in the GNP or of historic standards.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am certainly prepared to consider that proposition if it is put forward by the provinces. To my recollection, and I see the Minister of Finance is agreeing with me-at least, I think he is-the provinces have not made such a proposal. They, too, want to plan their future growth. Hon. members ask: why tie it to the gross national product? The premiers asked, as did hon. members opposite: why tie it to the gross national product? We said: why not? It is a reasonable basis and I explained the basis of that answer to the leader of the New Democratic Party. These are established programs. Health delivery services in Canada are among the best in the world-certainly they are among the most generous, and the arrangements for post-secondary education are very generously financed. It may perhaps be reasonable to say that they should not continue to grow at a rate of 15 per cent or 18 per cent when the economy is growing at a rate of 5 per cent or 10 per cent. That is the proposal we have put forward and which the provinces will consider.
Let me say, also, that this applies to the cash part of the grants. As far as the tax transfer is concerned it is, of course, not tied to anything but the rate of growth of the economy of the province which has the tax point.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We estimate that the rate of growth will be slightly in excess of that.


BASIS OF MINISTER'S VIEWS ON PROVISION OF ELECTRICITY FOR ATLANTIC PROVINCES-POSSIBILITY OF STUDY OF PROBLEM
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: If the Prime Minister were sincere about wishing to hear the views of the opposition he might have made a statement on motions instead of these rambling discourses.
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising from the position he has taken with respect to power rates in Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces.


Mr. Muir:: He said "To hell with Nova Scotia"; that is what he said.
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister tell me whether his views about the way in which power should be integrated in the maritime provinces and savings thus produced are based upon a detailed analysis which he is prepared to make public or whether they are based upon certain general approaches which he is advised are correct?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: They are based on information which all informed people understand-that is, if we are to be able to secure for the people in the maritime region sufficient electrical power for their future needs at a reasonable cost, let us say the lowest cost, we shall have to plan the electric power generation of the whole region. The time has come to forget planning on a provincial boundary basis. The time has come for a wider approach. My proposal to the premiers was that we should undertake a study which the federal government is prepared to fund completely. I went on to invite the maritime premiers to participate with us. I might say I have already received an acceptance in principle from one of the premiers on that aspect.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I take it that to date the minister's views are based upon general considerations and approaches he believes to be valid rather than on detailed studies. In view of the confusion which has been created by his statement of his position and the counter-charges which have come, for example, from Nova Scotia, I want to ask him whether the Government of Canada is prepared to have such a study made objectively in such a way that informed people can examine the data and reach an opinion, both here and in the maritimes, as to the best way in which to solve this horrendous difficulty facing the people of Nova Scotia in terms of power. Is the minister prepared to have such a study conducted in an open way?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have a very open mind on this question. I want to make it quite clear that I think the way to approach this is not to make a unilateral declaration that it will be done this way and that way and these are the parameters. It is very important that the federal government and the premiers of the maritime provinces agree on the best method of going about this very important task. I shall seek their advice as to how they feel the most informed kind of report can be put together.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry but this is a very important matter, and I am pursuing the issue because I should like to get to the bottom of it. I am asking the minister a very simple question. Quite apart from the views of the government of Nova Scotia or the government of any maritime province, is the minister prepared to have the study made openly and in public so that the public can be informed? If the minister wants a political attack he will get it, but I am trying to get to the bottom of this. As far as he is concerned, even though it may turn out that the provinces object to this kind of approach, is he prepared to have an open and public examination of this problem?


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would welcome a full, comprehensive, open and informed discussion. This may involve taking evidence in public, but quite clearly at some

June 15, 1976
Oral Questions
point the experts will have to put their heads together and a report will be written. When that report is written, I would expect it to be made public to the people of Atlantic Canada as well as to the members of this House.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Given the co-operative attitude of the federal government towards the provincial governments, has the Prime Minister been able to detect among his colleagues a more obvious willingness to patriate the Constitution, a move which would meet the wishes of the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Chambly for this important question. Indeed this problem has been discussed at some length by all the first ministers, and I think the most we can say at this stage is that the provinces asked me once again to wait for their August conference in Edmonton, where they will try to come to a consensus, to a better understanding of this problem. They are committed to report to me after this conference. Meanwhile, it would be premature for the federal government or Parliament to act without waiting to know what their attitude will be.


AIR TRANSPORT
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Inasmuch as both the air traffic controllers and the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association are concerned about the introduction of French into their working environment to the extent that both groups are prepared to strike, would the Prime Minister appoint a royal commission to look into the matter in an endeavour to assess the potential danger to the safety of passengers, air crews and aircraft?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the air traffic controllers and the airline pilots are right to be concerned about this matter, as the opposition and the government are also concerned. The Minister of Transport and his parliamentary secretary have said repeatedly that safety is the first and most important factor in this area. What we are asking all concerned-the workers, members of the opposition and indeed members on the government side-is to have an open mind on and objective approach to, this question. The hon. member knows that the former minister of transport and the present one have tried to study the results of applying bilingualism, first in visual flights and then more latterly in simulated and instrument flights. We have no precon-

ceptions, Mr. Speaker. We are deeply committed to bilingualism, but of course bilingualism would have to be shown to be compatible with the safety of passengers. All we are asking from the air traffic controllers and the pilots and everybody concerned is to have an open mind on this and not to decide the question by strike or otherwise before it is properly resolved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Inasmuch as the French airline pilots association has petitioned the government of France to declare that English be the only language of use at Charles de Gaulle, Orly and Le Bourget airports for controlling aircraft, and inasmuch as the French airline pilots have told our Air Canada and CP Air captains that, in their view, it would be the height of folly to use two languages in Canada for controlling aircraft, would the Prime Minister consider these facts and opinions and agree that international safety as well as domestic safety of air passengers, air crews and aircraft must be the first consideration and appoint a royal commission to bring out all the various factors?


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


William James Kempling: It is true.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, without at all accepting the argument that has just been put before the House, the hon. member knows very well that the Minister of Transport has already indicated his intention to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate this very area. Work is going forward on that particular commission. The minister is seeking a suitable replacement for the gentleman who resigned earlier from the commission and work will go forward on this important matter as quickly as it can.


INQUIRY AS TO NAMES OF POTENTIAL COMMISSIONERS SUBMITTED BY AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the parliamentary secretary following along the question he has just answered. Has CATCA submitted any potential names to the Minister of Transport in response to the minister's request? If so, when was that done and what has been the minister's response to any submissions that were made in terms of potential commissioners?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a submission was in fact received. I am afraid I cannot give the precise details that the hon. gentleman requests, but I can assure him that the minister and his officials are conducting a very broad search to try to find the very best possible people who can be found to do this very important job of inquiry.
June 15, 1976


CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MEMBERS IN EVENT OF STRIKE BY AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I put a further supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council. I think all of us have to admit that this is a volatile situation. I wonder whether the government has in place any contingency plans to ensure that members of parliament from all across the country get here in their places in the event of a strike in order to vote on Bill C-84? Have such contingency plans been made and could we have some advice from the President of the Privy Council in regard to this matter?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is one situation if there is a legal strike but it is a different situation if it is an illegal strike, and I certainly would not want to do anything that would encourage anyone in this country to go on strike illegally.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. In answer to a question of mine on May 31 the Solicitor General told the House that he was receiving the following day the Hansen report on the Millhaven gassings and beatings. In view of the fact that a considerable period of time has now elapsed, is the Solicitor General now able to say whether he has received the report, and will he undertake to table it in the House in its full and unabridged form?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I did meet with Miss Hansen the day following the question put by the hon. member and I discussed the report with her. While she had completed the writing of the report it was not yet ready for publication. She said it had to be proof read and other technical things had to be completed, but she promised to have it in my hands for tabling and publication before parliament adjourns; that is, before July 1.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Solicitor General would inform the House whether or not, on the basis of the report and investigation, it is contemplated that any criminal charges will be laid respecting the incident that took place in Millhaven in November of last year.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be more appropriate for me to make the report public before I made any statement such as requested by the hon. member. On the other hand, I should point out that any criminal charges would be laid by the government of Ontario through the Attorney General, not through the federal government.
Textile and Clothing Board



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I know hon. members would wish to join me in calling attention to the presence in the gallery of a most distinguished visitor in the person of His Excellency Seretse Khama, President of the Republic of Botswana.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DRESS PERMISSIBLE IN CHAMBER
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday, the hon. member for Palliser, supported by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, raised a point of order concerning dress in the chamber. Investigation reveals that while there may not be technical rules that are easily interpreted in precise terms, the standard which has been adhered to is that which has been enforced in the discretion of the Chair. Reference was made to the presence in the chamber yesterday of an hon. member who was not wearing a necktie in the ordinary sense of the word as we know it.
Representations have been received from other members, by correspondence, and it would seem appropriate-and I will take the first opportunity that ought to present itself the day after tommorrow-to discuss this matter with the House leaders in order to determine whether some expression of definition on this matter might be forthcoming from members, perhaps from the Committee on Procedure and Organization or the Committee on Management and Members' Services. In the meantime, I would propose that until such expression comes forward from either of the committees, or as otherwise suggested by the House leaders on Thursday, I will continue to rigidly enforce, and expect co-operation from all hon. members, the rules in respect of dress and decorum which have prevailed in this House since, so far as I am aware, its inception, one of which is that male hon. members of this House shall wear a shirt, a tie and a jacket, as has ordinarily been accepted up to this time.
I would indicate that if there is a feeling to the contrary, I would expect all hon. members in the interim to abide by and respect this rule, at least until such time as suggestions are made to the contrary and those suggestions are taken up by the House as a whole.


TEXTILE AND CLOTHING BOARD
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, a report on an inquiry respecting leather outerwear from the Textile and Clothing Board. I hope that this outerwear is satisfactory for wearing in the House!

June 15, 1976
Order Paper Questions MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Senate have passed certain bills.



ROYAL ASSENT

['Agreed.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received:
Government House Ottawa
June 15, 1976 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Jean Beetz, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 15th day of June at 9.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere, Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,520, 3,640, 4,427, 4,619, 5,120, 5,129, 5,141, 5,175, 5,234, 5,247, 5,424, 5,443, 5,465 and 5,535.


Mr. Cossitt: Did any person from the Prime Minister's Office communicate with the CTV Network on or about November 4, 1975 advising that a decision had been made not to allow any television cameras to take photographs of furnishings and equipment in the offices of members of the Cabinet and, if so (a) what is his name (b) who gave instructions for him to make such communication (c) for what reason was such decision made (d) had some members of the Cabinet already agreed to permit such photography to be taken on or about November 5, 1975 and who communicated with the Cabinet Ministers advising them that such permission would be out of order?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No. The only call to the CTV network which came from the PMO originated with the Press Office and was to deny the network's request to film the furnishings of the office of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Cossitt: What has been the entire cost to the taxpayer of all trips made outside Ottawa by the Prime Minister or any members of his family between the dates set out in Part 1 of Question No. 69?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A number of questions have been asked concerning specific trips during that period to which replies have been given. See the following questions answered during the First Session of the 30th Parliament: 25, 32, 1,158, 1,225, 1,226, 1,521, 2,333, 2,679, 2,708, 3,085, 3,120, 3,267, 3,900, 4,110, 5,121, 5,122, 5,123, 5,124, 5,125, 5,126, 5,127, 5,139, 5,140, 5,144 and 5,339. See also House of Commons Debates for February 3, 1976 in which it is stated in reply to question 69 that Members of the Prime Minister's family do not travel at public expense unless accompanying the Prime Minister by MOT or DND aircraft or by car.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Rockwood Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Nil.


Mr. Caccia: Does the 1975 edition of Revenue Canada's Taxation Statistics report that in the 1973 taxation year, 1,880,911 income tax returns listed income from unemployment insurance benefits and 1,068,902 returns listed old age pension income and, if so, what was the amount of income tax collected by the government (a) on its own behalf (b) on behalf of the provinces from (i) unemployment insurance benefits (ii) old age pension income for the 1973 taxation year?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: The numbers stated in the question for tax filers reporting Unemployment Insurance benefits and Old Age Security benefits are correct. Since under the Canadian income tax system the tax is levied on the sum total of income from all sources and not on individual components, it is not possible to provide accurate estimates of tax collected in respect of a given individual item.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many trips outside Ottawa have been made subsequent to those listed in the answer to Question No. 69, namely, since September 22, 1974, by the Prime Minister or any members of his family, in whole or in part, at public expense?
2.	In each case (a) by whom was the trip made (b) what places were visited (:) what was the purpose of the trip (d) what was the specific means of transportation (e) what was the total cost to the taxpayer (f) in all cases where applicable, was the trip made for private, holiday or political purposes?
June 15, 1976


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 and 2.
The information requested does not warrant a question on the Order Paper since, as stated in paragraph 4 of the reply to question 69 in the House of Commons Debates for February 3, 1976, information about trips of the Prime Minister is communicated to the media as a matter of course. The information sought is therefore already available from public sources accessible to the Honourable Member. See also paragraph 1 of reply to question 69 in which it is stated that members of the Prime Minister's family do not travel at public expense unless accompanying the Prime Minister by MOT or DND aircraft or by car. See also in the House of Commons Debates replies to questions about individual trips made since that date.


Mr. Cossitt: Since June 1, 1975, has the Prime Minister on any occasion used commercial aircraft for trips made to points outside Ottawa and, if so, in each case (a) on what dates (b) to what destinations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The information requested does not warrant a question on the Order Paper since, as stated in paragraph 4 of the reply to question 69 in the House of Commons Debates for February 3, 1976, information about trips of the Prime Minister is communicated to the media as a matter of course. The information sought is therefore already available from public sources accessible to the Honourable Member.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the Department of Communications given instructions to Bell Canada government telephone operators to listen in, check or otherwise monitor in any way, government Watts line calls at certain intervals to determine if there is conversation on the line and, if so (a) at intervals of how many seconds does such a procedure take place (b) what are the reasons justifying such instructions (c) are calls of Members of Parliament included in those checked?
2.	Have steps been taken to prevent the content of phone conversations being noted and (a) if so, what are such steps (b) if not (i) for what reason (ii) on what date will such steps be taken?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: 1. Yes. (a) The checks which do not exceed two seconds are carried out to ensure that lines are disconnected by the attendant on completion of a call. These checks are conducted on approximately 50 per cent of the operator handled calls, at the Ottawa switchboard complex, and the interval between checks depends on the volume of traffic being handled by the operator; (b) This practice is necessary because an automatic indication whether these lines are in use is not available with the switchboard equipment currently in use. Means to alleviate this situation have been incorporated in current plans to modify and improve the intercity voice network; (c) Calls arrive at random and as a consequence all are treated in the same manner regardless of the point of origination.
2.	All operating staff engaged in the Government of Canada switchboard complex are governed by Bell Canada policy regarding secrecy of communications, and it is understood by all such employees that the disclosure of any confidential information could result in the laying of criminal charges. This policy is enforced by supervisory
Order Paper Questions
staff during all hours of operation, and, once a year, relevant sections of the Criminal Code are reviewed and discussed with employees individually to remind them of their responsibilities.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many buildings in the National Capital Region are owned or leased by the government?
2.	(a) How many have automatic fire alarm systems (b) how many are connected with a central station?
3.	Do plans exist to improve the situation of automatic fire alarm systems being connected to a central station and, if so, what are they?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The
Department of Public Works manages 683 federally owned buildings and 253 leased buildings in the National Capital Region.
2.	(a) Automatic fire alarm systems are installed in 135 federally owned buildings and in 17 of the leased properties; (b) Eighty-three of the federally owned buildings and 10 of the leased buildings are connected to a central station system.
3.	There are no plans, at this time, to extend central station connections to buildings other than those recommended for such service by the Dominion Fire Commissioner. However, due to the installation charges and high recurring annual costs for testing and maintenance, a feasibility study is being made on the cost effectiveness of operating a federally owned central alarm receiving station.


Mr. Reynolds: What are the criteria used in the selection of Census Commissioners and what is the (a) length of appointment (b) renumeration?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports the following; Men or women may be considered for the position of Census Commissioner. The candidate must possess the following qualities: Personal; be in good physical condition; be mature, responsible, energetic, and conscientious; be a resident of the Census Commissioner District in which the duties are to be performed; be bilingual in those Census Commissioner Districts designated as bilingual; have the use of an automobile; be prepared to work in the evenings, on Saturdays and, at times, long hours. Administrative: be able to pass the Personnel Selection Test demonstrating an ability to understand written instructions and read maps; be able to organize efficiently and carry out given assignments; exercise good judgement in selecting suitable Census Representatives qualified to do the job; be able to train, direct, and supervise the work of others; show, through work history, an aptitude to undertake such functions. Candidates for Census Commissioner Positions are required to take a Personnel Selection Test and as well, they are required to undergo a personal interview conducted by staff from Statistics Canada. A Census Commissioner must not be connected in any way with the levying or collection of municipal or other taxes. Remuneration: Census Commissioners will receive $3,000

June 15, 1976
Order Paper Questions
for their duties in the 1976 Census, in three instalments: $500 on or about April 30, $500 on or about May 31, and the balance less the applicable deductions when the enumeration of the Census Commissioners District is completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Statistician. If authorized, mileage and other expenses as per Government Travel Regulations will be paid periodically as travel claims are submitted according to a predetermined schedule. Length of Appointment: Census Commissioners will receive training in three stages, in March, April and June covering all aspects of census work and are expected to begin work on the 1976 Census of Canada immediately following their first stage of training in March. It is expected that they will be involved in the Census part-time in March, fulltime during April, May and June, and again part-time until completion of duties in mid-July.


Mr. Marshall: With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,070, has the AntiInflation Board determined as yet its policy on establishing additional regional offices and what is now the position with regard to a request by the Government of Newfoundland to establish an office in the Province?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: In principle, the offices of the AntiInflation Board were established to serve the Regional Members of the Board in Halifax, Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. For example, the Halifax Member of the Board and Office serve the whole of the Atlantic Provinces. The Anti-Inflation Board is not considering the establishment of additional regional offices at this time.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the Prime Minister travel from Toronto to Ottawa on Air Canada on or about Saturday, April 24, 1976 and, if so (a) what was the flight number, time of departure from Toronto, and time of arrival in Ottawa (b) what are the names of all persons accompanying him and what are their job designations (c) what are all the reasons that the Prime Minister travelled on a regularly scheduled commercial flight (d) how is this consistent with the Prime Minister's frequently expressed reason for using government aircraft for pleasure and political purposes on the grounds that flights on regularly scheduled commercial aircraft do not meet with the approval of the RCMP and would be against their advice (e) has the RCMP changed its advice to the Prime Minister and, if so, on what date (f) has the Prime Minister changed his previous policy in that he will now travel on trips of a political or holiday nature on regularly scheduled commercial airlines (g) was there any cost to the taxpayer for this travel by the Prime Minister or any others accompanying him and, if so, what was the amount (h) while in Toronto, did the Prime Minister attend the annual meeting of the Ontario Liberal Party and, if so, did the Prime Minister or the Ontario Liberal Party, pay the cost of transportation from Toronto to Ottawa and, if not, will either one of them be billed for such costs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See replies to questions 69, Hansard 237, page 10579, dated 3 February 1976; 5339, Hansard 294, page 13153, dated 4 May 1976; and 5129 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,120, which stated in part that the $11,640 public cost of the Prime Minister's 1975 summer recess holiday trip to the Northwest Territories by DOT Jet Star had the Prime Minister's son and one guest on board, what is the name and the address and any other identifying details of the guest involved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171 (d) and (r).


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 5,144, which stated in part that the passenger list on the aircraft used at public expense by the Prime Minister from Quebec City to Ottawa on June 7, 1975, included a "guest", what is the name, address and any other identifying details of the "guest"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171 (d) and (r).


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is the government monitoring the effect of the 10$ excise tax imposed upon gasoline in the June 23, 1975 Budget upon the conservation of gasoline, particularly as it applies to the private passenger car and, if so, what device is employed to do so?
2.	(a) Has there been a significant reduction and, if so, by how much (b) are there any comparative statistics available for pre-tax consumption?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. Yes, by carefully reviewing motor gasoline consumption data against previous expectations.
2.	(a) and (b) In the first half of 1975, gasoline consumption in Canada increased by 4.8 per cent over the corresponding period in 1974. In the second half of 1975, after the imposition of the excise tax, the rate of growth from 1974 declined to 3.5 per cent. It would be premature to try to measure the contribution that the excise tax might have made to the moderation in the rate of growth but it undoubtedly had an effect. Furthermore, the government also anticipates that the excise tax will have a longer term effect on gasoline consumption to the extent that consumers shift to alternative means of transportation and purchase more efficient automobiles.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have had to rise in this House to bring attention to question No. 4040 which I placed on the order paper on February 6. About a month ago I asked whether an answer might not be provided. I still have not yet received the answer, even though I have had some assurance from the parliamentary secretary. I would dearly love to have the answer.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, on that point I join the hon. member in the concern he has expressed. There remain some 950 questions on the order paper which have not been replied to. We are endeavouring to have all those replies forthcoming before the end of this session. I fully recog-


June 15, 1976

nize that I indicated to the hon. member that I thought the question would be answered forthwith, and that was my understanding at the time. However, there are sometimes breakdowns in communication and perhaps the House is not as able to control the number of questions answered as it ought to be.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Paul Yewchuk: That this House views with great alarm the ill-considered and illogical decisions of the government which fail to give adequate priority to health research funding.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time in the past twelve months I have risen in this House to make a major address on the subject of medical research in this country, and this is because I think it is one of the most important subjects this House could deal with in terms of the effect it has on the ills and the life of Canadians everywhere. I do not think anyone would argue with the fact that medical research is an integral part of the health education system and, indeed, that it is as important as any other aspect of the health care delivery system.
I should like to look at some of the complaints we have heard from around the country resulting from the ill-considered policy the government has been following in regard to medical research and, indeed, in regard to research in general. We heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) before the committee not too long ago indicate that he supports slow growth and expansion of research in general and medical research in particular. If we examine the record of performance, we see there has been a slow but steady erosion of the research dollar on a pretty well continual basis since 1971. Indeed, this year there has been a freeze which has resulted in a substantial cut in research funds and research projects that have been under way for a long time the cut being necessary because of the uncontrolled inflation which still rages in this country.
We have a situation in which the priorities of this government fall under serious question and must be reassessed very carefully. The minister has told us that some 60 researchers left the country in the past year, while 100 have come in from the U.S. I think that if we look at the loss to our country in relation to the size of our population, and the loss to the United States in relation to the size of its population, we can see very clearly that our loss is much greater in terms of time and the cost of training of the people who have been leaving.
Medical Research
We note from the history of two months ago that some 40 per cent of ongoing research projects in this country have been terminated and that of the new applications which number in the vicinity of 400, only 10 per cent were accepted for funding as of April this year. I have here a letter which I want to read, because I think it indicates fairly clearly a story which has been repeated over and over in this country in recent months. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not here. I realize that he has been involved with the federal-provincial conference, but I understand it is now over and it cannot be used as an excuse for his not being here. I am also very sorry that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) is not here, because he is the individual who has a good deal to say about the kind of funding which takes place.
I think the absence of these two ministers indicates very clearly the attitude of the government toward research in general and medical research in particular. This is a shameful situation. Those ministers, who should be here and are not, should be thoroughly scolded by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I will now refer to this letter which comes from a researcher in Ontario, a man involved in the area of eye research. It reads as follows:
At the First International Congress of Eye Research in 1974, of several hundred delegates attending from around the world, I was the only Canadian present. As far as I know, our group is the only one in Canada at present, funded by the Medical Research Council of Canada, which is performing biochemical research on lens differentiation and cataract.
I am sure everyone knows what a cataract is. It is a disorder of the lens of the eye. It "turns the pupil grey" and makes it impossible for the possessor of such an eye to see very clearly. Later, when it becomes worse, the person cannot see at all. The letter continues:
Beginning in 1967, in my laboratory at the University of Western Ontario, we have carefully nurtured a program in research on the development of the eye lens. Studying the regular growth and differentiation of such normal cells may enable us to compare these normal processes to the abnormal ones in cancer cells. With this knowledge we may be better able to define what makes a tumour cell different.
We hope that our program will eventually result in information about the lens protein changes which appear to be the root cause of cataract formation. Such information would be invaluable in preventing certain types of cataract, especially senile cataract.
That refers to a cataract in an old person.
We have developed special techniques for growing cells of the lens outside the body on microscope slides, and in sterile bottles. Using these techniques we hope to be able to test different drugs for their effects in preventing the aggregation of the lens proteins which causes the lens to become milky in cataract. This milkiness may arise in much the same way that an egg white changes from clear to milky white when it is cooked. When scientists find drugs which will prevent this "milkiness" from appearing, or cause it to disappear, we may be able to treat many cataracts by eye drops.
At the present time the only possible treatment for cataracts is surgery. Because of this cataracts remain the leading cause of hospital admissions for eye operations in North America. In addition, approximately 15 per cent of all individuals in the United States who are considered legally blind have cataracts as the underlying cause.
I think the statistics indicate that the disease of cataract of the eye, which represents a leading cost in respect of hospital admissions in North America, could be resolved, with a saving of millions of dollars in respect of surgical

June 15, 1976
Medical Research
and other associated expenses. It is a clear indication that this is the kind of investment which indeed would be an investment rather than an expenditure. The letter continues:
Cataract surgery often is possible only after a long period of waiting for the cataract to ripen. While the cataract ripens, the afflicted person, who is often elderly, must endure a state of near-blindness and restricted activity. Both of these are bad for his attitude and over-all health.
Until this year, the main support for this research has been obtained from the Medical Research Council of Canada, and we have painstakingly built up a small team of research workers in my laboratory whose salaries and whose experiments are funded by an annual grant from the Medical Research Council.
The latest government funding increase to the Medical Research Council has limited its total budget to $48 million instead of the $55 million requested. My grant has been terminated. This means that I am to be granted only enough funds to keep my laboratory running until the end of November. Before then the team will be broken up, as some workers in the laboratory seek other employment. So even if the project were to be reinstated then, when the Medical Research Council meets again, much valuable time would be lost. If no last minute reprieve comes, Canada will have lost perhaps its only biochemical research group on lens development and cataract.
This gentleman touches pretty well on the key points with which we are concerned. I am sorry to see that the former minister who was recently evicted from the cabinet is scoffing at this whole business and seems to think it is funny that medical research is being cut, with the result that hundreds of projects are being disbanded and research teams are being disbanded and asked to undertake other work. If he thinks this is funny, I hope he will have the courage to get up in this House and explain this to the research people and to the citizens of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I do not know the name of the riding of the hon. member who just interjected, but perhaps that is a good thing. He is from Toronto, in any event, and he seems to exemplify the attitude other members on that side have taken. When a group known as Canadians for Health Research came to Ottawa on May 20 of this year and were receivd by members of the government party, rather than listen to the proposals and the brief presented by the group known as Canadians for Health Research, the Liberals at that time decided to assault the group for blackmailing the government because they expressed their views publicly.
Instead of taking a serious look at the problem, the Liberals took the position that the researchers were simply blackmailing the government for some kind of political motive. I think nothing could be further from the truth. The President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of National Health and Welfare have indicated that the freeze on medical research is necessary because we are in a period of restraint, and that somehow this kind of freeze will save Canadians millions of dollars. Because of that statement I want to point out the kind of savings successful research has produced for Canada and for the world.
First, I want to look at the field which is known as immunology. I have here a report from the United States which indicates that expenditures in research are very minor in nature in comparison with the savings which a country achieves in terms of hospital and medical costs. I am referring to a brief which was sent to our committee by

a researcher from the University of Manitoba. I should like to quote from it.
The brief suggests that the eradication of polio, which was dependent on basic Canadian research leading to the development of the Salk vaccine, is saving the U.S. treasury $2 billion a year. The discovery of the measles vaccine is saving about $180 million a year. Basic research alone on the eradication of Rh hemalytic disease in the newborn, by Dr. Bruce Chown of the University of Manitoba, is saving $60 million a year. The identification of the transfusion hepatitis virus is saving $100 million a year. Organ transplant immunology and replacement of dialysis is saving another $100 million a year.
Considering this very restricted area of research, namely, immunology, the conclusion was that based on the annual immunology research budget of $33 million, the annual cost benefit was $3.3 billion. In other words, the saving in hospital and other costs required to treat these diseases which were formerly not preventable was about 100 to 1, or for every $1 invested in research in immunology there has been a saving of $100 in the long run. I think that quite clearly shows that if the minister feels he is saving money for Canadians by cutting the health research budget, he is indeed misinformed and doing Canada a great disservice.
We have also heard members of the cabinet suggest that we do not really have to do research in this country because we can simply read the health journals and get without cost the finds of research done in other countries. I think that is a most irresponsible position to take. As a matter of fact, the minister who proudly lays claim to that view, the minister of science and technology, is in the House, and I am glad to see him here because I want him to know that this party disapproves vigorously of such an approach. Indeed, as a Canadian I am ashamed that a minister of our government would talk like that. That attitude can only bring us losses.
One of the factors we must consider is that if we have no well developed researchers, no well developed and well trained scientists in a given field, essentially what we have is no one accurately to interpret the research which is being done in other countries. Secondly, we know from past experience that if we have a well developed research centre located in our country at one of the universities, that centre attracts some of the best research people in the field, the result is that we have the best research people available in the world to teach our physicians, and thus we wind up with the best educated physicians possible.
So I do not think that we can accept the statement of the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) that we do not have to spend money on research ourselves, that we can simply act as parasites and take it from other countries and be as well off in the long run. That is another fallacy which I want to dispel.
If you look at our expenditures on health research in comparison with that of other countries-and I think the best country with which to compare ourselves is the United States-you will find that we are behind them. They are spending in the vicinity of four or five times the amount that we are spending, on a per capita basis. The result is that researchers who are not being funded adequately here often go south of the border where funds
June 15, 1976

seem to be much more easily available. What we have in this country is a government which claims to be committed to medical research but its actions have proven otherwise. We have had a "stop and go" policy in funding, making it virtually impossible to develop a feeling of stability and security in the research community.
I want to make some suggestions in the course of my remarks, in the hope that someone will take note of them. What we need is long-term planning incorporating a policy of long-term stability in the research field. There are several reasons for that, one of them being that it takes some 12 years to train a medical researcher at considerable cost, and it takes a number of years to assemble a research team, laboratory technicians and other workers, and to get a project under way. It seems almost criminal to decide, for no particular reason, to dismember such a team and to create a situation where the head of the team must either leave the country if he wants to continue research, or go into some other field of work. None of these reasons make good, logical sense.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare announced recently that there was to be a $2 million addition to the Medical Research Council funding for this year. That happens to be about 30 per cent of the amount required to bring research in this country up to last year's level. I suggest that what must be done immediately is a further $4.6 million allocation in order to allow the researchers to continue at last year's level. We, as a party, want to put forward a long-term policy, and I think a good suggestion that we should aim for is to not only stay at last year's level of activity in Canada but over the next five years catch up with the United States, West Germany, Sweden and other countries which so far have been ahead of us in terms of funding of medical research. This is an objective which this party has accepted as party policy.
The other things which we must consider are to accept once and for all that medical research is part and parcel of the health care delivery system and must be given adequate attention at all times to ensure that it survives and flourishes in this country. We must also consider giving sufficient funding and sufficient commitment to research to ensure that there is an adequate research base for education in the health field, to make sure that there is an expansion of scientific and technical knowledge as a basis for health care. We must improve the application of scientific principles to health care; we must support adequate training of research investigators in the health field and, finally, we must support research contributions to new knowledge in the health field.
Even though it may have been somewhat clumsily expressed, I have just outlined what I think would be an excellent long-term policy with the long-term objective of bringing Canada up to par with other developed countries in the world in the area of medical research. We recognize that we cannot be best in all fields. We agree, perhaps, that we should be doing more research in the areas in which we are particularly capable. At the same time, we must ensure that we have adequately trained people in a wide variety of fields. Perhaps we can work in some aspect of every field, although not in all aspects of every field. Only in this way can we expect that in the long term Canadians will be the beneficiaries of the best health care system in the
Medical Research
world. In the long run this is also the only way we can expect to improve the health care delivery system as far as keeping costs down and providing proper education for individuals who are providing our medical services.
The item I read at the beginning of my comments which dealt with an eye research project was of particular significance because the funding the researcher asked for was in the vicinity of $22,000 for this year to keep his project going. I want to point out very dramatically the kind of priorities this government decides upon when it cuts research into the development of cataracts on the eye. The Ottawa Citizen of March 23 ran a picture of an office, with the caption in big, black letters:


SPLENDOUR
[Stage Direction]
Urban affairs minister Barney Danson's office in the restored La Salle Academy on Sussex Drive, was enhanced by $37,400 worth of restoration work to return it to its original 19th century splendour.
I wonder whether there is something wrong with the priorities of the government, when it spends $37,400 on an office to bring it to its nineteenth century splendour but does not have $22,000 to fund a project on cataract
research.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: I think the fact that it was nineteenth century splendour reflects the thinking of this government which is perhaps even earlier than that century.


An hon. Member:: Seventeenth century.


Paul Yewchuk: The middle ages, or dark ages. I think that is where we are going if this government remains for very much longer.
I am glad to see the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) in the chamber. He is also guilty of the misuse of funds. A satellite was launched last fall, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you received a great, glossy brochure with pictures and beautiful drawings, the total cost of which was $17,000. I should like the minister to stand in this House and tell us why that brochure was necessary. What did it do to help the satellite perform its function? Was it really necessary? Could he not simply have written a letter and had his secretary type it to explain that a satellite was going up in the sky? That would not have cost anything. But to pay for the brochure, a research project somewhere in this country had to be cancelled. I have an example of such a project right here, Mr. Speaker.
Here is a letter from a researcher at the University of Manitoba who was trying to develop a method of treating cancer using the concept of immunology. This project was initiated in 1972-73 as a result of a pioneering observation that if particular drug-induced tumours of guinea pigs are infiltrated with certain kinds of cells they are able to kill rapidly-growing tumour cells in a test-tube. After an encouraging initial funding by the Medical Research Council for the next two years, an increase barely equivalent to the inflation rate was given, which was followed by a serious cut and a terminal grant this year. The project is

June 15, 1976
Medical Research
now being terminated-and all that was needed for this year was $18,000.
If the Secretary of State had not spent $17,000 on that fancy brochure, this cancer research project could have survived and may have found a cure for cancer. I hope the Secretary of State who is sitting there scratching his beard, feels very guilty about that gross abuse and misuse of public funds. There is a gross mix-up in what the priorities of this country should be. It seems to me that the only solution to overcome all the serious problems is to replace a government that has so little concern for the health of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: I should like the ministers to whom I have referred to look around this chamber and tell me which of their colleagues they would not mind dropping from a heart attack in the next year, or which one of their colleagues. I see the Minister of State for Science and Technology pointing at me, Mr. Speaker. That is very unkind of him, and I am sure he does not mean it. I should like him to look around on his own side and see which of his colleagues he would not mind dropping of cancer in the next five years or so.
That is exactly what is happening, with research. Instead of facing the problem and realizing the importance of it and funding it, we have an expenditure of $1.5 billion on Petro-Canada, a totally unnecessary structure. I do not know how many hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the Canada Development Corporation for no reason except political expediency. There is no way anybody can point to a need in this country for the Canada Development Corporation, yet it is using up hundreds of millions of dollars. Nobody can say that medical research is not useful or is not needed, yet it is being totally ignored. I cannot understand that. I have some other suggestions to make, Mr. Speaker. The average amount of money requested for many of the research projects which have been cancelled-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my gratitude to hon. members. I thought they on the other side were asleep, and perhaps that is the only reason they allowed me to carry on. But because of their curtesy I shall try to wind up very quickly.
The Prime Minister's swimming pool could have funded ten research projects-$250,000 divided by 25, and you have ten research projects. Then there is the Canada Development Corporation, which you can figure out for yourself. If we abandoned Petro-Canada and put that money into medical research, there would be no need to seek money elsewhere, not only to match medical research in the United States but to surpass it. It seems to me that if the members of cabinet, who control spending in this country, gave the matter some thought, they could only come to the

conclusion that their priorities must be re-examined, changed and placed in the proper order so that Canadians could receive what they expect from their government. They should have the kind of funding for medical research to which people residing in a well developed, industrialized, western nation are entitled. Until this is done, I am afraid there is no way that I can support this government in anything it does.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House in the name of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), criticizing, as it does, the failure of the government to give adequate priority to health research funding, is timely. Not only is it timely in a general sense; it is significant in that it is being debated this very day when the federal government has taken a stand with the provinces in which it has produced a total package of which changes with respect to health research funding is a significant part. We want to indicate our full support of the criticism implied in this motion. If I may say so without calling for too many retorts from my friends of the Progressive Conservative party, I think we support this motion more strongly than they do.


Mr. Alexander:: I do not understand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was hoping an hon. member would interject so that I could explain what I have in mind. The motion being debated in the House today has been moved by a Progressive Conservative member and it has the support of that party. At the same time, Progressive Conservative premiers, such as Premier Lougheed and Premier Davis, are saying they are satisfied with the fiscal rearrangements the federal government is proposing.


Mr. Grafftey:: That is a non sequitur.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The two positions are completely and totally unrelated. When any provinces, especially wealthy provinces, agree to a rearrangement of the fiscal priorities of this country so that less wealthy provinces have to work that much harder for health and education, it means that the federal government will feel it can cut back on medical research funding or, at least, not keep such funding in line with the cost requirements of that research. I hope that my hon. friends to my right who have taken an important and significant stand in the House on this matter today, as they have on other occasions, will have some heart-to-heart talks with the conservative premiers of the wealthy provinces.
If Canada is to be one country from coast to coast, a country in which Canadians across this land have an equal opportunity to participate in important and essential services, I suggest that we must make a better deal for our people than the sort of deal which has resulted from the last two days of federal-provincial conference. As I say, that conference dealt generally with post-secondary education and health in all its aspects, but the question of medical research and funding for such research is part of the whole package. If the government, with the blessing of Premier Lougheed and Premier Davis, gets away with providing less money to the provinces for health services,
June 15, 1976

it will also get away with providing less money for medical research. In our view, this situation is most serious. All that has been highlighted by what happened yesterday and today, and it is of great importance to Canada.
I agree with my friends of the official opposition about the particular importance of funding for medical research. Answering questions today, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) seemed to have a great deal to say about a particular cliche, namely, that we should not spend at a rate faster than the growth of the gross national product. Actually, I have seldom seen the Prime Minister as excited as he was today. He walked out into the aisle farther than I have ever seen him walk since he became Prime Minister. On two occasions he turned round and addressed himself to members of the Liberal party. That was his only way of getting applause.


William Heward Grafftey: That was one of our finer parliamentary moments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That cliche sounds plausible. The proposition that one's expenditures should not increase by more than the growth of the gross national product certainly should apply to total expenditures, whether one is speaking of a state or a person. But it is also true that a person or state can rearrange spending priorities. Although our total expenditures may not increase beyond the increase in revenues, or the increase in the gross national product, it is still desirable and possible to cut down on some other things to make sure that we can adequately and properly fund health delivery services and health research. We contend, therefore, that the government's policies are shortsighted and unfair to the Canadian people, both of this generation and of future generations, in that they do not provide for the maintenance of adequate funding for medical research.
I presume we shall be given figures today to show that more dollars will be spent this year than were spent last year, and perhaps more dollars will be spent next year than this year on medical research. But everyone in this House knows that we are concerned not just about the number of dollars but about the value of those dollars. Unless the number of dollars spent in this area increases in proportion to today's costs, it means that a cap has been put on expenditures, or funding for medical research has been frozen. The result will be that persons engaged in medical research will have to give up their projects, go elsewhere, or what have you, and Canadians both of this and future generations will suffer thereby. With all these considerations in mind, we welcome the present opportunity to speak on this subject today. We regret that the rules of the House do not allow us to vote on this motion. If we could vote, we would support the motion.
I know that we all get letters when an issue of any importance comes up. Perhaps reading from letters is not the most hard working way to make a speech. When I looked at my file today, I found many letters on this subject. I confess I was impressed by the number of letters I received from doctors and professors of medicine across the country, particularly from my own city of Winnipeg. The hon. member for Athabasca spoke of some researchers in my city. I do not intend to read at length from letters, but I do wish to indicate the kinds of persons from whom I
Medical Research
have received letters on this subject. Many of them have also written to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), or the Prime Minister. Copies of those letters were sent to me.
I was sent a letter by Dr. J. C. Haworth, professor of paediatrics, director of clinical investigation and research at the Children's Health Sciences Centre in Winnipeg. Another letter came from Professor Alec Sehon, director of the medical research council group for allergy research of the faculty of medicine, University of Manitoba. Another letter came from Professor Frank S. LaBelle, department of pharmacology and therapeutics, faculty of medicine, University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg. Next, one came from Professor Roma Z. Hawirko, department of microbiology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. Then there is a letter from Dr. Victor Chernick, of the department of paediatrics, University of Manitoba. Actually, he is paediatrician in chief at the children's centre. Then I got a letter from Sister Ruth C. Hickey, who is vice-president of St. Boniface General Hospital in Winnipeg. There is also a letter from Professor Peter E. Dresel of the department of pharmacology and therapeutics, faculty of medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Professional people of that calibre and standing in the community, busy as they are, do not take time to write letters to the government or members of parliament unless the issue about which they write is of deep concern. As I say, most of the letters I have had are letters which have also been sent to various responsible ministers. All the letters make the same point strongly: this cutback is a case of false economy. By cutting back on funding for health research, or limiting funding in such a way that health research cannot be carried on, we are betraying Canadians of this and future generations. I mentioned a number of letters that I received, all of them from Winnipeg. I would like to mention one letter that came from somewhere else in the country because I want to quote briefly from it. It is from Dr. H. Arnold Steinberg, chairman, Canadians for Health Research, whose address is Westmount, Quebec.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought I would get a response from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) on that. The Minister of Public Works is also the Minister of State for Science and Technology, and I gather that is the capacity in which he will be dealing with this matter. It is always good to have him on these subjects, although I had hoped the Minister of National Health and Welfare might have been here as well. At any rate, I want to read a couple of paragraphs from Dr. Steinberg's letter because I think it sums up what most of these letters have said. I quote:
The quantity and quality of medical research affects every Canadian in two principal ways: 1. It is the only practical answer to reducing health care costs by finding cures to those diseases which randomly strike thousands of people necessitating government expenditures now in excess of $7 billion annually.
That point in itself should be enough to move this government to reconsider its position. One sure way to decrease the cost of medical care is to do something about

June 15, 1976
Medical Research
medical research. I quote the second point set out in Dr. Steinberg's letter:
2. Most outstanding physicians and surgeons are attracted to those teaching hospitals that carry on active research programs, a majority of which are funded by the Medical Research Council. While allowing a 16 per cent increase in overall expeditures, the government has frozen the MRC budget at last year's level. This has caused a major cutback in medical research activity. Leading investigators are being forced to move elsewhere to conduct their research work. This will have a profound impact on the quality of hospital care and on the quality of teaching of medicine across the country.
We are dealing with something that is extremely serious. As I have already said, the decisions made, or at least handed down, by the federal government at the conference centre over the past day or two have been very serious for the future of this country. I suggest the most serious of all is what is being done in the field of health.
There is one other quotation I should like to read from one of my many letters from doctors. This comes from Dr. Peter E. Dresel of Winnipeg, to whom I have already referred. I quote this because I think it makes the point very clear.
Because the budget of this council-
The reference is to the Medical Research Council.
-is already so small, because it has not kept pace with inflation in the costs of research for some years, and because it supports a very high percentage of all medical research in Canada, the budget freeze will cause inordinate damage to Canadian medicine. Medical research is a prerequisite to good medical teaching and is basic to medical practice and the delivery of health care. The development of young teacher-scientists and of clinicians with skill in investigative medicine must remain a high priority for a government interested in the future welfare of the Canadian people.
Canadian researchers are in general agreement that government spending must be controlled.
That, of course, fits in with the line of thinking of the government. Although a copy of this letter was sent to me, the original was sent to the Minister of Finance.
They do not ask for special treatment, but only that the guidelines of limited increases be applied to extramural research as they are to all government efforts.
In my view, the fact that so many professors and doctors, experts in the health field, are expressing this kind of concern underlines the seriousness of this issue. I hope the government can be persuaded by this day's debate. It is in addition to other days we have had on this subject to review the position with respect to the way it is treating the Medical Research Council and, in turn, medical research in this country.
I have referred to various letters from professionals in the health field, doctors and professors. I have another letter I should like to read. It does not come from the medical field itself, but from one of the societies that is concerned about a particular disease, the ravages of which hit a great many Canadians. I shall read from the spring, 1976, publication of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. On one page of this report there is an open letter signed by Peter J. Lowry, the president of that society. It is headed "Tell your MP", and reads as follows:
I'm mad. And you should be too. Our federal government is sticking its head so far into the sand on the question of medical research funding that the only part of the legislators' anatomy still above ground is that part which offers the right amount of flesh for a good kick.

Sure, I believe in restraint in government spending. But not when the end result could be the further weakening of our ability to do medical research in this country. The federal government has restricted the growth of Medical Research Council funds to the point that we are in danger of losing many of our best researchers. This is not just shortsighted or stupid; it's a crime against future generations of Canadians.
It has been said that some members of the federal cabinet believe that Canada can just import medical research because it is too expensive for Canada to make a contribution. Obviously that kind of thinking was not around when Canada gave insulin to the world. Wiser Parliaments in the past have given Canada a strong and vital medical research capability and the momentum has to be maintained.
We are working too hard in this Society to raise funds for research to see the ground cut out from under us by federal penny-pinching. The basic funding has to be done by the government. Funds for MS research cannot be spent on the facilities or administration of research centres- our funds are for work on solving the mystery of MS. Even the funds from the Cancer Society and the Heart Foundation are inadequate to fill the gap being left by the federal government.
So, tell your MP. Tell you friends to tell their MP. If you don't and your friends don't, then your MP will continue to think that nobody cares about medical research. Tell your MP that you care. Write him or her a friendly letter saying you care. Don't send an unfriendly letter- they are probably getting too many of those; or just send this editorial-they'll get the message. You don't need to put a stamp on it if you mail it to your MP at the House of Commons, Ottawa.
I have brought two types of quotations before the House. One is the professional opinion of doctors and professors in our medical schools. But I have read Mr. Lowry's letter because it represents the view of one society that is working in a particular disease area, trying to help the people who suffer from it. I suspect that represents the thinking of the lay people who work in all kinds of societies that are concerned with health problems. This is a very serious situation. It is enough to make some people angry, as Mr. Lowry says in his letter. I hope the government will seriously consider the message that this House is trying to give to it today; that it is false economy and a betrayal of Canadians, both now and in the future, not to provide adequate funding for medical research in Canada.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the mover, the hon. member for Athabaska (M. Yewchuk), who is giving us an opportunity today to deal with a subject on which I feel very strongly since the last budget was introduced because this government does not give health research financing the importance it should have.
Every time I had an opportunity to do so I constantly drew the attention of the government to those deficiencies, and asked it to review its policy on medical research, particularly at the university level. I am happy to hear today what the first two parties of the opposition that preceeded me had to say so the whole opposition could rise to protest the government's policy on research and be the spokesmen for the entire medical corps, all students, all research technicians across Canada who blame and particularly urge this government to come back on its position in the area of research.
On March 29, 1976, dealing with that famous Anti-Inflation Act I pointed out to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) that he was imposing a freeze in priority areas such as assistance to university research while at the same time increasing budgets like national defence or construe-
June 15, 1976

tion of federal buildings. Later on, as reported in issue No. 54 of April 12, 1976, I asked the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) at a sitting of the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, as follows:
Mr. Minister, I was listening to you a while ago, I do not have a copy of your statement, but you mentioned increases, mainly concerning cost-sharing programs with the industry for industrial research. Is it the intention of your government in the future to go for these cost-sharing programs and to progressively abandon the research made by the universities?
Here is what the minister replied:
Mr. Chairman, as I said a while ago, the researches made by the universities are at a high level comparatively to other western countries and Japan.
Always that comparison with other countries without wondering about the needs of this country.
But the need for industrial research is more urgent; this is more evident in the industry and mostly in the private industry, which we are trying to upgrade as much as possible, through all of our assistance programs, which are cost shared programs, as you mentioned a while ago.
We want to keep on doing that, but at the same time, I think we should not neglect anything and permit a small increase for the research in the universities which is also very important for the graduates.
Coming back to this matter, I suggest this is moderate in my view, being a 4 per cent reduction only as compared to other areas. Don't you believe that such restraint may be responsible for the loss of many scientific researchers? The minister answered, and I quote:
I think there will be loss, not as much of our scientists than of the technicians, whose salaries increase every year. That is good as far as the industry is concerned; if they quit the university to go to the industry where they are needed, that is not a bad thing. But if they quit their research to do something else, then, that is a total loss. Unfortunately, this year, there will be a decrease in the number of laboratory technicians in the universities due to the salary increase of the technicians and there will be no comparable increase of money supplied in the budgets of the universities.
This means, Mr. Speaker, the minister was aware of our losses of technicians and university research scientists.
I put another question to the minister:
Looking through the past years, I notice, unfortunately that our research people, you say you would be happy if they went to Canadian industry, but unfortunately they leave the country. Going to the States, I was surprised to meet many Canadians whose studies we have financed and who are down there because they cannot live in Canada.
They cannot find work in Canada and use their knowledge to serve their country. I talked with those people and it is not because they want to live out there, it is because they could not live here.
Do you think that danger will grow by decreasing the reasearch budget of the universities? It is nice to say that the industry needs them, we will try to supply them to the industry, but they have to be trained.
The minister also tells us that he is well aware of that problem but he cannot do otherwise. I think we have got evidence. I want to quote from a letter which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) quoted a few moments ago. I thought he was going to quote the name of the group. Let me complete his quotation by simply naming the group of medical researchers whose letter he quoted:
I wrote to this particular group asking it to describe itself. I received the following answer:
Medical Research
About three months ago, the medical research group was created on the initiative of a group of responsible citizens, of organizations of voluntary people and medical researchers following the government decision to freeze the budget of the Medical Research Council. After only a few meetings, the movement now gathers citizens from one ocean to the other and the groups are made up of thousands of Canadians from all over the country.
I think the minister knows something about this group because not only they came to meet Mr. Steinberg but they also came to meet us and the minister too.
The organization has several major objectives including drawing the attention of the public to the role played by medical research in the daily activities of each Canadian.
This is followed by the passage read by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I shall not repeat this passage, but I would simply like to mention, after I met this group of university physicians who are called active researchers, what we can deduce from the protests made by these research groups:
According to official government estimates for 1976-77, the three subsidized councils will have the same amount as last year for university research:
Mr. Speaker, the same amount with a cost of living increase of 12 to 15 per cent means a reduction.
Canada Council, $27.7 million Medical Research Council, $48.8 million National Research Council, $91.3 million
Last year, the NRC gave out $78.9 million in scholarships and research grants. The present disagreement concerns only the bookkeeping of the government. For instance, for 1976-77, grants in the field of atomic research were included in the NRC budget and the difference between last year's budget and that for 1976-77 is nearly entirely allocated to atomic research.
And the department says: We have not reduced grants! If everything is aimed at atomic research, how can you operate a research project?
The same estimates show that the federal government will increase its expenditures by about 16 per cent. In that case, why should scientists suffer greater restrictions than the government since the freeze it has imposed will mean the elimination of 10 to 15 per cent of all research projects?


ACCOUNT OF RECENT MEETING BETWEEN MINISTER C. M. DRURY AND 80 RESEARCHERS FROM OTTAWA UNIVERSITY
[Stage Direction]
Here are a few questions that the researchers asked:
Researchers: They are trying to convince the minister that the combined effect of the lack of government assistance and inflation are endangering research efforts in Canada.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: He said repeatedly that we were living in a year of restrictions and that everybody should make the sacrifices necessary to stop inflation.
This is not what is being done at national defence, Mr. Speaker.
Researchers: In their opinion, the current financial conditions discourage young graduates from going into research. They wonder where future scientists will come from.
We probably wait for them to come up from the United States, while we force ours to go over there. And the question is the following:
Question-Does the government intend to support only the best research and let the remaining aside? Does the government realize that

June 15, 1976
Medical Research
the scientists who are forced to leave research will never go back to it? Has it considered the impact of such a loss? Will these people be able to find adequate jobs elsewhere?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: He disappointed his audience by answering only to the last question, saying that if those highly educated people were unable to get a job elsewhere, it is because the university was doing a bad job ...
That is easy to say, Mr, Speaker. You get all the evidence you want when you visit universities, and meet groups of graduate researchers and you can see how sincere and dedicated they are; when a minister dares speak that way, I find it a bit exaggerated.
There is no doubt that the freeze ordered by the government does not represent a decision based on a scientific policy but rather a financial decision. Indeed, when he was asked in the House whether he was aware that the recent cuts would be a mortal blow to researchers, the Hon. Jean Chretien, president of the Treasury Board, replied that he did not agree with that assumption. The scientists note two long-term effects from those cuts: the manpower problem and that of the level of health care. As for manpower, the scientists are concerned that researchers who will be dismissed will never come back, that many technicians will lose their jobs and that the young scientists will not have an opportunity to make a career in research.
Recently, two University of Manitoba professors wrote to the federal members to explain the importance of manpower. About health care, the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists stated the following:
Solutions to problems and the practical application of knowledge can only be provided by active research programs undertaken in Canada. As professionals involved in genetics, we regret that Canadians at every level will eventually have to suffer from those short-term budgetary decisions.
You have heard the voices of a group of university researchers across Canada. I have in my hand the opinion of the Quebec researchers: "Quebec researchers look at the future with cautious confidence". I do not have time to read the whole document but it is significant that they said, quote:
Quebec researchers are badly affected by the financial crisis involving university research in Canada. Quebec researchers are emerging from this long and hard winter of cuts in financial research more determined than ever while at the horizon there seem to appear the first signs of the unfreezing of federal sources of financing.
The crisis prompted them to tighten their ranks and work together to join the common front of Canadian scientists for a pressure campaign on Ottawa. Then, they mentioned in this article the most critically affected areas, among which, medical biology. As for biology, I had the opportunity, during the year, to follow from a distance a group of researchers in the University of Ottawa. There I was able to realize the plight of those groups, in the field of finance and equipment. The trouble they had getting the material necessary for their projects. Not only did they have difficulty to raise the funds necessary for their projects, 50 per cent only since they gave 50 per cent of their time for nothing-but they did not even have enough money to buy instruments and material for their projects. It is then that I saw the shortcomings or the lack of understanding of the government in the area of university research.
Recently I met the Canadian association of professors in the University of Ottawa who had sent me this letter which I quote:
You are no doubt already aware that the Minister of Health has announced that the freeze on medical research financing is lifted and that the council would get an additional $2 million. Surely this is good news for the researchers who are members of our association. This will allow a number of research teams to keep going, which would otherwise have been, as you have underlined, broken up because of lack of funds. Nevertheless, this increased funding does not make allowance for cost increases brought about by the current inflation rate.
In our opinion, however, it is rather unreasonable that the government should increase subsidies for the Medical Research Council without increasing those for university research done under the National Research Council and under the Canada Council. The National Research Council finances university research in non-medical fields such as agriculture, forestry, biology, chemistry, physics and geology. As for the Canada Council, it finances university research in the fields of humanities and social sciences. The CAUT is presently urging Mr. Drury and Mr. Faulkner to see to it that the NRC and the Canada Council get additional funds the same way as the Medical Research Council. We would then be very grateful to you for helping us bring pressure to bear on the government. On the other hand, if we could be of any help in providing you with additional information . ..
And I got plenty of it, but I will not have time to quote much of it since the time allotted to me has elapsed; but I have here all the necessary tables to show the two ministers concerned the evidence that there is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to deprive any member, so in conclusion I just want to say that there is certainly discrimination, first of all, at the university research level in respect of other fields and especially discrimination against industrial research.
I believe that too much importance is given to industry. Industry and industrial research are important, but priority should go to medical research. Further, if we want to keep our technicians, we have to take hold of the situation. We must keep technicians in our universities so that they will not only train other technicians, but also take part in the research being conducted in our country, so that we must not always rely on other countries, as I heard the minister say. If that is not done, we have all the American technicians and they can bring us all the new discoveries. If we continue to rely on the United States to live, tomorrow we will be forced to go and buy all our food supplies south of the border.
I believe time has come for Canada to wake up, to live as a responsible country and to keep our men in places to be able to ensure the required medical care to our people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I recognize the hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury).

June 15, 1976


An hon. Member:: Now we will hear the good news.


An hon. Member:: Where is Yewchuk?


Steve Eugene Paproski: He had to go to a graduation. His daughter is graduating, but he will be back.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say to the hon. minister that the member who moved the motion and brought on this debate this afternoon has to attend the graduation of his daughter. He is sorry that he will miss the minister's speech, but he will be back in half an hour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Corbin:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot see the opposition getting excited over a thing like that. After we have listened to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) in respect of our own ministers, he should take his own pill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Penner:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, it does seem that the opposition might well think about planning their days with a little more care. Hon. members opposite knew, for example, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) could not be present today because of the conference of first ministers, and that the parliamentary secretary to the minister had to be absent. The hon. member opposite who moved the motion has to be away for an event that is important to him. Surely a little forethought in choosing the subject and the right day would do a great deal to enhance the prestige of this institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest this is not a point of order but is getting into the area of debate.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we are addressing ourselves to a motion which stands in the name of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). I appreciate the fact that he has other obligations and duties to perform, but I certainly agree with the point just made, that it would seem difficult to take seriously a party which has put forward a motion and has complained when that group chooses a day on which they know in advance that the minister had out of town obligations, and knew in advance that the parliamentary secretary was not only out of town but out of the country on government duty. That group also chose a day when the mover of the motion merely had time to have his say, for what it is worth, and then depart on other duties. This may be a method of getting some words on the record, but it hardly constitutes what in my view would be a debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If, unfortunately, the hon. member for Athabasca could not afford the time to be present to hear what is said on the subject on which he speaks, one can hardly expect him to be taken very seriously.
Medical Research


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, all those who have spoken so far have suggested that perhaps the government should take another look at its priorities. Some of their suggestions were thoughtful, but some were, unfortunately, a little less than ludicrous. I will comment on those suggestions later.
In relation to the question of priorities, perhaps one should look at this problem of research, particularly medical research, in the larger perspective. We have in Canada quite an investment in research which is carried out in a number of ways, a number of places and funded from a number of sources. One should recognize that research, basically, is an investment in the future, and to the extent it is not done one is not being prudent in preparing for the future. If all one's wealth and resources are devoted to research, namely, an investment in the future, then the present never arrives. We have to strike a balance between making adequate investment in the future, based on an act of faith, and enjoyment of the present.
A survey conducted in this country in 1973 by OECD indicates that on a per capita basis research in industry in Canada appeared, by comparison with similar research being done in other countries, to be virtually at the bottom of the list. We ranked ninth. When one looks at the quantum of research in Canada in industry, compared with the quantum of research in other OECD countries in industry, he will find we ranked nine out of ten countries. Having regard to research done in government laboratories, on a per capita basis Canada ranked third among OECD countries. Clearly, by this measure we are doing a fair proportion, if all the others are right, of our research in government and a very low proportion indeed in industry.
In respect of research in universities and institutions of higher education, we ranked fourth among OECD countries, exceeded on a per capita basis only by Sweden, Germany and the Unites States. This indicates that our effort must urgently be on the highest priority for fostering research and innovative processes in the manufacturing industry where we are away behind our industrial competitors, the other OECD countries. To this end, a number of government incentive programs were devised. There was a general decision taken that here is where all the additional resources we can find should be directed toward installing more research or more innovative capacity in industry, given that in comparison with our OECD competitors we were up at the top of the procession in respect of research conducted in and by the institutions of higher learning and universities. It is against this background that one looks at the numbers which have been brought out today. I would suggest that far from lagging behind in respect of research, including medical research conducted in the universities in teaching hospitals, Canada ranks high compared to the OECD countries which should provide a reasonable basis for comparison.
I should point out that what we classify in Canada as medical research is performed or is funded or supported not only by the Medical Research Council but by some other agencies. In fact there is, in the current year, devoted to medical research something in the order of $100 million, and in round numbers about half of that comes through the

June 15, 1976
Medical Research
Medical Research Council. Another fraction, about $12 million, comes from the Department of National Health and Welfare quite independently and distinct from the Medical Research Council. The balance, about $35 million, is funded by institutes of higher education, by provincial governments and, very importantly, by private organizations which this year will be putting up some $20 million.
This means that today, when one directs attention purely to the phenomenon or the mechanism of the Medical Research Council, one is not referring to the whole medical research structure. However, the Medical Research Council, as I think everyone will agree, is in the process of doing very good and very useful work. There is little, if any, suggestion that any of the money put through the Medical Research Council is ineffectively or wastefully used. This is my own view, which I believe is shared by most members of the House. But the Medical Research Council is a relatively recent creation.
Some years ago the medical research on behalf of the federal government was largely carried out by the National Research Council. In the 1960s the Medical Research Council was brought into existence as a separate granting council and it has grown from nothing, then, to the position where it has a budget currently, as I indicated, of very close to $50 million per annum. Its growth in terms of funds available to it in the period 1970-71 to 1975-76 has been of the order of 49 per cent in current dollars, or 1 per cent in real terms. Those who talk about cutbacks even in real terms are unaware of the fact that there has been no slipback in respect of real improvement in the Medical Research Council during that period.
If one looks at the period 1970-71 to and including the current year, the rate of growth in nominal terms has been 61 per cent, which is not a bad rate of growth over a period of some seven years. In the same period there has been a real growth in the order of 2 per cent. This, then, is the answer to those who talk of cutbacks.
I am not suggesting for a moment that this is all the Medical Research Council wants, nor indeed all a great many of us here in this House would like to see put at the disposal of the Medical Research Council or, indeed, the other granting councils for research purposes. Prudent people-and I think most members of this House are prudent-like to see the largest possible investment in the future while still meeting current demands which have to be met. In the current year I think we are all sharing in this process of endeavouring to limit the growth in expenditures by all Canadians, including the federal government. This process of limiting growth is a difficult one. It is one in which I think everyone, including researchers and medical researchers, would want to play their part. As I say, even in real terms, discounting inflation, the Medical Research Council over the period 1970 to 1976 has shown a real growth as I indicated.
A number of instances have been put forward where researchers have felt that their particular grants had either been limited or terminated unreasonably. Certainly, the termination or limitation was a source of intense dissatisfaction. However, in real terms the funds have been growing year by year and the allocation of those funds, both those that are continuing and the increases, is made on the basis of value judgment by the doctors' peers. This, I

think-and most people would agree-is the best system we have been able to devise to get the fairest allocation of funds of this sort in very complex and frequently competing fields.
Hon. members will realize that the budget of the Medical Research Council has received continuous increasing support, and I hope this will be so in the future. I have indicated in dollars the share of the total research funds for medical research which passed through the Medical Research Council.
I would like to say that the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Athabasca was rather harsh in his judgment not only of the government's motivation but also of its actions. I hope that shortly, perhaps this weekend, he will be able to return to his native province and invite Albertans, as the government of Alberta has indicated it will do, to participate in a substantial grant through the Heritage fund to cancer research. I have not included this prospective large sum of money in the figures I have quoted because so far the government of Alberta has only indicated an interest, rather than a firm intention, in undertaking this funding. I think the hon. member for Athabasca would be pleased if the government of Alberta were to come through with funds for this very worth-while cause.
The hon. member offered some suggestions as to how the system of funding could be improved. One of his suggestions was that more money should be allocated. That is an easy answer, but at a time of limited funds for all federal as well as provincial government operations, more money is no answer at all; it is merely a form of escapism. However, I suggest that one of the problems in relation to the council was what he called the stop-and-go nature of the grants, the uncertainty among the recipients as to how much money will be granted and for how long they might receive it.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has recognized this problem, and perhaps the hon. member for Athabasca got this idea from the minister himself at a committee meeting when the minister indicated that work was going forward within his department to try to see if grants by the council could not be reorganized to provide more certainty of continuity than perhaps has been the case in the past. Improvements could be made in this area even without additional funds. Certainly the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I support this kind of initiative.
The hon. member for Athabasca suggested that we should catch up with both the U.S. and Sweden in the area of medical research. Perhaps this is desirable in terms of giving ourselves a glow of well-being, but given the fact, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pointed out as recently as this morning, that we are in the situation of trying to consume more in a year than we are able or willing to produce-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Did he just find that out this morning?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No doubt the hon. member has been absent or he would have heard this on many other occasions. I said the Prime Minister pointed this out again as recently as this morning.
June 15, 1976


Steve Eugene Paproski: We will hear about it again in 1978.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: While it might be attractive to think that we are doing more in medical research than either the U.S. or Sweden, this is perhaps another case where our ambitions outstrip our abilities to perform. Consequently, we are in the process now of having to make selections between what we can do and what we cannot do, what we want to do and what we want not to do. In the case of medical research, case histories have been read out to the House. This could go on forever. The list of human ailments is almost without end, and the list of people who would be interested in pursuing cures for them is also very large indeed. The fact of the matter is that we as a country cannot afford to undertake all the research that requires to be done, given the limited resources both in people and in money that we have available for this purpose. Selections have to be made and the method of making these selections in this area is through the granting councils.
It has been suggested that the Medical Research Council has been denied the amount of money that they need in the current year to keep up with their level of operations in the previous year. I am told that the advice was given to the Minister of National Health and Welfare some months ago that in order to maintain the November, 1975, level of activity in the current year an additional sum of $1.2 million would be needed. The minister was able to find in his departmental budget, from other prospective activities, the sum of $2 million which was allocated to the Medical Research Council, so that the allegation that the council does not have sufficient funds this year to keep with last year's activities is demonstrably unfounded. Indeed, more money than the minimum they said was needed has been furnished to the council.
This is not, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said on a number of occasions, as much of national resources going through the Medical Research Council for medical research as we would like to see. To be quite frank, this is not as much as I would like to see. One hopes that with the intention of the government to reorganize the three granting councils-which, unfortunately, given our legislative timetable, is not possible before June 30, which, however, with the co-operation of the opposition I hope we will be able to process through the legislative machine next fall-the cause of research will be better served.
With that legislation, the prospects for the new science and engineering council, the humanities and social science council and the Medical Research Council working closer together to adequately serve the cause of research in the universities will be much better than at the moment.
The hon. member for Athabasca indicated, rather loosely I felt, that the cause of research in Canada was "totally neglected", to use his words, by the government. I would suggest that in the case of medical research, continuous real growth, after discounting inflation over the period of the seven years 1 have sketched, does not correspond to total neglect. Like so many other things, I have indicated it is not as much and as often as a number of us would like, of course. Those who are worried about the lack of investment, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg
Medical Research
North Centre (Mr. Knowles), should remember that in the current year we are operating within a framework of rather severely limited resources, but this does not represent a cutback in any sense of the term.
The hon. member for Athabasca made one statement which I should like flatly to contradict. On the strength of some rather dubious arithmetic he indicated that proportionately more researchers were leaving Canada for the United States than were coming here, and that we as a country are providing the training for them at our cost and thus are the net losers. I am advised that from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, 24 Canadian researchers went to the United States and 58 came from the United States to Canada, a net gain of around 100 per cent of the Canadian movement. This is not simply an isolated phenomenon peculiar to this one year, but is a trend that has been persistent for the last few years. Those who try to bolster a weak case with this kind of phony endeavour to frighten people weaken what is a good cause by trying to support it with fallacies.
The hon. member for Athabasca also indicated that I said somewhere, sometime, that we should depend on the United States for our research. I am not sure of his exact words, but they are so foreign to my notion of what it should be that I could not quite catch them.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I think he said there was a duplication of research.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. minister, but the time allotted to him has expired. Is there unanimous consent to allow the minister to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members on both sides of the House for allowing me to participate at some length over my regular time in the debate. In respect of the importation of technology, I made the statement that we in Canada-and this applies particularly to industrial research and, to a minor degree, to a number of other fields-are in a unique position in the world. I said at the outset of these remarks that the OECD comparative survey of Canada and the other OECD countries indicated that very much less research was being carried on in industry in Canada than in the other OECD countries. I suggested that the reason for this is the unique position in which we in Canada find ourselves. We have access, at relatively low cost, to the greatest source of new technology in the world, the United States. We, alone, are privileged to be allowed to avail ourselves of this: we are allowed to be the transferee of this technology in a way that the other OECD countries are not. Not only that, but we get it at bargain rates.
It has, consequently, not been necessary for a long time for Canadian industrialists to invest in their own research, because they can get it easily and cheaply from the United States. This has resulted in relatively little investment by Canadian industry in research because of the lack of necessity for it. Information on innovations can be obtained relatively easily and cheaply from our neighbour to the south. Access to it and the economics of it are not
95570 - 19
June 15, 1976

Medical Research
available to industrialists in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Germany, France or Japan.
While this has resulted in economies for us and has given us, in investment terms, an advantage over the years, it makes us very vulnerable to the possible drying up of this source of technology for one reason or another. It is the view of the government that we should develop more self-sufficiency and more innovative capacity in our own industry. A number of incentive programs have been provided to that end. That, however, is perhaps not relevant to the question we are dealing with this afternoon, namely, medical research.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made an eloquent plea for more resources for this worthy purpose- a plea which I support in principle: I do not condemn it. I want, and would like to see, as much of it as possible but, as I indicated earlier, there are limits in a difficult year- and this is a restrictive year, in fiscal terms-to the kind of increase and investment that the hon. member is seeking. He did say that one way of reducing health costs is to do something about medical research. With that I cannot entirely agree. I commend him for his support of medical research and more medical research. The suggestion that the way to reduce health costs in Canada is with more medical research is only partly true. If one looks at the record of our expenditures on medical research one will see they have been rising year by year for the past ten years. But rising even faster have been per capita expenditures on health care. One could, in a statistical way, show that the faster our expenditures on medical research grew, the more our responsibilities for health delivery grew.
[DOT] <1700)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I may tell the minister that I am prepared to stand by that statement as one I would make, but may I ask if he recalls that I read it from the letter which came from Westmount?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I suppose, as the representative of that distinguished constituency I would be ill-advised to suggest that any one of my constituents could ever be wrong. That constituent was very likely quoting something which came from Winnipeg.
The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) indicated-

... in his speech that almost all the increase allotted to the National Research Council would go this year into atomic research. It is only fair that there should have been an increase of almost $10 million earmarked for the National Research Council project, namely the TRIUMF accelerator at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. The hon. member must know that, though this is a meson accelerator in the nuclear field, it will serve mainly in medical research. I attended the inauguration of the very new institute where this accelerator will be used to treat cancer. He describes the additional expenditures to be made this year as being devoted to atomic research. In fact,

these will be mostly medical research. To my mind, it must be clearly understood the research is being conducted in the field of health rather than that of destruction or weaponry.

He also, in a philosophical way, suggested that I told some students and faculty at the University of Ottawa that if a university graduate were unable to secure employment in the subject in which he had been trained, the university had not done its job. I wish to make it clear that my remark really was this: the most useful formation intellec-tuelle which a university can give any young man or woman is that of adaptability. If all you want to learn is a repetitive skill and to apply it without changing it or yourself, you should go to a vocational training school. You go to university to learn how to take existing knowledge and apply it in new and different ways in new and different situations. That is what I mean by adaptability. If the university has not succeeded in inspiring the graduate or in making him, or her, able to do this, I can only say that a graduate like that has not been able to get out of his university training that for which most people go to university.
Over the years the government has followed a policy of consistent support for medical research. As I said earlier the fact that the medical research budget has increased fourfold in the last ten years indicates that commitment. Hon. members should understand that the budget of the Medical Research Council does not represent the total amount of money spent on medical research in this country. The total funding provided in 1976-77 for medical research is, as I said earlier, in the order of $100 million, of which about 63 per cent consists of the contribution of the federal government alone.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the next hon. member, it is my duty at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Air Canada-Dispute with employees of finance branch in Winnipeg-Government action to settle; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Request for report on alleged break-in of Quebec newspaper office by members of the force; the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise)-Agriculture-Request for embargo on importation of cheese.
June 15, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Yewchuk:
That this House views with great alarm the ill-considered and illogical decisions of the government which fail to give adequate priority to health research funding.
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I must initially compliment the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) for introducing the motion condemning the government's lack of support for medical research in Canada and outlining deficiencies in the government's program for sustaining a viable medical research community.
I am glad to see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) back in the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have not been away.


John Robert Holmes: I was surprised to hear him say almost in his opening comments that the NDP is as concerned, perhaps more concerned, about medical research as is my party. I suggest that if he reviews Hansard and testimony given before the standing committee he will find that, at least while I have been a member of this House, my party has been most concerned about medical research.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But what about the Tory premiers? How concerned are they?


John Robert Holmes: I noticed that the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) conveniently managed to defuse this afternoon's debate which, basically, has to do with medical research in Canada. He used arguments which have been used in the past. Although he spoke of funds for research being available from provincial sources, federal sources, and private individuals, it is important to remember that today we are debating the federal government's direct responsibility in medical research.
Since my first election in 1972 to the House of Commons the issue of adequate funding for medical research has been a recurrent theme. The biomedical research community has limped from one financial crisis to another. We have seen a reduction in the spending of constant dollars, a termination of programs of excellence, a rejection of projects submitted by highly qualified scientists, the introduction of disincentives which do not entice able young men and women to take up research careers, and a lack of long term fiscal policies to ensure stability and responsible growth in the research community.
If one were to examine all speeches made in this House since I became a member, examine testimony presented before the standing committee, look carefully at the annual reports of the Medical Research Council, assess the great volume of correspondence members have received on this subject, and read the editorials and reports in newspapers on this subject, one point above all would become obvious, that is that the federal government has been and is pre-
Medical Research
pared to sacrifice the medical research community, on the basis of a very feeble excuse that the relatively small amount of money required for its continued viability is not present. We should be very clear in this respect what we are talking about. For example, in this fiscal year we are talking about a sum of money less than the interest incurred by the federal government in terms of the Orion program or the federal funds allocated to Habitat which, I understand, by all criteria has been a failure. Therefore we are talking about relatively small sums of money.
[DOT] (mo)
If one compares the moneys required to sustain a constant and steady growth in the research committed vis-avis the money committed to a variety of other government programs during my four years in this House of Commons, it must lead one to ask why the continued disinterest by the government in biomedical research. Its propensity for spending in recent years, and I understand there is a projected increase of 16 per cent for this coming year, makes a mockery out of the statement that it cannot find an additional $2 million or $3 million for this present fiscal year.
Why has the government refused to develop a long-term policy to ensure the stability of this very significant component of our health care system? Surely strategy that would ensure the future health of our most important resource, people, should receive the same attention as the government attempt to develop an energy policy, which I remind hon. members for the most part is a non-renewable resource.
The answers to these questions are by no means clear. However, I think it is worth noting that an unprecedented dissection of the health care system has occurred since the introduction of the Hospital and Diagnostic Services Act and medicare. I believe it is the rapidly escalating cost of medical care and not health that has precipitated the debate as to how the health professions function today. I want to emphasize that. It is the escalating cost of medicare and not health which has really precipitated this debate.
The preoccupation with health care costs has produced an endless stream of reports frequently suggesting oversimplistic solutions to solve a very complex problem. Indeed, it has become fashionable in recent years to become an instant expert with ready made solutions. The least that can be said for these well meaning individuals is their uniformity in failing to resolve the shortcomings in the health system with their suggestions.
I do not for a moment under emphasize the importance of escalating health costs, and indeed there is ample evidence to substantiate that the consumer cost of hospital care has risen rapidly and that furthermore, contrary to the impressions created by the government, the costs continue to be unevenly and inequitably distributed.
The reasons for the rising costs are many. Some are understandable, justifiable, and inevitable. In many instances the rising costs of certain kinds of medical care have often been presented in highly misleading ways that do not take into account the changes in the sophistication of services offered. For example, to compare the cost of treatment for a heart attack 15 years ago with what it costs
95570-19%

June 15, 1976
Medical Research
to treat the same illness today in a coronary care unit is like comparing the cost of a Model T Ford and the cost of a Concorde jetliner just because both represent a vehicle of transportation.
The ongoing debate in the search for alternate forms of delivery of health care to ensure the services of the right kind, at the right time, to the right person, has propelled us into the era of consumerism.
I have not sensed major objections to assessing the shortcomings to our health care system and to developing tools for measuring the quality of care rendered both in and out of hospital.
During this period of self-examination and social analysis, which is characteristic of any society or problem plagued by unrest and uncertainty, the government has seen the failure of its social programs to correct internal problems and yet is reticent to admit these failures. Health care has not escaped this examination.
The government, in my view, has not recognized the complexities of the problems, and because the basic issues do not fit into convenient and conventional economic and political pigeonholes they are interpreted as being insolu-able, with the predictable consequences of inaction, overreaction, or the introduction of simplistic solutions. Biomedical research has been one of the victims of this mentality.
I believe it is fair to say that during the forties and fifties there was a simplistic belief that unlimited funds put into biomedical research would produce instant understanding of disease entities that would be transferred immediately to the market place and to the consumer. During my post graduate years in Washington, D.C., this Alice in Wonderland attiteude was expressed by the presence of such institutions as the National Institute of Health. Notwithstanding the gains in knowledge and major accomplishments of biomedical research which I will refer to in a moment, this unrealistic attitude which was never fostered by the scientific community at that time or today resulted in unrealistic expectations which have overshadowed monumental accomplishments. I have sensed this attitude is present in the government and has been interpreted by the government as a failure of the research community to resolve complex health problems which, unfortunately, have permeated its thinking with the resultant effect that biomedical research has been designated as a non-priority item.
It should be noted in passing that the government has an unmistakable loss of confidence in the value and effectiveness of science. It touches science in general, and medicine in particular. I was glad that the Minister of State for Science and Technology was here today because we talked about this recently on an opposition day where science in general was the focal point of that particular debate.
The government, in its inability to grasp the complexities of the problem, has sown the seeds of doubt about the capacity of science to solve our health problems. The doubt generated by the government has not unexpectedly generated intense public anxiety, and genuine fears have suddenly been replaced by acupuncture, copper bracelets, transcendental meditation, or astrology.

The question can be logically asked what has transpired in recent years to generate such criticism of our health care system? Why is it fashionable for so many to say there is nothing good in the system? I believe the answer to that question, at least in part, is related to the misunderstanding of technology, and not economics, as suggested by the government.
How many in this Chamber recall when our hospitals were filled with lobar pneumonia, when meningococal meningitis and scarlet fever took their annual toll, when outbreaks of diptheria would plague urban centres, when typhoid fever and erysipilas would cause fear and panic at the mere mention of the word? With the introduction of sulfanamides, penicillin, streptomycin, and other antibiotics a revolution in hospital care evolved, unprecedented in history.
Can you visualize the problems in hospital financing today if all the subsequent changes that have occurred, including hospital insurance, had not been accompanied by the technology to control major infectious diseases? It is important for each of us to recall this bit of history since it has and will repeat itself in the future if we continue to get results to which we are entitled from the biomedical research community.
The point which must be emphasized, and which the government has not grasped, is that the future of hospital economies is clearly bound up with the future of medical science and technology. In this I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Dr. Lewis Thomas, president of the Memorial Sloan-Ket-tering Cancer Centre in New York, and professor of Pathology and Medicine at the Cornell University College of Medicine, has defined three quite different levels of technology in medicine so unlike each other that practitioners of medicine and the analysts of our system will be in trouble if the differences are not understood and kept separate.
First there is the large body of what he termed "nontechnology". This is impossible to measure in terms of its capacity to alter either the natural course of disease or its eventual outcome. A great deal of money is spent on this, and it is highly valued by the professionals as well as by the patients. It consists of what is commonly called supportive therapy and includes what physicians must now do for patients with intractable cancer, severe rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, strokes, and advanced cirrhosis, to name but a few. The cost of this non-technology is very high and getting higher all the time. It represents the efforts not only of a substantial segment of the health professionals in coping with this kind of problem but obviously represents a substantial segment of the health sector.
The second form of technology defined by Dr. Thomas is termed "half-way technology". This represents the kind of actions which must be taken after the fact to compensate for the incapacitating effects of certain diseases. It is a technology designed to make up for disease or to postpone death. Examples in recent years are transplantations of hearts, kidneys, livers, other organs, and the invention of artificial organs. In the public mind this kind of technolo-
June 15, 1976

gy has come to appear as the equivalent of the high technology of the physical sciences.
The media tends to present each new procedure as though it constituted a break-through or a therapeutic triumph, instead of being the make-shift it really is. This type of technology is at times, by its very nature, highly sophisticated. Yet it is still primitive. It is the sort of thing one must do until there is a general understanding of the mechanisms involved in disease. Such technology, embracing as it does the development of costly apparatus to manage heart attacks, specialized ambulances, distinct hospital units, and electronic gadgetry is characterized by the necessity of investing enormous sums of money in hospitals, hospital facilities, and highly trained people. This portion of medicine will be with us in the future and our only hope of removing this level of technology lies in the new information which can be obtained through research.
The third kind of technology which is described by Dr. Thomas is the kind which is so effective that it seems to attract the least public notice; it is the kind which is taken for granted. I referred previously to the revolution in hospital care which came about with the introduction of antibiotics and modern methods of immunization against diphtheria, whooping cough, and childhood virus diseases. Our capability in dealing with tuberculosis and syphilis was a major medical triumph despite the fact that, in my view, full use has never been made of this potential. The treatment of endocrinologic disorders with appropriate hormones following basic research in immunology in Liverpool, England, is now virtually wiping out hemalytic disease of the new-born which occurs in Rh-negative mothers. There are other examples, but the truth is there are not as many as the public has been led to believe.
The point to emphasize about this kind of technology, one which implies a genuine understanding of disease mechanisms, is that when it becomes available it is relatively inexpensive, relatively simple, and relatively easy to deliver.
I refer to the influence that the discovery of antibiotics had on medical care. If a case of typhoid fever had to be managed today by the best methods of the mid-thirties, the expense would be staggering. Counting about 56 days of hospitalization during which demanding standards of nursing care would be required, careful dietary consideration, constant laboratory monitoring, and surgical intervention in certain circumstances, a conservative estimate of the cost of the illness would be around $10,000 in today's terms. The cost today would be a bottle of cloramphenical and a day or two of fever.


Mr. Philbrook:: Would the hon. member accept a question? Would he acknowledge that many of the discoveries he has mentioned, particularly in the field of antibiotics, were the result of accidents such as in the celebrated case of Dr. Fleming's discovery of penicillin? Or would he not agree they were discoveries in the private sector, particularly within the pharmaceutical industry, rather than the results of long-term and expensive research at the universities?


John Robert Holmes: The question is only partly pertinent. I was attempting to make the point that biomedical research,
Medical Research
whether in the universities or in the private sector, has been responsible for the major break-throughs we have seen.
The hon. member for Athabasca referred earlier to the statement by Dr. Fudenberg before a sub-committee in the United States about a year ago. This statement gave evidence of other areas in which large savings had been made as a result of discovery in the course of research into immunology. The point I wish to emphasize is that it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that this basic research is carried on in an acceptable fashion.
I want to say a word now about target research, or applied research. Although there is general agreement that applied research should be encouraged in certain key areas I believe it would be an error to do this at the expense of basic research or by restricting the freedom of our scientists. If freedom is severely curtailed, scientists will lose their enthusiasm and become less productive or, more tragic still, move to a country where greater freedom exists.
Traditionally the major function of a university is to teach and generate new knowledge through research. In my opinion it would be tragic if research priorities were established by government, as suggested in the Speech from the Throne and subsequent statements by the former minister responsible for science and technology, thereby placing the major burden of applied research on the universities. I do not suggest that applied research cannot be structured into such institutes, and indeed there are examples of successful endeavours in this respect. However, it should be noted that universities are involved in important tasks in connection with higher education and the development of new knowledge. In existing circumstances it seems unreasonable to ask the universities to maintain high standards of performance while accepting new responsibilities for government-directed research.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member may continue?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


John Robert Holmes: I thank the House for permitting me a few more moments in which to speak. I shall try to summarize. I only wish I had more time to give a detailed account of the many problems which are presently facing the research community. However, it is my personal belief that future action in the medical research community is really predicated upon an understanding of the basic importance and the problems of medical research. I hope that in the very brief time that I have taken this afternoon I have persuaded the Minister of State for Science and Technology and the government of the importance of this particular sector of technology, and I have attempted to define technology as I see it and as viewed by many. I Rope the government will develop a long-term policy to restore confidence to this important segment of our health care system.

June 15, 1976
Medical Research
I should like to conclude by quoting an article entitled "The Technology of Medicine" by Dr. Lewis Thomas which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1971. He concluded the article with the following observation:
It is when physicians are bogged down by their incomplete technologies, by the innumerable things they are obliged to do in medicine, when they lack a clear understanding of disease mechanisms, that the deficiencies of the health care system are most conspicuous. If I were a policy maker interested in saving money for health care over the long haul, I would regard it as an act of high prudence to give high priority to a lot more basic research in biologic science. This is the only way to get the full mileage that biology owes to the science of medicine, even though it seems, as used to be said in the days when the phase still had some meaning, like asking for the moon.
One can only hope that the minister, who has been present today, and the government will grasp the implications of this very famous physician's observations.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, we are faced today with a motion of the opposition which describes very well, in my mind, how the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Yewchuk) sees his role as a parliamentarian either in this House or in standing committees. I could elaborate further in a moment if the hon. member wants to be patient.
I would like to say, however, that I am not against medical research nor am I opposed to basic medical research financing in Canada. First of all, I would like to mention that I have enough scars on my whole body to say how much I appreciate the advancement of sciences which have enabled me to recover my health.
It is however obvious for anyone who has read the text of this motion put forward today that it is filled with partisan views, that it is basically negative and reflects failure of its sponsor to propose valuable and responsible solutions and to advocate some kind of alternatives.
And how easy it is with a subject like this one which receives the support of the majority of Canadians, I am not afraid to say so, how easy it is to indulge in demagogy! Obviously, any objective individual who has followed the development of medical research funding in recent years will admit with me that the achievements of this government are certainly not as described by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) or his colleagues.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), through his positive attitude, his availability, his flexibility, his wish to engage in a dialogue thas will lead to new cooperation avenues does much more for Canada, for the welfare of Canadians, for medical research than the individuals who see only the bad side of the situation and live in isolation without any regard for other sectors of the Canadian economy.
I referred a moment ago to the open-mindedness of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and to his will to cooperate. As evidence I wish to quote some of his remarks made before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs on May 18. This is what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) said:
With regard to medical research, once more-and I have said so-I felt that the increase was inadequate. Even with the additional $2 million-
And here the minister refers to the announcement made the same night about the $2 million increase in the medical research budget which he took from elsewhere in his department. I think it is satisfying evidence of his good will and his good intentions. I continue the quotation and it is still the minister who is speaking:
-I am not boasting that we are really rushing ahead and putting money into medical research. It is just going to allow medical research to keep up, roughly with where it was last November. It is nothing to boast of, in the sense, as I said, that we are just a country being over generous.
So, Mr. Speaker, the minister is frank and sincere beyond reproach.
I go on reading his comments, and I draw here the attention of the author of today's motion to the following passage, hoping he will see in it not illogical and irresponsible decisions, as he says, but a sense of organisation and planning. I quote:
But, once more, you have to look at it in a longer perspective than that of one or two years. You have to realize that over the last decade we have put a relatively high priority on the total funding of medical research.
And to support what the minister was saying in 1966-67, the budget of the Medical Research Coucil was $12,350,000 and for the current fiscal year, it has been increased to $50 million, Mr. Speaker.
I think what we should be looking at over the next few years, and what I am most concerned about in medical research, is those fluctuations, those cycles in medical research. I think this is most unfortunate. One year you get an 18-per cent increase, the next year you get 2 per cent. As you yourself, or as some of your colleagues, have said ...
... he was speaking to a member of the committee, Dr. Halliday .. .
You cannot just turn it on and off as if it were a water tap. What we are trying to develop is a kind of formula or criterion, by which research . .. particularly medical research .. . will be able to count on some reasonably steady rate of growth in its expenditures.
I have argued with some people saying, even if we were to say 5 per cent a year or 3 per cent a year, at least we would know what to expect, and the researchers would know what to expect. Those who found it not good enough would leave, abandon, or do something else, but at least there would be some direction. I hope it will be higher than that, and that it will be related to some other criterion.
I think one of the big problems we are facing in medical research, and research generally, is the establishment of some criterion upon which researchers will be able to plan on the basis of a longer term than in the past, and I hope we will be able to arrive at that this year.
Mr Speaker, I apologize for quoting in full such a lengthy extract from the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, but I think it was important today, in the absence of the minister, to record his views so that Canadians will know exactly that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is a righteous and honest man devoted to the welfare of all Canadians.
What I find most encouraging, Mr. Speaker, in this whole matter, is the will to co-operate that we seem to have suddenly discovered. On the one hand, we have the medical research community which says it needs more money for the current fiscal year, to which the minister replied by a $2 million increase, and on the other hand, federal restraints are now being felt in every field. It will

June 15, 1976

be remembered that on December 18 last, the President of the Treasury Board, the Hon. Jean Chretien announced the action taken by the government under its anti-inflation program.
The Medical Research Council was not the only one affected by this action, but the fact remains that at that time, the President of the Treasury Board, while admitting the restraints, still allowed a budgetary increase of $1 million, plus $414,000 which were transfered to the Department of National Health and Welfare from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and this was in addition to the $2 million announced last month. This is therefore a rather large increase when we know that other departments were not as lucky.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Yewchuk) wants to put a question to the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin).


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to go on with my remarks and I shall be glad to listen to the hon. member for Athabaska at the end of my speech, if time allows, because I am aware that it is a favourite tactic of opposition members to interrupt other members during their speeches, and I am against it.
It is interesting to note, still in the minutes of proceedings and in reply to an inquiry from the hon. member for Athabasca himself, that the president of the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation, Dr. John H. Dirks, said the following:
On the long term, I mentioned some of the issues in terms of maintaining stability, including consideration and careful monitoring of the costs of research which is being done now, including setting new directions by the MRC in terms of new programs or changing their programs in terms of looking at the schools that have special needs that need to be developed. I think these are some of the categories to look into. We have proposed to the minister that perhaps a meeting of interested people in government, political parties-
I have some doubts about this-
-.scientists, and MRC be held to discuss in greater detail the issue of long-term funding. I hope that will come to fruition.
In fact, we all know now that these meetings have started and that they will go on during the summer, which is to the credit of all people of good will who do not simply criticize, as the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Yewchuk) usually does, but who unceasingly and conscientiously work at a very complex problem in a society which is always asking and demanding more from its governments.
As far as catching up is concerned, and particularly in the field of medical research, it is suggested that a per capita contribution similar to that in the United States or Western Germany would be a good thing for Canada. This is maybe a commendable aim but it is a bit too simplistic. As I said in the beginning, this is like living in isolation. Even if we admit this relative progress by those countries, it remains that they have some catching up to do with our policies here in Canada and with our financial support for social programs such as medicare, hospital insurance and the many social programs which I will not enumerate here but which are all familiar to us and which excite the envy of many other countries, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said today during question period.
Medical Research
I shall not drag on refuting more than necessary today's motion. Several colleagues want to take the floor and they are perfectly able to come to grips with that question but I am obliged to recognize that, on top of being essentially negative, the motion is pessimistic and it does not take into account all that has been done for some time to promote a dialogue between the scientific community, the government, the Medical Research Council and-why not-the politicians in senior positions.
I shall end by quoting, as I have done during my remarks, the minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. I have to quote myself to put the question in its true context. During the Friday May 28 meeting of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, where Dr. J. Gordon Kaplan, President of the Canadian Federation of Biological Studies was one of the witnesses, I asked the following question:
Is it not true that we have reached this critical threshold of readiness of mind and of practical and open dialogue?
Dr. Kaplan answered:
It is true that the dialogues have started. I must add that it already existed between the hon. Health Minister and the medical research community of Canada.
For the past two or three years, his door has always been open to us and we have been able to talk frankly with him, although you know what consequences this may have: unfortunately, an open dialogue does not guarantee that medical researchers will have enough funds. Nevertheless, I agree with your optimism and we hope that this true dialogue will lead to the development of a long-term policy on medical research subsidization.
And why put all the burden on the government, Mr. Speaker? It seems to me that the medical community has, too, the responsibility and duty to plan its own research, to establish its own priorities and not to rely always on the government.
It is obvious, from the statements I quoted today, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and the medical research community, including the Medical Research Council, are much more optimistic than the hon. member for Athabasca and his party as regards the future. That is why I cannot support this motion. I feel the remarks of the hon. member for Athabasca add nothing of substance to the debate, and that the minister has already taken into account all the representations made in committee of the House. An attempt was made to politicize a problem which, to my mind, is now in the process of being solved.
The doctors and medical researchers lobby is possibly the best organized and among the most powerful in the land; to my mind, it was not necessary to draw the attention of the House to this matter today. As for me, Mr. Speaker, I come from an underdeveloped area of the country, which is often badly developed. I should have thought that on the Progressive Conservative side the hon. members would have preferred taking up the matter of regional disparities, of equal opportunities, instead of rehashing the same old arguments in a lobby that it is quite capable of taking care of its own needs, which indeed it has proved very ably.

I just cannot be turned on by today's motion and the plea for more medical research funds in the way the motion is

June 15, 1976
Medical Research
worded. After listening to all opposition spokesmen I am more than ever convinced that the object of today's debate was to try to score political points against the government, and not so much a concern for the benefit of the medical research community in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eymard G. Corbin: That is not to say, and I would like to repeat, that I am against medical research. I am for medical research for the same reason I am for motherhood, for fatherhood, or the sacred cows of India, or democracy. The real question is whether or not the government is administering the public moneys in a responsible and balanced way. I believe it is. The question really is a matter of balance, balance of job creation, equal opportunity throughout all areas of the country and a happy life, and balanced growth in all departmental expenditures.
In conclusion may I say I am surprised that such a motion would come forward today from the hon. member for Athabasca after the poor show we went through on Friday a week ago when this House had referred back to it from the standing committee a bill to control smoking in public transit facilities. The committee spent something like six full meetings debating the question. In the course of those meetings it was proven that smoking is obnoxious to non-smokers. Money was spent on interpreters, on printers, and on other salaries in respect of the committee. The committee referred the bill back to this House in a modified form. Who opposed the measure to improve the health of Canadians? None other than the hon. member for Athabasca, and that is a bloody shame!


Paul Yewchuk: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has just terminated his speech with what comes closest to the unusable term. He told an untruth at the conclusion of his speech. If he had bothered to listen to or read what I said in the committee or in the House when that bill came back, he would know that I supported the bill all the way. He should withdraw that falsehood. It is unacceptable. The bill was spoken to by five members, including members from the other side, during that hour of debate, and they must take just as much blame as we do for the bill not having passed at that time. I think the hon. member should withdraw that falsehood.


Eymard G. Corbin: I will be fair with the member from Athabasca. It is quite possible he did not understand the way I put the question. He may not have been opposed to the legislation, but he certainly organized the blocking of the passage of that legislation in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the point of privilege raised by the hon. member was well taken. Perhaps I might be permitted to mention to the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) that he should not inpute motives. He is not entitled to impute motives over and above stating the facts. I would hope the question would be resolved in good understanding. Perhaps the hon. member would qualify his statement again.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, with all the respect I usually direct to the Chair I certainly will abide by your recommendation in respect of my clarifying the statement I just made. I will withdraw what the hon. member for Athabasca has asked me to withdraw, which is the statement that he opposed the legislation, but I will say that he blocked the passage of that bill.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would have to draw to the attention of the hon. member who has just spoken that it is patently obvious that he has failed to read the debates dealing with the anti-smoking bill. Otherwise he would realize that what he has stated with regard to the hon. member for Athabasca has absolutely no truth in fact.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member does not want to bring the Chair into the debate which took place in the committee. I think the question is resolved at this time, and that I should recognize the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday).


Mr. Halliday:: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it would be the wish that I call it six o'clock to allow the government member time to cool down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock as suggested?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 5.58 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, before we recessed for dinner tonight we heard the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) launch into what might be called a tirade not on the subject of our debate today but rather on the matter of the provision of separate accommodation for smoking in public conveyances. Therefore I think it might be apropos to review what the motion before the House today is. It reads as follows:
That this House views with great alarm the ill-considered and illogical decisions of the government which fail to give adequate priority to health research funding.
We are talking about research, Mr. Speaker, not about a bill which was before the House some time ago.
I want to approach the subject for debate today from two or three aspects that are somewhat unnconventional and different from what we have heard of late. First, I want to allude briefly to some of the peculiar attitudes of the government toward research. Second, I would like to touch on some of the philosophies behind health care research which do not seem to be understood by the government. Third, I want to speak about aspects of medical research to which adequate consideration has not been given by the speakers from whom we have heard so far in this debate in
June 15, 1976

the House or in the committee, namely, research into the practice of family medicine, a very important part of the health care delivery system in Canada.
First of all I should like to get rid of some rather unpleasant comments which I feel I must make about the govenment's approach to the subject of medical research in the last year or so. It was disappointing to me when it was brought to my attention by some people from the research community who were on Parliament Hill in the last month or two that they received a very discourteous and unfriendly reception from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) when they visited him in his office not long ago. That does not get any marks for the government or for the whole principle of medical research.
The second point which concerns me has been alluded to by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) when he led off very capably for the official opposition, and that is that there has been an obvious lack of attendance by some important members of the government who should be here. I am the first to admit that reasons were given why the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his parliamentary secretary could not be here, and I accept them. I presume the same is the case for the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). However, it is gratifying to see here tonight the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) because he, like the Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Drury), comes from a community in Canada where there is much interest in medical research. I am surprised that those two ministers have not been able to come up with a more effective program for the provision of research funds in view of the local interest which exists in their communities.
There is a third matter that concerns me regarding actions of the government. It relates to what has gone on in the Department of National Health and Welfare in the past and up to the present. I want to raise one particular instance and I hope I will not offend anyone. It has been brought to my attention that Dr. Jack Wiggin, who was employed in the Department of National Health and Welfare as head of the health research grant program until about the end of 1975, had a very difficult time as head of that branch. His role was to assess and rule on grant applications which came before the department. As most hon. members know, these grants are scrutinized by at least three separate committees. One was a committee of the department itself, another was a committee of outside experts, and there was a third committee, all of which could offer opinions on grant applications.
There is one glaring example of where an application was made for a grant, was approved by all three committees, and it had to be vetoed by a man higher in the department than the director of the branch itself. That was so deplorable that the committee threatened to resign and the chairman of this branch has since resigned. That is the kind of department that tries to run the program of research grants in this country, and it is disappointing to learn of it.
Recently a well known medical educator in this country told me how disappointed he was with the status of the staff in the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Medical Research
He said it has gradually gone down hill in the last five or six years and that he could count on one hand five competent people in the department now as compared to the situation some years ago.
Dealing with the attitude of the government, there is one other area to which I should like to allude and which has been discussed in some detail by other members. It concerns the spending attitude of the government as it relates to medical research. I can summarize this whole thing rather succinctly in a quotation from an article by Dr. Daniel H. Osmond, Associate Professor in the Departments of Physiology and Medicine at the University of Toronto. I will quote from the article which appeared in the spring edition of The Graduate, a publication of the University of Toronto. He was referring to the feelings of research workers after the announcement last December of the freeze on research grants. The article was headed "Sickness in Canada's Health System" and he wrote:
This much was clear: the financial noose was firmly in place. Inflation would steadily complete the strangulation.
That is the attitude and feeling of research people across the country toward the government's conduct of medical research.
While discussing the peculiar attitude of the government I should like to touch on something to ward off an obvious argument the government has brought forth in committee on many occasions about recommendations from the official opposition to the effect that there should be an increase in spending in certain areas. We are always told that we cannot have it both ways.
I was very interested to read an article not too long ago in a magazine called Farm and Country, which is circulated to 86,000 farmers across Canada. It is a lay organization as far as medical research is concerned and as far as the costs of health care are concerned. The government tries to tell us that we must follow a policy of restraint and that the only way to do it is its way. But, Mr. Speaker, there are other ways of looking at it. I have been upset when this point has been brought up with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and he has just replied that we are not going to have any deterrents, as though there is something bad about the word. I do not like the word myself, but he is using it in the wrong sense. When we use it on this side of the House we mean to stop the over-use and abuse of the health care system. If the minister would look at it that way he could find ways to save the extra money that the research people need.
The editorial in Farm and Country of May 25, 1976, dealt with the closing of the hospital in Chesley. It is a layman speaking on behalf of farm and country people. It reads:
It gives us little satisfaction to note that five years ago we predicted that neither Ontario nor Canada could afford a lavish health system. At that time we pointed out that comprehensive medicare was bankrupting Britain, and the same would happen in Canada. Politicians of all parties, who fostered the something-for-nothing attitude among the electorate, must share the blame for the present crisis.
Apart from that perhaps negative approach to the problem, the editorial advanced three rather constructive suggestions which I would recommend to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. One comes from the chairman of the Chesley and District Memorial Hospital board
14538

June 15, 1976
Medical Research
who suggests a fee of $4 per day for people using the hospital.
Another suggestion comes from one of the board members of the same hospital who thinks that patients, who are able to, could pay $100 per year for their health care bill. This, if applied nationally, would save hundreds of millions of dollars which could be applied to medical research. He also suggested-and he is talking about OHIP because he happens to be in Ontario but this would apply to any government-sponsored health care plan-that in the area of cost cutting there could be a new approach to billing OHIP. He says that when patients visit a physician's office they never see the amount the government run service is charged for the consultation or treatment.
I can suggest a fourth way in which the minister could save money for medical research. The patients could pay the physician directly and then collect the money from the appropriate source, be it the government or a private plan. The government could save money in many areas but it pretends the only way it can do it is by cutting back on the funds available for medical research.
Going on to deal with some of the problems of the philosophy of the government in regard to medical research, I should like to read a quotation from the magazine I referred to earlier, The Graduate. The article entitled "Sickness in Canada's Health System" by Dr. Osmond reads as follows:
"For the first time in 20 years," says one head of a medical science department in Toronto, "I would advise graduate students to leave Canada."
There is a problem in medical research funding no matter what the Minister of State for Science and Technology says, or what the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria says, or how they try to juggle the figures to prove it is not so. It is obvious there is a problem, and the system is being down-graded because of lack of funds.
Another area which is certainly very important and is often not recognized as being a problem is that the Minister of State for Science and Technology does not understand what medical research and health care are all about. To go back to the article I just quoted from, it reports Dr. Malcolm Brown, President of the Medical Research Council, an agency of the Department of National Health and Welfare, as saying:
The effect of research on the quality of teaching and on patient care is evident in the ways in which patients seek out teaching hospitals for treatment. The evidence supports the view that there is a positive relation between the amount of research, the quality of teaching, and the amount learned.
The Department of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of State for Science and Technology do not seem to appreciate the fact that there is a close connection between research, teaching medicine, and the quality of health care, and that any restraint in expenditures in these areas is going to affect adversely medical teaching and thus the quality of care which Canadians receive.
I should like now to discuss two areas which come under the heading of the concepts or philosophies of research and health care. There must be a distinction between research and development. We hear a lot about "R & D" which is carried out by many government departments at the present time. Of course research is something entirely

different from development. Research is something you spend money on without knowing exactly where you are going and what the results will be. Development is where you spend money on a program that you know is going to achieve a certain result. Unfortunately our government does not appreciate the distinction between the areas of research and development. Because of the long term implications it seems unwilling to spend money on research. It would rather spend money in the area of development.
We must also consider the problem of in-house research, a new term which connotes the concept that research should be carried on by people in the Department of National Health and Welfare. The researchers who have been on Parliament Hill during the last few weeks have brought to our attention a deplorable situation. Apparently in the most recent spending estimates there is to be a 16 per cent increase in moneys allotted for "in-house" spending. That represents a considerable sum.
While on this topic may I quote from page 94 of report No. 22 of the Science Council of Canada, entitled "Science for Health Services", dated October, 1974. A note of dissent was sounded by M. Bonneau, a well-known health care worker and educator in Quebec. Speaking about in-house research he said, as the report notes on page 94:
... Judgments on the scientific quality of the researcher and his project can be made only by experienced people, capable of understanding the objective and evaluating the correlation between the means and the end.
... Any structure for the encouragement and co-ordination of research efforts must be removed as fast as possible from the administrative and political area.
I submit that we should curtail in-house medical research and allow experts in the field to conduct such research.
I am concerned about the government's lack of consistency in medical research spending. In this regard I wish to quote Pavlov. As hon. members know, Pavlov left the world a legacy in the field of the conditioned reflex. In a message to youth he said:
What would I wish for the young people of my motherland who dedicated themselves to science? First of all-consistency .. . Consistency, consistency and again consistency ... Inculcate in yourself the habit of strict consistency in acquiring knowledge ... Restraint and patience ... Modesty... Do not let pride take possession of you ... Be passionate in your work and in your quests.
I suggest that the medical researchers of this country have been patient, have been consistent and, above all, have been passionate in their work. They passionately plead for more money for medical research.
In my remaining few minutes I wish to touch on the important subject of research related to the practice of family medicine. I have some experience in this area. In Canada health care in the majority of cases for the majority of people is delivered by the family physician. It is about time we spent more on research relating to the practice of family medicine. The previously alluded to report of the Science Council of Canada touches on this subject at page 82. Under the heading "Adequacy of Funding", we read the following:
June 15, 1976

The R & D on health care delivery ... is less than half the above amount.
The author is referring to the fact, alluded to in the previous sentence, that Canada spends 1 per cent of the costs of health care on R & D in health services. I continue quoting:
Such a low level is inconsistent with sound industrial practice. An increase in the small outlay on health care R & D is obviously needed to improve the value obtained from the much larger outlay (over 200 times) on health care itself.
The report lists a number of government departments and various other agencies which spend money on R & D. The Department on National Health and Welfare ranks ninth on that list.
The report goes on to say:
It is not an impressive illustration of the relative importance currently being attached to health care R & D. This would be of little significance if the needs for new knowledge in this field were reasonably well satisfied. However, the preceding pages should have shown that the extent of the outstanding need for knowledge is such that it will have little chance of being met without a major increase in funding.
The foregoing illustrates why we should spend much more on medical research and on research in family medicine. We could examine many areas of family practice. Time does not permit me to deal with them. I will do this on another occasion when I can put facts in more detail before the House.
May I now draw to the attention of the House some comments made by Dr. Donald I. Rice, executive director of the College of Family Physicians of Canada, at the national conference on research in family practice held in Miami, Florida, in January, 1975. He said in part:
The appropriate funding of family practice research is a must if we are to encourage an adequate number of researchers to become involved in research activity. Research costs money as well as time, and we must do what we can to find the necessary funds to support legitimate investigations in family practice. Here the practising family doctor interested in research is at a distinct disadvantage vis-a-vis his confrere with an academic appointment.
He went on to say-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to inform his that his allotted time has expired. He may continue if he has unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bruce Halliday: I thank hon. members for their indulgence.
I shall speak only a few more sentences. Dr. Rice went on to say:
Major funding bodies must accept that family practice research will play an increasingly important part in determining the future direction of health care in our respective countries, and they must be encouraged to invest the necessary research money to ensure that adequate numbers of family physician researchers are being trained, and that appropriate investigations are being carried out.
Finally, I cannot do better than quote Hippocrates, known as the father of modern medicine. He said, in about 400 BC:
Other discoveries will yet be found out, if a person possessed of the proper ability, and knowing those discoveries which have been made, should proceed from them-to prosecute his own investigations.
Medical Research
Following the words of Hippocrates, Canadian researchers will be unable to prosecute their investigations unless the government reconsiders the provision of medical research funding.


Frank A. Philbrook: Mr. Speaker, for the second time in two years I participate in debate on this subject. I think the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yew-chuk) told the House he has participated in similar debates three times. I hope that we shall not participate in any more such debates for some time, considering how this debate has been carried on. I cannot help but agree with the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) that this debate has been disappointing, to say the least.


Robert Hylton Brisco: What has been disappointing?


Frank A. Philbrook: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is not here; his parliamentary secretary is not here, and the Conservative spokesman, the hon. member for Athabasca, could not be here himself this afternoon. Worse than that, throughout the afternoon attendance in this House was poor.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I point out that I was here all this afternoon, except for one hour when I went out to attend my daughter's graduation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Apologize. Withdraw.


Frank A. Philbrook: According to my recollection, there was, generally, poor attendance this afternoon on the part of members of the official opposition party. Sometimes fewer than five were present.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fewer than five!


Frank A. Philbrook: The same goes for the other opposition party, the NDP.


Robert Hylton Brisco: If that is a demonstration on your debating skill, you can quit now.


Frank A. Philbrook: At one time the hon. member for Athabasca spoke of heart attacks. As he said, we do not want any member of this House to have a heart attack. You know, we could translate the work of researchers into concrete results if we work at it. For example, the pamphlet put out at the initiative of the Minister of National Health and Welfare having to do with a new perspective on the health of Canadians deals with physical fitness and how physical fitness can prevent heart attacks. I wonder how many of the hon. member's colleagues have lately used our gym facilities to improve their own physical fitness. It is not just research that is important. It is using the results of research as well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
95570-20/4

June 15, 1976
Medical Research


Frank A. Philbrook: I ask the opposition to accord our speakers the same kind of respect and silence that we accorded their speakers.
Getting back to the subject for this opposition day, I will not comment on the statement by my good friend and medical colleague, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halli-day), because I have a great deal of respect for him. With regard to some of the remarks he made tonight all I will say is that I thought he knew better.
The subject of this opposition day is criticism. Why not? There is criticism all around us these days. It is an era of criticism. Everybody criticizes everybody for everything. In this particular case there is criticism with regard to federal government funding of the Medical Research Council, that it has not been sufficient to meet the growing demand of the medical science community. Often there are demands from people in an ivory tower who think that because they are in splendid isolation they are entitled to the taxpayer's dollar without supervision. In fact since 1973 the real value of government allocations to the MRC has declined in terms of 1966 constant dollars. Why not? Many other things have too, the stock market, for example.
This trend had been exacerbated further by the freeze announced on December 18, 1975, keeping this year's contribution at the same level as last year, $48.8 million. Therefore the MRC budget for 1976 is identical in real terms to that of 1969. Even with the additional $2 million provided as of May 18, 1976, it is still felt that another $4.6 million is needed for the council to meet this objective for this year. That is fair enough coming from the medical research community, and I think we all accept that.
Let us look at the reasons behind that. Federal funding has fluctuated so strongly over the past several years that it is impossible for MRC to establish a long-term strategy in the provision of research grants. That is a fair criticism and worth examining. On the other hand, however, many other things have the same difficulty in these times of inflation and recession.
A word about the nature of medical research in Canada. Unlike most other advanced western nations, notably the U.S., Britain, and France, Canada does not have any medical equivalent of a central research organization which has its own research facilities. Unlike many countries, as well, such as the U.S. and Switzerland, Canadian industry does not engage in as comprehensive medical and pharmaceutical research. Therefore most medical research here is carried out in the universities, and these are highly dependent upon outside funding, particularly from the government. It is the responsibility of the MRC then to ensure that the government subsidies are distributed to gain the maximum yield in furthering medical knowledge. That is a sacred trust to the public. As such it is purely an administrative structure.
With respect to the attitude of the scientific community toward the MRC, the medical research community is unanimous in its approval of the purpose and function of the MRC. It is also largely content with the manner in which the MRC has distributed the funds it is given. The main area of complaint remains the amount provided to the MRC for distribution.

With respect to the attitude of the medical research community toward government restraint, medical researchers are sympathetic toward the government's desire to bring the economy under control, as are all Canadians. They feel, however, that much less than being contributors to economic disorder they are victims of inflation. They feel that medical research should receive the same increases that government departments and government-conducted research facilities received last year, which averaged 16 per cent, as opposed to the MRC's budget increase of 2.9 per cent.
With regard to the funding of medical research in Canada, I wish to deal with the breakdown and perspective. From 1959 to 1963, under the Tories, federal funds provided to MRC went from $2,008,000 to $4,300,000. By 1967, under the Liberals, this figure had reached $12.3 million. From 1967 to 1976-77 federal support has more than quadrupled to $50,848,000. Over the long run, therefore, the Liberal government has demonstrated clearly its support of medical research. I emphasize over the long run.


An hon. Member:: What about the United States?


Frank A. Philbrook: We will get to that. You like to compare us to the United States when it is in your favour, but when it does not make your point you are pretty quiet about it.
It must be kept in mind, as well, that government support of medical research does not stop with the MRC. For 1976-77 the MRC allocation of $50 million comprises only 79 per cent of all federal government support of medical research in Canada and only about 50 per cent of the over-all amount spent in this area.
For example, the MRC contributed $50,848,000, and all other government department programs $12,804,000, with a total federal expenditure for 1976-77 of $63,652,000.
The other main sources of funds for 1976-77 are contributions from provincial agencies, $12,600,000; contributions from major voluntary agencies, $19,997,000; contributions from other voluntary agencies and foundations, mainly foreign, $1,500,000. Over-all, these contributions add up to a total of $100,749,000 to be spend on medical research in Canada for this fiscal year; not bad for a small, young country.
I wish to say a word about participation of the voluntary sector. Over the past ten years contributions from the voluntary sector have kept pace with the growth of the MRC budget, quadrupling from $5 million to about $20 million. This growth in participation has been attributed to gradual improvement in the medical research community's ability to publicize its cause, as well as better organization in efforts of the contributing organizations themselves. Aid from the voluntary sector is quite uneven, however, with some groups increasing their contributions substantially, others remaining constant, and yet others decreasing their financial support.
With respect to private industry, apparently the MRC has never made direct representations for support of medical research. Personally I think that is unfortunate. I have had experience, as perhaps other members have, in this area. It is an area which is very important in many other countries. I mentioned before, the United States and Switzerland. It is an area where Canada has not even begun to
June 15, 1976

scratch the surface. There is a great deal of potential there in spite of the fact that most of our private industry is foreign owned and controlled. A lot of people think that is perhaps an inhibiting factor to the private sector. I believe a great deal more can be done.
I also wish to say a word about government explanation of medical research funding cutbacks. The government is aware that many worth-while projects have suffered as a result of its cutbacks in this field, but it is felt that no area of government spending can be fully exempted from the government's current austerity program designed to overcome the most pressing immediate problem, namely, inflation. It is wrong to look only at the last two or three years and assume this represents a typical pattern in the government's attitude toward medical research. Combating inflation, hopefully, will not be a permanent preoccupation for the government. I think if we honestly look we will see some significant early results in the battle against inflation, in fact in all of the industrialized countries in the western part of world, as recently reported by the OECD.
It is acknowledged by the government that contributions to medical research are inadequate at the present time. Certainly they are more inadequate than we would like them to be. But this inadequate funding is seen as such only in contrast to a previous decade of reasonably generous support. Regarding the need for stability in funding from one year to the next, this too is acknowledged by the minister to be a serious problem. What is lacking is a workable formula or set of criteria whereby an appropriate growth rate can be determined for funding. The minister for science referred to that today and I believe the matter is being seriously considered.
There are a number of arguments which might be put forward in defence of the current level of government funding of research. For example, how is one to determine what is the optimum level of federal funding? This is a problem in all areas of federal funding. There is no easy answer. It has to be arbitrary. Is all research good? Is all research valuable and worth while, particularly when it is done with the taxpayers' money? Hopefully the situation will change, but in this area there is resistance, there is unfamiliarity with business management, with cost accounting, with the setting of strict objectives, particularly in the basic research area, and our changing times demand a more cost-efficient approach.
Even if certain research is deemed imperative, must it be expensive? Yes, a great deal of it must be expensive, but must it all be expensive, or as expensive as it is? After all, the greatest medical discovery, that for which this country is famous around the world, was the discovery of insulin, and this was done on an extremely low budget, using very simple means.
The opposition talks at times about return on investment. The official opposition critic referred to a number of discoveries in respect to which there has been good return on the money spent. That is true in those cases. But the information he gave us is a bit loaded. He was speaking only about the research which has worked; the examples given did not reflect the cost of all the research which is carried out.
Medical Research
The government must weigh demands from many different sectors in society. Every one of them has a legitimate claim for more funds. As we all say these days, everybody wants decreased government spending but nobody wants particular cuts. Where would the critics have us make these cuts, in transport? In a country like this? In regional expansion? In social welfare? In development of culture, in communications-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We showed you where you could save a billion.


Frank A. Philbrook: -in native and northern development, in health and sports? In business and economics, where a great deal of money goes? In foreign aid, perhaps? Would they have us make cuts there? It is easy to say these things when you are not in government, when you are the critics. Particularly during times such as these, when the government must lead efforts in restraint to bring the economy back in line, the administration can expect to be subject to particularly strong pressure from all sectors attempting to avoid the squeeze. This kind of austerity should provide needed pressure on the researchers themselves to encourage maximum efficiency and rationalization in their operations. There is no question about that.
In prosperous times everyone grows a bit fat-the universities are no exception and the research laboratories are no exception either. The university organizations themselves have been concerned about this. They have set up studies to encourage rationalization, to increase efficiency, to prevent duplication. In industry when we were approached for funds, when we were approached to buy expensive equipment for university departments, we often found that the equipment requested was already there in another department, next door. It was simply duplication. Yet the two researchers had not talked to each other about it, had not co-ordinated their requests. This would have been money down the drain had somebody not been careful.
Times such as this should as well provide an added opportunity for researchers and private industry to get together to their mutual benefit. The greatest potential for increasing funds for medical research lies in one heretofore untapped reserve-and I referred to this a little earlier, Mr. Speaker-a process of working together involving private industry, government, and universities. It is well done in many countries, by countries such as our great neighbour, the United States, by many European countries, particularly Switzerland. There seems to be some disinclination in this country for these sectors to work together. In the meantime the work is not getting done or, if it is getting done, it is being achieved in a more expensive way.
I would like to quote from a committee report of May 18, 1976, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare was addressing the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. He said:
I am advised by Dr. Bois that the MRC itself has not made representations to private industry about contributions to medical research.
That would be my impression as well. I think the situation is the same with the universities and private industry-a certain aloofness which is a little hard to define and hard to explain.

June 15, 1976
Medical Research
As I said before, various members of this House have had some direct experience with medical research, some of us in private industry, and we found that in great contrast to other countries the co-ordinated effort simply is not there. Private industry does possess considerable resources and it is my experience that if the effort were shown on both sides, foreignowned or not, they would be more than willing to work with our research community and help answer a great deal of our concern about funding. At one time, when with industry, I recall approaching the head of MRC, a very fine man who has done a fine job in most of his functions, with a concrete offer for some kind of tripartite arrangement between MRC, the universities, and industry, to work together for a better research effort than we could do alone. Mr. Speaker, there was no significant response. Yet MRC has performed most of its functions well. But both the MRC and the universities will have to look at their relations with areas such as private industry to generate new funds and to use the funds they have more efficiently.
I also believe that medical research in this country has a great friend in the deputy minister for science, Maurice LeClair, with whom I have discussed this subject. He certainly knows medical research and is very sympathetic to the cause, including this concern about funding. I believe, by the same-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Has the hon. member the consent of the House to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank A. Philbrook: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will wrap up my remarks very briefly. I believe time will prove that medical research in this country has a very great friend in the Minister of National Health and Welfare, indeed in members on the entire government side. I believe that all members of parliament and the general public too are appreciative of the research community. But there are problems which must be worked out. There is no sense kidding ourselves. One of our concerns must be the efficiency with which funds are used, and whether we are experiencing difficult economic times or normal ones, those things must be worked out. If we do this we will be a better research country and a better medical community for having done so.
In the meantime I think it is fair to say that our researchers will need to come down from their ivory towers and learn a little more about what the world in general is like. They will need to learn to sell to the public and to the government their very important function better than has been the case in the past, and thus compete with all the other important and vital needs that are facing this country. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and would like to thank other hon. members of the House for giving me the extra time.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to listen to the remarks on

this subject of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) who said that he had had experience in the field of medical research. Be that as it may, I would say from the tone of his remarks that he also indicated he had had very little experience in the field of economics.
This debate on the failure of the government to give adequate priority to health research funding in Canada takes place in an interesting context. A first ministers' conference has just concluded at which a major item on the agenda was a revision of the cost sharing arrangements with the provinces for the medical care and hospital insurance programs. Including the value of abated tax points to the province of Quebec, these programs will, according to the estimates, cost the federal treasury approximately $4 billion this fiscal year. One of the goals sought by the federal government at the first ministers' conference was to hold down the rate of growth of these expenditures through the implementation of a new formula.
The sum of $4 billion is an impressive amount of money in anyone's language. One of the aspects of this debate revolves around a smaller and less impressive amount, the approximately $4 million in additional funding that is required to maintain the level of medical research at last year's standard. The bearing that these two amounts have on one another is very important.
I want to say at the outset that I am fed up with the stock response we always hear from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), which has just been reiterated by the hon. member for Halton, when the request is made for additional funding for medical research by members from this side of the House. We have all heard that response, Mr. Speaker: It goes something like this, "You are always telling us to restrain government spending. We practice it in this specific area and now you complain. Why can't you be consistent?"
That is a phony argument, and the hon. minister, who I regret is not here tonight, shows his contempt for the House by employing it. If he does not know that it is a phony argument then he does not know the difference between restraint and false economy, between being penny wise and pound foolish.
The whole point of our argument, which the President of the Treasury Board has never refuted or even attempted to refute, is that this is an expenditure that will not only save lives-a consideration that I would hope would be of some importance to him-but it is an investment that will save the federal and the provincial taxpayer money that will more than repay that investment.
The so-called restraint that has been imposed on Medical Research Council funding, following a cutback in funding, is equivalent to a cost cutting program in a business that begins by terminating the fire insurance policy or deferring replacement of worn out machinery that must be kept in operation to keep unit costs down.
The savings the minister boasts of today are in reality ensuring higher costs in the future, and probably in the very near future. If the aim is to hold down health care costs, let us not throw away the tools that will enable us to do so not just this year, but on a long term basis, perhaps in some cases even on a permanent basis. An ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure. Four million
June 15, 1976

dollars more this year may save us tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars later on; and if that seems extreme, consider how much it would cost us today in treatment, rehabilitation, and welfare to care for those potential victims of polio who were saved from that dread disease by the discovery of Salk vaccine.
Many Canadians, both members of this House and countless thousands across the country, have pleaded the case for increased medical research funding on humanitarian grounds and on the hope for a better quality of life. I think of the many people who have written to me expressing their concern at the government's insensitivity to the need for more research funds. I think not only of medical researchers-although many of them have written me-but of concerned citizens who consider the good health of Canadians to be one of the nation's prime assets. Many were prompted to write because of personal knowledge of the ravages of as yet unconquered diseases. Some have family, friends or relatives who stand to benefit from breakthroughs in the major diseases threatening mankind today-cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis. Many others simply expressed their understanding of the need to use our financial resources wisely in researching new methods to combat disease.
Canadians are interested, tremendously interested, in this matter. Each year through voluntary donations they give a large amount of money to medical research. And their interest is such that each year their contributions increase, up 20 per cent this year over last year. Ordinary Canadians are doing their part, but at the same time they have had to watch the government reducing its commitment in this field.
For every dollar spent in research today there is a saving of $20 in 10 years' time-some estimates of the cost-benefit ratio are even higher. This represents a better than 20 to 1 payoff on investment-an opportunity that no businessman could resist-but an investment that the government fails to comprehend. Dr. Vivian Abrahams, a medical researcher and teacher at Queen's University, one of these researchers who the member of parliament for Halton says continually live in an ivory tower, in his appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) summed up the frustation of so many researchers when he said:
This generation has benefited hugely by the efforts of previous generations and we have a responsibility to generations to come to devote a reasonable and fair proportion of our resources to the support of medical research.
The direct savings in future medical care costs are convincing enough, Mr. Speaker, but equally important is the potential contribution to the Gross National Product through earnings and productivity of the many who have been spared, because of the successes of our medical research teams, the crippling effects of once terrifying diseases and even premature death.
The economic logic for increased support of medical research is so compelling that it is the ultimate in frustration and bewilderment to witness the lethargy of the government over the past few years in allowing the erosion of the medical health research capability of this country, with all the demoralizing consequences that that entails. What is happening in the field of medical research is indicative
Medical Research
of the government's negative approach to science and technology, as was so well set out by my colleague from Halton-Wentworth during a recent debate in this House on science policy.
What the government does not seem to realize and does not seem to comprehend is that the prime requisite in successful scientific research is continuity. It cannot be turned off and on like a tap, and yet that is the course the government has been following.
In the middle and late 1960's the government moved to alleviate the inadequacies of the facilities in our medical schools and research labs. This period was marked by considerable expansion in Canada's medical schools, with a clear understanding of the symbiotic relationship of research and teaching to an over-all improvement in the quality of our medical schools. Ten years later, just as Canada is moving into a position to enjoy the fruits of this investigation, we are witnessing instead the painful and slow dissolution of our research capacity caused by government restraint in medical research funding.
We cannot afford to lose our bright young medical researchers. We cannot afford it in economic terms, and we cannot afford it in human terms. But, because of uncertainty and declining opportunities in the field of medical research, there has been a serious reduction in the number of medical graduates entering the research field. Only 1 per cent of graduates is expected to go into research this year as compared to 5 per cent in 1970.
Dr. Alex Sehon, head of the Department of Immunology of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Manitoba said recently:
It is absolutely essential to the success of our biomedical research that we provide for our brightest young people the appropriate milieu to develop their talents. These are among the best dollars we can spend in terms of the value received. Clearly, no investment in research can be expected to yield its full harvest by an "on-again and off-again" policy which puts the whole research establishment in a state of chaos and does not allow for long-term planning. Neither parliament nor the Canadian public can expect to reap the promising harvest of medical research by discouraging potential research workers from entering a research career, when the continuance of research activities by existing medical scientists is being threatened.
And threatened that future is in Canada, threatened by the government. Studies and statistics can be cited to prove it.
A study in process by the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges shows that there has been a decline of 23 per cent in the past four years in the number of medical research grants per 100 students in our medical schools. Figures for this year show that 127 projects which the Medical Research Council's selection committee considered of sufficient calibre to be worthy of funding had to be turned down because of the lack of funding; because of the lack of $4.6 million. If you want to put that figure in another way, that is 3/20ths of 1 per cent of the over-all health care budget of the federal government. That is 3/20ths of 1 per cent of what the government now spends trying to correct the health state of this country. As I mentioned earlier, this is a government that is penny wise and pound foolish.

June 15, 1976
Medical Research
Harry Gunning, President of the University of Alberta, summed it up well in a speech last month to graduating classes of the university when he said:
There are obviously many ways in which the federal government can push this nation towards bankruptcy. Perhaps the most efficient method of achieving this undesirable goal is to so stifle and starve the innovative spirit of this country that we are forced to rely almost entirely on other countries to provide us with the highly sophisticated goods and services that we must develop as an industrialized scientific nation. In this respect the present government is doing an outstanding job.
Canada is a highly industrialized nation. Our researchers are held in high regard throughout the world. Yet the erosion of our medical research capability will transform us into medical mendicants when it is incumbent on us to be developing excellence in this field here in Canada to alleviate the problems of less developed nations. Is Canada to be a parasite on the developed nations, importing medical advances from other developed countries? Where is our sense of pride? What has happened to our ambition to want to contribute rather than borrow? This government recognizes neither.
A growing concern in the scientific community, and one which deserves immediate attention, is the thrust of the government's science policy to encourage targeted or mission-oriented research at the expense of basic research. The resulting imbalance in the various research divisions has serious implications for our scientific effort.
Applications for targeted research quickly become known throughout the scientific community as "safe", that is, more likely to be successful in receiving funds from the Medical Research Council. Applicants understandably are tempted to tailor their proposals to strengthen their chances of obtaining grants. If the tendency on the part of the government to recognize targeted research continues, basic research will suffer. Testimony after testimony from scientific researchers supports the necessity of giving priority to basic research.
I should like to quote from an article by Dr. Louis Siminivitch, geneticist-in-chief, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. He says:
The idea that scientists are self-serving and are not directing their efforts to the important problems of our society also represents a lack of understanding of the scientific process. Practical problems such as the development of treatment modalities for disease or the solution of energy problems, are also not solved in a vacuum. Their investigation also rests on the total body of knowledge in science and, in fact, many such problems may simply not be resolvable at this time because of the absence of key fundamental facts. The development of a vaccine for polio or of the laser required knowledge gleaned from several directions by many investigators of various levels of quality, and over many years. The importance of the polio vaccine and the utility of laser in problems as diverse as subway construction and eye surgery, need not be elaborated here. What is important is to realize that these are not isolated examples, and they are introduced here just to underline the fact that the development of medical cures and other such practical advances are, of necessity, a continuous process which feeds on what many might consider to be basic non-practical research. The lack of recognition and support of a strong basic science effort mortgages our ability as a nation to meet the many important practical challenges of the future.
Dr. Fudenberg of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of California said, and this is interesting to note:
Had funds been awarded for "practical research" in the late 1940's, they would have been to build a better respirator-and perhaps polio would not still be with us.

In fact a comprehensive study by Comroe and Dripps shows conclusively that of the major advances in certain areas of medicine, basic research had yielded key discoveries almost twice as often as all other types of research and development, yet the government's tendency is to downgrade basic research.
I began my remarks by making reference to efforts to restrain health care costs at the first minister's conference during the past two days. Let me conclude by referring to another recent development in federal-provincial relations designed, I presume, to serve the same purpose. I refer to the health review and the proposals made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to the provincial health ministers earlier this spring to share the cost of relatively inexpensive alternative services to hospital and medical care in return for a commitment to hold down costs in those relatively expensive areas. This proposal has much to commend it, but surely only a minister with tunnel vision would fail to see that a review designed to shift the focus from high to low-cost health services in the interests of restraint must include as an integral element an adequately funded medical research program designed to seek more efficient and effective alternatives to present treatment methods. Some money will be saved by treating people out of hospitals once they fall ill. Considerably more money will be saved if you invest in research that may prevent illness in the first place or shorten the period of time in treatment facilities.
Those solutions will come not only from targeted research in specific areas but as spin-offs from pure research and from research in related fields. But we must give those discoveries a chance to happen with adequate research funding, and not delude ourselves into thinking we save money by short-changing those research scientists who will hold down our costs in the future. Even disregarding the economics of this expenditure, the case for it in terms of human lives, human health, and maintaining a cadre of trained research personnel in this country is overwhelming.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that her allotted time has expired. She may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does she have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Surely there should be no melodramatic conflict between saving dollars and saving lives. We have an opportunity to do both. Only the most shortsighted government, a government such as the one we are saddled with at the present time, would let such a rare opportunity slip by.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, if one were to ask the question, is there a doctor in the house, the answer would have to be that there are many doctors. The member who led off the debate is a medical doctor, and three of the last five speakers are medical doctors. However, once you and I have heard the way these doctors have analyzed the problem and have given their cure, it is obvious that if we were to follow their cure the patient
June 15, 1976

would still be sick and incurable. This is why it is necessary for a layman to participate in the debate in order to give some direction and guidance concerning this very serious problem.
We heard the lead-off speaker for the Tories this afternoon read the motion in which he said that this House views with great alarm "the ill-considered and illogical decisions of the government which fail to give adequate priority to health research funding." I am sure, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, we in the New Democratic Party support that principle. But what really happens is that our Tory friends are really great on analyzing the problem; they have a multiplicity of words, but are very weak on the cures and the answers.
I will put the lead-off speaker for the Tories to the real test. I will ask him to move a motion tomorrow under Standing Order 43 which will read: "That this House views with great alarm the ill-considered and illogical decisions of the government of Ontario which fail to give adequate priority to hospital and medical care." It will be interesting to see the response of his Tory colleagues to such a motion, because when I heard some of their speeches with regard to Bill C-68 I realized that they were basing all their arguments on the question of restraint while at the same time their own Conservative government brought forth a measure which closed hospitals across the province, which caused unemployment, and which created a great deal of uncertainty, all in the name of restraint.
I have also noticed that my Conservative friends are great when it comes to marching across this country and talking about the great problem of inflation. They say there are two things we must do. We must cure this problem. That is their first cure. Second, the government is issuing too much money. That is their second cure. What would happen if we were to follow those two great cures of the Conservative party? We would have real problems in respect of inflation. We would have real problems in respect of unemployment, and we would have real problems with regard to health care across the country.
When I heard the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) a few moments ago talk about the one and one-half day conference of first ministers, yesterday and part of today, I realized that what is happening in respect of that conference is that when we discuss the great problem of health care and education across the country it is the province of Ontario, the province of Alberta, and the province of British Columbia which are causing the greatest division and complexity with regard to that conference. What they really want is all the taxsharing points to themselves. They want to determine just how the money should be spent. They do not want to follow the national principle that was enunciated by the late Mr. Pearson, and which has been followed in past years with regard to co-operative federalism in which we have a national standard concerning health and medical care as well as education. No sir.
What they want is the lion's share of the tax points so that they can control those measures and those programs themselves, and not worry too much about the people in the have-not provinces, such as the Maritimes and Newfoundland, who need proper health and medical care.
Medical Research
The Tories seldom tell what they would cut. However, they did this in one instance. During the budget debate we in the New Democratic Party put them to the test. The Liberals said, "We must have restraint; we must make cuts; we will hit the working man; we will increase the qualification for UIC from eight weeks to 12 weeks." After hearing from the Tories in all their great restraint, and after hearing the many complaints by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), we put them to the test. What did they do? After hearing the speech of the premier of Nova Scotia on the consequences with regard to the people of that province what did they do? They voted against the amendment of the New Democratic Party. They are great on words but they are very weak on cures and answers. Let me deal with the Liberal party for a few -loments, Mr. Speaker.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Why not deal with medical research?


John Gilbert: In April of 1974 the Minister of National Health and Welfare called for more research on accidents, heart disease, mental illnesses, drug abuse, physical fitness, industrial toxicology, high blood pressure, and at-home drug therapy. The Lamontagne Committee Report of 1972 recommended that Canadian research must double by 1980 to bring Canada in line with most other advanced countries. Those are very laudable principles, but when one studies the actions of the Liberal party one finds that they amount to very little. They amount only to the very disappointing programs that they have brought forth.
So that the impact of what has happened with regard to recent budget commitments concerning health research can be fully appreciated, I should like to quote one example. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) quoted many medical researchers from across the country who feel very gloomy about the austerity program of the government. I should like to quote from the Ottawa Citizen of March 1, 1976, from an article by Bob Cohen, part of which reads as follows:
Dr. William G. Schneider, president of the National Research Council, has worried publicly about "the serious risk in underinvesting in science".
He says that money is tight and the country's policy makers evidently feel they can ignore research and development with political impunity. The article states:
One of the problems with research and development, in terms of political appeal, is that it can be arcane and long-term. Things do not happen overnight. When they do happen, the public invariably has a tough time getting a handle on what they mean in ordinary terms.
The article also states:
Times have changed, and science has been left out in the treasury cold.
That is a very sad comment about what is happening by reason of the programs of the federal government. Just to show the impact in Ontario let me quote from an article in the Globe and Mail of April 13, 1976, which reads in part:
The last batch of this year's research termination notices have just been sent out from Ottawa to Canadian medical schools.
As a result of the federal government's decision to freeze the Medical Research Council budget, more than 21 University of Toronto projects have been given three to eight months to close down. These include research into calcium disorders, liver damage, fat breakdown, abnormal

June 15, 1976
Medical Research
bone growth, stress hormones, blood and clotting diseases, marijuana and drug detection, bone and joint transplants, kidney transplant rejection, heart output measurement, male infertility and many others.
In addition, another 60 U of T requests for starting new projects were turned down. These include research into asthma, cardiac angina, infections, plasticity, arthritis, diabetes, obesity, ozone pollution, pineal function, kidney diseases, bronchitis, barbiturates, emotional disorders, allergic pathology, sex hormone abnormalities, anti-hypertension drugs, geriatric diseases, stroke, homosexuality, senior citizen retirement, pituitary diseases, noise pollution and leukemia.
That indicates the importance of medical research into these problems, and it indicates the carelessness with which the government sets its priorities with regard to national health.
We spend close to $1 billion on foreign aid, and even $1 billion is not sufficient for that purpose, and we spend $50 million on medical research. This indicates how twisted our priorities are at times. We in the NDP oppose the positions taken both by our Conservative friends and the Liberal government. We have repeated this many times and we will continue to repeat it until health receives the top priority it deserves, because we think that there are certain rights which Canadians should have. They should have rights with regard to full employment, housing, health, environment, and education.
Health is a very important right because we must have physical and mental health, and research is a necessary part of it. This is why Stephen Lewis, the leader of the NDP in Ontario, has had such success. He has underlined problems with regard to asbestosis which causes lung cancer, problems with regard to mercury poisoning affecting our native people, and problems with regard to lead poisoning, also causing cancer. These are some of the human problems that the leader of the NDP in Ontario has underlined. Is it any wonder that the Liberals in Ontario are fading into oblivion and that the Tories are shaking in their shoes?


Mr. Beatty:: How many people in Ontario did you have before the last election?


John Gilbert: I might say to my hon. friend one thing about our party: we really possess quality. It is one thing he should remember.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: I have said, and so has the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the research community is upset. When I heard this afternoon the Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) say that Canada is getting a free ride with regard to research and development in the industrial field, I felt like getting up and telling him that not only are we getting a free ride but we are suffering a terrible loss of physicists, scientists, and engineers who are not developing research in Canada but who are going to the United States after graduating to do research and development for multinational corporations which come to Canada, do their business here, and then take their profits back to the U.S. and elsewhere. When I heard the Minister of Science and Technology say that this afternoon, I was really disappointed, and I was also disappointed in the lead-off speaker for the Tories because his great solution was to get rid of Petro-Can. If we had the money saved

from Petro-Can, we would have a tremendous thrust forward with medical research, he said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: I happened to be over in Iraq during the Easter break. One of the ministers connected with the oil industry was pointing out that Iraq was in the same situation as Canada in so far as oil was concerned, that the oil industry was under the domination of multinationals. He said that prior to nationalization in 1973 they received $600 million in taxes and royalties, but last year they had a $7 billion profit from the oil industry in Iraq. If we were to nationalize oil companies in Canada, you can imagine the amount of money we would have for medical research, housing, or environmental problems.
Then we heard the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halli-day) propose his great cure-all. He said that what we need is deterrent fees.


An hon. Member:: No, no.


John Gilbert: Well, one of the remedies he prescribed- and I do not know whether this is part of his party's national policy-was to prescribe deterrent fees.


Bruce Halliday: No, deterrents to abuse.


John Gilbert: Let us talk about deterrents. Just whom do deterrent fees affect? Do they affect the rich people? Not for a minute. They affect moderate income people just slightly, but they affect the poor people always.


Bruce Halliday: Never.


John Gilbert: This is the great remedy. How much do we need medical research in Canada? For the last two weeks I was out in Vancouver at the Habitat conference and I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say that we must have a conspiracy of passionate love. The next day when some of the great men at that conference told him that we should have a moratorium on nuclear reactors, he said, no, we have to sell them to other countries. What do we have? We have problems with regard to nuclear power, with regard to reactor safety, and we have radioactive waste. These are the problems attendant on nuclear power.
You probably heard the announcement on the "National News" last night that the Nuclear Reactor Association is not going to be set up. It was to go across the country publicizing the greatness of nuclear reactors and it was going to use half a million dollars to do it. What we need is a body that will go into the nuclear reactor problems with regard to safety and radioactive waste, in great depth.
When I heard the host of physicists at the Habitat conference speak, as well as Barbara Ward and Margaret Mead, it made me realize, and it should make all Canadians and people throughout the world realize, the dangers attendant upon nuclear waste and the safety problem with regard to reactors.
In the few minutes I have left, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it seems to me we are suffering from two types of sickness. There is the political sickness in that most of the
June 15, 1976

leaders today are aimless in purpose, they are drifting, and their priorities need to be rearranged. And there is the physical sickness. Has there ever been a time when there was so much sickness around the world, when there was so much cancer, so many heart attacks and diseases? The government is cutting back on medical research which could help solve these problems.
What is needed is hope. What is needed is courage, and the courage comes when the government sets forth its priorities in their proper order, when it gives medical research its proper attention, and nuclear reactors its lowest attention, when it gives housing and employment full priority. It is only when these priorities are established that we can justly and proudly call ourselves Canadians.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the topic before us today, that of an appropriate level of funding by the federal government for medical research, is an important one with serious implications for the lives of Canadians.
As was pointed out in the preface to "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians," a working document published by the Department of National Health and Welfare in 1974:
Good health is the bedrock on which social progress is built. A nation of healthy people can do those things that make life worth while, and as the level of health increases so does the potential for happiness.
The fundamental importance of measures to maintain and improve good physical and mental health has long been recognized by the provincial governments and the Government of Canada and, as a result, we have prepaid medical and hospital insurance, public health protection, programs to counter environmental pollution, accident prevention programs, and safeguards and requirements for food and drugs. Medical research, whether in-house research carried out directly by the Department of National Health and Welfare, or research funded by the department through the Medical Research Council, or research funded by private organizations cannot be considered in a vacuum but must be seen as one factor in a very broad spectrum of factors that contribute to the health, happiness, and quality of life of Canadians.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), in his preface to "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians", commenting on the fact that physicians, surgeons, nurses, and hospitals spend much of their time treating ills caused by environmental factors and behavioural risks, stated:
It is evident now that further improvements in the environment and reductions in self-imposed risks .. . are necessary if more Canadians are to live a full, happy, long and illness-free life.
At a national symposium on health research priorities held at McGill University on May 25, 1973, the point was made that many proven advances resulting from basic and clinical research are not being applied at the level of the practising physician. If one accepts this, one might see measures for more co-ordinated and effective use of existing knowledge as having higher priority than the search for new knowledge.
Examination of mortality figures in Canada shows a very high proportion of deaths which with our present
Medical Research
knowledge could be avoided. For example, the highest single cause of death in males between 15 and 24 is the motor vehicle accident. Other accidents, whether domestic accidents in the case of young children or industrial accidents, also account for a disconcertingly high proportion of deaths. Avoidable diseases of life style including those relating to abuse of tobacco, alcohol, or drugs take a high toll.
Another concern that emerged from the McGill symposium was that an insufficient proportion of research money is allocated to clinical, socio-medical, and organizational aspects of health and health care. This is not an issue of which we have heard much in recent months. The groups who have been lobbying members of parliament have placed their emphasis, for the most part, on basic biological research. Many of the people we have seen, too, have been unwilling to come to terms with the important questions of priorities and with choosing among conflicting options. One scientist, whom I asked for an indication of his priorities, told me that all applications from universities should be funded, that there is no possibility of bad or incompetent research being done in universities because of the peer review system.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You should quote his name.


Aideen Nicholson: I find this somewhat less than realistic. No group in society can claim an unlimited right to have their productions unexplained, unexamined by members of other disciplines, and funded uncritically with tax dollars.
At the other end of the scale from the person who says all applications for medical research from universities should be funded, is the person who is extremely critical of all work that is not done in his or her own department. The working paper "A New Perspective" commented on the need for researchers to develop:
.. . a unity of purpose which has often been lacking because of the destructive competition for limited funds. Balanced progress in all fields can only be obtained when researchers pull together toward the common objective of raising the health status of Canadians.
A very gentlemanly sidestepping of anything that looked like "destructive competition" was achieved by a member of a group lobbying for "more research" who, when I asked him to define areas which he considered priorities, explained that his organization represented people with many interests and could not promote any one area of endeavour without offending some members.
The Oliver Twist cry for "more" is understandable but is singularly unhelpful to legislators unless it is defined and some priorities set in terms of contemporary health needs.
Prior to 1974 the federal government limited its activities in the health field to its traditional responsibilities such as quarantine medicine, protection of the food supply, product safety, ensuring accessibility to personal health care through financial assistance to provincial health insurance plans, and financing research. The basis for concentrating its interest in these areas was the belief that the improvement of personal health care was the principal means of raising the level of health of Canadians.
The 1974 working paper, "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians", stated:

June 15, 1976
Medical Research
The evidence uncovered by the analysis of underlying causes of sickness and death now indicates that improvement in the environment and an abatement in the level of risks imposed upon themselves by individuals, taken together, constitute the most promising ways by which further advances can be made.
The paper continues:
Accordingly, it is the intention of the government of Canada, first, to maintain at a high level the services and support provided through its present activities in health protection, research and the financing of personal health care. To these will be added measures directed at specific national health problems, chosen in consultation with provinces, consumers, professions and associations according to their gravity and incidence, and aimed at removing or reducing the factors underlying sickness and death.
Some of these measures in time will no doubt be directed at environmental factors; others will be directed at lifestyle risks; still others will expand the horizons of health research and yet others will encourage more personal care services to neglected parts of the Canadian population ...
Since direct health care is already consuming some 7 per cent of the wealth that Canadians produce annually, it is evident that the rate at which the Government of Canada can expand its activities in the field of health is severely limited by financial considerations. It is also true that measures directed at the prevention of illness will take some time before they are translated into savings in the costs of providing curative health services.
Later the report went on to say:
... with the recognition that the good health of Canadians is an objective that shines brightly above .. . special interest groups, the Government of Canada proposes to take steps that will start the nation on the road to levels of health even higher than those that Canada now enjoys.
To achieve the aims of reducing mental and physical health hazards for Canadians whose risks are high and improving access to good health care, five strategies were proposed:
(1)	A health promotion strategy aimed at informing, influencing, and assisting both individuals and organizations so that they will accept more responsibility and be more active in matters affecting mental and physical health.
(2)	A regulatory strategy aimed at using federal regulatory powers to reduce hazards to mental and physical health, and at encouraging and assisting provinces to use their regulatory powers to the same end.
(3)	A research Strategy designed to help discover and apply knowledge needed to solve mental and physical health problems.
(4)	A health care efficiency strategy the objective of which shall be to help the provinces reorganize the system for delivering mental and physical health care so that the three elements of cost, accessibility and effectiveness are balanced in the interest of Canadians.
(5)	A goal-setting strategy the purpose of which will be to set, in co-operation with others, goals for raising the level of the mental and physical health of Canadians and improving the efficiency of the health care system.
The paper contains 74 proposals of which 15 deal with research. These are:
1.	An ongoing dialogue between health planners and the research community on the priorities for mission-oriented health research while preserving for the research community the setting of priorities in basic research.
2.	The implementation of a regular national health survey to determine the prevalence and nature of acute and chronic mental and physical illness, to permit an assessment of the health status and needs of Canadians and to measure changes in status and needs.
3.	The institution of a special program for identifying health status indicators and high-risk segments of the Canadian population, for the evaluation of the nature and gravity of mental and physical health risks, and for the proposal of measures to abate the level of risk.

4.	Measures to help integrate, improve and use, on a national basis, the data and statistics being recorded at various governmental and institutional levels.
5.	The establishment of a well-designed comprehensive system for the reporting of accident statistics which would, among other things, identify accident-associated products.
6.	The promotion of increased support for research on underlying causes of coronary-artery disease.
7.	Support for more research on the cause and treatment of mental illness.
8.	The support of projects designed to evaluate the results of present mass-screening programs and to test the effectiveness of future ones.
9.	The establishment of a national drug abuse institute covering all abusive drugs including psychotropic drugs, both licit and illicit, alcohol and cigarettes, and responsible for gathering statistics, supporting research, evaluating preventive and treatment measures and recommending policy.
10.	The undertaking of a broad continuing study into the ways and means of effectively informing the Canadian people on changes in behaviour which will significantly reduce self-imposed risks.
11.	The continuation and strengthening of present research into the effect of the physical environment on health.
12.	The establishment of a program for assessing the effect of social and environmental change on health, including the calculation of risk factors due to lifestyle.
13.	The continuation of support for research on physical and mental fitness and for fitness testing.
14.	Continued and increased support for research into better ways of providing health care.
15.	Continued support for research consistent with the scale of the health care industry.
The emphasis on applied or clinical research as opposed to basic research is clear: but obviously the position of the latter is protected, especially by recommendations Nos. I and 15.
Within the Department of National Health and Welfare a sum of $11,088,000 has been assigned this year to the national health research and development program. Some of the representations received in recent months from university employed scientists have expressed opposition to in-house research but have not offered reasons for their opposition and, in the absence of clearly stated reasons and supporting data, I cannot accept that research, in order to be valid, must be completely controlled by a university.
Several provinces have allocated moneys to health research or have indicated that they intend to do so. The voluntary sector is increasingly supporting research.
Finally, let me turn to the Medical Research Council for which main estimates for 1976-77 provide $48,848,000 for research support programs, and $1,142,000 for administrative costs. To put these votes in perspective it may be useful to remember that for 1966-67, a decade ago, main estimates provided $12.3 million for research support through the Medical Research Council. This figure has therefore almost quadrupled in the intervening ten years. The present provision of $48.8 million represents 79 per cent of the support for research provided this year by federal agencies, including the Department of National Health and Welfare, which have some major responsibility for health research. It is about 49 per cent of the total support expected to reach extramural health research in Canada this year from all sources.
On December 18, 1975, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) reported to the House a decision to limit the actual increase for the Medical Research Council
June 15, 1976

over 1975-76 to $1,414,000. Subsequent to that decision the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated that he had been able to re-allocate an additional $2 million from within his department to the Medical Research Council. This limiting of the rate of growth has been misrepresented as a cut in the funds available for medical research.
It may very well be that more funds should be allocated for medical research this year, but the onus is on those who think so to make the case more clearly and effectively than they have done to date, and to state unequivocally what elements of health programs should be given up or reduced in order to free additional funds.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, before I sum up what has been said today it should be noted that we have in this country developed decent health care facilities. We have built up in Canada an infrastructure for an effective research establishment which does its work from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
We are at a point in our history at which provinces have undertaken studies to determine how best to provide decent health care services for Canadians. As I went from coast to coast four years ago researching this matter, everyone agreed that, whether you are talking about basic research, clinical research, educational research or research into actual delivery of medical and health care services, centrifugal to the quality and the decency of these services in maintaining a decent research establishment. What does the government do? Unilaterally, without any logical reason whatsoever, it cuts back on funding of meaningful research in this country.
Above politics, I do not hesitate for a minute to pay tribute to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who, years ago as premier of his province, pioneered with other members of parliament and people in public life one of the better health schemes on a provincial level in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: We have in Canada today, for a relatively young country, both from the private sector and from what we have done with medical and health care services vis-avis medicare, every reason to stand up and say that, looking back historically, we should be the one country in the whole world that can today deliver the best, the most decent, and the most humane medical care services in the world.


An hon. Member:: We do.


William Heward Grafftey: No, we do not, especially because of our contemporary shortsightedness, what you are doing with the provinces today vis-a-vis cutting back on these programs, what you are doing unilaterally, cutting back on funding for meaningful research, not just this year but over the past three or four years.
Stop being political. Open your ears. Talk to the medical and health leaders of this country. They will tell you that because of the shortsightedness of the government, services at the local level are slowly but surely slipping from excellence to mediocrity.
Royal Assent


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: Apart from the humanitarian considerations, and I do not even like to say that, how can you measure the cost-


Mr. Lessard:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Minister, if you do not have anything better to do, go out and amuse yourself. Don't intervene in this debate. You are doing a bad enough job running your own portfolio.
I have already said, and I believe the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) alluded to this, we are not just talking about pure biomedical research, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) talked about. We are talking about clinical research, research in education, basic research in terms of how better can we, not in an institutional way, deliver medical and health care services. There is no use talking about savings in medicare or medical and health care programs until we put some meaningful research dollars into the whole area of how we are better going to deliver medical health care services.
An hon. member alluded in a political way to what the premier of Ontario is doing. He knows what the premier of Ontario is doing. He is finally doing what the former Minister of National Health and Welfare said years ago. We must have meaningful planning where the community hospital is the central institution for the total delivery of medical and health care services. The minute one premier has the guts and do on the local level what the federal government should have been doing in the past four or five years, what do you say? Politics. The Ontario minister of health has been a statesman in many instances.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have now expired.



ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills.
Bill C-81, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act with respect to the escalation of certain payments thereunder-Chapter No. 99.
Bill S-34, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act-Chapter No. 100.
[Stage Direction]
June 15, 1976
Adjournment Debate
Bill S-35, an Act to amend an Act to repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and to amend the Trade Marks Act-Chapter No. 101.
Bill S-33, an Act respecting United Grain Growers Limited.

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

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, for the past few weeks I have been calling for a complete examination of the Air Canada finance department operation in Winnipeg by the Auditor General's department because of the huge deficit experienced by Air Canada in 1975 amounting to $12.5 million; and for the first four months of 1976 the deficit has reached $14.5 million.
Before listing further reasons for the necessity for a complete examination into Air Canada's affairs, it is my understanding that a new Air Canada act is to be introduced by the government later this year which would separate Air Canada from being audited by an auditor appointed by the CNR, which makes a lot of sense. But due to the gravity of the situation in Winnipeg, the government is obligated to take immediate action to clean up the mess.
The government's repeated answer to me that MP's can question Air Canada in committee is nothing but a cover up. The committee system is not the area to conduct an audit; nor are MP's able to conduct an audit and investigate whether Air Canada has proper accounting procedures. Air Canada should appear before the committee for questioning in other areas.
A proper audit can only be done by qualified accountants and auditors who would have to spend considerable time at the finance branch examining Air Canada's procedures. Further, Mr. Speaker, the auditor's report contained in the 1975 Air Canada report from Cooper and Lybrand of Ottawa states that their examination includes a general review of the accounting procedures. It would seem that their terms of reference must be very limited.
Serious charges of financial mismanagement have been laid by CALEA and they have been documented charges, not supposition. An Air Canada public relations officer has denied these charges and has stated that the air line is subject to continuous external audit procedures by independent auditors appointed by the federal government. "We are under constant scrutiny", he said.
I have discussed this matter with Air Canada employees and they inform me that no independent auditors have scrutinized their procedures at all. So, Mr. Speaker, we have a direct contradiction and a further reason for an immediate investigation to be conducted into Air Canada's financial procedures, which were highly criticized in the Estey report.

Also, Mr. Speaker, a member of the accounting firm of Touche, Ross and Company has stated that if Air Canada had realistic accounting procedures the 1975 loss would be about $100 million instead of the reported $12.5 million. This is a serious charge and cannot just be swept under the rug.
Further charges have been laid by CALEA that the present billing work being contracted out across Canada is a cover-up designed to "get rid of all the embarrassing material". To date the contracting out of Air Canada finance work has cost a quarter of a million dollars. This ridiculous practice should be stopped and all billing work returned to the finance branch in Winnipeg. I am informed the contracted work is returned with a 50 per cent error factor, further compounding the problem.
The Saturday, June 12 edition of the Winnipeg Free Press in a front page copyrighted article by John Sullivan under the headline "Work Slowdown, Mismanagement Cost Air Canada Millions" stated:
Millions of dollars in revenue has been lost or written off by Air Canada in the last year because of inadequate or non-existent auditing practices, according to confidential financial reports by the airline's strike-bound Winnipeg financial workers.
In releasing the reports to the Free Press this week, local officials of the Canadian Airline Employees' Association . . . said a lack of adequate financial control has cost the publicly-owned airline enough revenue to "almost or perhaps totally" account for Air Canada's record $12.4 million deficit last year.
The financial study, conducted by union leaders late last year, says Air Canada has written off millions of dollars in unreported ticket sales by airline sales offices, travel agents and commercial subscribers.
I should like to remind the parliamentary secretary, who I assume is here to answer me tonight, that we are dealing with a Crown corporation and the taxpayers' money. This is not a private organization and we cannot have repeated slough-offs like I have been receiving over the past few weeks. The article continues;
More millions have been lost because the airline is simply paying out refunds and flight coupon billings from other airlines and accepting sales reports from travel agents and commercial subscribers without auditing them for errors, the union claims.
Interest on this revenue which has been lost, as well as the Crown airline's practice of farming out financial work to private firms in recent months, because of a huge backlog in processing, has also cost millions, the study says.
In short, the union leaders say Air Canada financial controls are in a mess, aggravated but not caused by the long-simmering labour dispute:
"The problem is one where the system originally devised for the audit and accounting process of the finance branch cannot accommodate the volume of work. Until such time as an automated process relieves the congestion, or until an adequate level of trained staff is reached, Air Canada will continue to have no protection for its revenues-strike or no strike".
I have also pointed this out to the parliamentary secretary and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on a number of occasions. The article then states:
The CALEA study apparently was written and released to the union's membership last year in a series of "progress reports" on the effects of a work slowdown and work-to-rule campaign by the employees.
Contract negotiations between Air Canada and the union-which began last April-broke down in December over the issues of job security and employee classifications-



June 15, 1976

This has nothing to do with poor accounting procedures. -after the existing contract expired August 25. The dispute is now under federal mediation but CALEA's slowdown and rotating strikes have continued for months with no end in sight.
The union says an Air Canada official at corporate headquarters in Montreal had admitted to them last year that "labour unrest in the accounting services division was costing $300,000 a week and this has been going on for two years."
A high-ranking official at the Winnipeg finance branch-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Winnipeg, as my hon. friend knows, is a particularly difficult one because of the various circumstances he has described this evening and on other occasions in the House. We have two separate issues involved that continue to complicate one another, and continue to muddle the situation. On the one hand we have a very difficult and complex labour situation, and on the other we have the allegations that have been made about faulty accounting and auditing procedures in that particular part of Air Canada's finance branch.
The labour situation described by the hon. member has, indeed, been under discussion for a very long period of time. Relatively recently, of course, we have had the submission of the report of the conciliation commissioner which has been reviewed by the company, the union, and the Department of Labour in light of the anti-inflation program.
The issue which has kept the two parties apart the longest in connection with the labour dispute, as the hon. member knows, is the matter of job descriptions and job security. For the past two years Air Canada has devoted an enormous amount of time, money, and effort in an attempt to resolve this issue. The advice of two outside consulting authorities has been sought, and when their various proposals did not prove acceptable to the union a commissioner, Mr. D. J. Jessiman, was named by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). Negotiations which had broken off in the early spring of 1975 were resumed under his jurisdiction in July last year. They continued until mid-September when the union requested the commissioner to take evidence and submit his report.
As I say, every effort has been made by the government and the company to bring this lengthy dispute to a conclusion. At the same time as the discussion on the labour dispute has been going on, we have had as well the problem that has been mentioned by my hon. friend in connection with the auditing matters.
As he has mentioned this evening we do have before parliament and the country the very comprehensive Estey Report into this whole question affecting Air Canada which, as he mentioned again tonight, will result in useful legislation. There is, as he has mentioned as well, an outside auditing procedure already in place, and there are also the ultimate safeguards of parliamentary scrutiny of the operations of Crown corporations. Beyond those assurances and the explanation with respect to the complicating factors of the labour dispute interfering with the other matter, I think for the time being this evening that is where I would leave the explanation.
Adjournment Debate


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON ALLEGED BREAK-IN OF QUEBEC NEWSPAPER OFFICE BY MEMBERS OF THE FORCE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are many members in this House of Commons who, like myself, would like some more background on the rather bizarre sounding incident of our national police force, the RCMP, breaking into the premises of a Quebec newspaper sometime ago. I know that members of all parties have asked questions about it. I recall the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) asking a question about it on behalf of the Social Credit Party. My friend the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) also made an inquiry in this House about the information and background surrounding this incident.
Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make another appeal to the minister or his parliamentary secretary to give the House of Commons a little information. The minister indicated on several occasions he would do this. If my memory does not play me false, I think it was on March 31 of this year that he indicated he hoped to give the House as much information as was possible once he received an RCMP report on the matter. On April 2 he repeated that remark in effect, and again on April 28, I believe as recorded at page 12952 of Hansard, he said the same thing for the third time. Then on May 18 he admitted that he had received a full report from the RCMP, but instead of reporting to this House as he had promised he turned the report over to the Quebec Solicitor General to, as he said, determine whether something illegal had taken place.
Any force as large and complex as the RCMP inevitably makes mistakes. They are entitled to make a few mistakes because most of the time they do a tremendous job. But like fire, the RCMP is a good servant but a bad master. If there are occasions, and we all know there are, when mistakes are made, I think it is incumbent on the minister who is responsible for the conduct of our national police force to come into the House of Commons and tell us in effect what went wrong. I do not wish to go into many incidents to make my point, but I think it is of some interest that, for instance, here in Ottawa on the very premises of parliament a member of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires and his family were considerably embarrassed by the RCMP who made what turned out to be an unfortunate mistake by coming into his premises on a mistaken apprehension that there may have been drugs there. This of course resulted in an action being taken against them, for which this man and his family were compensated. That is fine. We all understand this.
What I would like to know, and I am sure other members would like to know, is what the implications are in respect of this unfortunate incident with regard to the Quebec newspaper L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec. Obviously there was no warrant. The RCMP took part in a joint venture with other police forces. I would like to know more about this. Whose responsibility was it to have made certain that the entry was done properly? Perhaps under the circumstances it could not have been done properly, which makes it all the more serious.

June 15, 1976
Adjournment Debate
Without straying too far off the subject I would like to say that so far as I am concerned I really believe that the rank and file members of the RCMP would support a crackdown, or a check, on some of the procedures and methods used on occasion which result in these unfortunate types of incidents. It would be a good idea for the responsible ministers and the government to exercise a little bit more supervision over the force. However, I will not talk on that topic because that is not the issue here tonight.
I would like to remind the parliamentary secretary that as a member of parliament I feel that this House is entitled to more information about this incident than we have received. It is all very well for the solicitor general for the province of Quebec to have an investigation to ascertain what happened. He has responsibilities there as well to see what part the force played vis-a-vis MUC or the Quebec provincial police, but there is only one minister responsible to the House of Commons for the RCMP, and that is the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand).
So without saying anything more this evening I am simply inviting the parliamentary secretary to give us as much information as he can and to assure us that this incident, which has rather alarming overtones, was in fact an isolated one and that remedial steps will be taken. Without wanting to sound as if I were asking that people be punished if mistakes were made, I want to remind the parliamentary secretary again that members of the force in the past have been severely disciplined, and often discharged without a hearing, for incidents which on the face of it sound to me a great deal less serious than permitting something like this to happen with respect to that procedure, whatever it was, affecting the rights of this small newspaper in Quebec.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be as co-operative as I can with the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). I know he has a real concern in these matters and he has made it a special interest of his in the House. He is very well aware of the fact that the Solicitor General of the province of Quebec is responsible for the administration of justice in that province and it is he who must determine the need for a complete investigation of all the facts from all the police forces involved and whether or not further charges should be laid in this matter. However, I will attempt to provide further information to the hon. member who last June 8 asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) if he was prepared to give the House a complete report on the break and entry into the L'agence de Presse Libre du Quebec.
As most hon. members are aware, this break in is supposed to have occurred in 1972. The minister did not become aware of the break in until 1976. Upon learning of it the minister requested details from the RCMP. Officials in the RCMP were able to confirm that there was a break in and that officers of the RCMP, along with members of the Montreal Urban Community Police Force and the Quebec Police Force were involved in this act. Originally the minister stated that the RCMP had played a supportive role, but later was informed that the event was a combined

effort. He was also informed that as far as the RCMP were concerned there was no warrant obtained before the break-in.
The RCMP have completed their investigation into the role which any of its officers may have played in this break-in. The minister has also had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the Solicitor General of Quebec. On any criminal act which may have taken place in Quebec, Mr. Lalonde has asked that the RCMP report be made available to him. The report is now in his hands.
The Solicitor General wishes to emphasize that only the report of the RCMP involvement was made available to him. The reports involving the other two forces were naturally given to the Quebec Solicitor General.
The Solicitor General of Quebec will therefore be responsible for determining whether or not criminal charges should be proceeded with. The minister wishes to advise this House that any action which he may take will have to await the decision of Mr. Lalonde.


AGRICULTURE-REQUEST FOR EMBARGO ON IMPORTATION OF CHEESE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, the question I raise deals with a subject somewhat different from those raised by my two colleagues. I want to remind the House that on May 25, 1976, the Globe and Mail published an article which indicated that an attempt was being made to re-condition rotten imported Feta cheese for the purpose of moving this product on to our domestic market as a fresh commodity.
During the question period later that same day I raised this matter, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) replied in part:
I understand there is every possibility that this cheese was inspected when it was brought into Canada, but it has been in Canada for over a year. It was when it was brought out of storage that it was found to be unfit for human consumption.
It was found to be unfit for human consumption only after a Canadian cheese manufacturer "blew the whistle" and requested that this product be inspected. The Minister of Agriculture went on to comment that "over 4,000 inspections of imported cheese were carried out last year." Granted, Mr. Speaker, 4,000 inspections seem substantial, but one has to remember that applies to 50 million pounds. That represents only one inspection on every 12,500 pounds of imported cheese. It becomes even less significant when you consider that many of these cheese imports are prepackaged and shipped in small packages ready for the retail market.
It is interesting to note that the reported facts in this particular case, according to the district supervisor for the Department of Agriculture, include the admission that although his department monitors all cheese imports to see that weights are labelled correctly and butterfat composition is up to standard, there is no monitoring of these products for freshness. Indeed no regulations exist governing the freshness of imported cheese products. The supervisor went on to comment that the department does not inspect every shipment that comes into the country, but rather it depends on the importer's record as to whether or not we take samples for inspection.
June 15, 1976

It is interesting to note as well that, according to comments from a spokesman from the health protection branch, when imported food comes into this country it is not checked by health inspectors for bacteria contamination unless there has been some complaint.
Regardless of the minister's answer to my question on May 25, and likely including the reply that I am about to receive tonight from his capable parliamentary secretary, one must remain convinced that under the present policy of the government our own Canadian cheese industry remains at a serious disadvantage right here at home in relation to foreign competitors.
In the case of Feta, Mr. Speaker, it wholesaled for $1.40 a pound compared to 90 cents to $1.29 for imports, and this particular shipment of 18,000 pounds was being offered by the importer at 50 to 60 cents a pound below market price if it could be cleaned up.
Cheese imports have been a bone of contention to the Canadian cheese manufacturing and Canadian dairy industries for some time. The present 50 million pounds of imports is estimated to be costing our own industry over $3.6 million.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that if the minister continues to refuse to reduce or place an embargo upon cheese imports, then I submit he is obligated at the very least to take immediate steps to place imported cheese under the same type of rigid inspection regulations that are currently applied to our Canadian producers. Anything less than this is totally unacceptable, grossly unfair, and highly dangerous to the health and well-being of Canadians.


Mr. Irenes Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on May 25 an article appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail which was entitled "Mould Scraped Off Cheese". This article, by its implica-
Adjournment Debate
tions, may have caused concern to consumers. I am pleased to have the opportunity of touching briefly on the actual fact of this matter.
In late 1974 and early 1975, several shipments of Feta cheese from Denmark were imported in Toronto. This cheese was packed in barrels and covered with brine. Only the last shipment, dated March 10, 1975, brought difficulties; due to the evaporation of the brine, part of the cheese was no longer covered by the solution, which caused the growth of mould.

In an attempt to determine the best disposition of this product, some of the cheese was scraped clean of mould, rebrined, and repackaged. This reconditioned cheese was tested by the health protection branch and was found to be suitable for human consumption on the basis of analyses performed to date. Additional tests are currently being run to make absolutely sure that this assessment is correct. [Translation]
We got in touch with a Canadian manufacturer of Feta cheese to see whether he was interested in reconditioning a certain amount of cheese. This business is in direct competition with imported Feta cheese. The Health Protection Branch which was very careful in this matter has been retaining all the mouldy cheese since April 30.

The foregoing prompt action is illustrative of the effective control of both imported and domestic cheese which is exercised by the actions of the food inspection system of the Government of Canada. It would be unfortunate if erroneous impressions were gained, by situations such as this, that the food inspection system of Canada was not effective and efficient, since, indeed it is efficient.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.33 p.m.

Wednesday, June 16, 1976