1976-03-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the decision reported in this morning's press by an arbitrator in the negotiations between the Ontario government and Ontario Public Service Employees' Union that the province of Ontario does not have the authority to act by order in council in delegating responsibility to the federal government for the federal anti-inflation program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government be instructed to refer the question of the constitutional validity of the delegation of provincial authority to the federal government of matters arising out of the federal anti-inflation legislation to the Supreme Court for a ruling.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
Considering that milk consumption in Quebec is lower than in Ontario and that milk must play an essential role in the feeding habits of our young people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this government take the necessary steps to distribute milk in schools and thus promote milk consumption among young people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON ESTABLISHING SCHOOL MILK PROGRAMS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Canadian taxpayer is subsidizing skim milk purchases by communist countries in eastern Europe, and in view of the fact that many Canadian children have less than adequate diets, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Agriculture to consult their provincial counterparts with a view to setting up a school milk program so that any subsidization of milk purchases benefits young Canadians and not countries whose standard of living indicates their ability to pay the full price of the milk powder; and further that this House instruct the two ministers to report back to this House in one month.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence I should like to put some questions to the Prime Minister. On February 29 the Minister of National Defence stated that Canada would proceed with the signing of a contract to purchase the Lockheed LRPA. However, Brigadier General L. Morrison stated on March 1 that reports of a government go-ahead were premature. Would the Prime Minister clarify this apparent discrepancy and inform the House

March 2, 1976
Oral Questions
when, if ever, the contract will be signed and production of the Orion begin?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the statement referred to, and I would answer subject to any-well, I see the minister has arrived. Perhaps the hon. member could ask him to reply to this question. My information is that it is a matter of cash flow with the company and not with the government. The government has proposed an arrangement, and my information is that the company itself has some cash flow problem.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could put that question to the minister. When, if ever, will the contract for the Orion aircraft be signed and production begin, and would the minister clarify the discrepancy between statements reported to have been made by him and by Brigadier General Morrison with respect to the go-ahead on this purchase?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that yesterday the Minister of Supply and Services gave a very complete answer. He indicated that the difficulties were in the financing during the construction or production phase. At the time it agreed to purchase the Lockheed, the government made arrangements for full payment when the aircraft were delivered, but there has been a difficulty about the financing of the interim payments during the production period, and that is still being negotiated with the Lockheed company.
Concerning the second part of the question, I have not stated that the contract was going to be signed; I have stated that in principle the government had made an agreement to purchase the aircraft and the details were to be negotiated.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REASON FOR INCREASE IN COST-COMPANY'S POSITION ON OFFERING CREDIT
Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that the purchase cost has now risen to, I believe, $1.06 billion, which is an increase of almost $100 million in the space of three months, can the minister explain how such a massive cost increase was possible? If the increase is in fact the result of rising interest costs, is the minister prepared to tell the House from whom the Department of National Defence is borrowing the necessary capital for front-end financing since only $30 million is allotted for the LRPA purchase for the fiscal year 1976-77 in the estimates? Where does this additional money come from?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there are two or three questions there. The increase between the $950 million for the program costs and the estimate of $1,061 billion is made up by the costs of financing or paying interest on these interim financing payments. That has always been part of the proposal. In the statement I made in the House last November, I said there would be charges above the $950

million and those would be for financing the payments over the interim period. That explains the difference between the two figures. We have always intended to have a financing cost because it is cheaper to do it that way than to extend the program which we could have done but it would have cost some $300 million extra. That is why we chose the financing route. I do not know whether there was another aspect to the question.


Walter David Baker: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has Lockheed offered a line of credit to the government to enable production to get started-yes or no? Can the minister clarify that? Unlike what the minister said there seems to be nothing to clarify the situation in his answers today or in the answers of the Minister of Supply and Services yesterday.


James Armstrong Richardson: That is the difficulty, Mr. Speaker. Lockheed has not been able to finance these interim payments. As I have explained to the House on earlier occasions the problems that have beset that company all around the world have added to their difficulty in helping finance those production payments.


Walter David Baker: So we are not very close to financing at all.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-EFFECT OF FAILURE OF JAPAN TO PURCHASE THE ORION AIRCRAFT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. Mr. Shirakawa, the chairman of Japan's joint chiefs of staff, stated publicly that it was unlikely that Japan would now proceed with the purchase of the Orion as a result of recent bribery disclosures involving Lockheed. Since a major proviso in our signing of a purchase agreement with Lookheed was the contracting out of work on Japanese Orions to Canadian companies, what, if any, effect will the Japanese decision have on the signing of the Canadian agreement?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, very little and perhaps I should have said no difference to us because most of the aircraft Japan was interested in buying were to be constructed in Japan. They were not needed in order to complete the 150 ship sets, part of which were to be constructed in Canada. Lockheed indicated they could meet that target of 150 ship sets with or without the Japanese contract.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-POSSIBILITY OF DEMAND FOR COMPENSATION IF CANADA DOES NOT SIGN
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, since Lockheed has reportedly acted on the instructions of the Minister of Supply and Services, dated December 2, to commence production of the Orion and since production did in fact begin on January 5 in California, does the minister anticipate that Lockheed will demand compensation from the Canadian government, in the event that the contract is not signed?
March 2, 1976


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, production has not begun in the sense that there has not been physical production of any parts of the aircraft. There has, however, been some continuing expenditure to keep together the engineering team that has been working on this program. I expect that if the contract is not completed Lockheed will look to the Government of Canada for payment of some part of those costs.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell the House if Pakistan intends to purchase a French nuclear reprocessing plant, and if Pakistan accepts the new Canadian safeguards requirements? Does that country accept that such safeguards will also apply to spent fuel emanating from the CANDU reactor in Pakistan?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations between Canada and Pakistan on safeguards have not yet been completed. They will not be completed, I understand, at this particular stage and will resume at a later date. To answer the first part of the question relating to the reprocessing plant, it is my second-hand information that Pakistan proposes to acquire a reprocessing plant in France.


PAKISTAN-CANADIAN POSITION ON SALE OF URANIUM
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand from what the minister said that negotiations have been suspended, presumably because of some deadlock. Does this mean, in part, that the Government of Canada has not negotiated a further sale of uranium to that country? For clarification, may I ask the minister if we have committed ourselves to selling more uranium to Pakistan in coming months?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have not concluded the negotiations. We have not reached agreement on various points, but have made progress in the negotiations, which have not been primarily based upon additional sales of any type. We have not renewed any terms, at this stage, with regard to further supplies.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question? Since, as I understand, the five-year agreement entered into between Canada and Pakistan for the sale of uranium to supply the CANDU reactor in Pakistan has expired or is about to expire, are negotiations continuing for the supply of further fuel from Canada for that reactor; or, if not, does the minister understand that Pakistan is attempting to obtain uranium from some other country?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Canada has been the supplier of fuel for the power reactor in Pakistan. As I mentioned to the hon. member last week, it is open to the Government of Canada to cease shipment. I have already described to the hon. member the effect of such a decision on the power situation and supply of electricity in Karachi. Canada has not taken a decision, at this stage, on that particular point.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
In respect of the milk policy to be announced in April by the government, could the minister tell us whether the government he represents intends on its own initiative to allow a debate in the House so that members, especially those from the east and from Quebec, may express the views of producers who reside in their riding concerning problems this extremely important industry is faced with and those it will have to cope with in the future if the policy announced in November is to be applied?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the dairy farmers of Canada are coming to meet members of the parliament of Canada. Before we have a debate in the House I think members of parliament should talk directly to dairy farmers and discuss their problems with them. Then, if they feel it necessary to come to the House, I do not think there would be much wrong with that.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
I do not wait for the minister's advice before meeting the people of my constituency, including producers. I did so many times. He could even take lessons on that subject, but I shall rather ask him if the government intends to allow a debate on its dairy policy, which concerns the eastern part of the country, since the same government gives so much consideration to western producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the dairy policy concerns not only the dairy producers, but all the people of Canada. I am sure they are all concerned that we maintain a healthy, viable dairy industry in Canada. The world situation has been compounded because we have too many efficient producers. We do not have that much money for them to waste products and that is what they are doing. They are producing more than we consume or can sell.

March 2, 1976
Oral Questions


MILK POWDER-SALE TO EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES- POSSIBLE OFFER TO LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Agriculture. It is with regard to the report today that the Canadian Dairy Commission is offering surplus milk powder to eastern European countries for less than 14 cents a pound. Did the government give the right of first refusal of this surplus milk powder to the least develop countries of the world where starvation and malnutrition are rampant?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we have, through the normal channels of government, explored every avenue to try to give it away, sell it as cheap as we can-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: We know that after skim milk powder reaches the 90 day stage, many countries will not accept it for consumption. Therefore, it has to be distributed as rapidly as possible. A lot of the product that is going to Europe, or wherever it may be going-we have agents all over the world trying to sell it, push it and do everything else with it-will be for recycling, possibly for livestock feed, in the baking industry and so on.


Douglas Roche: This morning's report stated that the surplus milk powder will be disposed of for livestock feed. That was confirmed by the minister a second ago. Is it the policy of the government that surplus food products in Canada will be disposed of as food for animals rather than shipped by the first available transportation for human consumption to countries facing starvation?


Eugene Whelan: In no way, Mr. Speaker. However, as far as we are concerned, we want to make sure that none goes to waste. If it can be used for human consumption, that is the first preference. If necessary, it will be used for animal feed. That is not new in our history. I remember years ago when we bought it on the farms for three cents a pound.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In light of the announcement made by the minister in a press release on December 13 that studies and consultations would precede the implementation of bilingual IFR and VFR communications at airports in the province of Quebec, will the minister clarify the press statement attributed to Mr. Walter McLeish of his department to the effect that the bilingual air traffic control program is envisaged to handle commercial air traffic? Does this mean both international and domestic commercial flights or just domestic?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, that statement, and the longer statement which I made

today, I think clarifies the situation quite fully as far as both the great care we are taking to be sure that safety is being taken into account and also our objective to allow for the use of the French language in the province of Quebec by those pilots who are much more at home in that language. Of course, at all times the English language will be available for international flights.


Donald W. Munro: Not having had the advantage of having read the statement made today-it was made outside the House-I should like to ask the minister if he is now considering the introduction of bilingual VFR communications programs at Dorval and Mirabel despite his undertaking in this House, if my memory serves me correctly, that no extension of this program beyond the five airports originally cited in the province of Quebec would be carried out until appropriate simulator studies had been conducted satisfactorily by the ministry, and even then only after full consultation and agreement with the Airline Pilots Association.


Otto Emil Lang: We have at all times repeated our intention to test fully all procedures, be absolutely satisfied about safety and have full discussions with all interested parties about the procedures which are in effect. I would therefore ask the hon. member to avoid his phobia of looking for problems where none exist-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: -and his double phobia in thinking I should make an address to the International Airline Pilots Association in this House.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Would the Minister of Transport clarify his statement to the press to the effect that he will be looking seriously at the prospect of bilingual communications at Ottawa International airport, and, if so, for what reason?


Otto Emil Lang: Obviously, hon. members will be delighted to know that I have asked my department to send a copy of my full remarks this morning to all members of the House, so that they will know exactly what I did say. I did indicate that the intention of our examination was to look at bilingual communication in air traffic control throughout the province of Quebec. I did indicate we were not looking beyond that, with the single exception of the national capital where for obvious reasons somewhat similar considerations might apply.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Could the minister be more specific as to the reasons for which he intends to recommend that bilingual communication be entertained in Ottawa and whether or not the air traffic controllers have in fact been consulted with respect to this move, and further, in times
March 2, 1976

of restraint, whether he thinks the cost involved in training and implementation is worth while?


Otto Emil Lang: Again, the hon. member is awfully nervous about a statement which simply indicated that I would not close the door on the extension of service to a particular location. I would think members opposite would rather fall back on what has been the traditional position of their party, which is to support reasonable steps for the provision of bilingual services in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: In view of the minister's statement this morning that the implementation of bilingual air traffic control is in the interests of safety, is he suggesting that there are some bad flying conditions in the province of Quebec now because we do not have bilingual air traffic controllers and pilots there are not sufficiently adept in the language?


Otto Emil Lang: By extending the use of French as a permissible control language for flight operations at five airports initially in the province of Quebec, we met the greatest part of the problem which was to deal with those pilots whose comprehension is much better in the French language than it is in English and we are therefore making it possible for them to communicate with air traffic control in that language to enhance safety. The existence of that facility in the French language at those airports has increased quite remarkably the number of pilots, whose normal language is French, flying into those airports, which demonstrates the purpose that is being served by accommodating pilots in this fashion.
We are therefore doing something which makes sense. We are doing it with safety in mind. We do not have the same immediate problem with IFR flights because it is a fact that almost any pilot with an IFR licence will also have an English capability and will therefore be able to fly beyond the immediate region of his province.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, may I put a final supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. May I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the air traffic controllers, who are now supposed to be bilingual, were included in the estimate of 52,000 positions that the President of the Treasury Board announced a year ago?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I missed the question because I was caught between two lines.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the air traffic controllers who are now deemed to be bilingual, or need to be bilingual, were part of the 52,000 positions allocated last year as needing to be bilingual positions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give a precise answer to the hon. member on that subject, but I shall answer him tomorrow, because of course I do not have those figures with me.


SMALL NUMBER OF INFORMATION CANADA EMPLOYEES FINDING EMPLOYMENT-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this opportunity to answer the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton concerning the employees of Information Canada. Contrary to the information he gave the House yesterday, I can say that until now we have relocated 216 out of 301 persons. So, instead of 20 per cent, it is almost 70 per cent of the employees who have other positions.


INCREASE IN DEFICIT-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CORRECT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As Statistics Canada stated on Friday that Canada's merchandise trade deficit increased sharply in January to $309 million from $91 million in December, with imports rising at two and a half times the rate of the increase in exports, following a year in which the total deficit was $800 million, does the Prime Minister believe that the Canadian business community should derive the same satisfaction from these alarming trade figures as he said on Friday they should derive from the fact that the index of industrial production took a sharp drop in December, following a total year's reduction of 5 per cent in the index?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh no, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Try again, George.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As usual the Prime Minister has not taken the trouble to read the Statistics Canada report on a matter so important as a drastic trade deficit which is going to cost the country a great deal indeed and cause great internal trouble in the country. May I ask the Prime Minister, what is the government's plan to try to straighten out this very serious trade deficit and to put the country back on a sound trading basis?
11406

March 2, 1976
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the debate which took place yesterday the hon. member will recall that government spokesmen indicated the views of the government on this subject. I should add that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is presently travelling to several countries precisely in order to give Canada a favourable trade balance. As for myself, I travelled in late January to two or three countries with whom we have some hope of improving trading relationships. I understand also that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has planned a meeting of businessmen in April to discuss ways of improving trade in particular.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
As the day of the meeting between the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of Quebec approaches, there is an ever more persistent rumour that an agreement would be made on the patriation of the Canadian constitution in exchange for a partial payment of the possible Olympic Games deficit. Could the Prime Minister cast some light on this important matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, we do not intend at all to link both questions. I think this rumour would offend the government of Quebec which surely would not be corruptible enough to sell some rights in exchange for an amount of money.


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the loss of some $200 million in the subsidization of the sale of skim milk powder sold to various countries at prices substantially lower than the support price, and in view of the poor standards of health shown in the survey done for his department by Nutrition Canada, would the minister consider discussing with the Minister of Agriculture and with their provincial counterparts the establishment of a school milk program which would provide half a pint of milk a day to every student attending school in Canada, which program would help eliminate the surplus of milk and improve the health of young Canadians?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this is not being considered at the present time.


REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF PILOT PROJECT FOR SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the minister is carrying out, in conjunction with one of the eastern provinces, a pilot project for a school milk program, would the minister consider, if he has not had the report on the pilot project, expanding it to all provinces, thus helping alleviate the surplus milk situation as well as help our children?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received the report on the pilot project.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. As a result of his declaration for bilingual controls this morning at the international air safety symposium, what policy will the minister and his government pursue in the event that the pilots and air traffic controllers refuse to compromise public air safety in Canadian air traffic control?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I cannot really comment on a hypothetical question like that. We have been indicating our objectives, our goodwill and desire for complete co-operation and assistance from all concerned in developing proper procedures, and I hope that atmosphere will be the one that prevails.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General of which I have given him notice. When does the minister expect to receive the report from Judge Marin on working conditions within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and will the report be made public shortly thereafter?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, Judge Marin will present me with the report next Monday and it will be made public soon afterwards. I might say that the report deals with disciplinary matters within the RCMP and how we should handle complaints of the public against the RCMP.
March 2, 1976


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which I indicated I would ask him. Is the minister aware of the case of Mr. Boris Bibersh-tein of Toronto who is entering the third week of a hunger strike to protest the refusal of the Russian government to allow his wife and eight year old daughter to join him in Canada, despite the fact that Mr. Bibershtein himself has been in Canada for 16 months? If the minister is aware of this case, if Mr. Bibershtein makes a formal request to the government to assist by interceding with the Russian authorities, is the minister prepared to help in any way he can?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this case. I heard the gentleman on the radio over the weekend, when he stated that at the present time he was not seeking assistance from the government of Canada. Certainly, we would be ready to assist because it is a humanitarian case involving family reunification.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I wonder whether the minister would inform the House, as a result of certain statements he made in the province of Quebec yesterday, whether it is his intention to produce new legislation to the House or amendments to present legislation relating to his department which will materially alter the course that his department is following at the moment?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I did read a few moments ago the report on what I stated yesterday in Drummondville. There may be exaggeration over the terms I used. Nevertheless, there is no need at all to amend the legislation governing departmental activities so that the department itself be able to carry on the necessary studies and analyses, and to encourage and promote the industrial sector. Finally, that is what it has done so far to some extent, and this is exactly what most of my colleagues here in the House did, even those of the opposition, in respect of representations urging the department to be more aggressive and get better results, particularly in the Atlantic provinces. This is what I intend to do in reply to the suggestions of the House.
Oral Questions


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Recently in British Columbia considerable controversy has developed regarding the Trident system of nuclear submarines having their refit and overhaul base at Bangor, Washington, since some British Columbians suggest this base would endanger residents in the lower mainland. Would the minister comment on the danger to the lower mainland and whether he feels the Trident program is a positive or negative factor in maintaining the balance of power between the United States of America and the U.S.S.R.


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; as I said in Vancouver I think the Trident base is part of the deterrent and part of the means of keeping a peaceful world. I wish the hon. member and others asking similar questions would ask them about some of the Soviet bases that are being built.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Considering the order of the Canadian Transport Commission allowing the Canadian National to lay off 17 station masters in the province of Quebec, and bearing in mind that some of them have more than 30 years of service to their credit and that it would be hard for them to get used to other positions, would the minister say if he would approach this problem from the human point of view and recommend either freezing the positions of these station masters or the possibility of retiring them on pension?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the specific facts of the situation. The various employee agreements normally protect by way of seniority persons in positions like this, but I would be glad to look at the specific cases.
21419 - 3014
March 2, 1976

Oral Questions TRANSPORT


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO SINKING OF &quot;SAN JUAN&quot;- REASON RECOMMENDATION OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY NOT ACTED UPON
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport and perhaps I can avoid a supplementary by putting it in two parts. First, does the minister intend, in compliance with the request of the Newfoundland government and others, to conduct a judicial inquiry into the sinking of the fishing vessel San Juan and the role of the Canadian coastguard in relation thereto. Also could the minister tell the House whether he intends to cause his own investigation into the reasons the recommendation of the last judicial inquiry into a sinking were not acted upon which had to do with the greater dispersal of the search and rescue units on the east coast?


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, the decision on the over-all question of where search and rescue facilities are located and how many are provided is one the government has to take with an eye on the various priorities and how we can accommodate them. It is my intention to look further into the allegations and details of the specific incident of last week, and I would want to do that before I reach any further conclusion as to whether a further inquiry is justified.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to questions asked earlier. It is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Can he indicate whether he or any of the officials of his department have had any representations about Canadair with regard to this prolonged delay in the signing of the contract for the Orion and whether or not any such representations had to do with refurbishing of the Argus or the bringing back up again of the so-called Phoenix program?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, some months or years ago Canadair was one of the contenders during the evaluation phase and did put forward a proposal which was not accepted. Until we have completed the negotiation on the Lockheed contract one way or the other we are not entertaining proposals from any other source including Canadair.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I understand from the minister then that there have been no representations from Canadair along these lines. Could the minister indicate when we might expect a conclusion of the present negotiations in respect of the Orion contract.


James Armstrong Richardson: Well, Mr. Speaker, in completing the answer to the first question, there have been no representations from Canadair to me personally. I cannot say how
long it will take to complete the negotiations with Lockheed.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. What steps does the Postmaster General contemplate to stop the sale of Canadian postage stamps by overseas dealers, who are paid a commission of 25 per cent in apparent contravention of the Post Office Act which calls for a commission of 2 per cent, to prevent the return to Canada of some of these stamps for use as postage in Canada, in apparent violation of the agreement with overseas dealers and in apparent contravention of the act which reserves to the Post Office the right to sell postage stamps in Canada.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. gentleman says there is no evidence of any of these stamps returning to Canada. The fact that we are using the facilities, particularly of some countries, is purely an economic matter because we find it less expensive than setting up our own. If the hon. gentleman has any information or concrete evidence that stamps are coming back to Canada, I would be glad to receive it.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to the question of the dairy farmers and the figures we have seen in the papers this morning about the huge losses under the CDC program, the program of the Canadian Dairy Commission. Is there any intention on the part of the minister to load part of these costs on taxpayers in general instead of the hard-pressed dairy fairmers?


Eugene Whelan: Not at the
present time, Mr. Speaker.


CHEESE-PROPOSED REDUCTION IN IMPORTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the proposal which I understand is before cabinet now to increase our imports of cheese this year from the European Common Market Community by 50 million pounds, I should like to ask the minister whether or not he has been able to persuade his cabinet colleagues to cut back on the imports of cheese because of the over-supply of dairy products in this country.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce announced there would be no increase in the quota for specialty cheeses coming into Canada and that it would remain at 50 million pounds. Negotiations will take place with the countries which are exporting that cheese to Canada and which are subsidizing it to the tune, in some

March 2, 1976

instances, of 75 per cent. Negotiations will take place with them the same as that took place between them and our big neighbour to the south, which had the effect of taking the subsidies off their cheese coming into the U.S.A. Even if we were to eliminate completely the 50 million pounds of imported cheese into Canada it would not nearly solve the problem.


FLUID MILK-POSSIBILITY OF RE-INSTITUTING SUBSIDY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister on another subject. Can he say whether or not he has had any problems persuading his cabinet colleagues to re-institute the five cents per quart consumer subsidy on milk in order to try to bring up the consumption of milk in this country.


Eugene Whelan: Well, Mr. Speaker, in some of the provinces which have put on an advertising campaign, the consumption is back up where it was before, because it is still the cheapest bottle of anything you want to buy and it has more food value so far as that goes. I have not even proposed that they put back the subsidy because we are subsidizing skim milk powder to the tune of 34 cents a pound. Consumption of it has gone up over 11 per cent in the last year in Canada. There are adequate supplies on the shelves for anyone who wants to buy it at reasonable prices.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Roger Young (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the proposal and invitation of the Mayor of the City of Niagara Falls, New York, to have the Concorde aircraft land at their local airport, and in view of the fact that any such landings and take-offs may very well have to overfly Canadian territory, would the minister undertake to consult with the Minister of the Environment to ensure that such flights will not cause any serious environmental impact upon the very scenic area along the Canadian border; and would he also undertake to ensure that applicable Canadian flight regulations are made sufficient to protect local residents from any increased noise and air traffic levels.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, of course our ordinary rules would apply and at the present time that includes the requirement that flights of this sort would be at sub-sonic rather than super-sonic speeds. We have not had to face the specific question of whether any variations on these rules would be required or reasonable.
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. With the Canadian dollar now above par in relation to the United States dollar, would the minister indicate if he feels this is aggravating our trade deficit, bearing in mind that exports become much dearer and imports become much cheaper in the country? If he does feel it is aggravating our trade imbalance, does he see the Canadian dollar falling in relation to the United States dollar in the next few months?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would say that in the short run there has not been a negative effect on Canadian exports, although I would have to acknowledge that over a period of time our competitive position could be adversely affected. The remedy available to the Bank of Canada in order to reduce the external value of the Canadian dollar would be substantially confined to a very great increase in the money supply, and for reasons previously set out in the House, we propose not to follow that course. We will, however, be watching the external value of the dollar very closely, reflecting as it does the very high degree of foreign investment in Canada.


POSSIBILITY OF LOWERING OF INTEREST RATES-MINISTER'S POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In relation to the foreign borrowing in this country, the massive borrowing of some $4.7 billion last year which was attracted largely by high interest rates, 2 per cent to 3 per cent higher than in most countries, would the minister indicate if he foresees a lowering of Canadian interest rates in the next few months?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: think the interest rate in Canada in relation to the interest rate in the United States reflects substantially the difference in the inflation rates between the two countries. The best prospect for bringing down interest rates in Canada is the success of the controls program.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. It is related to a question which was asked him on Friday. Multinational firms have set up foreign subsidiaries and then diverted income out of Canada to lessen their tax liabilities, and according to the Auditor General, the practice is costing Canada hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Is the Department of National Revenue taking any steps to limit this type of tax avoidance by arranging a

March 2, 1976
Oral Questions
fuller exchange of information between countries and a closer watch on multinationals?
Finally, the Inter America Centre of Tax Administration, a Panama based organization of 26 countries which promotes co-operation between tax jurisdictions, will consider this approach when it meets in Washington March 17 and 18. My question is, will Canada be in attendance at this meeting, or will we be sending any observers?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, we will be in attendance, but I am not sure whether as a participant or as an observer. Most assuredly, we are working in close co-operation, particularly with the United States. With respect to some of the countries which form the membership, I must say that their interests may be contrary to ours in so far as being effective and controlling the amount of money which flows out, but we are ever vigilant and ever alert to that problem. We are meeting on almost a weekly basis, and I will be meeting with Mr. Alexander probably in late March or early April.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the minister consider the possibility of evaluation of the cost of goods and materials being shipped in and out of Canada and setting a fair market value on them on which tax could be based in order to save some of this tremendous revenue which is required by our country?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If it were as simple as that, we would not have a problem: it is a little more sophisticated than that, and some day perhaps the hon. member and I will have a discussion about it.


FINANCE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who, despite having been born in Ottawa, has his roots in Nou-velle-Ecosse, New Scotland. In light of the statement of Premier Gerald Regan at St. Mary's University that rehabilitation of the Sydney steel plant cannot be accomplished without federal funding, which many of us have been saying for some time, may I ask the hon. gentleman if consideration is being given by the government along these lines, and further, has Premier Regan made a representation to the central government for financial assistance?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of meeting Premier Regan at St. Mary's University and discussing with him this matter along with a number of other questions. My recollection-and I would have to refresh it-is that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is participating in an analysis which is currently under way as to the future of the Sydney steel complex, and I do not believe at the moment that that has been completed. There is a full recognition, at this level of government, of the importance of that particular manufacturing facility for the economic

future of Cape Breton Island, which, of course, is one of the most significant parts of this entire country.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the minister reclassified any of the 12 confidential 1974 studies prepared for his department, and in particular the $22,000 Goldfarb study into the attitudes of people in the Atlantic provinces toward his department? If not, would the minister read and review the status of this report, as we requested him to do in the committee last year?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, as agreed when the committee sat last fall, I asked my officials to review what reports were classified as confidential. I hope to be soon in a position to reach a decision on making some of those reports public which it seems no longer have to be kept confidential. I trust I can then meet the request of the hon. member to a large extent.


INQUIRY WHETHER THERE ARE ANY PLANS FOR PORT OF PICTOU, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Further to our previous discussions, I wonder if the hon. gentleman can say whether DREE has any concrete plans or projects either by itself or in concert with other federal agencies in the province of Nova Scotia for development assistance for the port of Pictou in Nova Scotia?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank the hon. member who gave me notice of his question. Today I asked for information to see exactly what was the situation. Unfortunately, since studies were carried out on the port of Pictou, it has been impossible to develop precise programs either with the provincial government or with the private enterprises which operate in this area, as regards the port itself.
The hon. member will certainly recall that, some time ago, a company which operates in the port of Pictou got assistance from our department. Unfortunately, I must admit that since then we have not received any requests for assistance in this area, although several companies of the Pictou area have submitted requests. However, I hope that the assistance which might be extended will give the port of Pictou a revival of activities.
March 2, 1976


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister in charge of the government telephone network. It arises from my conversation with the operator in the Montreal office of the government telecommunications agency this morning. She asked "where is the House of Commons?"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Jardine McCleave: Could the minister advise her?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: I would be glad to, Mr. Speaker.


DATE OF PROCEEDING WITH BILL CONCERNING MEMBERS' SALARIES
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. When the Prime Minister made his speech to the nation regarding the antiinflation cuts by this government, one of the highlights of his announcement was the freezing of the salaries of members of parliament. Would the government House leader inform the House when he plans to proceed with Bill C-81, which in all probability is the only area in which the government plans to exercise any restraint?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to learn of this support for the bill in its present form by the hon. member. I did not think there was any great urgency because our salaries have not been escalated by the 7 per cent, as provided for in the bill, so we are not spending any unnecessary money.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). In negotiations between the province of New Brunswick and the government of Canada it is my understanding that representations have been made to have replacement cost as the guideline for compensation under emergency measures settlements with regard to damaged property. Will the minister support this principle, and will he present it as a proper term of settlement on behalf of the fishermen of that area?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for some information on this. I am informed that the items are not eligible for inclusion if
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
they are insurable-that is vessels and items of that type. However, for non-insurable items the intent of the assistance is to restore affected persons to predisaster conditions. I believe if the province wants to support this level they would not have any difficulty.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Has the government yet reached a decision to abolish the practice of rug ranking in the public service? In other words, will secretaries in the public service now be paid according to the work they do rather than in accordance with the status of the persons for whom they work?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we intend to proceed in that direction. The subject is very complex and requires intensive analyses. We hope to reach a conclusion in the near future, while taking into account the budgetary restrictions which we must face.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will a decision be reached soon enough so that in the current negotiations between the Treasury Board and the ST's rug ranking will not apply?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give that assurance to the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) raised a question of privilege and I indicated at the time that I would give the matter 24 hours' consideration. I indicated that my preliminary assessment was that the problem was one of grievance with the actions of the ministry for including in the mailing out of family allowance and other departmental cheques some message from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-that that was a question of grievance or disagreement with a course of conduct and ought to be a matter of airing the disagreement as a grievance or a matter of debate.
In examining the clear definition of my distinguished predecessor on questions of privilege, that was taken upon

March 2, 1976
Business of the House
a very narrow limit referring, of course, only to those actions which in some way directly interfere with the capacity of a member to carry out his functions as a member of this House. Accordingly, I must confirm the original assessment and indicate that in my opinion there does not seem to be a prima facie question of privilege.


ESTIMATES
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a message which Your Honour read to the House and by which His Excellency the Governor General is transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) with regard to sums required for the service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1976.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the government indicated that they intended to proceed with the peace and security legislation next Monday. I wonder if the President of the Privy Council could tell us today what he contemplates in terms of government business for the balance of this week prior to the debate on the other legislation.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with debate on second reading of Bill C-68. This will be the tenth day of debate on second reading, and I am hopeful it is now coming to a close. When it is completed, we will call a number of items on the order paper which I hope are not very controversial matters. We will call report stage of Bill C-61, the Senate amendments to Bill S-10, and the bill on motor vehicle tires, Bill S-8. There have been some changes in the arrangements for handling the administrative side under this bill, and I hope it will now receive quick assent. Then we will call Bill C-86, veterans' insurance. At a convenient time I am also ready to meet the convenience of members of the Progressive Conservative party on Bill C-82. If there is any problem about the timing of a vote on the completion of the debate on second reading of Bill C-68, we are quite ready to meet the convenience of opposition members.


Mr. Kempling:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Regarding Bill S-8, if the President of the Privy Council could communicate to us the contemplated changes, it might expedite passage of this bill as we could discuss the changes with our people.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to do so.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1975-76 MOTION TO REFER TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 58(15) and Standing Order 59(1), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand):
That the Supplementary Estimates (B) for 1975-76 tabled this day be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:
I understand a copy of the referrals has been given to the various representatives of the parties, so perhaps they could be taken as read. They are similar to the referrals of the main estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The remainder of the motion reads as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Agriculture Votes 5b, 15b, 20b, 40b and 50b To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts:
Communications Votes 16 and 15b
Secretary of State Votes 15b, 20b, L21b, 40b, 65b, 75b and 90b To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence: External Affairs Votes lb, 10b, 20b, 25b and 30b National Defence Votes 5b and L20b To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Vote 35b Finance Votes 5b, 14b, L31b and 17b
Industry Trade and Commerce Votes lb, 10b, L37b, 65b and 70b National Revenue Votes lb, 5b and 10b To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry:
Environment Votes lb, 5b, 15b, L23b, 25b, 35b and L40b To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Vote 25b National Health and Welfare Votes lb, 25b, 46b and 50b Urban Affairs Votes lb, 15b, 25b and 40b To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 5b, 10b, L23b, 25b, 35b, L62b and L80b
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
Justice Votes lb, 15b and 25b Solicitor General Votes lb, 5b and 15b To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration: Labour Votes lb and 5b
Manpower and Immigration Votes lb, 5b and 20b
To the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services: Parliament Vote 5b
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates:
Finance Vote 15b Privy Council Vote 25b Supply and Services Votes 5b and 20b Treasury Board Votes 10b and 20b To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works: Energy, Mines and Resources Votes lb, 5b, L16b, 20b, 25b and 70b Public Works Votes 5b, 10b, 20b, 40b and 45b To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:
Regional Economic Expansion Votes 25b and 31b To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications:
March 2, 1976

Transport Votes lb, L3b, 10b, 30b, L56b, 62b, 63b, 85b, 86b, 88b, 92b,
99b, LlOlb and 102b
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs:
Veterans Affairs Votes 5b, 10b, 30b and 45b


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being taken, with the announcement made earlier this day, that the said supplementary estimates be deemed to have been tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), the House has heard the motion on referral by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), having made reference to the lists which have been circulated concerning those specific referrals. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,336, 3,880, 3,895, 3,954 to 3,959 inclusive, 3,983, 3,992, 3,997, 4,037, 4,066 to 4,069 inclusive and 4,113.


Mr. Clark: As of October 31, 1975, how many persons accredited as diplomats to Canada have been expelled from any other country and, in each case (a) who is the individual (b) by what country was that individual expelled (c) on what date did the expulsion occur (d) for what reason was that individual accredited as a diplomat to Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: (a) The government has no information that any accredited diplomat in Canada on October 31, 1975 had been expelled from another country, (b) See answer to (a), (c) See answer to (a), (d) See answer to (a).
SUPPLY AND SERVICES-CONTRACT AWARDED TO WOODS GORDON & COMPANY


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Did the government award a $50,000 contract to Woods, Gordon and Company for development of a non-police mobile computer terminal and, if so (a) how was this contract advertised prior to being awarded (b) on what date is the Woods, Gordon study to be completed (c) to whom will it be made available (d) on what date was the contract awarded?
2.	Were other bids received and, if so, in each case, in what amount?
3.	What uses does the government expect that the non-police market will have for mobile computer terminals?
4.	On what date will the government's study of specifications for a mobile computer terminal for police cars be completed?
Order Paper Questions
5.	Does the government expect to begin installing mobile terminals in police cars and, if so, on what date?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. The government has awarded a contract for approximately $50,000 to Woods, Gordon and Company. However, it was for a Study of the User Requirements for Mobile Radio Systems for the Non-Police Market, and not for the development of a Non-Police Mobile Computer Terminal, (a) Requests for proposal were sent to six companies considered capable of completing the tasks, (b) The Woods, Gordon Study was to be complete on or before December 31, 1975. (c) Subject to the deletion of confidential information and editing, the study will not be classified. After completion of the editing, the existence of the study will be made known probably by means of a trade press release and it will be available on request, (d) The contract was awarded on June 30, 1975.
2.	Four proposals were received as follows: Price Waterhouse Associates, $48,000.00; Woods, Gordon and Company, $57,800.00; Kenneth Logan and Associates, $49,770.00; Bell Northern Research, $49,450.00. The prices indicated were estimates only, calculated by multiplying firm rates by estimated time, and the time estimates were not binding on the companies. The Woods, Gordon proposal was chosen following a joint evaluation conducted by the Science Procurement Officer of the Department of Supply and Services and the customer department Scientific Authority (Department of Communications), as the one offering the best overall value for the Crown and the price was negotiated downwards to $49,550.
3.	The main users identified as being potentially interested in Mobile Radio Systems are, for example, taxis and courier services, telephone and gas utility repair trucks, transit vehicles, and railways. The uses this market will have for Mobile Radio Systems are the very object of the study.
4 and 5. refer to the police market and are not relevant to this contract. There is no information on this topic.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands): 1.	Have papers been commissioned in connection with Habitat and, if so (a) what were they (b) how were the contracts tendered?
2.	What is the cost to the government of such papers for (a) having them written (b) printing and distribution?
3.	What is the expected date of publication of such papers?
4.	What plans have been made for their distribution?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1. No papers have been commissioned in connection with Habitat.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.

March 2, 1976
Order Paper Questions COMPANY TAKEOVERS


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of Comet Confectionery Ltd. of Ste. Hyacinthe, by Leonard Monhein AG of Aachen, West Germany, approved by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, what percentage of control will Leonard Monhein AG acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Comet Confectionery Ltd. and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Leonard Monhein AG and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does Leonard Monhein AG control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Comet Confectionery and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Comet Confectionery employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Foreign Investement Review Agency, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: All information with respect to a person, business or proposed business obtained in the course of the administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act is privileged and may not be released except as provided in section 14 of that act.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of Private Brands Beverages Ltd. of Mississauga, Ontario, by Cott Beverages Ltd. of Laval, Quebec a subsidiary of Cott Corp. of New Haven, Connecticut, which is controlled by National Industries of Louisville, Missouri, approved by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, what percentage of control will Cott acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Private Brands Ltd. and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of National Industries and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does National Industries control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety
(Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).]
in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Private Brands and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Private Brands employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question
3,954.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of Colorvision Rentals Ltd. of Toronto, wholly owned by Electronic Rentals Group Ltd. of London, by Granada TV Rental Ltd. of Rexdale, controlled by Granada Group Ltd. of London, approved by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, what percentage of control will Granada acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who are the principal shareholders of Electronic Rentals Group Ltd. and what control, if any, will they retain in Colorvision Rentals Ltd.?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Granada Group and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does Granada Group control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Colorvision Rentals and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Colorvision Rentals employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question
3,954.
March 2, 1976


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of H. Bernard (Canada) Ltd. of West Hill by Tonolli Co. of Canada., Mississauga, approved by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, what percentage of control will Tonolli acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of H. Bernard Ltd. and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Tonolli Co. and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does Tonolli Co. control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within H. Bernard Ltd. and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did H. Bernard Ltd. employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question
3,954.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of the flavour division of Liquid Carbonic Canada Ltd. owned by Houston Natural Gas Corp. of Houston by Liquid Flavour Associates of Canada Ltd., jointly owned by Universal Flavor Corp. of Indianapolis and Liquid Carbonic, approved by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, what percentage of control will Liquid Flavour Associates acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who are the principal shareholders of Houston Natural Gas Corp. and how much control will they retain over the affairs of Liquid Flavour Associates?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Universal Flavor Corp. and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Do (a) Houston National Gas Corp. (b) Universal Flavour Corp. control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other business in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on the (a) level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within the flavour division of Liquid Carbonic and within the industry?
Order Paper Questions
7.	(a) How many persons did the flavour division of Liquid Carbonic employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question
3.954.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of Stewart Hall Co. of of Mississauga, Ontario, by Cott Beverages Ltd. of Laval, Quebec, a subsidiary of Cott Corp. of New Haven, Connecticut, which is controlled by National Industries of Louisville, Missouri, approved by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, what percentage of control will Cott acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Stewart Hall Co. and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of National Industries and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does National Industries control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Stewart Hall Co. and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Stewart Hall employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question
3.954.


Mr. Neil: 1.	How many Treaty Indians have left the reserve and entered the cities of (a) Vancouver (b) Prince George (c) Prince Rupert (d) Edmonton (e) Calgary (f) Prince Albert (g) Winnipeg (h) Kenora (i) Saskatoon (j) Toronto?

March 2, 1976
Order Paper Questions
2.	How many Treaty Indians are on social assistance, either municipal, provincial or DIAND in the cities of (a) Vancouver (b) Prince George (c) Prince Rupert (d) Edmonton (e) Calgary (f) Prince Albert (g) Winnipeg (h) Kenora (i) Saskatoon (j) Toronto?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	This information is not available. The department does not record the place of residence of registered Indians who do not live on reserves.
2.	The municipalities and provincial governments do not maintain a record of the number of persons who are registered Indians to whom they provide assistance. The department had a social assistance caseload of 456 in Edmonton, 210 in Calgary, 52 in Prince Albert, 150 in Winnipeg and 189 in Saskatoon. We did not have a social assistance caseload in Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Prince George, Kenora or Toronto. In those cities the provincial or municipal departments provided assistance to eligible Indian persons.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the complete list of all boats purchased by Parks Canada in connection with the operation of the St. Lawrence Islands National Park since January 1, 1973 and, in each case (a) from whom was it purchased (b) what was the cost involved?
2.	Are further purchases planned during the coming year and, if so, what is a description of each item?
3.	Are any boats owned by Parks Canada at St. Lawrence Islands National Parks not painted with the usual Parks Canada colours and, if so (a) what boats are involved (b) for what reason (c) what are the names of persons operating such boats?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. SLI 002, Boat Grew, Model SS180, used craft, 40E-2957, FIST 18141 September 18/73, $3,115.00, Huck Marine, Rockport; SLI 001, Boat Grew, model SS180, used craft, 40E-2956, FIST 18103 September 10/73, $3,115.00, Huck Marine, Rockport; 21299, Boat Grew, model SS245, 40E-3764, F4-245-137 May/75, $13,068.00, Huck Marine, Rockport; 21303, Boat Grew, model SS204, 40E3756, F6-204-134 May/75, new $9,175.00, Huck Marine, Rockport; 21304, Boat Grew, model SS204, 40E-3757-F6-304-127, May/75, new $9,175.00, Huck Marine, Rockport; 21305, Boat Grew, model SS204, 40E-3758, F6-204-140 May/75, (replacement) $9,175.00, Huck Marine, Rockport; 21442-1975-speed barge, fibre glass, 25-seat, 2-35 h.p. Johnson outboard 40E-4150, Aug/75, $19,250.00, Maritime Trans-Atlantic Ltd., Truro, N.S.
2.	A request has been made by the superintendent to replace three Tri-ram hull craft which have proved unsuitable for the St. Lawrence river waters and and dangerous to staff due to rough ride. The replacement of these boats has not yet been evaluated.
3.	Yes. (a) 3 Grew model SS204 and 1 Grew model SS245, 1 speed barge, (b) The above boats were required for service immediately after delivery and time did not permit painting of the hull with Parks Canada colours. All of the above boats will be painted this coming spring. Arrangements were made with a contractor in Brockville to paint the boats last summer but he did not arrive prior to the inclement weather, (c) The 3 Grew model SS204 were used

by the following staff: Mr. Gord Hamre, Acting Chief Park Naturalist; Mr. A. MacDonald, Chief Park Warden; Mr. Jim Renynolds, Park Warden; Mr. Chris Kail, Park Warden; Mr. Phil Hammond, Park Warden; Mr. Doug Anions, Park Warden. The Grew model SS245 was used by Mr. A. D. Tremblay, Superintendent; Mr. P. L. Gates, General Works Manager; Mr. R. Martin, Foreman. The speed barge was operated by employees: Mr. George Hassey, Mr. G. Price, Mr. F. Ferguson, Mr. P. L. Gates.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is there a building located on government owned Lindsay Island in the St. Lawrence Islands National Park and, if so, what is the name and job designation of the person or persons who at any time occupied the building for accommodation purposes during 1975?
2.	Was the building ever occupied or used in any way by the Superintendent of the St. Lawrence Islands National Park and, if so (a) on what dates (b) for what purpose?
3.	(a) What is the identity of anyone occupying the permanent residence of the Superintendent at Mallorytown Landing during his absence (b) was any rental paid and, if so, what was the amount and to whom was it paid?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. Yes. Mr. A. D. Tremblay, Superintendent, St. Lawrence Islands National Park and Mr. J. C. Christakos, Director, Ontario Region, Parks Canada.
2.	Yes, the superintendent used the building on a number of occasions as a base for inspection of the island system. At all such times radio contact with his office was maintained. The superintendent also used the building for personal reasons on two occasions, May 24-25 and again on August 2-3. Compensation at normal daily rates in charged on each of these occasions.
3.	(a) The permanent residence at Mallorytown has been occupied on a full time basis by the Superintendent of St. Lawrence Islands National Park, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable.


Mr. Beatty: Is the government providing aid of any kind to the Palestine Liberation Organization for the preparation of audio-visual material for the Habitat conference and, if so, what is the nature and amount provided?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The government is not providing aid of any kind to the Palestine Liberation Organization for the preparation of audio-visual material for the Habitat conference.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of the assets of L.E. Welk Lumber Manufacturing Ltd. of Eganville, Ontario by Kaladar Planing Mills Ltd. of Tweed, Ontario, which is controlled by S.S. and S. Co. of Escanaba, Michigan, what percentage of control will S.S. and S. Co. acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
March 2, 1976

3.	Who were the principal shareholders of L.E. Welk Lumber Manufacturing Ltd. and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Kaladar Planing Mills Ltd. and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does S.S. and S. Co. control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts, components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within L.E. Welk Lumber Manufacturing Ltd. and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did L.E. Welk Lumber Manufacturing Ltd. employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question
3,954.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of certain assets of Gold Star Sales Ltd. of Montreal, Quebec, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cadence Industries Corp. of West Caldwell, New Jersey by Thank you Stamp Company Ltd. of Toronto, a subsidiary of Gold Bond Company Ltd. of Toronto, which is wholly owned by Carlson Companies Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, what percentage of control will Carlson Companies Inc. acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Cadence Industries Corp. and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Carlson Companies Inc. and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does Carlson Companies Inc. or Cadence Industries Corp. control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts, components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Gold Star Sales Ltd. and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Gold Star Sales Ltd. employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or
Order Paper Questions
industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question
3,954.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of Ferguson Supply Ltd. of Alberta and its subsidiary Arctic Terex of Hay River, Northwest Territories by Midco Equipment of Tennessee, controlled by Mid-Continent Supply Co. of Fort Worth, Texas, which is wholly owned by Kendavis Industries International Inc. of Texas, what percentage of control will Midco Equipment acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Ferguson Supply Ltd. and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Midco Equipment and Kendavis Industries International and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does Midco Equipment and Kendavis Industries International control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts, components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Ferguson Supply Ltd. and Arctic Terex and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Ferguson Supply and Arctic Terex employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question
3,954.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of Reed Tool Company of Canada of Edmonton, a wholly owned subsidiary of Reed Tool Company of Houston, Texas by Baker Oil Tools Inc. of Orange, California, what percentage of control will Baker Oil Tools Inc. acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?

March 2, 1976
Order Paper Questions
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Reed Tool Company of Houston and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Baker Oil Tools Inc. and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does Baker Oil Tools Inc. or Reed Tool Company control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts, components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Reed Tool Company of Edmonton and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Reed Tool Company of Edmonton employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question
3,954.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Did the Canadian Red Cross hold Blood Donor Clinics in Canada in 1974-75 and, if so, on how many occasions?
2.	How many blood bottles have been collected from the various blood groups?
3.	Has the Canadian Red Cross exported blood to foreign countries and, if so (a) in what quantities (b) to which countries (c) at what price?


Mitchell William Sharp: The subject matter of the question does not fall within the administrative responsibility of the government of Canada.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 4,074 could be made an order for return, this document could be tabled immediately.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Has the Department of Manpower and Immigration granted any funds in the Constituency of Roberval under the (a) Local Initiatives (b) Opportunities for Youth (c) LEAP programmes and, if so, in each

case, what was the (i) amount granted (ii) nature of the project (iii) municipality involved since the beginning of the grants up to and including 1975?
Return tabled.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr.   Bob. Kaplan@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare: Mr. Speaker, I had taken the floor at the conclusion of the business of the House last Thursday and I want to review briefly the points I made at that time. I have listened to all the arguments in the entire debate which have been put forward by members of the opposition. I insist again, on behalf of the government, that you can have restraint in the growth of health care services of Canada without impairing the system. Indeed, if there is not restraint in the further growth of the health care system, that lack of restraint will lead to impairment of the system. It is important to ensure, now that the health care program has had since 1967 to develop, that it is not permitted to grow in future at a rate far exceeding the growth of the national product of Canada.
In the early years of the program, from the time it was introduced in 1967, we wanted it to grow rapidly. Its growth was a measure of the fact that millions of Canadians before had not been receiving adequate health care. Those Canadians were participating in the socialized health system being provided for the people of Canada. But tremendous increases in the program cannot be permitted to continue year after year, and it is certainly no act of bad faith on the part of the government of Canada, after the program has been allowed to mature, as it has been, to assert a ceiling on the future rate of increase of that program.
The Conservative party here in the House has been embarrassed by the recognition of these facts by other levels of government. For example, William Davis, Premier of Ontario, has had to recognize the reality that no program, not even one as important as health care, can be allowed to grow at an indefinite rate. He said to the Conservative convention held recently:
March 2, 1976

The economic condition of this country demands men and women of foresight, courage and sensitivity in the highest of offices. It demands of political parties the highest level of unity, commitment and purpose. The courage to reduce government expenditures has never been more necessary.
Referring to medicare, the Conservative Premier of Ontario went on to say:
In the area of health care, a matter of national concern, we in Ontario have taken the view that no province, no careful and thoughtful society, can afford a system that expands more quickly in terms of cost than that society's ability to pay.
In simple terms, that means that if we allow the health care system, the system providing health services for the needy, for the population as a whole, for the old, the feeble and those who cannot help themselves, to become more expensive than taxpayers can afford, the system will collapse. If it does, only the rich and advantaged will obtain care. We must seek to streamline the system, not because we want to but because concern for the welfare of all served by the system says that we must.
Without doubt, we must restrain the rate of growth of the health care system. Interest groups affected have agreed that the proposed participation rate of 13 per cent, or 14.5 per cent, depending on the figures you take, for the coming fiscal year is reasonable. They do not oppose second-year figures. As for the third year, the minister said he would discuss this matter when this bill is referred to committee which, hopefully, will be today.
I also want to deal with the accusation made by several hon. members that the government is trying to destroy the federal-provincial partnership in medicare through an alleged unilateral action in imposing ceilings under Bill C-68. When the proposed ceilings on medicare were announced in the June budget, the minister reassured provincial colleagues that the federal government intended to remain full a partner in medicare. We are not asserting that we want the provincial half of this partnership to bear any proportionate increase in costs; we are asking the provinces also to restrain costs so that both sides can remain within the ceiling proposed. A true federal-provincial partnership in the health care field in Canada is essential, and that includes sharing in the consultation and planning process as well as in the costs of implementing programs.
As far as the federal-provincial partnership is concerned, it is evident that the federal government has been an equal partner with the provinces where sharing costs is concerned; but the federal government has not had an equal say in decisions affecting the costs of these programs. For example, the federal government has rarely, if ever, been consulted on the number and distribution of hospital beds which a province intended to build into its health care systems; nor were we, in Ottawa, usually informed if a new hospital was to be built, although we were expected to cost-share the ongoing operational costs the moment the doors were opened.
Similarly, Ottawa has not been consulted about wage and salary settlements or fee increases granted in recent years by provincial hospital and medical care programs, although it would certainly have been a courtesy to consult an equal partner about such important actions which would be bound to make ripples extending far beyond the single province engaged in negotiations at a particular time.
Medical Care Act
The communique issued at the last conference of provincial ministers' meeting in August stated:
A fair sharing of costs is fundamental to the maintenance and improvement of health services in Canada.
With that statement no one can disagree. But I do not subscribe to the view that whatever decisions they make should automatically entail federal sharing. That would simply be the equivalent of saying that provincial legislatures, rather than the national parliament, should control the level of taxes to be paid by Canadians no matter where they live. I do not believe-nor, I am sure, do you-that decisions made by one provincial legislature should automatically decide the level of taxes which must be paid by residents of another province, whether or not they subscribe to or participate in the action. Only the federal government has responsibility on behalf of all Canadians. This is the only level of government which has responsibility for all.
The introduction of ceilings under the Medical Care Act is a responsible action to help to check inflation which, if allowed to continue unchecked, would jeopardize the country's ability to maintain these essential programs and thus would have done more to damage the federal-provincial partnership than any annoyance the provinces may have felt when the budgetary measures were introduced. I completely agree with hon. members opposite, that this partnership is essential to ensure a national minimum standard of service for all Canadians regardless of the province in which they live.
In the Ontario budget announced before the anti-inflation program it was estimated that medicare costs would rise in the three fiscal year 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 by 22.6 percent, 20.7 per cent and 18.6 per cent respectively. Surely the Ontario government could not have been complacent at such a prospect. Quite clearly, if similar trends were to occur at the national level they could only be met at the expense of other sectors in the economy and to the serious detriment of other essential priorities. Such a rate of growth in costs would be irresponsible. Think of the effect in less affluent provinces.
When the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) was reading from replies he had received from provincial health ministers, he did not mention complaints that we have received from many of the ministers regarding the major problems which result when one province unilaterally gives large wage and salary increases. The other provinces often have problems meeting their share of increased costs under the present arrangement. The federal government is proposing the ceilings both on behalf of the provinces and the federal treasury so that there can be some prediction of cost behaviour to protect the poorer provinces.
If a precedent is set, the "domino" effect carries it across the country. The very large wage and salary increases recently given to the hospital sector in Ontario and British Columbia-for example, in Ontario the 50 per cent increase in nurses' salaries over 18 months in 1974-75, with another substantial increase to come in 1976-put great pressure on the other provinces for matching increases which they cannot afford. No wonder health costs in Ontario and Canada started to rise very rapidly. The wealthier provinces must accept a heavy responsibility. Positive restrain-

March 2, 1976
Medical Care Act
ing action had to be taken, and the federal government has moved in a responsible manner in relation to its options.
The federal government wants a firm commitment from the provinces indicating what their intentions are over the next five years or so in relation to the hospital and medical fields. We must know what the financial needs will be if we are to be in a position to put more money into the system for lower-cost, alternative methods of service. The federal government cannot put additional money into the system without knowing the long term plans of the provinces.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, that on the last day there was considerable criticism of the federal government for the hospital closing program embarked upon by the Ontario government. I had begun to make the point that hospital costs are not part of the medicare program or of this bill. The federal government has an agreement which requires five years notice on termination, until which it is bound to underwrite half the cost of the hospital program of the provinces of Canada. Whether a particular province increases its hospital bills beyond the 13.5 per cent or within the 13.5 per cent, none of that is relevant to the federal government's responsibility to it. That comes entirely under a different statute.
I must stress that the closure of these hospitals was not in any way related to Bill C-68 but was due to the general economic situation and the fact that the provinces felt they could not justify the costs of maintaining these underutilized and improperly used facilities when there were ample vacant beds in the same general area. I remind hon. members it has not been the practice of provincial governments to consult Ottawa when creating additional hospital facilities. On behalf of the taxpayers of Canada we have paid our share under the agreement. However, we were not consulted by the provinces as to whether the hospital beds were needed. Many are now being found to be not needed and are being closed down.
I would like to repeat that Bill C-68 contains a feature which would facilitate the introduction by provinces of low-cost alternatives to expensive hospital care. Everyone concedes that there are patients in general hospitals who do not need to be there and who would not be there if they could obtain the care that they need as an insured benefit in another way. This point was made by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). He called on us to recognize that low-cost alternatives ought to be provided if we expect high-cost hospital beds to be closed. If he had looked at the statute, he would have seen that provision is made for continued growth in the area of low-cost alternatives. Certain members who have looked at that aspect of the legislation have commended the government for it.
Section 4, subsection 3 of the original Medical Care Act was deliberately introduced in order to permit the government to introduce additional benefits under the medical care program without submitting the act to parliament for amendments each time. However, the disadvantage in using the act as presently constituted is that the cost of such additional services would go into the main national per capita under the act and provinces would benefit from

this whether or not they had introduced the new insured services.
Furthermore, provinces not making these new services available on a universal basis to the population would be able to continue to cost-share them under the Canada Assistance Plan. This would have the effect of providing them with the benefit of double-sharing on the one hand at the expense of the provinces which were introducing these services on the other. Quite obviously, this would be an undesirable feature and in fact would be counterproductive to encouraging a rationalization of the health care system through the introduction and expansion of lower-cost services.
Accordingly, a new mechanism has been devised to ensure that any increases in the federal contributions in respect of new insured services will go only to those provinces providing the new services on a universal basis to their residents. Specifically, the modifications provide for a separate national per capita for each class of new insured service if and when such classes are added. The separate per capitas will simplify cost accounting of the respective services and ensure that each cost package will be used to calculate the federal contribution for only those provinces whose costs contribute to the separate national per capita.
I want to conclude at this point. I do so in the earnest hope that hon. members will see fit to send this bill today to the committee responsible for its consideration, to crossexamine the minister and the officials. May I urge on them that the bill has a time limit which has to come into effect by the end of this month, and that the ten days of debate which have already taken place on second reading are adequate. I would say it is more than adequate, but surely hon. members would agree it is adequate. We have had pressure particularly from speakers put forward by the New Democratic Party, a party with an important voice and great interest in medicare. However, surely at this point the members of that party will concede that they have had their say and that prolonged delay and use of our rules to prevent this measure being proceeded with can only be taken by the people of Canada as an effort by a small party to block a measure which, in the view of the government, is very much in the interests of Canadians.
To my Conservative friends opposite, let me urge them not to take the government's advice on this matter but to be guided by the statement of the Premier of the province of Ontario who put the matter very well at their national convention. Some restraint is in order. It is a reasonable restraint. In fact, it is a measured increase. It is an increase which, after consultation with the industry, is generally considered to be acceptable. Let this bill go forward to committee and let us get on with the other very urgent bills that are before us.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I was impressed with the moving appeal we just heard from the parliamentary secretary. I cannot help noting, however, that as parliamentary secretary he is particularly well informed and used his whole 40 minutes. I intend to use far less than half of that time to put forward the point of view of my party.
March 2, 1976

Normally speaking, I am very much against prolonged debates. I would like to see the time limit on all debates cut down except in very exceptional circumstances. Except where ministerial statements are being made, I would like to see them cut to 20 minutes. When that happens, I will be glad to abide by the rules. Indeed, I am practising already for the day, which I hope is coming soon, when we will have shorter speeches in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I spoke on this bill on second reading, but I only spoke for about 15 minutes at that time. Adding my two speeches together, I am well within the rule I put forward. Normally I would not speak a second time, but I do not think this is a normal bill and I do not think these are normal circumstances. Members of my party are deeply concerned about what they regard as an important breach of principle involved in this bill. Therefore we are using the rules of the House as they exist at present to make sure that the Canadian people become aware of what this legislation is doing. It is a bill which affects many people across Canada; it affects them today and it will do so in the future.
For me and for members of my party, this bill signals the abandonment of a vision of which parliament and the people have reason to be proud. I refer to the vision of adequate health services as an unalienable right of all the people of Canada. To make this vision into reality is was necessary for the federal parliament to assume a substantial and stable share of the cost of such a scheme as medicare, especially so that provinces with smaller revenues might he able to embark upon such programs knowing where they stood. The objection we have to this bill is that it renders the federal contribution unstable. It is true that it does not provide for an over-all reduction at the present, but it does provide for the gradual lessening of the percentage of the contribution.
Assuming there is a continuation of inflation in medical costs as in other fields, which seems to be a reasonable premise, we gradually find the percentage contributed by the federal government to medicare becoming smaller and smaller. There is also the threat to other federal contributions to similar services; for example, hospital and diagnostic services. I know the parliamentary secretary explained earlier in the debate that the bill before us does not specifically refer in any way to hospital and diagnostic services, but is all part of a pattern which became evident when the former minister of finance announced the termination of the agreement to provide 50 per cent of these costs. So a burden is placed on the provinces and it is all really part of the same field though these services come under different acts, that is to say, the field of provisions of medical services to the people.
We believe this program should be advancing instead of being cut back, and we regret the failure of the government to press forward with discussions with the provinces over the $2 billion worth of services the provinces have provided by way of pharmacare, homecare and other things. The provinces are providing 100 per cent of the costs of these extra services and they look to the federal
Medical Care Act
government to assist. But as far as I can ascertain, discussions are stalled. This is utterly false economy.
People sometimes ask, "If you say this is false economy, where would you make cuts?" I do not intend to discuss that aspect in detail but I do suggest that there are other places which it would be far better to examine, with economy in mind, than the medical services provided to our people. Take defence expenditures, for example. We are proposing to spend $1 billion on the purchase of patrol aircraft from Lockheed. I am informed that these are unnecessarily sophisticated aircraft bearing in mind the patrolling task for which they are needed. I may be wrong, but when you talk about $1 billion of expenditure, and when you are dealing with a company which has sufficient surplus funds to throw around in bribery-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I would remind the hon. member that we are considering Bill C-68, which relates to the Medical Care Act, and I would ask that he limit his comments to that bill.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Perhaps you did not follow the direction of my remarks, Madam Speaker. It is the purpose of this bill to cut down medical expenses, and it has frequently been stated in this debate that if expenditures are not cut in this field they will have to be cut somewhere else. I am suggesting to the government that it consider cutting expenditure in other fields so that it might not be necessary to make the economies proposed in the bill before us.
I have always been amazed by the interpretation of "relevance" in relation to debates that go on in this chamber. I frankly admit that I have heard many things said in this House whose relevance to the subject under discussion I could not, by any stretch of the imagination, grasp. In this particular case, I believe the points I am making affect the passage of this legislation because the purpose of the bill before us is to curtail medical services in order to effect economy. It is surely relevant to point out-I shall not do so in detail-that there are other fields in which economies might be made. On the shelf now- again, this is an example from the defence field-are proposals to spend large sums of money on a fleet of interceptors far beyond what is needed for defence purposes, at least that is my opinion, and I suggest that this is where we should be looking for savings.
The next point I wish to make has been made before but I emphasize it because of its importance. The bill before us is a blow at Canadian unity. Canadian unity does not just mean symbols of unity, though no doubt symbols are important. A flag is important, an anthem is important, other things are important as symbols of unity. But working together through a program such as medicare to secure equal services, for all the people of Canada, irrespective of the province in which they live, is more than just a symbol of unity; it is the very building of unity in this country. I find that when it comes to cutbacks, to axes applied for reasons for economy, that they fall not on unnecessary luxuries but on things which are basic necessities for ordinary people. I cannot imagine any more important thing for making life livable for Canadians than the provision of adequate health services.
As I mentioned before, I am not one who favours prolonged debate, but I want to make clear to the House how

March 2, 1976
Medical Care Act
deeply we feel about this particular measure. I hate to admit to this group of younger people around me that I have been an active member of the NDP, and before that of the CCF, for more than 40 years. During the whole of those 40 years one of our major objectives was to secure adequate health services for all the Canadian people. We do not want to be found giving all that up if we can possibly preserve it. We have fought for it, and fought successfully.
I pay tribute to the former premier of Saskatchewan, my hon. friend for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), who personally played a major role in getting this service for us. Holding these views, it is only natural that we should object to any proposal which seems to be undermining the work objectives, a work for which the government party has itself claimed-and not without reason- considerable credit in the past as being the architects of this particular plan.
I think the solution to the problem is to be found in a speech made by my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), on October 1 last in Moose Jaw. In his speech he made reference to the best way to cut down expenditures, which is by providing preventive services. If you can prevent illness, eventually you cut down medical costs. My leader had this to say:
Just prior to the last federal election, the Department of Health and Welfare published a document entitled-A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians. What this document on health emphasized was that if our health standards were to be improved and in the long run made less expensive, we would have to expend more of our money and other resources on preventative medicine, rather than coming in at the last minute and trying to repair the damage long after it has been done.
Sounds like a sensible approach, doesn't it? Don't wait until a man is half dead from lung cancer as a result of inhaling asbestos fibres every day at work and then try to lengthen his life with surgery. Diagnose his condition early through the use of community health centres staffed to provide this service; treat him; and remove the source of the polluted air.
This is not an original idea on the part of the federal government. Saskatchewan has long been saying to the federal Liberals that Canadians need more health facilities, not less, and that it is less expensive to catch disease at an early stage, and treat it in health centres or convalescent homes where the costs per bed are not as high as in acute treatment hospitals.
I want to conclude my remarks by making reference to what Senator David Croll has said. As far as I have known him over the years, he has been a member of the Liberal party. When this bill was announced last July he had this to say, and I adopt his words as a summary of the attitude I take and that I think we should all take:
It is wrong in concept; it is divisive in practice and in my opinion it is wrong, wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong. As far as I am concerned these matters are sacrosanct.
Senator Croll and I happen to agree on this particular point. He was brought up with that brand of Liberal who believes that medicare services on a universal scale, supported by the federal government making a stable contribution to the expenses, was the very basis of Canadian unity. He put it much more eloquently than I could. The reason the parliamentary secretary finds us speaking in this debate a little longer than he wants is our very firm conviction which we have that this bill is a retrograde, unfortunate and backward move that will be bad for the

people of Canada, bad for their health and bad for the unity of Canada.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, after listening to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Kaplan) I think I should change the remarks I had intended to make in opening my speech in this debate. In view of comments I have heard from other members on that side of the House, I was very surprised to hear the parliamentary secretary say that he agrees in principle with the action taken by the province of Ontario in closing some hospitals in line with their restraint program. I should like to draw the attention of the House to a question that was asked on February 27 by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas). As reported at page 11319 of Hansard, he asked the following:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Whereas the announcement on Thursday of last week of the closing of Clinton community hospital brought to ten the number of closures by the government of Ontario, and apparently finalized closures for this time, and whereas at least four of those ten hospitals are in western Ontario and all are in rural areas where transportation and adverse weather conditions combine to inflict severe hardships on residents of those areas concerned, will the minister consider withholding from the federal government's health plan contributions to the province of Ontario the supposed $50 million that the closings are slated to save and use that money as direct payment to the hospitals closed, so that they may continue to provide valuable and economical health services now being provided?
We now have a complete reversal on the part of the parliamentary secretary. He is pleading with hon. members on this side of the House to quit speaking on a bill that we consider very crucial not just for the people of Ontario but for people all across Canada. The province of Ontario was persuaded-I could use stronger terms-to enter into medicare in 1969 in order that the rest of the less fortunate provinces could receive medicare as well. To hear the parliamentary secretary make the plea he has just made leaves me somewhat confused. However, if I may continue my remarks-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary is rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Kaplan:: In view of what the hon. member says, Madam Speaker, may I make it clear that each province has its own problems and has to find its own solutions to those problems. My remarks should not be taken to reflect upon particular hospital closings or non-closings. I simply reiterate that the principle of restraint in program increases is one that this government certainly supports.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: That is far from a question of privilege. The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott).


William C. Scott: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thought I had made myself clear in my earlier remarks. Like most of my colleagues, I have to say that I did not expect to have to stand in this House and defend a program that has become so much a part of the social fabric of our country. Medicare and hospital insurance are too deeply entrenched in our society for us even to discuss whether they should be reduced in scope. What we really should be discussing today is how we, the provinces and the federal govern-
March 2, 1976

ment, can improve, rather than curtail, medicare and hospital services.
While the federal government maintain that Bill C-68 holds the line on federal participation in medical and hospital cost-sharing, it actually amounts to a reduction in the federal government's participation. When you consider, Madam Speaker, the effect of inflation, the increased demand for medical services and the increased cost of labour, the provinces will be expected to absorb the lion's share of the cost of what is called a federal-provincial cost-sharing program.
It is an established fact that the cost of the medicare program has increased at as fast a rate as the cost of any other services in Canada, yet for some strange reason medicare has been made the whipping boy in the government's so-called austerity program. In effect, the federal government has reduced the size of the Prime Minister's personal staff by three or four positions and put the brakes on medicare. That seems to be the sum and substance of its efforts to hold the line on federal spending.
The plain fact is, when you consider that the increase in government spending for the coming fiscal year could run between 20 per cent and 25 per cent when the supplementary estimates are added to the revised estimates, any talk of restraint has to be taken with a grain of salt. When I think of the heavy fine levied against the Irving Pulp and Paper Company because it dared to award a wage settlement to its workers that exceeded 8 per cent, I have to ask whose example we should really be following. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is saying, in effect, "Don't do as I do, but do as I say". We are told that the ceiling on federal participation in medicare and hospital insurance is to be imposed for only two years, but based on this government's record of broken pledges with the provinces there is no way we can be sure of what will happen next.
The worst effect of this cutback in federal sharing in medicare will, of course, be directed against medical and hospital services in the various provinces, especially those provinces that do not have the resources that we have in Ontario. However, another thing that concerns me is the possible effect it will have on all other federal-provincial cost-sharing programs. In these matters there must be a large degree of mutual trust, and as things are going at present that trust is being eroded by unilateral federal decisions.
As some of my colleagues have said before me, Mr. Speaker, Ontario was drawn into the medicare and hospital insurance programs. We in this province had our own medicare and hospital programs before the federal government got into the act. What has not been stated before is that we were blackmailed into joining the federal program. Since that time Ontario has had to absorb an increasingly larger percentage of the cost of a program that was supposed to be a 50-50 arrangement.
In 1969, Ontario was invited to join the federal program, but the premier of that time was satisfied that we could go it alone and do a better job of providing these services at a lower cost to the taxpayers of Ontario. Ontario asked to be allowed to go it alone, but the federal government came back with a counter proposal: we would be allowed to
Medical Care Act
operate our own medicare program but the federal government would impose a tax on Ontario residents to help pay the cost of the federal program. In the first year of such an arrangement, Ontario taxpayers would have to pay for their own program and in addition would pay the federal government $225 million. As the cost of the federal program increased, Ontario residents would pay more to support the program. In the meantime, it must be expected that our own provincial program costs would rise, so there was no way that we could win: we could only lose-and that was blackmail, pure and simple.
The formula established for Ontario, after we were forced into the federal program, was a complicated one designed to reduce the amount of federal participation in what was supposed to be a straightforward 50-50 arrangement. The formula was tied to the average growth of the gross national product and, as we all know, the GNP has not been rising at anything like the projected rate of growth. For instance, in the case of hospital insurance- which is considered the high-cost area-the federal participation was 25 per cent of the national average, plus 25 per cent of actual cost. It worked out to an actual federal participation in shared costs which was below the actual costs of operating the program. Instead of receiving 50 per cent from the federal government, we ended up with 40 per cent.
At a conference of provincial health ministers in Victoria in August, 1975, the ministers arrived at a consensus that a fair sharing of the costs of medicare between the provinces and the federal government was essential to the maintenance and improvement of health services in Canada. Yet we find that the federal government has been scaling down its own share of the cost of these services and now it has announced that it wants out of medicare costsharing. This is a strange attitude on the part of the federal government in view of the fact that this cost-sharing program was imposed on the provinces in the first place, and in view of the fact that most, if not all, of the provinces entered into the federal program reluctantly. At the time of the Victoria conference the ministers called on the federal government to continue discussions of more acceptable financial arrangements with the provinces and to reverse its decision to introduce Bill C-68.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, we find that the federal government discontinued discussions altogether and introduced Bill C-68 without consultation with the provinces. One of the reasons cited for the government's wish to ease out of shared-cost medicare is that the cost of the program has been rising at an unacceptable rate. Last year the cost of the program increased slightly more than 16 per cent over the cost of the previous year: the federal government's estimates last year were 16 per cent over those of the previous year. This year's estimates are 16 per cent over last year's, and could run to more than 20 per cent.
Last year, the professional journal Medical Post warned that the federal government's decision to cut back on its own contributions to medicare could raise the very basic question as to how much influence economics should have in deciding the availability and quality of medical care for Canadians. That question is being raised right now in the form of Bill C-68. The federal government plans to convene a conference with the provincial ministers of health in the

March 2, 1976
Medical Care Act
near future to discuss the roles of the federal and provincial governments with respect to how medicare programs should be funded in the future. At least, that is what we have been led to believe. The fact is that the conference should have been held before, and not after, Bill C-68 was introduced, and if a consensus could not be reached in one conference then there should have been several conferences.
Over the past year we have heard that the government's position on shared-cost of medicare is not negotiable. I suggest this is the reason for the lack of consultation on this important issue. What the Medical Post warned against has happened. The federal government has resolved the issue of medicare for Canadians to a question of pure economics.
Mr. Speaker, the provinces and the federal government have had enough experiences with medicare and hospital insurance by now to be able to assess these programs on the basis of real data. We have found out where the areas of high cost are and we have already begun to find ways to deal with these high-cost items. But before we can even start to explore these new avenues the government declares the it wants out of the scheme and that its decision is non-negotiable.
We have arrived at a point where it is more important than ever for the provinces and the federal government to sit down and talk turkey about shared-cost medicare. We have learned in the past few years that the major causes of the high cost of medicare and hospital insurance are hospitals themselves and doctors. The high capital cost of building hospitals, plus the cost of maintaining them, is one major area of high medicare costs. We have also found that there are many thousands of people being treated as inpatients in hospitals who can receive the same treatment in clinics and doctors' offices. Some provinces, including Ontario, have already taken steps to correct this situation and thereby reduce the cost of maintaining hospitals, while at the same time maintaining adequate service and treatment.
The other area of highest cost in medicare is doctors. In fact, the cost of doctors' services has been pinpointed as the major item of cost in medicare, and the solution to this problem is much more complex and complicated than in the case of hospitals. We cannot simply say that we are going to limit the number of doctors coming into the profession or that we are going to eliminate a certain number already practising.
It has been estimated that the cost of introducing a trained and qualified doctor into the medical profession is far greater than to introduce a person into any of the other professions. I am talking, of course, about the expense to the public. For instance, it is estimated that the cost to the public for a new physician entering the profession is approximately $50,000 for his services, plus another $100,000 for in-patient hospital care, laboratory services and other services. There is another $100,000 of public expense connected with the training of the physician, which includes internship and specialization in our hospitals.
When we think about reducing the number of doctors entering the profession, we must weigh this against the

danger of reducing availability of health care to our people. The problem of too many or too few doctors varies from province to province, and even from area to area within provinces. So we just cannot adopt a policy aimed at reducing the number of doctors in active practice or the number of doctors participating in medicare and say that this is the solution. It might work for a few months or a year, and then we would probably find ourselves with a shortage of doctors at a time when we need more of them.
It has been suggested that the federal government should place some restrictions on the number of doctors emigrating to Canada. It has been proven that in recent years the influx of doctors to Canada has placed restrictions on the number of qualified young Canadians who want to enter our medical schools. In fact, there is a direct connection between the number of trained doctors entering Canada each year and the number of Canadians who are allowed to enter medical school. I do not know whether the restriction on doctors entering the country would be the answer, or even part of the answer, but I do know that this question cannot be answered in any way except by direct consultation between the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the provincial health ministers and experts from the medical profession. We can arrive at a satisfactory solution to this problem, but it cannot be found if the federal government simply throws up its hands and tells the provinces that they will have to go it alone.
I should like to read into the record part of the statement made by my colleague, the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), as follows:
It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that opposition to Bill C-68 is not restricted to the provincial governments, but that such groups as the Canadian Medical Association and the ten provincial medical associations stand firmly against it. The Canadian Medical Association takes the justifiable position that these arbitrary budget controls will produce definite hazards for Canada's health care delivery system. They state that the budget controls will have the effect of restricting the availability of health care to the point at which it would have to be rationed. Obviously such an action could endanger the quality of medical services available to Canadians.
In a letter to the minister, a letter which has apparently been ignored, Dr. L. C. Grisdale, President of the Canadian Medical Association, says: "The permanent cost increase ceilings proposed will result in the rationing of medical care; the cost increase ceilings will inhibit, if not prohibit, the introduction of new medical procedures and make it impossible for them to be made available to all Canadians who would benefit from them. This will be particularly true for those Canadians who live in less wealthy provinces-frequently those areas where improvements in the health care delivery system are most needed.
The effect on the 'have-not' provinces is particularly significant. Since the introduction of medicare, these provinces with less developed health care systems have benefited from the federal-provincial cost sharing formula. The imposition of a ceiling on federal contributions will deprive these less wealthy provinces of further opportunity to improve the level of medical services in their communities. It will be impossible to evolve a uniform program of equitable availability and quality."
I think those remarks are very significant. We have arrived at a point in medicare where we are all going to have to get our heads together and work out the problems which have come up, and these will have to be solved in a way which will enable us to provide a level of medicare which is at least as good as that we have now, and in some ways we must make it even better. I am disappointed that the government has elected to make a decision on medicare

based on economics and without consulting more with the provinces. We in Ontario had medicare before we were drawn into the federal scheme, and if we have to, we can still operate our own system.
However, there are other provinces which cannot provide the same level of service on their own. It is for that reason more than any other that I urge the government to withdraw Bill C-68 until we have had an opportunity to hold discussions among the federal and provincial governments on the problems facing the system, and until we have had a chance to work out a solution to the problem of the escalation of the cost of medicare.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to have this opportunity to make a contribution to the debate today relating to Bill C-68, and also to add a perspective to this debate which I think is somewhat unique from the discussions which have previously taken place. If it is in order to do so, I should like to build a case and to share some of the cultural and historical differences there are between our native peoples and then to come back to show how this bill relates quite specifically to what is happening to the health of the Inuit or Eskimo people and the Indian people. While I respect some of the comments made by the parliamentary secretary-specifically, that the health standards in this country are high- the native community is one situation in which just the reverse is taking place. In fact, the health standards of our native people are becoming poorer rather than better.
As I go along today, I should like to illustrate why their health situation is becoming poorer and why some of the emphasis of Bill C-68 ought to take into special consideration the plight of our native people and the northern communities. I do not take an out-of-hand objection to the desire of the federal government to cut back on its contributions to health care, but certainly one or two questions which ought to be asked with regard to our health standards are: is the present standard satisfactory, and are the provinces in a position to pay? As has been mentioned, for the last two decades conditions in the north have become considerably worse. The native Indian death rate is three times that of the rest of society. In addition, the health of native people is the responsibility of the federal government.
So far, the debate has really dealt with relationships with the provinces, and closely tied to that is the fact that in that unique area where the federal government is solely responsible for health there is the least success. I am sure the parliamentary secretary will agree that the higher the income of our native and Eskimo people, the lower their health standards. I think that it will soon become clear with the realization that the better off natives are beginning to adopt some of our Caucasian lifestyles. There is a considerable difference between the foods of their cultural past and the new foods which are being supplied to them. Far too often, when Canadians in southern Canada reflect on the north, they think of issues such as land claims, offshore drilling and the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. What we fail to think about is the people themselves. Their lifestyle has been established across generations; they have an established diet and standard of health. The very rapid change that is taking place today has but a tremendous effect on their diet and subsequently their standard of
Medical Care Act
health. In building the case for special consideration in this debate, I should like to point out some of the reasons why their standard of health is much poorer today in the north than it was two decades ago.
In the past, the native peoples in the north acquired heat and energy for their bodies from the walrus, the beaver and seal oil blubber which all supplied energy and protein. Today these are mostly obtained through sugar and lard. The growth and repair of body tissue in the past depended on fish, caribou, seal, walrus, moose and bear. Today the source is weiners and commercial brand-name meats such as Spork and Klik. The regulatory functions of the body depended on vitamin C, which came from the caribou. Muktuk was part of the diet. Fish was very high in vitamin C, particularly when it was eaten frozen. Plant and vegetable materials were obtained from the stomachs of caribou and rabbits. When they accepted the white man's diet, the Indian and Eskimo peoples of the north did not adopt his use of vegetables so high incidence of scurvy is beginning to show up.
The method of cooking has contributed to the deterioration of their health. For example, the vitamin C in fish was not destroyed by freezing, but when fish are boiled or made into soup the vitamin C is reduced, and it is almost totally destroyed through frying or baking. When the fish was frozen at 20 degrees Fahrenheit for 48 hours, the tapeworm larvae were killed. One thing we notice today is that the native people have trouble with bleeding gums, an early sign of scurvy. According to Dr. Schaffer, who has been working in the north, between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of Indian adults at the present time are a high risk for scurvy, and between 50 per cent and 80 per cent of Eskimos are a high risk for scurvy as well.
The purpose of the bill before us is to cut down federal health contributions. The native community is an area in which the federal government has sole responsibility, but it has a shameful record regarding the people of the north. In the past, those people ate berries, seaweed, small plants and the vegetable contents from the stomachs of caribou and rabbit which gave them an aedquate vitamin and mineral intake. They had good, solid teeth, as the early explorers observed. From the sources I have mentioned, they got vitamins A, C and D. But today people in the communities, particularly those close to active white settlements, display a vitamin deficiency because of the change in their diet. The government ought not to be talking about cutting back but, rather, increasing its concern. It is of paramount importance that something be done to increase the amount of vitamin C in the diet of our native people. Perhaps we will have to arrange that oranges or other citrus fruits be made readily available for the northern children.
Another change in the'traditional customs of the northern people deals with breast-feeding. Two decades ago Eskimo infants were breast-fed and received supplements of fish and meat for as long as three years. This certainly slowed down the rate of increase of the family group. Today, with the introduction of cow's milk into the diet- which is not so easily digestible-they lack the antibodies which come from the mother's milk and there is a consequent increase in the number of childhood diseases. This is

March 2, 1976
Medical Care Act
another area on which the government should focus. I mentioned the increase in the birth rate. In 1950 the rate was 40 per 1,000. Today this has increased to 64 per 1,000. A study of children raised on cow's milk, compared to those raised in the traditional manner on mother's milk, shows a six to ten times increase in middle-ear infection and a 10 to 15 times increase in the incidence of anaemia.
Madam Speaker, the standard of health of those people, who are the direct responsibility of the federal government, lags far behind those for whom the province has direct responsibility. One of the things that must enter into any discussion of Bill C-68 is the deplorable health standards among our native people. To be constructive, may I suggest that the federal government intensify its efforts to disseminate information on nutrition in the north. There should be more nutritionists who could promote safe diet patterns when people change from their traditional foods. As an example, look at what has happened with the introduction of sugar to the diet of the northern people. Traditionally, they did not use sugar at all, but that has changed markedly.
At present, an average native person would use something like 13A cups of sugar per day through sugar in coffee, candy, cheesies, cookies and cakes and all of the sweets associated with the white man's diet. The deplorable fact arising from this is that the once traditionally sound teeth they had are now amongst the worst in North America. Anyone who visits northern communities and sees young children with mouths full of rotten teeth can understand what has happened to their society. They would not have been able to survive in the past had their teeth been in such poor condition. The change has been brought about by the white culture, and the responsibility in a health sense lies with the federal government.
In essence, this bill aims to let the federal government pull back on its health services. I submit that there is every reason to increase health care expenditures, not cut back. For example, in the last 20 years tooth decay in northern communities has increased by 160 per cent. So severe is the incidence of swollen gums and rotting teeth that the 15 dentists serving 1,500,000 miles of the Northwest Territories cannot possibly cope. About all they can do is pull out painful teeth; they have no time for fillings or other treatment. The standard of dental health in our northern communities is deplorable, possibly one of the lowest in North America, and dentists simply do not have time to undertake necessary treatment.
For the native people's poor dental health, is a result of their contact with the white man's culture. We are interested in pipelines, oil, gas and minerals in the north. Unfortunately, our government does not focus its attention on the other aspect of the equation, the health of the native peoples. While we may have every right to be interested in the resources of the north, the native peoples have every right to expect an associated response; in other words, health care for our native peoples of the north. Instead of cutting back money for health services, why does the government not set up a program whereby third of fourth year dental students will do part of their training in northern communities?

Even if dental students were to work in far northern communities, the problem would still remain large. It is hard to explain how terrible the situation is. I submit that mine is a reasonable request. Perhaps these young dentists could be called the Company of Responsible Canadians- which would be an act counter to the Liberal tradition.
To summarize, the change of diet, related to the influx of the white man and the white man's culture in the north, has adversely affected many northern communities. For that reason we must give more attention to northern communities. For example, consider the situation with regard to diabetes. The number of cases is up three fold from that of ten years ago. The Eskimo diet changed in the 1950s and 1960s from one containing almost no sugar to one containing between 70 and 130 pounds of sugar per year. Consider cholesterol-related diseases. There has been a fivefold increase in the incidence of calcification of leg arteries and a considerable increase in heart ailments, something virtually unheard of in Eskimo communities when the explorers first came across them some hundreds of years ago. Consider the situation with regard to obesity. This is becoming a problem, particularly among men and women from 18 to 40 years of age living in or near white settlements. It is not a noticeable problem among natives who practice the traditional lifestyles of the Eskimo culture.
Consider the incidence of gall bladder disease. This has become one of the most serious diseases affecting North American Indians and Eskimos. In Inuvik, gall bladder operations outnumbered all other operations in the past five years. Until recently, gall bladder disease was virtually unknown among Eskimo peoples.
Let me summarize the needs of the north. Instead of cutting back funds for medical services, the government ought to increase funds. Certainly, proposing a bill to cut back expenditures in an area where the federal government has sole responsibility is unacceptable. The record of the government has been absolutely deplorable. Here, I wish to make three suggestions which ought to be taken seriously. First, there is a need to increase greatly the number of nutritionists providing nutritional education in northern communities. They could help the native peoples of the area to adapt to the new lifestyle and to the new diet. I say this because their traditional diet gave them a sound body. At present they are inadequately nourished and consequently are among the most deprived people in Canada.
Second, the federal government should spend much more money providing dental care to people in northern communities. Virtually every child is afflicted with cavities, often a whole mouthful, a situation virtually unknown decades ago: cavities were unheard of in Eskimo communities in times gone by. Third, the Department of National Health and Welfare should assume some responsibility in connection with the development of Canada's north. I say this for a good reason. It is irresponsible of the federal government to encourage activities like the building of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline and the drilling for offshore oil in the north without at the same time making provision for the health care needs of native peoples who will be affected by the change of diet resulting from their encounter with the white man. It is irresponsible not to assume the costs of health problems of our native peoples while reap-

ing the rewards from northern resources. We cannot expect to have the advantages of exploration and development without assuming the responsibilities for health. I hope the parliamentary secretary will heed my suggestions and I hope that the federal government will take its responsibilities for the native peoples seriously and implement my suggestions.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am most impressed by what the hon. member had to say, and I hope that the theme of health care of native peoples will be developed extensively in committee. Would the hon. member permit a question? From his experience, can he judge whether native health conditions are worse on Indian reservations than off the reservations? What is his experience in that regard?


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I am not sure if I can give an adequate, researched response to the hon. member. I assume the hon. member is talking about conditions in the provinces, not necessarily in the north. However, data relating to northern communities shows this: the closer the proximity of native peoples to white culture, the worse is their condition of health. The situation in the provinces is somewhat different. For example, hitherto native peoples seldom ate vegetables. Now, after a somewhat lengthy transition, in many cases they include vegetables in their diet. I am afraid I cannot respond from a researched study, but the data I possess I will gladly share with the hon. member.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, a few days ago a Liberal backbencher asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) what the minister intended to do about hospital closings in Ontario. That was a worthy question which did the hon. member credit. But the answer did not do the minister credit. The minister replied that he could do nothing since the hon. member knew very well that the matter was within provincial jurisdiction. That illustrates the fraudulent attitude to which we object. Surely the minister knows that cutting back on the federal contribution to medicare will affect the ability of the provinces to provide services. He cannot avoid his responsibilities by saying that something is under provincial jurisdiction. Obviously, the provinces depend heavily on federal funds to carry out their responsibilities. Whether this should be so is beside the point.
Perhaps it would be well to recall the time when this measure was first debated in the House. When the federal government put a very heavy hand on the provinces in order to get them into universal programs, whether hospital insurance or medical care insurance, they in fact made an implied guarantee for the future that those costs would be shared. By taking the position they are taking on this particular bill, they are reneging on their promise to the provinces. They are breaking the word of parliament. I know that legislation is not forever. Taxation is not forever and cost-sharing is not forever. We understand this. However, they asked the provinces with good reason. I certainly supported the program, as did most members, that there should be a universal, compulsory medical system throughout Canada. This is something those of us
Medical Care Act
who took part in the decision can be proud of. However, we cannot be proud of what the government is now doing.
I can appreciate that some of the costs are escalating. Most of the medical program in Canada is very worthy. It is not being abused. In comparison to other countries, our costs really are not high. When you compare the costs in Canada with those in the United States, we are doing extremely well in supplying services to people at a moderate amount of money. There are areas that have to be tightened up. Nobody argues that. However, doing it in this heavy-handed way and with this degree of arbitrariness is wrong, particularly when the federal government and the provinces are going to be meeting shortly and discussing these matters.
In listening to the arguments put forward by the government, one would assume the provinces do not have any interest in the economy. The provinces have a great interest in the economy. Even with cost-sharing, 50 per cent of the cost has to be raised by the provinces. Frankly, with the exception of a few provinces the 50 per cent the province has to raise is far more difficult for them, in terms of their ability to command tax revenues, than it is for the federal government. The provinces want to eliminate some of the abuses in the system and some of the overuse that is taking place. However, they do not want to do that in the way the federal government is proposing, saying, "We are going to put a ceiling on you and you are going to have to live with it." I am sure that given the kind of constraints that are facing the provinces, the expenditures would probably be within those ceilings that the federal government thinks are desirable.
It is not too late for the government to show some common sense in this matter. We already have enough problems in this country. There are situations when the federal government probably has no choice but to confront the provinces. There are probably instances when the provinces have no choice but to confront the federal government. However, surely this is one matter where the provinces and the federal government are not far apart except in a few areas under negotiation.
This is an area where the federal government can back off with grace. Nobody will laugh at the federal government. Nobody will say they did this because they have a minority government, or the opposition or someone else forced them to do it. As the federal government will be meeting with the provincial governments, it would be a gesture of good will and intelligence on their part to defer any action they are proposing in this bill until after the meetings with the provincial governments.
Many of our problems in this country seem to be created by pure pigheadedness rather than any inherent differences between the people involved. One of the reasons the members of my party have kept this debate going for this period of time is to try to persuade the government to see this particular point of view. It would make a great deal of sense for them to accept the arguments being put forward by the opposition-and, I am sure, the arguments of some of their own members-and defer this legislation until they have had the opportunity of meeting with the provinces.

March 2, 1976
Medical Care Act
The message from the voters of Canada is certainly clear to all governments in this country. Every expenditure has to be carefully monitored. No matter how worthy a service may be, everyone is becoming quite cost-conscious and efficiency-conscious about those services. It should not be difficult to get an agreement on restraint regarding the expansion of medical services to the extent that some of these things are being abused.
I want to make this quite clear. All of us have experience with various government programs. If there is one government program that is not being greatly abused, it is medical services. On the whole, it is probably one of the finest programs in which the federal and provincial governments have ever engaged. As members of parliament, we encounter abuses of public services. In my experience, people do not rush off for medical services if they do not need them. We have a good program. In my view, it is one of the best in the world. If you look around, you will see that our medical service program stacks up with any country with which Canada traditionally compares itself.
With the possible exception of Great Britain-and there are some flaws and approaches in their system that are not quite as good as ours-our program is as good or better than any. In Japan, the coverage is not universal. Of the 105 million people living in Japan, while they are covered by some kind of health insurance they are covered under systems with important differences. You do not get the universality or the good standard of service that you get throughout this country. Germany was the first country in Europe to bring in a national health scheme. However, in that country there are still eight types of health insurance funds and some 1,800 administrators of those funds. While it may be a very workable system-and I am sure all these systems are workable-it still does not compare with the simplicity of our system. Great Britain does not have a fee-for-service system. While there are some benefits to their system, our fee-for-service system, even with its faults, has proven to give satisfactory service to the people who use it.
Australia is as rich a country as Canada. They can certainly afford a public health insurance program of the same extent as ours. However, you still do not get the universal coverage in the Australian system that is available in this country. In Belgium, not all the population is covered. There is a distinct system for the self-employed and at least 2,000 societies administering medical health services in that country.
As for Sweden, which we often point to as an example for some programs, our own medical system is in many ways superior to the Swedish system, at least from the Canadian point of view. Ours is more appropriate, perhaps, to the Canadian system than to the Swedish system. Switzerland, where there are 23 per cent compulsorily covered, includes in its health insurance about 66 per cent voluntarily, and the scheme is administered by 750 sickness insurance funds. The question of catastrophic coverage is still a debatable and political issue in Switzerland. In Denmark you have counties and communes which are administering the health insurance program. New Zealand has a fine system. I had an opportunity of seeing it years

ago, but it still does not provide the same kind of universal coverage as the Canadian system does.
The point of my saying these things is to strengthen the argument I am making. Of all the things we have done in this country, one of the finest has been to bring in the medical insurance program. Why we should take that which is really excellent, which is working remarkably well, despite its problems-there are always going to be problems in any kind of scheme-why we should take this thing which should be our pride and joy and seek to destroy it is beyond me. It will not be destroyed in the sense that it will come unstuck, but certainly the confidence in the system, the great rapport which has existed between the provinces and the federal government, is shaken now. The provinces are angry, and they are angry with justification. They have put forward alternative programs but these have been rejected by the federal government. They argue that they are trying to be reasonable, that they are trying to go along with the general purpose of what the government wants, only to be told in a very heavy-handed manner, "No, we are going to impose these things on you and you can sort of take it or leave it." I think that is wrong and it will not do the medical services in this country any good.
All of us are concerned about nationalism in this country. We are concerned about Canadian identity, and some of us think that Canadian identity is a flag, a national anthem or perhaps, different foods, pea soup or maple syrup, whatever it may be.


Mr. Paproski:: Holopchi!


Max Saltsman: But that is not what national identity is really all about. Holopchi-a very, very good national identity. The hon. member from the Ukraine has mentioned it. If I digress for a moment, Madam Speaker, the Hansard reporter may wonder how you spell "holopchi." I would sit down if the hon. member would rise and clarify the question of spelling of "holopchi." They are very delicious cabbage rolls-the Anglo-Saxons over there call them cabbage rolls, but we know better. They have imposed an enormous burden on the medical services of this country, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Max Saltsman: It would probably make greater sense to restrain the consumption of holopchi than to do what the government is doing at the moment, if they are interested in cutting costs. However, Madam Speaker, if I might proceed in a somewhat more frivolous way than the serious discussion that has just taken place, let me say that nationalism to all of us is important and the Canadian identity is important. While we have been joking about holopchi, it is certainly a very great part of our heritage.
When you consider the phenomenal contribution which has been made to this country by people who have come from other parts of the world, from eastern Europe, from India and from many, many parts of the world, it is evident that they have enriched our country. When we talk about identity we are not talking about setting ourselves apart from the Germans or setting ourselves apart from the French on the continent, or setting ourselves apart

from the English in Great Britain. They are far away and their cultural differences are very much their own.
It is the United States that we really are concerned about, that great country to the south of us with a population 10 or 11 times our own and a corresponding proportion of wealth. This makes life very difficult for smaller nations which speak the same language and share many of the same cultural underpinnings but which yet feel themselves different. If you ask yourself what is it that makes us different, or what it is that wants us to be different, you have to look at programs such as medicare. The time you really become conscious of being a Canadian and how valuable it is to be a Canadian-how much nicer it is to be a Canadian sometimes-is when you run into medical costs in the United States and you have to go through the hassle of trying to get payment or trying to get service under their private medical schemes. That is when you say, "I never knew it was that difficult." Of course, those of us who remember what it was like before medicare knew it was quite difficult. It is extremely difficult in the United States in comparison to Canada.
I often listen with pride when an American comes to this country and for some reason or another has to go to the hospital, or has to see a doctor or has occasion to observe someone who is requiring medical treatment in this country, and remarks how wonderfully we have worked out the sharing of the responsibility for health insurance. It is really something that sets us apart from the United States. It is things like that, it is the way we do things, the way we share things, the way we agree on things that establish us as a separate cultural entity.
The United States over all these years, with their greater wealth, have not been able to get agreement about a national medicare program. Out of necessity they have been obliged to bring in programs to look after some of the old, some of the very ill and some of the poor ill, but in many ways you would wonder that a country like the United States would have such an incredible patchwork of medical services and such an unfair and costly distribution of those services. It is for reasons of that kind that I oppose any action which would downgrade medical services in this country and destroy the consensus which has developed about our medical services.
I listened in the earlier part of the debate to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), my former leader, a man respected not only by those of us who sit in this corner of the House but by members on both sides of this chamber. I am sure that every Canadian, no matter what his political inclination might be, is proud of him. One of the reasons he will go down in the history of this country is that the province which he led, a province which is not the richest in the country, brought in a medical care program, the first in North America. We have much for which to thank the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. When he took part in the debate, he spoke to this House with passion and with knowledge, pleading with the government that they should not impede the progress of medicare in this country. If for no other reason than respect for this great achievement of my hon. friend, I believe the government should give additional thought to what it is doing.
Medical Care Act
I have spoken to health officials in the province of Manitoba. They recognize the need for restraint. They said they are willing to go along with the federal government on that score, though they have proposals which may reduce the federal government's financial contribution to the provincial governments if they are accepted. They have in mind a change in hospitalization from, let us say, a straight doctor-patient relationship to other forms of medical care that may provide far greater benefits for a given amount of money.
The time has now come when, with the medicare program firmly established, we should start looking at other ways of delivering health services for the future. We should begin to anticipate health programs rather than deal with them on an emergency basis. In the early days of medicare we did not have much choice. Before the introduction of medicare a goodly part of the population had not received the medical services and attention which it really needed and was entitled to get. We have had to do a lot of catching up; we have had to'build facilities and provide medical services to the public, and we are now approaching the stage where these matters are not as urgent as they once were. Greater thought should be given to the implications of the Hall report concerning the prevention of illness. They envisaged people braving periodic checks that would prevent serious illness developing and having to be treated at a much higher cost and at much greater risk to the patient.
Medicare has done a great deal for the population of this country, but I think it can continue to be improved. I am sure all of us are quite prepared to find a better use for the money that is being apportioned to medical services. I do not think this can be done in the arbitrary manner set out in this bill, that of saying, "This is going to be the ceiling. Operate within it. If you don't, you are in trouble". I am not saying that cutbacks cannot be made in this form, but whether they prove to be the best kind of cutback or whether the highest costs will be eliminated, no one knows. Nevertheless, it is not as good a way as sitting down and discussing with the provinces a more intelligent approach, one that gives the provinces time to work the matter out as well as the opportunity of putting forward some of their own ideas.
I do not anticipate that the federal government will receive much credit for what they are doing. I know it is very easy to attune oneself to the public mood and to say that the public wants us to cut government expenditure. But let me reiterate what many members on the government side said during the last election. Every time a Conservative raised the question of cutting back on government expenditure, you could always find a Liberal who would say, "Okay; tell us which expenditures you want us to cut". He would go on to say, "Do you want us to cut medicare?" The Conservatives would say, "No, we want you to cut Information Canada".


Steve Eugene Paproski: Petro-Can.


Mr. Yewchuk:: And the CBC.


Max Saltsman: All right. The point being made by all my hon. friends who are helping me out at the moment, the
11430

March 2, 1976
Adjournment Motion
one thing all of us can agree on, is that we did not want to cut medicare. Some of those who now support medicare did not support it initially, or they had reservations about it or some alternative. But the point is that there is really no opposition today to the medicare program in this country. There may be criticism of it, as there always will be on some specifics, but as far as the general value of the program is concerned, and apart from the fact that the federal government should live up to its responsibilities, there is no serious criticism of medicare; and this was true even during the election campaign.
In view of the fact that, of all the programs we have, medicare is one of the most universally accepted programs by all sections of society, this is sufficient and good reason for the government to listen to the views of members of the House, to think again about what it is doing and to wait until the federal-provincial conference takes place before passing this bill. If the government does this, I am sure it will appear to be more sensitive than is the general impression at the moment-and it can use all the good impressions it can garner. As far as this point is concerned, the government is certainly not in the best position at the moment.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave)-National Defence-Possible opening of Suffield range for grazing; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacK-ay)-Consumer Affairs-Request for report on investigation of duty-free shops-Reason for warning to consumers about purchases at duty-free shops; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) National Defence-Request for redeployment of air and sea rescue forces in Atlantic region.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to the order made last Friday, February 27, 1976, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.
[Mr. Saltsman.j


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my understanding that there is agreement on the bill with which we are to proceed at the present time.


Mr. Goodale:: Mr. Speaker, I understand it has been agreed to proceed with Bill C-272 at this time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: D'accord.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that all other bills preceding this bill on the order paper be stood and that we proceed with consideration of Bill C-272, appearing in the name of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before proceeding with consideration of Bill C-272, I feel I should inform hon. members that the Chair has some hesitation about the procedural acceptability of the bill. Although the mover, the hon. member for Laprairie, might argue that the proposal is more permissive than mandatory or compulsory, I feel that this type of proposal should better be put in the form of a notice of motion than a bill.
It is the opinion of the Chair that if the full purpose of Bill C-272 were achieved, which is to create an authority to advise the government to reach an agreement with the government of the United States, and if such an agreement came about, in the end it would involve an expenditure of millions of dollars. So, indirectly, the bill, although it does not do so directly, could create the need for a substantial expenditure of money and thus be a burden on the Crown.
Because of the agreement hon. members have reached so far as proceeding with this bill is concerned, and also because similar bills have been debated in this House in the past, I am prepared at this time to let the House proceed with the consideration of this bill, but not without registering a caveat about border line bills of this type which to my mind should be in the form of notices of motions rather than bills.
I do not want these proceedings to be taken as a precedent for the future to be used by hon. members for the presentation of similar bills. I think the Chair must become more meticulous in looking at such bills, especially bills which would allow the government, advise, permit or suggest but which at the same time indirectly would have some money implications. This being said, I shall put the motion to the House for debate.


Mr. Corbin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I tend to agree with the reservations you have expressed concerning the content and purpose of this bill. I

must say that indirectly it is an attempt to do what it does not have the courage to do directly, which is wheeling and dealing. I do not particularly favour the bill, but I must say, although I agree with your reservations, I am prepared to discuss it. However, I certainly do not intend to let it go through tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must say to the hon. member that the Chair had decided to let the bill come to a debate, with all the reservations I have given. I do not know that hon. members should be allowed to question the Chair, disagree with the Chair or support the Chair at this time, so I think we should proceed.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie) moved: that Bill C-272, to provide for the establishment of a Canada-Alaska and Maine Corridors Authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak very briefly to the point of order. If you are shaking your head, I shall not do it; but it seems to me that the bill refers only to the creation of an authority which would not involve the expenditure of money. I would argue this is one method which members of parliament have to bring matters to the attention of the House and the Canadian public which is not limited in the way motions are limited. We are allowed only one motion per session. This is another way of doing it. I really feel there should be no restriction on the format.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not wish to argue with the hon. member. He is entitled, if he can get together with other hon. members, to have the rules of the House revised. In the meantime, I would suggest he proceed with discussion of the bill.


Ian Watson: Bill C-272, to provide for the establishment of a Canada-Alaska and Maine Corridors Authority, has as its purpose the finding of a solution to a major transportation problem affecting Canada by means of an international pact between Canada and the United States of America. The idea is that the government of the United States would agree to pay the full cost and maintenance of a highway corridor running from the Quebec eastern townships autoroute at the Quebec border across Maine and/or New Hampshire to link up with the New Brunswick highway system somewhere in southwestern New Brunswick.


An hon. Member:: Where?


Ian Watson: That would be left to negotiations between the parties, who would necessarily be the two senior governments as well as the state governments of Maine and perhaps New Hampshire and the provincial governments of New Brunswick and Quebec.
In return for the assumption by the government of the United States of all the costs relating to that highway across the top of Maine, the Canadian government would agree to spend an equal amount of money on upgrading the Alaska Highway which lies within its territory, mostly within the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia and the Yukon Territory. This suggestion combines the proposal, which has been made by a number of members which involves the creation of an Alaska High-
Canada-Alaska and Maine Corridors way Authority to provide for the funnelling of substantial funds into that highway, with a formula that would provide for the solution of the eastern problem of transport and vehicular communication within the Canadian maritime provinces.
While at first glance this may seem to be a bit farfetched, I would argue that it is totally reasonable and rational. I cannot understand why the federal government has not given this more serious consideration than it has until now. This is not a proposal, as some members would have the public believe, to have the Alaska Highway paved. The amount of money that would be involved in paving the Alaska Highway is indeed an astronomical amount which far outclasses the amount of expenditure the United States government would be required to spend on the Maine highway.
What is needed on the Alaska Highway now, within Canada, is the rebuilding of approximately 300 to 400 miles of that highway and the paving of portions of it in populated areas. The government of Canada is going to have to do this anyway in the next few years. That necessary expenditure would in itself surpass what the American government would spend on the Maine highway, so all that would happen would be that by making that sort of arrangement with the United States, we would do what we must necessarily do in the way of repair on the Alaska Highway in the next few years and the American government would then have a legitimate excuse to go into Maine, spend money on that highway and build a highway of interstate standards. This would not set a precedent for funding elsewhere in the United States. It would be of benefit in a number of ways, which I will now argue, not only to the tourist-minded public of eastern Canada but it would also be of enormous benefit to a substantial population of the northeastern United States.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It would fulfil the promise the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made in 1972.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't kill the bill.


Ian Watson: Probably one of the strongest arguments for this corridor would be that it would promote Canadian unity. Imagine the difference in the tourist business in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland if it were possible to drive from Montreal to Prince Edward Island in less than a day. Imagine the difference if we could drive from Toronto, if we got up early enough in the morning, to Prince Edward Island in one day. This is just not practical now unless we want to drive day and night. If this highway is built across Maine, within reasonable speed limits it would be possible to arrive in Prince Edward Island after approximately a nine to ten-hour drive from Montreal. This is the kind of estimate which is always a guess, but it is reasonable to assume that if people do not have to stop overnight, and if they can be assured of getting down to the beach after one day's drive, not just a doubling, but a tripling or quadrupling of the number of potential tourists would be available to supply business to maritime tourist operators.
21419 - 31)4

March 2, 1976
Canada-Alaska and Maine Corridors
Hon. members who oppose this idea represent their areas well when they make their arguments and I respect their judgment when they say that this sort of proposal would be harmful to their areas. My counterargument to those points is simply that 20 years ago people in small towns opposed the building of highways bypassing their towns out of fear that this would cause a loss of general business in the towns. As these people were proven wrong when these highways eventually brought business to those towns and relieved them of traffic congestion, I argue that the suggested bypassing of the area from Riviere du Loup down through New Brunswick by the highway system would be more than replaced in its effect upon the tourist economy of the area by the large increase in the number of tourists that would be brought into the area. And, knowing the uncertainties of maritime weather, once people get down there the good weather is unlikely to last for more than a few days and these people will be breaking off their vacation somewhere along the way and taking their time coming back.
The important thing is to get people down there. Once they are down there, they will wander all over the mari-times and they will be into northern New Brunswick and Gaspe in much larger numbers than they are now. The entire economy of the maritimes would benefit from a tourist business point of view by the construction of such a highway.
There is now a further argument which has become increasingly important. I would certainly like to be able to produce it here in the House today, but I cannot put my hand on the document. However, a few years ago-I believe it was in 1971-the Department of Transport made a study of the truck transport saving which would result from the construction of such a highway. If my memory serves me well, at that time the potential saving was in the area of $20 million to $30 million per year. With gasoline costs more than double what they were at that time, and with the prospect of their being much higher within the near future, the potential saving in energy to the transport industry in Canada is enormous. That argument is quite apart from the tourist argument, but it would be a sufficient argument for this kind of corridor.
As maritime administrators continually point out, tourism is a major industry down there. Surely a proposal which would double, triple or quadruple the number of tourists going to that region should deserve a much more interested look from the federal authorities and, as a matter of fact, the authorities from those provinces. Everyone seems to be sitting on his hands. I have had a little correspondence recently with the Department of Transport and the kind of reaction I get is one of total ignorance of this earlier report. In fact, according to the most recent information which I received, such a report simply does not exist-although I saw it-and the argument would seem to be that the Department of Transport simply says that such a proposal would not be economic. The kind of reply I got was based on the paving of the Alaska Highway, which has never been part of my proposal. Paving the Alaska Highway over its entire length at this time does not make sense and I doubt if it ever will. As I said earlier, the idea is simply doing what we already must do by way of repair to that highway, perhaps at an accelerated pace, in

return for the American government spending "X" number of dollars on the Maine highway.
Presumably there are a few side issues here. Some mari-timers conceivably might feel more exposed to upper Canadian commerce, but I argue that competitive maritime business operators would benefit enormously from the decrease in transportation costs to central Canada. There are a certain number of protests in Maine every summer about speeding Canadian tourists, and presumably that source of friction could be eliminated.
Another consideration that I say is a major one for members like the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) is the potential of such a system requiring the federal government to sponsor new national parks. If northern New Brunswick were shown to be deprived of tourists by such a project, for example, it would then be incumbent upon the federal government to provide more attractions in the area such as, perhaps, another national park.
The basic fear is that if the traffic is taken off the roads, everybody in the area east of Quebec City down through northern New Brunswick will suffer. I am totally convinced that this would not happen, but that the long-term result would be highly beneficial to all the maritimes. Even those areas immediately affected by the decrease in commercial traffic would benefit at almost the same time because of the large numbers of tourists.
I think all these things could be analysed and we could arrive at definitive answers about how people would be affected. The potential in savings to the touring public and tourist operators, who would have a longer and better season, and to the governments of the provinces, who would reap additional sales taxes, etc., and all the other factors, argue for more serious consideration than the proposal has received.
The state of Maine has had two public votes on bond issues to finance such a highway, which were turned down. Surely if the government of the United States paid the shot, the residents of Maine would have a different view. I talked to members of the United States House of Representatives and a senator from Maine who indicated there would be strong sympathy for such a proposal and that the United States Congress would give it serious consideration.
The province of Quebec undoubtedly has some reticence in the matter. The area east of Riviere-du-Loup may fear the loss of tourism, but I am convinced that this could be overcome. I would argue that the highway would not only engender and push a new national park for northern New Brunswick, but would also open up the national park potential of the whole beautiful area along the Maine-Que-bec border which is at the moment one of the most backward economic areas in the province.
The project has enormous potential, Mr. Speaker, but has been given very little consideration by the government. I hope that by raising the matter today we can persuade provincial and federal bodies to bring the idea to fruition. It is practical, it is economic and it is becoming more economic all the time as transportation and energy costs rise.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I hear some hon. members opposite asking for the question. They are the same members who complain about the so-called excessive expenses of the government. They do not really know in what they are engaging in tonight by asking for the vote, because the cost of the proposal contained in Bill C-272 is certainly not one we can afford, if we consider for one moment the scope of regional disparities in this country. And in my opinion, it is not a corridorhighway that will help, even partly, to solve this problem.
The sponsor of Bill C-272, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), wants the creation of a Canada-Alaska and Canada-Maine Corridors Authority through an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America. And the result, again according to the hon. member for Laprairie, the sponsor of the bill, will be to solve two major land transportation problems in Canada. Obviously, the sponsor of the bill wants to solve problems which seem to me to be the fruit of his rich imagination. I shall come back to that later in the debate, but right now I can ask this question: Does he not in fact create more problems than he pretends to solve with this bill? And I shall follow with this second question: Would he not be better to concentrate his resources, his energies and his ideas on the problem of urban congestion which is faced by his own metropolitan area of Montreal, instead of trying to solve the problems of my region? For I am a little wary about those who come to us under cover of consummate nationalism and I dislike those advocates of Canadian unity who are ready to sacrifice one leg, and perhaps even two, but not theirs, those of their neighbour. And as I shall demonstrate during my remarks, this is precisely what the bill before us is aiming at. And here, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear to every one that I do not have a grudge against the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). He is an excellent colleague and a good liberal thinker but in this case with which we are rightly concerned I cannot associate myself with the proposal he puts forward tonight.
I come back to the objectives of the bill as set forth by the hon. member. He suggests that the U.S. government support the building and maintenance costs of a highway crossing the northern part of Maine and linking the Quebec Eastern Townships autoroute with the New Brunswick road system. And the funniest part of his proposal is that, on the other hand, the government of Canada would spend an equivalent amount for the improvement and maintenance of the section of the Alaska Highway crossing certain areas on the Canadian territory. The net result would still be unacceptable to me. It would be trading off the interests of one area of this country against those of another. It would be robbing Peter to pay Paul. It would be a trafic of political influence at the expense of less privileged areas.
Indeed, the sponsor of this bill himself admits that the federal US authority should impose this so-called Maine corridor, if it should ever see the light, because on two if not three occasions, Mr. Speaker, the voters of the State of Maine themselves objected to this spending of state funds in a general referendum.
Canada-Alaska and Maine Corridors
Suffice to say that the matter simply deserves to sink into oblivion and that it is not even necessary to make it a matter of debate in Canada since, however you slice it, the decision to build or not to build the Maine Corridor is basically a matter which rests with either the voters of Maine themselves or the federal government of the United States and no proposal from Canada could make the American elephant move if it chooses to stay put. It is as simple as that. The problem from a Canadian standpoint is a non-problem. But the sponsor of Bill C-72, as indeed certain promoters of the Atlantic region or the Quebec Eastern Townships, invented the problem altogether or at least got mixed up.
What are those people saying? That they are prepared to sacrifice the national interest, that they reject a priori the soundness of a national highway, a first class highway linking together all Canadian provinces. That there would be in this country areas that could be sacrificed, people who could be stepped on, areas consequently that would be less Canadian and that may be forgotten for a highway corridor that would cross a neighbouring state. I am sure they will all protest, saying that such is not their intention. It never entered their mind that they might want to punish the people of north western New Brunswick, those of the Grand-Portage between the New Brunswick border and Riviere-du-Loup, and the hundreds of thousands of Canadians living along the Trans-Canada Highway from Riviere-du-Loup to Montreal. Such is definitely not their intention!
Yet the effect would indeed be to punish that service industry which invested millions if not billions of dollars all along the Trans-Canada Highway to accommodate in such a beautiful way tourists, commercial trucks and everyone who uses that road. That would indeed be the result of building a corridor-highway in the State of Maine. It would mean ruining people who, for hundreds of years, Mr. Speaker, remained faithful to their Canadian tradition, who believed in a united Canada. They look indignant, the promoters of the Maine corridor, Mr. Speaker. They point their finger at the member for Madawaska-Victoria and accuse him of parochialism. Oh, I know that old game.
My forefathers have also known those offended maiden, those disguised wolves that lick you the better to eat you up. The problem of a major highway connecting the Mari-times to the central area of Quebec is not properly set, identified and upheld by the protagonists of a Maine corridor.
If I wanted to pray the Holy Spirit tonight, I would ask Him to enlighten the member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), to shed some light on him, so that he may first and foremost show himself a Canadian and uphold the interests of Canada. The protagonists of the Maine corridor have always maintained, and continue to do so, that the distance between Moncton, which is for all practical purposes the hub of the highway system in the Atlantic area, and Montreal would be substantially reduced by the Maine corridor, instead of taking, as at the present time, the traditional and historic Trans-Canada Highway. It is not true, Mr. Speaker. And it is obvious to anyone who takes the trouble of having a look at a map of Maine. Indeed the area is dotted with lakes and mountains and any proposed

March 2, 1976
Canada-Alaska and Maine Corridors
speedway will have to go around them. It is completely wrong to assert that the distance could be shorter.
This has been demonstrated by a spokesman for my area at the annual meeting of the chambers of commerce of the Atlantic region, in 1967 or 1968, I do not know the precise date. With maps, with diagrams, with chains, it has been possible to demonstrate that if Moncton is taken as the starting point, the distance is 635 miles through Fredericton, on the Trans-Canada Highway, Edmundston, Riviere-du-Loup, Quebec, Montreal. On the other hand, if the starting point is Moncton, through Fredericton, and the proposed Maine corridor, we see that the distance is 633 miles. This is 2 miles less than the present road followed by truck drivers, tourists and anyone you like.
I think that the then Minister of Transport, the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, tabled in this House the result of a voluminous study on transportation problems in the Atlantic region in 1967. This study commissioned from The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited and volume X referred specifically to a proposed Maine corridor. What was the conclusion of the study? Well, here it is, and I quote:
There are large areas of the Atlantic region's infrastructure in general, and transportation systems in particular, where returns far in excess of those to be expected from a Maine corridor highway can be achieved.

There, Mr. Speaker, is knowledgeable conclusion, a serious and intelligent conclusion, that defeats all the arguments of the promoters of a corridor, which is the main aspect of the question we are debating today. And that is what the promoters of the corridor refuse to see. How, indeed, can anyone justify a Canadian corridor in the State of Maine when I know full well that every single hon. member from the Atlantic region, barring none, can rise in this House today and enumerate at least a dozen very important priorities in the field of road construction alone in their respective ridings, Mr. Speaker. And some would lull us to sleep with beautiful corridor projects.
Priorities are altogether different in the Maritime area. Every hon. member from New Brunswick remembers a five year road construction and renovation program, with an estimated $400 or $500 million tab, presented last spring to the federal government. It contained only the provincial government's priorities. Such is the problem we should try to solve. Requests must be met within Canada and even within each of the Atlantic provinces. Once we have set up-or patched up, whichever the case is-the infrastructures needed for the day-to-day lives of people in the Atlantic region, then and then only can we consider a corridor highway construction project in Maine.
New Brunswick has so many priorities within its boundaries that it cannot afford the luxury of "flirting" with a corridor project for the time being, nor even for the next 10 or 20 years. It has learned during the last two years that "flirting" with lofty projects such as the Bricklin automobile is costly.
Personally, I would have preferred that the corridor road promoters had shown as much energy, during the last 10 or 15 years urging better development of a Canadian high-

way, at home in New Brunswick as well as in certain Quebec areas traversed by our national highway.
If such had been the attitude of my fellow citizens, if they had thus shown their sincere wish to solve a real problem, and if they were still so inclined, they would concentrate their efforts and energies to the betterment of the Trans-Canada Highway. Then the problem would be solved, and we would not be hearing of a Maine corridor or a highway exchange with the Americans.
What concerns me is not so much being accused of having a parochial approach since I have first been elected here eight years ago. I do not mind that. My constituents may also be accused of parochialism. As a matter of fact, these people want to live, Mr. Speaker. I am deeply disappointed that we cannot find a solution, a typically and really Canadian solution to a Canadian problem.
Where is the sagacity of the Macdonalds, the Lauriers? What happened to resourcefulness in this country? What has happened to the venture spirit of the Maritimers? This is disappointing to me when I read a proposal like this Bill C-272.
I would not be satisfied, I would never be content to hand this matter over to Americans whom I respect, whom I admire, whom I must necessarily call my neighbours since the division of the territory-I was going to say the territory of the Republic of Madawaska-under the Ash-burton-Webster treaty of 1842.
And that is exactly where lie the irony and the sordidness of Bill C-272. Today, 134 years ago, a territory that should have remained wholly Canadian was dissected. It was surrendered to the United States of America under the Ashburton Webster treaty. The same region through which it is proposed today to build a corridor, supposedly to connect two parts of the Canadian nation. We do not need a corridor, but the repatriation of the north of the State of Maine. But unfortunately, the history is written down, and for a long time I am afraid. We can only blame the shortsightedness of the colonial administrators of that time who yielded a territory which should have remained Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, let us be realistic, let us be proud of being Canadians, let us be proud of the Trans-Canada Highway on Canadian land, connected now and then in the Atlantic region by ferries, under the confederation agreement.
We did not lack imagination at the time of the design and of the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway. And if it is true that this system cannot meet present demand, let us roll back our sleeves once again and get to work. Let us go on building this nation, let us try to find solutions in our country before bowing to our southern neighbour.
Mr. Speaker, I reject Bill C-272, I cannot support it on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of other Canadians for whom the Trans-Canada Highway must be upgraded if they are to survive. Our government is now inviting us to show restraint, and the times are particularly difficult for the eastern provinces which have urgent needs in all economic sectors, especially that of infrastructures and means of communications. It seems to me that it is much more important to help the

provinces in these areas than to implement corridor-highway proposals.
As everyone knows, a four-lane highway now connects Ottawa to another highway coming from Toronto and both highways become one just before the Island of Montreal and this four-lane highway goes on as far as Riviere-du-Loup, and even further in the direction of the Gaspe peninsula. But from Riviere-du-Loup to the New Brunswick border, this magnificent national highway is reduced to two lanes and, as we know, over nearly all its length, except for two sections, bypassing two cities, this highway has only two lanes.


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


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first intervention in debate and my first opportunity to address myself to a bill in this House. I at first contemplated waiting to participate in the debate on the bill with regard to capital punishment. I thought I might have had an opportunity to speak for the first time in the House on the occasion of a Speech from the Throne. However, when I had occasion to read Bill C-272 with respect to the proposed Maine corridor authority and saw that it would adversely affect my constituency, I decided I should participate in today's private members' debate.
I am opposed to this bill. During the course of the debate I will explain my reasoning and my views that bring me to the position that I take today with regard to Bill C-272. As I started out to say, I never dreamed that my first intervention in the House would be with regard to spending money for negotiating with people south of the border with a view to constructing a highway to take people out of our country. This is the indication that I get from the bill. I do not understand the logic or reasoning behind such a joint agreement which would do nothing but bring adverse effect to the region I represent, indeed to the entire northern part of New Brunswick.
The establishment of a Canada-Alaska and Maine Corridor Authority could only be supported if it could be proven that the construction and maintenance by the United States government of an inter-state highway through the state of Maine joining the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick, and improvements by our governments to parts of the Alaska Highway that lie between Alberta, British Columbia and the Yukon Territory, would be of very great benefit to Canadians as well as being a sound proposition in financial terms.
There are many questions that come to mind. Who are the promoters of this corridor proposition? Who will actually benefit? In my area we have been experiencing problems for decades in an endeavour to achieve some measure of success with regard to having the provincial government accept its responsibility under the British North America Act, a responsibility it likes to refer to from time to time in retaining its authority and autonomy. While it pleads that the Province is autonomous, we often find that it is lacking in action in carrying out its responsibilities. I refer specifically to the completion of highway No. 11 between Moncton and Campbellton, New Brunswick, and
Canada-Alaska and Maine Corridors highway No. 17 between Campbellton and St. Leonard, New Brunswick.
S0)
As a result it becomes quite obvious that I could in no way support this bill when in fact in our region of New Brunswick we have been waiting for years to have the proper priorities placed by the provincial government on utilizing those millions of dollars which have been provided to it by the federal government, and to fulfil the many promises that have been made by the provincial government to complete this highway between Campbellton and Moncton.
In the latter part of October or the early part of November there was a regional meeting conducted in the city of Bathurst where some 125 elected representatives were brought to a joint meeting between the federal, provincial, and municipal people to consider the completion of route No. 11. The premier of New Brunswick was in attendance with an entourage of deputy ministers and other ministers and officials of the department of highways, as well as the minister of national resources. After a full day's session of discussion about the completion of this all important route No. 11 we were at no time successful in getting one indication of agreement from the premier of New Brunswick that he would even give it consideration as being a matter of priority to complete this highway. This was his position notwithstanding the fact that our federal government has provided that province with some $55 million over the last number of years, money which, we were told, would go toward the completion of this highway. So while the present Hatfield administration in New Brunswick takes this attitude I cannot sit here and allow consideration of a bill which would shift the priorities to a corridor road in another country.
As was mentioned by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) we have many other priorities. The present provincial administration is cutting back on schools, cutting back on hospital beds, cutting back on practically every front in the province, including my riding, and I can see where with the position the Hatfield administration has adopted there will be a continual dragging of feet with respect to the completion of the construction of route No. 11 between Campbellton and Moncton.
The explanatory notes attached to this bill state that the voters of the state of Maine have twice voted against the expenditure of money for highway projects which would principally benefit Canadians. When one reviews the material, information and statistics with respect to the financing of this project, and the material contained in this bill, one can quickly conclude that this type of project should not be allowed to go any further than the stage at which it has now arrived. I mentioned the attitude of the New Brunswick government at the moment, not forgetting the importance of the province of Quebec where my riding borders on the province on Quebec through the interprovincial bridge at Cross Point.
The hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) has mentioned the importance of tourism. Of course we all know the importance of tourism. That is one of the reasons why I am speaking with regard to the importance of completing this highway between Moncton and Campbellton, New

March 2, 1976
Canada-Alaska and Maine Corridors
Brunswick. But with the completion of the new highway between Quebec and Gaspe, route No. 20, there is a much more comfortable and convenient way for people from Ontario, Montreal, or from the Quebec region to get to the northern part of New Brunswick driving through route No. 11 to visit the Fundy park area, the Kouchibouguac park area, or indeed, beautiful Prince Edward Island.
I heard a question asked as to whether people would be able to get there conveniently, and I should like to assure the hon. member for Laprairie that with the excellent condition of the newly constructed highway, route No. 20 in Quebec, this should not be a worry for him at the present time because of this high speed modern highway. But we must at all times keep in mind the priorities in hand and should not be getting into discussions and negotiations with governments in another country to construct highways, when we have proposed highways that have yet to be constructed in our own provinces, and indeed throughout Canada.
So, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, from the figures and from the research I can come to no other conclusion than that the United States has more to gain from this joint venture as proposed in Bill C-272 than does Canada. Bear in mind, too, what I have stated about the serious problems which face us now in my area and northern New Brunswick-the high unemployment, the cutting back of hospital beds, the cutting back of educational facilities, and all the other negative actions or programs that are being imposed on our people at the moment notwithstanding the millions of dollars that are being pumped into our province by the federal government.
In this context it just makes no sense to be debating or to be discussing the pros of Bill C-272 when we should be concentrating on working together-I have in mind specifically the members from the Atlantic region-in a concerted effort to see that these moneys are spent in those areas where they have been designated to be spent, and that priorities are indentified and supported by all to ensure that we can develop and grow in our region at the same pace as Canadians hope to do in all other parts of our great country.
I certainly did want to take the opportunity this afternoon, albeit in my first intervention, my first opportunity to deliver remarks and address a bill in this House, to oppose a private member's bill, but I felt the subject was of serious magnitude and important enough to the people that I represent and indeed, as I have mentioned, to all the residents of New Brunswick, to justify my rising in my place today and speaking against Bill C-272, in the hope that we may be able to develop some planning whereby we can reach a joint agreement between the various representatives of the Atlantic region and the members from my province of New Brunswick. Thus, we might all work together to insist that the federal moneys that are going to the province of New Brunswick are spent in the way they are designated to be spent. Once again I emphasize the importance of the completion of the highway between Campbellton and Moncton, that being route 11.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight. At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and the amendment of Mr. Gilbert (p. 11210).
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention when calling it five o'clock to conclude my remarks at that point, but I thought the better of it. It occurred to me that there are some hon. members in the Chamber this evening who might not have been here earlier and therefore are unaware of some of the important truths I was putting on the record.


Mitchell William Sharp: Thank you, Max.


Max Saltsman: Particularly the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp), who I know is very much concerned with hearing what I have to say on the question of his government's proposed cutback on medical services, so I have set aside my own selfish interests in favour of the national interest and decided to continue the remarks that I commenced before the dinner hour.
I also thought there would probably be some hon. members who might have some questions to raise with me. I would be very happy to answer any questions that arise. I see the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) rising to ask me a question.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Max Saltsman: Certainly.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I must say it is very thoughtful of hon. members to permit me to ask this question. Would the hon. member in all seriousness inform the House whether these cutbacks are part of the general approach of the government to cutbacks during a period of deflation?


Max Saltsman: In reply to that question, I would hate to think that the Liberals are that insensitive to the needs of the country, but unfortunately one must come to the conclusion that they are. When looking at the various areas in which they could cut back or raise revenue, it is appalling to think that they would start with something so vital as people's health. For instance, when one considers the very generous attitude of the government toward the corporations of this country-the depreciation allowances that have been granted, the reduction in corporation tax-one would have thought that before making cuts in medical
March 2, 1976

services the government would have introduced in its budget at some time in the past, or would have indicated it intends to do so in its next budget, some way of collecting more revenue in order to ensure that essential services like medicare are continued. This it has not done.
There are, of course, many benefits that the government provides to industries. These kinds of welfare payments are not being reduced in any fashion. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, one must conclude that Liberals have their priorities somewhat wrong and are to be criticized for lack of sensitivity and understanding of what the true national priority should be. I hope that answer satisfies the hon. member.


John Edward Broadbent: A very good answer.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Will you take it up tomorrow morning?


Max Saltsman: I would be very pleased to take it up tomorrow morning. If I could get unanimous consent of the House to continue beyond 40 minutes, I should be very glad to take it up this evening; otherwise I will do so tomorrow morning. I would much have preferred to speak 10, 15 or 20 minutes.
I am sure there are others who would have agreed with me that I should have spoken for a shorter period had I felt that, in that period, the sense of what I was saying and the importance of maintaining a commitment to medical care had gotten through to the government or at least to the acting Prime Minister, that very distinguished gentleman. If he would rise in this House, say he has listened to the arguments put forward by the opposition, say he understands what we are saying and that he is prepared to defer the passage of this legislation and indicate to the House that he will wait until he meets with the provinces, then I would be glad to sit down with the feeling that I had accomplished something of value in putting forward these ideas. However, there does not seem to be any intention on the part of the government to engage in this debate or to rebut any of the points put forward by the opposition. I guess the word is out to the backbenchers that they should not offer any encouragement.
I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre) was so generous with me. He is a very able fellow. I think he deserves to be in the cabinet, but I wonder what this will do to his chances of being in the cabinet.


An hon. Member:: You are a constituent of Pontiac as well.


Max Saltsman: If I were a constituent of his I would be writing to him every day.


An hon. Member:: Telling him to smarten up.


Max Saltsman: I would be more polite. In Waterloo we are more straightforward; we say things straight. I would have told the hon. member for Pontiac that I understand the whip has told him not to do anything to delay the passage of the legislation but that I would think a man of his intelligence would not go along with that and would
Medical Care Act
rise in the House of Commons and would point out that medicare is one of the best programs that has been introduced in this House.
I would tell him that I think he should take some pride in the fact that the Liberal Party introduced it, after some prodding over a period of 35 years by the NDP. I would tell him that nevertheless this is something for which he should take credit. He should say that this is good legislation and that they intend to honour the commitment made to the provinces at the time it was introduced. I might, even under those circumstances, vote for him as my member-it would be very unusual for me to do a thing like that-because under the circumstances this would be justified. I believe there are many members on the other side of the House who do not feel very comfortable with what the government is proposing.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Like Gus MacFarlane.


Miss Nicholson:: Pick on me for a change.


Max Saltsman: I would not pick on the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). She has had a distinguished career in the field of social services. I am sure she has a deep concern for the people who will be affected by the cut-back in medicare because she knows that while we have not really been able to close the gap in income between those at the bottom and those at the top one of the things we have been able to do is give at least equal medical services to every person in this country.
The only real advance we have made in this country in the fight against poverty has been in the provision of services to people. Medicare is an equalizer. In order to obtain medical services in Canada today one does not have to have a great deal of money. Everybody is covered in respect of medical services, and to that extent this is an area in which we have total egalitarianism. I think the hon. member for Trinity would agree with that. I would certainly welcome her participation in this debate so that she could give us the benefit of her advice in order to reinforce the points we are making on this side of the House.
It seems that my comments have satisfied the members of the House. There does not seem to be any desire to ask any further questions. I think I have satisfied my commitment to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in respect to the 40-minute limit, and therefore I shall thank hon. members for the careful attention they have given my remarks.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this bill takes me back a few years to the time when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was revising old federal-provincial programs and inventing new ones. At that time the clarion call was for medicare. The provinces were asked to opt in but they were told that they could opt out. They had a choice. The shoe is now placed on the other foot. Now the Prime Minister is saying that the government wants to opt out.
It would have helped a bit if the Prime Minister had called for consultation with the provinces before tabling this bill. But typically the provinces found out about this proposed cut-back by the government only after the bill was finalized and tabled in the House. There have been
11438

March 2, 1976
Medical Care Act
many federal-provincial conferences. One should have been held regarding this serious matter before the bill was tabled or before it was even written. But that was not the case. This is an example of the way the Liberal government imposes its will or whims on the people. This is the Prime Minister's way of consulting with the provinces. He does so through the medium of the press.
There is now a new axiom abroad in this country about which we will hear more. We will hear more and more of it in the future. "Trudeau times are tough times." These are times of unemployment, inflation poverty and discontent. Now we have the refusal of the government to honour its national health obligations. Liberalism, which was so free with the people's money in 1969 when federal medicare was brought in now withholds money from the people through the curtailing limits of Bill C-68. Government inefficiency and waste of the taxpayer's money in many other federal fields are the direct reason for the cut-backs contained in this bill. They are the direct reason for the embarrasing position in which the government finds itself today.
The government is bankrupt in respect of policy and purpose. It is severely financially embarrassed. Despite its precarious position the government has the nerve this year to ask the Canadian people for more than $42 billion, yet it cannot honour its medicare commitment for public health care across our country. I have said before in this House that Liberalism is the greatest deception that has ever befallen Canada. The government certainly is running true to form at the present time in respect of its policies. The federal government is opting out; more than that, it is copping out. What a sham this makes of our federal-provincial relations in our main shared-cost project, medicare.
Some of my hon. colleagues have already documented the sorry story of how my own province of Ontario was bludgeoned into joining the federal government's medicare plan when it had a better one itself. We had Blue Cross and Physicians' Services. In spite of the fact that we had a better plan already in operation, if we had not joined the federal plan the taxpayers of Ontario would have had to pay a disproportionate share of the federal plan, as well as the full cost of our own plan. That is the main reason why Ontario joined. That is the main reason why other provinces which had made a start on their own medicare joined this plan. I wonder what the Prime Minister would have done if Ontario at that time had said it would not join the federal plan and that it would not pay any part of the cost of the plan.
What is the background of this matter? In 1969 Ontario had its own private program-and it worked well-PSI and Blue Cross. Ontario was forced into joining the federal plan, as Ontario residents were taxed by the federal government to help pay the national cost of health care. In 1969 $225 million was the estimated cost to Ontario taxpayers. Ontario suggested it should be able to keep this money and its own plan. The federal government of the day rejected this; thus the federal plan led directly to the province building facilities in the high cost area, some of which now must be cut back because of the federal government welshing on its contract. Thus also the ceilings just imposed have affected Ontario's decision to cut back. In

1968 the federal government wanted to get all the provinces into the one scheme. Ontario hesitated, as it had a good plan of its own. The premier of the day was concerned that if Ontario entered, its costs would grow at too high a rate, and this has been the case.
Our Ontario premier of that time suspected that the federal government could not be trusted to honour this or any other agreement, and he was right. But our premier took the federal government's proposals, or veiled threats, on faith at the time, and we have kept up our end of the bargain. Now we learn that the government has imposed this ceiling on increases in federal participation in spite of the fact that, like everything else, the cost of medicare has been rising.
We have also learned, and again without prior consultation with the provinces, that the present medicare arrangement will run for only a few more years, and we will be back to square one. We in Ontario will be able to adjust to this new situation, I hope, but here again we cannot really be sure that the Prime Minister will not be back again in a year or two telling Ontario and the others that we have to get back into a federal medicare scheme. In fact, as we all know by now, where this government is concerned we cannot be sure of anything.
It has already been pointed out that the Province of Ontario has been getting the short end of the so-called 50-50 arrangement with the federal government. Now, with the ceilings which have been imposed and with the inflation which is rampant in our country, most of which can be laid at the doorstep of federal spending, we have been getting about 43 per cent of shared costs for medicare and about 40 per cent of the shared cost of the high cost item, hospital insurance.
The government of Ontario must have smelled something in the wind last year when Bill C-68 was first being kicked around. At that time the government was deluged with complaints from the medical profession that Bill C-68 would be a backward step in the concept of medicare, and here it is, like a knife between the provincial shoulder blades, and that applies to every province in Canada. Ontario has suffered doubly in the shared-cost deal with the federal government because of the fact that the government's lowest area of participation has been in such things as home care, nursing home care, preventive medicine and other areas where the province has been trying to cut down on the need for hospital admissions. Knowing that something was going to happen, namely, this federal Bill C-68, the province was forced to assess the real needs for hospital beds and balance these against the available beds.
In the early days of the present medicare scheme the government's largest share of costs was in the field of hospital construction and operation, and every town and hamlet in Ontario seemed anxious to have its own hospital. Many of those were needed, but there was a certain amount of over-building. This situation is being adjusted now, but according to the provincial opposition the province is yanking beds out from under the people who need them most. The plain fact is that there are now and will be adequate hospitals and hospital beds to meet the needs of our people. In the process of bringing hospital beds in line with actual need the province stands to save about $50 million per year, and this has to be done, in view of the
March 2, 1976

decision of the federal government to abandon the commitment it made to all the provinces several years ago.
I join with my colleague, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), in drawing attention to the shameful tactics of the NDP in this matter. That party has tried to subvert this dereliction of responsibility on the part of the federal government into a provincial election issue. I was pleased with the response from the provincial premier when he challenged the NDP to force an election on this question. As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said earlier, the NDP has been dangling imaginary corpses before the people of Ontario and clouding the issue, instead of directing the blame where it rightfully belongs, right here in Ottawa at the doorstep of a government which has its priorities all mixed up.
It is a strange paradox indeed when the federal government complains that the money it is spending on medicare shared-cost programs must be redirected to more important programs and projects. Where in our country do we have anything more important to our people than public health. Last year I believe the federal government's share of medicare costs amounted to less than $1 billion and it is complaining now that since the cost of medicare has risen by 16 per cent it must re-examine its role in this vital program.
I suggest that the federal government re-examine its program of capital construction of buildings which are not needed at this time. They are not needed as much as the Canadian people need a medicare and hospital insurance program. I see in a press release from the Department of Public Works that that department is planning to spend $312 million on new construction for 1976-77, more than half of which is to go to the province of Quebec. The press release neglected to mention the new $88 million language school to be built in St. Jean, Quebec, and when this is added to the other capital construction projects it comes to over $200 million in public works in the coming year for that province alone.
I suggest that surely we could find the money in this year's estimates of over $42 billion to finance an even better medicare and hospital care program. Medicare is part of the fabric of Canadian society, as important to us now as any program we have, and far more important than such programs, for example, as the extravagant, wasteful and divisive official languages program. If the current social policies of the Trudeau government were properly circumspect regarding the needs of the people, and if the government were as responsive to public need as it is to its phony, expensive and divisive policies of bilingualism and biculturalism, we would not be confronted with the present social discontent and troubles which perplex us.
It has been suggested that, rather than scaling down federal government participation in medicare, we should be consulting right now in an effort to find ways to improve the situation. It is well known to both the federal government and the provinces that the high cost of the program can be attributed to two factors, the construction and maintenance of hospitals and the maintenance of an adequate cadre of doctors. We know that some parts of the
Medical Care Act
country have a surplus of doctors, and we know that some provinces have a surplus of hospitals.
Now that we have gained several years' experience in operating a federal-provincial medicare program we have learned enough about how such a system works to be able to sit down and compare notes, and to devise ways of getting the same level of care at lower cost. During the life of our medicare program we have had an advantage that other countries, namely, the socialist countries, have not had in running such programs. We have had the advantage of the free enterprise system working side by side with governments in trying to get a maximum of care and services at the lowest possible cost.
If we had not had this distinctive character in our medicare system I shudder to think of what the cost would be today. In addition we have had the dedication and devotion of our scientific community, working at a disadvantage sometimes in government funding, seeking cures for diseases and seeking ways to shorten the treatment time for other diseases. With each discovery by our medical researchers we find that the requirement for extended hospital care is reduced and we find that the useful life of many of our citizens is extended.
I cannot accept the logic in the government's scaling down of federal participation in medicare, and I cannot accept the reverse logic of reducing federal support for medical research. That is probably the spot where we lose the most in setting these limits on federal spending.
I have to wonder how the federal government establishes its priorities. On the one hand we have the government reducing federal subsidies for medical research, and, on the other undertaking almost half a billion dollars in capital construction that could be postponed. We see the government holding the line on medical research, which is the same as reducing its participation, and then we hear that the government is building an $88 million language training centre. Mr. Speaker, I place a much higher priority on the health of our citizens than I place on language training. It is almost like giving people a choice of what language they choose to die in. I place a much higher priority on medical research than I place on unneeded new public buildings.
Medical research has a vital role to play in the over-all concept of universal medicare. If it had not been for the discovery of insulin, for instance, tens of thousands of Canadians would be subject to every-day treatment in order just to survive. Because we do have insulin those people can look forward to longer and more useful lives, at little expense to the medicare system.
It has been pointed out on numerous occasions in this House that the United States government spends ten times as much each year on heart research as we spend on all medical research. The United States government spends ten times as much each year on cancer research as we spend on all medical research combined.


An hon. Member:: How about the population?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I know their population is ten times ours, but in the first case I said they spend ten times as much each year on heart research as we spend on all medical research.
21419 -3214

March 2, 1976
Medical Care Act
It is little wonder that many of the top medical researchers in the United States are Canadians, trained in Canada but working in the United States because they have ready access to research funds. Every year more of our best researchers find positions south of the border and I am getting sick and tired of the government policy, or lack of policy, that is causing us to lose the fruits of their research.
More than one of my colleagues in this House have called on the government to withdraw this bill and enter into meaningful and open discussions with the provinces on the state of medicine in this country and to work out the direction it should take from here. That is what we should be doing, working with the provinces rather than trying to welsh on the commitments made to them. I join with them in saying to the government that we cannot accept such an attitude on the part of the government on such a vital issue. For any minister of the government even to suggest that this matter is not open to discussion and negotiation is despicable. This is not Cuba. I know what the Prime Minister's attitude is toward our parliament and I know full well what his attitude is toward federal-provincial relations. But I suggest that the Prime Minister and his Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) should adopt a different attitude.
We need more, not less, federal participation in medicare. We need more, not less, federal participation in medical research. Medicare and medical research must work hand in hand to meet the standards of treatment and to find cures for the diseases that immobilize our citizens, fill our hospitals, and occupy the time and efforts of our doctors and nurses. Every discovery by medical researchers frees more of our citizens for productive activity. Every discovery reduces the demands on our medical people and facilities.
I call on the government to convene a conference of health ministers and abandon its current excuses. They should get together to discuss a policy that will be honest and fair to the provinces and the people of Canada.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member said the government should spend more, not less, on medicare. I wonder if he is aware that this bill proposes a very substantial increase in the cost of medicare, not a reduction. It proposes 14.5 per cent for next year, which is more than the anticipated inflation and more than the increase in the gross national product. Does he realize this when he criticizes the government's approach to such expenditure?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member asked that question. The rate of federal input is still reduced by the ceilings. Moreover, the ceilings that the hon. member mentioned are not even pro rata with the total rate of inflation under this government, nor do they keep in pace with our increase in population.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in speaking at this stage I want to try to put Bill C-68 in a somewhat broader context in terms of the Liberal party's philosophical approach to governing in this country.

The Liberal party never does anything unless it is kicked into it, either because of a marked shift in public opinion or because of some electoral happening that results in a minority government situation. It then suddenly becomes very progressive. When it has a majority it goes right back to its true tradition which is to maintain things as they have always been, particularly the distribution of wealth, or it tries to move marginally to the right so that the rich can get somewhat richer. That, precisely, is the effect of this bill.
A society can solve maldistribution of income two ways. The first method is by dealing with the problem head on, dealing directly with the hourly wages or salaries paid to people. The tax system can be used to redistribute income. In the alternative, the government can implement programs, or services, paid for by the general community. These free the people in the community from the obligation of paying directly for goods or services provided by the programs. Medicare is a good example of the latter situation.
The government, by providing a tax supported medical service for all people of this country, has been redistributing part of our wealth. We have enabled the poor and people of average income to obtain services which, if left for the open market to provide, they never could have afforded. That precisely is why Canada and other societies provide that kind of universal service.
Bill C-68 would limit the federal contribution in years ahead to medicare. What is wrong with the measure? First, it reneges on the government's obligation to virtually every province in this country, of whatever political stripe. Each province feels that the government has reneged on a profound commitment to share on a 50-50 basis, without ceiling, the cost of medicare. Therefore this bill represents a betrayal of a principle, the reneging of an agreement entered into some years ago.
Second, it will increase the degree of inequality in Canada. If the provinces, particularly poor provinces, are forced to pay higher cost they must obtain revenue which the federal government would have provided from other sources. It is difficult for provinces, particularly poor provinces, to do that. They will need to introduce regressive measures such as deterrent fees or sales taxes to pays for programs their people require. Therefore in terms of Canadian federalism this bill is a step backward, a step which, on balance, favours richer provinces more than poorer provinces. That is the first major implication of this bill.
But even richer provinces will have less money to pays for medical services. When richer provinces like Ontario feel the pressure and are forced to cut back their share of spending on medical programs, the poor people and average income earners even in those rich provinces will experience a relative decline in their position in society. That is the implication of the Liberal party's approach to medicare at present. The immediate result of this bill will be an increase of inequality in our society. The rich will never suffer; only the poor and average income earners will get the boot in the pants from this action.
March 2, 1976


An hon. Member:: The government will argue that suffering is good for the soul.


John Edward Broadbent: That is right.
As I said at the outset, this action is not an aberration on the part of the Liberal party; it is typical of the Liberal party's attitude, an attitude it has shown ever since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first took office in 1968. Contrary to Liberal party propaganda, inequality in our country since 1968 has increased, not decreased.
In 1974 the bottom 40 per cent of our population had a smaller share of the national income than they had in 1968, when the Prime Minister first took office. By contrast, the richest 40 per cent of our population have acquired a bigger share of the national income between 1968 and 1974. Since the Prime Minister has been in office inequality in Canada has become worse, not better. Some may say that the government by providing benefits through government agencies has mitigated this inequality; the evidence does not support that view.
Look at the cutbacks the federal government announced late last year, as part of its bizarre and, from our point of view, immoral approach to dealing with inflation. Those cutbacks clearly show the government's bias. Why do I say it is immoral? I say it because those cutbacks bear most heavily on people of average and low income.
First there was the family allowance change. The government said that it would not index family allowances, and those allowances would not rise accordingly in 1976. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) announced the great surtax on the rich just before Christmas. If I recall correctly, he announced the surtax the day before the cutbacks were announced. That is when he brought forward his marvellous, progressive, innovative, imaginative and egalitarian surtax on the rich in Canada. And what did marvellous, radical Liberal move amount to? It meant that the tax increase for a man with two kids earning $35,000 a year would be 35 cents. I know it does not take much to convince a Liberal that a minimum program is progressive. Yet surely some in the Liberal party must think that is going a little far. Can they honestly say that by imposing such a small tax they were ensuring that the rich will bear their share of the burden of fighting inflation?
I thought that, given the reaction to the announcement made just before Christmas, it would be a miracle of miracles if the tax did not put the Liberals to shame. But no, it did not. Let me tell the House what happened. Just the other day all the recipients of family allowance in Canada, and old age pensioners, got a personal letter from the Prime Minister in which he mentioned the marvellous, progressive steps the Liberals were taking in making sure that the rich bore their share of the tax burden. Unfortunately he neglected to mention that the extra tax was 35 cents for a man earning $35,000 a year.
Once it has a majority, the Liberal party feels no shame.


An hon. Member:: Come, now!


John Edward Broadbent: I would welcome the hon. member's intervention in the debate. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question, I will gladly sit down.
Medical Care Act


An hon. Member:: No, no, you cannot answer my question.


John Edward Broadbent: I see. I suggest that, even with minimal intellectual resources, I might attempt an answer.
I have illustrated the approach of the Liberal party when it has a majority. It fights inflation by hitting at the poor and average income worker. Just look at the cutbacks it announced before Christmas. It removed indexing from allowances, cut back the crop insurance program, cut back the Farm Credit Corporation program which affects farmers from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, B.C. It even announced cutbacks in financial assistance for the CNR. The CNR of course is particularly important to Canadians in northern Ontario, eastern, and western Canada. But the government announced those cutbacks.
The government announced cutbacks in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which, of course, was set up to deal with poverty in the regionally depressed parts of Canada. It announced cutbacks in medical research, which the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack). It announced cutbacks in those programs that are trying to come to grips with poverty in Canada and which are making some real progress. I think in particular of the Company of Young Canadians.
That was the government's general approach to dealing with inflation. It did not cut back, of course, on expenditures in the Prime Minister's office, which is surely a give-away. That is an important symbolic thing. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent in that office in the last few years which, on a per capita basis, is not all that much, but in terms of its symbolic significance would have meant something. It did not cut back there. I am being perfectly serious.
The government did not cut back in the area of grants to corporations. This does not make any economic sense. Last May the then minister of finance had a report presented to him assessing the impact of the rapid write-off tax provisions which the same minister of finance had presented in the budget one year preceding. The assessment by people appointed by that minister, not by the New Democratic Party or members of other opposition parties, was that the tax concessions, in the neighbourhood of $1.7 billion, were economically not necessary. Surely that says something. Over half the recipients of those financial benefits indicated to the government in that survey that they were not motivated in their financial decisions by these particular tax concessions. In short, they were windfall profits. They would have made the same decisions if the program had not been in existence.
If over half the recipients indicated that, and of the rest a good number did not reply, I suggest to the government, which was responsible in terms of spending, that it should have scrapped that program right off. This past Christmas when it was considering cutbacks in government expenditure, instead of cutting back in all those areas that I listed which affect average and low income people from coast to coast, it should have done this with the corporate sector. However, the Liberals know who their friends are and they did not do so.

March 2, 1976
Medical Care Act
The other thing they might have done, shock of shock, is bring in a progressive income tax structure. They could start taxing those who earn $30,000 or more per year in a significant way in order to do something about narrowing the gap between the affluent in our society and the poor. They did not do that either. The Liberals turned to the average and the poor in terms of programs that affect them, and made the cutbacks there. Bill C-68 does precisely the same thing.
The real significance of this bill is that it goes against the principle that a national program shared by the federal government on a 50/50 basis and providing a service to all, means by definition that the average and the poor will not have to pay directly for that service at market price which, prior to this coming into being, was substantially higher.
The point was made, but little noted in this debate, that as a percentage of our gross national product we are spending less now on medicare than when the program was first introduced. When it was first brought in we were spending more. It is true that in absolute dollars we are spending more now on medicare, but of course we are spending more on virtually everything. That is what inflation has been all about. The real test is how much we are spending in terms of our gross national product. I repeat the point that we are spending less on medical services now than when the program first came into being.
If the government were serious about effecting per capita reduction on over-all costs over a longer period of time it would have been encouraging provinces such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia, and indeed Quebec, which in recent years have introduced preventive medical programs in which the federal government has not shared in the paying. It should have been encouraging expansion of this kind of program so that down the road we would have fewer sick people to deal with and, therefore, a reduced medicare cost. That would have been a more imaginative approach. It might well have involved spending more money now to achieve those objectives, but in the long run the per capita costs could be brought down.
A number of my colleagues, in fact almost all of them, have spoken on this bill and on the amendment. We have done so because we think medicare is a profoundly important social principle, that medical service should be taken out of the market place, that this kind of program introduces an element of equality in society which all of us should participate in, and because the government, via Bill C-68, is taking a regressive step. It is taking us back to the kind of society that existed before universal medicare was introduced.
We have opposed this bill. We did not expect the government would renege on its commitment some months ago to the provinces by proceeding with the bill. We did not expect the government to go back on indications it had given to a number of provincial ministers as recently as last Christmas by re-introducing it. Having done so, the New Democratic Party has made it clear that we are opposed to it. We are going to continue opposing it. We hope, even at the last instant, the government will see the light and change its mind. I hope so.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would entertain a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This can only be done with the consent of the hon. member who had the floor. Does the hon. member give consent to the hon. member for Water-loo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) to ask a question?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Max Saltsman: I must say I listened with great appreciation to the words of wisdom from the distinguished leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: The question I would like to ask the hon. member is: in view of the fact that the future is going to call for a great deal of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments of this country and that there are many problems that will have to be solved by agreement between the two levels of government, is it the view of the hon. member that the federal government reneging on its promise to medicare is going to jeopardize that kind of co-operation for those important programs of the future?


Henry Perrin Beatty: This sounds like an NDP caucus meeting.


John Edward Broadbent: I am glad that question was asked. I suspect my answer will not surprise the hon. member. One of the inevitable consequences of this kind of action, particularly since the minister had indicated to a number of his provincial colleagues from all parties that this bill would not be introduced, whereas in fact of course it has been introduced, is that there is no reason for the provinces to expect the government or the minister to be any more reliable with respect to any other commitments they may make.


Max Saltsman: A further question, if I may. Can my hon. friend tell the House whether any of the provinces have received this bill with any degree of enthusiasm-whether any of the provinces think this is wise legislation, including those which have Liberal governments?


John Edward Broadbent: That too is a good question. The evidence is that none of the provinces agree with the government as to the wisdom of this legislation, even those provinces which have Liberal administrations. I would be interested to hear the private views of the premier of Nova Scotia with regard to it. I am sure he would be very much opposed.


Max Saltsman: A further question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Hon. members may ask questions for additional information but this is not the time or the place to enter into debate or to ask questions of a general nature. The hon. member knows that this is the second reading stage. However, I am ready to allow him one final question.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments you have made. Nevertheless I wish to follow this important question through because it is most desirable that we should obtain the views of someone who is also known as my hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!
March 2, 1976


Max Saltsman: In view of the fact that the federal government made a great point, in connection with its prices and incomes policy, that it really needed the consent of all the provinces for the program to work, and has carried out enormous propaganda aimed at getting the provinces to help it-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will understand why I hesitated to allow a further question. He appears now to be affirming something. If he wishes to ask a direct question he may do so as far as the Standing Order permits, but this is not the time or the place to make affirmations and ask an hon. member to comment on them.


Max Saltsman: One of the difficulties about being here any longer than two years is that the boundary between statements and questions becomes somewhat blurred. However, I will try to restore the distinction and ask a question directly. Can the hon. member explain why the federal government should have insisted on co-operation in one area while refusing to extend that co-operation in the area of medicare?


John Edward Broadbent: The answer is clear. The Liberal party has a long history of duplicity.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, it is essential that hon. members consider Bill C-68 through which the Canadian government is amending the present medicare legislation. Mr. Speaker, although this legislation is not very extensive, it is meant to alter substantially the universal medical protection scheme in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is important for two basic reasons. It questions again the sharing of responsibilities and powers among the various levels of government in Canada, both federal and provincial; it also questions the cost sharing of those programs. This means that since we live in a federal system, this sharing must be done after many intensive and effective negotiations between both levels of government directly concerned in such a bill.
Before talking about the substance of this bill, I would like to say to the government and to the minister who introduced this bill that I cannot support its approach which aims at imposing unilaterally a new cost and responsibility sharing formula, and I would like to emphasize the word unilaterally.
I am well aware that the minister and the government spokesmen say that there have been numerous discussions at the provincial level, but with what results, Mr. Speaker? Can the government table tonight copies of the agreements that have been made to support the administrative aspects or the principles of Bill C-68?
Mr. Speaker, in the past, when we had such debates in this House, government members emphasized the advantages of federalism and especially the importance of the great social philosophy of the Liberal party. Mr. Speaker, without the Liberal policy, we would not have the social assistance programs that we have in Quebec, we would not have medicare, and many social security programs would not exist if it were not for the wonderful Liberal party. I am sorry to say this, Mr. Speaker, but I say so in a non-partisan manner since it is the truth.
Medical Care Act
Tonight, we are asked to pass a bill which aims at reducing the federal financial responsibility towards a program which the federal government itself forced us to accept originally. How can the government ask us today to contribute less to a program that it implemented itself when, at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, Ottawa and the provinces had not agreed that there would be subsequently a unilateral revision and cost distribution?
This is the constitutional aspect of Bill C-68 which can certainly cause vigorous protest in the House by those who are more provincialist than federalist. The fact remains that this little ball game, this constitutional game is being played and varies according to the political situation of the day, whether it is profitable or not. Mr. Speaker, this is being conducted on the back of Canadians. A great truth which I believe everyone agrees with is that regardless who pays for medicare costs, whether it is Ottawa or the provinces, it always comes out of the taxpayers' pocket.
In the financial system in which we live and which is protected by the present governments, they have only two sources of revenue-loans and taxation. In the case of loans, again Canadians have to pay a surtax to reimburse capital and interests, in the case of taxation, again the citizens have to pay. Finally, this bill says if it is passed, that the federal government will pay 50 per cent of certain costs mentioned in the explanatory notes. It is not the federal government that will do that. The federal government is only the medium; or very often the government thinks it is God; thanks to it, we have grants and without it we would have nothing.
Mr. Speaker, that is not true. It is a falsehood politicians put in the heads of people. It is not the federal government, no matter how big, powerful and Liberal it is, that pays for medical care. It is taxpayers. Let us stop once and for all that constitutional game which divides Canada and which raises the provinces against the federal government and the federal government against the provinces. And finally, what everybody forgets to say is that it is always the taxpayer, no matter who administers him, the province of Quebec, Ottawa, Toronto or Edmonton, that finally foots the bill and receives the care that is very often inadequate in some hospitals.
Mr. Speaker, medicare is not such a wonderful thing. It is a tremendous thing, a step forward, of course. But everyone will agree with me that it is very costly, and that it did not necessarily improve the quality of the services.
It merely allowed services to be more accessible to people to whom they were formerly denied because of prohibitive prices. But that did not improve the quality of the services. I know many a citizen in Victoriaville or elsewhere, in Drummondville as well as Quebec, who has to queue at the emergency of large hospitals waiting for quality care, and who continue to wait. The doctors do what they can. The nurses and hospital staff also do what they can, but money does not necessarily buy quality services.
In any event, I feel that it is important to stress that with the type of administrators we have in our Canadian federal system, we will always have conflicts because we take provocative stands. This evening, the government

March 2, 1976
Medical Care Act
introduces a bill in which it states that from now on the federal government will pay 50 per cent of the costs. It is lying when it says this, because it does not pay: Canadians do. Canadians could not care less whether medicare is paid by Ottawa or the provinces: what they want is quality services, which suit them and to which they are entitled.
But our politicians, in Ottawa as well as in the province of Quebec, brag about their achievements. How often have my hon. opposites heard members and ministers of the Union Nationale brag about having built such or such a stretch of road. That has been heard. And I have heard it as well among the Liberals as in the Bourassa government. Thanks to the Bourassa Liberals, such and such a stretch of road was built; medicare was kept, social welfare is paid. The same thing goes on in Ottawa: we hear ministers say that thanks to minister so-and-so, such and such a subsidy is paid. Such thing has been done thanks to the Liberal government. Mr. Speaker, politicians who have this kind of attitude contribute to divide Canadians and make them confused when it comes to constitutional priorities. This is so true that on several occasions the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and some of his colleagues complained that the federal participation was not mentioned in some projects.
All this, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate how important it is to politicians, both in Ottawa and in Quebec, to give information on the source of money, but politicians conveniently forget that the money comes from the taxpayers' pockets. I would be curious, Mr. Speaker, to ask the citizens whether they think they have their money worth with the taxes they pay.
Mr. Speaker, I would not like to dwell on the subject but I think this kind of attitude is revolting.
Tonight the government asks us to support its position, to limit or put a maximum to its financial contribution to 50 per cent of the costs. What will happen after that? This is law in Ottawa and it puts the provinces in a position to accept it unconditionally. They no longer have the choice. Then they will come and praise the merits of federalism, they will tell us that separatists are wrong, whether they come from Quebec or from other provinces. In fact, it must not be forgotten that there are separatists outside Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I think the government makes a very serious mistake by imposing this bill on us, by urging us to adopt it rapidly without the question being thoroughly discussed. This government cannot give us tonight the firm assurance of the participation of the provinces. It cannot either tell us where the provinces will get the money to make their contribution. Mr. Speaker, when they do not want to answer our questions on that sort of issue, they talk about equalization. They say equalization will settle the problem. Equalization is the kind of road roller which comes along and fashions justice and equality between the provinces. Mr. Speaker, this is quite an easy argument, because it is superficial and very few people understand it. All this is so fuzzy for the ordinary mortal that, finally, politicians can once more shove anything down our throats.
I wish to make it clear that I want no part in that kind of legislation. In my view, the government tonight should take a positive attitude. We did not contrive medicare, I am sorry to say. One day the government rose to its feet and

cried out: Long live medicare, long live the government which had the kind thought of giving you medicare! To vote for us means to vote for medicare.
I recall having heard that kind of things in Quebec, in my own riding. The people swallowed it up in good faith. They really are gullible to believe all they are told. Now, Mr. Speaker, the government on seeing rising costs cannot tell us that we are getting better services, so it simply moves one step backwards and says: From now on, we are going to pay only 50 per cent of the costs, kids, you take care of the rest by yourselves. You are on your own! The government says further: But it is a cost sharing program. It being so, Mr. Speaker, it means that the provinces agree to pay the remaining 50 per cent. It means that the provinces have evaluated their capacity to pay the missing 50 per cent, if it is a cost sharing program.
It is either a provincial program or a federal program or a cost sharing program. The government is not prepared to let the whole jurisdiction in the hands of the provinces. The provinces are not prepared to leave it to the federal government either, and yet both want it to be a cost sharing program. They do not agree. There are no discussions between them, because there again is a money problem. This is the reality of Canadian politics, Mr. Speaker. Much as we want to bury our head in the sand, refuse to admit it, it is again a question of money. You can say that Social Crediters talk only about money, but what is the subject of the bill the Liberals are pushing tonight? Money. And why does the federal government want to cut back to 50 per cent? It is because it needs money. And who pays, Mr. Speaker? The Canadian people do.
On behalf of all my fellow citizens of Lotbiniere, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I disagree with this bill, that I will certainly vote against it because it is contrary to Canadian unity. This is not how we should negotiate with our partners, the provinces. If Canada exists, it is because of the provinces. In fact, Canada is merely the union of the provinces. The federal government is not the first government in Canada, contrary to what the Liberals may believe, but the provincial governments are, and our confederation will be strong as long as each province is. It is not with this kind of oppressive legislative measures that we will achieve a strong unity. Mr. Speaker, no wonder we have complete splits in the country about such measures. I see the hon. member for Laval (M. Roy) in front of me. I shall remind him of an illustration. The Liberals, and I must apologize for referring to that this evening, the Liberals were most happy to see the Conservatives fight each other at their leadership convention. I myself heard a number of them making ugly remarks. I must also say that as far as the financing the Olympic Games is concerned, a large number of French-speaking Liberal members from Quebec want the government to pay a share of the deficit, because they come from Quebec and suggest this is not only Quebec games but Canadian games. But I also know a number of English-speaking Liberal members who have no desire that we share in the financing of the games. Therefore, this is not a partisan issue, but rather a question of whether one believes in Canada, or whether one does not.
As far as I am concerned, whether on the matter of the Progressive Conservative convention, the Olympic Games

financing or Bill C-68, all that raises the question of our faith, our belief, our proundness in our country or again in our regionalism, our chauvinism, all that which will prompt unilateral action, independently from the province. And at the end, Prime Minister Trudeau and his government will be astonished that this country's unity is jeopardized. The main problem is not bringing back the constitution in Canada, but starting to unite the country.
Mr. Speaker, I invite members of this government to review their positions concerning Bill C-68, I urge them, before second reading and referred of the bill to committee, to give us a formal and earnest assurance that the federal government's partners, the provincial governments, fully participate in and are in total agreement with this kind of distribution. If such were the case, if the government could tell us this evening that the provinces accept that kind of fiscal sharing, then as a Canadian I would easily join in passing Bill C-68.
Mr. Speaker, I do not like to move blindly. But this is exactly what the government are trying to make us do this evening with Bill C-68. They are asking us for a blank cheque. "Give us a blank cheque, so they ask, take unilateral action, and then we will complete negotiations with provinces."
Mr. Speaker, I am too Canadian and I believe too much in Canada to accept and take such a gamble.


Marcel-Claude Roy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Laval on a point of order.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker I want to remind the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) that in the opinion of Liberals sitting here, from the province of Quebec as well as other parts of Canada, we have never called upon members of the Social Credit Party of Canada to express our views and we never needed them, be it about the Olympics or anything else, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere, but it is not on a point of order; it is on a point of debate.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) for whom I have much esteem still has not understood a word of what I said. I simply gave an example of the way in which as Canadians we part on specific subjects. I know full well that I am not a spokesman for the Liberal party, and God save me from ever being one! However, Mr. Speaker, I do know he would very much like to become a spokesman for the Social Credit Party but we do not agree on that either.
Mr. Speaker, had it not been for our friendship, the fact still remains that it is a typical example that I gave not out of malice. He knows I am right, he knows what I say is true. Mr. Speaker, I know he is just teasing me. The fact still remains that the principle which I emphasized is Canadian unity and this is too serious a subject to kid about it.
Medical Care Act


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have had some opportunity to dwell on this bill and to discuss it in the House. I am pretty concerned about the attitude of the minister in introducing a bill which, quite frankly, if I were to employ legal terms would indicate that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) probably has some type of disorder best described as a fecalith in the Circle of Willis which is giving him a rather disturbed outlook on life. Having said that I think it is important to ask why the people to my left have asked for a six months' hoist.
Is it some type of legislative trick we see pulled here in the House of Commons on the government from time to time for one reason or another? Of course it is, but I think the very basic reason it has been introduced, the very reason there should be a six months' hoist, is to give an opportunity to the provinces to develop a proper dialogue with the government to sort out what can be reconstructed from the proposal introduced by the minister in this bill.
Certainly there is not a member from the opposition side at least who has spoken on this bill who has not referred to the fact that this is again an example of confrontation with the provinces. We are simply asking that the normal process of dialogue, or arbitration if you like, or debate, be introduced between the federal government and the provinces instead of this continuing confrontation with the provinces. It is no wonder the provinces and the public are becoming increasingly suspicious of the attitudes and actions of the government.
The government promises one thing and gives another. How long can this continue? How long does the government expect to continue this particular program? I think this whole damned process will grind to a halt in 1978 or, hopefully, sooner. I think when we speak about promises and priorities we must reflect for a moment on the examples.
I think it was the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) who said that they were going to monitor the effect of the introduction of the 5 per cent or 6 per cent tax that was taken off building materials.


An hon. Member:: What about medical care?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Hang on; do not be impatient. I am making a point and I will get to it. The minister indicated that he intended to monitor building supply stores across Canada on a selective basis to make sure that this reduction was being passed on to the consumers. When he was asked a question about this he gave an evasive answer. We have never heard another word from the minister on the subject.
The same situation applies to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). He took up the case of boots, shoes, and clothing, and when he responded to questions in the House he said that they were monitoring the effect in order to be sure that the consumer would not be ripped off. What has happened? The consumer is being ripped off.
What do we have in Bill C-68? We have the same vague promises which lead to an eventual cost to the consumer, How will that cost be passed along? It has already been

March 2, 1976
Medical Care Act
said. We know that the cost in respect of the priorities of this program will be borne by the provinces. That is the avowed intent of the government.
The government said to the provinces in effect that it would suck them in during 1968-71, and now the government is saying it will cast them off. Now it asks the provinces to increase their taxes. One of the members on the government side said the other day this would increase the cost of taxes to the federal government, that it would cost the federal government more. He did not express any concern about the provinces. Quite frankly, when it comes to the health of Canadians I am really not disturbed about the increased cost, because this increased cost is not reflected in terms of the physicians themselves and those who deliver health to Canadians but is reflected in the cost of construction, maintenance, and operation of the institutions where patients are housed, treated, and cared for. These are the areas to which we must address concern.
The government has acknowledged that it has had 377 different reports and proposals dealing with possible ways to cut health costs. Where are these reports? As I said the other day, they are in the archives. They are never referred to any more. My dear members on the other side of the House, all I ask you to do is a little home work. Why does the minister, with all the expertise he has in his department, not ask his people to go to the archives to find out what reports the government commissioned some years ago, at which it has never bothered to look? Do you not think it is about time you did some of your own home work?
I can just see that right after this bill we will be faced with a new one from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I will be called some glorified term like guaranteed annual income. Imagine what effect that will have on Canadians. Whoopee! And then what-some kind of deterrent fee or some kind of increase in taxation five years down the road because all of a sudden we will find that the entire program has been mismanaged and will cost more than anticipated? That is the road we will probably take. That is the traditional road we have been taking for years.
Let us discuss the cost of health. Where are we faced with the increase in the cost of health? Why are we facing an increasing cost of disease? I think it would be a very noble gesture on the part of the government if it started encouraging amongst the physicians of Canada the attitude of promoting health and treating healthy people to ensure that they remain healthy, rather than waiting until they are diseased and treating them at that time.
I do not pretend to be an expert in this field, and perhaps I should not comment too extensively, but certainly we are aware that now we are dealing with new diseases which cost more money. The other day the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) complained about the cost of equipment for the treatment of the sick. He said that we have all these fancy X-ray machines, exotic laboratory equipment, and diagnostic tests, and that they cost so very much. Dealing with one specific example, that equipment is one reason why the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) is with us this evening. If that equipment had not been developed and was not being used, Dr. Fitz-

gibbon and Dr. Keon would not have been in a position to have done anything for the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. That is why the so-called exotic equipment is so necessary today. Is there an hon. member in this House right now who would not be prepared to submit himself to that exotic equipment if he thought he had an enormous aneurism in his aorta, or some other heart diseases? Of course not. He would be rushing to it, and why not?
Much of this equipment has been the dividend returned by the government investing in Canadian researchers who have developed the means to treat the diseases which we face today and diseases we will face in the future, which we probably know nothing about. If hon. members bothered to look at the annual report of the National Research Council they would find it to be a most challenging and interesting document. Perhaps the words are big and strange, and perhaps the descriptions sound so scientific that there might be difficulty understanding them, but if hon. members had an opportunity to scan that document, they would realize what the tax dollars of Canadians, spent by the government on research, have achieved for Canadians. However, how much better it would be if that volume were twice as thick. Why should it be necessary for the government to change its priorities and move away from the health field into other areas? That is the wrong direction in which to travel.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: They want to build more buildings.


Robert Hylton Brisco: That is right. The priorities seem to be the construction of more buildings and the creation of a greater, better, bigger and more expensive bureaucracy. Today more than ever before we are becoming aware of new industrial diseases which challenge the imagination of researchers, physiologists, physicians and others. These industrial diseases were not really known to the scientific community a generation or two ago. They are the result of new, exotic chemistries which have been introduced into industries, particularly into the petro-chemical industries. There are various types of plastics, foams and fibres which are creating disorders which we have never seen before.
Of course we still have the older industrial diseases which we have recognized but which we have not been in a position to treat before. We are just now learning to treat them, and we are just determining now the effect they have on the system and how dangerous is that effect. Diseases such as silicosis have been around for years. There is asbestosis and lead poisoning, and of course there is another new one on the medical scene and on the environmental scene, mercury poisoning, in at least two existing forms. When it occurs naturally it is environmental and we really know nothing about that. We do not even know how that mercury gets in to water, whether it is leached out of the soil or in what fashion it is ingested by fish. This final form comes to the human being who eats that fish.
We really do not know very much about the chemical induction of mercury other than that we know its source in the form of the leaching process in pulp mills. These are new disorders, yet we are talking about cutting back on the health care delivery system. We are talking about pushing these costs for all these new disorders, let alone the old ones, on to the provinces. How can we expect the

provinces to function with a fine health delivery system when that type of situation is forced upon them?
Let us look at the changes in our entire lifestyle, in our aging processes and in our youth today. Geriatric disorders are relatively new on the medical scene, and more and more I find-


An hon. Member:: Make a valid criticism.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for the rabble to stop rabbling.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: I would not mind if they were contributing something constructive, but most of their contribution is destructive or ineffective.
When I was so rudely interrupted I was speaking about geriatric problems and the increasing number of geriatric physicians or specialists who are now on the medical scene. I am sure many here have experienced the very sad and unfortunate situation of aging parents who must be placed in nursing homes. We find that the nursing home type facility is very costly in many cases. They are being constructed in increasing numbers because there is a demand. Why is there this demand? There is a very simple reason. There are more and more old people. Perhaps we will hear an inane complaint from the other side of the House that physicians are being too effective and that they are curing too many people so that people now live too long. It would not surprise me to hear that comment.
One of the other effects upon the provinces is that of the health delivery systems which they would like to develop, improve, and advance, the community clinics, where a variety of health disciplines can work in harmony and unity for the better health care of Canadians. Another effect is the utilization of further training of the paramedics in ambulance service. Let us give credit where credit is due. In British Columbia the New Democratic Party government did a fine job in developing a better ambulance system than the province ever had, but it could still be improved by having qualified paramedics working in harmony with community clinics and hospitals.
All of these things cost money, of course, and who is going to pay? Will it be the provinces, the federal government, or will it be a 50-50 cost-sharing agreement with this government honouring the agreements it laid down when it obliged the provinces to participate in the health delivery system?
I have indicated that there are probably two ways in which the individual would be affected; either through a deterrent fee established by the provincial medicare system, or by increased taxation at the provincial level. If it were the deterrent fee it is probable that the poor pensioner and all the poor would be affected because it is they who are most often ill. What would the deterrent do to those patients, and to dedicated physicians such as those in my riding?
Medical Care Act
A physician in my riding was told that he would have to cut out house calls because of the cost to medicare. The official in Vancouver who was telling him this was out of touch with reality. If he had looked up the record of every physician in Kootenay West he would have seen that they are dedicated enough that they work late into the night on house calls. It seems we mostly find this sort of dedication in rural areas nowadays; there is an occasional physician who is prepared to see his patients after hours.


Mr. Alexander:: Don't forget M.P.s.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Yes, we are another dedicated lot. In the past I have had an opportunity to visit one or two universities where medical research is taking place. In talking to the researchers one of the biggest concerns is that they are perhaps four or five years into a project when it grinds to a halt because of the government's policies. Research projects have been cut. What kind of an effect would it have on a member who has been saving for years to buy a home, who has accumulated several thousands of dollars and is ready to purchase the home, when overnight the cost doubles due to the stock market, or somehow the money is lost? Just think of the frustration of those researchers who have worked for three or four years on a project which would only take another year or two to complete, and then they see the whole thing grind to a halt because of this insensitive government.
What is wrong with the government that it would rather deal by frustration than consultation? In the question period when asked to cut spending the reply often is, "Would you like us to cut health costs? Is that what you have in mind? Tell the public you have asked us to cut health costs." Mr. Speaker, we do not have to ask the government to cut health costs; it does not need any urging from us and it does not understand where priorities are. It does not recognize the sincere concern of members on this side that the health of Canadians be of paramount importance.
I had an opportunity to express my concern and that of my constituents on the two occasions I have spoken on this bill. The determination expressed by members on this side indicates that I shall probably have another opportunity, as they will too. I should like to conclude my remarks now, and indicate that I will welcome the opportunity at any time to speak on Bill C-68, the brain child of the Liberal government.


Paul Yewchuk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how qualified I am to reply, but I shall try.


Paul Yewchuk: As the hon. member is a prominent member of the executive of the Canadian Chiropractic Association I wonder if he could inform the House what effect this bill will have on his profession. Certainly it will be affected, but no one has explained how.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I have studiously avoided mentioning my own profession because I do not think it a good idea to grind one's own axe in this House. If I were to

March 2, 1976
Medical Care Act
speak on behalf of my profession, however, I would say first of all that the federal government does not contribute to the cost of chiropractic care, the cost of dental care, the cost of optometric care, physiotherapy care, or podiatric care. The government would lead you to believe that this is a 50-50 operation but it is not. It does not cover the cost of administration either.
When the cost of medicare is increased to the provinces as a result of this bill, in all likelihood what will happen to the paramedical professions is that the provinces which provide those services through their own premiums will have to reduce the services in order to maintain a lower level of cost to the public. In the paramedical field, my own included, we will see a reduction in the services offered for the health of Canadians. It happened in 1968, and it could happen again if the bill passes in its present form.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, may I participate briefly in the debate on the motion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) that Bill C-68, an act to amend the Medical Care Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert).
We have listened with interest to the debate on this measure. I was somewhat alarmed and amused by the intervention this afternoon of the parliamentary secretary who made an extensive speech and suggested that this debate should be concluded speedily because the measure had been discussed for a number of days. I assure him that we would continue debating this measure for a considerable time if there were hope of changing the government's mind. But the government does not usually change its mind.


An hon. Member:: What mind?


Alexander Bell Patterson: The present situation is remarkable. No matter what is done, the government maintains its bullheaded attitude and says, "Let the opposition talk as long as it wants; we will go ahead and do what we want." Government members look on themselves as experts in all fields and cast aside opposition contributions as irrelevant or useless.
The following words appear on page 5 of the pamphlet "A New Perspective of the Health of Canadians", published in 1975:
Good health is the bedrock on which social progress is built. A nation of healthy people can do those things that make life worth while; as the level of health increases, so does the potential for happiness.
In presenting this bill, which will have consequential effects on the health of Canadians, the government is not moving in the direction of better health for Canadians; it is moving in the direction of poorer health. I do not expect that the government intends this to be so, but that will be the end result if this bill is passed.
I should like to emphasize for a few moments the importance of health and physical fitness to our nation. I think the government in some ways has taken an admirable stand in its attempt to encourage Canadians to become

physically fit. Canadian television is regularly broadcasting commercial messages concerning the importance of physical fitness. As well, I feel the government ought to be commended for its program of education, including television messages, to encourage people to stop smoking. This is necessary and effective, and I hope it continues.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that there is a growing awareness among Canadians that participation in activities such as smoking, drinking, over eating and wrong eating habits exact a terrible toll on the individual's health and well-being, as the minister has emphasized in his pronouncements.


An hon. Member:: Oh!


Alexander Bell Patterson: I hear a colleague interjecting. Perhaps he thinks my remarks relate to him.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member's remarks are pretty close to home.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Many people may even be able to see the relationship between these activities and the increase in the cost of hospital care and medical care. There are, however, not enough people in this class, and our efforts should be directed toward further education of our people in the importance of preventive medicine. Canadians must become more responsible for their own health. I agree with the old adage that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
In some cases the responsibility for these preventive measures will be assumed by individuals who want to change their eating habits and their drinking and exercise habits. However, as parliamentarians we must be aware of the fact that if enough people do not voluntarily assume the responsibility for corrective measures in their own behaviour, governments may be forced to legislate further in the behavioural field. For instance, I wonder just how long the non-drinking segment of society is going to put up with the added cost of health and medical care that can very readily be traced to the drinking segment of society. How long, for example again, will society let the drinking driver who is involved in a car crash exploit the non-drinking drivers by receiving benefits under medicare? There is a growing number in society who feel that a drinking driver should not receive free medical and hospital care if he is involved in a car crash.
There are millions of others in our society who may not drive cars while drinking alcohol but who increase the cost of medical and hospital care considerably because they abuse alcohol. I suggest that some thought should be given to imposing an additional tax on the liquor industry in order to pay the bills of those whose illnesses or injuries are attributable to the consumption of alcohol.
The same may be said of those who smoke. There is a great list of diseases afflicting the human body, and requiring treatment, which are attributable to the inhalation of cigarette, cigar, and pipe smoke. I suggest that smoking imposes an incredible, added cost to medical and health care services. Would it not be fair, for example, to charge a non-smoker a lower medicare premium than we charge a smoker? That would be fair. The same could be said about those with a disposition to over eat and those
March 2, 1976

who are careless in the use of a motor vehicle. Canadians should be prepared to shoulder the responsibility for better preventive health care. If they do not I suggest that governments will necessarily encourage or even force them to do so.
A few years ago a former minister of national health and welfare said that the cost of health services has risen so rapidly in Canada in recent years that three alternatives are imminent. First, the standard of health care now available can be reduced; or, second, taxes, premiums or deterrent fees could be raised ever higher; or, third, ways must be found to restrain the growth of cost increases through the better operation of the health service structure now in existence.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, the topic of my adjournment debate speech relates to the Department of National Defence and to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), but I hasten to point out that in no way does it relate to current Lockheed aircraft contracts. It relates to the minister's ultimate decision that grazing should not be permitted in 1976, and possibly for several years thereafter, in the Suffield PFRA community pasture near Medicine Hat, Alberta.
In my question to the minister of last February 17 I suggested that this decision means that approximately
5,000	head of breeding cattle will have to find new pastures in the coming months, or be put on a badly depressed cattle market. New pasture arrangements at this late date are almost impossible to arrange. Therefore the market alternative will very likely be chosen-not a pleasant prospect.
I am convinced the minister received very bad advice that originated from environmental, wildlife and fish and game interests in Alberta, both federal and provincial agencies, which in turn advised the Suffield base commander that grazing should cease. In accepting this questionable advice from his Suffield staff, the minister has chosen to ignore and reject a very well prepared and practical report with recommendations from PFRA who, of course, report to the minister's colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard).
I submit most sincerely that wildlife and fish and game enthusiasts are not practical agronomists and, further, that no authority on this continent is more knowledgeable and competent on this subject than Alex Johnston and Silver
Adjournment Debate
Smoliak of the federal research station at Lethbridge, the Alberta department of lands range management staff, and especially the staff of PFRA in Regina, particularly Dr. Bob Lodge and Walter Thompson.
PFRA have been managing many pastures over all of western Canada for almost 40 years. I have personally watched them perform. They are exceedingly competent managers and, further, are well aware of the need for conservation and environmental respect.
The recommendation of PFRA respecting this Suffield pasture is that the terms of reference that relate the use of this pasture only to "emergency drought conditions" are entirely unsatisfactory, and that the Suffield pasture should operate on a permanent basis. Improved and permanent stock watering conditions can only be developed under such terms. It is only in the vicinity of the present less than adequate water holes that there is some over grazing. This is normal during the months of August and September when our native grasses ripen, growth stops, and the brittle grasses are subject to tramping around cattle water holes.
The 141,000 acres of this Suffield pasture carry approximately 5,000 head of breeding cattle for six months. The carrying capacity, determined by many years of research at the Manyberries federal research station, for 1975 was 60 acres per mature animal unit, with one field of coarser sand grass at 80 acres for a 12 month season. That is approximately 11 head per square mile at the 60 area carrying capacity, and eight head per square mile at the 80 acre one. For a six months' season this means 22 head and 16 head respectively per square mile. That is not very many cattle. I submit there is no way there can be overgrazing as charged by the wildlife people, except around the too few water holes.
This Suffield pasture area is short grass ranching country where our grass is the result of ten to 12 inches total precipitation per year and an evaporation rate of four times the precipitation from a free water surface. I know. My summer grazing range is just the width of the South Saskatchewan River from this pasture. During the 1930's I sometimes rode over much of this same pasture area looking for some of our cattle that had crossed over the river ice in winter and had to be returned by swimming the river in the spring, a very dangerous experience I can assure you.
I want to express my appreciation to the minister for his courtesy in meeting with Mr. Jim Musgrove and myself last February 20. Mr. Musgrove was in Ottawa representing the Suffield PFRA pasture advisory committee. I am sure the minister was a little better informed as a result of that useful meeting.
I suggest that environmentalists, Suffield military staff, and wildlife enthusiasts are in no position to be critical of how cattlemen harvest grass with their cattle when the same kind of grass over the bulk of the Suffield area, excluding the PFRA pasture, is burned off with prairie fires and ploughed up by target tanks being dragged over much of the range, plus soil damage by tank tracks.
Cattlemen ranchers are by nature the very best conservationists. Their long-time livelihood depends on their understanding of and co-operation with nature. Production

March 2, 1976
Adjournment Debate
of this short grass is the highest and best use of these lands, and the multiple use concept of these lands by cattle, wildlife, including rattlesnakes-


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


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the subject raised by the hon. member tonight, that is, the question of the use of the Suffield range for grazing cattle, is one we have discussed together; we have debated it over a number of years. In answers that I have given during the question period and in personal conversations with the hon. member I have tried to make my position quite clear.
The Suffield range is held by the federal government primarily for military training purposes. The range can, however, be of very real benefit to cattlemen in the area, particularly in times of emergency and in periods of drought, as it has been in the past. It seems to me it would be best for all concerned, including the cattlemen, if the range is kept as a reserve for emergencies, as in the past, and not used for grazing on a continuous basis. If the range is used each year for continuous grazing there will be no extra pasture available during periods of drought.
There are other factors related to the ecology and the protection of wildlife which clearly point to the desirability of not using the range on a continuous basis. For these reasons it is not planned to open the range for grazing in the current year, but I see no reason why we should not give full consideration to re-opening it in future years in special circumstances, as we have done in the past. We are ready to use the range as a reserve and I think this is in the best interests of the cattlemen in the area. This, I believe, will meet the views of those who are interested in the ecology, and I think it will also meet the requirements of the Department of National Defence.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON INVESTIGATION OF DUTY FREE SHOPS-REASON FOR WARNING TO CONSUMERS ABOUT PURCHASES AT DUTY FREE SHOPS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, on February 18 I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) a straightforward and non-contentious question about duty free establishments-I emphasize the words "establishments". I wanted to know what progress was being made in investigating complaints. I made no specific reference to which ones, or to why the minister's own departmental magazine entitled Consumer Contact, published under his authority, had stated:
Some articles, like brand name cameras, can sometimes be obtained at Canadian department stores at lower prices than at duty free shops.
Imagine my surprise, Mr. Speaker, when the minister reacted, not like a tiger-for which I might have respected him-but like the angry pussy cat which Canadians have seen he can be in defending the rights of consumers, saying I was more interested in publicity than I was in the results of any investigations and that my question about the contents of his magazine relating to duty free shops

seemed to question the good faith and integrity of those who had prepared articles for it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of good clean fun may I remind the minister that on occasion cabinet ministers and even he, I venture, have been known to prepare press releases, or cause them to be prepared for publicity purposes. So I concede that I was indeed interested in bringing to the attention of the public my desire to see the minister do his job and protect the consumer. Which brings me to the point of asking once again what is going on.
Why is the department not willing to justify the basis on which it cautioned consumers against duty free shops? Or is it willing, and the minister was not sufficiently informed?
I received a very gracious letter from Robert J. Bertrand, the director of investigation and research, on January 19. In the letter he mentioned a complaint previous to mine which was being examined. It came from a member of the public and was presently being examined under the misleading advertising provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. Then Mr. Bertrand confused me a bit by saying two paragraphs later that the confidentiality requirements of the act did not allow him to indicate whether or not an inquiry under the act was in progress-although he had just so stated. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I am sure Mr. Bertrand is doing his job, and I am confident that whoever wrote the article in the October issue of the minister's publication did so in good faith, and frankjy I resent the minister's juvenile attempt to infer that I suggested otherwise.
Does the minister really want me, I wonder, to make public letters that I have received illustrating some abuses that his department is supposed to be investigating? Since the minister chose to treat my questions on February 18 as relating to my letter of January 9 regarding Sky Shops, let me remind him that it will soon be two months since he received it, and I now have many more letters from the public which I can pass along to him. However, judging by his performance so far, it looks as if there is little point in doing so.
I want to close by asking my friend, the minister, to answer my question and to do his jol>-to refrain from going into a snit and to inform the House what research was done by the author or authors of this article previously mentioned, and what is the current situation on the investigation of complaints against duty free establishments. I also ask him to keep in mind, in assessing pricing practices of establishments like Sky Shops, that not only ought he to concern himself with comparative prices available to consumers in Canadian department stores, but also with the prices that these goods can be purchased at the destination of those leaving the country. If a traveller can buy a camera for $100 at a Canadian duty free store, for $90 at a Canadian department store, and get that same camera at the foreign city or country to which he is proceeding for $80, then this is also very pertinent.


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I find it, and I know the minister finds it, very unfortunate that the

hon. member chose to take a statement in the October, 1975, issue of Consumer Contact out of context. The sentence in question appeared near the end of a two-page article entitled "Importance of Planning a Vacation" which was directed at those Canadians contemplating a vacation.
If the hon. member had read three lines further in the Consumer Contact article in question he would have seen the following:
You can only bring specific amounts of any given item into Canada without paying customs duties, however, and it is wise to find out these customs regulations before you leave on your trip.
By his question, however, the hon. member appeared to be comparing the prices in Canadian duty free shops with prices in Canadian department stores. This is clearly an invalid comparison as Canadian Consumers are unable to purchase goods in Canadian duty free shops.
I am advised that officials of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, prior to writing this article, received suggestions from various sources within the travel industry. Several of these sources indicated that there appears to be an almost automatic expectation on the part of travellers that goods normally associated with a particular country can be obtained less expensively in the duty free shops of that country than in Canadian stores. While this may be a reasonable expectation it would appear that some goods may be purchased in Canadian retail outlets at a price lower than that charged in the country being visited.
The sources for the article indicated that true bargains are to be found in liquor and cigarettes. There is a valid reason for this. We all have a pretty good idea of what these items cost. On the other hand, how many people know the prices in Canada of brand name cameras, watches or perfumes?
As to the hon. member's question on the progress of an inquiry into duty free establishments, I am advised that the director of investigation and research did write to the hon. member explaining the confidentially requirements of the act. I am therefore unable to give any details of the member's request for action under the Combines Investigation Act.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-REQUEST FOR REDEPLOYMENT OF AIR AND SEA RESCUE FORCES IN ATLANTIC REGION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbel: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for bringing the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) back so late at night, but the combination of questions and motions I and other of my colleagues have brought to the minister indicate our concern with regard to the lack of capability of the air and sea rescue unit in the Atlantic region to react to problems being faced by the fishermen in the province of Newfoundland and off the coast of Newfoundland, and its inability to take the necessary action to save those who, unfortunately, were lost over the past two or three months.
I can understand the minister's dilemma and the fact that it is not easy to redeploy forces at little or no cost. However, it is very obvious from the experience I have had in the military that the element of the air and sea rescue unit in Halifax or Summerside cannot react to the prob-
Adjournment Debate
lems which exist because of the particular conditions in the province of Newfoundland.
I feel, even with the depressed state of the economy, that consideration should be given to enlarging the element of the air and sea rescue unit so that we would be assured that precautions could be taken so that we would be in a position to face these problems. Even from the point of view of the economy, and more particularly from the point of view of the fact that hopefully the Canadian government will extend our fisheries zone 200 miles, we must start the planning so that we can participate and carry out surveillance measures after the Law of the Sea Conference.
I have suggested to the minister, and thankfully he said he would look into it, that if we are not able because of restrictions on the economy to enlarge the Canadian forces a simple solution to the problem would be to employ the reserves which are supposed to be a back-up for the Canadian forces. Over a year ago the minister indicated they would expand the auxiliary reserves and that he would consider the establishment of a unit of the reserve forces in Newfoundland. I can tell him, from my estimation of the situation, that we have at the SAC base on the west coast of Newfoundland at Stephenville a radar base that is vacant-the minister knows about the situation there- which would be a good training ground and a good place to establish a base in that part of Newfoundland so that we could train personnel to perform the surveillance activities for back-up to the Canadian forces.
The most important thing is that we appreciate the problem which exists and prepare for it. While I can understand the difficulties the minister faces, the fact remains that in the past two months we lost six fishermen. It is amazing to me why they could not be located and saved. It would seem this was because of the lack of capacity of the air and sea rescue unit of our Canadian forces.
What I am doing is asking the minister to look at it a little more closely, to make a study, which I will help him with, and to look at the three strategic locations involved which could be available. Hopefully he will direct the Chief of the Defence Staff to direct people within the Canadian armed forces to look into three areas: the logistic support which is there, the infra structure support which is there, and to try to determine the mission that they are going to have to look after in the near future when we extend our 200 mile fishery zone, and to consider it realistically. Hopefully in a spirit of comradeship they can accept the suggestion I have made in a spirit of co-operation and expertise.
James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to compliment the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) on his very obviously deep concern for the welfare and safety of the fishermen in his region. That is a concern I share, and I think it has been demonstrated over recent months and years that the Canadian armed forces have played their part in protecting or helping fishermen in the region who have got into difficulties for one reason or another.

March 2, 1976
Adjournment Debate
However, I think it is important to emphasize once again that in marine rescues the prime function of the Department of National Defence is the co-ordination of activities through the rescue co-ordination centres. In each of the recent marine incidents on the east coast mentioned by the hon. member the rescue co-ordination centre has responded promptly, as soon as it was made aware that vessels were in distress.
I am certain that the hon. member is aware that it is primarily vessels from other government departments and agencies which are used for marine rescue. A number of these vessels are on continuous patrol throughout the Canadian east coast area, and they are prepared to assist immediately, on notice.
There are also a number of vessels belonging primarily to the Ministry of Transport based at various harbours of Newfoundland, whose prime function is marine search and rescue.
Although my department's main responsibility and primary function is the co-ordination of marine search, we also provide an air search capability, but we can only do that whenever weather conditions make this possible. A review of events in the past three rescue attempts shows that the search by air was delayed on two occasions by weather, and on one occasion by darkness. The fact that the aircraft were based at Summerside had no bearing on the time they joined the search.
As I mentioned before, Canadian Forces Base Summer-side appears to be the optimum location for search aircraft as it is the hub of the area of responsibility. In a previous adjournment debate the details of the search for the vessel Son Juan were recorded in Hansard for February 26, 1976, and a review of events of that search will show that the department's rescue co-ordination centre acted in a prompt and responsible manner, as it has on many previous occasions.
I believe that the hon. member will agree with the statement made recently in the House by the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) when he was speaking of the Department of National Defence and of the work of the Ministry of Transport in search and rescue. He said that on many occasions these departments have helped and have in fact saved lives. I hope that that will be recognized and reflected back to the constituents of the hon. member. I should like him to look more often at the times airmen have gone out in adverse weather conditions and have in fact achieved rescues, rather than point out-I know it is his main responsibility to do so but unfortunately it does not reflect favourably or fairly on some Canadian forces personnel-those times when we are unable to effect a rescue. On average the work of our Canadian forces is, I think, of a very high standard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, March 3, 1976