1976-04-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since it has become urgent to control violence in sports generally and particularly in hockey; since violent fights, blows and excessive brutality are not at the present time covered under criminal law; and, finally, since control over sports activities is generally left to the goodwill of sports monopolies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House direct the government to take all necessary arrangements in the shortest time possible so as to use any legal mechanism to punish rightly acts of violence in sports generally, particularly in hockey, and so as to develop amateur sports and invite people to play an active part.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity; in fact, a matter of a double-cross.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As the present and former Ministers of Transport as well as the government have promised repeatedly to consult fully with the provinces and to provide
them with full cost information before deciding on the question of freight rate subsidies on rapeseed oil and meal, and as the order in council of April 13 removing rapeseed oil and meal was made only five days after mailing the latest cost information to the provinces, which they view to be inadequate and inaccurate, and as the meeting of western premiers in Medicine Hat has condemned the federal government for reneging on its promises at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the federal government live up to its promises of full consultation with the provinces and not implement the order in council removing rapeseed oil and meal from the statutory freight rates until after full consultation with the provinces at next week's meeting of first ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Soviet Union be asked by our external affairs department, either at the United Nations or through diplomatic channels, to explain why they have exiled the Secretary of Amnesty International from Moscow.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 29, 1976
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the kind of speculative reports which are now circulating, for example the report which is featured in the Ottawa Journal of today, could the Prime Minister confirm for the House of Commons and the people of Canada that an extensive policy of review is now underway within the government in respect to what has been called the "post-control" society, and could he tell us something of the nature of this review procedure.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what today's Ottawa Journal says about this. It is naturally true that in so far as the control of the economy, the operation of the control mechanism, is concerned and the kind of difficulties which created the antiinflation situation in Canada linked with the undesirable high unemployment figure, we are looking at the subject and trying to find ways in which the economy would operate better in the future. The hon. member will remember that in the white paper on inflation published last October we indicated certain non-structural changes which, among others, will have to be contemplated. This kind of work is in progress.


Charles Joseph Clark: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The white paper also indicated there would be some fairly extensive consultative procedures with other sectors in the society. In view of the fundamental importance of the issues under discussion and in view of the fact that whatever the Prime Minister might think and might be suggesting this direction for Canadian society cannot be decided simply be the government alone and imposed on the rest of the community, would the Prime Minister be prepared to bring this whole subject matter of policy for the "post-control" period before a parliamentary committee and would he be prepared to begin that procedure with a full statement by the government of a range of options, and details of those options now being considered for the basis of the "post control" period?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the question of the Leader of the Opposition to lead to the belief that there has not been and will not be a great deal of consultation on the matter of productivity, for instance, which interests the member for Prince Edward-Hastings so much. I stated to him in reply to a question in the House that there has been consultation. I believe there have been some personal meetings between the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and his advisory committee on that subject. I have reported to the House on several occasions that members of the cabinet have met with representatives of the public sector and the labour sector. We are very anxious to hear the views of the opposition on this subject-


An hon. Member:: Here we go again.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -If they have any views on the matter of anti-inflation.
As to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that parliament sit down and begin to study the post-control period, my general answer is no; I do not think that would be a proper course of action. I wish parliament would be more concerned with the control period which is the one we will have with us for another two and a half years.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised that the Prime Minister is interested in the views of the Official Opposition on national policies since he continually borrows from them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Charles Joseph Clark: What we want to have is full information on the range of options now being considered in secret by advisers to the government of Canada. We want to have that information brought before, not this whole parliament, but before a standing committee of this parliament so that there can be an opportunity for full public debate on the various options by the House of Commons and by the people we represent. Then, there will not be simply an imposition of the Prime Minister's personal values upon the society. I ask the Prime Minister; will he make that kind of reference to a standing committee so that the House of Commons and the people of Canada can become aware of the range of options that are now being considered?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question which was asked twice by the hon. member-


Charles Joseph Clark: And not answered.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was not answered because the hon. member remained standing and asked it the second time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition seems to take offence that we borrow some of his programs. If they are good, then certainly we should borrow from them. But I do not see why they vote against them when we borrow from them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Because you change them as well as steal them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: With regard to the substance of the question, it seems to me to be a most unreasonable request. Naturally, the government is continually trying to plan ahead to see what will develop-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Do you mind if I doze off?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This may not be the mandate of the opposition, but it is our mandate. If we are doing this, naturally
April 29, 1976

we are looking at a series of alternatives, economic and social, which might occur in the country and naturally we have a desire to cover various options. Naturally, there are hypotheses about the future. The fact that we do it in secret, to use the hon. member's word, seems to me to be a prudent way of doing it. We cannot possibly come before the Canadian public or the House of Commons and indicate all the various scenarios which could develop in Canada and have them studied one by one and the response which they would give to these various scenarios. Even the very talk of looking at new values emerging in a new society spooks the opposition out of their seats.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Since it is clearly an unreasonable position for the Prime Minister of Canada to suggest, as he has in Scarborough and other places, that the only choice for Canadians in so far as the new values of the new society is concerned, is to accept them voluntarily or have them imposed by the government, since that is an unreasonable and undemocratic position-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -will the Prime Minister now give the House of Commons and the people of Canada a commitment that we will have the opportunity to discuss and participate in the decision on new values for the so called new society before they are imposed without choice by the government?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer to that is obviously yes, Mr. Speaker. If we introduce any new policies or legislation, obviously they will be brought before the House. We will expect the opposition, perchance, to express some views on them.
The hon. member refers to what I stated in York-Scar-borough. One of the examples I gave was pollution, and it does not seem very undemocratic to me to suggest to the audience and to the panel there that either the private sector voluntarily makes sure that it produces without polluting every aspect of Canadian life, or we impose legislation upon it to keep the environment clean.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think that this is a very reasonable question which even the opposition will have to face some day when it gets around to it.


FORM AND TIME-FRAME OF CONSULTATIONS ON POST-CONTROL SOCIETY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -I should like to ask the Prime Minister something about the consultations he has talked about with Mr. Morris and also with the radio audience in
Oral Questions
Toronto when he indicated it is time we sat down together to discuss whether new mechanisms are necessary to promote better mutual understanding and co-ordinated action. Could the Prime Minister indicate the form such consultations will take, consultations presumably with sectors of the economy and sectors of society? Could he indicate the forum of those consultations and the time-frame he has in mind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the most obvious example of that forum for consultation was the Labour Relations Council set up by the Minister of Labour of this government when he provided a forum wherein labour and management could at a very real difficulty in our economy, the difficulty having to do with industrial relations. In this forum, as indeed in the meetings we have unilaterally with labour on the one side or with management on the other, we try to ascertain some of their views which would permit Canada to have improved policies in the area of labour-management relations, hopefully to reduce the number of strikes and to reduce the inconvenience to the public by strikes in essential services. We believe this can best be approached by getting the views of both sides involved in the conflict.


CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES ON POST-CONTROL SOCIETY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the statement in the white paper on inflation tabled by the government last fall, which said that in concert with provincial governments the government intends to identify and correct public policies which impede in a structural sense the efficient operation of our economy, would the Prime Minister tell the House what consultations have been held with the provinces during the past six months?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would you read the words about consultation again?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: "-in concert with the provincial governments, consultations to identify and correct public policies which impede in a structural sense the efficient operation of our economy." Would the Prime Minister indicate what consultations have taken place with the provinces, and could he also indicate whether the provinces are to be involved in the general kinds of consultation the Prime Minister has in mind with regard to the post-controls society?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So far as the last part of the question is concerned, I attempted to deal with it in answering the question of the present Leader of the Opposition. In so far as examples of consultation with the provinces, from memory I can name several. There have been meetings of ministers of finance, ministers responsible for housing, ministers responsible for health and welfare, and I believe ministers responsible for agriculture. These are all areas which we believe were precisely pointed out in the white paper as perhaps in need of some structural reforms. I believe, to be specific, that we mentioned the food and housing areas.

Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


POSSIBILITY RIGHT TO STRIKE WOULD BE ABOLISHED- INTRODUCTION OF NEW LEGISLATION ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Before we are given another committee, the report of which can be set aside, may I ask a question based on a report that the government is considering that in its post control plans it will abolish the right of public servants to strike. In view of the fact that a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on employer-employee relations in the public service spent a year and a half studying this subject, and made a report just a few weeks ago in which it was recommended that the right to strike be continued, may I ask the Prime Minister if any attention is to be paid to the report of that committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what report the hon. member is referring. If he is talking of the report in the newspapers about the right to strike-


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: No; the Finkelman committee report.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -I can tell him there is no movement afoot in the federal government to abolish the right to strike.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister if the government is working on new legislation respecting employer-employee relations in the public service based on the report of the special joint committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of the joint committee report, work is going on in the government toward changes in present legislation.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning problems now experienced by most old age pensioners in connection with their old age security pension cheque. This month, the supplement and spouse allowance were not included with the old age pension cheques. The pensioners received only the basic amounts. Our constituency office must take in many calls and the office of the department in Quebec advises us that it is snowed under and that we will have to wait a month. Could the minister tell us whether he is aware of that situation and what steps he intends to take to correct that serious problem which has dire consequences for older people in Quebec?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, indeed I was informed of a number

of cases such as the hon. member mentioned. Apparently, these situations are due to some problem in the programming of computers which issue old age pension cheques. It is something I deeply regret and I gave instructions to my officials to prepare the cheques by hand if necessary each time there is a complaint. I thank the hon. member and I hope the other members will be able to explain the present difficulties to the citizens who will be affected and to bring each case to the attention of the responsible officers in each province, so that we may correct the situation as soon as possible.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. On Monday last I asked the minister a question about the progress of financing arrangements between Lockheed and the Canadian banks. The minister declined to answer but immediately afterwards told reporters that an agreement was being negotiated for something more than $300 million but less than $400 million. While not wishing to raise a question of privilege about this at this time, I feel that since the question was first raised in the House, the House should have been given the answer before reporters were apprised of the situation.
Will the minister now tell the House more exactly how much is being borrowed, at what rate of interest, how long the period of the loan is and what kind of security Canadian banks will get for their loan, inasmuch as the government has said categorically that it will not guarantee the loan?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the financing arrangements are being worked out between Lockheed and the Canadian banks. It will be up to them to make the first announcement about the terms of that financing.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, you will notice that I had three questions wrapped up in that first one. The minister answered one and avoided two, which is about par. If the minister cannot tell the House what rate of interest will be payable on the loan which is being negotiated-what interest the Canadian people are going to pay-can he at least assure the House that it will not be above the prime rate? Can he tell the House whether he expects that the government will be required to pay more in interest than the $111 million which was allowed as part of the total program cost?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the answers to all those questions will be made available at the time the announcement is made concerning the whole matter.


An hon. Member:: In the House?
April 29, 1976


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Can the minister assure the House that he will make the announcement in the House of Commons where the questions have been asked?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: Yes or no.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Postmaster General in his dual capacity as Postmaster General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? Does the hon. gentleman consider the admission by a Post Office official that his department uses expensive private couriers to carry urgent interoffice and intercity mail to be good advertising for the Post Office and an example of efficiency in restraint on behalf of consumers of Canada?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into the use by the Post Office of private couriers and am told it has been the practice for 28.5 years. I am not sure if further investigation might not show that it has been done for at least 35 years. It is a special service. When a parcel, package or letter has to be delivered from point A to point B in Ottawa in 20 minutes, it is much more efficient and less expensive to use this service than to divert regular workers within the Post Office for this service.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Postmaster General has stated that private couriers are "costing the taxpayer" by creaming off revenue which would ordinarily go to the Post Office, why does he want the cost to be even greater than necessary by having the Post Office use these couriers? And, what does he plan to do to recover the business which has fled to private couriers because of the failure of the Post Office to provide consistently reliable performance?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have already announced that we intend to go into that business within one year in order to recover the type of business which private couriers attempt to attract. Basically, it is a profitable business only in big, metropolitan centres. As for regaining some of our business, the hon. member will be pleased to know that the volume and revenue of the Post Office in January, February and March this year was 6 per cent higher than in the corresponding period last year.
Oral Questions SUPPLY AND SERVICES


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-DATE OF SIGNING
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Since the Minister of National Defence apparently does not intend to inform the House about the status of the Lockheed contract and financing arrangements for it, will the Minister of Supply and Services tell the House if he expects to sign the contract tomorrow?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to supply the House with more information but I believe that during negotiations one must necessarily proceed with utmost discretion. We have of course, until tomorrow midnight to make a decision but I do not know at this point whether or not the contract will be signed before midnight tomorrow.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence? According to reports earlier this week in the Toronto Sun, the minister has apparently inherited an interest in things extrasensory and made at least half a dozen telephone calls to Dr. David Hoy, a psychic operating out of Paducah, Kentucky. Apparently the minister made the calls during a recent visit by Dr. Hoy to Toronto. The minister is reported to have sought advice from the psychic on defence policy and the Lockheed LRPA contract. Will the minister tell the House the advice he received and if it will be his practice in future to consult psychics?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the newspaper report but, as stated by the hon. member, it is totally erroneous. The man referred to as Dr. Hoy telephoned me two or three weeks ago and said that he had information concerning funding which might be useful for the Lockheed program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Did you ask Mackenzie King?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I did not return the telephone call and did not seek the source of funds suggested.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of

April 29, 1976
Oral Questions
Agriculture. I gave him notice of my intention to ask it. It arises from the fact that Aaron Metzzer Produce, a major egg distributor in Ontario, has been unable to get CEMA to fill more than 50 per cent of its orders since Easter, that it has been unable to get import permits to fill the gap, and that a carload of eggs promised by CEMA for delivery today has not arrived. What assurance can the minister give the people of Ontario that there will not be egg shortages in stores in Ontario, shortages which may arise because this major supplier will not be able to meet orders as early as next Monday if eggs do not become available?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it has not been reported to me that anybody in Ontario went without eggs. I am told that the distributor will have eggs on Monday.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of deteriorating conditions in the textile and clothing industry of Canada-there has been a drop of 20 per cent in business over the last decade-can the minister explain why his department continues to refuse to place quotas on imports, particularly winter outerwear, coming from cheap-labour southeast Asian countries?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will refer to the proceedings of the Senate committee-I think it is the finance and banking committee-of yesterday morning he will find that I and my officials appeared before the committee for about three hours and many of these questions were dealt with in considerable detail at that time. On the question of refusing to introduce quotas, let me say that we have actually introduced quotas on a number of items. As for the matter of outerwear, and specific commodities relating to the report of the clothing and textile board, insufficient data was available in order to enter into the necessary negotiations with the countries concerned. But we have put all these items under import surveillance, which means that they require import permits. As soon as a case has been established as a result of surveillance, further action will be taken.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture? Has he, himself, or the Farm Products Marketing Council, looked into the serious allegation that CEMA is attempting to circumvent the law in issuing permit orders, through the Department of Industry, Trade

and Commerce, to other than legitimate egg brokers for the importation of eggs to Canada from the United States?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have met with members of the council and am perfectly satisfied they are acting within the law. They are not acting illegally, nor, as the hon. member suggested, are they being dishonest.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary question may I ask the Solicitor General if a complaint has been registered with the RCMP about the activities of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and if an investigation is about to commence?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP in Ottawa received one complaint about possible irregularities concerning CEMA. The complaint was received only recently and the RCMP is presently assessing it.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board.
Considering that, in the last few weeks, there were meetings between the President of the Treasury Board and the Quebec Minister of Finance in which they discussed the continuation of the self-financing programs for the Olympic Games in the summer of 1976 and that, according to the provincial minister, negotiations would be completed by this time, and in view of the fact that the right hon. Prime Minister stated in the House two weeks ago that the government was still supporting the self-financing objective, can the President of the Treasury Board inform hon. members of the House of the nature of the agreements between himself and the representative of the Quebec government, and tell them when he proposes to introduce in the House the bills which are necessary to extend the existing programs or to establish new programs?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing else to report at the present time. We have not quite completed the negotiations and as soon as they are, I shall be glad to make a statement in the House.
April 29, 1976


TRANSPORT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. As the minister's predecessor pledged in February, 1975, to reduce freight rate anomalies as between raw and finished products, especially rapeseed, and to consult fully with the provinces, I ask the minister what will be the effect of the order in council of April 13 increasing even further the present anomaly of 25 cents per hundredweight in favour of crushing rapeseed in Montreal over crushing it in parts of western Canada?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, consultations have taken place and there was a general understanding on the part of western transportation ministers that under existing law we cannot impose a lower rate for rapeseed oil than the technically compensatory rate. That being the best we can do, it is what we propose to do. Of course, there is an anomaly which continues because of the movement of rapeseed at a very low rate. It would take another form of action which could correct the situation. There will be a possible opportunity for legislation next session to deal with some of these problems. I should say to the hon. member that if he thinks the existing use of Crow rates on meal and rapeseed is going by the board, he is wrongly informed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am informed today that rape processing plants in western Canada are losing at the rate of $300,000 a month at the present time. In view of the fact the Department of Regional Economic Expansion provided grants for these plants, will the Minister of Transport advise if he has made any representations in cabinet or if the government is considering any compensation? How does that square with the policy of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, in view of the fact that the government and the Prime Minister pledged in 1974 to do something about the anomalies between raw and finished products in western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the action to legislate changes in freight rates will be taken in the next session. The necessary changes in the National Transportation Act are being developed for that purpose. The hon. member knows that the figure he refers to as a loss in processing plants in western Canada is really due to the fact that there is a very low rate on rapeseed moving to destinations at the Crow rate. I am not sure whether he is proposing a solution by bringing those rates into line with costs.
Oral Questions
the 6 per cent inflation rate which has been achieved by the United States government and, following that, the 2 per cent inflation rate which the Secretary of the Treasury Williams Simon said recently he is confident the United States will reach within two years?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish Secretary Simon well in his expectation. I myself would think that is rather ambitious. From our standpoint, we do not anticipate reaching the 6 per cent rate in the current fiscal, or, indeed, calendar year.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Elgin.


Mr. Wise:: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I note that he has momentarily left the chamber. Perhaps I might be recognized upon his return.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Agriculture has now re-entered the chamber, I will direct my question to him. I understand that on Tuesday of this week the Prime Minister received the report of the special beef inquiry that was ordered some time ago. I assume that since two days have past, the Minister of Agriculture has received the report from the Prime Minister and has had time to read it. Does the report make any recommendations as to greater government regulation of the beef industry?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had time to read the report and, therefore, I am not aware of what recommendations have been made, except for a telephone conversation with my assistant deputy minister in charge of the stabilization board.


Jack Burnett Murta: As the report is going to be very important to not only the beef producers, but the consumers of this country, can the minister now give an approximate date when the report will be made public?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have been as eagerly awaiting this report as the hon. member or anyone else. He can rest assured that we will make it public as soon as possible.


SKIM MILK POWDER-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PURCHASE BY CIDA  THE CANADIAN ECONOMY DATE ON WHICH RATE OF INFLATION WILL REACH SIX PER CENT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. When does the government expect this country will reach


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he give some indication as to the status or progress of the purchase of some 75 million pounds of skim milk powder by CIDA? Can he give some indication as to the progress of those negotiations?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I know of no problem there. I read some things in the press the other day which I found very hard to believe.

Oral Questions
As far as I am concerned, the arrangements have been made. CIDA has agreed to spend an extra $10 million in the program and at world prices.


John Wise: In the minister's statement we are led to believe that the purchase will be entirely financed by CIDA. Is it not true that the dairy producers will be contributing a greater amount of money than the government, $28 million from the producers compared to the $20 million from this government? When the minister is clarifying this matter, can he give some indication as to the method or formula used to arrive at the $8.60 used in the penalty clause of his statement on dairy policy?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the connection. However, in the case the hon. member has raised, CIDA has agreed to put $20 million into a fund to purchase from dairy producers. I am glad the hon. member has raised this. The dairy farmers of Canada will be contributing in a tremendous way to the food aid program, much more than the rest of society is being asked to do. This is something that many people do not realize. At the first opportunity I will present the complete memo to the hon. member on why the $8.60 is as high as it is. Basically, it is because they paid no attention, that is the provincial marketing boards and everyone else, to my appeals to cut back on production. It is just wasteful to produce and then do what they are now doing. They might as well do what they did the day before yesterday, throw it down the sewers in Toronto or anywhere else. If they are going to produce it for nothing, that is something that cannot be accepted when there is no market for the product.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It refers to a report on April 24 that negotiations are expected to be completed shortly on a licensing agreement allowing an Italian company to build CANDU reactors. In view of the fact that on July 22, 1975 the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources went to some lengths to outline the safeguards agreement he was trying to achieve to cover the resale by the Italian company of Canadian technology to other countries, and since the April 24 report states that the licensing agreement if approved would cover only construction of reactors in Italy and the company would not be permitted to sell reactors to other countries, does this mean that the Canadian government was not able to achieve the safeguards it was seeking from Italy?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question is a complicated one, as one would expect from the complex member who posed the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If I may revert to the normal Celtic relationship that exists between us-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the simple answer to the question is if the hon. member is referring to the licensing and licensing arrangements, that situation is fully safeguarded under the policy that has been adopted by the government.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to point out that it is not a complex matter at all. Last year the government was talking about allowing the Italian government to have the right of resale of Canadian technology. Now it seems that that condition has been withdrawn because the safeguards being sought have not been met. My question is, is it the situation that the safeguards that were being sought for resale of Canadian technology at that time have not been met by the Italian government and therefore resale is not to be permitted?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, such resale or retransfer of Canadian technology could not take place to a third country without the concurrence of the government of Canada.


AIRPORTS
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Supply and Services.
As reported on page 12900 of Hansard for April 27, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) asked the minister if he could assure the House, and I quote:
.. . that to his knowledge there were no improprieties or irregularities surrounding the tendering for, and letting of, some of the contracts for the installation of a sound reinforcing system at Mirabel airport.
Can the minister answer that question today?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the Social Credit party is more interested in finding out the truth than is the hon. member for Central Nova. It may be that he knew the answer, as all the information I am about to give was supplied to a representative of the Progressive Conservative party's research staff sometime last January. At that time they said that they were satisfied with the information they had received. We asked for tenders and the closing date was July 3, 1974. Later the closing date was extended to August 28, 1974 and all the firms which had been invited to tender were warned of this extension.
On August 28, therefore before the closing date, the RCA company sent in an envelope bearing the original date of July 3 as well as the tenders number. Due to a clerical error, this envelope was misplaced and when the tenders were opened there was only one, namely General Sound and Theater Equipment Ltd. The RCA tender was
April 29, 1976

unsealed and accepted on the next day, as internal regulations state no tenderer shall be penalized on account of our own errors. The RCA tender was accepted because it was the lowest. This decision was accepted by the General Sound in a letter-


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Now that the Prime Minister has confirmed that we are stuck with controls for two and a half years, apparently certain in his attitude that they will work, much in contrast to his view on May 3, 1974 when he said he was quite certain that they were not the right approach to fighting inflation, and considering that the Anti-Inflation Board expects food prices to rise by 3 to 4 per cent over the next two months, does the Minister of Finance agree that this development would reverse the recent deceleration of prices increases, and does the minister now feel he may have to retract the statements of both the Prime Minister and himself to the effect that the anti-inflation program has already had some effect in reducing inflation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, sir.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance who today indicated that our inflation certainly will not be down to 6 per cent this year, be it fiscal or calendar year. As our future inflation rate depends on the administration's fiscal and monetary stance more than the effect of the controls program, would the minister indicate when we might expect his budget which hopefully might better acquaint the people of Canada with the administration's current budgetary views, bearing in mind the last budget was 10 months ago and was brought down by a former minister of finance who has since had a falling out and has run away?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I just say that I think the hon. member's last several remarks are rather unfair to my predecessor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would hope to be able to confirm within a week or so the actual date of the budget.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I want to return to a matter that is very important to both consumers and producers. Has CEMA been importing eggs or otherwise
Oral Questions
obtaining eggs from the United States through intermediaries and offering them to Canadian firms while recommending to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that Canadian firms not be allowed permits to import eggs themselves directly from the United States? Secondly, is CEMA trying to do indirectly something that the cabinet has not yet given it permission to do, that is, control the importation of eggs into Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered this question. CEMA is not doing anything that anybody has told me is illegal; they are operating within the law. They are supposed to be in the position of supplying the need for eggs in Canada. If they cannot supply the eggs needed in Canada by the consuming public, the breaking trade, etc., then they have to turn to some other source. In essence, they are using a perfectly legitimate broker bringing eggs into Canada and CEMA is paying them only the brokerage fee. The big dollar was coming from the importers who were but are not now making a rip-off on the importation of eggs from the United States. As far as I am concerned, it was an unwarranted rip-off. Certainly the consumers did not get any benefit from it but the importers were, and now somebody has infringed upon their territory they do not like it.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The government of British Columbia has said it is ready to proceed immediately, with federal participation, on the Bridgeview-South Westminster section of the Fraser River flood control program. Could the minister give assurance that the diking and draining of this area will receive high priority so that the health and safety standards for this community can be brought to standards that all of us want to enjoy for ourselves?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the last time I met with Mr. Nielsen we discussed this problem, and he knows we are giving high priority to this item and are providing money for it.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM PROPRIETY OF ALLEGED STATEMENT BY ADMINISTRATOR ON WAGE SETTLEMENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Does the minister believe that it is proper for the anti-inflation administrator, who should be impartial in judging labour-management wage disputes that are referred to him, to express views such as those he expressed in Edmonton, where he warned unions that his role as enforcer of the government's control program may require him to set

April 29, 1976
Business of the House
tougher limits on wage increases than those allowed by the Anti-Inflation Board, and who said that unless their case is strong the parties seeking a reference run the risk of ending up with less than the Anti-Inflation Board was willing to grant?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have read the remarks of the administrator. I think he made it very clear that he is in the position, as the Anti-Inflation Board is not, of making a decision which is of a legal, binding nature, and he was merely making clear in his statement that because his order might be reviewable by the courts in due course he would have to proceed with much less flexibility than is possible for the AntiInflation Board. I do not think in any sense that it would be fair to characterize his explanation of the statute as a warning to anyone.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider pointing out to the administrator that statements such as he made will only increase the skepticism of the public. As a CBC poll indicated, two-thirds of the Canadian people believe the program is not being applied equitably now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the administrator, indeed for the Anti-Inflation Board itself, to make things clear to the public so the public has a better understanding of the exact nature of the provisions of the law passed by this parliament under which they operate. I would think that the objection of the hon. member is a totally unreasonable one.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Mr. Neil:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has left the House.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the government House leader the business for the balance of today, tomorrow and the early part of next week.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we shall continue discussion of the report stage of Bill C-89 with the expectation that votes on the motions would be taken this afternoon. We shall then call Bill C-68 and continue debate on the report stage until the end of the week unless, of course, it is disposed of earlier. On Monday it is the government's intention to call, for the first time, Bill C-81, the members of parliament pay bill. When that bill is called, the responsible minister will announce that the government will propose an amendment to freeze expense allowances as well as pay during 1976.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: There is an informal understanding, Mr. Speaker-or perhaps it is better to say, a hope-that the bill will be considered in committee of the whole. There is also the hope, rather than an understanding, that the bill can be passed through all stages in a single sitting. I know this will require unanimous consent of all members in order to permit such a serious departure from the rules, but I am hopeful that hon. members will co-operate in disposing of this matter expeditiously.
Tuesday, May 4, and Friday, May 7, will be opposition days. On Wednesday, which is the first government day after we have disposed of the pay bill, we will call Bill C-84, the bill on capital punishment.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the government House leader that I am delighted to see that the government has finally screwed up its courage and decided to come clean with the House of Commons. I hope it does not fall into this unfortunate position again.
There are two matters I should like to mention in respect of House business, both of which arose today during the question period and one of which is the budget debate. It does seem to be quite unusual, having regard to the statement of the finance minister, that we are left, some two weeks before the time the Minister of Finance indicated the budget would be brought down, without knowing the date. I think knowledge of that date is extremely important, not only in respect of the government but certainly in respect of the operations of the House in terms of choosing opposition days and a number of other things. That is the first point.
The second point has to do with an announcement which, in view of the question period today and the question period yesterday, would seem to be imminent, and that is the announcement regarding the purchase, or not, of a long-range patrol aircraft. This matter has occupied the question period of the House for a long time-a great many days-and the attention of the Canadian people. This is not the usual sort of thing such as a sale of wheat or grain to China or Russia. Will the government House leader assure the House that the announcement, whatever it is, in respect of this matter will be made in this House on motions?
We are prepared to give an indication of co-operation regarding priority, if necessary. That announcement should be made during motions in the House, rather than before the television cameras somewhere else in this building. I would ask for that assurance on behalf of all members of the House.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has not yet reached a final decision on the time of the budget, but my colleague the Minister of Finance has said that he expects to make an announcement within the next week or so. On the second point, the contract with Lockheed, if one is signed, I think I can give the undertaking, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence, that the announcement, whatever it is, will be made in the House of Commons.


Walter David Baker: Thank you very much.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the fact that the government has at last come
April 29, 1976

to the position we took on December 18, 1975, the night the restraint program was announced, to the effect that a freeze on the incomes of members of parliament should be complete. The minister expressed the hope that this could be dealt with at all stages on Monday. I see no problem in respect of that, which leads me to ask a question about that day. In view of the fact that Bill C-81 ought not to take very long on Monday, what else will we be doing that day?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there is no difficulty in filling in the time. If, by chance-and I share the hope of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-Bill C-81 can go through all stages in a matter of a few minutes or hours, then I would propose, as I indicated much earlier, calling the bill on capital punishment so that it can be disposed of as quickly as reasonably possible. I note there is a disposition, if I might add this, to come to a decision on this bill and I am hopeful we can have some discussion about limiting the length of speeches so that a maximum number of members can express their views.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader to indicate the status of Bill C-72 in this session, the bill having to do with discrimination?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if the House is able to dispose of the matters I have indicated the government hopes can be disposed of before June 30, I will give consideration to opening the debate on that bill. However, I have come to the conclusion that it is the general wish of all members of the House that we conclude this session by June 30. I have heard my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, express himself very strongly on this matter from time to time. I would not want to disappoint him by bringing forward other legislation which I have not forecast.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh and eighth reports of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, in both official languages-Mr. Collenette.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with section 6 of the Tariff Board Act, I wish to table a copy, in English and in French, of a report of the Tariff Board in respect of pleasure craft,
Order Paper Questions
reference No. 149, together with a transcript of the proceedings on the reference.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,830, 3,863, 4,093, 4,129, 4,598, 4,969, 5,010, 5,018 and 5,036.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	How many persons in Canada were reported to be unemployed in August 1975 by Statistics Canada?
2.	How many persons were receiving unemployment insurance benefits in August 1975?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports the following. 1. 623,000 persons were reported to be unemployed in August, 1975.
2. 634,839 persons were receiving unemployment insurance benefits in August, 1975. See attached explanation of differences between Statistics Canada's unemployment statistics and data from the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
Comparing Unemployment Statistics with Data from the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
The monthly Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the source of the official measure of unemployment in Canada. Comparisons are frequently made between the number of unemployed persons as reported by the LFS and the number of unemployment insurance claimants or beneficiaries. The numbers in the series seldom coincide, and misleading inferences are often drawn about the accuracy of the measures. However, the series are not intended to measure the same characteristics or identical populations and therefore, direct comparisons are not valid. The populations to which the LFS and Unemployment Insurance Commission (UIC) data refer are somewhat different in several respects. The Labour Force Survey covers the civilian population 14 years of age and over, including selfemployed persons but excluding the institutional population and persons living in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Indian reserves. The insured population comprises the paid worker segment of the labour force (1), including members of the armed forces. Further problems in comparing the LFS unemployed and the UIC claimants and beneficiaries result from the fact that there are significant differences in the meaning of the terms "unemployed", "claimant" and "beneficiary". Not all the LFS unemployed are UIC claimants (beneficiaries) and conversely, not all UIC claimants (beneficiaries) are included in the LFS unemployed. According to LFS definitions, some UIC claimants may be "employed", while others may be "not in the Labour force". The LFS unemployment estimates

April 29, 1976
Order Paper Questions
include primarily, persons who were without work and seeking work. To be entitled to receive UIC benefit, a claimant must have had an interruption of earnings, and be available for and capable of employment. A UIC claimant may work part-time and still be eligible for benefit while in the LFS such a person would be considered as employed. Although a claimant may meet the condition of availability and capability, he may not be actively seeking employment and, therefore, would be treated by the LFS as not in the Labour force. Thus, in addition to persons who would be classified as unemployed according to the LFS, the UIC claimant count includes persons with some earnings (employed) as well as persons not actively seeking employment (not in the labour force). For example, most claimants eligible for UIC sickness, maternity and retirement benefit are probably not included in the LFS unemployed.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, have any measures been taken since the Plan's inception to encourage a longer inshore fishing season and, if so (a) what were they, (b) on what dates, (c) at what total and yearly cost, (d) with what specific effect on the average number of weeks spent fishing by inshore fishermen?
2.	Are any new measures planned or under consideration for Phase 2 and, if so (a) what are they, (b) do they represent a change in objective from Phase 1, (c) for what reason were they deemed necessary?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. No specific measures have been taken.
2. An examination of the harvesting and marketing potential of such species as silversides and quahaugs is currently underway. Development of these species, and others, could extend the inshore fishing season.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-MINISTER'S OFFICES
Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Does the Minister of External Affairs have an office in the Jackson Building and, if so (a) on what date was it opened, (b) for what purpose?
2.	Does the Minister have other offices within public or rented buildings in the National Capital Region and, if so (a) in what location, (b) on what date was each occupied?
3.	What was the cost of decorating and furnishing the offices assigned to the Minister in (a) the Jackson Building, (b) other buildings?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes. (a) February 9, 1976. (b) The Secretary of State for External Affairs is responsible for the Canadian International Development Agency, which occupies the Jackson Building. It was recently decided that it would be more efficient for the Minister to have an office in the same building; this would facilitate a closer working relationship with CIDA.
2. (a) (i) Room 418-N, Centre Block, House of Commons, (ii) On floor A-10, Lester B. Pearson Building, 125 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, (b) (i) Upon becoming Secretary of State for External Affairs on August 8, 1974, the Minister remained in the Parliamentary office which he had previ-

ously occupied in other ministerial capacities, beginning in early 1968. (ii) August 8, 1974.
3. (a) $6,800. (b) During the Minister's tenure as Secretary of State for External Affairs, the amounts expended for decorations and furnishings have been as follows: (i) For Room 418-N, Centre Block: Nil; (ii) On Floor A-10 of the Pearson Building: $23.30.


COLLEGE NOTRE-DAME, MONTREAL
Mr. Lachance: 1.	Has the government rented the College Notre-Dame facilities in Montreal to accommodate members of the Canadian Armed Forces detached for security purposes during the Olympic Games and, if so (a) for how long, (b) for what amount, (c) who will be responsible for the cost, (d) how many personnel will be accommodated?
2.	Will the Canadian Armed Forces members have exclusive access to the sports centre near the College and, if so, for what reason will the public who ordinarily have access to the centre be denied entry for this period?
3.	Have agreements been entered into with other sports centres for the exclusive use of the Canadian Armed Forces during the Olympic Games?
4.	How many private establishments have been so requisitioned to accommodate members of the Armed Forces during the Olympic Games?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Solicitor General and the Department of National Defence as follows: 1. No. The Government of Canada has rented the College Notre-Dame facilities to accommodate members of the RCMP detached for security purposes during the Olympic Games, (a) 80 days, i.e., June 1, 1976 to August 20, 1976. (b) $374,200. (c) RCM Police Olympic Budget, (d) 228 beds, plus a contingency factor of up to 272 additional beds.
2.	No. The RCMP will have exclusive use of the Sports Centre connected to the College. These facilities were obtained to assist in keeping the members morale high while away from their families and provide physical conditioning equipment and training areas. For security reasons these facilities will not be available to the public during the rental period.
3.	No.
4.	None.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN CANADIAN MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): What is the government estimate of the unemployment rate in the Canadian motion picture industry in each year from 1965 to date for (a) the industry, (b) each major class of workers within the industry?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by several Departments as follows: This information is not know to the Government.


INFANT AND MATERNAL MORTALITY RATES
Mr. Orlikow: 1. For each of the past five years, by province and territory, what were the rates of (a) infant, (b) maternal mortality?
April 29, 1976

2. For the same period, by province and territory, what were the rates of (a) infant, (b) maternal mortality by major ethnic groups including Indians and Metis?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Statistics Canada reports the following: 1. The following tables A and B show the following: Table A: The number of Infant Deaths and Infant Mortality Rate for Canada, Provinces and Territories, 1970-1974. (Infant Mortality Rate is defined as the number of Infant Deaths per 1,000 Live Births). Table B: The number of Maternal Deaths and Maternal Mortality Rate for Canada, Provinces and Territories, 1970-1974. (Maternal Mortality Rate is defined as the number of Maternal Deaths per 10,000 Live Births).
Order Paper Questions
NOTE: It may be observed that the trend has been one of appreciable and general decline in the above mortality rates over the period under review.
2. Unfortunately, the data by ethnic origin are either not available or very incomplete; the only major ethnic group for which the requested mortality figures are available is for Indians; these data are confined only to six provinces and Territories. The tables C and D show the following: Table C: The number of Infant Deaths and Infant Mortality Rate for Indians for six Provinces and Territories, 1970-1973. Table D: The number of Maternal Deaths for Indians for six Provinces and Territories, 1970-1973; The Maternal Mortality Rates have not been worked out because of the very small number of deaths.
Table A
Infant Deaths and Infant Mortality Rates-Canada and Provinces
1970	1971	1972	1973	1974Number	Rate	Number	Rate	Number	Rate	Number	Rate	Number	RCanada	7,001	18.8	6,356	17.5	5,938	17.1	5,339	15.5	5,192	15.0Newfoundland	273	21.8	293	22.9	267	20.7	230	19.3	181	17.7Prince Edward Island	43	22.0	46	21.9	39	19.4	30	15.9	34	17.5Nova Scotia	245	17.3	265	18.6	228	16.8	206	15.5	185	14.3New Brunswick	227	19.7	204	16.7	204	17.3	173	15.1	173	15.1Quebec	1,888	20.6	1,640	18.4	1,500	17.9	1,378	16.4	1,291	15.1Ontario	2,271	16.9	1,990	15.3	1,908	15.3	1,740	14.1	1,666	13.4Manitoba	344	18.9	316	17.5	329	18.9	278	16.4	272	15.7Saskatchewan	368	22.4	325	20.2	300	19.4	261	17.6	313	20.7Alberta	612	19.1	548	17.9	511	17.5	416	14.2	449	15.1British Columbia	623	16.9	653	18.7	580	16.8	575	16.7	572	16.1Yukon	16	35.5	13	25.7	12	26.6	7	16.7	12	24.2North West Territories	91	68.1	63	49.0	60	48.4	45	37.4	44	42.2
Rate per 1,000 Live Births
Table B
Maternal Deaths and Maternal Mortality Rates-Canada and Provinces
Canada	75	2.0	66	1.8	54	1.6	37	1.1	35	1.0Newfoundland	5	3.9	1	0.8	2	1.6	2	1.7	1	1.0Prince Edward Island	-	-	-	-	1	5.0	-	-	-	-Nova Scotia	2	1.4	7	4.9	1	0.7	-	-	1	0.8New Brunswick	2	1.7	-	-	1	0.8	1	0.9	1	0.9Quebec	22	2.4	20	2.2	18	2.2	10	1.2	12	1.4Ontario	27	2.0	25	1.9	14	1.1	14	1.1	12	1.0Manitoba	4	2.2	2	1.1	1	0.6	-	-	-	-Saskatchewan	3	1.8	2	1.2	5	3.2	1	0.7	3	2.0Alberta	4	1.3	3	1.0	4	1.4	4	1.4	1	0.3British Columbia	5	1.4	6	1.7	4	1.2	5	1.5	3	0.8Yukon	-	-	-	-	1	22.2	-	-	-	-North West Territories	1	7.5	-	-	2	16.1	-	-	1	9.6
Rate per 10,000 Live Births

Order Paper Questions
Table C
Infant Deaths and Infant Mortality Rate-Indians
1970	1971	1972	1973Number	Rate	Number	Rate	Number	Rate	Number	RatePrince Edward Island	-	3	214.3	-	_Nova Scotia	-	-	4	32.5	2	15.3	4	33.3New Brunswick	7	50.4	2	14.7	5	33.6	-	Quebec	33	50.5	25	34.0	33	54.9	35	56.7Saskatchewan	103	52.8	88	45.6	93	48.1	58	31.9British Columbia	117	61.7	95	53.6	73	41.9	70	40.8Yukon	5	47.2	3	30.6	5	57.5	5	70.4North West Territories	18	55.6	14	44.6	11	36.9	9	34.5
Per 1,000 Live Births
Table D
Maternal Deaths-Indians
Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick
Quebec	1
Saskatchewan
Alberta	3
British Columbia
Yukon
North West Territories
3
1


FATTAH REPORT
Mr. Brisco: Was Dr. Ezzat A. Fattah's report entitled "The Canadian Public and the Death Penalty-A Study of a Social Attitude" his first report prepared for the government on the subject and, if not (a) on what date was the previous one undertaken, (b) on what date was it finished, (c) how much did it cost?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Dr. E. A. Fattah's report entitled "The Canadian Public and the Death Penalty-A Study of a Social Attitude" was not the first report prepared for the Ministry of the Solicitor General on the subject. Previously, he had prepared a similar report entitled "A Study of the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment with Special Reference to the Canadian Situation". However, the latter report did not contain any analysis of public attitudes per se. (a) June 15, 1971. (b) November 1, 1971. (c) $4,990.


RCMP-PENSIONS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20.00 per month, (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month, (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month, (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month, (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month, (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month, (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month, (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month, (i) $90.00 to $99.99 per month, (j) $100.00 to $149.99 per month, (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month, (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month, (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month, (n) $300.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of RCMP personnel or of retired RCMP personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired RCMP personnel and also the number of widows of RCMP personnel or of retired RCMP personnel presently residing in each province?

4.	In respect of how many orphans of RCMP personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. (a) 1. (b) 8. (c) 61. (d) 3. (e) 12. (f) 44. (g) 43. (h) 11. (i) 32. (j) 110. (k) 191. (1) 281. (m) 331. (n) 2,091.
2. (a) 6. (b) 7. (c) 7. (d) 8. (e) 5. (f) 13. (g) 10. (h) 17. (i) 6. (j) 50. (k) 50. (1) 36. (m) 33. (n) 78.
3. Province	Retired RCMP Personnel	WidowsNewfoundland	58	7Prince Edward Island	21	2Nova Scotia	264	19New Brunswick	128	8Quebec	213	19Ontario	665	79Manitoba	154	17Saskatchewan	169	19Alberta	458	44British Columbia	989	103Yukon	14	-North West Territories	26	3Outside Canada	60	64.	Total Number of Children-142. Average monthly payment to children-$47.19.


DREE-NUMBER OF COPIES AND COST OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1969-1975
Mr. Jarvis: How many copies of the Annual Report of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for (a) 1969-70, (b) 1970-71, (c) 1971-72, (d) 1972-73, (e) 1973-74, (f) 1974-75 were printed for or by the Department and, in each case, at what cost?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: April 29, 1976

Approximate
		Quantity	Cost
(a)	1969-70 Annual Report	5,000	$6,000(b)	1970-71 Annual Report	5,000	6,000(c)	1971-72 Annual Report	15,000	12,000<d)	1972-73 Annual Report	10,000	7,000(e)	1973-74 Annual Report	10,000	7,4001974-75 Annual Report and	(0	Review	35,000	33,000[English]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, April 28, consideration of Bill C-89, to amend the Anti-Inflation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a long-standing arrangement to appear at 3.30 before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in respect of my estimates. For that reason I will have to leave the chamber then, but my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Mont-real-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel), will be present and will be following the debate.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the annoncement about his busy schedule. I think an answer to the question asked today in the House is of great pertinence, particularly to the Atlantic area. The target for the reduction of the inflationary rate in Canada is much lower than the target and the anticipated rate of reduction of inflation in the United States. I suppose no area of Canada is more affected by such a situation than the Atlantic area. Our dealings, to a very large degree, depend not only upon the success of the economy of Canada as a whole, but upon our competitive position in relation to producers in the markets of the world and in the United States. Every time the economy of Canada is not in pace with that of the United States, the Atlantic area suffers much more than the rest of Canada.
Whether it be in respect of wood products, agricultural or any other products, we are constantly in competition either in United States markets or world markets with products produced there. If, for instance, one is involved in the paper industry, one finds oneself in competition with that industry in the state of Maine and throughout the eastern coast of the United States as far south as Georgia. Every advantage they can obtain from a declining rate of
Anti-Inflation Act
inflation is detrimental to our forestry and agricultural industries, at least in the Atlantic area. It is, therefore, the plea of that area that the government improve its target. The government must reduce the time-span required to reduce the inflationary structure and prevent the undue hardship which would fall on the Atlantic area.
If they, per chance-and I hope they do-reach the 2 per cent rate in the target time mentioned today in the United States, this certainly will place an undue cost on the Atlantic area. I think this is particularly pertinent in view of the fact that Anti-Inflation Board rulings already have decreed that workers in the Atlantic area are not entitled to wages equivalent to those of workers in other parts of Canada. Two instances have been cited. The first is in respect of the pulp and paper industry in the city of Saint John, which had been closing the gap but had not completely closed it in respect of the wages received by comparable industry in central Canada and on the British Columbia coast. They were also not allowed by the board to attain the wage level paid in the sugar industry.
It has been extremely difficult for this particular industry to obtain help at the rates of pay that have been paid. While the industry had tried, in the negotiations with its workers, to apply a rate which would provide stability with regard to the work force, this was rolled back by the Anti-Inflation Board. When one couples this with the policy of the government of Canada concerning regional wages in different parts of Canada, and when the same wages under certain agreements between the government of Canada and the unions are not paid in the Atlantic area, there is a discriminatory structure which does no good to the Atlantic area on an economic basis.
The basic structure, of course, requires co-operation among the government, management, and all other facets of our society. This is an aspect which has been lacking while the government has been trying to administer this bill. Therefore, the quicker the government gets out of its present posture in respect of price and wage controls, the better it will be for the amenities of the various groups in Canada, and the better it will be for Canada as a whole.
We cannot conduct ourselves on the basis of confrontation with labour. We cannot conduct ourselves on the basis of confrontation with industry. We cannot conduct ourselves on the basis of confrontation with the provinces. We must change the pattern and talk about the things this government intends to do, so that there will be some accord when the government comes up with a final policy.
Like so many other pieces of legislation, this bill was not presented to parliament by a government which had had proper discussion with all the other forces in Canada or which had properly explained the legislation, or its necessity, to the people of Canada at any stage and explained to the manufacturer and the labourer the real need and necessity for such a program. Instead, there has been confrontation.
The government of Canada suggested it borrowed this policy from the opposition. Mr. Speaker, it must be made abundantly clear, in spite of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in answer to a question today, that although he may have borrowed the semblance of a policy, obviously he did not borrow the policy of the opposition. While there may be an element of relationship between the anti-infla-

April 29, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
tion legislation we have on the statute books and what the opposition would have brought in, it is not the policy of the opposition which has been brought in.
I believe the time has come when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) should not confront and challenge the people. Government speakers, as they go back and forth across the country, should not tell the people what to do. Instead, they should show leadership by giving information and by answering questions in this House. They should give forthright and full information to the voters across Canada concerning the implications and complications of our economic structure. If this were done, the amendment presently before us should be accepted, because it would not take more than 2Vi years to bring about the changes that are required in our economy.
The Canadian people in Saint John and other areas of Canada should not be kicked around as they are by this government. Canadians are good people. They can, and will, take good advice. They will follow when they are well led, but they cannot accept confrontation as we have it. This legislation is directly responsible for the approach taken by labour, whether it be at the level of the school teacher or of the janitor, not because these people are not prepared to make their contribution to our society but because they have been confronted. This is what is wrong. This is why the adoption of this amendment would be good for the government, would be good for the opposition and would be good for the whole of Canada.
Legislation has continually hurt the Atlantic area. Whether it be in respect of transportation, fishing or agriculture, it would seem that the policies of this government, through Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance, have been to look at dollars and how to save them, but not to look at the consequences of saving money in particular fields. This is but another example of the inequities and inequalities which have existed and which will continue to exist in the Atlantic area until we have a total policy presented by the government of Canada to bring the whole of Canada ahead at once without neglecting any part of Canada.
This piece of legislation gives no consideration to the exceptions which invariably will be necessary in one part of Canada or another. This legislation does improve the basic principle of the Anti-Inflation Board; there is no question about that. Without the recognition by government of exceptions, without the recognition by government of the requirements in certain specific areas, without a cost-benefit study of the impact of legislation upon certain areas of Canada, this country cannot go forward as a country but will only go forward in those parts in which the government is particularly interested and apparently in which it holds most of its seats.
I appeal to the government to accept this amendment. Let us not confront the people; let us publicly consult them. There was a reference by the Prime Minister today to consultation, but there was no indication that the nation would have any idea of the type of consultation that would take place. There was no indication that the public would ever know what was said in the private and secretive type

of consultations which he implied would take place. This is not the way in which a government should govern. It should be for what is right and fair in its policies.
I ask that when this legislation passes, as it will, unquestionably, with the weight of the government, that the minister give careful consideration-as he directs those controlling the anti-inflation program-to the impact of the individual agreement upon an individual area before he lowers the boom and says "No." Let us try to create an element of equality of earning opportunity across this nation. Let us not deny those in the east the privileges which are enjoyed in the extreme west, the prairies and the centre of Canada. We do not need to be treated as exceptions-we just want to be treated as Canadians!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for a few minutes in response to some remarks that were made yesterday. I want to remind the House that this bill is before parliament because the NDP, both at the time of the passage of the original legislation and as a result of Standing Order 26 in a special debate, insisted on the necessity for legislation to provide for appeal procedures for workers and salary earners in Canada against decisions made under the anti-inflation program.
I noticed yesterday that none of the members of the official opposition mentioned that that happens to be the main purpose of the bill, that is, to provide some justice and fair play to workers in Canada. They spent a great deal of time weeping and wailing for insurance companies, corporations, etc., but they forgot to mention the main purport of the bill, that is, to establish an appeal procedure for wage and salary earners in Canada, many of whom have already been unjustly treated as a result of the decision of the AIB and the administrator.
Yesterday, a spokesman of the official opposition stated that these kinds of controls should have limitations, that they should expire next year. The amendment reads, "May 1, 1977". They tore the program to shreds and, as my leader said earlier in the debate, they damned the progress from stem to gudgeon, then moved an amendment to keep it going for another year. I have not yet seen any proper reconciliation of that kind of nonsense.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Sit down and I will tell you.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The issue is not how long the controls should be in place. Surely the issue is what kind of controls there should be, to whom they should apply, and how people will be affected by them. If the controls had started with those on high incomes, those who make high profits, those who have incomes from high interest rates, and if they had begun at the top and worked downward, whether it be incomes from profits, interest rates, investments or wages and salaries, then surely that would have been some kind of justice and equity in a program to fight inflation.
I heard the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) complain yesterday about the "poor" banks, insurance and finance companies that will be brought under the control program. He shed tears for them. Surely that is precisely where the program should have started, with banks, insurance and finance companies. Surely they should have been the first to come under a program to
April 29, 1976

fight inflation. One of the spokesmen of the official opposition cries for the "poor" banks, insurance and finance companies, but I did not hear a word from the official opposition yesterday about any guarantees that old age pensioners should get what is allowed as a minimum under the anti-inflation program, that is, $600 a year. I would have hoped the official opposition would have taken action to impress upon this government the importance of bringing in immediately a $50 a month increase for old age pensioners.
People on low wages and salaries and people on pensions are not the ones who cause inflation; they are the first victims of inflation. But the whole program attacks these people first. The hon. member for Edmonton West worries about what will happen to the banks, insurance and finance companies when they are brought under the controls. That is the evidence the people of Canada have as to where the Conservative party stands when it comes to fighting inflation. They will look after their friends, the rich and the "barefoot" boys from Bay Street and James Street. They talk a good fight about workers, but when it comes to the crunch, when it comes to proposing legislation or moving amendments to legislation, they worry about banks, insurance and finance companies. It is not the people whose wage increases have been rolled back or whose bargaining process has been interfered with who cause inflation. They are the ones who are attempting to keep up with and to catch up with inflation. But the program picks on them first.
Another member of the official opposition yesterday was worrying about the "poor" professionals, the "poor" doctors, lawyers, accountants, architects and engineers whose average income is at least double that of the average wage and salary earner in Canada, those poor fellows, including colleagues in my caucus-who, by the way, do not practice law while they are members of parliament-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Nobody would go to them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -those poor professionals! A maximum of $2,400 a year is not enough for them, according to members of the official opposition. I suggest it should be the other way around. Those on high income should receive $600 a year, and those on low income should receive $2,400.


Benno Friesen: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But I did not hear a word on that from the official opposition yesterday. Let us go on to some more remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West. He said that the insurance and casualty companies will be withdrawing from Canada because of their poor cash flow under this program. I interjected at that point and said "Good". The hon. member for Edmonton West thought it was terrible of me to suggest it would be good if the casualty insurance companies withdrew from Canada.
We in the NDP, and in the CCF before that, under the leadership of my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), have acted on the principle that there is something immoral about making a profit from the misfortunes of others. We have had a compulsory automobile insurance program in Saskatchewan since 1947, and it works. I would tell my friends from British Columbia that in Saskatchewan, in the first two or
Anti-Inflation Act
three years, we had problems-I think we even lost money-but we provided insurance coverage at cost and we protected innocent victims of automobile accidents. The objective was not to make profit. But when Saskatchewan government insurance made a profit, that profit stayed in Saskatchewan and was invested in Saskatchewan industry and in Saskatchewan municipalities.
Where do these private auto insurance and casualty companies, about which the hon. member for Edmonton West is so concerned, get their money? They get it from the premium dollars they collect from the people of Canada. Where does it go? Does it go to the provinces or cities where the insurance is sold? No way! These are the kind of corporate citizens we do not need. In our opinion, profit taking and profit making at the expense of the misfortunes of others has no place in society.
The government of Canada is very reluctant to bring these corporations under the controls program. Their whole history is a crime against humanity. The percentage of the premium dollars they have paid out is not half of that in the province of Saskatchewan or, before too long, in the province of Manitoba. If the program is not totally ruined in British Columbia by the present government, the experience there will prove to be the same.
Yesterday the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) pointed out that the government is ignoring its own program and increasing passport fees, airport landing fees, and so forth. That is true. I should like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to reconcile something for me. Yesterday he interjected when the hon. member for Fundy-Royal was speaking. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) says that with regard to transportation the key is that the user shall pay. He is worrying about the $143 million in subsidies to rail passenger service. There is in the order of $500 million in losses in the operation of air services which taxpayers must make up. There is a $51 million loss in the St. Lawrence Seaway, $15 million in the National Harbours Board, and according to the latest figures I have, for 1972, the moneys which had to come out of general revenues, after collection of licence fees, gasoline taxes, excise taxes, and so forth, for streets, roads and highways in Canada amounted to over $1 billion.
If we follow the logic of the Minister of Transport to its conclusion and make the user pay, that will obviously mean increased rail, air and bus fares and increased licence fees, gasoline taxes, and so forth. That may help the Minister of Finance in terms of not having to put up so many tax dollars for those programs, but I should like to ask him what that does to the accessibility and availability of an essential service, namely, transportation. Everyone has to use transportation. What does that do to people who are on low incomes, and people who live in isolated areas?
If the Minister of Finance had a fair tax law and raised revenues to subsidize all modes of transportation based on ability to pay, we could equalize freight rates and passenger fares in all modes of transportation. We could cease discriminating against people in this country because of where they happen to live. We could put an end to the policy of the Minister of Transport as a result of which, if it is implemented and carried out, only the rich and those

April 29, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
on expense accounts will be able to travel. I should like to ask the minister how he reconciles that with his anti-inflation program and how that principle is humane and civilized.
I would also point out that the failure to have a fair tax law is one of the things which has put the government into its difficulties. It has failed to apply an anti-inflation program to those who cause inflation. That has caused the people of Canada to be cynical about it. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal spoke about this at length yesterday. There is a great deal of cynicism. When a doctor can get a $2,400 increase in his income from fees, and another $2,400, $2,500 or $3,000 more income by way of what he calls increased costs of operation, and any income he gets from increased productivity, so-called, which means seeing more patients, and that is exempt under the anti-inflation program, let us not ask wage earners and pensioners to support the program or to pat the minister or this government on the back for it. There will not be that co-operation.
I am very pleased that the government of Saskatchewan has not signed an agreement with the federal government. I am pleased that the government of Saskatchewan saved our public employees from the tender mercies of this government and the Anti-Inflation Board and its administrator. We in Saskatchewan are going to allow increases vyhich are fair and reasonable, and we are going to take into account regional differences, historical relationships and catch-up, whether the Minister of Finance and the government of Canada like it or not.
My final point is that I do not see the logic in wanting a program to end a year from next May 1, a year from this Saturday. I ask my Conservative friends why they want to set that kind of early deadline when they know full well, like everyone else in the country, that the rich and the powerful can sit and wait out that deadline, just as they did in the United States. Here they knew when the freeze would end. They knew when phase one, phase two, phase three and phase four would end, and they waited out each phase. In fact, the meat packing industry in the United States made it clear publicly. They were perfectly frank and honest. The day after the previously announced end of the controls, up went their prices.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Your leader wants to end it on Saturday.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is right, because the whole program is no good-and that is exactly what the official opposition has been saying. They want to keep for another year a program that is no good.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: They want to suffer some more.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If you set a deadline of May 1, 1977, those who can afford to wait can reduce their inventories, operate on their cash reserves, sit on their savings and high current incomes and wait until May 1, 1977. Then they can raise their incomes through prices, profits, dividends or fees.
However, those who are on wages, salaries and pensions cannot afford to wait until the program ends, whether it ends on May 1, 1977, or a year beyond that, which is the way the government wants it. They cannot afford to wait,

but the rich and powerful can. This anti-inflation program will have little meaningful effect on those who cause inflation, the profit takers and the profit makers, those who take all they can get and who take every fast buck they can-land speculators, professionals, corporations and financial institutions. I do not want anyone in this place to try to tell me that anyone whose income is less than $15,000 per year is causing inflation. Those people are victims of inflation, and they are still trying to catch up.
In typical free enterprise, old-line party fashion, the program started at the wrong end. It was backwards. It started with the poor and with wage and salary earners. It did not start with the rich and powerful. It did not start with corporations, profits or prices. I predict that however long this program last, the fight against inflation will be carried on the back of pensioners, wage and salary earners. People who earn incomes the size of the incomes of members of parliament will not really be sacrificing anything in the fight against inflation.
People who receive large incomes from interest, dividends, land speculation and house speculation are not going to be hurt. If this government had brought in a program which fought inflation and affected those who cause our domestic inflation, it would have had the support and good will of the people of this country and members of all parties in this House, with the exception of a few cry-babies in the official opposition who keep worrying about those "poor" insurance companies, finance companies, banks and trust companies. They would have had the good will and co-operation of the citizens of this country. They would have fought inflation in a fair and equitable manner by attacking those who cause inflation, not the wage and salary earners and pensioners.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support the amendment moved by my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), that this program end on May 1, 1976; that is, this Saturday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I recognize the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). I should like to suggest to the hon. member that he confine himself to the amendment as he has already spoken on motions Nos. 1 and 2.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to speak on the amendment proposed by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) that the program end on Saturday. I wish to speak on this matter because I feel there should be clarification in this House as a result partly of the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and partly of the remarks of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and others.
The Minister of Finance indicated that he feels there are inconsistencies in the position of the official opposition with respect to controls and our anti-inflationary program. I challenge that statement, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I think we are the only party in this House that has been consistent for the past three or four years on the question of what is a suitable anti-inflationary program for Canada. When I look at the record, I find it most startling that the Prime

Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in particular, has vacillated so dramatically on this question of controls.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby which I would suggest is probably put forward on the recommendation of the president of the United Autoworkers Union, as I think they take most of their instructions directly from that union-


An hon. Member:: Oh, come off it!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When we look at the background of this question it is very clear why we in the official opposition take the position that we do today. We proposed three motions. Motions Nos. 1 and 2 are basically complementary and simply would have the effect of changing clause 46(2) of Bill C-89 so that the legislation would expire on May 1, 1977, as opposed to December 31, 1978. That change would simply bring the clause in line with the amendment we proposed at report stage when Bill C-73 was before the House last fall. That would, in effect, give the government 18 months to show that their controls program works, but if they felt that controls should be extended they would have to come back to parliament for authority.
As it stands, not only does Bill C-89 expire on December 31, 1978, but the government can at any time, by order in council, extend it for an indefinite period after three days' debate in this House. With the majority the government has, presumably it would simply endorse the order in council and we might find ourselves subjected to controls much longer than to December 31, 1978. Our position is clear, Mr. Speaker. We say that we will go along with an 18-month period. Let the government put their controls program into effect during that period, and then if they feel they need to extend the time, let them pass their order in council and come back to parliament. At that time we will examine the success or failure of the program.
Today, in answer to a question put by my leader, the Prime Minister confirmed once again that he intends to inflict these controls, presumably in their present form, on the nation for 2V4 years. Mr. Speaker, 2lA years beyond today means they will be in place for three years. What a change in the attitude of the Prime Minister! On May 3, 1974, in answer to a question concerning wage and price controls, the Prime Minister gave this startling reply as reported at page 2004 of Hansard:
I am quite certain it is not the right approach to inflation.
On May 27, 1974, speaking at a nomination meeting in Etobicoke, Ontario, the Prime Minister said:
Well, we're going to bring inflation under control, that I pledge to you. It's not going to be any swift knockout, no 90 days of wonder and amazement, no NDP circus of slogans. But I'm confident we've got a grip on the problem and the continued implementation of selective measures, as we've been doing, will wrestle inflation to the ground.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I thought you warned the present speaker to confine his remarks to the subamendment. I think this should be done.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I am basically giving our position on why we feel the control
Anti-Inflation Act
period should be only 18 months, as opposed to the NDP suggestion that it should end next Saturday and as opposed to the government position that it should last for 39 months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On June 29, 1974, at a constituency meeting in Cumberland-Colchester North, the Prime Minister said controls were "a disaster looking for a place to happen". Mr. Speaker, have they found a place in which it can happen, now that the Prime Minister feels we should be subjected to controls for a further 2Vi years? The point I want to make is that we believe that controls for a temporary period, with suitable monetary restraints, can be put together as a package to confine inflation. We believe that it is extremely important, however, that the controls not be left in a permanent stance.
On the question of whether the government has accepted or not accepted our controls program, I can only refer to the remarks of the Prime Minister at a Liberal party convention in Ottawa on November 9, 1975, where he quite candidly stated that their controls program was not our controls program. Surely, then, there is no suggestion that the controls program we are now living with is a duplication of the Conservative program-at least not as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, and I believe the Minister of Finance indicated that as well.
The turnabout in the government's attitude since the former minister of finance was in office strikes me as strange. On June 23, in his budget speech, the former minister of finance said categorically:
But there would have been-and are-immense difficulties and disadvantages in such a course of action. Government would have to interfere in every type of business decision and wage settlement. To a far greater extent than in a voluntary program, a new bureaucratic appartus would have to be set up. New types of inequity would be created. The flexibility of the market economy in directing resources where they are most needed would be impaired. Dislocations would occur.
These costs would be worth paying if direct controls could be successfully imposed. If this were the case, we might well achieve lower price and cost increases without higher unemployment. But the success of such a program would depend crucially on widespread public support. As I have said before, I believe that we can resort to direct controls only when there is a public conviction of the need for such action. That point has not been reached.
Some time between then and October 13 there was obviously a great transformation involving the Minister of Finance who, as recorded in Hansard of April 30, 1975, suggested that wage and price controls were pure foolishness. Our position was set out clearly on January 17, 1974, when the former leader of the opposition said:
Our position is to put into place an economic stabilization plan incorporating for a temporary period strict mandatory controls of prices and incomes. The time we envisage for such strict temporary controls is in the order of 18 months to two years. This would not require a massive new bureaucracy-
He went on to say:
The freeze period should be as short as possible.
We certainly would not have wanted to see it continued. Then he said:
13000

April 29, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
Our approach calls for judiciously balanced monetary and fiscal policies, and it demands exemplary self-restraint on the part of the government and governments generally in relation to their own spending-
That was our position then, and it is our position now. That is why, when Bill C-73 was being debated, we proposed an amendment to shorten the time to 18 months. That is why we proposed motions Nos. 1 and 2 in connection with this bill, and that is why we shall vote against the leader of the opposition's suggestion to terminate the program on Saturday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean the leader of the New Democratic Party. You said the leader of the opposition.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am sorry; I meant the suggestion of the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean the leader of the real opposition.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I expect we shall deal with motion No. 3 today. I conclude by saying that we shall vote against the subamendment proposed by the leader of the New Democratic Party. Actually, that is the amendment to motion No. 1.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But you have just finished convincing us that it is a good subamendment.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If the hon. member of the NDP will read my remarks in Hansard, he will note the point 1 am trying to make. We shall vote in favour of motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3, but we shall vote against Bill C-89 if our amendments are not carried, because we feel we cannot be party to a bill which seeks to inflict controls on Canadians until December 31, 1978.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) to motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.
And during the ringing of the bells:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I		
rise on a point of order. Why not defer this vote until we		
have dealt with motion No. 3?


An hon. Member:: Too late.		
The House divided on the amendment to motion No. 1		
(Mr. Broadbent) division:	which was negatived on the following	
	(Division No. 126)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Allard	Douglas	KnowlesBenjamin	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	(WinnipegBlackburn	The Islands)	North Centre)Brewin	Firth	LeggattCaouette	Gauthier	Ny strom(Villeneuve)	(Roberval)	OrlikowDionne	Gilbert	Peters(Kamouraska)	Hogan
NAYS Messrs.	Symes-17Abbott	Flynn	MarcnandAlexander	Forrestall	(Kamloops-Cariboo)Allmand	Foster	MarshallAndre	Fox	Mazankowski(Calgary Centre)	Francis	McCainAppolloni (Mrs.)	Friesen	McCleaveBaker	Gauthier	McGrath(Gandcr-Twillingate)	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MclsaacBaker	Gendron	McKenzie(Grenville-Carleton)	Goodale	McKinnonBalfour	Goyer	McRaeBawden	Gray	MilneBeatty	Guay	MunroBechard	(St. Boniface)	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Begin (Miss)	Guay	MunroBlaker	(Levis)	(Hamilton East)Blouin	Guilbault	MurtaBreau	Haidasz	NeilBuchanan	Halliday	Nicholson (Miss)Bussieres	Harquail	NowlanCaccia	Herbert	OberleCafik	Hnatyshyn	O'ConnellCampbell (Miss)	Hopkins	Olivier(South Western Nova)	Horner	OuelletCaron	Isabelle	PaproskiChretien	Jamieson	ParentClark	Jarvis	Patterson(Rocky Mountain)	Jelinek	PearsallClermont	Johnston	PelletierCoates	Kaplan	PennerCollenette	Lajoie	PinardComtois	Lalonde	PortelanceCorriveau	Lambert	RailtonCote	(Edmonton West)	RainesCrouse	Lang	ReidCullen	Langlois	RichardsonCyr	Laniel	RobertsDanson	Lapointe	RobinsonDarling	LeBlanc	RocheDaudlin	(Westmorland-Kent)	RompkeyDe Bane	Lefebvre	RoyDemers	Lessard	(Laval)Dick	Loiselle	Sauve (Mrs.)Dinsdale	(Chambly)	SchellenbergerDionne	Lumley	Sharp(Northumberland-	MacDonald	SmithMiramichi)	(Cardigan)	(Saint-Jean)Douglas	Macdonald	Stanbury(Bruce-Grey)	(Rosedale)	StanfieldDuclos	MacDonald (Miss)	StevensDupont	(Kingston and the	StewartDupras	Islands)	(Cochrane)Duquet	MacFarlane	StolleryEllis	MacGuigan	TessierElzinga	Mackasey	TowersEpp	MacLean	TrudeauFairweather	Macquarrie	TrudelFaulkner	Marceau	TurnerFleming	Marchand (Langelier)	
April 29, 1976

Messrs.
Watson	Whittaker	YanakisWenman	Wise	YewchukWhelan	Woolliams	Young-161.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question		
is now on the main motion in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).		
The House divided on motion No. 1 (Mr. Stevens) which		
was negatived on the following division: (Division No. 127)
 YEAS Messrs.		
Alexander	Elzinga	MazankowskiAllard	Epp	McCainAndre	Fairweather	McCleave(Calgary Centre)	Firth	McGrathBaker	Forrestall	McKenzie(Grenville-Carleton)	Friesen	McKinnonBaldwin	Gauthier	MunroBalfour	(Roberval)	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Bawden	Gilbert	MurtaBeatty	Halliday	NeilBenjamin	Hnatyshyn	NowlanBlackburn	Hogan	NystromBrewin	Horner	OberleCaouette	Jarvis	Orlikow(Villeneuve)	Jelinek	PaproskiClark	Johnston	Patterson(Rocky Mountain)	Knowles	PetersCoates	(Winnipeg	RocheCrouse	North Centre)	ScheilenbergerDarling	Lambert	StanfieldDick	(Edmonton West)	StevensDinsdale	Leggatt	SymesDionne	MacDonald (Miss)	Towers(Kamouraska)	(Kingston and the	WenmanDouglas	Islands)	Whittaker(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	MacLean	WiseThe Islands)	Macquarrie	WoolliamsEllis	Marshall
NAYS Messrs.	Yewchuk-70.Abbott	Duclos	LefebvreAllmand	Dupont	LessardAppolloni (Mrs.)	Dupras	LoiselleBaker	Duquet	(Chambly)(Gander-Twillingate)	Faulkner	LumleyBechard	Fleming	MacDonaldBegin (Miss)	Flynn	(Cardigan)Blakcr	Foster	MacdonaldBlouin	Fox	(Rosedale)Breau	Francis	MacFarlaneBuchanan	Gauthier	MacGuiganBussieres	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MackaseyCaccia	Gendron	MarceauCafik	Goodale	MarchandCampbell (Miss)	Goyer	(Langelier)(South Western Nova)	Gray	MarchandCaron	Guay	(Kamloops-Cariboo)Chr6tien	(St. Boniface)	MclsaacClermont	Guay	McRaeCollenette	(Levis)	MilneComtois	Guilbault	MunroCorriveau	Haidasz	(Hamilton East)Cote	Herbert	Nicholson (Miss)Cullen	Hopkins	O'ConnellCyr	Isabelle	OlivierDanson	Jamieson	OuelletDaudlin	Kaplan	PearsallDe Bane	Lajoie	PelletierDemers	Lalonde	PennerDionne	Lang	Pinard(Northumberland-	Langlois	PortelanceMiramichi) Douglas (Bruce-Grey)	Laniei Lapointe LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent)	Railton
Anti-Inflation Act
Messrs.
Raines	Sauve (Mrs.)	TessierReid	Sharp	TrudeauRichardson	Smith	TrudelRoberts	(Saint-Jean)	TurnerRobinson	Stanbury	WatsonRompkey	Stewart	WhelanRoy	(Cochrane)	Yanakis(Laval)	Stollery	Young-107.


Mr. Speaker:: I	therefore declare	motion No.
accordance with the agreement previously made by the House, I also declare motion No. 2 lost. Therefore, the question is on motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). Mr. Stevens moves:
That Bill C-89, an act to amend the Anti-Inflation Act, be amended in clause 11 by striking out lines 27 to 38 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) Where, at any time after August 31, 1976, and before July 1, 1978, a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons, signed by not less than 50 members of the House, is filed with the Speaker to the effect that this act shall expire on a date before December 31, 1978, that is specified in the motion, the House of Commons shall within the first fifteen days next after the motion is filed that the House is sitting, in accordance with the rules of the House, take up and consider the motion.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment which I wish to move to the motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The House may wish to deal with the amendment or to debate it. I want to suggest that the way the amendment reads now, it denies in fact the rights of two other political parties in this chamber.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member who said "Hear, hear" surely agrees that his rights are the same as the rights of all other members of the House. Also, he should consider the well-being of his own party in some other provinces when it comes to the rights of members of parliament. This amendment, by specifying the number "50," in fact denies the rights of two parties in this House.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Since there was a precedent, where 10 or 20 members of parliament on the signing of a motion may bring forward a matter for debate, and on a prior occasion that was agreed to in the House by all parties, or certainly all opposition parties, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That motion No. 3 be amended by deleting therefrom the phrase "50 members of the House" and substituting therefor the phrase "10 members of the House".
2 1804-6 lV^

April 29, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act


Some hon. Members:: Question.


C (1650)
Mr. Speaker:: The question, therefore, is upon the amendment to motion No. 3 by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House disposed to proceed with the taking of the recorded division without the necessity of calling in the members?
Messrs.
Hnatyshyn	Macquarrie	RailtonHopkins	Marceau	RainesHorner	Marchand	ReidIsabelle	(Langelier)	RichardsonJamieson	Marchand	RobertsJarvis	(Kamloops-Cariboo)	RobinsonJelinek	Marshall	RocheKaplan	Mazankowski	RompkeyLajoie	McCain	RoyLalonde	McGrath	(Laval)Lambert	Mclsaac	Sauve (Mrs.)(Edmonton West)	McKenzie	SchellenbergerLang	McKinnon	SharpLanglois	McRae	SmithLaniel	Milne	(Saint-Jean)Lapointe	Munro	StanburyLeBlanc	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Stanfield(Westmorland-Kent)	Munro	StevensLefebvre	(Hamilton East)	StewartLessard	Murta	(Cochrane)Loiselle	Neil	Tcssier(Chambly)	Nicholson (Miss)	TowersLumley	Nowlan	TrudeauMacDonald	Oberle	Trudel(Cardigan)	O'Connell	TurnerMacdonald	Olivier	Watson(Rosedale)	Ouellct	WenmanMacDonald (Miss)	Paproski	Whelan(Kingston and the	Patterson	WhittakerIslands)	Pearsall	WiseMacFarlane	Pelletier	WoolliamsMacGuigan	Penner	YanakisMackasey	Pinard	YewchukMacLean	Portelance	Young-155.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question, therefore, is on motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 3 lost.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-89, to amend the Anti-Inflation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the bill be read the third time aftd do pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair did not declare the motion carried on division. The Chair is inquiring whether the motion ought to be carried on division or whether the yeas and nays should be taken. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Anti-Inflation Act
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House agreed to the taking of the division without the necessity of calling in the members again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, 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 Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale)-Floods-Souris River area-Possible declaration as disaster area; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Transport-Suggestion new policy be developed before elimination of rail subsidies on flour and grain; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Fries-en)-Finance-Alleged importation of agricultural products from United States at below cost of production- Government action.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills.


PRIVATE BILLS
Joseph Clifford McIsaac: that Bill S-33, respecting United Grain Growers Limited, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on second reading of Bill S-33. The bill is not as contentious as the last piece of business the House just voted on, and I dare say it will enjoy the support of all parties and all members of this House.
It was both a pleasure and privilege to move second reading of Bill S-33, an act respecting United Grain Growers Limited, or UGG as they are commonly known across the prairies. It is a well known, well established prairie grain company which was originally set up by producers to buy and market grain. Since its earliest days it has expanded, as have other co-operative grain companies on the prairies, and become involved in the handling of chemicals, feeds and other matters related to the interests of grain producers.

The company was first organized by act of the Manitoba legislature in 1902, and later incorporated by the Senate and the House of Commons in 1911 under the name of Grain Growers Company Limited. The company has a long and illustrious history of service to western grain producers. It is organized on a co-operative basis, involving producers throughout the western grain growing region. Terms which have become widely used in the last few years in the cattle industry-"cross-bred" and "exotic"- apply, I think, to this particular company. It is a co-operative company with a corporate structure. At least, that is how it was to be set up under the original legislation, as I understand it. At present, UGG is led by a group of producer-elected directors under Mr. A. M. Runciman, president. The company has been not only active in doing an excellent job for its own members and shippers, but has performed good service for all producers of the prairie region.
The principles of the bill the House is considering are fairly simple and straightforward. Bills of a similar nature relating to UGG have been introduced in the House of Commons and passed, over the years. The bill requests an increase in the capital structure of the company from the present level of $12 million to $25 million. There shall be issued, altogether, 1.2 million class A shares at $20 each, and 200,000 class B or membership shares with a par value of $5 each. This will increase the capitalization of the company and enable it to perform the tasks it is required to undertake.
The bill also proposes to allow the company to increase the dividend rate on class A shares, which are in essence preferred shares, from the existing limit of 6.5 per cent to a new limit of 8 per cent, which represents an increase of 1.5 per cent in the interest rate paid. It also seeks to increase the number of shares which may be held by an individual from 2,500 to 5,000.1 commend the bill to the House and ask that it be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to place on the record today a few brief comments with respect to Bill S-33. It is a pleasure primarily for two reasons: first, it is a refreshing change whenever this House gives its attention to agricultural legislation-and I regret that these opportunities are all too infrequent-and, second, as a personal comment it pleases me to have an opportunity, as a member from central Canada, to lend my support to a just and deserving cause in some other region of this country, in this case western Canada.
My research indicates that the United Grain Growers was first established and chartered by an act of parliament some 70 years ago, in 1906. My colleague for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) suggested that the company was incorporated by act of the Manitoba legislature. He may well be correct.
The United Grain Growers is a result of the encouragement and foresight of the territorial grain growers association, who with some imagination might be compared to a group similar in nature, namely, the Federation of Agriculture. From a small beginning, under good management and producer participation and support, it has grown and developed with remarkable success. With establishment in
Whittaker
Wise
Woolliams Yewchuk-52.
April 29, 1976

Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, it lists some 475 manager units and operates some 700 grain elevators with terminals in Vancouver and Thunder Bay. It is an agent of the Canadian Wheat Board and, in addition, carries on business transactions in non-board grains, domestic feed grains, farm supplies, feeds and fertilizers. One would be remiss, when talking about the organization, if one did not mention its publication, "Country Guide". This agricultural magazine enjoys excellent readership and distribution throughout the entire country and well beyond our borders.
It is estimated that United Grain Growers handle approximately 16 per cent of the grain grown in western Canada. This bill is not unusual, nor is it unique. In 1941 and in 1965, and perhaps on other occasions, similar bills have been presented with respect to changes deemed necessary and desirable. The bill of 1941 amended the charter of the United Grain Growers to provide for two types of shares. First, it created $20 investment shares to be placed on the exchange, and second it created $5 membership or voting shares, the latter to be held only by members who could be regarded solely as producers or legitimate farmers. This was a desirable amendment because it ensured that this farmer-owned co-operative remained in the hands and under the control of producers. The 1965 amendment enabled the United Grain Growers to pay greater dividend or interest on their shares, up to 5 per cent, with the option of paying an additional 1.5 per cent.
Bill S-33 proposes another suitable revision, if that is allowed: first, an increase in capital from the present $12 million to $25 million; second, the right to increase dividends on some shares by a maximum of 3 per cent, giving a total yield of 8 per cent ; and third, an increase in the number of shares to be held by an individual from 2,500 to 5,000.
The record of this co-operative clearly demonstrates a steady growth and a sound financial position both now and over the years. It is a fine example of a united effort by producers successfully to establish and manage a commercial enterprise. It has served the interests of producers in western Canada over the years and I am confident that with these changes it will continue to do so for generations to come.
With these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate the support of my party for this bill and to further indicate our full support and anxiety for its speedy passage.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we agree that this legislation should receive speedy passage in this House, in the other place, and royal assent. However, this is an opportunity to make a few points that are appropriate considering the co-operative with which we are dealing. The history goes back to 1906 and involves some of the patron saints in western agriculture, people like George Mothewell, E. A. Partridge and other old-timers in the co-operative movement of the prairies. Some are still alive and are active members of the United Grain Growers, the various wheat pools and farm unions. Hon. members will agree that they deserve full honour, credit and tribute.
United Grain Growers
Co-operatives came into existence as a result of economic tribulations caused by private enterprisers in the so-called free and open market-the grain speculators. Farmers were forced to ban together into co-operatives and start their own elevator companies. As a result, organizations such as the United Grain Growers have grown and expanded. They are the vehicle by which many thousand grain producers in western Canada market their grain. They know they can have confidence in their organization to work on behalf of their best interests.
As the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mcl-saac) pointed out, the legislation allows the United Grain Growers to increase its capitalization from $12 million to $25 million. Not only the United Grain Growers, but the wheat pools as well, will be faced in coming years with the necessity of further modernizing their country elevator system and enlarging their operations. This will be necessary because the pools and the United Grain Growers handle the overwhelming majority of grains marketed in the three prairie provinces. They will obviously need many millions of dollars for these expanded operations. Both the United Grain Growers and the pools have programs to construct new country elevators which will be more modern and efficient. In addition to doing a better job of cleaning, drying and mixing grain, they will have a larger capacity which will allow them to better utilize unit train systems.
The legislation provides that a producer member may hold up to 5,000 class A shares instead of 250. I am confident the additional capital will be used to expand United Grain Growers in the way in which it presently operates. I am confident that none of the money will be used for something like an inland terminal of the nature and kind being promoted by the multinational and international grain dealers such as Cargill and Continental. I know the board of directors, shareholders and members of United Grain Growers will join with the farmers of western Canada in opposing that kind of development. The capital they raise through this legislation will be used to expand their country elevator system. It will serve their organization in many hundreds of shipping points in the three prairie provinces and the Peace River district of British Columbia.
I hope the United Grain Growers, its members, shareholders and board of directors will begin not only to accept but to welcome its employees becoming part of the trade union movement. I speak in particular of the elevator agents, construction and maintenance crews. I hope the shareholders and the board of directors of the United Grain Growers will not just acquiesce but will encourage their country elevator agents, as well as their maintenance and construction crews, to join the Grain Services Union which now has in its ranks all elevator agents, construction and maintenance employees of the Saskatchewan and Manitoba pool elevators.
I know that some individual members have made inquiries and that there have been some quiet meetings and discussions. I am confident the management of United Grain Growers will not throw up any roadblocks or make any threats that will hinder or impede their employees becoming members of the Grain Services Union.

April 29, 1976
United Grain Growers
In the course of acquiring additional capital from the operations and modernizing their country elevator system, United Grain Growers, as well as the three prairie pools in servicing their members, are running into difficulty because of impediments imposed partly by the federal government and partly by our transportation system. Only today we were informed of a decision by the cabinet which will do a great deal of harm to organizations such as United Grain Growers and will have a direct as well as an indirect interest in not only rapeseed but rapeseed oil and rapeseed meal. The decision by the government came after an appeal by the co-operatives of the three prairie provinces, the Farmers' Union and the three prairie provincial governments to the cabinet against an order by the Canadian Transport Commission to keep freight rates on rapeseed oil and meal at the level at which they were compared to rapeseed.
Even with the rates as they were, 100 pounds of rapeseed crushed in Saskatchewan into 38 pounds of rapeseed oil, and shipped in a jumbo car at the lowest possible rate to Montreal, cost $1.10 a hundredweight. For 62 pounds of meal, made from 100 pounds of crushed rapeseed, it cost 23.5 cents a hundredweight to Thunder Bay or 59 cents a hundredweight to Montreal. However, if that rapeseed were crushed at Montreal, the statutory rates to Thunder Bay of 23.5 cents, and Thunder Bay to Montreal of 44 cents, makes a total of 67.5 cents, compared to a total of 93 cents if the grain is crushed in Saskatchewan. That is the difference. Under the old rates the 25l/2 cents per hundredweight favoured crushing rapeseed in Montreal or any other point east of Georgian Bay. That is a severe handicap for the rapeseed mills and crushing plants of Western Canada.
When United Grain Growers raise this further capital as proposed in the bill, they will be faced with a further handicap. Let me refer to order in council P.C. 1976-894 of April 13, which was passed by this cabinet:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, pursuant to section 64 of the National Transportation Act, is pleased hereby to vary the following orders and decisions of the Canadian Transport Commission:
(a)	Order No. R-16824 dated June 27,1973;
(b)	Order No. R-17016 dated August 2, 1973; and
(c)	any other order or decision of the Canadian Transport Commission that is inconsistent with paragraph (d) hereof
to provide
(d)	that the following rates or portions of rates for domestic and export movement of rapeseed meal and rapeseed oil from the four rapeseed crushing plants at Altona, Nipawin, Saskatoon and Lethbridge, be established annually at minimum compensatory levels:
(i)	rates for rapeseed meal and rapeseed oil moving west;-
That is to Vancouver.
(ii)	rates for rapeseed oil moving east; and
(iii)	the portions of rates pertaining to the movement of rapeseed
meal east of Thunder Bay or Armstrong, Ontario.
This will mean that the United Grain Growers, Sask Wheat Pool and any other privately owned rapeseed plant in the three prairie provinces will be faced with an even greater differential when it comes to processing rapeseed into rapessed oil or rapeseed meal. I suggest that investment of any of the additional capital that will be raised under this legislation in a rapeseed plant will be difficult

to justify or merely to break even on. That is because they will be faced with what in polite language can be called an historical anomaly but which is really outright, rank discrimination, which western Canadians have been facing in terms of our freight rate structure for many decades. After raising this additional capital, if United Grain Growers want to go into rapeseed crushing they will continue to be treated as hewers of wood and drawers of water, as we in the three prairie provinces always have been.
Historically we have always had difficulty with freight rates in western Canada when it comes to raw and finished products, whether beef or hogs and the processing thereof, or whether processing wheat into flour. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), that great friend of the farmer, has another bill on the order paper, Bill C-87, to remove the freight rate subsidy on flour. Our grain co-operatives in western Canada own a flour mill. In the middle of negotiations with the Russians for the sale of 275,000 tons of flour, they found they could not give the Russians a price because of this bill to remove the freight rate subsidy on flour. So the Russians said to these Canadian millers "Tough cookie, we are going somewhere else since you cannot give us a price. You cannot tell us what the freight rate is going to be other than it will be higher, and since you want a higher price for your flour we are going somewhere else".
The same thing is going to happen with rapeseed oil and rapeseed meal. Our traditional customer, Japan, bought four shiploads from France last month because the Government of Canada sat. The Minister of Transport and the railroad want to do something to the statutory grain rates. What have they done to protect these traditional markets, Mr. Speaker? Not only have they done nothing to protect them but they are making efforts to endanger those markets further.
When the four western premiers met in Medicine Hat yesterday they called the decision of the cabinet on freight rates, on rapeseed oil and rapeseed meal, a doublecross. I say it is more than a doublecross, it is a betrayal. The Liberals in the last election, as well as after the election, promised that the anomalies in our freight rate structure would be removed. Yet exactly the opposite has happened, and it is happening again today. As if the United Grain Growers were not having enough trouble serving their own members and protecting them from the tender mercies of the international grain companies, the CPR and the Minister of Transport, we now have this sort of decision from the government which is going to make their difficulties even worse.
All members of the House support this bill and will see it through parliament quickly. But I remind the House that some of the motherhood remarks that came from the other side are more like crocodile tears. All of the other moves the government is making are going to do nothing but harm the western grain producers and co-operatives. The United Grain Growers and the other grain co-operatives are trying to raise capital to modernize and enlarge their country elevator system and their capacity to move our grain quickly, thus serving their members even better. Yet they have been continually kicked in the face.
Who was it, Mr. Speaker, who raised the subject of the Crowsnest rates? It was not the farmers, the wheat pools
April 29, 1976

or the United Grain Growers. Certainly the CPR has been complaining about them since 1899, but aside from that, who was it who raised the matter in recent years? It was the present Minister of Transport, the farmers' friend. He raised the subject two or three years ago in a speech in Winnipeg when he said possibly it was time to review the Crowsnest rates. There is only one way they can be reviewed, Mr. Speaker, and that is upwards. Certainly I cannot fathom the farmers asking that they be reviewed downwards.
Who was it, Mr. Speaker, who took feed grains out of the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board? We all know these fellows who say that the Canadian Wheat Board is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and they tell us how they support orderly marketing under the Canadian Wheat Board. But who was it who removed feed grains from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board? And, by the way, they were supported by the Tories. It was the Minister of Transport again, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. All of these actions have handicapped the United Grain Growers as well as the wheat pools of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta, for decades.
I remind the shareholders and members of United Grain Growers that battles won do not necessarily stay won. So long as there are those who propose an antiquated, so-called free enterprise and open market system for grain, the gains and battles won by United Grain Growers, Sask Wheat Pool and the Farmers' Union to get orderly marketing, to build their own co-operatives and to market their own grain, will always remain in jeopardy. They will always have to be on their guard, fighting the same old enemies. Many of those same old enemies are still in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. We had a good example of this today when we found out what the cabinet has done about freight rates for rapeseed oil and rapeseed meal.
Historically we are not supposed to be able, according to successive Liberal and Tory governments, to manufacture and process our own production in western Canada. We are supposed to grow the raw product and send it to eastern Canada or the Pacific coast for manufacturing and processing. Then we buy it back, and it is very expensive. We are not going to stand for that in the prairie provinces, and the four western premiers made that very plain yesterday when they called this a doublecross. I am sure they did not use those words idly. The Premier of Alberta, speaking on behalf of the four premiers, last night made it very plain how western Canada feels about this kind of treatment.
What good are massive expenditures by the United Grain Growers or other wheat pools to improve even more their capacity to handle grain and process our agricultural products when we continue to get treatment in respect of transportation and orderly marketing such as we have been getting from this and previous governments? I hope this legislation not only passes but that the members and shareholders of the United Grain Growers repeat again the message they have been trying to get through to successive national governments regarding freight rates and orderly marketing. The overwhelming majority of grain producers in western Canada are unanimous about these issues. This is the message we have to get through to this government, and as long as we continue to have a so-called free enter-
United. Grain Growers
prise government of either of the old line parties the grain producers will have to continue to fight.
I commend this legislation to the House. I support it, my party supports it, and we will continue to support the co-operative movement set up on behalf of grain producers in western Canada and the producers of other agricultural commodities who have continually been having a job done on them. This is discrimination that we are sick and tired of, and we want to assure this parliament and this government that they have not heard the last from us and many others about this kind of discrimination.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a very few words about Bill S-33, and I certainly do not intend to take as long as the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) in pointing out a gloomy picture as he did. I should like to talk for a few minutes about the company we are dealing with, namely, the United Grain Growers. I can probably say without too much fanfare, if you like, that I am probably the only person to speak during this debate who is actually a permit holder and has actually delivered grain to this particular elevator company.
It goes without saying, certainly on the part of most people in western Canada, especially farmers, that this company is viewed as one of the most progressive elevator companies and one of the most progressive farm companies in western Canada, and perhaps even in Canada itself. Certainly one of the good things about the United Grain Growers, which has been mentioned earlier, is the structure of that organization. It operates in some respects like a pool and in other respects like a private company. Because of this UGG has been able to get top-notch people into the top echelon of the company, bringing them up through the ranks to operate the day to day workings of the company.
This top echelon has a great deal of influence not only within the elevator system in which they operate but also in respect of farm policy which affects the farmers and, I suppose, ultimately all Canadians. The company has been instrumental in almost every progressive organization in western Canada in that its members of the board of directors hold prominent positions outside that board. I say this just to illustrate the influence that this particular elevator company has in western Canada.
Bill S-33 will be of great benefit and is certainly supported by the majority of members in the House. The increase in the capital is one of the major aspects of this piece of legislation. That additional capital will be required in the future because, whether we like it or not, there is going to be a drastic revision or change in elevator policy in coming years. There will be fewer elevators and they will be in all likelihood further apart. When the Hall Commission recommendations are implemented in western Canada there will be a tremendous change in our elevator or grain collecting system. The extra capital will definitely be needed, and I certainly recommend the passage of this bill to hon. members.
Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the United Grain Growers for the work it has done in western Canada and for being partly responsible for introducing competition to our grain handling system.
13008

April 29, 1976
United Grain Growers


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take only a couple of minutes during the debate on this bill. In spite of not coming from western Canada I am aware of the background of the United Grain Growers and the fact that it was started by a number of farmers co-operating among themselves many years ago. They developed this company long before there was an act in respect of co-operatives. If that were not so this measure might be dealt with in a different manner.
I was concerned, when reading the bill, to ascertain exactly what the United Grain Growers wanted to accomplish. If there are still more Class "B" shares than Class "A" shares and there is a desire for an expansion which is not greater than the co-operative's responsibility to its membership the company should have had someone other than the hon. member who is introducing this bill to sponsor it here and in the other place.
I am interested in a couple of sentences that I wonder whether western farmers understand, and I raise this matter because this is common to our legislative measures. These sentences are confusing. In the explanation to Clause 1 it is stated:
Notwithstanding subsection (2), the directors of the Company may, for any fiscal year, declare an additional dividend of one-half of one per centum, or any multiple thereof to a maximum of one and one-half per centum, of the par value of the Class "A" shares-
What is "per centum"? For many years in this country, since we stopped the compulsory study of Latin, we have dropped most of the Latin terms. It would be quite easy, I am sure, for the purposes of this bill to amend at least that explanation by saying "per cent" rather than "per centum". I am sure there are some people who understand what that means, but I wonder how many-


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Having regard to the old Latin that was used years ago to which the hon. member has made reference, perhaps it has been used in that passage because what he was quoting from is the previous section on the explanation side of the bill. That is not what is in the bill now. If the hon. member would turn to page 2 of the bill he will find it says "a dividend at a rate of one-half of one per cent." We have done exactly what he has suggested and changed that old word.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I was just suggesting that we should not be using that type of term. Perhaps the hon. member has a different explanation for what appears at the top of page 3 which states:
(c) The right to rank in a winding up of the Company pari passu with the Class "B" shares.
We may know what "per centum" means and, as he has suggested, the bill has dropped that, but what the hell does "pari passu" mean to a western farmer? Well, Mr. Speaker, they may be educated. Perhaps in western Canada the people use a different language going back to the old Latin. However, I do not find them to be that anti-modern. Most of the people there use modern language. I know what this means. It is in the English dictionary. I wonder whether the sponsor knows what this means.

I should like to bring to the attention of the legal advisers to both the House of Commons and the Senate that in writing bills-and this is a very important bill I am sure to the members of the United Grain Growers' Association- they should use the vernacular, a language which can be understood.
As I have said, this is an important bill. It concerns a company which is owned co-operatively by the farmers of western Canada. Those who have spoken have lauded the value of the company and the least we can do is have the language in English or in French, one of the official languages, and quit playing around with a third one.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong the debate. Perhaps I might interpret this for the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). This phrase "pari passu" means to the farmers that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, parachutes in on them with programs and suggestions in which they are not too co-operative.
I wish to bring to the attention of the House the comments of the president, Mr. Runciman, and the vice-president Mr. Smith of Red Deer, of the United Grain Growers concerning the well-being and community life of Canada. Certainly we should support this bill because of the fact that it is required by this company which is deserving of the continued support of the House of Commons in its endeavour to promote the development of a proper system of moving and handling grain in western Canada. There is no doubt there have been problems, but I am sure the problems will increase in the future because of the fact that energy now costs more and more as time passes causing problems for the grain industry.
I think that if there is one shortfall in the whole system it is the fact that the Minister of Transport is not measuring up to his responsibility of making the job of the United Grain Growers Limited and similar bodies easier in respect of the movement of grain through the provision of proper facilities. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to lend my full support, and also I am sure the support of members on this side, including that of the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), to this legislation. We certainly are in favour of the passage of this bill at the present time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 29, 1976


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired and 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.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Paul Yewchuck (Athabasca) moved: motion No. 1:
That Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Medical Care Act, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 1 to 16 at page 2.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have spent quite some time on this bill which originally was debated last fall, if I recall correctly. I spent a good deal of time last summer getting ready for it because we thought it would be one of the first items of business, but here we are at the end of April and the bill is still before the House.
The reason for taking such a long time on this bill is that it has been subject to a substantial amount of controversy. We on this side of the House felt that it was a rather strange way of conducting federal-provincial relations in this country. At the time that the bill was first brought in last June during the budget debate, federal-provincial negotiations were in progress which were intended in some way to rearrange the cost sharing programs between the federal and provincial governments in so far as health care is concerned. Strangely enough, at that time it appeared that the provinces were satisfied that negotiations were being carried on in a satisfactory way.
A working committee was established to study the problem and bring in a report. While this committee had almost completed its work and was going to meet some time last September, the former minister of finance announced that the federal government had decided to take this unilateral and arbitrary action without further consultations with the provinces. It struck us as being a rather arrogant way, to say the least, of dealing with the provinces since, as I said, negotiations were being carried on at that time.
The minister has since made it quite clear in committee on many occasions that in his view the presentation and passage of this bill do not in any way interfere with the
Medical Care Act
conduct of negotiations which are still continuing. The minister assured us in committee that he feels that satisfactory progress is being made in terms of renegotiating the cost sharing agreements between the federal government and the provinces, and this led me to believe that this bill was a little premature and perhaps completely unnecessary.
However, evidence which was presented by the minister to the committee suggested that the provinces are not necessarily unhappy about the first two years. We also received evidence from the Medical Association of Canada suggesting that it is not all that unhappy about the first two years of the bill since it calls for increases of some 13 per cent in the first year following its passage, and 10.5 per cent in the following year.
In both cases those figures are perhaps sufficiently high that at least the medical association is not very concerned about it, although I think the provinces are concerned. They did not like the bill in the form in which it was passed at second reading. However, in view of the fact that the minister claims that this bill will not interfere with continuing ongoing talks with regard to readjusting the cost sharing agreements, we on this side of the House felt that if that is the case, then the bill is really unnecessary beyond a certain period of time. Given the fact that there is a real desire on the part of the provinces to conclude these talks and negotiations in a fairly reasonable time, and given the minister's stated desire to do the same, we felt that there was no need for this kind of legislation lasting beyond a period of two years. For that reason the amendment which I am now proposing calls for the termination of this legislation following that two year period.
In committee the minister expressed some reservations about the amendment, on the one hand stating that negotiations were moving along fairly well, but on the other hand suggesting that he did not think any significant progress would be made by the time two years went by. That led one to be somewhat suspicious with regard to the seriousness with which he is conducting these negotiations. That took me right back to the beginning of our attack on the federal government for putting forward such legislation in the first place, which takes the approach that the provinces are not very important in so far as their opinions are concerned, that the federal government will play God, set the rules unilaterally and impose them on the provinces whether the provinces like them or not, and impose them on the people providing medical care whether they like it or not.
I think this method of approaching unity and federal-provincial relations is contrary to the spirit upon which this country was built. It seems to me that in a country such as ours consisting of a number of provinces and territories with their own governments, each with its own areas of responsibility, and a central government which also has its area of responsibility, where there is a situation involving cross-jurisdiction in certain areas, in order for Confederation to work adequately and in order for unity to be strong between the provinces or between the various regions of the country, there has to exist a feeling of mutual trust between the federal government and the provinces. In saying this we have to keep in mind the fact
2 1804-62)4

April 29, 1976
Medical Care Act
that this medicare program, to be kind, was imposed upon the provinces against their will a number of years ago.
Virtually all of the provinces, except for one, I think, objected to it when it was first introduced. They did not want it. They felt that they were already providing adequate medical insurance and that the introduction of the medicare act at that time was interfering with their own priorities. The provinces were forced to readjust their priorities quite drastically, and at that time they foresaw what was going to happen. They wondered how they could be sure that the federal government, once it imposed this program, realized the cost of it and realized the difficulty in controlling the cost, would not try to back out and leave them saddled with the burden of the whole cost. Indeed this is what appears to be happening. The feeling of trust, which I think once existed, has been severely damaged, and I am concerned about that because I do not want to see any more strain on Confederation than is absolutely necessary.
However, unfortunately we have a government before us, temporarily occupying the other side of the House, which has always taken this kind of approach to federal-provincial relations, the approach where consultation usually means making a unilateral decision and telling the provinces about it later. Sometimes it does not even do that; sometimes it makes a unilateral decision and issues a press release about it, and the provinces find out, by watching the 11 o'clock news or perhaps reading the local newspapers, what are the plans of the federal government.
I want to place this serious concern I have before the House and before the people of the country. If unity is to be maintained we must accept the fact that the feeling of trust which must exist between the various governments is something which should be protected. I am afraid the action the minister took in this regard did anything but protect that feeling of trust. Indeed I think that feeling was damaged quite substantially.
The minister still has an opportunity to recoup lost graces, if he wants to be graceful. He has an opportunity to tell the provinces that he has confidence in his own ability to negotiate with them and confidence in their desire to try to reach agreement with him through negotiation and consultation, and if he has that kind of confidence I am sure he will accept this motion which would have the effect of terminating the bill after a two year period.
I think I will just leave it at that. I have clearly outlined the reason for this motion. We debated this bill for a long time at second reading, and there was a reason for that. We have found, through long and difficult experience, that regardless of how good a point we want to make or how right we may be, generally speaking nobody on the government side listens to what we say. Either they do not listen or perhaps their skulls are rather thick. I am not sure which it is. In any case, we find that by repeating something over and over again ad infinitum, sometimes it eventually sinks in. So here we are once again repeating things which have already been said. I know the minister sometimes listens while he is doing other things. He assured me at one time that he can talk to two or three people and listen to a speech at the same time.


Marc Lalonde: That depends on the speech.


Paul Yewchuk: If he is as bright as Weekend Magazine made him out to be a month or so ago, perhaps he can do all those things, but he has yet to prove to me that he is as bright as Weekend Magazine said, because so far nothing I have said to him on this bill during the course of the past few months seems to have sunk in very well. I am not sure whether the reason is a refusal to acknowledge a good suggestion when it is presented, or whether it is simply a refusal to acknowledge that he might have been wrong in the first place in presenting this.
Perhaps when the minister speaks he will tell us why he has so stubbornly pursued this unilateral and arbitrary course of action. He has pursued it virtually against the advice of everybody involved, against the advice of the provinces, against the advice of the medical profession, against the advice of other people providing health services and finally, and by no means least, against advice from this side of the House.
We get the impression that this particular government always takes the position that it alone represents the views of the people, that it alone can come up with ideas beneficial to Canada. For some reason it takes the position that parties on this side of the House have never come up with a good idea. I take objection to that position of course. Every member on this side of the House has fought an election, as have members on the other side. Every member on this side of the House represents the views of a certain segment of the Canadian people; every member does his job by presenting the views of the people who elected him to this House.
I can never comprehend why we have so much difficulty making the government understand that improvements to legislation are always possible. We know it is easy to criticize and we know too that in our parliamentary system, where the adversary system is in effect, that we have a duty to criticize legislation put forward by the government and to point out any pitfalls that might exist. We know, of course, that members of the government would never do that. We know from experience that they stand up and repeat the same old drivel about how great they are, what good ideas they have, and what their legislation will do for the country. In the face of that we have an obligation to point out the truth and to offer suggestions on how legislation can be improved.
I think we have fulfilled that task over and over again in regard to this bill. We have offered many suggestions to make it more palatable to the people who would be affected by it. We have offered suggestions which would lead to a greater feeling of unity in the country, a feeling that the federal government is truly interested in co-operating with the provinces and, through the democratic process, reaching a solution acceptable to the largest number of Canadians.
I will conclude by saying again that if the minister is sincere in his desire to consult meaningfully with the provinces, this bill will be totally unnecessary by the time two years have expired. In view of the fact that acts are almost never repealed even when they become redundant, we might as well build into this one a "self-destruct"
April 29, 1976

mechanism which will remove the litter from the books when the time comes.
I hear a suggestion that the bill be given to the minister to hold in his hand while it self-destructs. Perhaps that is a good suggestion. The minister seems to have seen the light-he seems to acknowledge having heard what I have said so perhaps he will let this motion go through without too much objection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) pointed out that this debate has been going on for a long time. It really started last June when the then minister of finance, Mr. Turner, gave notice of the government's intention to impose ceilings on the amount that the federal government would pay to the provinces in respect of medical care. The bill itself, of course, came in later.
There was a long debate at second reading which was brought to an end by the imposition of closure. We have since debated the bill in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. In that committee certain amendments were made, and I notice that in addition to the report stage amendments proposed from this side of the House there is now a further amendment by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) also being proposed at report stage.
I have to say, sir, that even with the amendments that the government made in the standing committee and with the amendment that the minister would make at this stage, Bill C-68 is still totally unacceptable to us. In our view one of the important advances that was made in Canada-and it took an awfully long time for that advance to be made- was when we established the principle of medical care for all our people, and when we made it a Canadian plan in the sense that the federal government would share the costs of medical care faced by the provinces in such a way as to provide equality of treatment and relative equality to the provinces right across Canada.
Now the government has come along and given notice that it is backing away from principles in this area and related areas which were forward steps. It is not only backing away from the formula for the financing of medical care which is represented in the bill now before us, it has also given notice to the provinces that at the end of this decade it will seek to renegotiate agreements regarding hospitalization. It is also in the process of cutting back on the funding of scientific research generally and medical research in particular.
No matter how much the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) might preach the need for restraint, no matter what problems we face in this country, we do not accept the idea of taking backward steps with respect to the provision of medical care for the people of Canada.
The bill that is now before us, as amended on the motion of the government in the standing committee, provides that in the first two years covered by the bill there are fixed limits as to the amount of increase that the provinces can expect from the government with respect to medical care.
Spokesmen on the government side like to make the point that these very increases indicate that the government is not paying out fewer dollars for medical care but
Medical Care Act
is, rather, prepared to pay out more dollars and that therefore those of us who cry havoc about this bill and try to contend that it involves a cutback are not "telling it as it
is".
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that one has to compare what will happen under this bill with what would happen if it were not enacted at all. If this bill were not enacted the federal government, under the Medical Care Act, would be required to pay the provinces roughly 50 per cent of their medical costs. Under this bill, with costs going up, the government will pay the lesser of two amounts, either 50 per cent of what it costs the provinces, or the number of dollars that were paid to them last year, plus a certain additional amount.
Since medicare started the provinces have been able to count on 50 per cent of those costs being paid by the federal government. I say 50 per cent, although I recognize that there is a formula that results in some provinces getting a little more, and some a little less; but the average is 50 per cent. The provinces that have been able to count on that will in future, if this bill is passed, not be able to count on getting 50 per cent of the costs of medical care. This bill fixes a precise limit in the first two years of the operation of this law. After that it is left to the government to decide by order in council.
The original bill brought before the House had precise figures in it for the next three years as well. The minister contended that he was doing something generous by taking out those figures and putting in the provision for the decision to be made by order in council. It means, if this bill goes through, that we have no way of knowing, and the provinces will have no way of knowing, what limits the government will impose after the first two years have gone
by-
It is well established, both in the language of the bill and in the minister's statements made in this House and in committee that, although there will be consultations with the provinces-and consultation is defined one way in the dictionary and in quite another way by this government- the provinces will have no real say. In the end the federal minister will make the decision and put it into effect by order in council.
So we have this picture: for two years the provinces will know the limits; they will also know that they will get less than the 50 per cent they have been getting. The provinces know that after that they will be completely at the mercy of the federal minister, who will be free to act by order in council.
The hon. member for Athabasca did well tonight, as he did on second reading, in pointing out that this is hardly the way to carry on federal-provincial relations. It is hardly the thing to do to get the provinces to come into a plan like this, get their system built up as it were, and then undercut them by making changes in the formula of the kind being proposed. We think it is wrong and unfair to the people of Canada who deserve the benefits of health care; we think it is wrong to treat the provinces this way. I suspect the minister knows better than we do, because he was at the conference, of the unhappiness of provincial

April 29, 1976
Medical Care Act
ministers of health because of the way the government has treated the provinces in the last number of years.
We do not like Bill C-68. We are against it, lock, stock, and barrel-all the way. Even so we are going to vote for the motion just proposed by the hon. member for Athabasca. It is a compromise. We would rather not have the bill at all, with its limitations; but if the motion proposed by the hon. member for Athabasca were to pass, and I hope it will, there would be the ceilings the provinces already know about for the first two years, but after that this limiting bill would have no further effect. After that we would return to the provisions of the original Medical Care Act.
As I say, Sir, we would much rather not see the limitations imposed by the government in those first two years; alternatively, it certainly would be better if the legislation could go only that far, if there could be limitations for only two years after which we could return to the principles laid down in the Medical Care Act itself. In other words, if the motion proposed by the hon. member for Athabasca is accepted by the House we would know what would happen for two years, after which we should be governed again by the principles of the original legislation. For this reason we welcome the proposal made by the hon. member for Athabasca. In this he would probably agree with me; I expect he would rather not have limitations in those two years; he would rather see the whole bill treated as I have suggested, made into a bill which would self-destruct, so to speak, and put into the minister's hands for that process. I hope that the minister and the House might consider that as a compromise.
If we cannot persuade the government to drop the idea altogether, that is, of walking away for the 50 per cent provision in the Medical Care Act, the compromise at least would impose those limitations only for the first two years. For this reason I shall be glad to see lines 1 to 16 on page 2 of the bill deleted. The proposal moved by the hon. member for Athabasca calls for just that.
Sir, I have already referred to the important milestone which was reached when medical care on a national basis was established in this country. I must be careful not to make a speech I have made many times in this House, about the great Liberal party of 1919 and the great things to which it committed itself, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, and health insurance. One could find that speech of mine in a great many volumes of Hansard. It tells the story of the years it took to achieve these things to which the Liberals committed themselves in 1919. And if I condemned them for taking so long, I gave them credit for moving in the right direction.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the Liberals, who were finally dragged into doing those progressive things for the people of Canada, now want to water them down. Health care for the people of Canada on a free, universal basis is a good idea. It is one of the best things that marks life in this country. To jeopardize it in this way is to betray the people of Canada. Certainly it is a betrayal of those Liberals of bygone decades who dreamed of achieving this sort of thing.
We again appeal to the government to scrap this bill completely. If it is not prepared to do that, I plead with the minister to accept motion No. 1 proposed by the hon. member for Athabasca, and call a halt to imposing ceilings

after the first two years. Mr. Speaker, we shall support the motion proposed by the hon. member for Athabasca.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that there may be unanimous agreement for the vote on the bill we are debating to be deferred until Wednesday following the question period, after which we can proceed to third reading. I wonder if hon. members opposite would confirm that.


Paul Yewchuk: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that would be acceptable to us. We could defer the votes until Wednesday afternoon, then perhaps terminate the debate with third reading of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, yes, we are glad to agree to the proposal that any votes at the report stage be deferred until Wednesday, at three o'clock, and that the calling of third reading not take place until those votes have been taken on Wednesday. We agree to that.


Eudore Allard: We also agree, Mr. Speaker, that the vote be taken next Wednesday after the question period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is so ordered. Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) rising to speak?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to participate in the debate at this time. I shall have something to say, perhaps after hon. members have had the opportunity to speak on the various motions. That way we can probably save some of the time of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 1?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
April 29, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to Section (II) of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The House will now proceed to Motion No. 3.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about motion No. 2?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: We cannot move to motion No. 2 because No. 2 hinges on the vote on motion No. 1. Therefore we will move to motion No. 3.


Stanley Howard Knowles: motion No. 3:
That Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Medical Care Act, be amended by deleting Clause 1.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is almost too bad that arrangements were not made to tape the speech I just finished making because, with one or two additions to it, it could be played back as the speech to be made on this motion.


An hon. Member:: Just make the additions and we will remember what you said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I could be sure that my friends would remember everything I have said, I would of course do that.
The main difference between the motion we were debating in the name of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and the motion now before the House in my name is that his motion would have permitted the bill to pass thus providing limitations on federal grants to the provinces for two years, but then would have the situation revert to the original provisions of the Medical Care Act itself. My motion on the other hand would eliminate completely any provision for limitations other than those in the Medical Care Act.
In other words, if my motion is accepted by the House, the federal government cannot, even in these first two years, pay to the provinces less than they are entitled to receive under the Medical Care Act. I feel that this is the position this House ought to take. As I have already indicated, if we cannot win this point we are of course prepared to go along with the compromise suggested by the health critic of the Progressive Conservative party to the effect that we allow this action by the government for only two years.
I certainly do not intend to impose on the House by repeating all the things that I said in the debate on the previous motion, but I do ask hon. members to give serious thought to the point that I tried to make.
There was a time when to refer to the 1919 convention of the Liberal party was to cause some annoyance around here. When I first started doing it, there were persons in the House who had been at that convention. They are not around now, so it is like talking about the Battle of Waterloo to mention what happened in 1919. I want to say that that, of course, was before there was a New Democratic Party or CCF. Somebody had to have some progressive ideas. The Liberals at their 1919 convention here in Ottawa did have some of those progressive ideas.
Medical Care Act


David Orlikow: They have been trying to forget them every since.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My colleague from Winnipeg North says they have been trying to forget them every since.
That was a great convention. It was the convention at which Mr. Mackenzie King was elected leader of the party. In the main speech he made at that convention, not a speech in the leadership contest itself, but in terms of dealing with policy matters, he dealt with the resolution that had been brought in calling for the three things I mentioned a while ago; old age pensions, unemployment insurance and health insurance. Mr. King called on the Liberal party of that day to commit itself to these things and to set out to make the Canada of the post-war world- that was after World War I-the better place it could be if we had old age pensions, unemployment insurance, and health insurance. It took a long while to get them.
It was not until 1926 that the old age pension law got on to the statute books so that it could come into effect in 1927. I was not until 1940 that unemployment insurance was passed. It looked for a time as though the third of those three things was going to be forgotten altogether. However, every once in a while we would remind Mr. King of the speech he made in 1919. He always came back and said he was going to see it implemented all the way, but things could not be done overnight.
It was not long before he quit being Prime Minister-I think it was about 1947 or 1948-that this place was a-buzz one day because an announcement on health was coming from the Prime Minister, one of those statements on motions. We even dared to believe that it was the beginning of health insurance. It turned out not to be that. However, it did turn out to be a program of hospital grants which he said would lay the foundation of health insurance later on. Well, that later on still had some years to come.
It was not until just before the Liberals went out of office in 1957 that they got hospitalization on to the statute books. Even so they had a provision or rider that prevented it from coming into effect. Of all things, it took the Progressive Conservatives to amend that bill so that hospitalization could come into effect. A few years later the Liberals came back and, in the days of Mr. Pearson as Prime Minister, we finally got health insurance, the Medical Care Act, on to the statute books.
That is a long story. I think I can be given credit for telling it in such a few minutes. I was telling the story of the period from 1919 to the middle sixties. That is the time it took to get this legislation on to the books. I was critical through the years I was here about how slow the process was, and how inadequate some of the provisions were that got enacted. However, these were all moves in the right direction of a better Canada for those who count, namely, the people of this country.
One of the hallmarks of that legislation is the provision for medical care. As I have already said, not only is it medical care that has been provided, but it has been provided on a basis that fits the Canadian scene in that the federal government pays half the cost and the provinces do the administering.

April 29, 1976
Medical Care Act
We now have before us legislation stipulating that despite the provisions of the Medical Care Act there will be this limitation that provinces will get 50 per cent, though not if their costs go up to the point where they exceed so many dollars more than they got the previous year. We think that this is an unfair way to treat the provinces. It is not the way to bring about co-operation. We also think that if it is done in this way some of the poorer provinces will be faced with special problems and will either have to cut back on the amount of medical care they can provide, or institute deterrent fees, extra taxes, or one thing or another, and then we will soon have the situation where the provision of health care is unequal across Canada, being better in some parts than in others.
We think the whole concept of a limitation as contained in this bill is wrong and ought to be stopped in its tracks. We said that right away last June when Mr. Turner brought in his budget. I can tell the House, if one is permitted in this place to refer to political conventions, that at the national convention of the New Democratic Party held in Winnipeg last July one of the things that concerned our delegates most was the Turner threat to cut back on hospital and medical care. Certainly I speak for my colleagues in our party when I say we do not want this to happen.
Having admitted that the Liberals have brought us to a certain point which was worth while, I simply cannot understand why they now want to reverse the situation. One of the arguments that is used is that if it is an open-ended situation, as it is now, then the provinces will spend money hog wild on medical care. But they have to pay the other 50 per cent. I point out that they are as concerned about achieving economy as is the federal government, and they have made the point to the minister that there are better ways than this.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, we think the whole idea of imposing limits that result in the provinces getting less money than they would get under the Medical Care Act is wrong. My hope is that the House will accept this motion of mine which in effect wipes out the whole idea contained in Bill C-68. If we cannot do that, I hope we will at least accept the proposal that is made in the previous motion No. 1 and stop this process of cutting off funds for medical care after two years have gone by.
I have already said, and perhaps my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), may develop this a little more, that this, to us, is frightening when there is associated with it cutbacks in funding for scientific and medical research. To us, Mr. Speaker, the government seems to be moving in so many directions to make life harder for people. Using the excuse of restraint not to increase family allowances is part of the picture. Cutbacks in social services that are being made in the provinces because of the government's attitude toward federal and provincial fiscal arrangements are wrong. Therefore all down the line we are opposed to Bill C-68. My motion No. 3, which we are now discussing, if it passes would take out of the bill the whole of that part of the bill that imposes limits on what the federal government can pay to the provinces. Therefore I hope the House will vote in favour of this motion.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I have no intention of repeating at length the arguments that I put forward at earlier stages of this bill. I rise mainly because, despite all of the protestations of the minister, the facts are exactly as they were when the bill was discussed months ago.
The provinces, which will be so adversely affected by the unilateral decision of the government as outlined in the bill and by other proposals that the government is going to make, are still adamantly and unanimously opposed to the basic principle contained in this bill. Indeed on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week the provincial ministers of health were in Ottawa meeting with their federal colleague and I know-and I am sure the minister will not challenge my statement-that they are still unanimously opposed to this bill.
If one looks at this bill and at the other proposals that the government has announced it will implement in the very near future having to do with estimates in various fields, it is not surprising that the Conservative provincial governments of Newfoundland, Ontario and Alberta, the Liberal governments of Prince Edward Island and Quebec, the NDP governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and the Social Credit government of British Columbia all oppose the principle of this particular bill as well as the other proposals to which I have referred. They do so because what they see is a pattern that has ominous implications for the provinces. After all, Mr. Speaker, with respect to virtually all of the social legislation we have and virtually all the other legislation in the field of health and welfare-I would use the term "blackmail" except it may be unparliamentary-the pressure for implementation mostly came from the federal government.
What do we see now, Mr. Speaker? In this bill the federal government is proposing to place limits on specific increases for the next two years which it will pay under the 50-50 sharing arrangement of health care costs. The federal government has given notice that it will opt out of the 50-50 cost sharing of hospital insurance in 1980, which is the first time it can get out of the present agreement.
The federal government is proposing a social services act which will wipe out the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan, and although the provinces do not yet know all the details this will mean that the provinces will be saddled with a substantially larger part of the costs. I see the minister shaking his head. It is easy for him to shake his head in this House when he has a big majority behind him, but I know that he has not convinced his provincial counterparts that this will not be the effect of the social services act. The minister can shrug his shoulders and wave his hand at me, but I have talked to some of his provincial counterparts and they all tell me the same thing.


Mr. Pearsall:: Give them the bucks, that is all they want.


David Orlikow: Someone says "Give them the bucks, that is all they want". Of course that is all they want, because the bucks come from the same source-the pockets of the Canadian people.
Whether we are dealing with federal, provincial or municipal financing, the question is: which level of gov-
April 29, 1976

ernment has the constitutional and practical authority and ability to raise taxes in the most equitable way? Any member of parliament with any common sense, and I exempt the member who interjected a few moments ago as he has demonstrated he has very little common sense, and any member who can look at problems objectively will admit that the level of government least able to meet its expenses is the municipal level.
The next level of government least able to meet its expenses in any field is the provincial level, whether it be the have-not provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia or Quebec, or the have provinces such as Ontario or British Columbia. If the hon. member does not believe me he ought to listen to what the Liberal premier of Nova Scotia has been saying about costs and the impossible task of the people of Nova Scotia in paying their extremely high electric power costs because of the high price of oil. If the hon. member does not believe me then let him wait to see what happens to the Liberal party at the next provincial or federal election.
The government which is most able to find money for necessary programs is the federal government because of its ability to tax those who have the money, yet it is the federal government that is getting out of these cost-sharing programs as fast as it can. I could go on talking about how the federal government is cutting back on services which it has provided over the years to the native people who move off reserves. There is no member here who can deny that. The federal government is doing everything possible to get out of its constitutional and moral obligation to provide health and welfare services to our native people.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests I might say a few words about the record of this federal government in the field of medical research. This is obviously an important aspect in the total cost of medical care. If our medical researchers can make a breakthrough in respect of one of the major illnesses that strike so many Canadian people, be it cancer, a stroke, or any one of the many, this would mean a very sharp reduction in the cost of health care.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is putting a freeze on the very small amount of money the federal government provides for medical research. This is not the time to put the entire case on the record, but what is it that our medical researchers are asking? Are they talking in terms of billions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars, or even tens of millions of dollars? Our medical researchers are talking about the tremendous amount of $4.5 million. But the Minister of National Health and Welfare has the gall and the audacity to tell our medical researchers that the Canadian people cannot afford that kind of money.
Let us look at some of the things we have been able to afford. We might consider the $2 billion we have spent on Mirabel, and we might consider the $1,275 million the Canadian people will have spent on the Olympics before we are finished. We might also consider the tremendous increase in the number of civil servants who are at the top level of our bureaucratic system receiving from $30,000 to
Medical Care Act
$65,000 a year. This number has almost tripled in a half a dozen years. The minister and his colleagues have been able to find the money for these things, but not for medical research.
We have the spectacle of the federal government saying to the provinces that it simply cannot afford to continue the 50-50 sharing of health care costs. Indeed the federal government is making an effort to get out of the 50-50 sharing of hospital insurance costs as soon as it can, in spite of the fact it has been obvious for many years that in the field of hospital insurance Ottawa has been more than willing to pay 50 per cent of the most expensive kind of hospital care, and that is for the active care hospitals. The federal government has not been willing until now to pay any share of the cost of health care in nursing homes, convalescent homes, and other similar types of institutions. As a result the provinces have carried that cost alone. This is the least costly form of medical care. The federal government has been willing to pay for the more expensive care.
I am sure there is not a member of parliament who has not come in contact with individuals who are occupying active or acute hospital beds when they really do not need to remain under active treatment. They could very well be at home, in a nursing or convalescent home, but very often the city in which they live does not have that kind of facility. In any event, that kind of care is not covered by insurance.
It would be much less expensive for taxpayers as a whole to provide for that alternative type medical care. This is not the case now because under the present schemes the individual or his family must pay the entire cost of that type of care. I am sure there is not one member of parliament who has not known of a constituent who has said at some time that he or his mother, or his father, or his cousin, or his aunt, should not be occupying an active bed in hospital. They will tell you that the alternative service is not available or, that if it is available they persuade the doctor to let patient stay in the hospital because the individual or the family would have to pay for that alternative service. The federal government has not had the will or the flexibility to co-operate with the provinces in meeting the alternative.
I have said in earlier speeches, and I repeat again, that the provinces are even more concerned about spiralling costs of health and hospital care services than the federal government because they do not have the ability to meet the increased costs like the federal government has in Ottawa. The provinces are not undertaking expensive luxury programs that the federal government has undertaken, some of which I have referred to already.
The provincial authorities know what it means to go to their citizens when costs of medical care increase by more than 13 per cent, which is what will be permitted under the provisions of this bill. All of these provincial levels of government are trying very seriously to find ways to slow down the growth if not the actual expenditures, and they ought to have the co-operation of the federal government in this regard. Experts in this field working for the federal government should sit down with provincial authorities to work out ways of cutting down on expenses.

April 29, 1976
Medical Care Act
If there are some governments which have been slow in beginning to look at ways of reducing increasing costs, surely the minister's department should have been willing and able to provide those recalcitrant provinces with the expertise to find ways. We have seen none of this co-operation from the federal government. What we have seen is simply a unilateral decision on the part of Ottawa to cut its share of increasing health care costs.
The allowed increases are to be 13 per cent in the coming year and 10 per cent the year after that. Following that, what the minister proposes is that the increase in succeeding years will be left to the tender mercies of the federal government. In light of the experiences the provinces have had with the federal government it is not surprising that, to say the least, they have been loathe to leave this decision to its tender mercies. As I have indicated, they have unanimously rejected the federal government's proposal. They have called on the minister to stand his bill over and wait until the next couple of months when the provincial ministers concerned meet with their federal counterparts in order to work out a program that is mutually agreeable to all the provinces and the federal government, whereby co-operatively the increases which have taken place can be moderated.
It is because I believe the arguments put forward by the provinces are justified that I, and other members of the NDP, have opposed this bill from the day it was suddenly announced. It was announced unilaterally and without any consultation. Indeed it was announced really in violation of the spirit of the discussions which had taken place between the minister and his provincial counterparts just a few months before the infamous budget of June, 1975.
All the discussions which have taken place since last June between the minister and his provincial counterparts, and all the discussions which have taken place here have demonstrated to me that the provinces were right, and that the provinces have been much more aware and concerned about the needs of the people who are citizens not only of the provinces in which they reside but also of Canada. Because I am convinced the provinces have been right and the federal government has been wrong I intend to vote for this motion. If the motion should be defeated, as I suppose it will, I propose to oppose the passage of Bill C-68, as I have from the beginning, in the belief that eventually even this government will realize its mistake.
I wish to conclude by saying that in the spare time I have had I have been re-reading some Canadian history. It seems obvious to me that when the history of this era comes to be written, historians in assessing the Canadian governments which have been in office since 1940 will find that this Liberal government led by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been the most reactionary, conservative government we have had in the last 50 years.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at length on this motion.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Bruce Halliday: Having spoken earlier in the debate on Bill C-68 I have said many of the things I might have said

at this time. However, there are one or two things I have previously indicated to the minister during the committee hearings which I think he has thoroughly overlooked. In a sense I think he is defrauding the people of Canada by not looking at some of the serious aspects of payment for medical care.
We have heard quite a bit tonight about the history of health care in Canada, both from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and more recently the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I am sure both members have much to be proud of in a sense at this stage in history, but I say that history will tell an entirely different story in 50 or 100 years when we have the virtual collapse or decay of our society because of the way in which we are spoiling people by not giving them an opportunity to exercise responsibility and self-reliance.
I wish to refer to the action of the government over the years in which this legislation has been in effect. As I mentioned previously, it was introduced by the Liberal government of five or six years ago contrary to the wishes of some of the provinces. Certainly from the viewpoint of the province of Ontario it represented an insidious tax which would have taken a lot of money from the province if it did not agree to go along with the scheme. Now, having been taken in with respect to this medical care bill, the province finds itself in the position of being forced to pay more because the federal contribution is to be drastically cut in the future. This appears to be a unilateral action on the part of the government which I believe is uncalled for. As the previous speakers have said, there is not one province at this time which is in agreement with this. It seems too bad that this is being forced on them once again.
What I wish to speak about mainly has to do with what I believe is one of the principal deficiencies in the thinking and the philosophy of the minister in respect of the provision of health care in Canada. It is obvious that he is attempting to save costs, particularly for the federal treasury. I do not fault the minister for that. However, we should look at the four criteria set down by the government. The first is universality. The second is comprehensiveness. The third is portability, and the fourth is public control of costs.
I submit that the government has omitted one very important aspect of control. I refer to patient control. Having been a practising physician for a number of years it is obvious now to me, having worked under medical care for years, that the best control of cost in respect of health care is not the computer in the local insurance office in the provincial capital but rather the patient himself or herself. It is the patient who is the best monitor of the cost of health care services. If we recognize that, not only will we keep down the cost but we will also provide a social favour to the people of this country which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in my view, fails to recognize in his deep concern for humanity.
I suggest there is no reason why the government could not institute another criterion in the provision of medical care services which would include the involvement of the patient in his own health care, in a way in which this is not provided for at the present time. One simple way to provide this kind of involvement is for the physician to bill
April 29, 1976

the patient directly and have the patient pay the physician. That happens to be the official policy of the Ontario Medical Association, the largest association of its kind in this country. It is a very wise policy. Unfortunately for various reasons very few physicians across the country like to adhere to that policy, sometimes for selfish reasons. The same is true sometimes in respect of the patient, the consumer.
It has been my experience and my confirmed belief that if we could somehow involve the patients in their own health care, they would appreciate the cost of these services. As it is now the patient seldom realizes the bill that is being incurred on his or her behalf when patients visit their physician. This is certainly unfortunate and does not lead to any kind of control.
I am concerned about the way society in Canada is going. One can see a gradual decay, an internal rot setting in which I think stems from a number of factors, but one of the principal factors is that we do not encourage our people to provide for themselves. We tend to think that a big government can do things better than individuals can. I would be the first to agree that there is a small number of people in our society who are unable to provide for themselves, and of course we need to have appropriate health care and medical plans which will give those people the kind of services they need. By the same token, with the rising cost of health care and the increasing availability of more esoteric types of medical services, and the fact that we all feel we are entitled to them, there is no doubt health care costs are rising.
When one is sick it is difficult to meet bills, and I would be the first to agree that we must have some type of insurance scheme available. If it is provided by the state I see nothing wrong with that, although there have been many private plans that have been equally good and perhaps better, and run at much less cost to the consumer. So I feel that if we are going to do any kind of favour for the people of Canada as they progress into future generations, we must do something to provide an independence for people and to teach them how to look after themselves.
For some reason there is a notion around the country, which I think has been propagated mainly by politicians because they find they can get votes by advocating comprehensive, universal types of plans, that health care is some God-given right that everybody has, as if the individual had no responsibility to provide it for himself. There are many other essential services that all of us need and which we are continually using, as essential as health care, and yet few of us think they should be supplied in total by the state. Who would ever think that we should all have housing provided at no cost to ourselves except through a small premium or taxation?


David Orlikow: Where would we be without housing?


Bruce Halliday: It would be absurd to expect housing to be provided for all of us at the expense of the government. Or let us consider footwear. Who in this country can survive in the winter without some kind of footwear? It is obviously essential-


Andrew Hogan: Or pyjamas.
Medical Care Act


Bruce Halliday: Yes, or pyjamas. For some reason we do not think they should be provided through some kind of state controlled insurance plan. Why can we not all have the shoes we want? It is an essential, we all must have them, yet we do not do that. There is an emotional attachment to health care. It is a holy sort of thing that we cannot question. Everybody must have health care provided by the state. I submit that health care should be available to everybody, but I like to think that the time has come when we can start to make people responsible for providing some of their own needs and services and at the same time make them available so that people can obtain those services if in fact they cannot provide for themselves.
One could go on to point out other defects in Bill C-68. Much has been said about medical research and the fact that the government has been picayune and miserly about supporting medical research. One only has to look at the figures for Canada and compare them with the figures for the United States, compare on a per capita basis the amount of money that is spent by governments on medical research, to find that we should be ashamed of ourselves.


David Orlikow: It is the first thing you said with which I agree.


Bruce Halliday: The hon. member for Winnipeg North only now realizes there is some truth in what I have been saying. It is about time. I do not know what we have to do to convince the government that we need to spend more money on medical research. It is a crying shame when all the countries around us such as the United States, Great Britain and so on, find they can spend a lot more money per capita on medical research, and somehow we have to live off the work they do and the money they spend for research. Perhaps I have pointed out some of the more glaring defects in this bill and the fact that motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is indeed a good motion. Perhaps his philosophy for introducing it is not the same as my philosophy for supporting it, but I am glad to see his motion before the House and I urge all hon. members to support it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say
yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.

April 29, 1976
Medical Care Act


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been some discussion in the House on the ruling of the Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the debate on motion No. 2. It is true that motion No. 2 would fall and be lost if motion No. 1 were adopted by the House, but motion No. 2 could logically have been dealt with tonight if it had been called for debate before motion No. 1. I believe you will find a disposition on all sides of the House to return to motion No. 2 now, and to debate it as if it had been called for debate before motion No. 1.


Paul Yewchuk: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, without being critical of a ruling that was made earlier, perhaps rather hastily, it does seem to me that we should have dealt with motion 2 before motion No. 1. After all, if motion No. 1 carries, there is nothing left to amend as proposed in motion No. 2. We can correct that now by having a debate on motion No. 2 and perhaps by taking a vote on it first when we reach that point on Wednesday. We agree with the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member said, the House would not wish to reflect on the previous decision of the Chair. I want to say at this time that these orders of discussion are merely suggestions. I do not take them as a strict ruling by the Chair. Maybe the point should have been made immediately at the outset of the debate. The Chair is always co-operative and it will cooperate in this case and allow motion No. 2 to be considered now. I think it would be worth while between now and the time when the recorded division is taken for the Chair to take a second look at the order in which the votes should be taken, and the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will be taken into consideration in due course.
We will proceed at this time with motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco).


Paul Yewchuk: motion No. 2:
That Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Medical Care Act, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 14 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"Governor in Council, subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament, for insured services".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is one which has been put forward by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), and it is the next suggested compromise following motion No. 1, which I moved myself. Essentially it is
 moved on the assumption that if motion No. 1 is defeated- motion No. 1 calls for termination of this bill after a two year period-then motion No. 2 is a further compromise, calling for a parliamentary review of the percentages which may be set by order in council from the third year and onward.
The House may have noticed a suspicious resemblance between motion No. 2 and motion No. 4, which we will be dealing with a little later, and the resemblance is not necessarily coincidental. It seems to me that motion No. 4 embodies motion No. 2, and that makes it difficult to debate one without the other because the motion put by the minister himself will indeed achieve the result which the hon. member for Kootenay West wanted to achieve in placing motion No. 2 on the order paper.
The only comment I want to make at this point is to question why the minister chose to take this route rather than simply to accept motion No. 2 and perhaps to offer an amendment to it, taking a long and circuitous route and proposing an entirely new motion. I do not know whether there is a specific personal reason for his wanting to do that. One might suggest that he wants to enhance his own image after he was so ruthless during the debate on this bill and to suggest that perhaps he was listening to some of our recommendations. Whatever his motivation, I want it to be quite clear that we on this side of the House interpret his motion as perhaps, at least in part, accepting the suggestion in motion No. 2, rewording it to suit himself and putting it as his own motion.
We, of course, would have supported motion No. 2, and when the time comes to talk about motion No. 4 we will make comments on it at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, once again I want to indicate our readiness to support the motion which has been put before us by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) on behalf of his colleague.
If I may come to the end of my remarks first and then go back to the beginning, I have to say that I think the hon. member for Athabasca is buying too quickly the alternative proposal made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). The hon. member for Athabasca suggests that the minister is accepting in part the idea in motion No. 2. I do not agree. I think that what is set out in motion No. 4-I will say more about that when we get to it-is the very opposite of what is in motion No. 2, and that my friends to the right should not buy motion No. 4 so readily.
I think I have to take a moment to summarize the whole position which is before the House tonight, as I see it. We have a bill which provides for the limiting of the contributions of the federal government to the provinces in respect of medicare, commencing now. The bill, as we now have it, provides for precise limits for two years, and then for limits to be determined by order in council unilaterally by the government after those first two years. I have already said that in my view the whole bill should be ditched. I think that these limits should not apply even in the first two years. That is the first position, and I have taken it by putting down my motion, notion No. 3.

The second course is that contained in motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Athabasca which accepts the cuts for the first two years and then wants no more cuts in succeeding years. That is not as good as my motion, but it is the next best position.
However, then we have two other propositions: the one which is before us now in motion No. 2, and the one which will be before us later in motion No. 4. The proposal in motion No. 2, which is now before us, is that if the government by order in council sets any limits after the first two years, year by year that order in council cannot come into effect until the House of Commons has had a chance to vote on it. Motion No. 2 asks for an affirmative vote before that action takes place. That has some meaning, although not a great deal when there is a government with the majority this government has, and with the characteristics this government has, because it would simply mean a debate, and then the motion would carry. However, at least parliament would have a chance to decide on those limitations before they come into effect.
In a few minutes the minister will try to propose an alternative, namely, that if the government brings in an order in council setting limits, it should come into effect right away, but if 50 members sign their names to a motion, the minister will let parliament afterward debate whether it should have come into effect, and only if a majority in parliament is against it can the order in council be declared to be without effect. I think the difference between the motion now before us and the motion which will come in the name of the minister is the difference between night and day. One would give parliament a chance to say something at a point where it might be effective. The other would give parliament a chance to try to lock the barn door after the horse has been stolen.
The hon. member for Athabasca and I have been seeing eye to eye and saying the same things all night. I plead with him to toughen up a bit and not accept motion No. 4 as a compromise for his motion No. 2. If we cannot have my proposal to kill the bill completely, or if we cannot have the proposal in motion No. 1 that the cut-offs die at the end of two years, then I think the next best thing we should have is what is set out in the motion now before us, namely, that if there is an order in council in years 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 down the road, before such order in council can come into effect it has to be brought before parliament for a decision by this House of Commons.
Therefore I am in favour of and we shall vote for motion No. 2.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Medical Care Act


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion
please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Marc Lalonde: Motion No. 4.
The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 9 thereof, the following heading and section:


COMING INTO FORCE OF ORDERS IN COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
10. (1) An order of the Governor in Council made pursuant to paragraph 5(2.3)(b) or 5.1(3)(d) shall be laid before the House of Commons not later than fifteen days after the day on which it was made, or, if Parliament is not then sitting, within the first fifteen days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting.
(2)	Where an order of the Governor in Council has been laid before the House of Commons pursuant to subsection (1), a notice of motion in the House of Commons signed by not less than fifty members thereof and made in accordance with the rules of that House within seven days of the day the order was laid before that House praying that the order be revoked shall be taken up and considered in that House at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day the motion in that House was made.
(3)	At fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the second sitting day following the commencement of consideration of a motion of which notice was given under subsection (2), or at such earlier time as the House of Commons is ready for the question, the Speaker shall put the question forthwith without further debate.
(4)	If a motion considered by the House of Commons pursuant to this section is adopted by the House, with or without amendments, a message shall be sent to the Senate informing the Senate that the motion has been so adopted and requesting that the motion be concurred in by the Senate.
(5)	The Senate shall, within the first four days next after receipt by it of a request from the House of Commons pursuant to subsection (4) that the Senate is sitting, in accordance with the Rules of the Senate, take up and consider the motion adopted by the House of Commons that is the subject of the request and all questions in connection therewith shall be debated without interruption and decided not later than the end of the third sitting day next after the day the motion is first so taken up and considered.
(6)	If the Senate, pursuant to a request from the House of Commons, concurs in a motion adopted by the House as provided in this section, the order of the Governor in Council to which the motion relates is thereupon revoked effective from the day on which it was made.
[Stage Direction]
He said: I thank hon. members for having agreed to consider these various motions tonight and for their contributions to the debate. I realize that various amendments have been brought forward to ensure that the points cov-
[Stage Direction]
April 29, 1976
Medical Care Act
ered in committee will once again be discussed by the House at report stage. They represent the views of the opposition parties on this bill. Although I do not agree and the government does not agree with the amendments, I am convinced they are brought forward in a constructive way and with the best of intentions.
If I were to take the points that have been raised on this bill tonight, there are three or four that I should like to spend a couple of minutes on and then say a few words about motion No. 4.
There has been a complaint of unilateral action by the government in this case because the decision was brought in by a budget in June, 1975, by the former minister of finance. I have already covered some of that ground in committee, but I would remind hon. members again that after this particular announcement was made I had extensive consultation with the provinces and with the Canadian Medical Association. Following those consultations several amendments were made to the bill. As a matter of fact the bill before us is substantially different from the bill presented for first reading. Those changes were made following consultations and discussions with the provinces and the Canadian Medical Association. Obviously they do not meet all the points raised by the provinces and the CMA but they certainly go some way to meeting some of the concerns that have been expressed.
In addition, motion No. 4 is a change that the government is ready to support in order to take account of some of the views expressed by members of the opposition. As the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) said, motion No. 4 is substantially in the same spirit, as the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco). In this particular instance, therefore, the government has shown a lot of consideration for the views expressed on this bill. Obviously we have not withdrawn the bill; we believe the bill is necessary and that it is appropriate in the circumstances.
The hon. member for Athabasca put forward a motion to the effect that we should have this bill only for the first two years, on the basis that the provinces and the Canadian Medical Association did not seem to object too much to that proposition. I will admit to the hon. member that possibly Bill C-68 might not be necessary after the first two years. Several eventualities might occur in the meantime which would render it unnecessary. As a matter of fact I would hope that the government would not have to use the provisions of the bill after the first two years. That is why, instead of putting in a specific maximum contribution by the federal government, we have brought forward an amendment which leaves it to be decided by order in council after consultation with the provinces.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that there is no requirement for the government to put such a limit on the increase of its contribution. It may very well be, therefore, that after consultation with the provinces we will find that their plans for the following year are reasonable in the circumstances and that there does not appear to be any need to provide for a specific ceiling on the rate of increase of the cost of medical care. If, together with the provinces, we can develop an adequate control on the rate of increase in costs, then recourse to order in council would not be necessary.

It may very well be that in the next two years we and the provinces will have arrived at a general financing formula which will replace both the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and the Medical Care Act.
For the past two days I have presided at a conference with my provincial colleagues. The feeling amongst the provincial ministers was that following the meeting of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with the premiers in June we should try to develop a new health financing formula to replace both existing pieces of legislation and bring in a new technique for cost sharing. If this were to be accomplished and there were early agreement between the federal government and the provinces, obviously Bill C-68 would disappear. Not only would it self-destruct to use the hon. member for Athabasca's expression, but the Medical Care Act would be replaced in such an eventuality.
I am not saying that after two years the federal government would necessarily adopt orders in council setting some ceilings on the rate of increase in cost of medicare; on the other hand, however, it would be inappropriate for the federal government not to provide for the possibility that such agreement on a new financing formula would not have taken place or the possibility that agreement would not be reached with the provinces on what should be an adequate rate of growth of the cost of medicare. If that were to be the case, we feel that there should be in the hands of the federal government some power, as is provided in the present act, to put a ceiling on the rate of increase of the federal contribution.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) felt that such a measure was extremely wrong and unfair to the provinces. I was rather surprised to hear him use such strong words, Mr. Speaker. In effect, since the inception of hospital insurance and medicare we have seen the provinces deciding on their own how much the federal government was going to pay without consultation with the federal government, and without the federal government having anything to say about how much the bill would be at the end of the year. We are committed to paying 50 per cent of whatever the provinces decide to spend, and at no time do we have an idea of how much we are going to be asked to contribute, until we have received the last bill from the provinces.
In effect we shall now know what kind of bill to expect from the provinces. We have never said it is wrong or unfair, or used the kinds of adjectives used by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in describing this bill. This bill pays more respect to the role of respective governments than present legislation does, no matter whether we talk of hospital insurance or medical care. Indeed, it provides for the ceiling to be set after consultation with provinces.
The provinces will know ahead of time what they can expect as a maximum contribution from the federal government. They therefore will be able to plan the expenditures they will incur and the kind of settlements they can make with the medical profession, as well as arrangements they will need to make for meeting the total expense of medical care. They can plan all this well ahead of time, something which the federal government has not been able
April 29, 1976
[Stage Direction]
to do in the past, as we were asked to pay the bill afterwards.
An hon. member called this bill a backward step. It is some "backward step". I calculated quickly how much more, not less, the federal government is expected to contribute next year to medical care alone under the present bill. This bill calls on the federal government to cost-share with the provinces next year the small additional sum of about $250 million for medicare alone. If that is a backward step, I do not know what the hon. member would call a forward step. We are not talking about cutting or reducing our contribution to medical care. We say that we shall have better control of the rate of growth, of the rate of escalation of our contributions to medical care. Therefore in that sense many of the statements made in committee and on second reading are exaggerated, especially when you consider the choices this bill provides.
Some hon. members talked of the opposition of the provinces to this bill. This was also raised in committee. Indeed it would be surprising if the provinces were to welcome this provision since it will do away with the blank cheque arrangement of the past. Now the provinces will know ahead of time how much they can draw from the federal government for medical care. I suppose if most of us could choose between having a blank cheque to draw any amount, and being told ahead of time how much we can draw, most of us would choose the blank cheque. The provinces are reacting just as individuals would react in those circumstances. That is the change we propose.
Some hon. members mention medical research, an area of concern to me and the government. I said previously that I am reviewing carefully the whole situation to see if we cannot find funds with which to alleviate the present difficulties of medical research. That, of course, is not the subject of this bill. I understand that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs is to consider the estimates of my department soon. Witnesses on behalf of the medical research community will appear, and we shall have the opportunity to consider this issue at greater length.
Finally, let me say that the government is not backing away from cost-sharing. As I have already mentioned, this bill does not reduce the contribution of the federal government. Next year, for medicare alone, it will increase it by as much as $250 million for both levels of government. The social services bill will be proposed later this year and I hope will further extend the contributions of the federal government in the field of this country's social services.
As recently as two days ago I proposed to my provincial colleagues extended cost-sharing under hospital insurance and medical care, a cost-sharing extension which would have made life relatively easier for the provinces. Actually some provinces were eager to proceed immediately with the extension of those cost-sharing services. Other provinces prefer to wait until the first ministers' conference before making up their minds on this subject. Therefore it has been agreed that we shall wait until October 1 before reaching any conclusion on the subject.
We are not backing out of cost-sharing, not reducing the total volume of our contribution. We want to make certain that the health of Canadians keeps improving. But for this to happen we must allocate our resources to the most
Business of the House
efficient area and make sure that the taxpayers' dollars, the spending of which is our responsibility, are used for the best purpose.
Having heard representations in committee, and particularly the motion proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), I recognize that parliament ought to be given the opportunity to consider orders in council which the government might pass pursuant to the provisions of this bill. I therefore proposed motion No. 4, which is identical to a provision contained in Bill C-89. It provides that, at the request of 50 members of this House, an order in council must be debated for two days, after which there is to be a vote. If the vote is negative, the order in council shall become null and void. That provision, as I say, is identical to a similar provision contained in the bill on which the House voted earlier this afternoon. I hope it will carry, as it will give hon. members the opportunity to debate particular government decisions for a specified time.
Those are all the comments I wanted to make on the motions before the House. I thank hon. members for their attention.
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, in the 30-odd seconds left let me assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It's Winnipeg North Centre.


Paul Yewchuk: -that we have made no commitment with regard to motion No. 4. We shall make no commitment until we see what happens to the other motions. It is difficult to debate the motion without knowing what will be the results of the votes on the preceeding motions. My present inclination is to say that we do not care for this bill one bit. Despite that we proposed three amendments. We do not know how they will be voted on. They are listed in order of decreasing acceptability, and motion No. 4 is less acceptable than all the others. Even so, if it passes it may improve the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could the acting government House leader tell us what business the House will consider if this matter is concluded some time tomorrow? What is to be the business tomorrow?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer, not as the acting government House leader, but as deputy Whip. I can inform the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that we shall continue debating Bill C-68. If we finish the debate on the report stage, the government House leader will consult the other House leaders in the morning and they may reach agreement on the legislation that is to follow.


George Harris Hees: Well said. Gus for mayor!

April 29, 1976
Adjournment Debate


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is another way of saying you don't know.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, on April 12 I raised a question with respect to flooding on the Souris River. This is not a new problem. It is one that has been with the settlers in this area from time immemorial. However, it so happens that each year the problem is becoming increasingly worse. This year we have had intensive flooding which has involved major communities like Melita, Hartney, and the town of Souris itself, as well as thousands of acres of fertile farmland under flood waters and made useless for the current agriculture season, as well as extensive damage to wildlife.
The Souris River rises in Saskatchewan, winds into the United States, and then comes back into the province of Manitoba. For any action to deal with the growing problem of flooding, it will involve combined action on the part of at least five different governmental jurisdictions.
This year the city of Minot in the state of North Dakota was severely hit. It is estimated that damages will rise as high as $10 million. As a result the Governor of the state of North Dakota has asked the government of the United States to declare the area a national disaster.
Just to show how serious the flooding is this year, the Emergency Measures Organization calmly forecast that the flood would keep at a foot below the 1969 level. As actually happened, it peaked about ten feet above the flood level. Only effective work by the troops brought in on a very quick basis from the nearby Shilo Canadian Forces Base saved the water treatment plant in the town of Souris and also in the town of Melita. I would also like to note that students from the high school were released from school and did valiant work on the dikes as well.
The compensation is going to run into millions of dollars. As I have already indicated, the state of North Dakota will be backed by the resources of the United States. It appears that the Manitoba government is to bear the total cost of emergency compensation in the province of Manitoba through its Flood Assistance Board.
I raised the question on April 12 that the circumstances this year indicate that some permanent flood control measures must be taken on this waterway. I am sure all members are aware that over the past two or three years there has been constant discussion on the possible impact of the Garrison diversion that is being developed south of the border in terms of pollution of the Souris River and the

Red River, and the possible impact on Canadian territory as a result. The International Joint Commission is looking into this particular aspect of the problem of the Souris.
I strongly urge, as I did in my question to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand) the other day, that when he meets with the officials of the United States government, as he indicated he will be doing in the immediate future, he make strong representations that the terms of the IJC investigation be expanded to embrace the possibility and plans for permanent flood control on the Souris River.
There is a co-ordinating body that will involve the levels of government already operating in Canada. It was established on October 28, 1974, with the signing of an agreement by the governments of Canada, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. These governments jointly agreed to study the "complex and troublesome Souris River" and they established the study objective, which was as follows:
To carry out an assessment of the water and related resources of the Souris River Basin and of the demands being made and likely to be made on them-
Other objectives of the study were flood damage reduction-so this is specifically within the terms of reference- as well as water supply, water quality, agricultural matters, and water related resources. We have a body operating within Canada which has been gathering information now since 1974, so I suggest that Canada is in a very excellent position to make strong recommendations to the government of the United States in this respect.
I would also point out that there is an excellent precedent for the action on the part of intergovernmental bodies, at least on the Canadian level. In 1950 the city of Winnipeg was almost totally inundated by a disastrous flood. Following that flood, studies were undertaken which indicated that the only solution was permanent flood control. In the early 1960's-I will not mention the government that was in power at the time but it was a very effective government-the federal government started a program that we hoped would continue, but there has been no further development in this regard. Nevertheless the precedent was so effectively established with control of the Assiniboine River, the Shellmouth dam, the Portage diversion, and the Winnipeg floodway, that there is no longer any threat of flooding in the city of Winnipeg from the Assiniboine and Red Rivers.
I hope the minister will seize the initiative in meetings with United States officials. In light of the reaction of the Governor of the state of North Dakota, who has had to cope with a flood of the Souris River of unusual magnitude, the minister can be assured of the utmost co-operation from that level of government.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, the federal government at this time has not received any request from the province of Manitoba for cost sharing assistance in respect to spring flooding along the Souris and Assiniboine River systems. I am advised, however, that the province will be establishing a flood damage compensation and restoration program to deal with the aftermath of the flood and that the costs of the program could be substantial. It is therefore likely that the province will be seeking federal finan-
April 29, 1976

cial assistance. The hon. member may rest assured that, when it is received, Manitoba's request will be given every consideration.
As the hon. member is aware, it has been long standing practice of the federal government to assist the provinces financially in the event that the cost of disasters exceed an amount that the provinces could reasonably be expected to bear on their own. Although the province of Manitoba is thoroughly familiar with the terms and conditions of the federal disaster assistance program, it might be useful for the members present if I briefly reviewed the chief aspects of the program.
As I have already noted, the federal policy has been deliberately designed to deal only with the larger, more costly disasters. This is clearly reflected in the cost sharing formula which establishes a minimum cost sharing threshold of $1 per capita of provincial population. No federal financial assistance is given until the costs incurred by a province exceed this minimum threshold. However, as costs rise above this level they are shared with the federal government on a progressive basis. Under the formula, which has been in effect since 1970, the amount of the federal contribution payable to a province is determined as follows: 0 per cent of the first $1 per capita of provincial expenditure, 50 per cent of the next $2 per capita of provincial expenditure, 75 per cent of the next $2 per capita of provincial expenditure, and 90 per cent of provincial expenditures in excess of $5 per capita.
In addition to the formula, there is a set of administrative guidelines which define the types of disaster related expenditures incurred by a province which are eligible for cost sharing assistance. Generally speaking, eligible expenditures are those made to restore the essential personal property of private citizens, farmsteads, and small businesses to habitable or workable condition, and to restore public works to their pre-flood condition. This also includes the costs of coping with the immediate situation such as building dikes and providing emergency accommodation. On the other hand, insurable losses, crop losses, and damages sustained by larger commercial enterprises are not eligible for cost-sharing assistance with the federal government.
As the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) is aware, the Canadian forces personnel based in Shilo, Portage, and Winnipeg have been heavily involved this spring in combating the flood threat, particularly in the towns of Souris and Wawanesa. This is a clear indication of the federal government's concern over the emergency situation in Manitoba and of the federal government's willingness to assist Canadian citizens in this area of provincial and municipal jurisdiction.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, is there a possible point of order, because that was really not my question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is aware that the procedure is very strict in the adjournment debate. There is no point of order; questions are put and answers are given, and the Chair has no alternative but to listen.
Adjournment Debate


TRANSPORT-SUGGESTION NEW POLICY BE DEVELOPED BEFORE ELIMINATION OF RAIL SUBSIDIES ON FLOUR AND GRAIN
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I can appreciate the dilemma you are facing at this hour of the night.
Over the Easter weekend I had the privilege of marching down two sheds in Halifax that were the length of about nine football fields, I think. They would have docked the Queen Elizabeth and the Queen Mary end to end without giving them a chance to rub bow to stern. Imagine that! Loaded there as high as an elephant can reach, and much higher than I can reach, and I am not exactly small, were bags of flour. This was the extent, as I saw it, of the flour trade that goes out through the Port of Halifax. It is a large trade. As a matter of fact I was rather surprised, and my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) can back me up, to find that it was larger than either one of us had thought was the case.
In any event, I am here tonight with a file of speeches that is about four inches thick which I have made on the late, late show. I think that in itself has to be a record. I do not think anyone has made more speeches on the late show on any one single subject, with the possible exception of the merry member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) who tangled some years ago with a former Postmaster General, Mr. Kierans. They used to joust here I think about once a week, if not twice a week on occasion.
In any event, I have pursued this with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). Even the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) has not escaped my eagle eye on this subject.
I gather that our dear friend, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), is going to reply as best he can to this continuous thunder I am bringing up. I am not going to burden the House at this late hour with a lot of figures. What I am trying to burden the House with is a couple of arguments.
The first argument I hope I will be able to make successfully, and I will be backed up by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski), and others who are going to join this debate later on if it gets to that, is that I am going to prove brilliantly, conclusively, and beyond a reasonable doubt that the transportation subsidy in Canada is not in respect of Crowsnest Pass rates or maritime freight rates, but in respect of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
In looking around I see there are five people present, plus the ubiquitous member from the Canadian Press; one person on that side, one person by the clock, and our protective staff so I am protected from God knows what, and yourself, Mr. Speaker. This number will be increased because before this debate is over, and I guarantee this if not threaten it, people are going to know that the fattest subsidies in transportation in Canada are not paid to westerners or maritimers but to those who live along the St. Lawrence system from Quebec City to Thunder Bay.

April 29, 1976
Adjournment Debate
That having been said I wish to mention one further point the Minister of Transport deliberately has dragged into this debate late in the day. After I believe the fourth occasion on which I raised this matter in the Chamber the minister said would it not be nice if we had a unit train from western Canada to Halifax. The fact is that the roadbed is not strong enough to handle it now. I say that one should not throw out an old policy until one has tried the new policy.
My view is that the Minister of Transport is not justified in attempting to bring in the red herring of the unit train between western Canada and Halifax, which will not work unless a great deal of money is spent on it. He is not justified in throwing out a policy which now works. This is a matter which affects every eastern port. It affects the port of Halifax, the port of Saint John, the port of Montreal, and it affects the St. Lawrence River, Toronto itself, Thunder Bay, Port Colborne, and all the grain growers, at least in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
Until the minister does something about this I, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, the hon. member for Halifax, the hon. member for Vegreville, and the Lord knows how many other members from Ontario and Montreal will be involved in this. There will be a fight. That is the reason why I am standing up tonight.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it has been suggested by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) that the work of the federal-provincial-industry group currently studying the potential for unit train operation for grain from the prairies to Atlantic ports be completed before the Atlantic and East rates are lifted. I hope I am dealing with the point he raised.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Right on.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am pleased to report that the development of the unit train concept is progressing well. In the case of Halifax, the CNR is now developing the rate quotations on movements from inland points such as Saskatoon and Rosetown. A further meeting relating to unit train movements to St. John via CP rail is scheduled for May 5 with the object of producing rates applicable to such origin points as Moose Jaw, Weyburn, and Elm Creek.


Mr. Forrestall:: That is not the point.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am sorry but I did not get the point of the hon. member.


J. Michael Forrestall: The point is that the speed of the train is 25 miles an hour as opposed to the speed of 40 miles an hour which it should be.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member is making a point on which I really am not competent to comment. I simply want to put on the record what is taking place. I feel that what I am saying will be of interest to the two hon. gentlemen on the other side. I am happy to note that they are nodding their heads at this point.
In developing these rates a number of factors such as volume, type of grain, car cycles, season versus year-round movement, load and unload capacity, shift working and so

on are being taken into consideration. It is anticipated that all parties involved in this evaluation process will be in possession of the relevant rate quotations before the end of May. Subsequently, the prospects will then be reviewed by the Canadian Wheat Board.
The railways are aware of the potentialities that exist for long haul unit train movement, and it is the minister's hope that the current assessment may do much to sustain the viability of the grain transfer role of the Atlantic ports.


FINANCE-ALLEGED IMPORTATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS FROM UNITED STATES AT BELOW COST OF PRODUCTION-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, at the turn of the century a great American orator made the comment, prophetically I believe, that if we destroy the farm it will not be long before the grass grows in the streets of every city of the country. But if the cities should be destroyed, they will grow again so long as we preserve the farms. Nobody wants to see either cities or farms destroyed, but I am concerned that in Canada we are not looking after the farmers, and in the future we will pay dearly for that.
Farmers are facing problems from every direction. Tonight I am speaking specifically about farmers in my riding of Surrey-White Rock who are facing distress, partly because of flooding which results from the urbanization of the area next door to the farms, which creates an increased run-off problem, flooding the flat lands where the best farmland is. Also they are facing the problem of high labour costs, and the most important subject of my comments tonight is the matter of imports that are competing, I believe unfairly, with the production of farmers in Surrey and, as a matter of fact, in the whole of Canada.
On April 12 I raised the matter in the House, first addressing myself to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I spoke about the fact that at the time when fresh vegetables are ready for the market in the lower mainland of British Columbia fresh vegetables also happen to come in from the United States. It so happens that the American farmers can raise three or four crops a year, and with that kind of production it is easy for them to compete with the Canadian farmers and to maintain a high price all year long, and especially at the time when Canadian farmer's products are coming on the market when they can lower their price and still sell their product at above the cost for them. So they are not really technically guilty of dumping, but it is a matter of distress to Canadian farmers who cannot compete with that kind of import.
At the same time I mentioned to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) the fact that the processor of Canadian farm goods in Canada is facing competition from what is called distress selling of the product coming in from the U.S. As I understand it, distress selling is not really dumping, but it is providing again the kind of competition that is unfair to Canadian farmers.
For example, the frozen foods coming in from the U.S. are a commodity which can be preserved and does not have to be sold at any specific time. The large producer and the
April 29, 1976

large processor in the United States, with the volume they have, can easily bring that product to Canada and thus create unfair competition which is destroying Canadian farms. The U.S. can dominate in that way.
We had ten vegetables coming in from Taiwan at 20 per cent to 40 per cent below the market price of the Canadian product. We have mushrooms coming in from Korea and Taiwan. Recently Taiwan has been exporting frozen mushrooms. Until recently the mushroom farmers in Canada were selling mainly on the fresh market, and what they could not sell on the fresh market they froze and then sold. But now they are facing competition from these imports from Taiwan. You cannot blame farmers in Taiwan or the exporters, but we have to look after the producer in Canada.
What distresses me about this is that the consumer is caught in a bind. We cannot blame the consumer for that, but what will happen in the long run when smaller farmers are driven out of business and cannot compete any more? It will not be long until all we will have will be consolidated farms which will be similar to a monopoly and once that monopoly has been established, the consumer will get it in the neck anyway. It is only a matter of time.
All we need to do is to have a floating tariff which the Minister of Agriculture says is very simple. He is negotiating all the time but he does not seem to get around to providing that protective tarrif for our farmers in time so that our product is protected. All we need to do is raise that tariff in time so that the Canadian product finds shelter from the cheaper import from the United States. The Americans do that. They look after their own.
We have a reciprocal trade agreement with the United States, and there is supposed to be something like a 35 per cent or 37 per cent tariff on potatoes, for example. The Americans reciprocate, but they are shrewd enough and sharp enough to impose a quota on that part of the reciprocal trade agreement, and beyond that they impose a 75 per cent tariff. The quota is low enough so that it does not even pay Canadians to export, so we are defeated before we begin.
All I am asking of the Minister of Finance is that he consider the Canadian farmer and the distress under which he is operating and the kind of competition he is facing, and protect him so that in the years to come we will
Adjournment Debate
have production in our country and consumers will be protected in the long run. When a monopoly is established the consumer will be grabbed by the throat, and we will be paying, and paying in a way we cannot afford. All we are asking of the minister is that he look into the future so that our farmers will be protected, and in the long run our consumers will also be protected.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) raised several interesting points. One I do not intend to comment on is the flooding he referred to because on the previous flooding issue I think I was washed out to sea.
I will try to be very specific with regard to the question of April 12 which the hon. member raised as to tariffs. I wish to advise that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) wrote to the president of Royal City Foods Limited on March 25. In his letter the minister pointed out that the Tariff Board is currently reviewing the tariffs on fresh and processed fruits and vegetables. He also made reference to the procedures already available under the Antidumping Act to deal with any imports Royal City Foods Limited believes are being dumped on the Canadian market.
I might add that in response to representations the minister later received from the Canadian Food Processors' Association, senior officials of the Department of Finance and of other interested departments met with representatives of that association to discuss the difficulties which have been encountered recently in certain segments of the processed fruits and vegetables industry in Canada. Representatives of the industry have undertaken to provide certain additional information concerning the impact of import competition on their operations which will assist the government in reaching a decision on the request of the industry for additional protection against imports.
I hope this information will satisfy the hon. member. His concern is shared by many hon. members of this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, April 30, 1976