1976-02-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. On February 10, the Solicitor General indicated he would provide details of the criteria or methods used by the penitentiary system to determine priorities for psychiatric treatment. Since it now appears there are no such criteria of general application and since the so-called peace and security legislation introduced to the House yesterday is silent in the area of the psychiatric treatment of inmates in Canadian penitentiaries, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That this House direct the Solicitor General to immediately prepare criteria for priorities of psychiatric treatment and table same in the House with an accompanying motion for the consideration thereof by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be put. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the real number of unemployed workers had risen to 241,000 in January from 216,000 in December 1975 that, at the present time, there is a very substantial increase of the unemployment rate in Quebec, especially among young people and, also, that an amount of $4 billion is to be spent in 1975-76 in unemployment insurance benefits, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House immediately take all necessary steps to enable the federal government to reassess the job creating programs now in effect
so that Canadian workers, specially in Quebec, regain confidence and finally, the fight against inflation may be as effective as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: 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 a consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent and important matter, at least to Atlantic Canada. The urgency arises out of replies given in the House yesterday by the Minister of National Defence with respect to base closing and consolidation studies. Because the report with respect to base closure is expected to be presented to the minister and cabinet in March, and having regard to the economic impact of such a development, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That this House instruct the Minister of National Defence to seek assurances from his colleague, the minister responsible for regional economic development, that any base closure will not result in widespread civilian lay-offs or undue economic hardship for the region concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, unanimous consent is required before the motion can be put.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. It was reported yesterday that Japan's upper and lower houses have

February 25, 1976
Consumer Affairs
called on the United States government and Senate to release all undisclosed information on Lockheed's bribery payments. It is well known, as well, that the general accounting office of the United States government has warned the U.S. Congress that Lockheed may fail to meet the 1978 deadline for repaying the $195 million it borrowed under a government loan guarantee. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the Canadian government follow the Japanese example and request all undisclosed information on Lockheed bribery payments and, as well, in view of the apparent shaky financial position of that corporation, we request the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) to consider immediate cancellation of contract proceedings with Lockheed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an urgent and important matter.
Since companies purchasing cattle for consumption, particularly those in Quebec, act through a single buyer at auction sales of livestock, thus removing any competition at the buying stage and enabling these companies to pay ridiculous prices to producers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs be requested to inquire into cattle auctions and investigate producers to identify companies responsible for procedures which ensure them monopoly over cattle buying, and that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs take court action against such companies.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under 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:: Since there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


TRIBUTES TO NEW LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Prime Minister on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that this enthusiasm when I rise will not be interpreted as whistling in the dark by any ill-wishers of the party. I thank you for permitting me to rise for the second week in a row on a question of order relative to the leadership of the Conservative party. I hope this will not become a habit, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for permission to use this point of order to welcome into the House the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) as Leader of the Official Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I am voicing the feeling entertained by all members on the government side in congratulating the members of the Progressive Conservative Party for their convention held last weekend. It has been an event much to their credit, an event which has been followed by very many Canadians and reflected a sense of progress of democracy within this party much tb its credit and which, I feel, augurs well of the destinies of Canada. When I see that the two major parties of this country, not to mention the other two, is imbued with a spirit of democracy, a spirit of service towards Canadian public, I am satisfied.
Last week, I was expressing the wish that the leader who would be chosen would follow the footsteps of the former leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), and I think this wish has been realized. Here is a leader who will do well in pursuing the ideals of the hon. member for Halifax. I know that we will have more than one political battle to fight one against the other, but I comfort myself with the feeling that we are both aiming at the same good, the Canadian commonweal, and of this I think everybody is assured.

I would admit, Mr. Speaker, that I feel a little bit as though we on this side of the House should put our wagons in a circle when I see how surrounded we are on the other side by leadership candidates, and by potential leaders of the party.
Some bon. Members: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am used to sitting opposite the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), and I probably could get used to sitting opposite the hon. member for Rocky Mountain.


An hon. Member:: On which side?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You have done nothing but a Joe job.
February 25, 1976


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can see that I have more than half the Tory caucus against me today. Anyone would be intimidated in my place if he were faced not by one, not by two but by three generations of Tory leaders.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are of the wrong generation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know that in these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition will not lack expert advice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am somewhat consoled by the fact that I do have several of his chums from southern Alberta in my office to advise me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If that is not sufficient I would hope we will be able to pick up some Liberal members in Alberta at the next general election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Don't hold your breath, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) suggests, I do not think I should hold my breath in that regard, particularly when I look into the galleries and see the number of relatives the hon. member has.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Speaking seriously, Mr. Speaker, I have been told that the new Leader of the Opposition has wanted to become Prime Minister since he was in his teens. I can vouch for the fact that he has lost no time in coming to the point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just yesterday, only two days after the leadership convention, I received a letter from the hon. leader's national president, Mr. Michael Meighen. It is a somewhat moving letter, or at least I find it moving. There is no doubt about the address; it is to the Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau, M.P., Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I assume that will still be my title for a little while. It begins very warmly by saying "Dear Friend".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It goes on to state:
Never has the need for an alternative to Trudeau and his party been more apparent;-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I won't read it all, Mr. Speaker, but it does get to the point-
New P C. Leader


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All right, I will read some more, Mr. Speaker. It states:
The federal Progressive Conservative party has always taken tough stands on vital national issues;-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a statement of fact with which I won't quarrel, Mr. Speaker, but the succeeding paragraph asks me to consider what I will do to share in the task before us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Resign, resign.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The advice here is not to resign; it is to give money to the Tory party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker it says here quite clearly: "The PC Party needs your help".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the leader I will do my best to keep him in his present job as long as I can and, as I had occasion to say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party a few months ago, I wish him well, but not too well. I can understand the desire to be Prime Minister-you know, a big car and the swimming pool, especially now that the question of anonymous donors will no longer be an issue. But I assure him it is much more fun to be Leader of the Opposition and I will co-operate in every way I can to ensure that that is the case.


An hon. Member:: What about the cheque?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The cheque is requested on a little leaflet-these will be my final words, Mr. Speaker-which says: "Yes, Mr. Meighen, you can count on me to do my share".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in welcoming the new Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) I should like to say first of all to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-and I am sure he will not misunderstand the spirit of my comment-that perhaps the reason he got the letter from Mr. Meighen was that, given his recorded and publicly known contribution to the Liberal party, it was thought that he might be willing to give more to his opponents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I do want, Mr. Speaker, to present very best wishes on behalf of my colleagues to the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, on what I think is almost universally acknowledged, both within his party and outside, as a

New P.C. Leader
remarkable personal victory for an extremely able young man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I and some of my colleagues watched the television screen with considerable interest, particularly the discussions of the pundits who were making much of the problems he and the other candidates had in resolving certain conflicts between the left and the right in the party.
I should like to say to the hon. member that unless and until he is a member of a socialist party he really will not know what a battle is between the left and the right. I am sure also that the hon. member will understand that in congratulating him on his personal victory I and my colleagues want to make sure that all of his victories in the future continue to be of a strictly personal nature.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add one final note which is that as that well-known backbencher, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), might have put it if he were to comment at this point, I must frankly say that the new Leader of the Official Opposition does seem to be just a wee bit young to be taking on the onerous responsibilities of leading a political party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pointed out a moment ago that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) has many relatives in the opposition gallery. Not only are there relatives of the Leader of the Official Opposition, I also have some of my relatives in the opposition gallery. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister as well has some of his relatives in the gallery of the government.
It is a great pleasure for me to echo the words of welcome of the Prime Minister and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). I wish good luck to the "young" leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. As a matter of fact, I watched very closely the events of the convention last weekend, when the hon. member for Rocky Mountain started practically from square one to reach the top of his political party. Nobody expected that. As we say in English, it really was the victory of the dark horse.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite an honour for a young man of 36 to become leader of one of the main political parties in Canada. In the House, a lot of work awaits him. He now has one responsibility which he did not have last week. He also replaces a leader who did his best to promote understanding and unity in Canada. And I particularly remember what he said about national unity-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: -on the evening of his election. Everybody talks about national unity, and the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was no exception Sunday night: he talked about national unity as the basis. What is unfortunate during such conventions, be it a Liberal, a Progressive Conservative or a Social Credit convention, is to hear grumblers behind the scene say for

instance: We will lick those french frogs; or we will beat the French Canadians. Or Again, French Canadians say: "That is a move against the English". I know whereof I speak.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


David Réal Caouette: I hear one of my friends exclaim: Oh, oh! In 1961, I too could have said, oh, oh!, when a former Social Credit premier of Alberta came and told me straight to my face that the west would never accept a Catholic French Canadian as national leader of a political party. That is what I was told in 1961. Today, when the leaders, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Official Opposition, the leader of the NDP and myself are all fighting for national unity, there are still narrow-minded people, not just out in western Canada, but in the east as well, who try to destroy Canada instead of building it up. The time has come for all leaders and all federal members without any exception to practice what they preach. The time has come to agree and reflect on Canada instead of thinking in terms of the English language and the French language.
The main problem in Canada if not one of languages but one of economic nature. When the day comes where all together we have solved the economic problem, we can continue to speak French in Quebec, English in western Canada, and we will then have at least the assurance of living decently in our country. I trust the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party will do everything in his power to achieve that true national unity.
Mr. Speaker, my last words will advise the Leader of the Opposition of something his predecessors never seemed to understand: that the official name of the party I represent here is the Social Credit Party of Canada. Even last week, I heard it called the ralliement creditiste. That party is in Quebec, not in Ottawa. Here, we have The Social Credit Party of Canada.
Good luck to the Leader of the Opposition and to his colleagues!
[DOT] (M30)


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -mes amis du parlement, it is naturally a very moving occasion for me to take my place here today and to hear so many kind things said, for the last time no doubt, by so many of my hon. colleagues in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I have been here but a short time but have had the privilege, both from the galleries and from a perspective across the country, to learn to appreciate-the camaraderie which is the essence of this Chamber and of this House. I recognize that that has been expressed here again today, and I express from the bottom of my heart my very deep appreciation of the welcome that has been
February 25, 1976

shown me, even though I realize how short lived that good will will be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should warn the House that I am the second of my family to have assumed an official position here. A great uncle of mine was the first parliamentary secretary to be appointed in the history of Canada. Immediately after that appointment the House of Commons burned down-I trust there will be no unhealthy repetition of that precedent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I particularly appreciate the welcome of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and of the other party leaders. I point out to the Prime Minister, since he, like the rest of us, is now in receipt of the mails-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -that the letter which he received was addressed to him as a member of parliament, and it was not addressed to 24 Sussex Drive. With regard to his title as the right honourable, we expect that even though he might be able to maintain the title to which the letter was addressed, mail coming from Michael Meighen to 24 Sussex Drive in the future will not be there through any computer error.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should go on to indicate on behalf of my colleagues that we had no indication of the nature in which the Prime Minister intended to respond to that appeal from the national president, and we welcome support-and I should say we have been receiving it-from all quarters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I particularly appreciate also the indication of the Prime Minister of a willingness to help us in our work, and I can say to him-and I am sure he will take no offence at all-that there are very many of us who believe he is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am very pleased to be able to address this House in French for the first time as Leader of the Opposition. I shall have the opportunity to do this very often in the future and I can assure you I shall take it each time. It is a great advantage for a Canadian politician to be able to speak both official languages. The French language represents a cultural wealth I want to study further so that one day I will feel pride in being a bilingual Canadian.

Because I missed some of the events of last week, for reasons which the House will understand, I just want to add a very brief word of my expression of personal gratitude, and on behalf of my party, to my temporary seatmate and my continuing friend and adviser, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), who was honoured so appropriately and so fully in this House last week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
New P.C. Leader


Charles Joseph Clark: As I had occasion to say the other day, it was my privilege to serve an apprenticeship under the Hon. Robert Stanfield, and one could not have a better teacher in learning about the art of conciliation and of governing this country. I respect that apprenticeship and I will do my utmost to honour that tradition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If I may be permitted one more remark of an internal partisan kind in this House-because occasionally the internal politics of my party become of interest beyond our party-I wish to express my personal appreciation to all my hon. colleagues here and from outside parliament who joined with me in a campaign which, as several have indicated, was indeed a model of democracy and an indication of the continuing effectiveness of the political systems in our country. I want particularly to express my appreciation, that of my party, and I believe that of my country to my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner)-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -for the very gracious manner in which he indicated the national nature of our party and the importance of Canadians of whatever background coming together, in moments of elation or in moments of disappointment, to work together for a common country whose heritage we all appreciate and can all expand by working commonly together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I hope the Clerk of the House-and I naturally prefer that pronounciation to the British one-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -has not been paying too close attention to attendance lately. I have been away, and it is really quite startling to come back to the House and to hear oneself for the first time referred to by the Prime Minister as the Leader of the Opposition. It is a moving experience and one to whose satisfactions I hope to be able to introduce him myself sometime in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: It won't be long.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) has obviously taken in good grace the shock of no longer being the youngest party leader in the House of Commons. I thank him for his kind remarks. His problems of internal difficulties may continue; ours, of course, are over!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to reassure him that I still believe that in the world of socialist politicians he is easily still a match for many a 60 year old in Sweden.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
11238

February 25, 1976
New P.C. Leader


Charles Joseph Clark: I thank the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada for his good wishes. I am pleased to see that he and his party are so happy about what is happening to me. I shall not forget to reciprocate these wishes when I go to Quebec to make people in general and Social Credit members in particular better acquainted with me.

As the House may have noted I have had some early difficulties in becoming recognized in the country. One newspaper headline that I saw posed the question "Joe Who?" I did not take any exception to that.


An hon. Member:: Joe Guay.


Charles Joseph Clark: No, it was-

No, it was an English newspaper. It was not Joe qui-

I am so well prepared to let that pass that I would now probably have to ask myself "which Star?"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is, of course, Mr. Speaker, a very proud and moving occasion for me to formally take my place in this House as leader of my great party and Leader of the Opposition, as well as of the alternative government of Canada. I will do my best to honour my post-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Not for long.


An hon. Member:: Scattered applause!


Charles Joseph Clark: My colleagues opposite indicated there was some scattered applause. Mr. Speaker, let me say I am proud to be here as leader of the alternative government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Talk about trained seals.


George Harris Hees: Any more comments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Any more trained seals?


Charles Joseph Clark: I shall do my best, Mr. Speaker, to honour my post with responsibility, with foresight and with partisanship, as did my two illustrious colleagues who immediately preceded me.
I thank you all for your good wishes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Well, Mr. Speaker, here we go.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Hold on to your hats over there.


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the member for York-Simcoe asked the Prime Minister whether there will be a deficit this year of approximately $5 billion, to which the Prime Minister replied that the President of the Treasury Board had already made a statement on that subject. The Prime Minister might not have had a chance to refresh his memory at that time on exactly the nature of the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board on February 18 which indicated that the government now intends to spend $2 billion more than it said it intended to spend in the budget address of June 23. Would the Prime Minister now tell the House whether the government anticipates a deficit of nearly $5 billion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the figures speak for themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I said, the estimates were tabled by the President of the Treasury Board and he made a statement. The estimates will be examined by the House, so the opposition will be in a position to examine the figures and criticize them, as undoubtedly they will want to do.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question. Given the fact that we now have an anticipated deficit in the neighbourhood of $5 billion, will the Prime Minister indicate whether the government intends to respond to that deficit by continuing in debt, with the inflationary consequence that involves, by increasing taxation or by facing the realities and necessities of Canada directly and making an immediate announcement of some substantial and dramatic cuts in government expenditure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has made it clear that he will be tabling a budget in the course of the coming months. The Leader of the Opposition knows that a question on whether or not we will cut taxes, or whether we will increase them or take other fiscal measures will be announced in the budget, and that is not done in answer to a question across the floor of the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is it the final position of the Prime Minister that there will not be until the introduction of a budget at some future date, any further indication of significant cuts in the spending of the government of Canada? Are we
February 25, 1976

going to have to live with the terribly bad example of a failure of restraint symbolized by a $5 billion deficit?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my answer relating to the budget referred to fiscal matters and tax cuts or increases. It did not refer to expenditures. After the exercise in cutting that the President of the Treasury Board announced before Christmas, the government had every intention of seeking out other areas where we can cut expenditures. There is no wish on the part of the government to postpone this to any particular date. I will be looking forward with great anxiety to specific propositions from the Leader of the Opposition.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Considering that the government's contribution to unemployment insurance has increased by the unacceptably high rate of 91 per cent, from $890 million to $1.7 billion this year over last, can the minister assure the House that changes introduced in Bill C-69 will result in a decrease in federal contributions for next year or, merely, that the rate of increase will not be quite as high?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think that matter was thoroughly discussed in the debate on Bill C-69. There will be a reduction of the government's share of whatever level of unemployment insurance benefit payments develops during 1976 which, of course, is based in the main on the level of unemployment.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the conference board among others predicts an increased rate of unemployment for 1976, and considering that the publication of the Treasury Board claims the increase in UIC payments "relects the increase in unemployment that took place from 1974 to 1975", is the minister now saying that he does expect a rise in contributions by the government to the UIC fund?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that is based on several variable factors, one of which the hon. member has already indicated, namely the rate of unemployment and the measure of unemployment in 1976.


ALLEGED SECRET AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS-INSISTENCE ON APPLICATION OF CANADIAN SAFEGUARDS TO PAKISTAN
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. There is a report in the New York Times that an official in Washington said
Oral Questions
yesterday that Canada, along with a number of other countries, has signed a secret agreement covering safeguard requirements for the sale of nuclear equipment abroad. Has Canada in fact signed such an agreement? Also, is it a secret agreement as reported? If so, why are the details of it being kept secret?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no secret agreement. I very much doubt that there would be one. I have not seen the report referred to by the hon. member. It is possible that it would be based on the meeting of nuclear suppliers which was held in London some months ago, and which Canada attended with the very express purpose of enjoining other countries to upgrade their safeguards to the same high level as Canada has unilaterally upgraded her safeguards. Therefore, in this context, it is true that we are seeking agreement from other countries not to try to undercut us by having lower levels of safeguards and thereby increasing the danger of proliferation. We are seeking this. There is no secret about it. The results of the conference have not yet been conclusive. I will refer any supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who may be in a position to add some other facts.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is of such a general nature that I am sure the Prime Minister will not require particular knowledge to answer it. In his discussions with Prime Minister Ali Bhutto of Pakistan or in discussions between him and Canadian officials, has the Canadian government made clear to the government of Pakistan that we will be insisting that the new safeguard provisions apply to Canadian uranium or reactor by-products which would be used in that country for French plants? I ask this in light of the report that the government of Pakistan is saying that it will not apply the Canadian safeguards to Canadian nuclear material which may be used with equipment or reactors supplied by other countries.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only indicate to the leader of the NDP that we have indeed been discussing safeguards; the Prime Minister of Pakistan, myself and my officials. They have been made aware of the very high level of safeguards that Canada is now demanding. They have argued, with some understanding, that they are concerned that our safeguards are in a sense being applied retroactively since they are being heightened in the process of an exchange which began some years ago. This is the essence of the argument. I cannot report today that the argument has been solved conclusively to the satisfaction of either party. The discussions are going on. I am sure that when we have reached an agreement, as I am confident we will, the House will be made aware of what that agreement is.


John Edward Broadbent: I understand that all the details have not yet been settled. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that one of the preconditions the government of Canada will insist upon i^ that the safeguard provisions, as they pertain to any further equipment or supplies in the nuclear field supplied by Canada, will in fact apply to equipment now in Pakistan, even though that equipment came from another country originally? Related to that, will he assure the House we will have an opportunity to debate
11240

February 25, 1976
Oral Questions
this very important question before the signing of the agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question of the reprocessing plant to which the hon. member is alluding is, of course, at the centre of our discussions with Pakistan, as it was in our discussions with South Korea. The House knows that in the case of South Korea, the government of that country announced it did not intend to proceed with the reprocessing plant. We have no such undertaking from Pakistan. I repeat, the discussion is going on. The House can assume from the position we took in previous cases that we are very concerned about the possibility of a reprocessing plant being set up in Pakistan. That is at the heart of the discussions. I repeat to the hon. member that the discussions are not concluded.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
During his recent trip to British Columbia with his cabinet colleagues, the Prime Minister met his political friends many times to discuss the future of French-speaking television in British Columbia. I noticed that the Prime Minister was quite straight in his answers. Can he tell the House if the French-speaking community of British Columbia will really get CBC services in French and when?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as regards the government's intents or, more precisely, those of the Crown corporation called CBC, my answer is yes, for CBC is actually equipped to provide services in French to the French-speaking community of British Columbia. So, as regards the plans, the answer is yes. As for carrying out such plans, the hon. member knows that the corporation must get from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission-the CRTC- the authority to broadcast its programs; and the request for such authority is now before the CRTC. Obviously we hope to have a positive answer. However, I do not want to add anything, for it is almost a judicial commission on which the government cannot exert political pressures.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister's explanations are clear enough. French television has obviously been promised by the government in order that French Canadians in Western Canada be provided with the services of the Crown corporation. Should the CRTC fail to issue the licence, does the government then not have some means, not by putting the matter aside, but to urge the CRTC to grant authorization for broadcasting in French in the west, as much as we in Quebec tolerate English programs in certain regions where there are almost no Anglophones?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will allow me to make three remarks: first, it is an extremely technical matter. We must know if the stations can be freed or occupied by French-language programs. This again depends on that quasi-judicial commission. Second, the question by the hon. member, in its very form, is purely hypothetical. Third, his question involves some pessimism I do not share.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief but important question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In his absence, I will direct it to the Prime Minister or the acting minister. The question arises out of the disturbing, indeed scandalous, situation at Moosonee portrayed on CBC television last evening. I would ask whether it is possible for the minister to sit down with the appropriate minister in the government of Ontario to make some firm decisions and agreements so that these expensive houses, schools and other facilities can be put to productive use by and for the native people of that region?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and get back to the hon. member with the information.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. The government of Canada is spending half a million dollars a year to maintain these facilities which include recreation facilities such as a swimming pool which, incidentally, was drained while the Prime Minister's pool was being built. Will the Prime Minister see that these facilities are put to use for those who have lived there all their lives in sub-human conditions? Will he personally take this matter in hand today in order to find a solution to this problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will see that the hon. member's representations are drawn to the attention of the minister.


NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS-APPLICABILITY TO OLD AS WELL AS NEW INSTALLATIONS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to clarify the intent of the words of the Prime Minister in the answers he gave to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. Am I to understand that it is the policy of the government, in connection with requests for assistance involving nuclear installations in underdeveloped countries, that when those nations already pos-
February 25, 1976

sess facilities or installations from Canada the government will insist that the new nuclear safeguards will apply equally to the new installations as well as to the old?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can
answer the question easily as it applies to new installations of countries which want to share in Canada's technology. As far as installations which already exist are concerned, for example in Pakistan and, for that matter, in India, we are doing our utmost to ensure that our present very high level of safeguards obtains. I cannot give the results of the negotiations with Pakistan and India because they are still going on. We are trying to get the best possible results. The House should be aware of one danger. If we are absolutely dogmatic about this and withdraw all co-operation with such countries, there is no guarantee that we will not end up with even less safeguards than were originally agreed upon, because these countries will say: Okay, you are now imposing new conditions; we do not agree with them. They will break off, and look for technology and supplies in other areas, as indeed has happened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: May I attempt to draw out the Prime Minister further by asking him whether the new safeguards would also apply when any nation contracts in the future for fuel for an installation, whether the installation emanates from Canada or not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is our intention that there should be safeguards over the entire life of the overall components of the nuclear process.


NUCLEAR REACTORS-WILLINGNESS OF PAKISTAN TO SIGN NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: supplementary to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In the discussions with Pakistan were any indications given as to when that country would be prepared to sign and ratify the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The matter was raised on several occasions- prior, I mean, to this particular visit. I believe the subject has been discussed in various forums. I know the answer that Pakistan gives, but I cannot give the House any assurance that they will change their position on it.


PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH REGIONAL NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE CENTRE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: With respect to the concern shown by the Prime Minister in terms of the reprocessing facilities, I wonder whether the government has yet taken a position on the proposal of Secretary of State Kissinger at the United Nations last September when he spoke about the need for the establishment of a multinational regional nuclear fuel cycle centre whose purpose
Oral Questions
would be to encourage regional energy co-operation and safeguard the peaceful use of nuclear power. Has the government yet taken a position on this proposal and has it formed a part of the negotiations with the other countries mentioned in the context of nuclear safeguards?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would have to inquire whether that particular subject was raised at the nuclear suppliers' meeting in London. Personally, I do not know. I do know that Canada's safeguards have been moved by us to a higher degree of safety than those of any other nuclear supplier and we are trying to bring other countries along in our wake.


AIRPORTS
Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. On Tuesday, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported that a letter had been sent by the minister to the City of Mississauga implying that the Toronto International Airport might be expanded. The minister subsequently denied this but said arrival times might be spread out. Can the hon. gentleman confirm, first, that in planning to spread arrival times the minister will not drop the present curfew hours, and, second, that the government will not alter its commitment that there will be no significant airport expansion at Malton, despite the Tory government in Ontario reneging on its commitments in connection with Pickering.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: I am happy to reassure the hon. member on both those points. No consideration has been given to any change in the curfew. The lack of facilities at Pickering does mean that we face a heavy volume of approaching traffic in the Toronto region and are obliged to look at the Malton facilities to determine how the airport can, indeed, cope with the pressure which will be placed upon it. That was the point of the sentence in my letter to which the hon. member referred. I might say that my letter went on to emphasize our consciousness of the concern and interest of the people in the area of the airport, and the way they suffered as a result of the increased use of that airport. It did refer to the commitment against further expansion at Malton.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? It relates to the takeover of Checkerboard Foods by Swift Canadian and has to do with the question I put to the hon. gentleman yesterday. He told us then that he would have an answer the next day or two from the combines investigation branch. In view of the fact that the company is due to close down today and lay

February 25, 1976
Oral Questions
off 180 workers, may I ask the minister whether he has received that answer from the Combines Investigation Branch and, further, whether he has looked into the other part of the answer he gave me about the Combines Investigation Act taking precedence over FIRA?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I regret I do not have the answer today. I am sure we shall have it tomorrow, because the matter will have to be considered tomorrow; it is precisely on the point about which the hon. member asks, namely, whether one act does take precedence over the other. That is a matter we shall have to decide tomorrow; it is not quite clear and there will need to be considerable discussion about it.


Max Saltsman: Will the minister take a look at the precedent established by a former minister of trade and commerce, Mr. Howe, that of rejecting any advice from the Combines Investigation Branch?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In the light of a statement by a senior officer of the National Defence Employees' Association last Thursday or Friday that we can announce on unimpeachable authority that it was being recommended that the airborne regiment be moved from Edmonton and that two other bases in Alberta would be closed, may I ask whether the minister is able to verify this information. If so, can he tell us whether these recommendations have reached his cabinet colleagues and what his position will be?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: I am unable to go beyond the answer I gave yesterday on this same general subject. I cannot comment on individual decisions, or individual bases or individual regiments. They are all being considered in the course of the infrastructure study which is going ahead at the present time.


INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY-DATE OF RELEASE OF REPORT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Will the minister confirm or deny reports that the land forces based in Calgary are to be moved and that bases are to be closed in the Province of Alberta? If he cannot give an answer today, may I ask him when that secret report he has been studying will be publicly disclosed so that he can give honest and straightforward answers in the House?


James Armstrong Richardson: I said yesterday that the recommendation would probably go before cabinet next month, and that I did not know how long cabinet would take to consider them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister said that recommendations will go

forward, I take it he now has positive and definite information. What are the recommendations, and are these bases going to be closed?


CLOSURE OF BASES-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES WILL RECEIVE HELP FINDING EMPLOYMENT
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since 35 to 40 per cent of the civilian employees at Canadian military bases across the country are between the ages of 52 and 54 years and have a general education level less than grade 10, and since they are in a sense technologically redundant which would make it extremely difficult to place them in equivalent jobs in their present home situations, what assurances can the Prime Minister give these individuals that when the time comes for a hard decision, for biting the bullet, every possible opportunity, indeed priority, will be given them to find or help them to find equivalent jobs in their local areas without undue hardship?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, part of the question is by way of representation, of which, of course, I take note. The hon. member will have heard the Minister of National Defence indicate on previous occasions when there was a discussion of base closings that all these precautions were indeed important, that we would take them, and we will continue to take them.


INDUSTRY
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister assured me three weeks ago that he would soon be making a statement to the House or taking part in a debate to outline the government's position on the introduction of productivity incentives, to be paid in direct proportion to increases in productivity, following my original question on the subject of four months ago, would the Prime Minister advise the House when he intends to speak in the House on this very important matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will consult my calendar and perhaps let the hon. member know.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
February 25, 1976

Considering the declarations by the Leader of the Opposition during the leadership campaign, to the effect that the field of cultural affairs should be transferred to the provinces, and considering that on Monday, February 23, the secretary of the office responsible for federal-provincial relations declared before the Institute of Public Administration of Canada that the cultural security which Quebec is seeking could be achieved without entailing a transfer of jurisdiction, can the right hon. Prime Minister confirm whether or not he agrees with this opinion and advise the House whether the government is working to devise a formula which would enable Quebec or any other Canadian province to fulfil its objectives of cultural identity without having to reopen the issue of separation of jurisdiction, such as it is defined in sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer in one word is yes. I agree with this view. Indeed I believe it is possible and desirable for each province to work very efficiently in this field. I think that the history of the last decades also indicates that the federal government must keep playing its role in the cultural field, in particular as far as protecting and promoting the French language. I think it is an acknowledged fact that federal agencies have done a lot for the development and progress of the French language in this country. Therefore I think that, within the framework of the constitution as it is presently written, it is possible to achieve enormous progress in this domain and enable the provinces to protect their cultural legacy without having to amend the constitution.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
Recently the president of the Union des artistes sent to the minister a brief in which it showed how the CBC falsified the real Canadian content of its programs. Would the minister tell the House if he has examined this brief and what measures he intends to take?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have seen the brief. I am studying it and, of course, the corporation is studying it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is diverted to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister had a chance to investigate the length of time it took the air-sea rescue unit in
Oral Questions
Halifax to respond to the unfortunate incident when two fishermen were lost off the east coast of Newfoundland?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that I have been able to examine the facts at this time, I may say this was essentially a marine search. There were three vessels in the area. The main function of our air search and rescue is to identify and find missing objects, such as missing ships, from the air. There was no reason to send out an aircraft because the Coast Guard were already in contact with the ship that was in difficulty. It was only later when contact with the ship was lost during the night that we had to send out an aircraft, and that explains in part the time it took for the aircraft to get there. There was no reason for it to start out in the first instance, but once it was needed it got there and did discover the ship.



POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING AIR RESCUE UNIT IN NEWFOUNDLAND

Jack Marshall: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I cannot agree with that philosophy or strategy but I do not want to argue with the minister. In view of the fact that there have now been three incidents, would the minister consider the provision of an air rescue element in the province of Newfoundland? Would the minister also consider, having regard to his statement last year that he was going to set up two new air force auxiliary reserve units, locating one in Newfoundland where the infrastructure exists as a result of the existence of SAC bases there during there war? It could be done at low cost, and recruits would be available from air cadet units and other units.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I did explain to the hon. member before why it was not practical or efficient for us to have an air search and rescue capability in Newfoundland, that we should not spread that capability around to places where maintenance work could not be done. There are also other reasons why it would not be cost-effective. As for the air reserve, I would be glad to take another look at that possibility.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the minister inform the House whether it is still the intention of the government to proceed with the removal of land from Wood Buffalo National Park to satisfy land claims of treaty No. 8?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the government knew of

February 25, 1976
Oral Questions
Treaty No. 8 in 1922 when the park was first established and made no allowance for the removal of land to cover treaty requirements at that time, would the minister consider negotiating with the province so that provincial Crown land could be used to satisfy the treaty requirements, instead of portions of Wood Buffalo National Park, so we can preserve the park intact?


J. Judd Buchanan: There was considerable study made of this selection, by the Indian people, prior to this action being taken and they did identify roughly 42,000 acres which are being withdrawn from Wood Buffalo National Park. There are an additional 55,000 acres still outstanding which will quite likely come from Alberta Crown lands. That was the land identified, and since this was an obligation, as the hon, member has said, ante-dating the creation of the park, we felt it had a prior claim.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that concern grows every day that employees of Westinghouse Canada wait for a decision, I wonder whether the minister is now in a position to provide any reassurance that the jobs there will be protected; and would he specifically give an answer before he leaves for his next journey abroad?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question earlier when it was put to me by the hon. member for Hamilton West. I indicated then that I was doing my best to get the matter resolved during the current week, and that continues to be the position.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Since shelter is of paramount importance to the unfortunate and homeless people of Guatemala, I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman and his government would give consideration to a program that would produce prefabricated housing involving Canadian materials and workmanship: and in view of the fact that this type of housing can be produced quickly at the Point Edward industrial park in Cape Breton, such a program would serve a twofold purpose: it would aid the victims of the earthquake in Guatemala, and also tend to reduce somewhat the very high unemployment rate in Cape Breton, of which I am sure the right hon. gentleman is very much aware.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his suggestion on a matter which is obviously of serious concern. I will ensure that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are seized of this question. If there is something we can do about it, we will be glad to do so.



OBJECTION OF MAYOR OF HULL TO HER MAJESTY OPENING OLYMPIC GAMES-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister, and I am sure he will agree with my premise and my interest in the question which pertains to Her Majesty, who is no foreigner in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: How does the right hon. gentleman view the strange and absurd paradox in the recent utterances of His Worship the mayor of Hull in today's press, voicing objection to Her Majesty presiding at the opening of the Canadian Olympic Games in Montreal when he said: She has no business being there. We don't need foreigners to open our games.
At the same time, His Worship voices no objection to the presence in the latest of Her Majesty's public works estimates of $50 million for Hull.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House realizes I have no jurisdiction, direct or indirect, over the mayor of Hull. The hon. member has made a representation and I am sure the mayor of Hull will hear about it.



EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce aware that three companies, two foreign controlled and the Simard-Bourassa dominated Marine Industries Limited, received 52*/2 per cent of the benefit of some $695 million in contracts signed by Export Development Limited in 1975 and, if so, would the minister indicate whether he feels it is desirable to have such a concentration of financing for the benefit of a corporate few?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the question asks for an opinion and I will be glad to give it. If it results in, what was the figure, some half a billion dollars worth of business I would think the EDC was fully justified, with the normal kind of protection for Canadian people, investing
February 25, 1976

in that kind of undertaking for export. I only wish we had half a dozen more like it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the huge sums that are involved here, will he indicate whether he intends to take any steps to ensure in future that the EDC financing benefits will be spread more equitably to businessmen throughout Canada, and that financings of up to $130 million, as in the case of Marine Industries Limited, of dredging fame, will not be permitted to occur in the future, bearing in mind that these financings have a seven per cent interest rate which is a tremendous subsidy by the people of Canada to these corporate few?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would really like to know from the hon. member if he is telling me that the Export Development Corporation should not be making substantial efforts to get every dollar's worth of export that we can. It seems to me he is calling into question the whole proposition. If he is, I would be glad to debate it with him. As for the money being available to further business, of course we are making every effort to do this, and if the hon. member knows of any businesses anywhere in this country which have a legitimate opportunity abroad and can be helped by EDC financing I will personally take them by the hand down to the bank.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, sometime ago I raised a question with the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of National Revenue as to the new location of the district taxation office in Vancouver. In view of the fact the existing building was to be recycled for use by the Habitat Conference, and since that conference is to be held in Vancouver in about three months, I should like to ask the minister what new arrangements have been made to house the district taxation office, and where the Habitat Conference centre will be located?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice.



COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the visit of the Pakistan Prime Minister, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether there is any suggestion, encouragement or hope of Pakistan rejoining the Commonwealth in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I honestly cannot answer the hon. member. The Prime
Oral Questions
Minister and I discussed the matter a couple of times in different circumstances. I cannot, of course, indicate what his answer or his attitude will be. I can assure the hon. member that the matter of the Commonwealth was discussed.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that many cow-calf producers have payments due very shortly, within the next few months, that they are unable to meet, will the Minister of Agriculture announce very soon his 1976 proposals in order that these cow-calf producers can keep the bankers optimistic and away from their doors?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this same question several times in the House. I said that we hope to have a program for the beef industry that we can announce in the near future. I said it is going to be in existence for the calendar year 1976.



POSSIBILITY OF TRADING WHEAT FOR VENEZUELAN OIL

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's recent trip to Venezuela, I should like to ask whether he had discussions with Venezuelan officials about entering into an agreement for the sale of wheat to Venezuela against the sale of Venezuelan oil to Canada and, if so, could he inform the House of the outcome of the discussions that took place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the context of discussions on trade, particularly with a view to reducing the deficit trade balance we have with Venezuela because of our large imports of petroleum to eastern Canada, the matter of various food stocks was raised. This was raised by me in general terms and officials pursued the discussions in more concrete terms. I have no announcement to make about any specific agreement that has been made in that regard, but both sides have agreed to advance the interests of each other in so far as possible.



FINANCE


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. In British Columbia the ICBC insurance rates have recently experienced an across the board doubling, and the income of eight private agents selling that insurance has also been
11246

February 25, 1976
Oral Questions
increased to a very substantial degree. Would the parliamentary secretary advise whether the department is carrying out any monitoring of incomes of insurance agents in the province of British Columbia in view of the fact that the people buying that insurance are having their wages frozen, whereas agents in some cases are substantially increasing their incomes, obviously well above the federal government guidelines?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member put that question for the first time on February 5, 1976. The Minister of Finance has already answered it. On the adjournment motion on February 10, 1976, he put the same question again and I answered him. Today I am glad to see that he introduces a new aspect which concerns the commission paid to the agent. I shall be glad to get an interpretation on this thoroughly new aspect of his question and I want to mention that we are dealing with a provincial Crown corporation and that I shall make the required representations.
* *
*



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and its purpose is to seek some clarification of a fairly recent statement by the minister in northern Ontario in which he indicated that the offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and Canada Manpower should be combined. I would ask first whether the minister was quoted accurately and, if so, will he give some indication as to the proposed timing of such a move?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I was not quoted precisely. I was asked whether this possibility was being examined. I indicated it was an option that had been looked at and was under consideration, but that no decision had yet been taken.



ELECTIONS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the constituency of St. John's West has been vacant now since last September, will the Prime Minister tell the House when he intends to call a by-election there, as well as in Ottawa-Carleton and wherever else he would care to meet us in combat?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed the matter of the vacancy in St. John's West with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce

and I hope I will have an announcement to make in that regard within the next 10 or 12 days.



ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received:
Government House Ottawa
February 25, 1976
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Jean Beetz, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 25th day of February, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table two copies, in both official languages, of the annual report for 1974-75 of the defunct agency Information Canada.


TABLING OF ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURE
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table two copies in both official languages of the government's new energy conservation measure.
February 25, 1976


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the standing orders of the House, I want to table a petition signed by 4,700 residents of various provinces in Canada. It says:
WHEREAS Interpol, an international police agency, obtains information on Canadian people;
WHEREAS Interpol gives that information to its fascist or communist members;
WHEREAS the personal integrity of each Canadian citizen must be protected against such actions;
THEREFORE the undersigned humbly ask your Honourable House to agree to break all relations with Interpol until an investigation by the government of Canada is completed or legislation passed to forbid the submission of information on Canadian citizens to fascist and communist countries by Interpol
And the undersigned will continue to urge you.


MAIN ESTIMATES, 1976-77 REFERENCE OF ITEMS TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Oder 59(1) I move:
That the Estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending 31 March 1977, laid before the House 18 February 1976, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Agriculture Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 and 60
To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to
the Arts:
Communications Votes 1, 5, 10 and L15
Secretary of State Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, L75, 80, 85, 90, 95 and L100
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence: External Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, 20, 25, 30, L35, L40, and 45 National Defence Votes 1, 5, 10, and 15
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Vote 30 Finance Votes 1, 5, 10, 20 and 25
Industry Trade and Commerce Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, L25, L30, L35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70 and 75 National Revenue Votes 1 and 5 Privy Council Vote 20
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry:
Environment Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30
To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Votes 1, 5,10, 15, 20 and 25 National Health and Welfare Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65
Urban Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, L25, 30, 35 and L40
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern
Development:
Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, 25, 30, 35, L40, L45, L50, L55, L60, L65, 70, 75, 80 and L85 To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
Justice Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 Solicitor General Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration:
Order Paper Questions
Labour Votes 1 and 5
Manpower and Immigration Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30
To the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services:
Parliament Votes 5 and 10
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates:
Finance Vote 15
Governor General and Lieutenant Governors Vote 1
Parliament Vote 1
Privy Council Votes 1, 5, 15 and 25
Science and Technology Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 Secretary of State Vote 105 Supply and Services Votes 1, 5, L10, 15, 20 and 25 Treasury Board Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works: Energy, Mines and Resources Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, 25, 30, 35, 40, L45, L50, L55, L60, 65, 70 and 75
Public Works Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 To the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections:
Privy Council Vote 10
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:
Regional Economic Expansion Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, 25, 30 and L35 To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications:
Post Office Votes 1 and 5
Transport Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, L35, 40, 45, 50, 55, L60, 65, L70, L75,
80, 85, 90, 100, L105, 110, 115 and 120
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs:
Veterans Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might give the members of the House the assurance that we are following past practices in all respects in the reference of these estimates, except that the estimates for the House and Commons and the Library of Parliament are being referred to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services rather than to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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: Nos. 3,890, 3,944, 3,961, 3,981, 3,986, 3,996 and 4,060.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Have the chartered banks paid income tax during each year between 1967 and 1974 and, if so, what was the amount in each case?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes. Income tax paid by chartered banks is as follows:
21419-20/4

February 25, 1976
Order Paper Questions
	Total federal and provincial tax
	in million of dollars
1967	104.7
1968	117.1
1969	231.4
1970	245.1
1971	254.9
1972	285.6
1973	274.5
1974	316.5


Mr. Lachance: 1.	What private or public agency was authorized to prepare the Department of Communications' information kit entitled Introducing CTS, Catalyst in Space?
2.	(a) What were the production and distribution costs of the kit (b) how many issues were distributed (i) in what locations (ii) to whom?
3.	(a) What were the fees, if any, paid to the publicity agency that designed the kit (b) who, in particular, designed the big poster included in the kit (c) who authorized its production (d) what were the production costs?
4.	Under the budget restrictions of the Anti-Inflation Programme, does the Department of Communications expect to reduce its publicity expenditures and, particularly, to produce simple information kits?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: 1. The Department of
Communications.
2.	(a) $22,583.20. Total production cost (including design and printing). $2,932.14, Distribution cost, (b) 10,000. (i) Across Canada and abroad, (ii) 4,500 persons in industry and institutions, e.g., universities, libraries, etc. in Canada and abroad who specifically ask for material emanating from the Department; 2,000 to the Department's five regional offices for subsequent distribution; 2,500 to CTS experimenters, and 1,000 in reserve to enable the Department to respond to specific requests for information on CTS.
3.	(a) $12,080.20 (including 3d), (b) Don Hewson and Associates, Ottawa, (c) The Department of Communications. (d) $9,634.
4.	The CTS program is of major significance to the Department of Communications, in terms both of the effort involved and of the proportion of the departmental budget devoted to it. Because of the value of the kit as an informational tool designed to explain an area of science and technology in which Canada is increasing its expertise and gaining a world-wide reputation, and in view of the cost of information material of this sort, the expenditure on this aspect of the project is not considered to be high.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	Has a core group been formed as a result of a project called "A Conserver Society" and, if so, what is its title?
2.	Does the group center its activities in Montreal?
3.	Aside from an Interuniversity Committee representing McGill and Montreal Universities, the Science Council, Department of the Environ-

ment and the Department of Supply and Services, what other departments and/or agencies form the rest of the core group for this study?
4.	What functions does the group or committee serve and what is its budget?
5.	What are the names of the (a) individuals involved and which departments and/or agencies do they represent (b) representatives from the Interuniversity Committee?
6.	What salaries and/or expenses are received by each individual for the services on the group?
7.	Are all of the departments and/or agencies able to issue contracts independently and, if not, is it done by one agent for all and, if so, who is the agent?
8.	What contracts have been awarded (a) by each of the 12 or more departments and/or agencies involved in the study or the central agent on their behalf (b) by the core group for this study in lifestyles entitled the "Conserver Society" and, for each project (i) what was the amount (ii) what was the initiating and terminating date (iii) was it tendered (iv) was it a result of an unsolicited proposal?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Yes, no specific title is used other than "Progress Review Committee."
2.	No.
3.	Other departments or agencies-Energy, Mines and Resources, Agriculture Canada, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Dept, of Industry, Trade and Commerce, National Research Council, Privy Council Office, Canadian International Development Agency, Dept, of Indian and Northern Affairs, Ministry of State for Science and Technology, National Film Board and Secretary of State. Note: There are no university representatives on this Committee.
4.	Review progress of project, there is no specific budget for the "Progress Review Committee." The task is considered as part of their normal project work.
5.	The following are the only permanent members of the "Progress Review Committee:" (a) Dr. A. J. Cordell (Science Council of Canada), Dr. W. R. Durie (Environment Canada), Dr. H. F. Fletcher (Environment Canada), Mr. John St. Louis (Dept, of Supply and Services). Representatitves from the other departments/agencies on an "as required basis." (b) No university representatives.
6.	No salaries/or expenses are received under this contract by members of "Progress Review Committee."
7.	No-the Department of Supply and Services is the sole contracting agency.
8.	Only one contract has been awarded by the Department of Supply and Services for the study-(i) $195,000. (ii) November 1, 1974 to April 30, 1976. (iii) No. (iv) Yes.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Has the Department of the Secretary of State ever granted funds for language-training programmes designed to assist voluntary agencies and, if so, what was the total amount?
2.	For each such grant, what was (a) the name and address of the agency (b) the amount?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: The Department of the Secretary of State has not granted funds for language training programmes designed to assist voluntary agencies.
February 25, 1976

Non-Canadian Publications


Mr. Brisco: By province, what was the total milk production in (a) 1974 (b) 1975?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports the following: Total Milk Production in Canada, by Province, 1974, 1975. Total milk production for 1975 will be published March 15, 1976. The table below shows milk production in Canada by province for 1974 and production by province for the eleven month period January-Novem-ber for the years 1974 and 1975.
12 months	12 months	11 months	11 months1974	1975	1974	1975Prince Edward Island	171,905	160,697	180,991Nova Scotia	329,461	300,682	306,667New Brunswick	225,993	208,544	217,798Quebec	6,343,476	5,949,718	6,259,846Ontario	5,972,955	5,487,474	5,782,039Manitoba	762,029	708,018	721,768Saskatchewan	560,952	521,429	496,128Alberta	1,283,456	1,184,542	1,220,118British Columbia	1,020,135	922,745	984,536Canada	16,670,362	15,443,849	16,169,891


Mr. Matte: 1.	Has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs granted subsidies under the Consumer Subsidy Programme in the Constituency of Champlain and, if so, what is the total amount?
2.	For each such subsidy, what was (a) its purpose (b) the amount (c) the year it was made?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 3,529.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): Will the government's anti-inflation measures have any effects on the negotiations for costing arrangments in the final three years of Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan and, if so, what are they?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is: There is no reason to believe at this stage that anti-inflation measures will have a negative impact on future development plan negotiations. However, planning for the final three years will be guided by existing economic conditions.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
note: Consumer Assistance grants are not made on the basis of constituency allocation.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Has the Department of Manpower and Immigration allotted funds for the On the Job Training Programme in the Constituency of Champlain and, if so, in what amount?
2.	What (a) are the addresses of the Manpower Centres (b) are the courses offered (c) is the salary paid to persons who are registered for such courses?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. The On the Job Training Programme was terminated on June 17, 1974.
2. Not applicable.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, February 23, 1976, consideration of the motion of Mr. Faulkner that Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and do pass and the amendment (Mr. Friesen) (p. 11130).
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Amendment (Mr. Friesen) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there was some disposition to proceed with taking the recorded division on the third reading motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is some disposition, upon unanimous consent, to revert to the introduction of bills to permit the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) to introduce a bill respecting immigration security. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Knight Andras: for leave to introduce Bill C-85, respecting immigration security.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Medical Care Act


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 24, 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).
Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, before coming back to the comments I started last night in connection with this particular bill, as the first backbencher on the government side to be on my feet in debate since the election of the new Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition (Mr. Clark), and particularly as a backbencher, I wish to take this opportunity to offer, not only on behalf of myself but I trust all my colleagues in the backbenches on this side, sincere congratulations and good wishes to the hon. member for Rocky Mountain on his outstanding victory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Gray Martin: If there was ever any question of the worth and importance of backbenchers in our parliamentary system, I think the accomplishment of our distinguished colleague from Rocky Mountain has underlined once and for all the significance and even the ultimate potential of this particular group of parliamentarians.
The hon. member follows a distinguished line of leaders of the Official Opposition in Canadian parliamentary history, most of whom seemed to have emerged from members of his own party, particularly in this century. I can only wish him, once again, a long and successful life in that important role as Leader of the Opposition which he is now commencing. I would, of course, emphasize that latter phrase.
To get back to the bill, I should like at this point to add a comment in connection with the subject of budgetary restraint to which I was referring last night. It is very pertinent to the question asked by the new Leader of the Opposition today, and I would bring it to his attention that Bill C-68 is an example of the kind of restraint I assume he was talking about. It amazes me that his hon. friends-and I hope he will take this up with them-should be spending so much time filibustering this endeavour on the part of the government to exercise restraint in an important area of federal expenditure.
There is another point I wish to make, and I am encouraged to do so now by the filibuster which is taking place. It amazes me that at a time when the rate of inflation was less than 10 per cent the Conservative party should have been running round the country proposing a major anti-inflation program-not one which would have started in a reasonable manner, like the current program, but one which would have commenced with a freeze to be


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Hear, hear!


Alan Gray Martin: In that province, the province of Ontario, it was brought sharply to the attention of the citizens by a prominent member of the government that if something were not done in the near future, the costs of health and education alone would rise to the point at which they would exceed 100 per cent of over-all provincial revenues. Obviously action was required.
There are a number of ways in which health care costs can be reduced over a period of time. One of these involves a fundamental improvement in the health care system, thereby making it more efficient. This was mentioned by the minister in his speech. Second, there is the idea of introducing a new perspective, a new way of approaching the health of Canadians by strengthening personal effort

and encouraging people to assume responsibility for improving and maintaining good health. In addition, we might well place extra emphasis upon the reduction of health hazards and measures to protect the health of workers.
As an example of government action in the preventive field one need only mention the recent decision of the Ontario governmnet to make the wearing of seatbelts mandatory. Australia took this step some years ago, and I understand that Quebec is planning to do the same in the not-too-distant future. It is important we should bear in mind that accidents in this country cost up to $2 billion a year, of which some $200 million is directly related to hospital costs and a further $100 million to medicare costs.
A further question which concerns many Canadians is the need to seek ways in which our health care delivery system can be made more efficient. Many Canadians are concerned as to whether or not they are getting the best possible value for the buck which is expended indirectly by them through taxation. It is essential that a realistic ceiling be imposed on medical care cost-sharing arrangements. The bill now before us is a first step in this area. What is called for, and what has already been started, is a general review of health financing arrangements in this country. I repeat that Bill C-68 is merely one step; it relates only to medicare costs. I should like to take a moment or two to explain the two aspects, since it is important that the people should understand them.
In the case of medicare, which is the subject of Bill C-68, costs can indeed increase up to 13 per cent per capita grant, and a further 1.5 per cent for population increase. Here is an important point. This is less than the 16 per cent over-all increase forecast in government expenditures for the coming year; I think that is a very significant point to be made.
Hospital care is an item on which we have heard a good number of speeches and which has been highlighted in the media. It is not affected by Bill C-68. What the former minister of finance proposed in the budget was that in the case of hospital care no change would be made to the existing cost sharing formula between the federal government and the provinces until 1980, at which time the federal government would opt out of the existing arrangement and new kinds of arrangements would have to be negotiated. This is an important point to make, because it is really of no concern to the federal government, or a particular responsibility of the federal government if, for example in the province of Ontario, it is deemed necessary to close the Doctors Hospital in Toronto or any other hospital across the province. Clearly that matter is in the realm and responsibility of the provincial government, and it is not our task either to commend or to criticize that particular move. Obviously Ontario has its financial problems. That becomes obvious when one looks at their own projected deficits of recent years. The province must handle them as it best sees fit.
There has been the insinuation in some of the things we have heard in this House, and which we have read in the media of recent date, that Bill C-68, in some way or another, has a direct or indirect relationship with the
February 25, 1976

current program of the province of Ontario to reduce hospital costs. I repeat that Bill C-68 has no relationship to hospital costs per se. What happens in 1980 in regard to hospital costs will, of course, be a matter for negotiation, and discussions in this area have already commenced.
In conclusion I should like to point out that the Canadian health insurance program is obviously a very important part of our social insurance system. It is clear though that we have not yet been able to resolve the problem of the rising cost of health services, and in particular the cost of high quality services that have been available to Canadians through the two major national health programs that we have before us. The problem is really both at the provincial and at the federal level.
An important point to make is that health expenditures over-all, despite the highlighting of this item, have been declining in terms of percentage of the gross national product in recent years. For example, in 1971 health care expenditures in Canada were 7.3 per cent of the gross national product. By 1973, two years later, they have moved down to 6.9 per cent. Certainly hospital costs are rising; they have gone up 25 per cent over the level of last year and there is a further 20 per cent predicted this year, with medicare expected to be up as much as 16 per cent. We must keep these programs within bounds that Canadians can afford so that they can get the most out of them.
Open-ended agreements between the federal and provincial governments, I suggest, are a thing of the past; I think that point has been clearly made. They may have had their place when they were initially instituted in the 1960's as a means of getting some of these programs off the ground and achieving some form of basic agreement between the provinces and the federal government. However, I suggest they are not appropriate in face of the present restraint program and some of the other programs before us. Neither are they appropriate for the reasons announced by the minister and those I referred to earlier, and they will not be appropriate in the foreseeable future.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the number of members who have spoken on this bill that it is of particular concern to members across the country. It is certainly of concern to me because I happen to represent one of the poorer provinces in this country, some parts of which have never seen medical care of any form whatsoever.
The minister defines the problem as the need to control increasing medical care costs, particularly in a period of staggering inflation. In a speech that he made in Calgary last September, in discussing the choices that governments must make in regard to spending priorities he had this to say;
In making their decisions, governments must always consider whether for some activities there are lower cost means of achieving the same ends. If there are, cost control measures are clearly appropriate and realistic for these areas. In examining the total range of its programs, the federal government decided there were opportunities for significant savings in the health care field.
No one will argue with a minister who says that we must spend the taxpayers' money prudently. But we can and must take issue with the minister when he suggests that Bill C-68 is the solution to the problem of rising medical
Medical Care Act
care costs. With Bill C-68 the minister is not facing the problem but running away from it.
What the bill does is to limit increases in federal contributions to medicare irrespective of what the actual increases in cost may be. The bill is not going to stop costs from escalating. With Bill C-68 the minister is not solving the problem; he is only putting it out of sight and washing his hands of the whole affair, passing it on to the provinces. However, the provinces cannot put the problem out of sight; they will have to bear the increase in costs.
It is sometimes embarrassing to talk about the province of Newfoundland and the difficulties it faces after 27 years of confederation. Some parts of my district have nothing resembling a hospital, have never seen a doctor or a public health nurse. In some cases the people there are suffering from disease because they cannot afford the transportation costs involved in their getting care.


Mr. Breau:: Perhaps that is why they are so healthy.


Jack Marshall: Perhaps it is the fish protein that keeps them healthy. In my district some children are going blind because they cannot afford to buy glasses. People on cancer treatments cannot afford to drive to the proper hospital two, three, four hundred miles away, to get that treatment, which means we are slowly torturing them to death by cutting costs. I do not think that medical care should ever be related to price. It should be the right of every Canadian, be he poor or rich, to get the best medical care, and if this parliament here in Ottawa is responsible for helping the nation, we should see each Canadian does.
The minister has said that this bill is an added inducement to the provinces to find less costly means of providing health services. This implies that the provinces do not have enough inducement already, and that suggestion is not appropriate. The provinces are very much aware of the need to save money wherever they can, more aware than the federal government, it would seem. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the provinces had to beg the federal government to take action on inflation, but that action to date has not been very satisfactory.
To return to the question of medical care costs, the minister seems to be suggesting that the provinces will be more careful in spending one hundred cent dollars than fifty cent dollars under shared cost arrangements. This argument defies the very essence of shared cost programs, the purpose of which is to help induce or compel the provinces to make certain types of expenditures priority items in provincial budgets. Such expenditures cannot be equated with wasteful expenditures.
The minister talks of an inducement to the provinces to cut costs. What kind of an inducement can it be when the federal government antagonizes the provinces by taking unilateral action? The minister has thrown consultation to the winds, and that seems to be the way that he is trying to promote this bill.
In the same Calgary speech I referred to earlier the minister said that he was disappointed by the reaction of some provincial ministers of health to the recent budgetary announcements affecting the shared cost health insurance programs. One would have thought they would have welcomed federal leadership in the area of cost restraint.

Medical Care Act
I can only ask, where is the minister showing leadership? He is not saying how cost increases can be restrained, he is only saying that he will not assume the increased costs above the ceilings. He is giving up on finding ways to cut costs in a situation in which health costs are very difficult to control. The minister should be referring to federal abdication, not federal leadership.
The provinces have rightly protested this federal abdication, this unilateral action of the government, and the two former provincial premiers who sit in this House and well understand the situation from the perspective of the provinces have been very justified in criticizing this bill in the House.
Bill C-68 sets ceilings on increases in federal contributions regarding national per capita costs of services. Initially the bill had a ceiling of 13 per cent for the first year,
10.5	per cent for the second year, and 8.5 per cent for succeeding years. However, the minister has said that the
8.5	per cent ceilings for the third and subsequent years will be removed and substituted by a ceiling dictated by cabinet upon consultation with the provinces. We know that this really means in the end that the federal cabinet will make the decision, whatever the provinces think.
In addition to the fact that this amendment is another example of the cabinet's taking power unto itself, the proposed change is of further significance. By making the size of the limits non-statutory the minister is admitting it is unrealistic to try to predict the increases in medical care costs. If it is unrealistic to make such predictions there can be no justification for imposing statutory limits on federal contributions; that is, there is no justification for this bill at all.
The medicare program provides this country with much needed health care services, and it is because of federal cost sharing that the provinces, particularly the poorer ones, are able to finance the program. If the increase in federal contribution is limited, as this bill proposes, we run the risk that the provinces will have to cut back on services for lack of funds. The minister should make an examination of what will be the effect on the province of Newfoundland.
The president of the Canadian Medical Association brought to bear very forcefully the feelings of that association about this bill when he indicated:
The introduction of Bill C-68 has the potential for major irreparable harm to the quality of medical care and Canada's medical care insurance program.
He went on to say:
Must we now view the program as one in which the primary concern is financial, and that in the future the program will be tailored to the financial exigencies of the moment, not medical care requirements? Such a policy poses a major threat to Canadians.
I do not want to belabour the point, but only try to point out again that the richer provinces can cope with increased medical costs or with restraints, but in provinces in the Atlantic region and in the northern areas of the country it is obvious we are not fulfilling our duty to many millions of people in Canada. This is no way to help Canadians keep healthy. Indeed the children of our country are going to school with a lack of nutrition. We should be introducing nutritional programs in schools and considering assisting our senior citizens by providing drug care programs so they can get the drugs they cannot now afford. I suggest to the minister that he would do well if he went along with the pressure brought to bear by my colleagues, and hoisted the bill or abandoned it altogether.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in this debate this afternoon. First of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for the very fine speech he has just made on behalf of those who are disadvantaged, not only in his province of Newfoundland but right across this country. That hon. gentleman has become very well known in this House for that kind of speech and that kind of concern.
My personal intervention today in respect of this bill is somewhat based on the same premise, that while we may talk about the fact that hospitalization at this moment is not really a major issue, as the next two or three years go by I predict that hospitalization will also start going the same way medicare is going at the present time as far as the federal government is concerned. All the indicators are there to warn us of this.
The thrusts of the amendments introduced in the June budget reflect this bill. At that time the former minister of finance aimed to renegotiate the costs and percentages of the act. He had laid down ceilings of 13 per cent for 1976-77, 10 per cent for 1977-78, and 8.5 per cent for years subsequent to that.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) opened his remarks on January 28 by stating that Canadians enjoy one of the best health systems in the world. While that is true one must keep in mind that our national coverage, that is, all programs funded on a 50-50 basis, are not as comprehensive as the health insurance programs offered by such nations as West Germany, Holland, and the Scandinavian countries. In essence, then, our national coverage is limited.
Certain provinces have on their own opted to enter into such services as home nursing, denticare, and pharmacare. The costs of these extra programs will run at about $1.9 billion this coming fiscal year. It is for that reason only the wealthier provinces can participate in these extra schemes. Therefore when the minister speaks of "one of the best health systems in the world" he should make sure he qualifies that statement. I would ask him about the provinces that cannot enter into these costlier schemes because of the lack of funds.
What this bill will do is limit the financial contributions in respect of the limited program. In other words, instead of taking a progressive step and having Ottawa expand the medicare program beyond the services provided for in 1968, we will witness a possible reduction in financial contributions. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) stated on February 2, the government has been seeking to reduce its responsibility with regard to medicare. We in this party have always believed that added health services should be provided through the 1960 medicare act.
We are talking about one of the most serious social problems in our country today. We are not simply talking

February 25, 1976

about building highways, bridges or airports. We are talking about the health care of our citizens, and we are not necessarily speaking from the point of view of our own constituents whom we represent, but from the point of view of all Canadians, whether they live in the wealthy provinces, the poorer provinces, or in northern or southern Ontario.
In fact there is a provision in the act for the government, by order in council, to include additional services and enter into agreements with provinces for that purpose. Obviously the government has no intention of doing this. That is regrettable as far as we are concerned. To cut back on its present responsibility, on the other hand, is not only regrettable but clearly unacceptable to me as a member of this House, and to my party.
The actions of the minister by way of Bill C-68 will clearly jeopardize our existing national medicare program, as well as the new programs initiated by some of the provinces. I suggest that the government, instead of trying to control costs, has instituted spending limits just for the sake of cutting government expenditures. As one columnist has said, "It is no longer fashionable to advocate government spending on anything". The government, and indeed the minister, have fallen prey to the myth that all government spending is considered evil. This is something we have to be very concerned about at this time.
I agree with other hon. members that we must cut government spending. The important thing is to pinpoint those areas in which we can most afford cuts, areas that are not really that important to the lifestyle of every Canadian citizen. I have no quarrel with the idea that wasteful government expenditures should be curtailed. However, I find it difficult to believe that the great increase in health costs, especially at the provincial level, has been as a result of waste and inefficiency.
What an insult it must have been to the provinces to be told that the ceilings will provide "an incentive to exercise appropriate cost control over medical costs." That is a quotation from the minister's speech. Again, as other speakers have pointed out, this justification seems absurd when one considers that provincial governments, out of necessity, have been anxious to keep down costs. The reason is that the cost of health services for the most part represents a larger percentage of the provincial budget than of the federal budget. The inevitable results of this type of across-the-board cuts are already being felt across the country.
Just recently one of the headlines in the Globe and Mail read: "Toronto Hospitals Face 700 Bed Cut; 1200 Jobs May Go". I shall refer to that a little later. The article went on to say that about 700 hospital beds in Toronto may be eliminated and 1,200 hospital workers in that city may be fired in the Ontario government's cost-cutting campaign. In time 3,000 beds would be eliminated throughout the province. I do not mean to suggest that this is a direct result of the federal government action. What it does signify is that this whole country seems to be on a rampage of financial cuts regardless of the merit of the programs being cut. I suggest that the same holds true in respect of this particular bill.
Medical Care Act
The minister is simply limiting expenditures for the sake of saving federal funds, without paying enough regard to the actual programs that will be cut. I just referred to the massive cuts in the number of hospital beds that will take place in Ontario. I do not deny that there are a large number of people who need not be in active treatment hospitals. The chronically ill should be in extended care units. Others could be taken care of via home nursing programs. However, no action has been taken in these areas.
People are being put out of hospital beds when they have nowhere to go. In my area of Brant we face an acute shortage of nursing homes as well as of rehabilitation centres which could provide physiotherapy and psychotherapy for many people on an out-patient basis. Most of the short-term programs mentioned above, and indeed many of those referred to by others speakers, would cost a fair amount of money in the short run, but the savings in the long run would be incalculable. The provinces, however, cannot do this alone.
The provinces by themselves would be hard pressed financially, as some already are, in instituting programs such as denticare and pharmacare. I see no reason why children in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, or in the northern parts of Canada should not be entitled to as much denticare or pharmacare as the people in Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal. This bill will only add to the burden faced by the provinces.
The whole idea of providing lower cost services, in effect preventive medicine, certainly is not a novel one as the minister well knows. The minister's department produced a document entitled "A new perspective on the health of Canadians" in 1974 which emphasized the long-run benefits of preventive medicine. In fact the minister even referred to that document in his remarks on second reading of the bill.
I agree that individuals could and indeed should assume more responsibility for maintaining and improving their own health. But this is only part of the solution. Home nursing programs, denticare programs, pharmacare and the like all cost money. Little mention of these was made by the minister. The government should embark immediately on some sort of federal-provincial cost sharing agreement in respect of all programs which provincial governments have financed entirely on their own in many cases. Surely the provision of fully adequate medical and hospital services for Canadians wherever they may live is not asking too much.
References have been made in this House in the past few days during this debate to the cut-back in hospital beds in the province of Ontario. I do not suggest for a moment that this has a direct relationship to Bill C-68, but it has an indirect relationship because the federal government has put the squeeze on the provinces to cut back on medical services. I am not speaking specifically of medical care but medical services in general.
An interesting thing happened in my constituency. There is a hospital in my constituency called the Willett Hospital which has been in operation for 15 years. It is to be closed down. It has over 60 active beds. The cost of each bed is $70. These people will be forced to go to the Brantford Hospital which is overcrowded, and where the cost of

February 25, 1976
Medical Care Act
a bed is approximately $105 or $110. That is not really much of a saving. In fact it is waste. Indeed the Brantford General Hospital cannot even handle the extra load coming from the hospital in Paris.
When the formula of four active beds per 1,000 was worked out, the 7,000 inhabitants of the Six Nations Indian Reserve were left out; they were treated as if they did not belong to or live in Brant county. During the last election campaign in Ontario-and I expect I will hear some comment from my friends to the right-the Ontario government gave away $450 million, an amount which would have kept 40 Willett hospitals in operation. A similar hospital would cost about $1.2 million. So there are ways in which to cut costs other than by cutting back on medical care itself. There are many ways in which to do this.
As a matter of fact some doctors in Paris, admittedly a small town, have said they probably would have to move to Brantford. There is another aspect of the cut-back so far as medical care is concerned. In this one instance the equivalent of 90 people will be laid off in a town with a population of 6,500. I have indicated that in a community like Brant county, where there are 5,000 persons chasing 160 jobs, these people will be unemployed and their total UIC benefits will represent $8,000 a week. While the government is desperately trying to cut costs I ask whether it is better to have people working in hospitals such as this, which has a good reputation and where the cost of a bed is $70 compared to $110, and to keep the doctors in the community, or to close down the whole thing at a greater cost to the province or the federal government.
That is really all I have to say at this point. I certainly hope changes will be made to this legislation. I sincerely hope hospitalization will not go the same way medicare is going. In closing, again in all honesty to my political philosophy and political background, I wish to reiterate that I am very proud to belong to a party which pioneered medicare and hospitalization on this continent, and I will be dammed if I will see this thing go down the drain.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address myself to the amendment of my friend, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). I am very sorry that most compelling public duties and responsibilities made it impossible for me to be in the Chamber when he made his speech. I was very happy to note that he referred to me every so often. Although I am one of the most modest persons in this Chamber I must confess that like most of our breed, I like a little attention. I thank him for that. He has made the suggestion that I should send my speech to the minister of health in the province of Ontario. I believe the minister of health in the province of Ontario subscribes to Hansard. He is a fairly wise man, and I am sure he always looks up my speeches and reads them carefully. But I might drop him a note and tell him also to have a look this time at the address of the hon. member for Broadview.
I am sure that all the provincial ministers are very much aware of what is happening. They may not have been advised beforehand, but they are very concerned now, as well they might be, because even though taken by surprise by the unilateral move, they know full well what this measure will mean to the discharge of their role in provid-
ing proper health services to the people of their own provinces, and they know what an effect it will have on their responsibilities, how it will enlarge their problems, and increase their anxieties. However, I will not join in any provincial election campaigning and I am sure that my good friend, the hon. member for Broadview, for whom I have the highest regard, would not have anything like that in mind either, because party politics is very minuscule in reference to a problem so grave and so hurtful to so many Canadians, a matter affecting their health and possibly their lives.
I have been following this important debate very carefully for the short time during which it has been conducted, and there are some observations I hear from the few hon. members who have chosen to debate the bill by which, I must say, I find myself totally unconvinced. One is the suggestion that what is being done by the provinces bears no relationship to what the dominion government is undertaking in this measure and in other withdrawals from shared cost programs. I would just as soon believe that suggestion as I would the emanations of the Flat Earth Society. We all know that the provincial governments are finding it tough because of the withdrawal of the federal government from its promises and commitments in the financial sector, in the whole area surrounding the matter which we are discussing.
Another assertion that I find unacceptable is that which we have heard this afternoon that this really has nothing whatever to do with hospitalization. If you can conceive a society in which medicare and hospital care are separate and distinct entities in no way related one to the other, then one could accept almost any assertion from anybody on any matter. Of course we know that one affects the other, and both profoundly affect and injure the health of the Canadian people.
I also note an assertion that comes up from time to time. The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), who spoke this afternoon, made reference to the termination of open-ended shared programs as being a good thing. He was obviously not listening to my learned and articulate colleagues who had been saying on more than one occasion that there is nothing open-ended about a program which requires one partner to put up 50 per cent, and naturally any provincial government is going to take a close look and give careful attention to the administration of this portion. So to cast about the suggestion that this is an open-ended program or that the provinces have been profligate and careless is, I think, something less than a serious examination of a very grave problem.
I was much impressed, as I always am, by the utterances of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). His speech was very valuable, showing the usual compassion and sensitivity which always mark his utterances in this Chamber. He expressed great concern over what happens in the poorer provinces as we see a breakdown of established shared costs programs.
I agree with what the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) was just saying, that it is not only in the poorer provinces that there will be danger, suffering, and inequity visited upon the people, but I think the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe is right in
February 25, 1976

pointing out that one of the most serious dangers of this legislation is that it is going to be a very backward step in a program on which many devoted Canadians before us embarked this country, namely, a move toward a Canada in which there was an equality of services for all Canadians. No Canadian because he lives in a have-not province should be denied those vital social services which could be extended under a program based and fqnded in a rich province.
We know that one of the vital underpinnings of Confederation was the sharing of advantages and disadvantages as we built up a new community. Some of us in eastern Canada thought we got a bigger share of disadvantages than of advantages, but we are not big enough to be separatist or rich enough to be alienist, so we just have to make a reference to it from time to time to indicate that we know what really took place and has not stopped taking place since.
Dicey, the great English constitutionalist, looks upon the 1870's as the beginning of the modern welfare state. One of the unfortunate situations was that this was about the time we were building a country under our Confederation, and our forefathers put far too many of the social services and requirements and legislative responsibilities into the provincial area where the tax base was limited. So in the last century we have had a constant and urgent necessity to equalize and to have the larger entity, the larger governmental body, pick up more and more of the responsibilities which were assigned to the provinces at a time when a broad program of social services was just beginning.
It is said that while the 1870's may be the first phase of concern of governments for the welfare of their people, we really got into a program of concern for people on the part of the government in the post-war period, and it is not surprising that many of our very important measures in reference to pensions, family allowances and the like stem from that period.
Perhaps the report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, referred to usually as the Rowell-Sirois report, is the finest that this country has ever seen. After studying the matter for many years all across the country this commission came out with the truism, I would call it, certainly its final recommendation and observation, which in 1940 was fundamentally sound and which I think should be looked at again with increasing respect in 1976 when we find that some of the advances which came as a result of their wisdom and their foresight are now in danger because the central government is backing down on its word and forgetting its essential role in providing services for all the people in all the provinces.
This, of course, is what the problem is today: the executive about which this House is most concerned, and indeed, the executive, strictly speaking, rests upon the consent of this House. We find that our executive is reneging on its commitments and forgetting its historical responsibilities.
I should like to quote the final paragraph of the Sirois report as follows:
It has been the aim of the Commission to frame proposals which will, if implemented, place jurisdiction over the social services in the hands of the governments most likely to design and administer them, not
Medical Care Act
merely with the greatest economy and the greatest technical efficiency, but with the regard for the social, cultural and religious outlook of the various regions of Canada, which is essential to genuine human welfare. The financial proposals have been designed to enable every province of Canada to rely on having sufficient revenue at its command .. . in years of adversity as in years of prosperity, to carry out the important functions entrusted to it.
We know that we are in a time of adversity. Many of us saw it coming from far off and said so, but it ill becomes any government which cares for its people to make its first move under austerity against the sick of the land.
One more aspect to which I should like to make reference was stimulated by the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), yesterday. He pointed out, as have other hon. colleagues, that apart from the mathematical provisions of this bill and the diminution of the federal government's contribution we are, in many and closely related areas, shrinking the medical services made available to the people of Canada. He referred to what was happening with reference to research in the field of medicine, and it is a shocking thing that here is another area which has fallen the first victim-or perhaps the second-in this particularly unpleasant effort to bring about austerity on the backs of the poor and the weak.
I noted with great interest a very prestigious publication which came my way just the other day, the Chemical and Engineering News, a United States publication, and its points out that in the United States-not immune to financial problems-they are doing exactly the opposite to cutting back on funds for medical research and for scientific research generally. I shall quote from the issue of January 26 as follows:
President Ford has proposed a $23.5 billion budget for federally funded R & D in fiscal year 1977-about 10% or $2.2 billion more than in fiscal 1976.
It points out that health research and development makes a gain. There has been an increase in the United States, and we are cutting back-freezing-this absolutely essential field, the field of medical research. We will never, never bring about a healthy society if we consider nothing but the curative aspect, diminish that and cut back funds for research.
Another most encouraging thing about the United States is that they have given special grants and special emphasis to pure research. This is a sensitive awareness of the needs of their people, which is lacking in those who do the planning in our present government for or with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The national institutes of health will receive under the Ford budget a $185 million increase, bringing the total up to $2,165 million. This is what we should use as an example.
We should never allow such a measure as this to be passed through this parliament. I find myself 100 per cent behind the amendment of the hon. member for Broadview. This bill is wrong morally and wrong in terms of Confederation. We should consult our hearts and our consciences and vote for the amendment.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is indicative of the lack of economic foresight which is prevalent with the government of the day. It virtually forced from the top down a program upon all the

February 25, 1976
Medical Care Act
provinces of Canada whether they felt they could afford it or not. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) pointed out the problems which some provinces have experienced in maintaining their percentage of the cost of this program.
This is not a program on which the government did not receive a great amount of advice. The government of New Brunswick which at that time was favourable to the Government of Canada, namely the Pierre Trudeau administration, hesitated and hesitated for years before it entered the program. The legislation was passed but it was not proclaimed. Why? Because even then the Robichaud administration in the province of New Brunswick recognized the possibility of the withdrawal of the vital financial participation of the Government of Canada. That program was not instituted in New Brunswick until Premier Hatfield became the premier of the province.
I should like to go back to the point in time when hospitalization was forced upon the provinces of Canada by a federal government, and I think of some of the conversations which took place in the little province of New Brunswick as it was being introduced. I remember the remark made by the then minister of finance, the Hon. D. D. Patterson, since unfortunately deceased, as he addressed the members of the government. He said the budget would be about $9 million for the balance of that year. It would be about $12 million required from the people of New Brunswick in the full fiscal year to follow, "but the thing I fear, and the thing about which I warn this House, is that in ten and not more than fifteen years the cost of hospitalization in the province of New Brunswick will exceed the entire budget which we will present to the House in this session." Let us bear that figure in mind.
The then minister of finance of New Brunswick predicted that hospitalization would cost more than the total budget for the fiscal year in which he was talking, and this would take only ten or maybe fifteen years. That astute minister of finance was in error because eight years from the date of the introduction of hospitalization the cost exceeded the budget for the year of which the minister was speaking. In other words, the Government of Canada was told what its bill would be for the program of hospitalization that it was introducing.
The government was told by a Liberal premier and his staff that the province of New Brunswick could not enter the program without the positive assurance of the federal government that help would be continuing for at least and not less than the formula presented. The provincial minister resisted until 1970, when it was too late, and the program was introduced by Premier Hatfield.
Are we to believe that the Government of Canada was so shortsighted that it did not undertake a study to predict the cost burden? It seems incredible that this should be so, but its members were either shortsighted or irresponsible. It is incumbent upon the Government of Canada to review the forceful position it took with respect to hospitalization and medicare.
Any provincial government which was at all hesitant about embarking upon these programs was mocked by those who represented the Government of Canada, or was

threatened by it. The provincial governments were virtually forced by political pressures within their own provinces to accede to this great universal program. That being the case it is not proper for the Government of Canada to withdraw from the situation. Not only was this program to be universal but it was to be carried out under the regulations of the Government of Canada which did not trust the local administrations at the provincial level to formulate regulations and conditions under which they would operate and which would meet federal standards.
I grant that hypothetically this program should create equal medical treatment for everyone across Canada. It is a fact of politics, however, that you cannot legislate equality in little rural communities such as Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe or little rural communities in any other province, but hypothetically when the Liberal government brought in the legislation it was to be equal for everybody.
That government could not have been more wrong or more deceitful than when it led the urban and rural people of New Brunswick to believe they would be treated equally under the legislation. The program obviously had to escalate in cost because of the additional people brought under it. Everybody was obviously in a position to ask for a consulting physician, and every consulting physician could call in another. I do not blame the doctors for this, but the cost of the increased number of doctors and office calls precipitated by the program should have been perceived.
The Government of Canada should cut its suit to fit the cloth. It should have cut down on other expenditures, not health care. It might have considered having fewer office towers in Ottawa and Hull, fewer monuments such as that at Matane. It should have considered decentralizing and not doubling the number of employees used to achieve the same purpose. This is where cuts should have been made, not in the field of medical health. Why does the government not use the provinces as they deserve to be used in regard to health care?
I wonder how many members on your right, Mr. Speaker, have looked at the estimates to see how the money is being spent? The minister says in effect, "I am sorry, we cannot follow our own guidelines. We have to increase our expenditures by 18 per cent, but the provinces can cut back on hospitals and medicare. We do not care if they close hospitals, but we will not close them." The government has been irresponsible and has transferred political responsibility, which it will not accept, to the provinces. But they must accept responsibility, Mr. Speaker.
I feel extremely sorry for two premiers in this country, and I sympathize with the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) who spoke about the closure of a hospital in his area. Something had to go when the Government of Canada failed to predict what it was doing to provincial pocketbooks by initiating this program,- and even worse what it was doing when it withdrew support for the program.
As a result of federal regulations in the field of health we have seen a massive transfer of federal responsibility from government to government. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) it has become very clear that for welfare requirements the Government of Canada must provide some money, but it has become equally clear that it cannot forecast its require-
February 25, 1976

ments. This means the provinces cannot therefore forecast their needs. The federal government will just not supply those requirements if it finds itself pinched.
Let us examine what was going on prior to these programs being forced on the government. Provincial hospitals were operated in small communities at tremendous expense. They were staffed by very good doctors, but the cost of bringing them up to the standard demanded by the federal government put municipalities out of business. Responsibility moved them from the municipal to the provincial structure in New Brunswick but the cost of this move was immense. It was predictable. I submit that if a hospital is built in a community at one end of Prince Edward Island, the other end of the island is going to want a comparable hospital. This is what has happened to the spending program on health in Canada. There has been an escalation of costs because one community wants to be as well supplied as the other. This should have been planned and budgeted; there should be no shocking cutback.
The great problem with the federal program in the field of welfare is that it has acted as a leveller, a land roller. I am sure the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) is familiar with what is done with a field of grain. You run the land roller over it to level the field; you simply push the top down, you do not bring the bottom up.
Through the lack of encouragement, and indeed the cutback in research programs by the government at the private level, it is as if the land roller has taken its toll in the fields of medicine and hospital care. It has knocked the top down and not brought the bottom up.
I have not heard all the speeches, Mr. Speaker, but have read most of them. The government has been remiss in the field of research, as has been pointed out many times, particularly in geriatrics, cancer, and the diseases of children. This is something on which the government should be spending money. If there is a hope of saving money without a detriment to health, it is in the field of research. The research should precede the cutback in expenditure. We should not have a cutback in expenditure for medical care and research.
We should have research in preventive medicine, but we do not have it to the same degree as other countries. This same problem has been experienced in the United Kingdom. The standard of care has definitely deteriorated as we have gone into this kind of program. We should be learning from the example of others. When we went into this program we should have seen that it was properly financed, projected, and carried out, so that there would not be a degeneration in the level of care as is promised by this kind of act.
It is time that the government looked at the future. It is time for it to begin to make recommendations, adopt policies, make proposals, and not just to draw the puckering string on the purse, but go into an in-depth study on how this can be done. What are the ways and means by which it can be done?
The hon. member for Hillsborough mentioned the Rowell-Sirois report. That report had a great many recommendations, some of which were ridiculous and others of which had an element of practicality. One thing the gov-
Medical Care Act
ernment ignored was that statement referred to by the hon. member for Hillsborough. It stated that the cost sharing should be done by the Government of Canada for those who needed help on the basis of the greatest possible economy. I submit that the governments on the site can make their own regulations, administer their own affairs, and accomplish the greatest economy. That is precisely what the Government of Canada should take a long hard look at now.
When one gets on a plane today to go home for a week end or to take a trip, he rarely gets on at any provincial capital without there being a rush of provincial civil servants going to Ottawa to negotiate for heaven knows what, but among them would be medicare, health care payments, DREE, ARDA and on and on.
I submit that all parties should look at the Rowell-Sirois report. We must begin to find ways and means to take people out of the air and put them at their desks. We must put the money were it is needed. The regulations must be made by the people who are going to spend it. Municipalities and provinces should be independent of the crushing responsibility of confirming legislation passed by the Government of Canada. A member of a provincial legislature today is little more than a rubber stamp, whether it be in the field of labour, transportation, health, education or insurance. He sits in a legislature and is told by a minister that they have to pass this bill or that bill to agree with the regulations of legislation of the Government of Canada.
If there is one reason more than any other why I wanted to be in this House it was in the hope that I might influence the House to restore the responsibility of administration to the field where it belongs, namely, the local level, to the greatest degree possible. The local government of a town, municipality or city is responsible immediately to the electors who are knowledgeable about how money is spent. In fact they have to raise a little of it themselves. At that point attention is paid to the spending of the dollar.
However, as long as the Government of Canada lays down the rules and regulations, and ties strings to its grants, whether it be for health or any other field, there will be a squandering of money which we cannot afford. That is now taking place in all these fields. I say we should follow the Rowell-Sirois report. Distribute the money to the provincial governments and let them administer themselves.
If the provinces did not have to buy civil servants plane tickets to come to Ottawa for negotiations, tens of millions of dollars would be left in the treasuries across this country. That would eliminate the necessity of the Government of Canada reducing the amount of money to be spent on medicare.
No government has introduced a more inexcusable or cruel bill than this. Very,few could have been more predictable. One of the things the Government of Canada was told about when it was going into hospitalization and medicare was a report prepared by a group of people in the United States. They made a very careful study of the capability of that economy to sustain a program comparable to ours. The report stated there was a need for catastrophic assistance in the field of health, and a need for total payment for those below a certain level of income.

February 25, 1976
Medical Care Act
If the government of the United States adopts a total program such as the one presently operated in Canada, I doubt very much that the economy of that country could carry it. The department was made familiar with that report. It was passed on by provincial representatives. The Government of Canada mocked it. However, it is coming home to roost today that we are draining our resources by poor administration, poor regulation, and federal interference. It costs so much that the Government of Canada is now in a dither.
It is irresponsible to pass this responsibility back to the provinces after virtual compulsion to enter under federal terms. It is a retreat from a principle which they guaranteed everybody could sustain. We now find that the federal treasury, let alone the provincial treasuries, cannot sustain payments in the field of health across the board, to the degree that it will now cut back hospital, medical and research payments in the field of health. This is an irresponsible and inexcusable act by a party which sold the program to every province in Canada by compulsion and threat.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday my colleague, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), said that the federal government had taken another step backward in producing this bill. The member also said that he was saddened to see a once vigorous and creative government coasting to a conclusion in this way. I say to this House that the government has been coasting to a conclusion since that dark day in June, 1968, when it first set itself up in business.
I must agree that this has been a creative government. It has created a level of waste and inefficiency never before accomplished by a government of Canada. It has created the largest deficits ever known in our history and it has created an atmosphere of fear, suspicion, and despair all across our great nation. In my concern over what is happening to our country I am compelled to plead with the government to stop creating and start managing.
I am sure that my colleagues in the official opposition are just as confused about the government's motives in tabling this bill as I am. When the government hit us over the heads the other day with the estimates for the coming year, I was dumbfounded. Considering the fact that we are in an economic straitjacket imposed by a government which only a year ago launched a scurrilous attack on our own modest prices and incomes proposal, I fully expected to see the government table estimates roughly equal to those for the past year. What we have instead is an increase of 16 per cent over last year's estimates, with a further increase to come when the supplementary estimates are tabled later this year.
It is incomprehensible to me that the government could take for itself a slice of the public treasury equal to twice the limit it has allowed for the private sector, while at the same time introducing legislation which would reduce the level of hospital and medical care that we in the provinces have built up over the years, partly on the basis of a pledge of co-operation from the federal government.

The present medicare program was not a unilateral effort initiatied by the provinces in isolation. The provinces were sucked into the present arrangement by a federal government not known for honouring its pledges. However, in our concern for the welfare of our citizens we were compelled to enter into a cost-sharing arrangement with the federal government on pure faith. Now that we are deeply committed, with little or no turning room, the government tables this monstrous instrument of deceit.
The only party in this House which appears to like this bill is the NDP, those self-styled champions of the little people. If we are to believe all the propaganda they spread about themselves, they are the party that invented human kindness, brotherly love, and motherhood. They are having a field day with this bill because they think they will be able to use it against the governments of provinces they have not been able to get their hands on so far.


Mr. Nystrom:: What about the red Tories?


Stan Darling: Don't worry about red Tories, centre Tories and all the rest. We shall stick together, don't worry about that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: I am well aware how disenchanted hon. members to my left are with our choice of a new leader. They were praying it would be somebody else. Let them deny it if they wish.


Mr. Paproski:: Right on!


Stan Darling: We have heard a succession of those socialists make speeches on this question that lead one to believe that they have not even read the bill. I have heard member after member try to shift the blame for this proposed legislation from the federal government to the government of Ontario. I believe the New Democrats have the mistaken idea they can "con" the voters of Ontario into believing that the provincial government of Premier Davis drew up this legislation and somehow managed to table it in this House.
The NDP underestimate the intelligence of the people they are so anxious to govern. In taking part in the debate on this measure they are interested less in placing the blame for this cop-out at the door of the federal government than they are in trying to piece together a political platform for the next Ontario provincial election campaign. I can picture the NDP running about the province telling people that on their way to the polling booths they will have to walk over the bodies of those who could not obtain hospital beds. The fact is that Ontario has a medical care and hospital care record second to none, and the people know that. We in this province will continue to provide that high level of health care despite the efforts of the federal government to back out of a firm commitment.
If there is no room for present levels of provincial health care schemes on an equitable cost-sharing basis in the inflated estimates tabled a few days ago, I have to ask what, in the name of all that is holy, is going on in our country? No thinking man or woman would deny that the cost of health care has been rising over the years; but so
February 25, 1976

has the cost of everything else since the federal government came to power.
It has been pointed out a number of times in this debate that the cost of medicare has not increased as much, on a percentage basis, as the cost of most other services. In fact the cost of medical and hospital services has increased less than was expected, something which cannot be said of any other sector of the economy.
It has also been pointed out that the greatest rate of increased cost is connected with hospital services and, as everyone is aware, Ontario has set out to try to correct the situation without, however, permitting any decrease in the level of service. In its determination to maintain its record for consistent contradiction, the NDP acknowledges, on one hand, that hospital costs represent the largest element of increase in medicare. On the other hand it has in the past few weeks been engaging in a scurrilous, partisan attack against the government of Ontario for attemptlng to do something about this problem. That government is presently attempting to eliminate surplus hospital services while maintaining an adequate service. Like many of my hon. friends, I am sickened by this attempt on the part of a political party to create an election atmosphere by dangling non-existent corpses in front of the voters.
The federal government reneged on another pledge when this bill was tabled without warning.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Stan Darling: Shall I carry on, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that we have a visitor at the door. I suppose we should determine for what reason.
Royal Assent



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Honourable Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-41, An Act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof.- Chapter No. 87.
Bill C-78, An Act to repeal An Act respecting the Halifax Relief Commission and to authorize the continuation of pensions, grants or allowances paid by the Halifax Relief Commission.-Chapter No. 88.
Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.04 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 26, 1976